Review: Theism and Explanation

[Switch]

I have written a review of "Theism and Explanation" which many think is one of the most important philosophical books on theism ever written:

http://secweb.infidels.org/article811.html

The review practically functions as a bite size version of the book.

[QuestionMark]

If why God does something is such an important question, then I think the first answer should always be glory.

[QuestionMark]

By the way, is the bit about background knowledge actually in the book?

[SkunkButt]

If why God does something is such an important question, then I think the first answer should always be glory.

God is a glory whore?

[Switch]

By the way, is the bit about background knowledge actually in the book?

Yes.

[Switch]

If why God does something is such an important question, then I think the first answer should always be glory.

So, how exactly does doing things for glory work? Could we make specific, falsifiable predictions about the way the world should be from the hypothesis that there is a God who always does things for glory?

[QuestionMark]

Sure, He wouldn't care if people blasphemed.

But blasphemy is one of the crimes punishable by death in the Law.

And if He says something is holy to Him, but isn't after glory, then He would let what is Holy be disparaged or insulted.

But holy things, (Like the Sabbath) are protected again with the threat of death.

It seems that God is most concerned with His holiness sometimes.

I don't know how this is useful for you.

[QuestionMark]

Yes.

Why do people make the error of thinking that if you explain the mechanism of a thing then you've explained its source?

Newton was a brilliant man, and a believer(coincidentally), he knew that the order of the movement of the planets had a natural mechanism, but he believed that God like an engineer built them that way.

If you reverse engineer something, does that mean you have proven there was no original engineering work?

[JustMyron]

If you reverse engineer something, does that mean you have proven there was no original engineering work?

No, but if you reverse engineer something and find that you can re-engineer it to be better, you could reasonably conclude that whatever process or person originally built it wasn't all-knowing and all-powerful 

(I say process or person because as you've said, reverse-engineering something (or to use less loaded language, figuring out how things work) doesn't give you any information about its source, unless you have similar things with known sources which you can use for comparison, which in the case of the universe, we don't. So you ought not to assume it was engineered in the first place. And in the case of life on earth, we have various types of life which have evolved independently, and we can replicate evolution any time we want using rapidly reproducing life-forms, so we can be pretty sure life wasn't engineered).

[Waldo]

Don't even get me going on the Sabbath, QM.  Is not Darwin's theory just that, a theory?  Can "it may be like this", or "it may be like that" be called science, or is it only a suggestion?

How about if God did it because He wanted to and for no other reason but that He could?

[QuestionMark]

No, but if you reverse engineer something and find that you can re-engineer it to be better,

Name something you could reengineer better.

[JustMyron]

No, but if you reverse engineer something and find that you can re-engineer it to be better,

Name something you could reengineer better.

Human armpit sweat glands. They are different from sweat glands everywhere else in the body, in that they produce proteins and oils which bacteria feed on, which causes them to stink. If I were designing a person, I'd give them the best quality sweat glands money could buy, everywhere. No cheap older parts for people made in MY image 

Or I'd give humans the same genes most animals have, for making vitamin C. Would have saved a lot of people from scurvy. Ever wonder why your dog doesn't need citrus fruit? It's because he can make his own vitamin C.

Or, I could make it so that human beings knee and elbow joints were ball and socket design like our shoulders and hips, and most humanoid-shaped plastic toys. The toy manufacturers realized that hinge joints (like we have on our knees and elbows) offer a diminished range of movement, and a greater chance of breakage.

Or how about those star nosed moles, who never go out into the light, but still have the remnants of eye sockets because their evolutionary ancestors were more like the moles we know about? If God designed that animal purposely with unneeded, unused and non-functional eye sockets, that's poor design.

I'm sure I could find other examples, but you get the point.

[QuestionMark]

Human armpit sweat glands. They are different from sweat glands everywhere else in the body, in that they produce proteins and oils which bacteria feed on, which causes them to stink. If I were designing a person, I'd give them the best quality sweat glands money could buy, everywhere.

