Godless Business

The Psychology of Everyday Things

Professor Donald Arthur Norman is an expert in the field of cognitive science and is widely considered to be the first to advanced human factors to design theory.  He is founder of The Cognitive Science Society and the Nielsen Norman Group, a consulting group on matters of usability which also includes Jakob Nielsen and Bruce Tognazzini – the founder of the Human Interface Group at Apple Computers.

In Donald’s first book “The Psychology of Everyday Things” he outlines a number of design principles which illuminate characteristics of effective human centred design.  Through the application of affordances (the idea you push buttons, pull handles, turn dials, flick switches, etc), constraints (limiting the available options for users), natural mappings (I will speak more on these in a moment), feedback, error tolerance, and social conventions (for example green for “go”) designers can communicate models of how a system operates to the end user.  The idea is to leverage our innate ability to conceptualise our environment in order to understand and predict it.

Norman’s book was a pivotal text in my fundamental thinking regarding design and what constitutes good design from bad.  Consider the following:  Let’s say you have a cook top arranged in a 2×2 grid and the control dials are arranged 4 in a line below.  Which dial operates which hot plate?  Why are there so many possible answers when there is only reality of the situation?

I would routinely turn on the wrong hot plate and wonder why dinner was not cooking.  After reading this book I understood the problem – I had an incorrect model of the cooker in my mind, and the cooktop presented ambiguous information.  Even with careful consideration to the illustrations provided to explain the system, occasionally errors would occur and dinner would be delayed.  A few years ago we had the opportunity to purchase a new cook top and I was able to eliminate approximately 80% of the models available simply by insisting on this one good design principle – natural mapping.

The designer has a mental image of how the system works which they imbed into the object.  The end user interprets the object and derives a mental model of how it may operate using a combination of inherent restrictions, past experiences, social conventions, and logical deduction (among others).

One measure of good design is where the mental models of the system in both designer and user match.  When they do not the designer has not succeeded in their task since the system is projecting the wrong model in the mind of the user.

We have evolved to conceptualise the world around us in this way for good reason.  If we can build accurate mental models of how things work, or predict what another animal might be about to do, then we have better chances of utilising our environment to our advantage, and taking action to pre-emptively avoid harm – such as being eaten by a lion.

In our modern world we have designed, built, and surrounded ourselves with artefacts which serve specific purposes.  Everything around us to purposefully designed to serve particular functions.

Light globes to microwave ovens, video recorders to jet aircraft have all been conceptualised by the collective minds of generations.

In these cases it is valid to deductive conclude these objects were indeed designed.  In every case we are able to see the design process in action. This is an important, critical, and often overlooked fact.

This kind of thinking is so useful and powerful we might not stop to think it could and go astray, but it can – badly.  As I explained earlier, we can conclude incorrect mental models of the world around us, which results in a misunderstanding of how a system is actually works (or how it should be used in the case of truly designed objects).  One of the most powerful tricks of the scientific method is to strip away our preconceptions and continually test proposed models against reality.  Models which are verified through empirical observation are considered provisionally true and accurate.  I say “provisionally” because a model should always be open to alterations should evidence to the contrary arise.  Those which fail crucial tests are either altered to fit the newly discovered data or discarded completely.  Science is intellectually honest, open minded, and self correcting.

However, there is a error here we must be cautious to avoid.

It is tempting to conclude that because some things (indeed many things in modern western societies)are intentionally designed means ALL things are.  This is an error since we can only deductively conclude design if we can observe the design process in action.  The remaining systems may or may not be designed – it is simply unknown at this point.  Those who claim the natural world itself is designed should provide evidence of the design process.

Intelligent Design advocates, creationists, and “cdesign proponentsists” have not meet the burden of proof since they have only forwarded an argument from analogy.  Just because something looks designed does not mean it is.  It is also an argument from ignorance (because they have cannot think of a naturalistic methodology), and has the added problem of inductive reasoning.

Those poor creationists still have all their work ahead of them.

  • AndrewFinden

    In every case we are able to see the design process in action.

    Quick question on that statement: Is that always the case, for example, in terms of history? We cannot see the design process in action of say, the Pyramids can we? Can you clarify this point please?

    • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

      When we come across a structure which stands out from the natural world (such as pyramids) we can reasonably assume there is a humanistic explanation behind them. While the details of how the pyramids were built may not be fully known or understood, there is nothing miraculous about placing stones on top of one another (yeah, I reduced the argument to the lowest level).

      Even if we don't know the details, I fail to see why we should invent explanations – such as alien space craft built them. If you wish to make such claims then evidence for this should be provided. Same with intelligent design and creationism.

      • AndrewFinden

        which stands out from the natural world

        Can you elaborate on what 'stands out' means? What makes it 'stand out'? Order? What?

        • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

          Seriously? I need to explain why a watch stands out on a beach? Paley's watch is broken because he fails to understand the distinction between natural entities (beaches) and man made artefacts (watches). Yet again, an argument from analogy.

          • AndrewFinden

            I didn't say anything about Paley's watch – I'm asking you to detail for us the criteria you use to identify "stand out". I used the example of the pyramids: they're stones, right – isn't that natural material? So how do you determine that they were designed and not just a lucky collection of rocks? Please tell us the process or criteria you use for identifying or deducing probable human design.

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              I have to say the only reason I can think of asking the question you have is to sneak in the argument from analogy.

              Yes there is some kind of 'order' to the universe (by that I mean a consistency in the way energy, matter and natural forces interact) and it is a departure from the arrangement flowing from this order that allows us to identify human (and other animal) activity.

              So what?

            • AndrewFinden

              The point is – how can you tell that a pile of rocks has some design? And why then can one not use this same criteria to make such conclusions from the intelligibility and and apparent organising of things like physical constants and DNA or what ever one might think. Please be clear that I'm not arguing for any specific example, I'm just asking what the criteria or processes are for determine when human intelligent interaction, arrangement, design (however you might call it) has taken place in nature. You both appear to be a little fearful of where this criteria might possibly lead…?

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              All I see is you begging for the manipulation of matter and energy by conscious minds to be applied to all matter and energy.

              Still looks like an argument from analogy, until you demonstrate all matter and energy was shaped by a conscious mind/force/whatever.

              I have no fear of where the evidence leads, you seem to be afraid of having evidence.

            • AndrewFinden

              So I'm not free to conclude anything that I haven't first demonstrated? That sounds rather circular to me.

              I'm simply trying to clarify which criteria @Askegg is using to conclude design and why that might or might not be used on a broader level.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Do I really need to point out the differences between a just a pile of rocks, and an ordered pile of rocks forming a giant geometric shape?

              Do I need to quibble with you about difference between the materials used in a construction, and the construction geometry?

              Have you ever seen a pyramid suddenly form naturally? If we did, then any we would not conclude pyramids were evidence of human intervention.

              We are pattern seeking animals. We search for recognisable patterns in our environment and assign meaning to them – often incorrectly. The majority of the time (?) this works quite well – it allows us to recognises faces, language, and artificial artefacts. However it also goes astray. We often see faces in clouds (but never clouds in faces). We think we see design (and by implications a designer) when in fact none may be present.

              Have I ever seen anyone build a pyramid? No, but I have never seen the natural world spawn pyramids all over the place either. What I have seen are pyramids of all kinds all over the world. The world is filled with man made houses made from the same materials. Is it a massive stretch to assume men placed carved stones on top of one another to build these amazing structures, or should I immediately assume aliens built them to communicate (badly) with us? How about a hidden cosmic pyramid building spook who crafted subatomic fabrics to extrude pyramids from the void? How is this less likely than any other "designer" – especially when we all know ID proponents mean "God"?

            • AndrewFinden

              Do I really need to point out the differences between a just a pile of rocks, and an ordered pile of rocks forming a giant geometric shape?

              Why are you being so evasive? Why are you so hesitant to tell me that it's a matter of order, and patterns? Is it perhaps that you realise that one might likewise find such unchaotic and intelligible order and pattern in things like DNA?
              You're right, apparent order and design doesn't mean it necessarily was – but surely it means it's not irrational to conclude that perhaps there was an intelligence behind apparent pattern & order?

              Can you point to any other intelligibility that doesn't have an intelligence behind it?

              Have you ever seen a string of letters that carry information emerge without intelligent thought behind it?

