AfF #3: Teleological Argument

(Click here for Arguments for Fred #2)

"Teleology" is the study of purpose. In its basic form the teleological argument (the "argument from design") goes thus: with its complex physical laws and underlying structure the universe looks as if it was designed. If it was designed, there must be a purpose behind the design, and therefore there must have been a designer who had an intention - a purpose - when he, she or it designed the universe.

Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Just because the universe looks designed doesn't necessarily mean it was designed by a designer. Charles Darwin showed how the so-called design of life is explained by natural processes. But what about DNA, the digital genetic code that we now know lies at the heart of living cells, orchestrating these natural processes? That code must have come from somewhere. Computer code (whether down-and-dirty machine code, or its more abstract source-code variant) is produced by software developers. But just because computer code is written by computer programmers, we cannot legitimately infer that this is the only process that can produce complex information, digital or otherwise. Look at the Mandelbrot set, for example, which appears to be infinitely complex, yet is generated by a very simple equation.

In logical terms the problem with the design argument is that all conclusive evidence of design we have so far come across is evidence of design by humans. We have no conclusive evidence of design by any other entities, so we cannot extrapolate from what is essentially a sample of one. If the only example of design - where we know beyond doubt who the designer was - is design that we must classify as "human design", we are unable to say which characteristics of human design must necessarily apply to all examples of design.

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents don't make this distinction; they simply say that if something looks designed, it must have been designed. This is a blinkered, parochial view that owes more to fear of the unknown than to logical consistency.

We don't know where DNA originally came from. We don't know a lot of things, but scientists are working on them, and will continue to do so while there remain things that we don't know. That's what science is about. If science knew everything, there would be no point to scientific inquiry. To quote the late, great Carl Sagan: "Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in."

UPDATE 2009-08-29: Click here for AfF #4

Burnee links for Saturday

An overwhelming religious bias to the links this week:

Johann Hari: Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

The British Humanist Association seeks action on Noah’s Ark Farm Zoo

How I became an agnostic | Stephen Bates | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The Thinking Read by A.C. Grayling: Why Evolution is True

Common Sense Atheism » How to Convert Atheists

Witch hunt in Illinois : Pharyngula

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Simpsons Top Trumps: Skeptics Edition

New Humanist Blog: Atheists - looking after pets in a post-apocalyptic world

The Dark Side of Religion - Bart Farkus - JREF

Is atheism helping or hurting science literacy? - Michael Rosch - examiner.com

Islamic scholar hits out over sacking - Europe, World - The Independent
Interesting article in the light of this man's impressive performance on a recent Channel 4 programme, "How do you know God exists?"

Richard Dawkins interview - Times Online

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute Issues an Open Letter to Me | Friendly Atheist by @hemantmehta

Good Cop, Bad Cop: PZ and the Creation Museum | Factonista

The ancestor’s tale -Times Online
A less than whole-hearted endorsement for Dawkins' new book. And some of the comments are exasperating to say the least.

AfF #2: Cosmological Argument

(Click here for Arguments for Fred #1)

The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Naturally that cause is God; equally naturally the argument doesn't apply to God, because being eternal he didn't "begin" to exist, so he doesn't need to have been caused.

Unfortunately for this argument it fails at the first premise. The set (universe) containing all things (everything in the universe) cannot also contain itself - that's to say, the universe can't contain itself, in some infinite regression of ever larger Russian dolls. Everything, in the context of the premise, means everything in the universe, because everything in the universe has a cause. But everything includes the universe itself. It's just as easy to say the universe doesn't need to have been caused, as it is to say that God doesn't need to have been caused; which of the two statements is simpler? If ever there was a perfect application for Occam's razor, this is it.

There's another problem in the cosmological argument relating to the concept of causation. With the Big Bang, the universe came into existence simultaneously with time and space. At the instant of the Big Bang, time and space did not exist. If time did not exist, causality has no meaning. Causality depends on the existence of time, because cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. Where there's no time, there's no cause.

UPDATE 2009-08-25: Click here for AfF #3

Posthumous pardon for Alan Turing?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=34677379001



As Richard Dawkins indicates towards the end of this Channel 4 News clip, a posthumous pardon for Alan Turing would declare that we now live in more enlightened times.

Arguments for Fred* #1: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Kicking off a new series of posts today, inspired by recent discussions at Skeptico, I bring you the first of several ramblings on the arguments I've come across for the existence of God. This one is more of an oblique question than a direct argument: why is there something rather than nothing? The implication is that for there to be something (that is, for the universe to exist, rather than not to exist) there needs to be a prime mover - a cause. And that cause has to be God.

Just Googling the question will reap a rich harvest of links to extensive discussions on the subject, but the main thrust of most of the refutations of this argument appears to be that the state of "there being something" is more stable than the state of "there being nothing". In other words, there has to be something. But I'd like to offer a simpler, more direct refutation. Instead of asking the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" perform this little experiment:

Flip a coin. It comes up heads (or tails). Why did it come up heads (or tails) rather than tails (or heads)?

The answer to the question posed by the above experiment is also the answer to why there is something rather than nothing.

*Fred is A. C. Grayling's term for "any suppositious supernatural agency defined ad hoc for some purpose religionists have in mind."

UPDATE 2009-08-21: Click here for AfF #2

Burnee links for Saturday

Catholic Control in Irish Primary Schools (part 1) « _Paddy K_

Why dowsing makes perfect sense - opinion - 29 July 2009 - New Scientist

Skepticblog » Podcast People

The Day 285 Atheists/Agnostics Visited the Creation Museum | Around the World with AiG’s Ken Ham

The wantonly amoral, theologically correct worldview of George Sodini | Factonista

Organic food is just a tax on the gullible | Dominic Lawson - Times Online

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | What have the noughties done for God?

Mooney and Kirshenbaum self-destruct at last « Why Evolution Is True:

The “new atheists” are against religion because it is inimical to rational thought.

Accommodationism be damned. This is the problem, and we should not shy away from saying so.

Reports of the SSA's visit to Kentucky's Creation Museum are rolling in. Jen ("Blag Hag") gives us a particularly detailed account:
Blag Hag: Creation Museum Part 1
...finishing off her final (9th) instalment with this great quote: "The Creation Museum was literally mind numbingly stupid: it took nearly two hours of philosophical and scientific discussion in the car ride to Columbus until I could form grammatically correct sentences again."

BHA reasserts support for Simon Singh's appeal against libel case

Why degrees in Chinese medicine are a danger to patients - DC's Improbable Science
Alternative medicine advocates "seem to believe that medicine and science are part of an enormous conspiracy to kill everyone."

Objective substantiation

I'm happy, time permitting, to listen to any point of view. I accept that many people have deeply held beliefs, upon which they base their way of life and their moral choices. I may even agree with some of those moral choices.

But if anyone wants to persuade me that a particular moral choice is most appropriate in a given situation, I expect a reasoned argument, based on premises capable of objective substantiation. I'm unlikely to be swayed by appeals to doctrine, scripture, authority or dogma.

Emotional appeals sometimes work with me - I'm a creature of habit and moods, susceptible to "going with the flow" or "doing what feels right", though I hope in those cases I'm aware that I'm letting emotion take precedence over reason. I would not, however, expect a choice based on emotions alone to be sufficiently persuasive for anyone else to agree with me, other than on whim.

Likewise, if anyone else tries to use an emotional appeal to persuade me of the rightness of their position, they need to be aware that my acceptance - or otherwise - of it will also be on whim, and unless the appeal is backed up with verifiable evidence, my whim wins every time.

If you want to make serious headway with a critical thinker, start with something capable of objective substantiation.