Actually, your entire body is covered with bacteria and what sets the sweat glands apart is the anaerobic type and they only live there and smell when we live sedentary lives. Anyway, the stink of an individual is relative to their sexual compatibility and health relative to others. One's smell is a useful indicator for all kinds of body functions. In other words, your armpits are doing just what they're supposed to do. If you stink it's because you have a problem.

Or I'd give humans the same genes most animals have, for making vitamin C. Would have saved a lot of people from scurvy. Ever wonder why your dog doesn't need citrus fruit? It's because he can make his own vitamin C.

Dogs also eat their own feces when they don't get enough magnesium in their diets. Heck while we're at it why not make all species so that they can survive without proteins, or fats, or water. Give them all the impression that they are gods and need not depend on anyone or anything, and while you're at it give them the impression that they are lone creatures that have no relationship to any other form of life.

Or, I could make it so that human beings knee and elbow joints were ball and socket design like our shoulders and hips, and most humanoid-shaped plastic toys. The toy manufacturers realized that hinge joints (like we have on our knees and elbows) offer a diminished range of movement, and a greater chance of breakage.

Ball and socket joints also wear out easier, which is why people have so many shoulder and hip problems in old age. And as for breakage, the biggest problem with your knees and elbows is that they are too flexible for the strength of the muscles that work them. The less range of motion a joint has(or the fewer moving parts) the more resistant it is to force; consider the back of your foot that has many bones that barely move at all and can safely carry several times the weight of your body without breaking. The reason why toys break easily with hinge joints is because children try to torque their parts in unnatural ways. Your knees and elbows do exactly what they are supposed to, offer an appropriate level of movement with an appropriate durability.

Or how about those star nosed moles, who never go out into the light, but still have the remnants of eye sockets because their evolutionary ancestors were more like the moles we know about? If God designed that animal purposely with unneeded, unused and non-functional eye sockets, that's poor design.

They're still moles, the adaptation took away an attribute that was not necessary at the time, but if you think that eyes in general are not necessary you must have forgotten about all the moles with eyes.

I'm sure I could find other examples, but you get the point.

Yeah, I get the point that your opinion of your engineering skills far outweighs your actual knowledge.

[QuestionMark]

Oh I forgot to note that all of these 'problems' stem from abuse of our bodies, not normal healthy use. Except for vitamin C and that one is just funny.

[JustMyron]

Human armpit sweat glands. They are different from sweat glands everywhere else in the body, in that they produce proteins and oils which bacteria feed on, which causes them to stink. If I were designing a person, I'd give them the best quality sweat glands money could buy, everywhere.

Actually, your entire body is covered with bacteria and what sets the sweat glands apart is the anaerobic type and they only live there and smell when we live sedentary lives. Anyway, the stink of an individual is relative to their sexual compatibility and health relative to others. One's smell is a useful indicator for all kinds of body functions. In other words, your armpits are doing just what they're supposed to do. If you stink it's because you have a problem.

Sorry dude, but if you don't shower, your armpits start to smell. That's just how the human body works.

Or I'd give humans the same genes most animals have, for making vitamin C. Would have saved a lot of people from scurvy. Ever wonder why your dog doesn't need citrus fruit? It's because he can make his own vitamin C.

Dogs also eat their own feces when they don't get enough magnesium in their diets. Heck while we're at it why not make all species so that they can survive without proteins, or fats, or water. Give them all the impression that they are gods and need not depend on anyone or anything, and while you're at it give them the impression that they are lone creatures that have no relationship to any other form of life.

Overreaction much? I'd rather just give them the vitamin C gene so nobody ever again dies of scurvy, thanks. That one I'm sure is an improvement.

Or, I could make it so that human beings knee and elbow joints were ball and socket design like our shoulders and hips, and most humanoid-shaped plastic toys. The toy manufacturers realized that hinge joints (like we have on our knees and elbows) offer a diminished range of movement, and a greater chance of breakage.

Ball and socket joints also wear out easier, which is why people have so many shoulder and hip problems in old age. And as for breakage, the biggest problem with your knees and elbows is that they are too flexible for the strength of the muscles that work them. The less range of motion a joint has(or the fewer moving parts) the more resistant it is to force; consider the back of your foot that has many bones that barely move at all and can safely carry several times the weight of your body without breaking. The reason why toys break easily with hinge joints is because children try to torque their parts in unnatural ways. Your knees and elbows do exactly what they are supposed to, offer an appropriate level of movement with an appropriate durability.