              And I already told you that I'm not proposing ID[tm]. It doesn't have a monopoly on the term.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              It's not just a matter of order and patterns – it's about how we distinguish naturally occurring patterns from those left by others. I think this is a matter of experience. For example, we learn which patterns signify written language, or which are foreign languages.

              I am not denying there is an order and apparent design to the natural world. There certainly seems to be. However, as I tried to explain above, I think it is an error to assume a designer for patterns for which we have not seen a designer.

              I agree with you – there *may* be a designer, but where is the evidence for one? I do not think the very existence of order is enough to conclude a designer. If this were the case, then it would be fair to ask how the apparent order of god came about. Or is your god chaotic?

            • AndrewFinden

              I do not think the very existence of order is enough to conclude a designer.

              Obviously, it would depend on the specifics, but I suspect in the case here, we're probably just going to disagree.

              If this were the case, then it would be fair to ask how the apparent order of god came about. Or is your god chaotic?

              I'm not sure I understand your point here. You just seem to be invoking infinite regression. Can you elaborate please?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Yeah, I was alluding to an infinite regression.

              Is your deity ordered? If so, by the argument above, shouldn't it require a designer, or shall we invoke some special pleading to wriggle out of the argument?

              The flip side is a chaotic god, which (at least in terms of this argument alone) would not require a designer since by definition no order or patterns can be determined.

            • AndrewFinden

              Ultimate 747 huh?

              Where your argument here goes astray is to compare a mind to a physical ordering (or in philosophical terms – you're comparing a contingently existent thing with a necessarily existent thing. Presumably you haven't yet read Professor Keith Ward's rebuttal of the Ultimate 747 gambit?

              You may also find this interesting – also rebuts your 747 gambit (while offering and apparently better argument against a designer).

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              747? No – that's an entirely different argument.

              And now we veer way off course into new unchartered territory. Suffice to say, I have never "seen" a mind without a physical brain. I challenge you to show me one.

              Now I will read the PDF you linked :)

            • AndrewFinden

              Really? I can't see how your argument here is any different from Dawkins' "who made God" (ultimate 747 gambit) that is central to his book. You are making the same philosophical comparison error.

              Anyway…
              back to your main argument – you are basically saying that we can only rationally deduce design when we've seen something similar designed or haven't seen something similar appear naturally? So the pyramids were designed because we don't see such order in the natural world – so if we were to, say, see natural structures at consistent intervals on mars, we might rationally conclude that perhaps there is (or was) some intelligent life there?

              I don't see that you've given a reason why it cannot be rational to conclude that order in genetic code signifies some intelligence. Randomness and chaos in computer coding doesn't exactly lead to working programs, does it?

              Now I will read the PDF you linked :)

              And will you also read Professor Ward's rebuttal? ;)

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              Because the order observed in the genetic code is attributable to the consistent manner in which atoms and molecules behave and interact.

              No conscious mind is required to explain the existence of these patterns of matter and energy.

            • AndrewFinden

              The order is observed because they act in an orderly way? Sounds like a tautology that doesn't actually answer anything.

              I'm yet to see rational intelligibility come from anywhere but rational intelligence. I'm yet to see information with someone programming it, or order from chaos.

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              No it wasn't a tautology.

              I said we observe order due to consistent interactions of energy and matter. You are creating the tautology by applying our value judgement of order twice, when there is only an evidenciary basis to do so once.

            • AndrewFinden

              Nice try. Still a tautology.

              If we are observing order, it is because it is there to be observed – an evidential basis, as you say – but that doesn't account for why such order should be there in the first place, it merely recognises that it is. If 'consistent interaction of energy and matter' is not order, then what is? If that is the evidence of order, then you are very much creating a tautology, effectively saying "there is order, because there is order". You can't get out of that by pretending I'm the one making the value judgement you've already made.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Careful here. The original post is regarding the intentional design of artefacts in our world and drawing the analogy to the fundamental laws of the universal.

              You seem to be suggesting the mathematics which describes the working of the universe are designed to be so, yet we have no evidence of this design process. I understand many think the very fact there are such laws means there is a law maker, and that is the exact point I am referencing here.

              We can deductively conclude design where we can witness the design process in action and its results. How did god create the universe? What from? How did he derive these fundamental laws? Where are the other universe at various stages of construction? Etc.

              Good luck with those questions.

            • AndrewFinden

              I think you're still creating a false dichotomy that we must either observe it and can thus 'know' or we simply cannot say anything. I think it is quite rational to draw conclusions – ones that we might not be able to be 100% certain about, but that are reasonable.

              So in the sense of the maths and physics of the universe – you're right, we didn't see it get designed (though we see other kinds of laws, codes and information being designed all the time) but then, I think, it comes down to which explanation best accounts for it: that it is just a lucky, unguided happening, or that such order and rational intelligibility has some rational intelligence behind it.

              You argued with the Pyramids that we don't see such order in nature (though what if the pyramids are that example?), so even though we didn't see the design process we can rationally conclude it – and I think the same is true of information.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              I think you're still creating a false dichotomy that we must either observe it and can thus 'know' or we simply cannot say anything.

              You can *say* anything you like, but if you want to convince people you might want to back it up with evidence.

              I think it is quite rational to draw conclusions – ones that we might not be able to be 100% certain about, but that are reasonable.

              Sure, but things that sound reasonable are not necessarily true.

              You argued with the Pyramids that we don't see such order in nature (though what if the pyramids are that example?),

              Right – I have never seen the pattern we call “a pyramid” derive from natural processes.

              So even though we didn't see the design process we can rationally conclude it – and I think the same is true of information.

              Argument from analogy.

            • AndrewFinden

              Sure, but things that sound reasonable are not necessarily true.

              I agree, but just because we might not be able to prove something, it doesn't make it by default, irrational.

              Right – I have never seen the pattern we call “a pyramid” derive from natural processes.

              Unless those pyramids happen to be such an example.. clearly you're using a process to make such conclusions that you're not allowing others to use. I've never seen a computer programme itself or information come from anywhere other than rational intelligence.

              Argument from analogy.

              And? The analogy is not a false one – comparing information with information.

              How is it any different from you arguing that we see build stone buildings, so therefore the order of the pyramids can be concluded to be such?
              How is it any different from your argument that because something accounts for biological 'apparent design' it must also be able to account for the apparent order and design of mathematical laws and physical constants?

              The point is that you seem happy enough to make conclusions about things you haven't seen the design process for, yet you deny that anyone else might make such conclusions rationally. To deflect with comments about convincing others is not the point.

            • Anonymous Atheist

              "I don't see that you've given a reason why it cannot be rational to conclude that order in genetic code signifies some intelligence. Randomness and chaos in computer coding doesn't exactly lead to working programs, does it?"

              The 'genetic code' has just barely enough order to get by. There's a lot of useless leftover junk, broken genes, and extremely subpar 'designs' even in normal humans.

              Then there's all the defects that cause lifelong genetic physical/mental problems, or cause unlucky babies to be missing important body parts or hideously deformed and be unable to survive, or start off okay but are susceptible to later breakdowns and turn into cancers.

              Any 'intelligent designer' god is unintelligent, incompetent, lazy, careless, capricious, and/or cruel.

            • Jamie Michelle

              Hey Anonymous Atheist – Any 'intelligent designer' God is unintelligent, incompetent, lazy, careless, capricious, and/or cruel.

              ^No, none of the above! ;) The defects and distortions we see in genetics and the system of life, I believe is due to the fallen nature of the world. Sin entered in to a perfect environment free from such problems/conditions and rendered it defiled. Consider Romans 8:18-23 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

            • Anonymous Atheist

              Well glory be, that thar nonsense done convinced me! It's all because a couple of imaginary metaphorical people dared to choose knowledge over ignorance, which pissed off god. That's not cruel or capricious at all! LOL

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              The defects and distortions we see in genetics and the system of life, I believe is due to the fallen nature of the world.

              Remind me again – According to your theology, who cursed the first created humans and all their decedents for all time and brought about this "fallen world" because a women symbolically chose knowledge over blind ignorance and fear?

              Sin entered in to a perfect environment free from such problems/conditions and rendered it defiled.

              It was not perfect. God created us with an inquisitive mind and a thirst for knowledge. When he placed the two trees in the garden what did he think was going to happen?

            • Jamie Michelle

              There is coming a new heaven and a new earth and there will be no distortions in the new system of things Rev 21:1 nor will there be death, sorrow, crying and pain Rev 21:4…So lets hold out for something sweeter!!! ;) Cheers xx

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              That's sweet, but useless. It translates to "never mind the horrendous hell you might be going through, things will somehow get better if you magically think about it".

