Chess with a pigeon

[disillusioned]

 

Over the last few weeks I’ve been engaged in an in-depth email exchange with my father about various topics. The conversation was initiated by him, and we started by considering the veracity of Christianity. After we reached an impasse there, we started looking at evolution vs creationism and intelligent design.

 

I was initially very pleased with how the conversation was going. Compared to some of our previous exchanges, we seemed to be making good progress. I contended that creationism is not science, and actually succeeded in persuading him of this point. Of course, the topic then turned to intelligent design, which I also showed to be pseudoscience. He did not explicitly agree with me here, but he did shift from treating it as a science and instead began to make more philosophical arguments regarding the existence of a designer.

 

A bit of background before I go on. My father works in information systems. He is not a scientist, holds no degrees in science, but is generally intelligent and well-educated. I am a high school math and science teacher, but am definitively not a biologist (my background is in physics). All this to say that neither of us is a geneticist or likely to become one, but neither of us is entirely ignorant of the topic either.

 

My father’s core contention was that DNA is highly complex, and contains a great deal of information. I agreed here. Where I disagreed was when he went on to argue that where we see such systems, we invariably infer that they were designed. Computer systems were his example of choice. They are nowhere near as complex as DNA, but to contend that they might not be the product of design would seem absurd, he argued. Therefore, he concluded that he was justified in his inference that life, and by extension, the universe, must be the product of design.

 

Of course there is nothing special about this argument. It’s very common. My response was twofold. First, I contended that the conclusion of design is a poor inference. It ought to be an assumption. My reasoning was that if we take the view that the universe is not designed, then we find that the assertion that all specific, complex information systems must have been designed is simply false, DNA being a prime example. Further, human intelligence itself, on this view, is not designed, and so anything that humans design is in a very real way simply a product of nature, and is therefore, ultimately, not a product of design. Thus, the view that the universe is not designed is consistent logically. So you can have a designer if you want one, but you shouldn’t infer it, you should assume it. Second, I contended that making inferences about the supernatural based on data from the natural world is problematic logically. To contend that the universe must have been designed because aspects of the universe bear the hallmarks of design is to commit the fallacy of composition. Again, it may be the case that the universe is designed, but it needs to be assumed, not inferred.

 

At this point, my father declined to continue the conversation, saying simply that my response “clarified many things”. I had been hoping to hear his response to my final arguments, but it seems I won’t get to. This is unfortunate, because I do like being held to account. I try to be intellectually honest, and I have no issues with people poking holes in my arguments. But when someone just stops the discussion, I find it frustrating. Then again, it’s not the first time this has happened, and I doubt that it will be the last. Maybe one day I’ll learn not to take him up on his challenges to engage in these discussions, but I'm not quite there yet.

[LogicalFallacy]

The fact he declines to continue the discussion would indicate that he has nothing left to argue at the current point in time. Often at this point in the Christians mind it comes down to "oh the other person is just closed and doesn't want to believe". That is the rational, in my experience, of ceasing a conversation before its natural conclusion.

 

 

[disillusioned]

You're absolutely right LF. The thing is, I go into these things knowing how they are going to end now. It's the reason why I don't bring up the topic. It always ends up being a conversation that only one of us is willing to have. But I don't back down from a challenge either, so I'll engage if he starts it. And when he's had enough, I let the matter lie. This is not unique to my father either. I've had similar experiences with my siblings and friends.

 

What's troubling is that I keep going into these conversations with some part of me thinking that this time it might end differently. And in this case, I was pleased to get the admission that creationism is not science. But, nevertheless, we still ended up with the same outcome.

[LogicalFallacy]

Yes, my sister is the same. Once things start getting hot she just bails.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If I remember correctly, RNA has been demonstrated to have been the evolutionary predecessor to DNA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Disillusioned!

 

Your post makes for an interesting yet somewhat unhappy read.

Good for you and your Dad for being able to converse and debate in such an open way.  As Matt Dillahunty has pointed on the Atheist Experience, Biblical Christianity can readily poison family relationships.  Thankfully, that diagnosis doesn't seem to be the case between you two.   As to your father drawing your conversation to a close, I wondered if the inverse of this was happening between you two.

