|
Author
|
Topic: Identity of the designer
|
Matthew J. Brauer
Member
Member # 819
|
posted 14. February 2004 10:53
I understand the epistemological reasons given for refraining from speculating about the identity of the "designer."
I happen to think that the EF is constructed so as to require that some bounds be put on the designer's abilities, however.
Furthermore, I think that an aimportant distinction needs to be made about one feature of the designer: is it a being of infinite power which is capableof suspending the "laws of nature" or is it itself subject to those laws?
That question is basic to the detection of design, since the expected patterns in nature will be completely different depending on which one is operating.
Beyond that question, the argument can be fairly made that the identity of the designer is logically posterior (epistemically, at least) to its existence. But the "finite-infinite" distinction is, I believe, one that cannot be deferred.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 14. February 2004 13:32
This is an interesting and important topic to me.
I think there is a critical distinction between the identity of the designer (or designers, as is hypothesized by MDT - multiple designer theory) and the nature and characteristics of the designer(s).
Matthew is pointing to a key feature of the nature of the hypothesized designer, - does the design hypothesis offered include the hypothesis that the designer has the capability of “suspending the ‘laws of nature’ or is it itself subject to those laws?”
A second feature that I think should be considered is whether the hypothesized designer (I will henceforth omit the (s) with the understanding that multiple designers are to be considered) is embodied or dis-embodied.
In addition, it is important to understand that this question is not, in theory, identical to the first question: it is possible (and one might well argue there is evidence for this) that there are multiple dis-embodied designers constrained by the laws of nature (or at least less than all-powerful and not capable of suspending the laws of nature at will.)
Note well that this discussion of abilities is different than a discussion of identity. In fact, it’s worth asking what in fact we might mean by ascertaining the “identity” of the designer. If one hypothesizes an all-powerful being as the designer, one might be tempted to ask “which all-powerful” being: the Christian God or Allah, for instance.
But from a scientific point of view, there is no a priori reason to believe that any of the all-powerful beings postulated by a human religion is the designer. The question of the identity of this all-powerful designer is really a moot point: if we were to scientifically conclude that an all-powerful designer had been responsible for some aspects of life, the only “identifying” we could do would be to give that entity some neutral name, which would not add empirically to what we knew about the designer’s capabilities.
However, suppose that the designers are extra-terrestial aliens: embodied and limited by the laws of nature but vastly more advanced than us, and suppose that they have either seeded the earth with life (once or many times) or even visited “in person,” so to speak. What would it mean to say that we had ascertained their “identity” as something separate from their existence and capabilities? Would it mean that we found out what star they came from (oh, Alpha Centaurians,) or would it mean actually encountering them, or even (I’m being a bit facetious here) knowing that it was Fred and Joe that did it?
So my point is that the “identity” of the designer is only one of the questions we should ask about the designers, and in fact it is most likely to not be one of the more addressable questions to answer.
A different point: There are two complementary reasons why a discussion of design must include a discussion of the designer - and this has been discussed before, I know.
One is that evidence for design necessarily includes at least implicit hypotheses about the nature of the designer. If we were to conclusively be able to infer design in some amount of detail (and not just that “design has happened,) then almost certainly we would be able to at least offer some inferences about the nature of the designer.
On the other hand, our understanding (even implicit) of the nature of the designer drives, in part, the evidence we would look for in order to detect design. For instance, if one were to believe that the designer was an omniscient and willful disembodied being who was nevertheless constrained to working within the limits of quantum uncertainty (and not capable of suspending the laws of nature), one might look for design within the evolutionary processes described by science: random mutations, natural selection, common descent, etc.
But if one hypothesizes a different nature for the designer - perhaps one capable of suspending the law of nature and creating material objects ex nihilo, then one would go looking for evidence of material discontinuities.
Therefore I agree with Matthew that there are aspects of the issue of the nature of the designer that are inextricably connected to the issue of design.
[ 14. February 2004, 13:33: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
tomwindsor
Member
Member # 1007
|
posted 21. February 2004 00:54
Response to : "
One is that evidence for design necessarily includes at least implicit hypotheses about the nature of the designer. If we were to conclusively be able to infer design in some amount of detail (and not just that “design has happened,) then almost certainly we would be able to at least offer some inferences about the nature of the designer. "
Regarding the possible nature of the designer , take for example ,human consciousness.
If we were to define consciousness or the experience of awareness in a very minimal way as a self-referencial system . Wouldn't the staggering amount of information needed to produce this overarching system of information (experiences and memory) processing in our brains , infer that the designer has at the very least this capability or attribute ,and a "mind " ? .
This would contrast the notion of a creator as some "impersonal/mindless " force or process.
Any thoughts ? , Tom
[ 21. February 2004, 02:35: Message edited by: tomwindsor ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Krauze
Member
Member # 1119
|
posted 21. February 2004 13:02
Hi Matthew, you're asking an interesting question. Or, to be more correct, I think that you're asking an interesting question, as there seem to be some ambiguity in your post as to what feature of the designer you're asking about. When you ask if the designer is "itself subject to those laws", it seems like you're asking for a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, but later, you talk about the "finite-infinite" distinction.
I don't think the answers one gives to these two questions are logically related: The designer could be supernatural, and yet limited, either by factors operating in the `meta-universe' or by its own limitations. An analogy could be to a human computer programmer, who, even though having written a program from scratch and being able to change any of the regular procedings (`laws') at will, still has to fight various bugs, due to his own limitations.
With that out of the way, I don't think that either the natural/supernatural nor the finite/infinite distinction is necessary to establish to infer design. Other factors (like Occam's Razor or the various strengths of competing explanations involving design) might influence our decision, but I don't see how it's necessary to establish this before we can even infer design.
If we found some complicated technology of unknown function that we knew had entered our solar system from elsewhere, why should we have to agree on the nature of the designer in order to discover that there even was one?
Perhaps your reasoning lies in what you call "EF", an abbreviation I'm not familiar with. Could you elaborate?
PS. So as not to be accused of beating around the bush, I belive that the designer is supernatural, and as a working assumption holds it (or him or her) to be of finite power and knowledge. Although I believe in a single designer, I'm also open to the possibility of several.
IP: Logged
|
|
The Deuce
Member
Member # 992
|
posted 21. February 2004 17:16
Perhaps your reasoning lies in what you call "EF", an abbreviation I'm not familiar with. Could you elaborate?
The EF is an abbreviation for Bill Dembski's Explanatory Filter.
IP: Logged
|
|
Krauze
Member
Member # 1119
|
posted 21. February 2004 17:22
Thanks for the explanation, Deuce. I'm not a big fan of Dembski, so even if his filter somehow requires the designer to be limited, I'd probably just shrug my shoulders. However, I'm interested in hearing the argument laid out, from Matthew or anyone else.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic