Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

Hi Mod'. I agree with the undercurrent of your post in regard to those genuinely commiting GOTG. The people who claim the GOTG, aren't saying all that, necessarily. They're just inspired to say that Goddidit. They say this prematurely, if they claim it is a valid conclusion for a specific matter. Also, some might allow for a belief that Godidit untill further discoveries are made.I think these excerpts show the opinions of these scientists, rather than arguments as such.In their worthy and brilliant opinion, a designer is believed to be behind things.This could still be an entirely valid speculation, on behalf of great minds.Parsimony doesn't dictate that you rule out God, or that he is necessarily "replaced" once an answer is found to a specific matter. It's just the mistake of directly concluding God is responsible as a "cause" for a specific circumstance.(GOTG)One might see God in life on earth, another in the outer universe. If God is in neither, causally, then I don't think it would matter as such. Occam's razor only dices the excess WORD, "God", pertaining to the specific.Example;These drums sound brilliant, Pink Floyd MUST be responsible. ..-> As it happens, they're not directly responsible for the drums..

​

....Then; these great vocals...Pink Floyd must be responsible. -> As it happens they're not.

​

We don't then need Pink Floyd to get drums, or vocals.(parsimony)

​

Now we hear a great guitar.....SURELY FLOYD is responsible for this guitar!!!!! NO!! Floyd isn't.

​

We don't need Pink Floyd for drums, vocals nor guitar(parsimony).......The direct SPECIFIC cause for the vocals, is David Gilmour..You can have a hundred, a thousand, a million specific circumstances where God isn't directly the cause, but overall he still can be. Now, Pink Floyd were responsible for vocals, drums and guitar, as a whole, despite, Pink Floyd not being the specific direct cause in the seperate categories, drums, vocals and guitar.These scientists would have had intelligent reasons for mentioning God whereas Bob the Christian, who gets philosophical at midnight, might be regarded as a twurp. If we can't locate their musings in any philosophy book they wrote, then certainly we do them a dis-service by believing that their minds could only muster a one sentence fallacy. If anything these scientists simply couldn't bite their tongues.Is the real problem that it cannot be believed that a Theist can mention God without being mistaken? Even a genius Theist? Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I don't know. Maybe he just couldn't conceive of anything.Do you think he would encourage finding a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one? In his day, everything was God and anything that became explicable, replaced God. Almost an international fallacy of GOTG. Perhaps the likes of him, are more justified than a modern IDist. So even his work shown how God wasn't necessarily the cause.I know you're a smart guy, which is why I mentioned that stuff about Pink Floyd. I agree. I think science is pretty well established now though, MrHambre's bullshi* filter is well and truly in place, so it's unlikely people will go back to two stroke oil. Methodological naturalism is to what I refer,(the filter).What is intelligent design though? What's an IDist? That's a topic in itself. Depending on a definition, I could well be IDist without knowing it, but people would usually call me atheistic evolutionist.How far does it go? What would be a parameter? I'm guessing that mentioning God in a paper would be met with derision from peers, these days?ID won't get in because as you indicate, it is a none-starter. As long as philosophy is acknowledged as valid then I have no problem with that, because truth-value, matters to people.What do we know? Knowledge involves truth. Is God true? Science doesn't clearly answer the question, BUT, I feel branches of philosophy are seen as mental masturbation. Logic, epistemology, aren't just important to science.Truth-value is part of the human quest. That's why spacemen read from Genesis, when they got to space. It's a genuine quest that shouldn't be cut off.I think that a lot of "IDists" would look more favourably upon science without God, and move to philosophy, if philosophy wasn't seen as mental masturbation.Science can't answer for "truth" always. Where does that come in, and are people disgruntled, in your opinion?It was religion that was the big boss as you know, now it's science. People want both. Science can establish truth - religion can't. People want God to be found, or atleast his fingerprints. They want that to be seen as a valid position.I suspect they want to get into science because of this. Just my opinion. But the gap remains, there might always be a gap. Science is a torch in the dark, it brings light upon truth, but that dark part is always there. And what about 3D? A torch can't see around bends. Perhaps science will never be able to shine light around that corner.Forgive me, I do perorate....feel free to refute my waffle.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

As long as we're not confusing God, with a fallacy, then that's fine.The God-concept in itself, has nothing to do with the pitfall. Faulty arguments do.There are many compelling and intelligent arguments put forward by many intellects over the years. Aristotle's causes, etc..I see it like this; God doesn't need science, and science doesn't need God.