              No – things only get better when people *DO* something.

            • AndrewFinden

              Then there's all the defects that cause lifelong genetic physical/mental problems

              They are deviations and 'errors', not the standard code, though, right?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "Errors" that convey an advantage to the organism containing them have a higher probability of surviving and propagating. Given sufficient successive build up of such "errors" replicating organism can give the impression of design.

              So in what way can you say these are "not the standard code"?

            • AndrewFinden

              FWIW Have we seen any such advantageous random 'error' in human DNA?

              (you still seem to have the impression that I'm arguing against Evolution and arguing the ID[tm] line – (evolution doesn't preclude intelligent design, (note the lack of capitals!!) I've already said that I'm simply asking why you think it's irrational to conclude some rational intelligence to be behind rational intelligibility? Why code and information is more likely to be purely unguided rather than programmed?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Have we seen any such advantageous random 'error' in human DNA?

              Yes. Lactose tolerance and sickle cell resistance to malaria are great examples.

              I'm simply asking why you think it's irrational to conclude some rational intelligence to be behind rational intelligibility?

              So only those things that are unintelligible are not designed?

              Why code and information is more likely to be purely unguided rather than programmed?

              We have a process which can give the illusion of design. See above.

            • AndrewFinden

              So only those things that are unintelligible are not designed?

              Are you trying to avoid answering my question?

              Why is it irrational to conclude rational intelligence is behind rational intelligibility?

              We have a process which can give the illusion of design. See above.

              Biology maybe. For maths and physics? I'm yet to see it.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "Are you trying to avoid answering my question?"

              Are you avoiding answering mine?

              "Why is it irrational to conclude rational intelligence is behind rational intelligibility?"

              Let me try another tack – what would a undesigned intelligible object be like? How could you tell the difference between that and a truly deigned object?

            • AndrewFinden

              Are you avoiding answering mine?

              Do you think I should answer yours when you haven't answered the one I asked first?

              Let me try another tack – what would a undesigned intelligible object be like? How could you tell the difference between that and a truly deigned object?

              Seeing as I'm suggesting that intelligibility stems from an intelligence, why are you even asking me that? Do you think that answering a question with a question gets you off the hook? Can you not point to other examples of rational intelligibility that don't stem from rational intelligence?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "Can you not point to other examples of rational intelligibility that don't stem from rational intelligence? "

              Yes – nature.

              Your move.

            • AndrewFinden

              When in doubt.. beg the question! At least you do it in style ;D
              http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/TRexBegging….

  • Christopher Dawkins

    “We cannot see the design process in action of say, the Pyramids can we?”

    We absolutely can! We have comprehensive evidence of Egyptian burial practices dating back over 5000 years, from the graves at sites like Naqada and Ballas, through to the earliest “mausoleums” which then developed into mastabas, which themselves then developed into pyramids via the famous “Step Pyramid”, and on through a demonstrable evolutionary process to the Great Pyramid itself. The entire design process can still to this day be observed in the deserts of Egypt and have yielded enormous volumes of information about them (even if questions do still remain).

  • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

    I have to be honest, the bulk of our interaction on this article (at least between askegg, AndrewFinden and myself) is more an argument about inductive versus deductive reasoning.

    Thoughts?

    • AndrewFinden

      How so?

      • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

        From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning :

        Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument:
        All of the ice we have examined so far is cold.
        Therefore, all ice is cold.

        Or more interestingly:

        The person looks uncomfortable
        Therefore, the person is uncomfortable.

        This is very similar to:

        This looks designed
        Therefore, it is designed.

        This runs into the Hume's problem of induction – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
        Also compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

        • AndrewFinden

          I don't see how your conclusions about the pyramids are any different to "it looks designed, therefore it is".

          Your link seems to say that Hume had issues with deductive reasoning as well, and basically acknowledged that while inductive reasoning could not be justified, we really have little choice but to use it anyway.

          In any case, I'm not saying "it looks designed, therefore it is" – but rather, that if it looks designed, then design is rational conclusion (it may be wrong, but it's not irrational), more so to my mind than concluding that it is just lucky. Like your conclusion with the pyramids, if I see no order or information arising out of disorder and randomness, then it's more reasonable to think that some intelligence is behind the rational intelligibility and order of the physical laws, and the information of things like DNA. As Lennox puts it:

          We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion 'letters'?

          That is the point you haven't yet addressed: information.

          • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

            I don't see how your conclusions about the pyramids are any different to "it looks designed, therefore it is".

            Hello? HELLO? Is this thing on?

            If you can show me one naturally occurring example of thousands of different stones carving themselves into blocks with straight lines and sharp edges, then forming progressively smaller squares on top of one another into a pyramid structure, then I will change my mind about pyramids being designed. I won't hold my breath.

            There is a reason we recognise writing in the sand. Written language presents entirely different patterns than what we normally find on the beach. Waves, wind, tides, and other things simply do not form the symbols we recognise as the written language. That is why some patterns stand out – watches, paintings, buildings, language, and computer code. To extend that thinking to the natural world does attract the problem of induction – if you cannot see that by now I have no idea what else to say.

            Your link seems to say that Hume had issues with deductive reasoning as well, and basically acknowledged that while inductive reasoning could not be justified, we really have little choice but to use it anyway.

            Strictly yes. Hume is observing that no matter how many times we witness one event follow another and deductively conclude the two events are causal, we cannot say with absolute certainty that this has always been the case, or will always be the case, or is the case everywhere – this is where induction comes in. Taking such a strict view the entire facade falls. Pragmatically and empirically this is not really an issue. While I do not wish to appeal to consequences, the alternative is to abandon causality altogether and live in a universe of pure chaos.

            In any case, I'm not saying "it looks designed, therefore it is" – but rather, that if it looks designed, then design is rational conclusion (it may be wrong, but it's not irrational)

            In the language of deductive logic, your argument is valid but not sound.

            … more so to my mind than concluding that it is just lucky.

            Straw man. How said anything about "luck"? The universe follows laws, and I believe its' cause follows laws. Even your god character follows laws, right?

            Like your conclusion with the pyramids, if I see no order or information arising out of disorder and randomness, then it's more reasonable to think that some intelligence is behind the rational intelligibility and order of the physical laws

            I do not believe the universe is random, disordered, or chaotic. It follows innate rules. You are positing a deity to author these rules, which (to me) postpones the conclusion of innate attributes one step and therefore truly solves nothing. Can you account for the innate qualities of god? If not, why do we need to account for the innate qualities of the universe we know exists? If you want to demonstrate your god you need to supply more information.

            That is the point you haven't yet addressed: information.

            This depends on your definition of "information". In my definition any sequence of data is information, but only a limited subset is what we might call "meaningful information". Even is a chaotic universe

            • Nathan

              I would say Information is just context processed raw data, information is not a "thing" like data. Information only exists for a certain context and the thing interpreting it, change the context and the information changes. The bible is a good example of this change the context change the information issue but the raw data is still the same.

            • AndrewFinden

              Maybe so – the point is, any meaningful string of letters or numbers has been done by some intelligence. I've yet to see otherwise.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "…meaningful string of letters…."

              Meaningful?

              And you accuse me of begging the question.

            • AndrewFinden

              You did beg the question. Badly.

              There is nothing question begging to note that the following string of letters:

              asdf;kjhasfo;hiat 898qw3r

              has no meaning. But this one does. (of course, a string that might look like nonsense to me, might carry great meaning to a mathematician like Lennox, or indeed, a computer programmer.)

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "asdf;kjhasfo;hiat 898qw3r has no meaning"

              Right. So by eliminating all the strings which have no meaning you are only left with those which do have meaning, which all have intelligence behind them. Begging the question. QED.

              Be careful here though – there is a difference between language itself (which we use and witness people writing, speaking, and creating) and the things language is describing.

              While we may describe DNA as a "code" it is a linguistic shortcut to describe the behaviour of DNA as if it were a computer code – an analogy. The chemical bonds which make up DNA would be exactly the same no matter how we describe them or even if we ceased describing them at all. On the other hand computer code does not exist if we cease creating it.

              As an aside, computer "code" itself is an abstract idea. In reality the "codes" are kept in physical forms. Magnetism on hard drives, pits in DVD surfaces, flashes of light, and pulses of electricity are examples of the physical realities of computer codes. They do not exist as separate entities. We cannot run a hard drive arm over a magnetic rock and read the information contained within – so we are back to the difference between meaningful information and everything else.

