Sure. And there are rules about the proper use of who and whom. And you aren’t supposed to capitalize Gospel unless you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But when it comes to grammar and orthography conventions, people don’t do what they are “supposed to” all the time, and most of the time it has absolutely no effect on communicating well. So, it’s good to ask oneself, is this an issue where communication is actually being hindered by not following a convention? Or am I just being an obnoxious grammar Nazi? The stuff about DI’s style sheet is interesting trivia. But their choosing not to capitalize intelligent design is not really leading to mass confusion anywhere. Neither is a lowercase L in BioLogos. I hope knowing that you are the most technically correct person gives you a sense of joy and satisfaction that outweighs the social capital this thread is costing you, because I guarantee most people are just rolling their eyes at this point when you go on about capitalization and how you are better than everyone.
“you are better than everyone”.
Not hardly. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s just unfortunate projection.
Francis Collins is the decorated natural scientist here, right? He coined “BioLogos”. Merv was simply wrong to keep spelling it a different way than Collins intended. Does that make him “worse”, or just now corrected? My humble apology if you are offended by correction of your colleague’s spelling.
As for social capital, the key point of this OP is quite consistent with whatever “social capital” BioLogos has among evangelicals, so that’s obviously not an issue here:
“When capitalized, however, ‘Intelligent Design’ refers to a more particular set of views and arguments as exemplified by the work of the Discovery Institute.” – Deborah Haarsma (Reviewing “Darwin’s Doubt”: Introduction - BioLogos)
As well as with the leading donor of the Discovery Institute.
“All Christians believe in intelligent design with a small ‘i’ and a small ‘d,’ though they have every right to critique the particular theory called intelligent design.” – Howard Ahmanson (Am I an Occasionalist? Christian Philosophy and Intelligent Design | Evolution News)
Their clarification and warning means enough to take seriously. And the many other people who recognize the importance of distinguishing “Intelligent Design” from “intelligent design” in written form validate that it makes sense to do so. No one is forced, but it does make sense and helps in communication, especially given the DI’s repeated demand that ID theory is “strictly scientific”. If it’s about “Intelligent Design” using a Divine Name, then obviously ID theory about God/Designer violates standard meanings of “natural science” theories.
Further to the link in the OP, W.L. Craig is quite clear about this, as if he thinks it is meaningful to distinguish.
“Certainly, Christians must believe in (lower-case) intelligent design, since we believe in a provident God who has a plan for this world He has created. But belief in ID as a theory is not obligatory. One must assess the case ID theorists make and then decide whether to adopt all, some, or none of the tenets of ID, especially in application to biology.”
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/should-christians-accept-intelligent-design
No one is arguing that the capitalization distinction is unhelpful. The question is whether the failure to capitalize is detrimental, or even nefarious. If you are just trying to make the case that the capitalization distinction has merit, the case is made. It’s the pearl clutching insinuations that not capitalizing is motivated by something dark and subversive that is not quite landing here.
My favorite Canadian author, L M Montgomery (barring Randal Rauser):
Personally, I use ID versus id as a convenient way to distinguish between the specific claims of the ID movement, as exemplified by the Discovery Institute, versus the general theological claim of an intelligent designer, working through whatever means. In doing so, that is generally addressing someone who probably is not very aware of the difference, and so I explain the usage. I’m not overly concerned with whether the DI uses capitalization or not; I am concerned when it tries to equate the ID movement with the general premise of an intelligent designer but then insists on many other add-ons to that premise. BioLogos being the name of a specific organization, I would follow that capitalization unless my typing and proofreading weren’t adequate.
Me too. That’s how BioLogos uses the two as well.
Yes. Or when they insist that a supernatural intelligent designer can be investigated or proven using the established tools and methods of science.
“I don’t submit God to any theory and I certainly don’t put God to the test of any sort.”
Great. That’s healthy. As I see it then, you’re not and cannot be an IDist, since that is the core of what IDists do on a daily basis.
“atheist scientists have come up with a theory that suits atheism and is trying to sell it to Christians and other theists.”
There is some truth in that, though “sales” in natural science works differently than “buying” many other things.
