Plantinga's argument for Design.

[whag]

I call this story a myth not because I do not believe it (although I do not believe it) but because it plays a certain kind of quasi-religious role in contemporary culture.

It's not a matter of believing it but accepting it or rejecting it with good reason. Mere incredulity isn't an objection.

[shunyadragon]

Plantinga does not accept the contemporary scientific evolution and ridicules it and also conflates Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism, and creates his own vague comfortable view of evolution.

Source: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm

The Grand Evolutionary Myth

Since I have dealt with this example elsewhere (in the essays referred to in footnote 3) I can be brief here. Consider the Grand Evolutionary Myth (GEM). According to this story, organic life somehow arose from non-living matter by way of purely natural means and by virtue of the workings of the fundamental regularities of physics and chemistry. Once life began, all the vast profusion of contemporary flora and fauna arose from those early ancestors by way of common descent. The enormous contemporary variety of life arose, basically, through natural selection operating on such sources of genetic variability as random genetic mutation, genetic drift and the like. I call this story a myth not because I do not believe it (although I do not believe it) but because it plays a certain kind of quasi-religious role in contemporary culture. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves at the deep level of religion, a deep interpretation of ourselves to ourselves, a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going.

Now it is certainly possible--epistemically possible,7 anyway--that GEM is true; it certainly seems that God could have done things in this way. Certain parts of this story, however, are, to say the least, epistemically shaky. For example, we hardly have so much as decent hints as to how life could have arisen from inorganic matter just by way of the regularities known to physics and chemistry.8 (Darwin found this question deeply troubling;9 at present the problem is enormously more difficult than it was in Darwin's day, now that some of the stunning complexity of even the simplest forms of life has been revealed).10 No doubt God could have done things that way if he had chosen to; but at present it looks as if he didn't choose to.

So suppose we separate off this thesis about the origin of life. Suppose we use the term 'evolution' to denote the much weaker claim that all contemporary forms of life are genealogically related. According to this claim, you and the flowers in your garden share common ancestors, though we may have to go back quite a ways to find them. Many contemporary experts and spokespersons--Francisco Ayala, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, William Provine, and Philip Spieth, for example--unite in declaring that evolution is no mere theory, but established fact. According to them, this story is not just a virtual certainty, but a real certainty.11 Now why do they think so? Given the spotty character of the evidence--for example, a fossil record displaying sudden appearance and subsequent stasis and few if any genuine examples of macroevolution, no satisfactory account of a mechanism by which the whole process could have happened, and the like12--these claims of certainty seem at best wildly excessive. The answer can be seen, I think, when we realize that what you properly think about these claims of certainty depends in part on how you think about theism. If you reject theism in favor of naturalism, this evolutionary story is the only game in town, the only visible answer to the question: Where did all this enormous variety of flora and fauna come from? How did it all get here? Even if the fossil record is at best spotty and at worst disconfirming, this story is the only answer on offer (from a naturalistic perspective) to these questions.

From a theistic or Christian perspective, however, things are much less frantic. The theist knows that God created the heavens and the earth and all that they contain; she knows, therefore, that in one way or another God has created all the vast diversity of contemporary plant and animal life. But of course she isn't thereby committed to any particular way in which God did this. He could have done it by broadly evolutionary means; but on the other hand he could have done it in some totally different way. For example, he could have done it by directly creating certain kinds of creatures--human beings, or bacteria, or for that matter sparrows13 and houseflies--as many Christians over the centuries have thought. Alternatively, he could have done it the way Augustine suggests: by implanting seeds, potentialities of various kinds in the world, so that the various kinds of creatures would later arise, although not by way of genealogical interrelatedness. Both of these suggestions are incompatible with the evolutionary story.

A Christian therefore has a certain freedom denied her naturalist counterpart: she can follow the evidence14 where it leads. If it seems to suggest that God did something special in creating human beings (in such a way that they are not genealogically related to the rest of creation)15 or reptiles or whatever, then there is nothing to prevent her from believing that God did just that. Perhaps the point here can be put like this: The epistemic probability of the whole grand evolutionary story is quite different for the theist and for the naturalist. The probability of this story with respect to the evidence together with the views a theist typically holds, is much lower than its probability with respect to evidence together with the views the naturalist typically holds. So the way in which the theory of evolution is not religiously neutral is not, as with Simon's explanation of Mother Teresa, that it is straightforwardly incompatible with Christian teaching; it is rather that the view in question is much more probable with respect to naturalism and the evidence than it is with respect to theism and that evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

[OingoBoingo]

If they begin to mobilize and try to legislate creation science and homophobia, then it will cause me concern.

Well, it might be too late by then.

You provided very good reason to veer from Bahai orthodoxy, though. Thank you.

My pleasure.