            • AndrewFinden

              So by eliminating all the strings which have no meaning

              But I didn't eliminate them.. I just noted that when we come across a string that carries meaning then we assume it had an intelligence behind it. I have not begged the question. The non-meaningful strings are still there, we just don't assume they had any design.

              . On the other hand computer code does not exist if we cease creating it.

              Right! Because such coding requires intelligence.

              Be careful here though – there is a difference between language itself (which we use and witness people writing, speaking, and creating) and the things language is describing.

              Sure.. the physical letters carry meaning. The digital 1 and 0s carry meaning and intstruction.

            • Nathan_Parsons

              asdf;kjhasfo;hiat 898qw3r

              And that's just one short string. Now imagine a string of letters, numbers and, punctuation with infinite length. Within such a string, there will be contained the entire works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and every book every written, along with all of the text on the internet. Now, does that require an intelligence to have made it for it to exist?

            • AndrewFinden

              Imaginging such a string, and actually seeing one are quite different things. The string in question, DNA, is not infinite, as far as I'm aware.

            • AndrewFinden

              If you can show me one naturally occurring example of thousands of different stones carving themselves into blocks with straight lines and sharp edges, then forming progressively smaller squares on top of one another into a pyramid structure, then I will change my mind about pyramids being designed. I won't hold my breath.

              And now let me also repeat "Hello, is this thing on?"

              I'm not trying to tell you that you shouldn't think they are designed (Have you heard of Yonaguni btw?) I'm trying to find out why you'll allow such a process for one example, but not for information and coding and laws etc.

              There is a reason we recognise writing in the sand. Written language presents entirely different patterns than what we normally find on the beach. Waves, wind, tides, and other things simply do not form the symbols we recognise as the written language. That is why some patterns stand out – watches, paintings, buildings, language, and computer code. To extend that thinking to the natural world does attract the problem of induction – if you cannot see that by now I have no idea what else to say.

              You're extending it to the natural world when you say a pile of rocks (i.e. they are natural) is designed, or when you see a meaningful string of letters in sand (also natural stuff last I checked), so why can't I say that a string of meaningful letters like DNA is also not the product of some intelligence?

              Taking such a strict view the entire facade falls. Pragmatically and empirically this is not really an issue. While I do not wish to appeal to consequences, the alternative is to abandon causality altogether and live in a universe of pure chaos.

              .. which is pretty much why science flourished within a Christian world-view which assumed that a creator leads to rational intelligibility and order than can be studied!

              Straw man. How said anything about "luck"? The universe follows laws, and I believe its' cause follows laws.

              If it's unguided than it's unguided and thus a random process, right? We're just 'luck'y to have such laws that allow the universe to exist as it does, right?. Anyhow.. I'm willing to say that perhaps it's a strawman.. in the hope that you might acknowledge the same next time you try talking about 'zombie Jesus' or 'white bearded men in the sky'.
              And besides, you're missing the point again – it's these very laws that I'm talking about! Where did they come from in the first place?

              I do not believe the universe is random, disordered, or chaotic. It follows innate rules. You are positing a deity to author these rules, which (to me) postpones the conclusion of innate attributes one step and therefore truly solves nothing. Can you account for the innate qualities of god? If not, why do we need to account for the innate qualities of the universe we know exists? If you want to demonstrate your god you need to supply more information.

              I agree, it's ordered – why? But surely, an unguided big bang is chaotic. How does such order and information arise out that unguided? It's very telling that many atheistic scientists resisted the big bang theory because they feared that acknowledging that the universe had a beginning didn't help their atheistic case! To say that you don't have to account for these laws is a cop out, because we know the universe had a beginning, and we know that things cannot bring themselves into existence.
              You further make the very same error that Dawkins makes with his ultimate 747 gambit, which I've already pointed out – you really need to read up on the many philosophical rebuttals. Unlike the universe, God is not contingent, but necessary (in philosophical terms – don't get confused here!) not physical, but non-physical. So your argument falls rather flatly before it even gets going.

              This depends on your definition of "information". In my definition any sequence of data is information, but only a limited subset is what we might call "meaningful information". Even is a chaotic universe

              Fine. Let's go with 'meaningful' information.. can you show me an example of any kind of meaningful information that wasn't guided by intelligence? Last time I tried randomly inputting data into a computer it caused the system to crash rather than do anything constructive.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              “Have you heard of Yonaguni btw?”

              Yes. I listen to skeptiod as well :)

              “I’m trying to find out why you'll allow such a process for one example, but not for information and coding and laws etc.“

              Because we can see the process behind one and not the other.

              “You’re extending it to the natural world when you say a pile of rocks (i.e. they are natural) is designed…”

              I did not say a pile of rocks were designed. I said certain structures (pyramids) exhibit characteristics of design, which are in contrast to the patterns we see in nature.

              “So why can't I say that a string of meaningful letters like DNA is also not the product of some intelligence?”

              Because DNA is simply chemicals acting according the innate laws of the universe. We might describe is as a “code”, but it is not a code in the same sense as a computer program. One is deliberately (and observably) designed by a computer programmer, the other …. well … we simply do not know at this point.

              You posit a designer god, but to spite repeated requests you refuse to provide any evidence of this designer god beyond “it looks designed therefore it is”.

              “.. which is pretty much why science flourished within a Christian world-view which assumed that a creator leads to rational intelligibility and order than can be studied!”

              So?

              Even if I accept the “Christian world view” promotes science, why is it that applying scientific processes to the god hypothesis draws a blank?

              “If it's unguided than it's unguided and thus a random process, right?”

              Wrong. Just because something is unguided does not mean it is random.

              “…it’s these very laws that I'm talking about! Where did they come from in the first place?”

              They are innate. You posit more – provide evidence.

              “I agree, it's ordered – why?”

              Because it is.

              You believe your god is ordered, right? Using your logic, why can’t I ask you the same question – WHY is your god ordered? I am guessing your answer is no better than the one I just gave, except you are assuming more than the evidence I see provides.

              “But surely, an unguided big bang is chaotic.”

              No.

              “How does such order and information arise out that unguided?”

              The universe follows innate (descriptive) “laws”. It is not unguided.

              “It’s very telling that many atheistic scientists resisted the big bang theory because they feared that acknowledging that the universe had a beginning didn't help their atheistic case!”

              Bullshit.

              EVERYTHING was contained in the singularity – a theoretical point of zero size. We have been unable to verify the physical world at these dimensions, but I am willing to bet the universe has a quantum size – it will never get to zero dimensions in reality. More over, it seems the universe really does abhor a vacuum since virtual particles pop into existence from nowhere to fill true voids. It seems something from nothing is natural. Where will your god hide now?

              “To say that you don't have to account for these laws is a cop out, because we know the universe had a beginning, and we know that things cannot bring themselves into existence.”

              A beginning of its’ current state. Not an absolute beginning.

              “Unlike the universe, God is not contingent,…”

              Prove it.

              “…not physical, but non-physical.”

              So tell me more about how you know anything at all about the non-physical.

              “Fine. Let's go with 'meaningful' information.. can you show me an example of any kind of meaningful information that wasn't guided by intelligence?”

              Begging the question.

              Anyway, we can communicate with each other about the DNA “code”, but that says nothing about DNA itself. Our language is descriptive of the reality, which is innate.

            • AndrewFinden

              Ok… as long as you continue to jump in and out of doing philosophy as it suits you, this is going to go nowhere.

              Because we can see the process behind one and not the other.

              I disagree. I think, like the process for buildings, we see a process behind code – even if you want to try and deny that DNA is a kind of code.

              Begging the question.

              How so? You're the one telling me that meaningful information like DNA can be unguided by intelligencec.. so show me.

              When it comes down to it your argument is that the universe is ordered because it is. Round and round you go."It's innate" why? "because it is".

            • AndrewFinden

              why is it that applying scientific processes to the god hypothesis draws a blank?

              "The God hypotheisis"? Which is… what? Surely you're not suggesting that we apply a methodology that presupposes methodological naturalism to be able to investigate something outside that scope?

              You posit a designer god, but to spite repeated requests you refuse to provide any evidence of this designer god beyond “it looks designed therefore it is”.

              No, I posited that meaning, order and rational intelligibility points to a rational intelligence. You just seem to have a problem that we can't 'prove' anything about this.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "Surely you're not suggesting that we apply a methodology that presupposes methodological naturalism to be able to investigate something outside that scope?"