“The DI however are not prepared to do the hard yakka to show the matter of Intelligent Design. Maybe that is why they avoid the caps, IDK. I wrote to them a few years back but they didn’t answer. It is dangerous business though, so I can’t blame them. Thus, they are pointing to a few things, but nothing that is substantial.”
First sentence, agreed (thanks for spurring me to look up “yakka”). Yes, that is partly why they intentionally “avoid the caps”. It does not surprise me that the DI did not answer you; they are very cagey people there, regardless of the reasons (some of which they bring upon themselves on purpose). Also agreed about “nothing that is substantial.”
“ID can be a scientific theory if the research was done properly and not just pointing here and there.”
Frankly, I disagree. They started with a scientifically impossible task, trying to foist a category error on natural science. Their “theory” is a failure for this reason, which they attempt to cover for by incessant double-talking (Divine Design – Intelligent Design & human design – sometimes [un]intelligent design). It simply appears that they cannot “do natural science properly” with the theory that they’ve conjured up out of an engineering magazine as a metaphor for “origins of life” Science, which has become (in Gollum’s language) their “precious”.
“The day is soon to come when people realize the power they have in their hot little hands when they are prepared to take, even a sideways look, at what is implied by creationism. They may be able to take control of their own health.”
Likely we mean smth quite different by “creationism”, so I’m not sure what you’re saying there. It sounds like human engineering you’re hinting at.
“here there is a parallel between ID and occasionalism, if the full implications are considered. It is a shame that the DI are not interested.”
It is good news that you see this, as not many people do. Here’s one example, which the leading funder of the Discovery Institute responded to (very rare) in print, not knowing if he considers himself an “occasionalist” or not. Looking for God in All the Wrong Places by Stephen Meredith | Articles | First Things
“The Intelligent Design movement has not used the term “occasionalist” to describe itself, to my knowledge, but it is an occasionalist philosophy nonetheless.” - Stephen Meredith
Yes, I agree it is a shame re: DI, but likely for different reasons than you, as I reject occasionalism. Do you embrace it still? Al-Ghazali is fascinating, but I agree with many others that occasionalism crushed Islamic science after the Golden Age, beyond only the impact of the Mongol invasion. It’s the ideas themselves in “occasionalism”, not only the physical spread of them that matters most in this case.
“I think to some extent you are right that they are trying to push theistic science. May they don’t appreciate the full implications of creationism or maybe they have a narrow minded agenda.”
Thanks for your agreement re: the DI pushing “theistic science”. YECists of course won’t address this either, since that’s exactly what YECism is too. Thus, it doesn’t seem that “creationism” is a sticking point for them (many tacitly reject ideological creationism), but rather a strange variety of “spiritual egoism”, where IDists put themselves in the position of IDers = “little gods” like substitute “mini-creators”. See Steve Fuller’s work on ID theory for a different view of the IDM than IDists themselves hold, though Fuller is an ex-Catholic, Jesuit educated, individualistic (self-prophecying) social theorist.
“I will try and give you a parallel, from my own understanding of occasionalism using the example of virtual reality.”
Good example. For background, I also worked on a VR project in 2017-2018. Would be glad to compare notes.
“Similarly God created the universe(s) from the relevant information that exists”
In this analogy, doesn’t this make the creators of “VR worlds” into “gods” of that VR world?
“I have many example, if you want I can share some of them with you.”
Yes, I’d be interested. Though this thread likely isn’t the best place to share them. Be welcome to DM.
Frankly, I find “Mind of God” language sometimes difficult because it depends on who’s using it. You mention Paul Davies, who once suggested “science offers a surer path to God than religion”, though others have previously used it, e.g. British philosopher Edward Craig: Human Verification
“The conscious being is a co-creator.”
Yes, but that’s not occasionalism. Do you see why? That’s instead concurrentism, which is the standard view in most of the Judeo-Christian world today. I’ve spoken with the Al-Ghazali chair at Al-Quds University about this, but would be glad to follow up with him about it, if you’re in disagreement and think occasionalism should be the current Muslim view of God’s action with human beings.
“the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam was due to the Mongols invaded of Baghdad.”
Al-Ghazali died in 1111. The Mongol invasion of Baghdad was in 1258. Much damage ideologically, however, was done by occasionalism over 150 years earlier. Yes, the Mongols killed people and destroyed books. An excellent counter-example, however, is that the Mongol invasion of Russia did not destroy Russian science, which recovered strongly afterwards, likely in part because Russian Orthodoxy (since 988) had not adopted occasionalism as Muslim philosophers like Al-Ghazali, hugely influential still today, did, but rather adopted the historical teachings of the Christian Church in accepting concurrentism.
From what it seems in the above, these two positions are conflated into one position in what you are advocating here, as if ID theory might be helpful for you as an occasionalist theory of “Divine Creation”. Does this conjecture get anywhere near to what you are suggesting?
“Where I see people misunderstanding occasionalism is when they try an attribute all actions between Mind (information with meaning) and body (created form arising from that information).”
Yes, this is where IDism slides into occasionalism. Since they refuse to name the “Intelligent Designer” as “God” in their “strictly scientific theory”, they play the double-talking game that just goes around in circles, getting no one anywhere helpful. This is a game that I believe faithful Jews, Christians, Muslims and Baha’is, i.e. Abrahamic monotheists, would be better not to play.
I feel your pain. As a de facto heathen, it has taken some … attention to detail … to reliably employ the proper divine honorific in every form. On a much more humble scale I think I know how Helen Keller must have felt.
We appreciate your attempts at cultural accommodation to our orthography preferences.
A category error can be spoken of only because of the talk of “natural science”, i.e., there is nothing other than the physical, or in other words matter and energy is everything. “If we can’t measure it” it is claimed “it doesn’t exist”. So even if evidence is seen that there has to be more than the physical, it is ignored or explained away. This evidence in many areas of science certainly points to some non-physical realm and information, at the very least, as underpinning the physical realm. However the evidence also points to intelligence.
So first we have in physics the phenomenon of entanglement. Two entangled particles appear to exist with at least some characteristics that are in some sense shared. So, for instance, there may be up AND down spin. If we make an observation (meaning a measurement) of one of the two particles to observe say up spin, then the other particle instantly displays the opposite characteristic of down spin. And this is true even if the particles are at an infinite distance apart.
Some physicists are content to say we can explain it mathematically, we don’t need to try and explain it physically. This is a copout. But there are also other physicists that may go to the other extreme and even invent a magical particle, which for Heaven’s sake defies the laws of physics, to try to explain it. They posit the existence of a particle that would have infinite speed so it can instantly go between the two particles. All this to avoid a category error. How much more reasonable to say that it may be (and we need more evidence) that the two particles share an information set in the non-physical realm. With decoherence the two particles somehow acquire their own, unique information set.
Then we have telepathy. No energy or anything else that you can attribute to “natural” in the case of thought can go out of one skull and into another. And yet, even at a large distance, one person can perceive an idea presented to them by another. HOWEVER, the two people must be closely or closely enough related AND there must be conditions that are significant to them. How can this happen if there is no non-physical reality? This can only be explained if there is a One Mind, Here again to avoid a category error the experiments on telepathy are either double blinded, which means with unrelated subjects / strangers AND the use of trivial, even non-sensical issues, OR (as is being done more recently to overcome public concerns), with related subject… ah but the vast number of subjects are trivially related. And once again the issues are hardly anything that the subject being mentally addressed would find significant and thus perceptive. Both of these experimental conditions of course do not show any telepathy outside of a blip in the second case. Some argue that the blip is statistically significant, while others argue that the blip is just chance. Either way the results are not convincing and can be dismissed.
Then we have the mind-body problem. A conscious being is the driver of the body and indeed affects the body’s physical status. Here again the argument is “we can’t explain the phenomenon of how “the mind /a thought can affect the body”. Thus the mind is defined as physical, electro-chemical activity in the brain. So you have psychiatrists giving us the “gift” of mental illness is all about chemical imbalances in the brain. And this then covers all disease. If mental illness can be explained as physical, then all physical disease has to be physical and hence we don’t need to acknowledge any mind-body problem. Take autoimmune diseases for instance. They are being explained as a immune system malfunction. If you are a healthy young woman in the UK for instance, you have a whopping 20% chance of having an immune system malfunction.
And the one example in biomedical science that is literally the elephant in the room is of course cancer stem cells. Very far from being scrambled or dysregulated stem cells, these display embryonic stem cell markers on them. The evidence points to them being deliberately created, no less so than Yamanaka’s induced pluripotent stem cells. Considering only the physical and seeing science (which is really a body of knowledge and a work in progress) as “natural science”, meaning we only accept the physical and nothing else, none of this can be explained. That is why you have the cancer clonal evolutionary theory still holding center stage, even though there is no evidence to support it. Sure we can apply a chemical or radiation and get “a mutation” but the rest of mutations are explained by speculation “well if we get one, we can get many”. Speculation resting on “the physical is all that there is”.
Denying evidence and describing science as natural science to avoid category errors is the atheists’ agenda. And DI is trying to accommodate the atheists and dodge their missiles. So they are saying “strictly scientific theory to stay within the definition of science as natural science. They don’t want to talk about the “Intelligent Designer” as “God” to try and divorce theology from science since a theistic science is a big no-no. But in doing that they are being devious IMO.
This is where they are wrong. Why not take the bull by the horns? That is what I would do. Say openly that the science is not simply natural science but takes in a non-physical reality of information and meaning, at least as a starting position. Then they can use the evidence that is seen effectively and be more convincing.
We have seen that there are laws that govern the physical. But we have no way of knowing if those laws are due to the physical or not. By considering only the physical and throwing away or explaining away anything that points to some non-physical realm of information, there is no way to even reason about whether those laws are due to the physical aspects (matter and energy) only. We cannot observe nor test in any way possible if these laws are due to some intelligence outside of the physical. But given that we see other evidence pointing to a non-physical realm, then we can at least consider it possible that the natural laws we observe may not simply be due to the objects involved.
I will look into concurrentism more closely, but on first reaction I think a lot depends on what one might understand by causality and specifically in regard to humans. And what does causal efficacy mean? A lot depends on interpretation of the principles. Basically God created and sustains the creation. Humans however can make use of the created form and make changes. The fact that God sustains the physical form supports causal efficacy and does not deny or diminish free will. And there are limitations such as you cannot simply wilfully for no good reason, do harm to another. However, is another person does something wrong against you then they have created conditions in The Mind, which essentially translates to having incurred a debt, and that debt can be collected. Also, a person intending to do another person harm can be stopped using the debt incurred. And God is on side to collect on the debt. This is causal efficacy.
YECism is doing much the same as DI, but their problem is that they are trying to explain creationism in Biblical terms. Some of the Biblical stories may be metaphorical. What does “a day” mean? Is it a day in current Earth terms? I could be called a YECist, but I don’t agree with the movement as it is. I see that “God’s creation” is no different to saying “God’s simulation”. There are plenty of physicists, as for example Leonardo Susskind PhD., who talks about the physical being a simulation and a hologram, but he is trying to say that the information is physical. Lol.
If the creation is a simulation, then the laws of physics and chemistry are not due to the physical objects, atoms, energy etc. The laws are what God, the Creator put into place (given meaning )to govern the information so as to give rise to the creation, the physical reality. I am interested in what you can share with respect to VR projects you worked on. I guess, in the VR world, if the beings could be conscious and thus on par with our reality, then the creator would be seen as a god. This has a parallel in Hinduism. Hinduism is really monotheistic. Brahman is the Absolute (God), but there are 33 million gods and goddesses in Hinduism. Each can be part of some creation within The Creation. This then gives them the titles as gods and goddesses. Same in VR.
A co-creator only means that the conscious being is able to make changes as needed or desired within the framework of the creation. This gets down then to interpretation and a person’s experience. The same situation may be seen by some as Concurrentism while others interpret it as Occasionalism.
Thanks for the links I haven’t had enough time to examine them yet.
I will DM with my examples. What I will do is put them on my blog in the next few days and give you the link.
evidence in many areas of science certainly points to some non-physical realm and information, at the very least, as underpinning the physical realm. However the evidence also points to intelligence.
