Thursday, November 28, 2019

Intelligent Design Theory


In the combox of the previous thread here at AF, the issue of ID (Intelligent Design) was raised. This has inspired me to provide for interested folk a few of my favorite websites that support the ID theory:






Hope that others with interest in Intelligent Design will supplement the above list…


Grace and peace,

David

13 comments:

Dennis said...

Hi David,

Yes, Ive also been reading up on ID. One of the authors I admire, David Bentley Hart, doesn't think much of it though: https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/science-and-theology-where-the-consonance-really-lies

It seems sometimes their arguments around "God of the gaps", makes God look like a demiurge. Also there are some problems around the idea of "irreducible complexity". Im tending toward guided limited evolution by an Intelligent Designer.

I also read that Darwin's original theorizing about evolution had some metaphysical reasoning behind it, being that he was trying to solve the theodicy problem. By putting evolution in the mix, it further removed God from being a cause of evil in the natural world.

It's hard to explain why nature is "red in tooth and claw".

Cheers
Dennis

David Waltz said...

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the link to the Hart article. I have only read two of his books—Atheist Delusions and The Experience of God—so I am anything but an expert on his thought. With that said, his expertise is not in the sciences wherein the debate of ID ultimately lies; as such, some caution is warranted when reflecting on his conclusions concerning ID.

Shifting gears, I hope to one of days examine the issue of universal salvation, which Hart passionately embraces. I have in the past read a number of Father Aiden Kimel’s blog posts on this issue, but have found them to be unconvincing. Personally, I have found annihilationism a much more convincing Biblical alternative to the ‘traditional’ hell view.


Grace and peace,

David

Dennis said...

Hi David,

Yes, I'd agree on both counts.

DBH highlights the problem with ID as making God's works identifiable as a secondary cause: http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2014/02/brief-thought-on-problems-of.html

Im tending to think He started off a number of evolutionary paths corresponding to the 6 "days" of creation rather than Him stepping in when things seem irreducibly complex. This sidesteps God being directly responsible for natural death and failed species due to natural selection.

I wonder too whether Satan's fall influenced how animals feed and survive.

As to annihilation, yes I tend to believe the idea of conditional immortality. I wonder why universalism became the de facto view rather than this ?

Cheers
Dennis

Rory said...

Hi Dave,

I just read an interesting interview with Fr. Kimel. He seems to be a thoroughly able and amiable fellow. Apparently, he would have been ordained when he became Catholic, and therefore, as a Catholic, I may accurately call him Fr. Kimel. It appears that since he left Catholicism, he has been retired and not exercising any priestly ministry with the Orthodox.

I thought his argument, that 2nd Council of Constantinople only condemned Origenist universalism was well-reasoned. He disagrees with those, including Orthodox, who cite that council as a condemnation against every form of universalism. He points out that it was aimed at a heresy, which he also condemns, which along with being universalist, held to pre-existence of souls (or intellects). Unless he is leaving something out, I think he escapes the condemnation of that council.

The question I have for you Dave is, referring back to the Fathers who Fr. Kimel claims as universalist, do you think Sts. Isaac the Syrian, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Clement of Alexandria should be certainly included as taking a universalist view?

I don't think Fr. Kimel is saying that universalism is certainly orthodox, but a less doctrinaire view, that the matter remains unsettled. For a Catholic, the First Council of Lyons (1245) seems to settle the question:

"Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of hell."

Interestingly, this was written for Eastern churches seeking to be reunited with Rome. See Denziger 457. (Perhaps there has been a universalist strain within Orthodoxy from earliest days of the schism).

Thanks,

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment; you wrote:

>>I thought his argument, that 2nd Council of Constantinople only condemned Origenist universalism was well-reasoned. He disagrees with those, including Orthodox, who cite that council as a condemnation against every form of universalism. He points out that it was aimed at a heresy, which he also condemns, which along with being universalist, held to pre-existence of souls (or intellects). Unless he is leaving something out, I think he escapes the condemnation of that council.>>

I concur.

>>The question I have for you Dave is, referring back to the Fathers who Fr. Kimel claims as universalist, do you think Sts. Isaac the Syrian, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Clement of Alexandria should be certainly included as taking a universalist view?>>

It has been quite sometime since I specifically delved into the CFs with the issue of universalism in mind (mid-90s). Origen and Gregory of Nyssa for sure held to it. If I am remembering correctly, I came to the conclusion that Gregory Nazianzus and Clement of Alexandria, could be read that way, but not definitively so.

The following site provides a number of quotes from the CFs that the author believes supports the notion of universalism:

PATRISTIC UNIVERSALISM

In my heart, I entertain the hope that Hart, Kimel and Andreano have the correct reading of the Scriptures and some of the early CFs; but alas, my reasoning/intellect says no…


Grace and peace,

David

The Potato Philosopher said...

Edward Feser has several criticisms of Intelligent Design theory on his blog, in at least one essay in the collection "Neo-Scholastic Essays" and in the last chapter of his most recent book "Aristotle's Revenge" (p. 432-442, I think). The short of it is that Dembski and others end up adopting a mechanistic, nonteleological conception of nature, and view what teleology there is to be limited to living things that is imposed on it from above, as it were, as opposed to immanent within it. For him the essence of living this is roughly immanent causation, teleological self-initated, self-perfective activity. Complexity is beside the point.

As a scholastic, he would say that all teleology, organic or not would depend on God, so in a loose sense his view would be a sort of intelligent design theory, but for fundamentally different reasons.

- Sean

Rory said...

Hi Sean,

I looked for the essay you mention above as being in Dr. Feser's blog, but could not identify it by title.