              Sorry, I thought you said "science flourished within a Christian world-view which assumed that a creator leads to rational intelligibility and order than can be studied!"

              Care to revise that statement?

              " I posited that meaning, order and rational intelligibility points to a rational intelligence."

              Who are you kidding here? We all know you mean "god" when you say "rational intelligence". Or are you open to the idea of hyperdimensional aliens?

            • AndrewFinden

              Care to revise that statement?

              Why should I? I said nothing about investigating God! I said that exploration of the natural world flourished because of an assumption that it was created orderly by God.

              Who are you kidding here? We all know you mean "god" when you say "rational intelligence". Or are you open to the idea of hyperdimensional aliens?

              I'm not getting ahead of myself, that's all.

            • AndrewFinden

              And just listening to your podcast – it seems that a disdain for 'unprovable' philosophy lies at the heart of your argument here too.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Sorry, you're becoming a joke at this stage.

              I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for this "creative rational intelligence", "god", or "designer" you keep talking about and have yet to see a single thing be presented. Then you fire salvos regarding "unprovable philosophies at the heart of our arguments".

              I call shenanigans! Get the broom!

            • AndrewFinden

              No, the only joke and shenanigans here is you all of sudden demanding that philosophical ideas and conclusions suddenly be empirically proven! It seems rather circular to demand 'evidence' for a conclusion before you can allow it as a philosophical conclusion. Whoever's heard of the need to have already proven a conclusion before you can conclude it philosophically?
              It's a nice little cut and run tactic, but it won't float.

            • Nathan

              "No, the only joke and shenanigans here is you all of sudden demanding that philosophical ideas and conclusions suddenly be empirically proven!" So because you think god is a philosophical idea you should just except it….right….not going to happen.

              God is in the realm of science, simple as that. We can test the claims people make about God and each time they are proven wrong the gap closes even tighter.. on his ever shrinking realm.

              As much as you don't like to admit it, the "God" answer is simple a "filling the I don't know gaps" answer because you, like Askegg and I don't know the answer.

            • AndrewFinden

              So because you think god is a philosophical idea you should just except it….right….not going to happen.

              No, nothing of the sort. Indeed, I haven't asked you to accept anything.
              I meant that philosophy is what it is, and just because one has a desire to have everything wrapped up nicely and proven doesn't mean philosophy is a useless pursuit. Worse, when one dabbles and the pulls out when they don't like where it's going.

              God is in the realm of science, simple as that.

              Rubbish.

              Science is the investigation of the natural, physical universe.

              As much as you don't like to admit it, the "God" answer is simple a "filling the I don't know gaps" answer because you, like Askegg and I don't know the answer.

              Also rubbish. I am not proposing any kind of 'god of the gaps' argument that science will one day answer. It's a convenient accusation, but not the case.

              If you can show me where I've made the argument 'God did it', please do.. as far as I can see, the only counts of that are when words are being put in my mouth. I have simply argued that rational intelligibility points to a rational intelligence. Getting all a flutter about where I might go with that is not really helpful.

            • Nathan

              So how does one make sure someones philosophy is correct and not just making shit up?

              "Science is the investigation of the natural, physical universe. "

              Sooooooooooo…..until you can prove your "non-physical" thing and how it isn't in this "physical universe"….you have nothing and are just filling in a void….and the thing your filling it with isn't even testable…The God virus is a self protecting one, it moves itself into areas we don't understand and then just moves once we figure it out. That is the way it has and always will be.

              "
              Also rubbish. I am not proposing any kind of 'god of the gaps' argument that science will one day answer. It's a convenient accusation, but not the case."

              Sure you are, your whole argument is that there has to be a designer behind DNA etc because it looks designed.

              What will you do one day when we discover that the first DNA was a major freak accident and there was nothing behind it? $10 you move your God argument to the next section on the radar "oh but {insert something} must have a designer"

            • AndrewFinden

              So how does one make sure someones philosophy is correct and not just making shit up?

              You know, philosophy is a real professional discipline (even if they often disagree on conclusions!)..

              Sooooooooooo…..until you can prove your "non-physical" thing does and how it isn't physical….you have nothing and are just filling in a void….and the thing your filling it with isn't even testable..

              You're still using the language of science – meaning that you're still misappropriating the methodology to an area outside of its scope, and in a question begging fashion (e.g. "it isn't even testable"- uh, so? it's quite an assumption to demand that it be so!)

              Sure you are, your whole argument is that there has to be a designer behind DNA etc because it looks designed.

              What will you do one day when we discover that the first DNA was a major freak accident and there was nothing behind it? $10 you move your God argument to the next section on the radar "oh but {insert something} must have a designer"

              Is that a prophecy? I thought that it was due to order and not a 'freak accident' kind of randomness?

              And I'm not even sure how science could go about showing that something like DNA or physical laws are accidental – it can show what laws and DNA do, yes, but that says nothing about why it should even be that way (and how do you demonstrate a singular past event?). But maybe I just don't have the kind of faith in science as an all-encompassing methodology that you have..?

              The God virus a is a self protecting one, it moves itself into areas we don't understand and then just move once we figure it out. That is the way it has and always will be.

              The God virus? uh…. right. "scientificish speak" anyone? (know who's talking about unsupported ideas?) http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/2010/08…

            • Nathan

              Philosophy is a good why of thinking of ideas and why things happen, but it doesn't have a built in testing method like science does. Again I ask you, how do you know what is true by just using philosophy? I could sit here and thinking up 100s over different philosophy reasons the sky is blue, how do we test them… science. How do we know which of my ideas are true…science!.

              Until you can show me some other way of verifying and testing something then I will stick with science.

              "And I'm not even sure how science could go about showing that something like DNA or physical laws are accidental – it can show what laws and DNA do, yes, but that says nothing about why it should even be that way (and how do you demonstrate a singular past event?). But maybe I just don't have the kind of faith in science as an all-encompassing methodology that you have..? " …….. never heard of the LHC?

              Like I said above until you show me something that is self correcting and verifiable like science then I will stick with that.

            • AndrewFinden

              You make it sound like you're being forced to choose between science and philosophy, when really they are simply different disciplines exploring different questions.
              Use science where it is appropriate, and philosophy where it is appropriate.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "…when really they are simply different disciplines exploring different questions."

              Errr – science IS a philosophy, not different disciplines. You are asking us to choose between an Mercedes and a car – fail.

            • AndrewFinden

              No, science is a methodology. The Philosophy of Science is a philosophy. Doing science and philosophising about it are related, but not synonymous. Your analogy is false.
              Firstly I'm not asking you to choose between them. And secondly, if I was, it wouldn't be like choosing between a make and an object, it would be between the manufacturing plant and the driving school.

            • Nathan

              When it comes to truth yes I am.

              I am going to ask this again, for the 100th time, how do you know your philosophical ideas are true.

            • AndrewFinden

              If you mean 'know' in the empirical sense I think you mean it, then you can't. So what?

            • Nathan

              So what? So what?

              You are the one claiming a designer, and an intelligent one, and we are waiting for prove and if we can't "know" it then it is just an idea and that is all and we can all live like it doesn't matter.

            • AndrewFinden

              I didn't 'claim' anything. I said that rational intelligibility points to a rational intelligence. You seem to be bent on blundering over the detail of what I'm actually saying.

              I also don't subscribe to the view that one must first empirically know something before they accept it (can you empirically know that such a demand is true? it's self-defeating).

              You seem to think that philosophy is just irrelevant ideas? I beg to differ.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "And I'm not even sure how science could go about showing that something like DNA or physical laws are accidental…"

              Woah! Who said anything about the physical laws being "accidental"? I have been arguing against such a position – have you read anything I have written?

              "But maybe I just don't have the kind of faith in science as an all-encompassing methodology that you have..? "

              I am a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical one. I would bet Nathan is as well.

              God virus? Ever hear of an analogy before? You should have – we have been talking about them for sometime. Or do you take everything literally? That may be part of your problem.

            • Nathan

              Woah! Who said anything about the physical laws being "accidental"? I have been arguing against such a position – have you read anything I have written? "

              Sorry that was my bad…. I was trying to make the point that complex things can be started by a simple beginning that doesn't need a intelligence….. I didn't really word it write, if I was talking in person it would have come out right.

            • AndrewFinden

              I wasn't talking about complexity though. I was talking about information and meaning.

            • Nathan

              "I am a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical one. I would bet Nathan is as well."

              Indeed I am, I try and be like that in every part of my life.

            • AndrewFinden

              Indeed you are a philosophical naturalist as well? Or only a methodological one (by saying you apply it every part of your life, that means you are by by default, a philosophical one too).

            • AndrewFinden

              Who said anything about the physical laws being "accidental"? I have been arguing against such a position – have you read anything I have written?

              I wasn't replying to you when I wrote that. And as I pointed out to Nathan, who was the one who said that DNA would be shown to be a freak accident, that you had argued it was all ordered. Mind you, you haven't actually shown where the order of the physical laws comes from, you just said that "it is" which is no answer at all, merely restating the thing in question. You said that unguided is not the same as random – in regards to physical laws, how so?

              I am a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical one. I would bet Nathan is as well.

              I don't believe you. Everything I've ever read that you've written indicates that you are indeed a philosophical naturalist. You don't think there's anything outside natural universe do you? Are you a closet supernaturalist?

              God virus? Ever hear of an analogy before? You should have – we have been talking about them for sometime. Or do you take everything literally? That may be part of your problem.

              It sounded very much like the whole 'memes' and 'mind virus' kind of thing that Dawkins talks about, which is portrayed as very much more than a mere analogy.

            • Nathan

              "Mind you, you haven't actually shown where the order of the physical laws comes from, you just said that "it is" which is no answer at all, merely restating the thing in question."

              So to you this is how you mind works: "I don't know where the physical laws come from" = "Unknown" = "God must have dun it"

              where as we don't think like that: "I don't know where the physical laws come from" = "Unknown" = "Lets go digging and find out."

            • AndrewFinden

              So to you this is how you mind works: "I don't know where the physical laws come from" = "Unknown" = "God must have dun it"

              While you have no doubt encountered such thinking on youtube, that is a gross misunderstanding and completely fallacious of my thinking. You are indeed putting words in my mouth.

            • Nathan

              Ok sorry I'll rephrase it:

              "I don't know where the physical laws come from" = "Unknown" = "Some kind fof intelligence must have done it"

              This is your whole argument from design.

            • AndrewFinden

              No! It isn't! You clearly are just assuming you know what I'm arguing, without having actually read it! I realise you may be desperate to have me make a god-of-the-gaps argument, but you're very much strawmanning me.Please stop it.

            • AndrewFinden

              Look, I agree with you that "unknown= God did it" is logically invalid reasoning, and if I was making that argument, you would be correct in pointing that out. But my argument is not that.

              I agree that we do not (and perhaps cannot) know empirically why the universe is ordered and rationally intelligible. What I have said is that it's reasonable to look at this rational intelligibility and suggest that there may be a rational intelligence behind it, as in every other case of rational intelligibility. Of course, it's not conclusive, but it's not unreasonable. And for me, personally, when taken along side a whole gamut of other arguments and evidence – philosophical, historical and experiential – I find sufficient reason to believe in God. You might not find this reasoning and evidence persuasive, but that's not really the point. But a 'god-of-the-gaps' kind of 'goddunnit' argument that you portray me as promoting is really very mistaken.

              My intention in commenting on this post was never to get into a debate about design arguments per se (especially when much of the language has been hi-jacked by ID-ers) but simply to ask what criteria and process Andrew was using. We've gone quite off that track, however.

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              Except all the evidence we have supports the notion that rational intelligibility is a product of the universe not the other way around.

            • AndrewFinden

              The universe is rationally intelligible, so that doesn't really answer the question. Unless you're positing that it became rationally intelligible?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "It sounded very much like the whole 'memes' and 'mind virus' kind of thing that Dawkins talks about…"

              Do you really think Dawkins believes ideas are actually little viruses that run around infecting minds? Seriously, WTF?

            • AndrewFinden

              So you agree that a meme is simply a word he uses to describe a popular idea (that he doesn't like)? A word he uses because it sounds more 'sciencey'?

              Of course he doesn't think they are biological viruses, be he misappropriates the biological process to a psychological one in using the term.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              A "meme" is just another way to think about an idea. Memes do not need to be popular among a population, nor liked or disliked by any individuals. Ideas compete with other ideas within the minds of individuals and can spread from one mind to another. In this way they are analogous to virus and can be both beneficial or detrimental. Using the descriptive language of evolution memes can said to be more successful if they out perform competing memes.

              The book "The God Virus" explores the idea that the "god meme" acts much like any other conceptual virus. It is contagious, has in-built defence mechanisms, and does not really care for the host it infects. The same could be said for any idea.

            • AndrewFinden

              Using the descriptive language of evolution

              Right… misappropriating biological language and concepts to psychology with no justification. http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/2010/08…

              But that's a tangent too.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              This sort of "misappropriation" happens all the time. That's why we have simile, metaphor, and allegory.

              Does the sun really rise and set? Is the sea angry, or the phone busy? Are batteries actually flat?

            • http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

              It's one thing to use a common expression. It's quite another to create a whole (pseudo) scientific argument using a metaphor.

            • AndrewFinden

              he wrote:

              And this isn’t just a way of talking — the meme for, say, “belief in life after death” is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.

              "this isn't just a way of talking" – oh really?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              The information of a computer code is ultimately represented by electrical impulses on physical silicon, or the magnetic orientations on the surface of a hard drive.

              Thoughts are not separate things to the physical world, they are encoded in the physical reality of a brain. Have you ever seen a thought? Have you ever experienced a thought without a corresponding physical brain behind it?

              Do we refer to computer code or thoughts in this fashion in colloquial language? Of course not, but that does not change the reality of the situation.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              "You're still using the language of science – meaning that you're still misappropriating the methodology…"

              Again I ask you for an alternative methodology. Describe how it works, how you determine its accuracy, and show the results. You are not limited to empirical means, naturalism, scientism, or any other philosophy – the playing field is yours. Let's see the results.

            • AndrewFinden

              As ever, I'm content to do science where it is appropriate, philosophy where it is appropriate and even theology where it is appropriate. I have not promoted any kind of 'alternative' as you seem to have assumed. What I have objected to is the enforcement of a methodology where it is inappropriate. That you seem to (mistakenly) want science – or something that is exactly like science (a rose by any other name…) – to work in every situation or context is not really my problem.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              I've asked you to explain how your "special way of knowing" actually works and how you can test its accuracy. You admitted "revelation" could not be tested in any way, so I fail to see why I should have any faith in it. I did not even insist the verification method was empirical – I left that to you to describe. You failed then, and you have failed again.

            • AndrewFinden

              Woah, more cut and run! Who said anything here about 'revelation'? I was talking about philosophy. It's not my problem that you don't like that philosophy cannot necessarily be empirically verified either. (and you can pretend you didn't ask for empirical verification – does a rose by any other name smell any less sweet?)

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              I did not ask for empirical verification. In fact I explicitly stated the verification method did NOT need to be empirical. Typically, you have ignored that and driven straight to your preferred reading.

            • AndrewFinden

              Pardon me.. but what exactly is 'verification' if not empirical?

              Typically you're just being obtuse, knowing full well that the kind of verification you are asking for is empirical, even if you didn't explicitly say so. You even used the word 'test'… unless you happen to know a process of verification, of testing that isn't empirical?

              Besides which.. that was a different discussion, and irrelevant to anything I've said here. Don't you know in order to have healthy arguments you shouldn't bring in other issues? ;p

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              You seem to keep insisting that I am asking for empirical verification of your "revelation" path to knowledge to spite the fact I have often stated the exact opposite.

              Example: Let's assume god "reveals" something to me. Speaks to me, make me aware of some hidden reality of the universe, its origins, and final destiny. How could anyone go about verifying this is actually true? Are they expected to have independent revelations of their own which completely match? How does it work?

              It seems to me that without some process where third parties can somehow verify the revelations of others, then all you have are some fanciful ideas that have popped into your head. I have no way of knowing which are mere inventions of an over active imagination and which are accurate reflections of the reality.

              The ball is still in your court, but I guess you will continue to evade actually answering the question because you know you have no way of demonstrating your method to knowledge. This is why I see no reason to even accept it as a valid means to knowledge.