That's fair enough, but science could be that torch in the dark, and may never bring an answer to people. This quote covers a range of issues, does it not? It pertains to peoples' beliefs in general.In your lifetime it's unlikely that science will bring an answer to it all. Not that that will matter to you, but my point is that some would prefer an answer that makes sense, rather than a none-answer. For some, there is ample evidence to suggest an intelligent force is probable, and so they settle with that. That's not so bad.It's quite convenient that "possibilities" exist.It's like saying, "oh, my torch doesn't reach that area, but let's not use anything else to bring light to it, because it's quite possible that my torch will reach that area in the future, and my torch has been successful in the past aswell."Yet remember that TRUTH doesn't belong to science, logically?It's like you're saying, "You can't ever infer God". Frankly, people think that an intelligent force brings light. It makes sense of a number of mysteries. The universe being tuned for exmple, vaguely, or fine-tuned, same difference. Reality is. Why is reality so = this is why.God is a good answer because he answers for why things are. An example of such Theist thinking would go;"Why is time there, well, for events to unfold. Why is there light, for energy. Why is space a vacuum? To radiate heat. Why is there water? An atmosphere, why is the set-up for life correct......"Anyway, the arguments, aren't what matter Mod'. My examples can be poor, and it's academic, because my point is that a Theist way of thinking is basically to say that reality is here on purpose, and that all those things aren't just coincidences.Is it so wrong, to give credence to reality?It's an error to incapacitate a potential inference. It's like saying, "you can never conclude that 2+2 is 5". . Fair enough - Goddidit is faulty for a reason, but as long as you are not saying, "God can never ever have done it even if it makes tremendous sense, and answers well for things". What if we define 5 as "4"?The problem with God, for me, is that he's like a theory that fits all of the facts, but just can't be proven to be the correct theory.A theory that answers for all of the variables, or explains them well, is atleast one worthy of investigation. Even if it's only a personal investigation.Okay, I've had my say now.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks Mod. I also enjoy your posts and am aware that you have a good knowledge span. I also perceive that you understand that negative personal comments are never necessary. I also employ this philosophy. Excellent. We have a 100% record in constructive debate. I'm satisfied with your in-depth explanation.

Hi there. Welcome to the forum. Science works from theories based on induction. This means that one can make a theory that would explain the facts, in the least and that would satisfy the parameter of making predictions. Then the build up of evidence (induction) to favour that theory, would give it merit.I think that this is why Mod' says that science doesn't have conclusions, in the absolute sense. This is because
one would seek evidence that would confirm his/her theory, with a strong emphasis on falsification. (Evidence to the contrary of that theory).Naturalism, as far as I am aware, has not been mentioned. Science doesn't bring any assumptions, except valid ones, based on work which has been confirmed as factual.So far, scientifically, "God" isn't mentioned in proper theory, because he does not pertain to any experimental results.It's quite true that God could be a conclusion, but then he would also have to be a tentative conclusion, because of what Mod said. He would then be subject to modification by dissent.There's also a problem with that which we would expect to evidence God. For example, in a theory, one builds his/her construct and then can simply look for evidence to fit with that framework. Whereas with God, no one can say what would evidence him. God is beyond falsification, because of ad hoc improvisations; which is to say that one can "fix" it so that God can still pass as a theoretical truth, because of a posteriori reasoning.This is why I said that God is a theory, but he can't be proved. Because there is no evidence that would allow valid inference, technically.That's my problem, he makes all the sense in the world to me, but he can't be proved. As long as he is allowed to be inferred, which he is, then I have no problem. (What I mean by that is that he can possibly be inferred if he is done so logically, which he hasn't been thus far.) Mod' is fine with that opinion. He mentioned that in the post you responded to.I also have this opinion.

Good man.