 

https://baldreformer.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/why-francis-schaeffer-matters-his-approach-to-apologetics-part-6/

 

Perhaps, in your dialog with him, you had succeeded in 'taking the roof off' his belief system and this was causing him pain - whereupon he retreated?  That because he was stuck and boxed in by the presuppositions of his belief in an intelligent designer of DNA - when you showed him that ID and creationism were pseudosciences and then pointed out his fallacy of composition, he felt threatened and pulled out of the conversation?   You hit a nerve, he felt pain and withdrew?

 

Please note that I only suggest this possibly.

Like you I've had similar experiences with friends and family and also in debates on the internet.  The content of your post just seemed to me to follow a similar pattern and I wondered if this was indicative of the same process happening in people's minds.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

13 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Perhaps, in your dialog with him, you had succeeded in 'taking the roof off' his belief system and this was causing him pain - whereupon he retreated?  That because he was stuck and boxed in by the presuppositions of his belief in an intelligent designer of DNA - when you showed him that ID and creationism were pseudosciences and then pointed out his fallacy of composition, he felt threatened and pulled out of the conversation?   You hit a nerve, he felt pain and withdrew?

 

Yes, this is possible. It certainly was not easy for him to admit that creationism is not science. I was very pleased when he recognised this, but then he immediately asserted that he still believed it as a faith position. And he followed this with the typical (albeit facile) assertion that mine is just as much a position of faith as his is. It's very hard for me to know when actual progress is being made in discussions like these. I hope that at least I've given him some things to think about.

 

With respect to division in the family, we have worked very hard to not allow it to cause division. It has certainly increased tensions. We generally don't discuss the topic in person, but restrict ourselves to email exchanges. That way nobody gets too heated. So far, this has allowed our interactions to continue without too many hiccups.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.   Hebrews 11:1

 

When you can see the evidence, for example, the fossil record which supports the theory of evolution, it is no longer a "position of faith".  Rather, it is a position of knowledge.  That is the fundamental difference between belief and knowledge.  Something which can be demonstrated through evidence, or logic, does not need belief; it is known (at least insofar as anything can truly be "known").  Without demonstrative proof, something has to be accepted by faith, in other words, believed.  Evolution is not something people believe in; science is not accepted by faith.  These things are known based upon the evidence which supports their veracity.  Or, as jesus said, "you shall know them by their fruits."  Science has gotten us to the moon.  Evolution has taught us a multitude of things about genetics and immunology which have greatly enhanced our medical science and our capacity to live longer, sometimes even healthier, lives.  Religion relies on sacrificial doves to cure leprosy; science gave us antibiotics.

 

Just as people do not "believe" in evolution; people also do not "know" the lord.

[LogicalFallacy]

TRP there is a real problem, or difficulty in explaining this distinction to Christian's I have found. No matter which way you try and explain it some Christians still say you need 'faith' to think that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, or that one species can change into another etc.

 

So you try to explain the distinction between having no evidence thus you need faith, and having evidence that allows you to accept something as fact. I'm not sure if I'm not explaining well or the Christians are not understanding, or do not want to/cannot understand.

[disillusioned]

You're right LF.

 

I think this problem is born of a lack of understanding. And I've noticed that many people have a subconscious tendency to think that if there is something that they don't understand, then it must be because there is something about it that cannot be understood. Christians in particular have this tendency, perhaps because they have to treat their entire belief system this way. God's ways are not our ways, and all that. So when they are faced with things like the age of the universe that they don't understand they assume that this is because it is inherently beyond understanding. On this view, it would actually be true that such scientific claims would also be faith positions. But, of course, it is not the case that such things cannot be understood, and so the entire objection falls apart.

 

Convincing Christians of this, however, is not an easy task.

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 3/8/2017 at 7:09 PM, disillusioned said:

You're right LF.

 

I think this problem is born of a lack of understanding. And I've noticed that many people have a subconscious tendency to think that if there is something that they don't understand, then it must be because there is something about it that cannot be understood. Christians in particular have this tendency, perhaps because they have to treat their entire belief system this way. God's ways are not our ways, and all that. So when they are faced with things like the age of the universe that they don't understand they assume that this is because it is inherently beyond understanding. On this view, it would actually be true that such scientific claims would also be faith positions. But, of course, it is not the case that such things cannot be understood, and so the entire objection falls apart.

 

Convincing Christians of this, however, is not an easy task.