            • AndrewFinden

              In spite of my pointing it out, you seem intent on ignoring the fact that I've said nothing about 'revelation' here. At no point in any of my comments in this thread have I asked you to accept it as a valid means of knowledge, let alone in regards to the issue of design at hand. So I intend to ignore it as the red herring it is. Especially as you can't seem to see that even though you deny asking for empirical verification specifically, the process you ask for is indeed an empirical one. In spite of your protestation, you are clearly asking for empirical verification, or something that does exactly the same thing. In any case, we had another discussion about revelation, yes, and you agreed that revelation is sometimes reasonable to accept. I see no need to hash out that conversation any further at this point, especially not in this thread.

              The difference between us seems to be that you are apparently demanding that everything be verified or proved (though you are no doubt inconsistent in applying this demand) while I'm happy to accept that some things cannot be proved or verified but might be reasonable and rational to accept – certain philosophical conclusions being an example (I've already pointed out how you suddenly shift the goal posts and demand that such conclusions be verified and proved. Indeed, your own philosophical naturalism – which you clearly adhere to, in spite of your denial – is such an unprovable, unverifiable conclusion). You seem to want to do science even where it is ill-equipped to be done, while I'm happy enough to allow other disciplines like philosophy to be done, even if it doesn't give the kind of absolute answer you might wish for.

            • Nathan

              So your argument is that the universe is designed/or has to be/ or has to have a designer but your saying that asking to prove a designer is asking for empirical proof yet you are quite happy to accept empirical proof of other designed things but somehow God is able to avoid the empirical prove bit…how convenient.

            • AndrewFinden

              Nathan – please read what I have written. At no point have I said that the universe has to have a designer. You're really reading someone else's argument into mine.

              I have said that a rationally intelligible universe points to (can you see the difference there?!) a rational intelligence behind it.

              In regards to empirical proof – you seem to not understand that a methodology that is limited in scope to the physical, natural universe cannot thus say anything empirical about something outside of that scope, so demanding it is quite mistaken. But my objection is, more to the point, that it's fallacious to demand that a philosophical conclusion first be proved. That's circular.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              I have said that a rationally intelligible universe points to (can you see the difference there?!) a rational intelligence behind it.

              I agree with that. This argument is valid, but NOT sound. In order to accept this as true you must show there actually IS a designer behind the structure of the universe, or all you have is an hypothesis. Big deal.

              In regards to empirical proof – you seem to not understand that a methodology that is limited in scope to the physical, natural universe cannot thus say anything empirical about something outside of that scope…

              Because we see no reason to assume there IS anything beyond what we can experience.

              But my objection is, more to the point, that it's fallacious to demand that a philosophical conclusion first be proved. That's circular.

              No, it's reality.

              If you want to conjure other realms of existence, why stop at one? Why not a billion? Why not an infinite number of other realms each populated with creator gods of all kinds. You can't rule it out can you?

            • AndrewFinden

              Because we see no reason to assume there IS anything beyond what we can experience.

              Or, more correctly, yousee no reason to think there is anything beyond what you can experience via the scientific method – plenty of well reasoned, intelligent people (some eminent scientists no less) would beg to differ, and indeed critique such a philosophical position, so you ought to be careful about presuming to speak for them.

              No, it's reality.

              No, it's fallacious. One is not forced to first prove something they wish to philosophically conclude. That is a circular argument. Indeed, it's a self-defeating unprovable philosophical statement itself!

              Why not a billion?

              You mean like multiverses?

              You can't rule it out can you?

              Strictly speaking, no – so what?. It's fallacious to then imply or suggest that this makes any and every such possibility equally probable or reasonable as a conclusion.
              Indeed, I'm sure if I were to suggest that, according to your argument here, to make the philosophical conclusion of a causally closed universe (i.e. there is no supernatural) you first had to prove it (and remember you can't prove something using a methodology that assumes that thing as a working assumption) you would probably, and rightly tell me that you can't say 'there is no god / supernatural' even though you happen to not think there is.Strictly speaking, you can't rule it out, can you?

            • Nathan

              "One is not forced to first prove something they wish to philosophically conclude."

              I philosophically conclude that the earth is held up by a bunch of birds, and the the sky is blue because everyday a magic pixie dances over the sky and sprinkles magic blue dust…now because that is a philosophically concluded position I don't have to prove it…..I WIN!

              Now tell me why my philosophically concluded position is wrong and isn't true? How do you know?

            • AndrewFinden

              You don't seem to have been following the discussion closely enough:

              You can't say a deductive conclusion is true or false, only valid / invalid and sound / unsound.

              To demand conclusions be first proven before they can be concluded is circular. It's also self-defeating (can you prove such a philosophical conclusion – that conclusions must be proven – is true?! Good luck with that!)

              Saying that philosophy is not an empirical endeavour doesn't mean you must jump to such an absurd extreme of saying that anything you philosophise about must simply be accepted, even if it's illogical and absurd.

              Some philosophically deduced conclusions can be empirically verified (e.g. we could kill socrates) but not all of them necessarily. Of course there may be times when our philosophy shown to be in error (as could your bird example).

              To humour you though… what were your premises for that conclusion? Could you please put it in the form of a syllogism for us?

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              plenty of well reasoned, intelligent people (some eminent scientists no less) would beg to differ

              Argument from authority.

              No, it's fallacious. One is not forced to first prove something they wish to philosophically conclude.

              No, it prevents people from inventing stuff to please their own sensibilities without having a shred of evidence.

              You mean like multiverses?

              Possible, but I do not believe they're real until evidence is provided. Just like your deity.

              …you can't say 'there is no god / supernatural' even though you happen to not think there is.Strictly speaking, you can't rule it out, can you?

              No, but I don't go around claiming it is true and arguing with people when I have no evidence for it whatsoever.

            • AndrewFinden

              Argument from authority.

              Pay attention.
              I did not say 'smart scientists think it's true, therefore it is' I said that you should not presume to speak for them with your 'we' comment, as many disagree with you. That is certainly no argument from authority – it is simply pointing out that some 'authorities' don't share your views.

              No, it prevents people from inventing stuff to please their own sensibilities without having a shred of evidence.

              You're fighting a losing battle on this one as it is clearly a circular, fallacious argument. No one is forced to first prove what they wish to conclude. No one could ever conclude that evidence or reasoning shows something unless that possibility was first already proven – you wouldn't be able to conclude anything because nothing would yet be proven!
              By such reasoning you would be forced to actually kill socrates before concluding that he is mortal – and further as I've pointed out several times now, the claim itself is not only circular but self-refuting. If it's so that philosophical conclusions must first be proven before you can consider them to conclude them, prove how that conclusion / this statement is true before I will consider it. ;)

              No, but I don't go around claiming it is true and arguing with people when I have no evidence for it whatsoever.

              Did I say "it's true" or did I say that "it points to"?

              Unlike you, I'm happy to allow philosophical reasoning as a basis for belief (actually, you are too, in some cases, it seems)

            • AndrewFinden

              I agree with that. This argument is valid, but NOT sound. In order to accept this as true you must show there actually IS a designer behind the structure of the universe, or all you have is an hypothesis. Big deal.

              I think you're misunderstanding 'sound' and 'valid'. You're saying that my conclusions has to be first proved for it to be 'sound' but that is not so – for it to be sound, the premises must be true. I haven't even really made a 'therefore' kind of syllogism, actually.. but suppose I was to say:

              1. Rational intelligibility comes from rational intelligence.
              2. The Universe is rationally intelligible
              3. Therefore, the the universe comes from a rational intelligence.

              (now, please, be clear that I'm not necessarily asserting this.. I think my own position is somewhat less assertive)

              To show that this is unsound, you'd have show that either premise 1 or 2 is false. When I asked you to show a rational intelligibility that didn't stem from rational intelligence, your only answer was 'nature', which is of course begging the question, as it is the object in question (nor have you haven't demonstrated that it isn't). Also, remember that "Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never true or false.".

              If we take the classic example:

              1. All men are mortal
              2. Socrates is a man
              3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

              Your line of argument would have us needing to prove that socrates is mortal before we could conclude it from the first two premises – you'd have to kill him to demonstrate! Rather, as I've just explained, it is the premises, not the conclusions which must be true, for the conclusion to be sound.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              1. Rational intelligibility comes from rational intelligence.
              2. The Universe is rationally intelligible
              3. Therefore, the the universe comes from a rational intelligence.

              That's just it – the syllogism here is valid, but the premise is not sound. Your first premise is not true because you have not demonstrated it to be. In order to falsify this premise I would need to show you a rationally intelligible object which was not the product of a rational mind. What does one look like? How do you propose I do that? You are assuming everything that is intelligible is the product of an intelligence. You are begging the question.

