Naturalism's Design Argument Against Naturalism.

[Ariston]

1. On naturalism, physical processes account for human life and thus though organisms may be apparently designed by God, design is in fact illusory.

2. It would follow from (1) that a physical event of some kind causes a mental event, which causes actions such as throwing a ball, composing an essay, writing and performing a piece of music, or building NYC (though incalculable, inconceivable, complicated physical process alone).

3. On naturalism then, there is no actual distinction then between organic and artificial constructions in the sense that both are the result of physical processes alone. On naturalism, though we apply the notion of design to both, the distinction is illusory. So in the case of that the Taj Mahal or NYC, as (1) and (2) are above are correct on naturalism, these structures are the result of physical processes alone.

4. On naturalism, it is logically incoherent to hold that a structure like the Golden Gate Bridge is designed in a manner that is distinguishable from insects, reptiles, and humans.

5. Thus, if either alligators or engines are designed rather than apparently designed (as one necessarily must hold on naturalism: see 1 and 2 above where apparent design is the result of natural processes alone), there exists necessarily free will (libertarianism), a Prime Designer or either one or both and thus naturalism is false.

Considerations

For the naturalist, the distinction between organic and artificial "design," in whales and watches, like libertarianism (free-will), is necessarily illusory. Both organic and artifical objects are necessarily the result of physical processes alone and it is thus incompatable to hold that the design-distinction is actual as opposed to illusory. As the distinction collapses, the naturalist must hold that either the Taj Mahal is the result of natural processes alone (design is illusory) or that the Taj Mahal like organisms is designed. Thus, to avoid the conclusion that the One World Trade Center is just apparently designed, the naturalist would need at least a Prime Designer (a rejection of premise 1 above) or a rejection of determinism/compatablism (a rejection of premise 2 above) in human agency which is tantamount to a rejection of naturalism. The only option then for the naturalist in maintaining naturalistic beliefs is to maintain that the design of a computer, a space shuttle, London, this essay, ect., is the result of physical processes alone.
This line of reasoning shows that naturalism is ad hoc in that one must hold that an airliner came about through natural processes alone. The strength then of my argument then lies in that it so follows necessarily that if a Bic Lighter did not come about through natural processes alone, then it is designed in an identical sense to that of the human who works at the Bic Lighter factory.

 

[Gadarene]

This attempt at an argument would make sense if we didn't know that man-made objects weren't designed, which is a contradiction in terms. We do.

Good word salad, could do better.

 

[Eudaimonist]

2. It would follow from (1) that a physical event of some kind causes a mental event

Or that "mental events" are another aspect of some "physical events".

3. On naturalism then, there is no actual distinction then between organic and artificial constructions in the sense that both are the result of physical processes alone.

No, one distinguishes between different entities based on what they are, not on what caused them.

4. On naturalism, it is logically incoherent to hold that a structure like the Golden Gate Bridge is designed in a manner that is distinguishable from insects, reptiles, and humans.

There is plenty to distinguish them. For instance, insects, reptiles, and humans can die, and the Golden Gate Bridge cannot. See above.

5. Thus, if either alligators or engines are designed rather than apparently designed (as one necessarily must hold on naturalism: see 1 and 2 above where apparent design is the result of natural processes alone), there exists necessarily free will (libertarianism), a Prime Designer or either one or both and thus naturalism is false.

Naturalism does not necessarily forbid libertarian free will. Some versions might, but not necessarily all. But you have not successfully arrived at this conclusion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ariston]

This attempt at an argument would make sense if we didn't know that man-made objects weren't designed, which is a contradiction in terms. We do.

Good word salad, could do better.

I don't think you understand the argument. If you read carefully, the argument proceeds in such a fashion so that if man-made objects are designed, then organisms are designed. Or to put it the other way around, on naturalism, the distinction between organic and artificial design is necessarily illusory (see premise 2). If that is true, as you acknowledge that that man-made objects are designed, organisms are designed and thus naturalism is false.

