A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 14 & TMA02 Marked and Returned

I have received my marked TMA02, and it was an encouraging jump, although just to the other end of a Pass 2, so still below the marks for DD101.

I don't think I could have put any more effort in to writing this TMA, possibly it was not an easy subject to approach with an open mind which may have hampered my critical thinking slightly :-)

However, on the up side, my conclusion that the theory of evolution destroyed the argument for a Christian god was accepted and positively commemted on.

So, I'd better get on with Chapter 3, as I am now the best part of two weeks behind where I should be, although Ethics is an interesting subject.

Also, the author of Book 3 is available to discuss his book with students which should be interesting and worthwhile.Shame that the author of Book 2, Timothy Chappell, didn't offer students the same opportunity to discuss his very partisan and biased view of the Philosophy of Religion......

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Elluminate Tutorial, but TMA02 still not returned.

I experienced the 'Elluminate' on-line tutorial for the first time and it was a bit of a mixed bag. About 6 students logged in and there were the expected connection, audio and punctuality problems, but once it got going it was useful, although we probably got about 20 minutes good discussion from the hour, but better than nothing and some useful pointers for the next TMA.

Although, not having the last TMA marked and returned is severely hampering my motivation to move on and engage with this Chapter. I know the Festive period has gotten in the way, but the submission date was 15th December, and its now the 5th January.

Having written this, it will probably arrive this afternoon :-) 

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA 02 Submitted

I got a couple of days extension due to working abroad for the last 2 weeks and only arriving back in the UK on Friday. The TMA was written, but I just needed a couple of hours to tidy up references as the massive course text book was just too heavy to carry abroad, and I couldn't get access to any of the internet audios either.

Anyway, it is done now and just shy of the 2000 words. I could have done with a higher word count but I think I've got it all in. Teleological arguments for existence of God all demolished by theory of evolution, Cosmological arguments themselves demolish the argument for interventionist Gods, but leave room for a deist God.

Also found out that the University where Behe teaches have effectively denounced him as the creationist nutter that he is - check out this link Lehigh University Statement

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. 

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

 

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA 02

‘The modern theory of evolution demolishes the design argument for the existence of God.’ Does it?

This has not been an easy TMA to write, the question appears wrong when related to the course text, and then I have my own prejudices and ideas to put to the side in order to write the essay.

I've got most of it written, just need to tidy up and re-read it some more, but the problem is i think I may be too off track....

Oh well. On a happier note, I have finished Greg Graffin's book "Anarchy Evolution", and very interesting and useful it was too, it will be referenced in the TMA.

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Evolution of Religion

After listening to Open University audio on the course website for week 9 titled ‘The Modern Argument from Design’, I think I can see undeniable evidence of the evolutionary process at work within the Christian explanation of ‘God's’ role in the creation of our world .

i. At first it was belief in the explanation of the creation of life as told in the bible's book of Genesis, and espoused by Aquinas. 

Belief in this explanation was encouraged through the torture and murder of unbelievers after being accused of the crime of Heresy. Obviously this sort of behaviour, by the church, could not go on for ever, but it did go on for over 1800 years (that's eighteen hundred or one thousand eight hundred years) with the last known heretic executed by sentence of the Roman Catholic Church being Cayetano Ripoll in 1826 (Wikipedia). With more and more people free to question the obvious inaccuracies and flaws in the biblical account, this belief had to evolve.

ii. The original belief  therefore evolved to ‘well your obvioulsy not supposed to take the bible literally, but God did made everything - honest' as put forward by Cleanthis.

This held ground for a while until people now getting used to the ability to question the church without fear of recrimination asked why some bits of the world were just a bit crap.

iii. Belief then underwent a form of natural selection when Paley decided that only the selected good bits of the world were made by God. But he didn't explain who made the bad bits though. 

Then with the growing mountain of evidence for Darwin's theories, and evolution now being taught in schools the next big step was the evolution of Creationism to Intellegent Design.

 After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design. (Wikipedia) 

iv. So the 4th step in this evolutionary process is 'Intelligent Design' within the evolutionary process described as ‘irreducible complexity’ by Behe. 

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defence and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defence. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."

So Behe’s irreducible complexity of the flagella was shown to be just plain wrong, so this 'belief' then mutated. 

v. The new mutant belief was that 'the infinite complexity of physical set-up' such as the complexity of DNA and RNA proves God's existence, as suggested by Meyer.

However this 'belief' also suffers from the fact that with the earth being an estimated 4.5 BILLION years old, there has been plenty of time of things to get complicated. Some theists have said that the chances of a protein molecule forming are infinitesimally small, they liken it to trying to through a six with a dice a 1000 times in a row - pretty unlikely I'm sure you'll agree........

..........and it would be but for the fact that evolution is an iterative process and so all you have to do is throw a 6 (that's 1six) then you could throw 2,3,4,6 (that's 2 sixes) 1,4,3,2,2,6 (that's 3 sixes) 2,3 6 (that's 4 sixes) - do you see where this is going......

....... so in the 4.5 BILLION years since the earth formed, I think you could imagine throwing over one thousand sixes without any problems at all.

So to the latest version of the explanation of God's involvement in the design of the earth..... 

vi. 'Fine Tuning  - The Goldilocks Principle', everything in the universe had to be ‘just right’ for life to form, and then it sort of cracks on best it can. 

This description doesn't seem to leave much room for the Christian God of the bible to be recognisable as the grand designer. It seems that there is a constant rear-guard action by Christians to try and keep the explanation of God's design ahead of the scientific discoverys that are debunking religion.........

It also seems to have gone full circle to Aquinas' second way that 'something started it all and we, in the absence of  fact or knowledge, shall call this God'.

There is an interesting alternative theory from Naturalists that says that RELIGION is actually part of the Human evolutionary process that Man will transit through. Man created religion and as we evolve so does it, so like the tail and body hair that we all once had, religion will be shed when it is no longer necessary......... I think this time will be soon upon us :-)

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Should we allow Creationists to vote

This course has encouraged me to challenge my preconceptions and try and look at the 'Philosophy of Religion' from both sides. However, I am finding that choosing which Creationists or Intelligent Design  publications to read is an almost impossible decision, there are simply too many of these nutters on the internet.

Luckily, help was at hand. Dave Gorman wrote in his book 'Googlewacking' (which I highly recommend, its a great read) about meeting a Dr Gish, who was a 'famous' Creationist. Dave Gorman is a comedian, so I accepted his description of Dr Gish as you would with any comical creation - enough truth to hold the humorous fiction together. But was I in for a surprise, this guy really exists.....and he is as mental as described....

http://www.nwcreation.net/duanegish.html

Reading the website and looking at the books he's written, I realise Dr Gish is not a comedy character dreamed up for our amusement - far more frightening that that, he is actually exactly as described.

These are just some of his books and ideas.....

"the strong Biblical theme makes it unique among dinosaur resource books. Offers plausible explanations for believing that man walked with dinosaurs."

"With devastating facts and logic, Dr. Gish documents in detail, from the writings of evolutionists themselves, the complete absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms among the billions of fossilized animals in the earth's sedimentary rocks. Indeed, the fossil record offers compelling evidence for the special creation of man and each basic kind of plant and animal."

"Having challenged the humanistic religion of evolution, creation scientists have frequently endured the vicious attacks of those who endorse the theory of evolution. Creation's most respected debater examines the major arguments for and against special creation. In so doing, CRS board member Dr. Duane Gish, defends creation scientists against the distorted, inaccurate attacks of evolutionists."

"In six days God created the world and all therein! He has woven into His creation undeniable evidence that He alone is the author and sustainer of life. From dinosaurs to DNA, the story of creation is truly AMAZING!

At times, it presents a humorous look at the predicament in which evolution finds itself trying to explain that which only God can do.

Suggested level, 4th grade - adult."

This would be hilarious if it wasn't true.

This guy has a PhD in Biochemistry and was at Cornell University..... the same University Greg Graffin, of Bad Religion, went to and teaches at (see previous post) - it would certainly be interesting to know if the two met.

The creationist claims just get more and more bizarre, The Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) has an article "Did Humans Cause Dinosaur Extinctions?" in which they write,

"Thus, it stands to reason that if humans primarily cause the current extinctions of megafauna, then they may have caused past extinctions as well. That could help explain the plethora of legends, found in all cultures, of heroes killing dragons, which were probably dinosaurs in many cases.

Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? One very likely factor—among others, such as climate changes after the Flood—is the same reason the black rhinoceros and so many other megafauna have died out: People moved in and eliminated them."

I do not know how to even begin to discuss the origin of the planet with people who can hold and believe in such statements....... where would you start when it is impossible to argue from a position of well established fact. They seem to be hanging this 'theory' (its not really a theory) on myths and legends of made up monsters (of which we have NO fossil remains), to argue that dinosaurs (of which we have carbon dated  fossil remains) were made extinct by humans (which by all known fossil remains did not exist when the dinosaurs did).

The facts are that Humans did not co-exist with dinosaurs, the Flintstones is a child's cartoon not a documentary, it is not based on fact.  

So if creationists are this 'stupid', you have to ask yourself is it at all sensible that they are permitted to vote.

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Classic Arguments from Design

The first part of the text book looked at arguments supporting the existence of God starting with Aquinas. Aquinas’ second way states that 'something' must have started the series of events that got us to where we are. That is a statement which is easy to accept, however Aquinas says that the 'something' that started this series of events is what “everyone calls God”. Aquinas offers no definition, explanation or proof of what “God” is, so his “second way” could be equally be describing a deity or an event of quantum physics such as the big bang.