How do you say that your joints are too flexible and that they offer an appropriate level of movement in the same paragraph without realizing you've contradicted yourself?

Or how about those star nosed moles, who never go out into the light, but still have the remnants of eye sockets because their evolutionary ancestors were more like the moles we know about? If God designed that animal purposely with unneeded, unused and non-functional eye sockets, that's poor design.

They're still moles, the adaptation took away an attribute that was not necessary at the time, but if you think that eyes in general are not necessary you must have forgotten about all the moles with eyes.

Not at all. The moles with eyes need them. The moles without eyes don't need eye sockets, so the fact that they have them is a design flaw. Very simple.

I'm sure I could find other examples, but you get the point.

Yeah, I get the point that your opinion of your engineering skills far outweighs your actual knowledge.

Well, these suggested improvements are simple and obvious. It doesn't take a genius to figure them out. Frankly, you need to be smarter than me to be able to figure out ways to make the "An all-knowing and all-powerful God designed everything!" paradigm make sense in your head in the face of the contrary evidence.

[QuestionMark]

Armpits, they smell because of toxins formed by bacteria building up. The bacteria build up because there is no oxygen flowing under your arms, and because your pH levels are inappropriate. Yes it's normal in a sedentary culture, no it is not a design flaw.

Vitamin C is a dietary nutrient without which we would have disease. But the same argument applies to many nutrients. We need significant amounts of protein, fat, and sugar every day. Every machine needs particular types of fuel. Unless you have tested every method of giving humans a gene for vitamin C AND you have no other competing purpose for leaving such a gene out you can't say there is a design flaw.

Joints, you said the problem with knee joints is they are too inflexible, and I counted by saying that if there's a problem it's that they are too flexible. In reality, they're just right for what we need them to do.

Moles, moles without eyes are a deleterious adaptation. They have eyesockets because moles in general need eyesockets because moles in general need eyes. Just because some moles have survived without eyes doesn't mean that eye sockets in moles in general are unneeded. In fact, so called vestigial organs have a history of having important functions previously unknown. I doubt that is the case for a blind mole eye socket, but you certainly aren't expert enough to make a definitive case.

[JustMyron]

Vitamin C is a dietary nutrient without which we would have disease. But the same argument applies to many nutrients. We need significant amounts of protein, fat, and sugar every day. Every machine needs particular types of fuel. Unless you have tested every method of giving humans a gene for vitamin C AND you have no other competing purpose for leaving such a gene out you can't say there is a design flaw.

This is very much like your method of determining whether there is a contradiction in the bible. So long as you can theorize that there might be some reason why an inability to make vitamin c is a good thing, without being able to say what that reason might be, you claim victory? Give me a break. It's the same as your idea that so long as you can find some way which might reconcile two apparently contradictory verses, you count that as a win. Example: Love and hate. You had to warp the definitions of both, in order to make God's attitude towards sinners (both loving and hating them at the same time) make any kind of sense. Or reconciling accounts of Judas' death by saying maybe he jumped off a cliff, fell headlong, but he was tied to a tree at the top of the cliff and there was a field at the bottom, so when he got near the ground his guts spilled out in the field where he had hung himself from a tree.

At a certain point, you have to take some account of plausibility. I don't have to test every possible method for giving people a gene for vitamin C and determine that there is no other possible "competing purpose", any more than I have to talk to every person on the planet and individually discount everything they might have to say about the Christian god before I can say it doesn't sound reasonable to me. If most animals have a gene for vitamin C but we don't, the most likely explanation is we aren't perfectly designed, and therefore we weren't designed by an all powerful and all knowing creator. If a book says that someone both loves and hates something at the same time, or that someone both hung themselves and fell headlong in a field and had their guts spill out, the book is flawed.

Use some common sense, man.