[whag]

According to its own official estimates the Baha'i Faith is growing in leaps in bounds.



It teaches things I think you'd object to like homosexuality is a mental disease in need of a cure. That God is the creator of the universe. That man is a special species and not an animal. That the "missing link" will never be found. That we're all evolving to a higher state. It also has a patriarchal system of leadership, it won't allow women to be members of the Universal House of Justice. Side note, it bandies about some pretty scary military terms as well. Proselytizing is called "entry by troops", and they see themselves in inevitable ideological opposition against enemies from within and without, but feel that God will prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the forces of darkness".

After 2,000 years and 2 billion adherents (shrinking in the northern hemisphere, but growing in the southern hemisphere) Christianity is too big for you to knock down one message forum at a time, but you still have a chance with the Baha'i Faith before it grows too large for you to do anything about. According to its own numbers it only has 5-7 million adherents right now. I can tell you're a go get'r. Maybe you could make a dent before that Army of Light comes trampling over you.

If they begin to mobilize and try to legislate creation science and homophobia, then it will cause me concern.

You provided very good reason to veer from Bahai orthodoxy, though. Thank you.

Oh that. See, you got a weird way of putting things back into people's mouths. I never said the association was unfair. I said your argument was dumb. I still think its dumb, but like I said, knock yourself out.

I didn't have to associate him with a movement he allied himself with. He was a member of the Ad Hoc Origins Committee with Behe, Meyer, and Demsbki, lamented that Ivy League schools censor ID, and criticized the Dover trial for overreaching.

So much for "guilt by association."

[OingoBoingo]

Does Bahai try to wedge itself into science curricula? Has it ever?

According to its own official estimates the Baha'i Faith is growing in leaps in bounds.



It teaches things I think you'd object to like homosexuality is a mental disease in need of a cure. That God is the creator of the universe. That man is a special species and not an animal. That the "missing link" will never be found. That we're all evolving to a higher state. It also has a patriarchal system of leadership, it won't allow women to be members of the Universal House of Justice. Side note, it bandies about some pretty scary military terms as well. Proselytizing is called "entry by troops", and they see themselves in inevitable ideological opposition against enemies from within and without, but feel that God will prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the forces of darkness".

After 2,000 years and 2 billion adherents (shrinking in the northern hemisphere, but growing in the southern hemisphere) Christianity is too big for you to knock down one message forum at a time, but you still have a chance with the Baha'i Faith before it grows too large for you to do anything about. According to its own numbers it only has 5-7 million adherents right now. I can tell you're a go get'r. Maybe you could make a dent before that Army of Light comes trampling over you.

This:

You said I'm unfairly associating a man with ID who voluntarily associated himself with ID and still lauds its usefulness in scientific epistemology.

Oh that. See, you got a weird way of putting things back into people's mouths. I never said the association was unfair. I said your argument was dumb. I still think its dumb, but like I said, knock yourself out.

[shunyadragon]

Does Bahai try to wedge itself into science curricula? Has it ever?

No

You said I'm unfairly associating a man with ID who voluntarily associated himself with ID and still lauds its usefulness in scientific epistemology.

Meaningless. I said before if he wishes to address this issue start a thread, and I will cite Baha'i references on the topic. Please, this is off topic.

[whag]

Probably pisses you off a little bit too because you just came here to give it to Christianity and ol' Plantinga, and instead you're stuck talking about a religion that you don't got a bur up your butt for.

Does Bahai try to wedge itself into science curricula? Has it ever?

I'm missing something here. What did I charge you with unfairly associating with what now?

This:

your whole guilt by association argument is dumb, but knock yourself out.

You said I'm unfairly associating a man with ID who voluntarily associated himself with ID and still lauds its usefulness in scientific epistemology.

[shunyadragon]

Plantinga does not accept the contemporary scientific evolution and ridicules it and also conflates Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism, and creates his own vague comfortable view of evolution.

The Grand Evolutionary Myth

Since I have dealt with this example elsewhere (in the essays referred to in footnote 3) I can be brief here. Consider the Grand Evolutionary Myth (GEM). According to this story, organic life somehow arose from non-living matter by way of purely natural means and by virtue of the workings of the fundamental regularities of physics and chemistry. Once life began, all the vast profusion of contemporary flora and fauna arose from those early ancestors by way of common descent. The enormous contemporary variety of life arose, basically, through natural selection operating on such sources of genetic variability as random genetic mutation, genetic drift and the like. I call this story a myth not because I do not believe it (although I do not believe it) but because it plays a certain kind of quasi-religious role in contemporary culture. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves at the deep level of religion, a deep interpretation of ourselves to ourselves, a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going.

Now it is certainly possible--epistemically possible,7 anyway--that GEM is true; it certainly seems that God could have done things in this way. Certain parts of this story, however, are, to say the least, epistemically shaky. For example, we hardly have so much as decent hints as to how life could have arisen from inorganic matter just by way of the regularities known to physics and chemistry.8 (Darwin found this question deeply troubling;9 at present the problem is enormously more difficult than it was in Darwin's day, now that some of the stunning complexity of even the simplest forms of life has been revealed).10 No doubt God could have done things that way if he had chosen to; but at present it looks as if he didn't choose to.

So suppose we separate off this thesis about the origin of life. Suppose we use the term 'evolution' to denote the much weaker claim that all contemporary forms of life are genealogically related. According to this claim, you and the flowers in your garden share common ancestors, though we may have to go back quite a ways to find them. Many contemporary experts and spokespersons--Francisco Ayala, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, William Provine, and Philip Spieth, for example--unite in declaring that evolution is no mere theory, but established fact. According to them, this story is not just a virtual certainty, but a real certainty.11 Now why do they think so? Given the spotty character of the evidence--for example, a fossil record displaying sudden appearance and subsequent stasis and few if any genuine examples of macroevolution, no satisfactory account of a mechanism by which the whole process could have happened, and the like12--these claims of certainty seem at best wildly excessive. The answer can be seen, I think, when we realize that what you properly think about these claims of certainty depends in part on how you think about theism. If you reject theism in favor of naturalism, this evolutionary story is the only game in town, the only visible answer to the question: Where did all this enormous variety of flora and fauna come from? How did it all get here? Even if the fossil record is at best spotty and at worst disconfirming, this story is the only answer on offer (from a naturalistic perspective) to these questions.

From a theistic or Christian perspective, however, things are much less frantic. The theist knows that God created the heavens and the earth and all that they contain; she knows, therefore, that in one way or another God has created all the vast diversity of contemporary plant and animal life. But of course she isn't thereby committed to any particular way in which God did this. He could have done it by broadly evolutionary means; but on the other hand he could have done it in some totally different way. For example, he could have done it by directly creating certain kinds of creatures--human beings, or bacteria, or for that matter sparrows13 and houseflies--as many Christians over the centuries have thought. Alternatively, he could have done it the way Augustine suggests: by implanting seeds, potentialities of various kinds in the world, so that the various kinds of creatures would later arise, although not by way of genealogical interrelatedness. Both of these suggestions are incompatible with the evolutionary story.

A Christian therefore has a certain freedom denied her naturalist counterpart: she can follow the evidence14 where it leads. If it seems to suggest that God did something special in creating human beings (in such a way that they are not genealogically related to the rest of creation)15 or reptiles or whatever, then there is nothing to prevent her from believing that God did just that. Perhaps the point here can be put like this: The epistemic probability of the whole grand evolutionary story is quite different for the theist and for the naturalist. The probability of this story with respect to the evidence together with the views a theist typically holds, is much lower than its probability with respect to evidence together with the views the naturalist typically holds. So the way in which the theory of evolution is not religiously neutral is not, as with Simon's explanation of Mother Teresa, that it is straightforwardly incompatible with Christian teaching; it is rather that the view in question is much more probable with respect to naturalism and the evidence than it is with respect to theism and that evidence.

[OingoBoingo]

Three pages on the Baha'i Faith is enough. I have not been struck by lightning yet. Of course I do not play golf or go fishing in a thunderstorm.

Please back to subject at hand.

So if your own worldview aligns with the philosophical argument that you're attacking, that's not fair game for discussion? Interesting rules you got set up.

[shunyadragon]

That sounds reasonable to me. Oingo Boingo wants you to fear "shunning and excommunication" for your views.
That sounds liberating, doesn't it? =P


Even if that pressure is built into the Bahai system, it'd be smart to ignore that pressure.

I have been a Baha'i for 40+ years and studied geology and soil science for 46 years. no problem.

Three pages on the Baha'i Faith is enough. I have not been struck by lightning yet. Of course I do not play golf or go fishing in a thunderstorm.

Please back to subject at hand.

whag, you should know that this is an attempt to derail the thread. Please put such posts on ignore.

[OingoBoingo]

You said he should be concerned about veering from Bahai orthodoxy.

You'll note that that's not the same as calling someone a heretic. He may be a heretic, I don't know. That's not for me to judge.

He rejects orthodox Bahai teleology. Big deal.

Consider the function of the type III secretory system, and you see how gray this issue is. It requires thought so as not to arrive at hasty, easily assailable conclusions. He can be forgiven a little wandering off the beach blanket as he forms his teleology.

You're advocating that orthodoxy should be held by all believers in all religions, which is of course ludicrous.