So, this week's reading is the 'Classic Argument from Design: Cleanthis & Paley'.

David Hume used the character Cleanthis to argue in favour of the existence of God. Cleanthis' argument equates the world to a complicated man-made machine or object – which is a poor analogy.

Cleanthis talks about the world being a machine with an “accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men”. However the world is far from perfect and Cleanthis has no explanation for inclusion of famines, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease and volcanoes within the design of this great precision machine.

Should any man-made machine found to be so poorly designed, I think you would find that nobody would own up to designing it – so perhaps Cleanthis is actually correct, and this explains the absence of god – he’s like a stroppy builder and has simply walked of the job in disgust.

Cleanthis also suggests that the cause of the natural world is the same as the cause of man-made machines ( i.e. designed ), but this would only hold true if the natural world could be replicated multiple times to the exact same plan/design. So this sub-conclusion is false or at least unsubstantiated.

But even if Cleanthis’ shaky main conclusion, that the world was caused to exist through an intelligent designer is accepted, it still  suffers from the same problem as Aquinas in that the final answer, God, is undefined and could equally be an event created through quantum physics  (the big bang) as an intelligent designer, as depicted in the Abrahamic religious view of God.

Paley's argument is a refined version of the argument put forward by Cleanthis. Paley says those structures in nature that have precise organisation and functionality must have had a designer. This begs the question who designed the structures in nature that are less perfect, also many of the structures he referenced as complex in the late 1700s can now be explained through evolution, reducing the need for his designer.

The next chapter is on the modern Intelligent Design 'theories' - I can't wait.

Intelligent Design seems to be a bit of a rear guard action for 'Creationism', as Christians who realise that the 'explanations' given in the bible are gradually unraveling and being proven to be nonsense, for example the cartoon below.......

Source: http://unfollowingjesus.com/

Go on..... have a look.....its an interesting website !!!!

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Week 8

19 November •

Book 2: THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Chapter 2, The classic argument from design

• Book 2, Chapter 2: The classic argument from design: Cleanthes and Paley PDF document (638KB)
  
  
• Hume on design sound file (7.8MB)
  
  
• Book 2: Quiz for Chapter 2 iCMA
  
  
• Optional further material Structured content

 

• Book 2 discussion

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 7

Philosophy of Religion : Evolution v Creation

This has been a long week. Partly because I started this part of the course early after submitting TMA01 and partly because I was then waiting on the TMA to be marked - it always seems to take ages even if it is returned reasonably quickly.

Then there was the challenge of dealing with a subject I'm having difficulty engaging with. If I have learned anything about myself in the last week, its that I was a lapsed atheist - and this is very deliberately writen in the past tense. This doesn't seem to have been a big part of my life except when I come into contact with ideas that twist science and fact to support superstition, and then it just really annoys me. Creation / intelligent design versus evolution is such a subject.

Anyway, time to engage with the course material and work towards answered the second TMA question which is,

‘The modern theory of evolution demolishes the design argument for the existence of God.’ Does it? 

My initial thought is yes it does and no it doesn't.

Those who believe in science and observable evidence will understand the explanation and evidence of the theory of evolution and will discount 'creationism', even under the guise of 'intelligent design'.

Those who believe in a supreme being, who intervenes in our world and has 'designed' all that is around us are not going to accept the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the teaching of the bible. Although these people may now have to admit that the earth is not flat, that it is not the center of the universe and that it is older than 6000 years - I doubt they are really to admit that the theory of evolution explains things far better than a grand designer.

Anyway, you can only imagine my delight at discovering that Greg Graffin singer with one of my favorite bands 'Bad Religion' has now written a book "Faith, Science and Bad Religion: In A World Without God". Doctor Graffin (@DoctorGraffin for those on twitter) has a PHD in Zoology from Cornell University and lectures there in evolutionary science and biology.

His song lyrics are always intelligent and interesting so I'm looking forward to reading the book - especially to see if there are some relevant quotes for TMA02. It is only available via Amazon in the USA at present so not sure when I'll get the book delivered.

Below are three short interviews about his book......







and how you may better recognise him.....

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Religion without objectivity !

I’ve only read to page 23 and listened to the first two chapter audios, and I might being missing something, but I am already somewhat underwhelmed by the rigour of the arguments and discussion in the course text and learning materials – it appears, so far, somewhat less than objective.

At the bottom of page 20 the author says,

‘Have a go at making yourself believe this:

Custard is really spaghetti’

And from this ‘experiment’ makes the huge and illogical leap to the statement that,

‘So it is hard to see how you would be able to make yourself believe that God exists, unless you think that there is good evidence that God exists.’

