mga brods & sis, thanks for keeping this discussion very civil. dili gyud surprising nga ang thread has gone on this long...discussions about our origins between pro-science and pro-religion camps are one of the most important discourses today. Even if you've already made up your mind on this subject, we appreciate very much your open-mindedness to the arguments on both sides of the fence.
Just a couple of observations.
Firstly, I've mentioned before the trouble religious apologists get when they start using verses from the Bible as scientific facts. Like if we try to ascertain if they really believed that the universe was created in six days...the apologists would invariably respond that six days was not to be taken literally. They'd say that one day could mean millions of years. When somebody says that in a scientific discourse, knowing fully well that science deals with precision, he/she has already taken himself out of the conversation. When you claim something scientifically, you have to be precise...six days has to be six days. Six days cannot be any duration that's expedient to your argument. Like how that saying goes "An answer that explains everything explains nothing."
Secondly, the argument from design has taken on a different form these days. William Paley's "Natural Theology" used to be the dominant teleological argument until Darwin's Theory of Evolution came along and turned it over its head. Ironically, Darwin used to be an admirer of Paley before embarking on his voyage to the Galapagos. Nowadays, the design argument has taken on the form of the Fine-tuning Argument, which is best expressed in the "Anthropic Principle". It goes like this:
The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.
If you're interested to know what these constants are, Martin Rees' book "Just Six Numbers" gives a very excellent explanation.
The obvious question then becomes: Why are these constants the way they are? Imagine that the slightest deviation in any one of these six numbers would make life and the universe impossible. There must be a Fine-tuner somewhere, an apologist might argue.
The question presupposes that a reason must be found...presumably that a Being tweaked them that way. However, since the existence of the universe is a necessary condition, it cannot be the case that some explanation is needed for fundamental constants which are inherent to existence. I know, I know...it sounds like saying "It's just what it is" which perhaps sounds not very satisfactory. But it is just as valid a response to questions like "Why does an equilateral triangle have 60 degree angles on all three corners?" It's just what it is. The existence of an equilateral triangle brings with it its necessary attributes. In the same token, the fundamental constants of the universe are inherent to the existence of a universe.
Another good rebuttal in this case has to be in the form of an objection. Fine-tuning is not an argument for design but an argument against design. An extremely delicate fine-tuning whereby the slightest variations wouldn't have permitted the existence of life (let alone the planets and the universe) simply points to a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning.
Take this analogy as an example:
Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as “fine-tuning” in the sense given by the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”.
But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precariousness of a system’s functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.
Lastly, when it comes to the existence of God, it's quite common to invoke the First Cause argument. I've already explained a while back the problem of Infinite Regress and the rebuttal to St. Anselm's Necessary Being argument. Both rebuttals are, in some way, forms of objection to the First Cause argument...they are reasons for not recognizing the legitimacy of the question of "Is there an ultimate beginning?" People are expected to be dissatisfied with these rebuttals.
But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we accept a First Cause. That would only get us to a Deist position (someone who believes in the existence of a First Cause or a Prime Mover but who does not intervene in human affairs). To get to the Theist position (an intervening God), you still have a whole lot of work ahead of you. You have to prove Divine intervention. You have to prove that suspensions to the natural order can be made in one's favor if that person makes the right propitiations and registered at the right institution. You have to prove that such a Being cares about what you should not eat (e.g. the most common example is pork). You have to choose, from among the many God(s) invented in thousands of religions---to which millions killed and died for---which one is the real one?
Think about it, as one humanist appealed: Your religion is an accident of your birth. Had you been born in India you'd be fighting and dying for Lord Vishnu; if in Pakistan, then Allah; if in Scandinavia in the age of the Vikings, then Thor.
My apologies if the statements above have offended you. I've no intention of de-converting people away from their religions. Just playing devil's advocate and presenting the counter-arguments.
Peace!
Originally Posted by kenites
@Robert---- bai Robert bibo jud ta dre kay dili jud ta manga human
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