Probably a big deal to him. Probably a big deal to the Universal House of Justice if they found out one of their members thinks that the inspired and inerrant teachers are prone to error, and was teaching that to others. When I first started posting here shunyadragon couldn't stop talking about how much better the Baha'i worldview was compared to other ancient worldviews. Maybe if he hadn't run his trap so much, he wouldn't have folks like me pointing out the inconsistencies in his own worldview. Probably pisses you off a little bit too because you just came here to give it to Christianity and ol' Plantinga, and instead you're stuck talking about a religion that you don't got a bur up your butt for.

If Bahai is more tolerant of unorthodox views than you described, then I rescind the comparison. You're the one who said he was in danger or religious ostracism, not me.

Oh no. I'm okay with your comparison. I don't know if its wholly accurate, but it might be. Are you saying you're not sure now?

If you knew that, you'd be aware he complained about ID not getting a fair hearing. Instead, you charge me with unfairly associating him with a movement that had his full support.

I'm missing something here. What did I charge you with unfairly associating with what now?

[whag]

I don't know if he's a heretic, don't remember calling him one either. Probably up to the Universal House of Justice. I do think its fair to examine shunyadragon's beliefs in light of the fact that his claimed belief system shares so many of the aspects that Plantinga mentions for the non-metaphysical naturalist evolutionist.

You said he should be concerned about veering from Bahai orthodoxy.

An aspect of Plantinga's argument that shunyadragon argues against.

He rejects orthodox Bahai teleology. Big deal.

He's an evolutionist who's claimed religious belief system accepts functional purpose via a creator (though he don't think it do, it do). If a Baha'i believer can rule out the designer of the universe and self, then you have to wonder what makes them a believer.

Consider the function of the type III secretory system, and you see how gray this issue is. It requires thought so as not to arrive at hasty, easily assailable conclusions. He can be forgiven a little wandering off the beach blanket as he forms his teleology.

You're advocating that orthodoxy should be held by all believers in all religions, which is of course ludicrous.

I think its fair to examine his beliefs, and their ends.

And vice versa, which is why we're discussing Plantinga's confused teleology.

But if you want to continue to compare his religion to a dangerous cult like Scientology I'm okay with that too.

If Bahai is more tolerant of unorthodox views than you described, then I rescind the comparison. You're the one who said he was in danger or religious ostracism, not me.

I'm already aware of how Plantinga applies his teleological arguments, so you don't have to worry about that.

If you knew that, you'd be aware he complained about ID not getting a fair hearing. Instead, you charge me with unfairly associating him with a movement that had his full support.

[OingoBoingo]

I didn't know that everyone who leaves Scientology is spied upon and killed. I was referring to excommunication, not burning heretics at the stake. Of course I'm mad when people like John Calvin and Joseph Smith take excommunication one extra bloody step.

And, yes, you should be consistent and share the same concern when children grow up to believe ID has more weight than it does. Plantinga participates in sowing teleological confusion.

This is getting ridiculous. In the time you've spent telling shunya he's a heretic, you could have read about how Plantinga applies his teleological arguments.

I don't know if he's a heretic, don't remember calling him one either. Probably up to the Universal House of Justice. I do think its fair to examine shunyadragon's beliefs in light of the fact that his claimed belief system shares so many of the aspects that Plantinga mentions for the non-metaphysical naturalist evolutionist. An aspect of Plantinga's argument that shunyadragon argues against. He's an evolutionist who's claimed religious belief system accepts functional purpose via a creator (though he don't think it do, it do). If a Baha'i believer can rule out the designer of the universe and self, then you have to wonder what makes them a believer. I think its fair to examine his beliefs, and their ends. But if you want to continue to compare his religion to a dangerous cult like Scientology I'm okay with that too. I'm already aware of how Plantinga applies his teleological arguments, so you don't have to worry about that.

[whag]

Of course I am. Their practices are horrifying. People locked up on ships or buildings for years with little to no contact from close family. People mysteriously disappearing for years and years. People who are excommunicated and lose everything, their family, their finances, their jobs. Their reputation tarnished, and their names blacklisted. What kind of monster are you that you don't care about something like that? Hell, whole nations care enough to prevent them from setting up shop.



I should be alarmed about the things you find alarming, and not, you know, things like people being spied on, locked away for years, and probably killed? Interesting perspective.

I didn't know that everyone who leaves Scientology is spied upon and killed. I was referring to excommunication, not burning heretics at the stake. Of course I'm mad when people like John Calvin and Joseph Smith take excommunication one extra bloody step.

And, yes, you should be consistent and share the same concern when children grow up to believe ID has more weight than it does. Plantinga participates in sowing teleological confusion.

This is getting ridiculous. In the time you've spent telling shunya he's a heretic, you could have read about how Plantinga applies his teleological arguments.

[seer]

I don't think he knows what he believes, honestly.

That is the gracious assessment...