Yes, agreed. But where? Not just “intelligence”, but also “Intelligence”, deserving of a “Divine Name”? Thus when is the science vs. apologetics line blurred, intentionally by IDists?
“Denying evidence and describing science as natural science to avoid category errors is the atheists’ agenda. And DI is trying to accommodate the atheists and dodge their missiles.”
Yes, agreed in both cases, though “challenge” or “disrupt” might work well instead of “accommodate”.
“They don’t want to talk about the “Intelligent Designer” as “God” to try and divorce theology from science since a theistic science is a big no-no. But in doing that they are being devious IMO.”
Yes, this is well-phrased and I fully agree with you in this regard.
“Why not take the bull by the horns? That is what I would do. Say openly that the science is not simply natural science but takes in a non-physical reality of information and meaning, at least as a starting position.”
It sounds like a philosophy of science. Rather than “non-physical”, another option is “symbolic”. If you choose this route, here is one concurrentist now thriving with interest in such discussions as he is generating and helping to generate. https://thesymbolicworld.com/ His “there is no literal meaning” might be of interest to some others here in their outreach to evangelically biblical literalists. It’s curious to confront people without counter-factual reverse perspectives to what they are used to, which escapes the “literalism” of their youth, and does not suffer, but rather flourishes because of it.
“I could be called a YECist, but I don’t agree with the movement as it is. I see that “God’s creation” is no different to saying “God’s simulation”.”
Do you draw on theologians in your tradition for this “God’s simulation” approach or did you come up with this yourself?
I say this with concern on two fronts: Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation (1981) and more recently Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis (2003) https://www.simulation-argument.com/.
Neither of these options are presented at home within the Abrahamic monotheist traditions, as far as their “creators/authors” envisioned them. Which alternative theological “simulation” approach from within those traditions are you pointing to other than your own?
I worry of a curious neo-occasionalism in what you are suggesting wrt VR & “God’s simulation”. Concurrentism embraces a theocentric view of reality, where VR would necessarily still be framed within that theocentric understanding. To treat of VR creative artists as “mini-creators” does indeed fit the DI’s version of occasionalism, however, within an “artificial” game space that is as “unreal” as the computer simulations of natural evolutionary history that IDists at the same time decry. Couple this with the DI’s gigantic fear of “transhumanism” (not to mention “posthumanism”) and it rather makes a mess of the DI’s ideology. Their Mind Matters blog re-uses the DI’s old playbook in trying to address some of these issues. It makes it worse that they can’t coherently distinguish the ideology from the science in their own “ID theory”. Such dissatisfaction is being bred at the DI in Seattle.
“I guess, in the VR world, if the beings could be conscious and thus on par with our reality, then the creator would be seen as a god.”
This approach marks a temptation that I do not wish to fall into. As you said you’re a Muslim, then referencing Hinduism doesn’t really help me to understand what you’re suggesting. And unfortunately, viewing human beings as “gods of virtual worlds” likewise does not appeal. I for one am not worthy of such god-likeness. This feature in the IDM of “taking on god-likeness” as mini-creators, as “intelligent designers” imitating our “Intelligent Designer”, with the implication that “if you don’t see design everyone and in everything then you’re stupid and not worth talking to” comes across as psycho-spiritual warfare by the Discovery Institute. Please be careful with them.
Good wishes, Ani99.
From this page: Signs of Intelligence | Discovery Institute where they all appear,
the Signs of Intelligence with a cap is most likely a reference to themselves because in the text we read”
“But does intelligent design fall into the realm of apologetics? According to Richards, “[a]pologetics usually takes the form of arguments for the existence of God.” (pg. 53) Yet ID is equally consistent with natural designers such as an “advanced alien race” because “intelligent design arguments in biology normally do not entail theistic conclusions even if many people suspect God is lurking somewhere in the background.” (pg. 55) So what are the apologetic connections of intelligent design? By suggesting that life was designed by “intelligent agents” (pg. 55), Richards calls ID “theologically suggestive” (pg. 56). In the end, however, design theorists “argue from particular observable features on the world rather than specific biblical claims” and the design inference “does not require narrowly theological presuppositions” because it “proceed[s] from general facts and premises.” pg. 56-57)”
I certainly reject the notion of aliens creating the Universe or anyone other than God.