If I wanted to, I'd respond to the rest of your post. But this is getting ridiculous. Just because you don't see that your standards for considering that someone might have a point are way past any sensible line of reasonableness doesn't mean I'm obligated to make you see. You want to think your God is a perfect designer in the face of clear examples that say otherwise, that's your business.

[QuestionMark]

This is very much like your method of determining whether there is a contradiction in the bible. So long as you can theorize that there might be some reason why an inability to make vitamin c is a good thing, without being able to say what that reason might be, you claim victory?

No, I claim ignorance. Ignorance of many engineering considerations. And I claim that the word contradiction is easily defeated, and that things aren't easy to prove or disprove. And I claim you're in a hurry to disprove God.

[Switch]

How about if God did it because He wanted to and for no other reason but that He could?

What you've just said is exactly why most theistic explanations are very poor. If you cannot explain why theism is a highly probable explanation for something (which entails showing why God would probably do X) then you don't have a good explanation.

On your confusion over the word "theory":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

[Switch]

Why do people make the error of thinking that if you explain the mechanism of a thing then you've explained its source?

I never said anything about anything's "source". I'm pointing out that a lot of people once thought something could only be explained by God but that now there are proven natural explanations for these things. These natural explanations are completely expected given the laws of physics that we know of. So the mechanism is natural, not supernatural, as people once thought. Now, it could be that the laws of physics were made in such a way so that these things were intended to follow, but that is a red herring, and anyway, there are nontheistic explanations for the laws of physics.

Newton was a brilliant man, and a believer(coincidentally), he knew that the order of the movement of the planets had a natural mechanism, but he believed that God like an engineer built them that way.

Could you provide a source for your claim that Newton believed the order of the planets had a natural mechanism?

If you reverse engineer something, does that mean you have proven there was no original engineering work?

How is that relevant to anything here? I mean, a better analogy would be the following: suppose that I find a complicated object on a distant planet. You say it was designed, I say that it is a product of natural forces. I make observations that the product is seen forming from raw materials on the planet through deterministic laws of physics. I further show that the item in question is just what we would expect if it formed from the physcial processes in questions, and just what we would not expect from a designer. That is a better analogy.

[Pastafarian]

I always find it so interesting to watch an otherwise intelligent human being turn their brain off. Instead of saying "mmm... I still believe but damn, good one! I'll need to think about that, maybe check it out a bit",  christians invariably stop using common sense in order to contort reality.

I have to wonder if you're aware of it QM, though obviously it would be nigh impossible to admit to yourself, let alone in public.

EDIT: I'm thinking specifically of the vitamin C argument. They others, on cursory glance, were still somewhat lucid on your part but your responses to Vitamin C... +10 if you see how crap your s were! 

[QuestionMark]

So the mechanism is natural, not supernatural, as people once thought. Now, it could be that the laws of physics were made in such a way so that these things were intended to follow, but that is a red herring, and anyway, there are nontheistic explanations for the laws of physics.

It's not a red herring. Acts of God are generally only considered miraculous if they go against the laws of physics. But I'm a Christian, I believe in the sovereignty of God. So to me EVERY event in history is happening under God's sovereign control. It's only when He wants to be seen that He works against nature.

Could you provide a source for your claim that Newton believed the order of the planets had a natural mechanism?

He wrote equations on how the natural mechanism worked. That's why you know Newton's name.

If you reverse engineer something, does that mean you have proven there was no original engineering work?

How is that relevant to anything here?
[/quote]
Because some of you think that once you UNDERSTAND something, that you have dismissed any evidence for the original maker(if one exists). It's just a total disconnect in reasoning. Understanding how someone engineered something doesn't mean you've disproved that there was an engineer.

[QuestionMark]

EDIT: I'm thinking specifically of the vitamin C argument. They others, on cursory glance, were still somewhat lucid on your part but your responses to Vitamin C... +10 if you see how crap your s were!  

Well, it's interesting that they're crap to you. But when I look at my car and see it needs gas, I don't assume that was a design flaw. I consider that PART of the design. And when it needs an oil change that's not a design flaw either.