 

Very good point. Indeed, many Christians do think that the reason there are things people (even Christians) can't understand about Christianity and the Bible is because "God's ways are higher than our ways." Thus, in their worldview, some things cannot be understood, but they are nevertheless true.

 

I remember one particular comment that was made when I was still going to church but no longer believed. In referring to nonbelievers, one guy said, "They don't understand the Bible, so they don't believe it." This was obviously meant to place the blame squarely on the individual who lacked faith. The irony is that this particular guy wasn't all that bright, and I had studied the Bible a lot and had a much better understanding of it than he did, and for me it was precisely the things that I DID understand that led me to the conclusion that it's not true.

 

I also remember the old Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. I don't know if it's still on, but I used to listen to it a lot when I was a firm believer and into apologetics. I remember one thing they'd sometimes say is that when something in the Bible doesn't make sense, it's not illogical, but "alogical," which they defined as being beyond the grasp of human logic.

 

Of course, that's all just a bunch of nonsense intended to squelch questions. Anybody of any religion could just claim that illogical aspects of their religion are just things that humans cannot understand. That is not at all a reasonable way to arrive at truth.

[Ellinas]

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the Christian arguments are a closed, circular self sustaining system which always has the fall-back position that only a believer can truly understand the ultimate correctness of the Bible and of the "faith" position.

 

What has happened here, I suspect, is that the argument became too difficult to continue and the fall back position was assumed.

 

There is a sort of ironic reverse-truth about the Christian position.  Most I know would say that they might witness to a non-believer but are powerless to convince - only god can convert him.  Well, we may argue with believers, but we are ultimately very limited in our ability to convince anyone in the face of closed minds and circular arguments.  And god, presumably, is not on our side to deconvert anyone!  You will not reach any breakthrough with your father unless and until he is ready to ditch the bullshit.  Probably best to see your conversations with him as the constant dripping that might yet wear away the stone, but without any expectation of swift results.

[disillusioned]

43 minutes ago, Ellinas said:

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the Christian arguments are a closed, circular self sustaining system which always has the fall-back position that only a believer can truly understand the ultimate correctness of the Bible and of the "faith" position.

 

What has happened here, I suspect, is that the argument became too difficult to continue and the fall back position was assumed.

 

There is a sort of ironic reverse-truth about the Christian position.  Most I know would say that they might witness to a non-believer but are powerless to convince - only god can convert him.  Well, we may argue with believers, but we are ultimately very limited in our ability to convince anyone in the face of closed minds and circular arguments.  And god, presumably, is not on our side to deconvert anyone!  You will not reach any breakthrough with your father unless and until he is ready to ditch the bullshit.  Probably best to see your conversations with him as the constant dripping that might yet wear away the stone, but without any expectation of swift results.

 

This is very apt Ellinas.

 

It has long been my position that the Christian position is closed and circular. This lends the illusion of conviction to those who already believe, but to those of us who are on the outside it is almost laughable. I would only comment that, in my experience, even a true believer is often unable to fully understand the correctness of their position. And this is not troubling to them, because one would not expect to be able to understand God's ways. Moreover, the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and so and criticism can safely be dismissed because it is to be expected. Indeed, such criticism may even be taken as confirmation that the claims of Christianity must be true: after all, Christianity predicts that it will be met with criticism from those who do not believe. It is a very cleverly set up system. But of course, that leaves us with absolutely no reason to think that it is correct.

 

My hope is that you are right about the constant dripping. After all, I used to be utterly convinced of the veracity of Christianity and I eventually saw the light (so to speak). Perhaps this is possible for him as well. But I have no expectations of a swift resolution to our disagreements.

[Voice]

Maybe you can open the discussion again with broader questions.

 

As a microbe in the universe I can't claim to know whether anything is by design or happenstance, but I question. Proteins, bacteria, tardigrades, extraterrestrial things. What are these things? It seems they are the universe (not the multiverse, the universe) expressing itself. Insignificant life forms as they would seem to us. Why? How? All I can do is wonder and ask. Tardigrades rock. They're so much more adaptable than us. Space travelers. They're probably the ones who planted us and cultivate us on Earth, and wherever else, for whatever reason. The universe expressing itself. What are proteins?

 

Ask your dad questions. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

It has long been my position that the Christian position is closed and circular. This lends the illusion of conviction to those who already believe, but to those of us who are on the outside it is almost laughable.

 

 

Fixed.