And while I would agree with you on “challenge” or “disrupt” the atheist they would also be trying to “accommodate” because these guys would be also on the inside. Maybe parading as theist, maybe appearing to be non-committed to either side. However they will be there looking to influence, which may well be a reason for the lack of caps.
I don’t think symbolism is the way to describe it. It is non-physical and we do have experience only we don’t fully appreciate it. When you experience something, you have a subjective experience. Sure there is reactivity in the body so that there is a physical/ physiological experience as well. However the actual subjective experience is non-physical. It is the experiencing as a conscious being, a soul. I have had many and varied experiences that has crystallized this, but it is within the grasp of everyone. When you sit in meditation for instance and just be aware. Who is it that is aware? When you go out to see and enjoy the sunrise or sunset, who is it that is enjoying?
This is not drawn out of any tradition. It is my own. Certainly a simulation is an imitation of reality so it is not strictly correct to say it is the same as creation. However it is an attempt to parallel the two. We envisage a world and use computer software to bring it into being in some sense. In making the creation God did not imitate anything. Rather God envisaged a creation and thus used the relevant information from the infinite source that is The Mind of God to create it. And God created it by upholding that information in the Divine Consciousness. And furthermore, maintains it in existence as long as the information is upheld in the Divine Consciousness. My understanding may be due to the influence of Hinduism from my past life. I am a Muslim because I like what Muhammad said “There is no other God, but God”. But he would sure raise an eyebrow if he came to my house and saw the images I have around, such as Hanuman, the destroyer of all obstacles and Krishna etc., and even Kwan Yin the Chinese Goddess of mercy and compassion. As an activist I need all the help I can get. You could call me an Greek-Australia garden-variety Muslim.
Bhagavad-Gita chapter 8 verse 18. At the dawn of Brahma’s day (Allah’s day- same thing), the moving world is born from the unseen;
At the approach of His night it sinketh into darkness, for which the definitions of man can set no limit.
Here is another translation:
With the coming of day all manifested things emerge from the Unmanifest and when night comes they merge in that itself which is called the Unmanifested.
So there is an unmanifest or non-physical realm. It is not symbolic. However it is beyond our ability to describe it or discuss it because we have no concepts to use. So, within what we have, we may try to imagine it as a simulation or virtual reality. It is the closest that we, within this physical realm, can try to describe it. Creation, though, no matter what religious tradition you choose, is theocentric. God created the creation that we live in and in which we are able to have physical experiences.
Yes, I agree that treating “VR creative artists as “mini-creators” does indeed fit the DI’s version of occasionalism” and yet they are trying to say the opposite. This is why I was saying they are trying to accommodate the atheists, possibly because some are in their midst. Atheism is treated as a religion.
As far as transhumanism and posthumanism” are concerned, I have to agree with them. There are promises made to the public by many scientists. such as extending sensory organs, giving greater emotive abilities and increasing cognitive capacity. And of course the promise of promoting health and extending the life span. These are all are very worrying because they aim to mess with genetics and/or introduce nanoparticles or nanobots into the human body, some are saying at the cellular level, others at the subcellular level. This is not the way forward. This rests on the premise that all of our abilities are in the body. It completely neglects the conscious being. This is most obvious in the idea of convergence of human and machine consciousness. Or downloading one’s consciousness into a computer. These are plainly not possible.
You only have to look a the “advancements” made in fruit and vegetables to be concerned. Sure they have better shape and color maybe, and a long shelf life. BUT they taste like cardboard and they often don’t ripen. The delicious fruit that I remember as a child and young adult doesn’t exist now. So it is an improvement in appearance and longevity only! Individuality is already seen as a mental illness. If you don’t behave as the standard meat robot, then maybe they can turn you into a human lab specimen in some institution. God has done an exquisite job in design. We can’t improve on it. We can only degrade it.
Best wishes to you too Gregory.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.