 

[Ariston]

Naturalism does not necessarily forbid libertarian free will. Some versions might, but not necessarily all. But you have not successfully arrived at this conclusion.
eudaimonia,

Mark

How not? What part of the atom is freely choosing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think you understand the argument. If you read carefully, the argument proceeds in such a fashion so that if man-made objects are designed, then organisms are designed. Or to put it the other way around, on naturalism, the distinction between organic and artificial design is necessarily illusory (see premise 2). If that is true, as you acknowledge that that man-made objects are designed, organisms are designed and thus naturalism is false.

That argument needs a lot more work, because it isn't going anywhere as it is currently constructed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

How not? What part of the atom is freely choosing?

Atoms by themselves don't freely choose, just as atoms by themselves do not possess the property of life.

However, the power to choose may emerge from biological systems, just as life emerges from atomic systems.

There is nothing in naturalism as such to forbid this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ariston]

That argument needs a lot more work, because it isn't going anywhere as it is currently constructed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It seems perfectly sound. So where does the problem lie? (1.) Do you mean that there is a problem innate with the argument. What would that be? (2.) That it is not well articulated. (3.) That you do not understand it. (4.) That you do not like what follows.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It seems perfectly sound. So where does the problem lie? (1.) Do you mean that there is a problem innate with the argument. What would that be? (2.) That it is not well articulated. (3.) That you do not understand it. (4.) That you do not like what follows.

See post #3.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can add one more point. Saying that entity A and entity B came about through physical processes does not mean that both are "designed" in identical senses.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ariston]

Atoms by themselves don't freely choose, just as atoms by themselves do not possess the property of life.

However, the power to choose may emerge from biological systems, just as life emerges from atomic systems.

There is nothing in naturalism as such to forbid this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If a naturalist thinks that we are solely the result of a chemical process and then a long biological process, then it so seems that on the particle level, we are reducible to energy and particles. Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose. On naturalism, it doesn't make any sense to hold that libertarianism is is a viable option then. Free-will is necessarily an illusion. I am not saying that atheists cannot believe in libertarianism. They can believe whatever they want. The problem is that to do so does not make any sense.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't think you understand the argument. If you read carefully, the argument proceeds in such a fashion so that if man-made objects are designed, then organisms are designed. Or to put it the other way around, on naturalism, the distinction between organic and artificial design is necessarily illusory (see premise 2).

That conclusion does not follow from premise 2.

1, 3 are also wrong as no-one is claiming that all design is illusory, only in the context of arguments for objects that we know did not have a human designer (lifeforms, etc).

 

[Gadarene]

If a naturalist thinks that we are solely the result of a chemical process and then a long biological process, then it so seems that on the particle level, we are reducible to energy and particles. Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose. On naturalism, it doesn't make any sense to hold that libertarianism is is a viable option then. Free-will is necessarily an illusion. I am not saying that atheists cannot believe in libertarianism. They can believe whatever they want. The problem is that to do so does not make any sense.

Why must there be a particle of choice to justify the notion of choice? This is like saying there must be a particle of socialism to justify the notion of socialism.

It would help if you actually posted what naturalists believe, not what you claim they believe.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

1. On naturalism, physical processes account for human life and thus though organisms may be apparently designed by God, design is in fact illusory.

Okay.

2. It would follow from (1) that a physical event of some kind causes a mental event, which causes actions such as throwing a ball, composing an essay, writing and performing a piece of music, or building NYC (though incalculable, inconceivable, complicated physical process alone).

With you so far.

3. On naturalism then, there is no actual distinction then between organic and artificial constructions in the sense that both are the result of physical processes alone. On naturalism, though we apply the notion of design to both, the distinction is illusory. So in the case of that the Taj Mahal or NYC, as (1) and (2) are above are correct on naturalism, these structures are the result of physical processes alone.

Hang on. We can in fact make distinctions between "organic" and "artificial" constructions. The mistake is in using the word "artificial" to mean "non-natural." You're right that, broadly speaking, a mountain caused by plate tectonics, a mound created by termites, and a skyscraper made by humans are all natural product of natural forces since, under naturalism, everything is natural, including humans, the things we do, and the products we make. But just because we can group things together in a broad sense doesn't mean that we can't make distinctions.

4. On naturalism, it is logically incoherent to hold that a structure like the Golden Gate Bridge is designed in a manner that is distinguishable from insects, reptiles, and humans.

No, it's not incoherent. We can in fact draw distinctions where differences can be found. The Golden Gate Bridge was planned and constructed as a result of human desire, ingenuity, and effort; insects and such are not. Even if human mental states like desires and human actions like assembling something are in and of themselves natural, physical processes, we can still make distinctions and say that there is something different going on in the building of a skyscraper and the formation of a mountain.

Why is a skyscraper called "designed" when a mountain is not? Because the skyscraper has conscious intent behind it and the mountain did not; the conscious intent is itself a natural process, but because one has it and the other does not, we can make a distinction and apply a different label.

5. Thus, if either alligators or engines are designed rather than apparently designed (as one necessarily must hold on naturalism: see 1 and 2 above where apparent design is the result of natural processes alone), there exists necessarily free will (libertarianism), a Prime Designer or either one or both and thus naturalism is false.

Nope, this isn't the case. We can make a meaningful distinction between alligators and engines and call one "designed" and the other "not designed" without having to appeal to a Prime Designer or libertarian free will.

 

[Ariston]

Okay.

No, it's not incoherent. We can in fact draw distinctions where differences can be found. The Golden Gate Bridge was planned and constructed as a result of human desire, ingenuity, and effort; insects and such are not. Even if human mental states like desires and human actions like assembling something are in and of themselves natural, physical processes, we can still make distinctions and say that there is something different going on in the building of a skyscraper and the formation of a mountain.

Why is a skyscraper called "designed" when a mountain is not? Because the skyscraper has conscious intent behind it and the mountain did not; the conscious intent is itself a natural process, but because one has it and the other does not, we can make a distinction and apply a different label.

But you accepted premise 1 and 2. So that being the case, we cannot draw a distinction and still remain coherent on naturalism since organisms and the Golden Gate bridge both result from natural processes. On naturalism, design in both cases then is illusory. At this point for the atheist, it becomes a game of semantics. Granting 1 and 2 as you did, how is it that there is a actual distinction between organisms and the Golden Gate Bridge? One is conscious you say. But consciousness for the naturalist, has a physical or natural explanation and thus so does the construction of the bridge. I guess my question for you is simply this: At what point do you believe as a naturalist, that natural explanations can become anything other than natural explanations? If there is no point (as admitting a point would be to abandon naturalism) than the development process of both organic and natural processes is univocal. That being the case, the naturalist is confined, in my view, to the awkward position that regardless of semantics, the Golden Gate Bridge is the result of natural processes alone. Or you could just reject naturalism, by which we could admit that the apparent distinctions are actual distinctions. That is how I think that this line of thought proceeds on sound reason.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

But you accepted premise 1 and 2.

I agree with 1 and 2. At least I thought I did; you now seem to be saying that *all* appearances of design are illusory while I had thought that in premise 1 it only applied to appearance of design in living creatures. If you're using it in the broader sense then I can't agree.

So that being the case, we cannot draw a distinction and still remain coherent on naturalism since organisms and the Golden Gate bridge both result from natural processes.

They both come from natural processes, yes, but they come from different natural processes. That's where the distinction can be made.

On naturalism, design in both cases then is illusory.

No, design in both cases is not illusory. Both arose from natural processes, but in the bridge's case the process involved the intent of conscious creatures, which is a particular kind of process that we call design.

At this point for the atheist, it becomes a game of semantics.

Your entire argument strikes me as a game of semantics, but that's okay. Semantics are important.

What you seem to be doing is sort of like this: rain is a natural process. Plate tectonics is a natural process. Since both are natural processes, you can't distinguish the two, making it incoherent to call rain "weather" since we can't call plate tectonics "weather."

Granting 1 and 2 as you did, how is it that there is a actual distinction between organisms and the Golden Gate Bridge? One is conscious you say. But consciousness for the naturalist, has a physical or natural explanation and thus so does the construction of the bridge. I guess my question for you is simply this: At what point do you believe as a naturalist, that natural explanations can become anything other than natural explanations? If there is no point (as admitting a point would be to abandon naturalism) than the development process of both organic and natural processes is univocal. That being the case, the naturalist is confined, in my view, to the awkward position that regardless of semantics, the Golden Gate Bridge is the result of natural processes alone. Or you could just reject naturalism, by which we could admit that the apparent distinctions are actual distinctions. That is how I think that this line of thought proceeds on sound reason.

Responding to this would just cause me to repeat myself, so I'll leave it here and see where we stand.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If a naturalist thinks that we are solely the result of a chemical process and then a long biological process, then it so seems that on the particle level, we are reducible to energy and particles. Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose.

We did you the favor of reading and carefully thinking about what you said. You should return the favor.

Eudaimonist: "Atoms by themselves don't freely choose, just as atoms by themselves do not possess the property of life."

You: "Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose."

which is equivalent to: Now if no single particle is alive, then no cohesion of particles is alive.

which is clearly wrong.

 

[Ariston]

What you seem to be doing is sort of like this: rain is a natural process. Plate tectonics is a natural process. Since both are natural processes, you can't distinguish the two, making it incoherent to call rain "weather" since we can't call plate tectonics "weather."

It just seems to me that for the naturalist, it is all or nothing. On naturalism, or Western atheism, natural processes must at bottom account for all events and all our experiences of those events, as well as our thoughts about them. If that is proper on naturalism, if naturalism were true (and I do not say that it is), the distinction that we make between eyes and watches for example in calling one designed and the other apparently designed does not really make much sense at bottom. It seems that atheists generally cherry-pick at this point. But it just could not be the case on naturalism that either of them came about through a distinct process. As atheists say that design in humans is illusory, it so follows that the objects that persons construct (call it designed or not) comes about through the same process in so far that in both cases, explanations are merely natural. Now, what strikes me as absurd about this, and one of the things what make atheism untenable for me, is that on naturalism, I have to hold then that New York City and this paragraph came about through just the same sort of processes that did, not just mountains, but all living organisms. However, if we are not content with that, then it just so seems that we can not be content with naturalism. That is where I stand with that. Of course it is a ways off from Christian theism still but do you see my point?

 

[Ariston]

We did you the favor of reading and carefully thinking about what you said. You should return the favor.

Eudaimonist: "Atoms by themselves don't freely choose, just as atoms by themselves do not possess the property of life."

You: "Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose."

which is equivalent to: Now if no single particle is alive, then no cohesion of particles is alive.

which is clearly wrong.

I do not see the relevance of this point to my original argument or this thread. If atheism is true, though we may think that we have free will, it is necessarily illusory at bottom. As it is illusory on naturalism (though I do not say actually), premise 2 succeeds and hence my argument succeeds. So this objection seems to be irrelevant and and also a false analogy. So the mutual cohesion of particles producing conscious life with free-will is incoherent on atheism. It is difficult to respond to everyone. But I am doing the best that I can to get to the questions that I judge to be good and relevant.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

It just seems to me that for the naturalist, it is all or nothing. On naturalism, or Western atheism, natural processes must at bottom account for all events and all our experiences of those events, as well as our thoughts about them.

Yes.

If that is proper on naturalism, if naturalism were true (and I do not say that it is), the distinction that we make between eyes and watches for example in calling one designed and the other apparently designed does not really make much sense at bottom.

No.
We design things. We have ideas about something we want to make and plan how to make it. That's what designing is. All of that is based on our cognitive processes, which are natural. Designing is a process that is natural, but is limited to beings that have the capacity for those cognitive processes. That's why we can say that a watch is designed and an eye is not. Eyes were not created by beings as a result of cognitive processes that we call "designing." Watches were.

It seems that atheists generally cherry-pick at this point. But it just could not be the case on naturalism that either of them came about through a distinct process. As atheists say that design in humans is illusory, it so follows that the objects that persons construct (call it designed or not) comes about through the same process in so far that in both cases, explanations are merely natural.

But they don't come from the same process. They both come from natural processes, but the processes themselves have differences that allow us to differentiate between them and apply a label to one that we can't apply to the other.

Now, what strikes me as absurd about this, and one of the things what make atheism untenable for me, is that on naturalism, I have to hold then that New York City and this paragraph came about through just the same sort of processes that did, not just mountains, but all living organisms. However, if we are not content with that, then it just so seems that we can not be content with naturalism. That is where I stand with that. Of course it is a ways off from Christian theism still but do you see my point?

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Like, at all. You apparently don't see mine, and I just can't see where I'm failing to explain it properly.