              Perhaps if I go to the fundamentals of the universe – quantum foam. We cannot rationally predict the fluctuations as the smallest scales of the cosmos. It seems chaotic and unintelligible Therefore the universe is not the product of a rational intelligence.

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              Bravo for your persistence Askegg but I fear Finden will simply rephrase himself for the 60th time while continuing to beg the question, hide assumptions on untestable premises and maintain there is an intelligence behind the existence and nature of the universe without offering evidence to support this.

            • AndrewFinden

              I wouldn't cheer persistent mistakes. ;)

              If you'd read me more carefully you would see that I'm merely maintaining that the rational intelligibility points to a rational intelligence (I made that very clear in proffering a logical syllogism that is more assertive than my actual position – though it's interesting to see how well it stands so far). I know it's less fun if I'm not making dogmatic statements, but hey… too bad.

              You've accused me of begging the question and hiding assumptions in untestable premises – please demonstrate where I have.

            • AndrewFinden

              That's just it – the syllogism here is valid, but the premise is not sound

              No, to say that it's not sound you would have to first, as I've requested, show how my premises are not true. You haven't done that yet.

              Your first premise is not true because you have not demonstrated it to be.

              On the contrary, I've posited that every instance of rational intelligibility that I've come across has come from rational intelligence – just like every human I've come across has been mortal. I cannot logically prove that all men are mortal, because it's impossible to access all men to see. However, it's never been falsified – there may well appear an immortal man, but the one's we've seen have been mortal, so the premise remains valid and sound. Likewise, if you are claiming that my premise is false, you need to show how it's been falsified. That's how logical syllogisms work.

              In order to falsify this premise I would need to show you a rationally intelligible object which was not the product of a rational mind. What does one look like? How do you propose I do that?

              That's your problem – you're the one who thinks it can be falsified, aren't you? Or do you not actually have an example?

              You are begging the question.

              No, I'm not. Begging the question is assuming the conclusion in the premise – I have at no place assumed the design of the universe in my premise. My premise is that rational intelligibility comes from rational intelligence, and, like mortal men, I'm yet to see it falsified. I have not begged any question in that premise – unless you think the premise 'all men are mortal' also begs the question?!

              Perhaps if I go to the fundamentals of the universe – quantum foam. We cannot rationally predict the fluctuations as the smallest scales of the cosmos. It seems chaotic and unintelligible Therefore the universe is not the product of a rational intelligence.

              So you want to challenge premise 2 – that the universe is rationally intelligible? Are you sure you want to go down a line of argument that basically undercuts the ability to do science?

            • AndrewFinden

              A note on the 'all men are mortal' premise – it is itself the product of inductive reasoning, like the famous black swans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Induc… ). In that sense then, my first premise would also be the product of inductive reasoning, and like with swans, you'd need to falsify it. As it stands, the syllogism I gave is deductive, however. It remains for you to falsify the premises ;)

            • AndrewFinden

              I've realised that your justification for deducing design of the Pyramids suffers the same 'problems' you cite with my intelligibility syllogism.

              You said that (I'm going to paraphrase, please correct me if I misunderstood you) you've never seen such order & patterning in nature, therefore, it reasonable to conclude that they were intelligently designed (who that intelligence belonged to is actually a separate question). You challenged me to show you a natural example.
              Now I could easily ask you, like you did to me, how I would know when it was natural? "What would it look like?", so there's that. But, let's put it in a syllogism:

              1. Pyramidic-order and patterning is the product of design (ie. it does not occur naturally).
              2. The The Great Pyramids have such pyramidic order & patterning.
              3. Therefore, they are the product of design.

              Now, this first premise is basically the same as my first premise, and the first 'socarates' premise, in that they are inferred inductively and are as yet unfalsified. We haven't seen all of the natural universe, but as far as we have seen, such pyramidic order doesn't arise without design (though, what would it look like?) – it hasn't been falsified. In the same sense as my intelligibility premise, you haven't proven it true (you can't – you don't have enough scope) but as it hasn't been falsified, it reasonable to accept that it's true.
              Therefore, if your argument for design of the pyramids is valid and sound, then so is my argument for rational intelligence. If mine is unsound, then so is yours.

            • Nathan

              No I'm pretty sure Askeggs argument is that we can observe the design process and building of the Pyramids but we can not however do that for the universe, and all the evidence so far points us to no creator. If we one day find a designer building a universe then would could say that "maybe" ours was designed.

            • AndrewFinden

              I'm pretty sure he admitted we did not observe the design and building process for the pyramids, which is why he went into the whole area of non-natural patterns.

              and all the evidence so far points us to no creator.

              I disagree (and I'm not the only one). That's the whole point under contention, and you should be careful not to beg the question or speak on behalf of those who might not agree with you. You seem very close to doing both there. If that's simply your own conclusion, fine.

              If we one day find a designer building a universe then would could say that "maybe" ours was designed.

              I see no reason we cannot say 'maybe' now, if there's reason to make such a conclusion. Lack of precedent is not evidence against possibility.

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Silly me. I should just accept any "revelation" that cross my mind as absolute truth.

            • Jamie Michelle

              Hey askegg, I'm sure your aware that the nature of "revelation" is enlightenment to the truth by an objective source unlike thoughts/feelings which are subjective.

              If you want to conjure other realms of existence, why stop at one? Why not a billion? Why not an infinite number of other realms each populated with creator gods of all kinds. You can't rule it out can you?

              In regards to the existence of other realms I do not know…but if God is sovereign being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibelevent His dominion is all encompassing so why would there be other creator gods?? Please note that God does not share His glory with another Isaiah 42:8 & 48:11 :) thanks xx

            • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

              Hey askegg, I'm sure your aware that the nature of "revelation" is enlightenment to the truth by an objective source unlike thoughts/feelings which are subjective.

              Then everyone's revelations should be the same – this is how we might verify the method. A quick scan of the religions of the world and their denominations reveals this is not the case. The method has failed and it useless.

              but if God is sovereign being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibelevent His dominion is all encompassing so why would there be other creator gods??

              Now you're just making stuff up. You have no way of knowing any of this, but I would be interested if you could show me a valid method to know.

              Please note that God does not share His glory with another Isaiah 42:8 & 48:11

              The Bible has no weight as evidence until you can first demonstrate a god, and that god is the one described in the Bible, and that God is communicating effectively through the book.

            • AndrewFinden

              Careful… you'll run out of matches.

    • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

      That is my assessment as well.

Subscribe to the Podcast

44 – An Atheist Temple

BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

Standard Podcast [ 1:44:50 ] Play Now | Download

Further Reading

Dog Heads

The excellent British broadcaster BBC 4 recently aired a fascinating program called “The Medieval Mind” which explores the philosophy, theology, and predominate thinking of the dark ages.  The first episode deals with knowledge and revealed numerous intriguing insights into how the medieval mind determined epistemological truths. Monks, priests, and other godly people were in possession…
Continue reading

Matt’s Human Morality

Matt Dillhunty (president of the Atheist Community of Austin, co-host of “Non-Prophets Radio“, and “The Atheist Experience”) recently debated Father Hans Jacobse (an Antiochian Orthodox Priest) at The University of Maryland on 16th November.  Full video of the event can be found here (although only 6 of the 9 videos have been posted online as…
Continue reading

Aunt Matilda’s Cake

In the book “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” by John Lennox he puts forward the example of Aunt Matilda’s cake to illustrate the limited nature of science. The scenario has Aunt Matilda baking a cake and number of scientists are asked to describe it. A nutritionists might tell us about the carbohydrates, fats, sugars,…
Continue reading

The perfect God

I want a god whose ultimate goals which do not necessitate the creation of mysterious suffering and death. I want a god who doesn’t violate causation by causing things to begin to exist from nothing in the absence of time. I want a god who does not give us “free will” then punishes us for…
Continue reading

Atheism 2.0

“Atheism 2.0” is a 20 minute TED presentation by Alain de Botton in which he proposes a new approach to evangelising atheism. Alain suggests (apparently without evidence) that we have “secularised badly” and we should sift through the rituals, traditions, and behaviours of religion to identify and adopt their efficient mechanisms. “I have come here…
Continue reading

The Bizarre Bible

Atheists are often told by believers to read the Bible and it will all become clear.  Trouble is, many of us have tried that and it doesn’t seem to have helped.  Take these verses for example: This does not sound like a great night out to me. “But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master…
Continue reading