I am missing something here.

This appears to me to be ridiculous, the experiment would have more value to me if he’d said,

‘Have a go at making yourself believe this:

Custard is really spaghetti knowing that…..

You have been told all your life by authority figures, parents and teachers that Custard is really Spaghetti and you were initiated in to this belief as a baby without any conscious choice in the matter, and this belief has been re-enforced all your life by custom and culture.

In every town you visit there is a big building devoted to the belief in Spaghetti Custard. There are many books on the subject of Spaghetti Custard, and history tells us that in the past some people did question the whole custard spaghetti thing, but burning them at the stake seemed to dissuade others from voicing similar opinions. There are festivals to Custard Spaghetti dotted round the year in which we give gifts and thanks for a yellow and al-dente future, although the Custardy Spaghetti message is lost somewhat in the marketing.

If you are good when you die you go to a sweet, warm and yellowy heaven, if your bad you suffer continued Penne-tence . There are other people, in other lands, who believe in a different carbohydrate based sweet or pudding, and wars have been waged in their name. Lastly, tradition and culture dictates that the three major milestones of birth, marriage and death are marked through Spaghetti Custard rituals.

Now would you believe that Custard is really Spaghetti without any real evidence…… I’d have to say…..yes you probably would.

I see the same problem in the audio ‘debate’. The theists are all sincere, intelligent and no doubt good people, but they all talk about their faith as though they came to the decision to follow their particular faith from a ‘blank canvas’ after much examining of the facts and testing of truths in a completely open and objective manner. Then having examined every possible position and religion they then made the decision that the faith they chose was right for them.

However, I suspect (although I have no proof) that they were actually born in to their faith and it is the same as the rest of their family. Social situation and cultural expectations must surely be a major factor in determining the faith they follow, and so the influence of accident of birth is the biggest factor in which faith you follow rather than pure belief in a truth, and surely this cannot be discounted.

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : FSM & The Open University

Book 2: THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

I have to be honest, I'm not looking forward to this part of the course. I'm a believer in the quote (sorry don't know who) 'Where knowledge ends, religion begins'. 

 

I can understand that humans needed an explanation of why things happen, and this led them to believe in gods of whatever type. Having somebody to blame for crop failure, earth quakes, eclipses is fine - until you understand why these things happen - then your divine being is pointless.

 

Religion has been used through the ages to subjugate the poor and prop up oppressive rulers - and it continues today. Nearly all scientific steps forward were retarded by the church, as every scientific explanation chips away at the reasons for belief. From the working of the solar system to the explanation of the earth being a sphere the church has persecuted those with ideas that did not fit with their teachings, I could go on but that is not what prompted this post. 

 

Having sent in my assignment I decided to look at the next chapter and as usual checked out the End of Chapter Quiz to get an idea of what is coming up.

 

Question 1:

Option a. a giant spaghetti monster.

 

Great ! I thought this book may actually be written from an objective point of view which considers religion from every conceivable angle, and actually looks at the alternative ideas of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It must do, I thought, its the answer 'Option A'.

 

But then I though that the lack of capitalisation for the Flying Spaghetti Monster was just disrespectful, and also is said 'a' Flying Spaghetti Monster, implying that there is more than one - when it should surely have been 'the' FSM, as there is only the one true FSM. You'd think an academic 'specialising' in the philosophy of religion would have known that!!!

 

This was troubling indeed.......

 

I searched the electronic version of the course text book for the terms Flying, Spaghetti and Monster in a mixture of cases and found only two hits - both on the same page, one referring to the other.

In case you can't read it is says,

 

Unreasonable Hope : If I say ' I do believe in fairies' often enough and loud enough, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will bring Tinker Bell back to life (see Figure 3.8).

 

This is a ridiculous thing for an academic to write. How can he possibly know this is unreasonable.... and why choose to use a metaphor with a fictional character (Tinker Bell) to test reasonable or unreasonable hope.

 

The statement would have been equally true had he used other deities such as Budda, Bramha, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, Waheguru and even, may I suggest, Jesus Christ.

 

 Try it for yourself.......

 

Unreasonable Hope : If I say ' I do believe in fairies' often enough and loud enough, (insert your god)  will bring Tinker Bell back to life (see Figure 3.8).

 

Each religion substituted in the statement above results in the same outcome, proving all religions are equally valid or invalid..... there, I feel a bit better now, as according to the Open University text book on Religion, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as relevant as any other major religion - at least as far as the resurrection of Tinker Bells goes - but then we all know resurrection is a load of nonsense anyway.......

For those who don't know about Pastafarianism, please have a look at the video below and also visit http://www.venganza.org/ 

 

RAmen

Spaghetti, Wenches & Metaphysics: Episode 1—The FSM from Matt Tillman on Vimeo.