Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Lydia McGrew on Feser and ID


Here. 

15 comments:

Bilbo said...

I've had a couple of run-ins with Feser and his internet followers. Though Feser didn't comment in the last discussion I had there, I think I came to agreement with the other Aristotelian/Thomists:

God has created Nature with the property of becoming living things. Nothing needs to be added to it in order for this to happen. However, it is possible that Nature does not have the property of bringing together the necessary components in precisely the right way so that they become a living thing. It is possible that a demiurge (designer) was needed to bring them together. Thus ID is an argument that such a demiurge was needed. Now it could be that God Himself (and not a demiurge) has acted to bring the components together in the right way so that they become a living thing. However, ID is not an argument that God exists, nor that God acted in this way. It is only an argument that somebody probably acted in this way.

I think the other A/T people were willing to accept this view. And I think most ID people would be willing to accept it, also.

im-skeptical said...

ID argues strongly against evolution, and therefore is anti-science.

B. Prokop said...

"ID argues strongly against evolution, and therefore is anti-science."

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. To be dogmatically against an idea because it conflicts with orthodoxy is what makes something "anti-science". By your reasoning, Copernicus was anti-science, because he dared to contest the orthodox belief in geocentrism. Gregor Mandel was anti-science because he argued for genetics. Georges Lamaitre was anti-science, because he argued for the universe having a beginning (i.e., the "Big Bang"). Kepler was anti-science, because he insisted that the orbits of the planets were not perfect circles.

im-skeptical said...

Bob,

Evolution is science. ID argues against it. It has nothing to do with orthodoxy. It has to do with what is science. And ID isn't. This is something we definitely have discussed ad nauseam. They use unscientific methods and shoddy research to argue against real science. If you want to cast your lot with them, I'm surprised because I thought you had more respect for science than that.

B. Prokop said...

As far as "casting my lot in with them", allow me to summarize my views on the subject, as succinctly as possible:

I believe ID is correct, but I don't consider it science. But not all truth is science.

BenYachov said...

>ID argues strongly against evolution, and therefore is anti-science.

So many levels of stupid from one of our resident fundie Atheists and mind you I reject ID on Thomistic grounds & totally disagree with Linda.

im-skeptical said...

"So many levels of stupid"

Unless, of course, you've read up on the "research" the IDiots have done.

BenYachov said...

>Unless, of course, you've read up on the "research" the IDiots have done.

I don't care since I don't believe in ID nor do I think it is necessary to believe it for religious reasons.

Philosophically I know God in the Classic sense can act threw secondary causes & thus Classic Theism is compatible with Evolution & has nothing to do with the 5th way.

Philosophically I also know science could be used to see if human life or life as we know it in general are artifacts & thus clearly designed by some intelligence.

So ID isn't against science. Nor is it not a science.

Now if you want to saying something intelligent like "It's bad science" then I wouldn't care & that would be a reasonable opinion & I would let you and Bilbo fight it out.

I won't be in involved.

Victor Reppert said...

I think even people who don't accept ID per se have a stake in rejecting the anti-ID backlash, which I believe to be based on misinformation on several levels.

BenYachov said...

> However, it is possible that Nature does not have the property of bringing together the necessary components in precisely the right way so that they become a living thing. It is possible that a demiurge (designer) was needed to bring them together.

Since God is not obligated to create the world or any particular world in the first place then yes in theory God could create a world where the origin of biological life & or certain leaps it might take in it's natural development require supernatural assistence. Of course he could still create a world where evolution is a purely natural process guided only by divine providence.

Linda's problem here is she is equivocating between natural theology and revealed theology. Thus she is confused.

im-skeptical said...

"Of course he could still create a world where evolution is a purely natural process guided only by divine providence."

Science shows that evolution is a purely natural process, even though you might think there is still some divine hand behind it, sort of telling nature how to behave. But that's not what "ID science" claims. They specifically reject natural evolution. They say that complex life forms could not have evolved naturally. You can call this an anti-ID backlash if you want. What I'm against is their rejection of science in matters that are well settled.

BenYachov said...

And the stupid fundie Atheist pulls his Positivism metaphysics/philosophy out of his arse and confuses it with Science.

For the 10,000th time!

ID can't prove Classic Theism or even Theism. Just an intelligence might have artifaced life.

(not that I think they made the case)

So it could be YHWH, Zeus or the Preservers Aliens from classic Star Trek.

One could be an Atheist like Bradley Monton and defend it as a science.

It's still useless for a Thomist.

God is proven by philosophical argument not science.

Get the frak over it Gnu.

Skepo what is the point of you?

BenYachov said...

>Science shows that evolution is a purely natural process...

Science only deals with natural processes and can't go beyond that.

God shown to exist by metaphysics and philosophy.

He can only be disproved by counter metaphysics and philosophy.

Stop trying to measure the atomic weight of natural selection you category mistake making Gnu'oid.

Oy Vey!!!!!

It's like pulling teeth!

im-skeptical said...

"And the stupid fundie Atheist pulls his Positivism metaphysics/philosophy out of his arse and confuses it with Science."

If I said something that you completely agree with, you'd still rail against it, wouldn't you? Ben, I don't think you even know what I'm saying. Why don't you try listening for a change?

If you want to say that life must have been designed, fine. Claim that the hand of providence is the guiding force for natural processes, if you want. That's not a denial of well-established science. It's simply inserting a superfluous agency into the mix that is undetectable and indistinguishable from naturalism. But that's not what the "ID scientists" are saying. They specifically reject well-established scientific theory and replace it with pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

BenYachov said...

Feser response to the esteemed Linda.


http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/miracles-id-and-classical-theism.html

>If I said something that you completely agree with, you'd still rail against it, wouldn't you?

No I wouldn't say boo if you called ID bad science. Only if you say it's not science.

>Ben, I don't think you even know what I'm saying. Why don't you try listening for a change?

I don't think you know what you are saying. You just kneejerk react.

>If you want to say that life must have been designed, fine.

I would not say that without qualification. Is the 5th way true? Of course. Has science shown life forms are an artifacts?
No I don't think so. I am doubtful.

>Claim that the hand of providence is the guiding force for natural processes, if you want. That's not a denial of well-established science.

Then you should say that in the first place instead of this "ID is not science" mishigoss.

>It's simply inserting a superfluous agency into the mix that is undetectable and indistinguishable from naturalism.

Naturalism is a metaphysical view not a scientific one. Why not try learning some philosophy and arguing for it instead of repeating your kneejerk Positivism?

>But that's not what the "ID scientists" are saying. They specifically reject well-established scientific theory and replace it with pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

If you want to say ID is bad science I wouldn't say boo too you.

But you didn't say that now did you?

It's your own fault.