In Pittsburgh, I get no vitamin D from sunlight several months of the year. My blood test shows that I need more dietary vitamin D. That's not a design flaw, if humans are expected to be eating fruit all day then we wouldn't NEED a vitamin C gene. But having dietary requirements does not necessitate design flaws, God has been pretty clear about trying to teach us humility. The fact that we need to rest one day in seven, sleep one third of our lives, and eat and drink constantly indicates to me that He has no problem designing us with lots of needs.

No man is an island. Myron's rant about Vitamin C and your agreement with it just shows your haste in dismissing God, not any clear thinking skills.

[Switch]

He wrote equations on how the natural mechanism worked. That's why you know Newton's name.

Laplace discovered that the motions of the planets followed from Newton's laws. But do you have any evidence that Newton believed that the motions of the planets followed from nothing but the laws he had discovered?

Because some of you think that once you UNDERSTAND something, that you have dismissed any evidence for the original maker(if one exists). It's just a total disconnect in reasoning. Understanding how someone engineered something doesn't mean you've disproved that there was an engineer.

Correct. But what we're talking about here is when someone says "God did it" and later we find out that God didn't do it. At best he set up the laws of physics that caused it to happen. We've had this discussion before.

It's not a red herring. Acts of God are generally only considered miraculous if they go against the laws of physics. But I'm a Christian, I believe in the sovereignty of God. So to me EVERY event in history is happening under God's sovereign control. It's only when He wants to be seen that He works against nature.

That might be your personal opinion, but you haven't shown that it is a correct opinion. Besides, if mere nature can account for the happenings of history, why introduce God to explain it?

[Switch]

Too bad QM doesn't see that the car/gas analogy doesn't work because we all know the creators of the cars are not all-knowing, all-powerful, or all-good.

If I knew how, and had the power to, I'd make cars that never needed gas and give them to the poor.

QM doesn't seem to mind pointing things out and going: "Oh look, what brilliant and benevolent design!" but when we see something that appears to be stupidly and badly designed, then that's just a part of the designer's plan that we don't understand. Can anyone say: U-N-F-A-L-S-I-F-I-A-B-L-E?

[QuestionMark]

Laplace discovered that the motions of the planets followed from Newton's laws. But do you have any evidence that Newton believed that the motions of the planets followed from nothing but the laws he had discovered?

Dude, Newton is a Christian. He didn't believe that it was just nature, and He didn't believe it was a miracle. He believed that it was a work of God(like all of nature) that followed orderly laws because God is a masterful designer.

Correct. But what we're talking about here is when someone says "God did it" and later we find out that God didn't do it. At best he set up the laws of physics that caused it to happen. We've had this discussion before.

You're really not though. If God designed the rules, and ordered them to turn out in a certain way then you can't say God didn't do it. How many times do I have to say this? If it's hard to prove God, it's harder to disprove God. You can't say "God didn't do it", it's harder to prove that than to prove that God did do it.

That might be your personal opinion, but you haven't shown that it is a correct opinion. Besides, if mere nature can account for the happenings of history, why introduce God to explain it?

Well mere nature can't, but even if it could it's not the best explanation. Probability can account for a lot, but that doesn't mean probability is the answer.

[QuestionMark]

If I knew how, and had the power to, I'd make cars that never needed gas and give them to the poor.

And when the poor realize that they're not poor any more but have eternal reserves of energy, how will you stop them from using this power for evil?

Can anyone say: U-N-F-A-L-S-I-F-I-A-B-L-E?

I can say falsifiable, it's a fun word to say. :)

[JustMyron]

EDIT: I'm thinking specifically of the vitamin C argument. They others, on cursory glance, were still somewhat lucid on your part but your responses to Vitamin C... +10 if you see how crap your s were!  

Well, it's interesting that they're crap to you. But when I look at my car and see it needs gas, I don't assume that was a design flaw.

I think you would see it as a design flaw if most cars didn't need gas, but yours did, though?

[QuestionMark]

I think you would see it as a design flaw if most cars didn't need gas, but yours did, though?

Not if my car could time travel.

[JustMyron]

I think you would see it as a design flaw if most cars didn't need gas, but yours did, though?

Not if my car could time travel.

What?