Maybe I do not understand what is meant by Intelligent Design. I thought it simply proposed that we reject any notion that the order we discover in the observable universe could result as it does without rational influence.

Intelligent seemed compatible with the natural theology of the Christian Scriptures and as the Catholic Church teaches, that one who does not believe in a Creator God, is rejecting natural revelation (Rom. 1, Vatican I). Presumably Intelligent Design doesn't go far enough? Maybe it allows for creation out of pre-existing matter? Presumably it allows for a multiplicity of gods? But I thought I.D. would also necessarily allow for belief in one Almighty God who created the universe out of nothing. Coming from the "science community", I have found I.D. refreshing after 200 years of so-called science that seems determined to proscribe the Scriptures and Vatican I.

I would like to see that essay and eventually obtain Feser's latest work. In the meantime, maybe you could explain why a mechanistic universe would be problematic? Mechanism implies intelligence. "God" could still be allowed. Nonteleological means without purpose? If an intelligence made a machine, there has to be a purpose, even if we cannot find it out. That still seems compatible with Rom. 1. I suppose I should quote that:

"Because that which is known of God is manifest in them (those who behave as though there is nothing above creation). For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." (Rom. 1:19, 20)

I am eager to better understand why Dr. Feser, and perhaps the Potato Philosopher himself, might be against Intelligent Design. I will plan to obtain Dr. Feser's latest book. In the meantime, as time allows, whatever further light you could bring to the subject, while correcting any misconceptions I have shown, would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory and Sean,

I have not studied in any depth the philosophical arguments concerning ID. By far, the vast majority of my research into ID concerned the scientific arguments, apart from the philosophical.

With that said, I was surprised to learn that Christian philosophers have been arguing amongst themselves—apart from the atheists—over the issue of ID. Given the focus of my studies over the last few weeks (i.e. eschatology and prophecy in the Bible), I have not had the time explore this ‘in house’ debate concerning ID.

Sean, you wrote:

==The short of it is that Dembski and others end up adopting a mechanistic, nonteleological conception of nature, and view what teleology there is to be limited to living things that is imposed on it from above, as it were, as opposed to immanent within it. For him the essence of living this is roughly immanent causation, teleological self-initated, self-perfective activity. Complexity is beside the point.==

This notion seems to be highly contested. The following Google search provides a number of examples:

Dembski and Feser on intelligent design

Lydia McGrew wrote a somewhat brief article on ID that I found to be helpful:

Testability, Likelihoods, and Design

I also found the following online contribution to be informative:

Not Doing One’s Homework

Shall end here for now. Intend to explore the ID issue in much greater depth once my current studies are completed.

Hope you guys keep the discussion going; I will continue to check in…


Grace and peace,

David

The Potato Philosopher said...

Hi Rory,
The mechanistic view of nature views matter is passive, without intrinsic causal power, and devoid of qualitative and (at least, intrinsic) teleology. Dembski and other intelligent design theorists tend to adopt this view of things. moreover, for writers like Feser, the notion of complexity is besides the point, secondary at best. It is the irreducible nature of life (and the three main kinds of life from each other) as well as the general fact that everything that exhibits intrinsic teleology (not just living things) requires a Divine Intellect.

Here is Feser's most recent comments on the point. I think I have copies of the other essays I was referencing someone on my drive, too. I'll look later.

https://drive.google.com/a/nnu.edu/file/d/1SiY16ui_n6GQOE7QmwtEs68lcb-8lBDy/view?usp=drivesdk

Dennis said...

Hi Folks,

Hope you all had a nice Christmas.

I read Daves suggested article about "Doing ones Homework". I also read a paper called "Intelligent Design: A Theological and Philosophical Analysis" by Kojonen and "Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution:
Why Are They Incompatible?" by Chaberek.

The article by Kojonen (300 pages worth), was really enlightening as it provided pros and cons of the ID arguments. This confirmed my thoughts that some type of guided evolution may be the explanation for reconciling theology & science.

However, the article by Chaberek shows how theistic evolution contradicts Thomism, (I wonder what Feser would think) but there may be some room around the redfinition of species into broader categories (although Chaberek sees this as a problem).

So Im wondering if ID could accept some of the criticisms and come up with a better argument. Alternatively can a "guided evolution" (combined with ex-nihilo creation of major species boundaries) be a better explanation ?

Cheers
Dennis

David Waltz said...

Hi Dennis,

Thanks much for the heads-up on the two papers you have recently read.

Just moments ago, I downloaded Kojonen’s contribution. It looks quite good, and I plan to start reading it this evening.

Link to PDF:

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/135937/intellig.pdf?sequence=1

Looks like I need to read Chaberek's paper too; link to PDF:

https://www.academia.edu/38562477/Classical_Metaphysics_and_Theistic_Evolution_Why_Are_They_Incompatible

Hope to share some of my own reflections later this week.


Grace and peace,

David

The Potato Philosopher said...

Dennis,
In a few days, I can scan more of the relevant sections of Feser's "Aristotle's Revenge" (he addresses some of the points that were raised in "Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution: Why Are They Incompatible?". I also provide a link to David Oderberg's essay "Synthetic Life and the Bruteness of Immanent Causation," wherein he argues that abiogenesis is false. He also has some cursory remarks in "Real Essentialism" about that and macro evolution as well as an indepth look at the concept of species.

Thanks for the links, too. I'll look at them in more depth. I just skimmed through Chaberek's and have more time to look at this weekend.

David Waltz said...

Hello again Dennis,

I have been slowly working my way through Kojonen’s Intelligent Design. His copious footnotes and bibliography continually takes me down a number of related tangents. I would like to provide a couple of links to two germane works that I think you will find interesting:

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

Answering the New Atheism

Back to Kojonen…


Grace and peace,

David