On Hume & Intelligent Design

[annwfyn]

As some of you may know, pierot is currently doing a theology degree, and as such there tend to be theology text books around the house, and I've been periodically reading them. And they are really interesting

Comments

[cairmen]

Thing is, Intelligent Design feeds into some very unpleasant modern-day politics.

In addition, it's possible to admire beautiful writing and description whilst still finding the argumentation contained within badly lacking.

There are a number of movements and belief systems throughout history which had awesome, genuinely remarkable aesthetics connected to belief systems and philosophies for which "it's all crap" is far too mild a description.

[annwfyn]

But I do find it...I don't know...irritating when an exceedingly intelligent, complex and well thought through argument is dismissed with 'it's crap'. This is partly because 'it's crap' isn't actually an argument. It doesn't persuade anyone. It doesn't offer a counterpart. It just says 'I'm refusing to listen' and also absolutely limits you to talking only to people who already share your particular value system

[cairmen]

"It's crap" could mean several things, of course. It could mean "I don't want to debate this, I just want to believe you're wrong", but it could also mean "this argument does not survive attack from a number of well-known counterarguments I'm already familiar with and feel no need to rehash here."

ID arguments tend to fail on a number of reasonably well-known counterarguments. If the arguments you're quoting fail on the same counterarguments, no matter how beautifully they're put, it's hard to argue that they have value as arguments, although as you say, they may have value on other grounds, such as being beautiful examples of rhetoric, or having good points to make beyond their flawed central thesis

[annwfyn]

You are aware that the far right are still remarkably active in Europe and the UK at the moment and the philosophy of Nazism is not an ancient relic? Right?

I think, perhaps, we're coming at this from different perspectives. You are assuming that anyone discussing teleological theory is trying to convert you.

You're not trying to persuade/influence anyone who is either already someone who believes in Intelligent Design or is uncertain/undecided, and you're not debating philosophy or the history of philosophy, and if that is the case, I can see why 'it's all bollocks' would seem like a better response, as it's shutting down communication immediately.

[cairmen]

"You are assuming that anyone discussing teleological theory is trying to convert you. "

No, I'm not, nor am I, to rephrase your later points, deliberately shutting myself in an echo chamber.

If you have an argument for intelligent design that does in fact make logical sense and defeat all counter-arguments currently available, that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

However, on the assumption that you haven't stumbled upon that particular Grail, I'm actually trying to understand the value you see in arguments that don't fulfil those criteria

[annwfyn]

Re - nazism. You said that you felt that it was not inappropriate to read or study Hegel without dismissing him but didn't feel the same about design theory as Intelligent Design was an issue now, and not something that had happened 70 years ago. I was pointing out that this wasn't the case. That, in fact, there are still crazy right wing people swallowing Nazi philosophy

[cairmen]

Philosophy - all makes sense!

Standard arguments - I'm short on time right now, but I'll try and find a useful primer on them. Hume's argument is one of them - it's one that Richard Dawkins quotes, I'm told.

Can you precis the arguments for ID that you're finding impressive?

Nazism - I changed from Hegel to Chamberlain as an example deliberately. Having looked into it, Hegel's philosophy doesn't inevitably lead toward Nazi policies - but Chamberlain does.

ID, if accepted as an argument, badly undermines all evidence-based policymaking and decision making in general.

Now, if ID is actually right, then science is just going to have to deal with that

[cairmen]

Standard arguments:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI