Comments on: Losing Miller’s God http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/ We don't need no stinking subtitle Wed, 08 Jun 2011 05:44:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: JPS http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-887 JPS Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:31:48 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-887 Frank C. Wrote: <blockquote>Miller has explicitly said he is a theist, and that deism is dry and meaningless. This means that he believes that God is immanent in the world, and intervenes (as he mentions in “Finding Darwin’s God”. Therefore he is, to some extent, a creationist, and in his latest book he implies that one of the interventions was the inevitability of humans (either this was designed into evolution from the beginning or forced to happen). This puts him on the far left wing of creationists, but it’s creationism nonetheless.</blockquote> Perhaps that's an overstatement. Miller indicates in FDG that God might have imbued any significantly intelligent animal with a soul, and thus made it "human," although it may very well have been a large-brained reptile. He thus evades the inevitability of this particular species, at this particular time, being inevitable, and hence leaves open the door to fully contingent evolution. And, in fairness, any species at any time (or perhaps no time) being sufficiently intelligent to ponder religion seems to me well outside of any meaningful definition of creationism. Again, it's still weird to go through such extraordinarily unnecessary logical contortions to keep alive one's preferred philosophical doctrines, but hey, the first half of the book was darned good. As for the "closet atheist" imputations in #37, well--none of us can read his mind, but given his attendance at church and other Catholic practices, the suggestion strikes me as unlikely. The creationists certainly agree, though, for what it's worth. Frank C. Wrote:
Miller has explicitly said he is a theist, and that deism is dry and meaningless. This means that he believes that God is immanent in the world, and intervenes (as he mentions in “Finding Darwin’s God”. Therefore he is, to some extent, a creationist, and in his latest book he implies that one of the interventions was the inevitability of humans (either this was designed into evolution from the beginning or forced to happen). This puts him on the far left wing of creationists, but it’s creationism nonetheless.

Perhaps that’s an overstatement. Miller indicates in FDG that God might have imbued any significantly intelligent animal with a soul, and thus made it “human,” although it may very well have been a large-brained reptile. He thus evades the inevitability of this particular species, at this particular time, being inevitable, and hence leaves open the door to fully contingent evolution. And, in fairness, any species at any time (or perhaps no time) being sufficiently intelligent to ponder religion seems to me well outside of any meaningful definition of creationism. Again, it’s still weird to go through such extraordinarily unnecessary logical contortions to keep alive one’s preferred philosophical doctrines, but hey, the first half of the book was darned good.

As for the “closet atheist” imputations in #37, well–none of us can read his mind, but given his attendance at church and other Catholic practices, the suggestion strikes me as unlikely. The creationists certainly agree, though, for what it’s worth.

]]> By: Chris http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-846 Chris Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:07:56 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-846 While reading the comments, I suddenly thought of another possibility: Ken Miller might simply lie. He might be an atheist deep down but pretend to be a Christian in order to convince people who think otherwise of the fact that the Theory of Evolution doesn't contradict a theistic world view, just a literal interpretation of most holy books. Seeing how many Americans don't feel enlightened but rather offended by approaches like e.g. the one Dawkins uses ("religious people are stupid"), he might try to pave the road for acceptance of the ToE among believers first to ensure that school children are properly educated. Personal realizations are much more likely to change someone's stance than even the most convincing arguments anyway. Well, since one shouldn't believe something just because one wants it to be true, he probably isn't. While reading the comments, I suddenly thought of another possibility:
Ken Miller might simply lie. He might be an atheist deep down but pretend to be a Christian in order to convince people who think otherwise of the fact that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t contradict a theistic world view, just a literal interpretation of most holy books.
Seeing how many Americans don’t feel enlightened but rather offended by approaches like e.g. the one Dawkins uses (“religious people are stupid”), he might try to pave the road for acceptance of the ToE among believers first to ensure that school children are properly educated.
Personal realizations are much more likely to change someone’s stance than even the most convincing arguments anyway.

Well, since one shouldn’t believe something just because one wants it to be true, he probably isn’t.

]]> By: Mike Haubrich http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-830 Mike Haubrich Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:24:19 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-830 We appreciate your counsel. :) We appreciate your counsel. :)

]]> By: Frank C http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-813 Frank C Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:10:52 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-813 Miller has explicitly said he is a theist, and that deism is dry and meaningless. This means that he believes that God is immanent in the world, and intervenes (as he mentions in "Finding Darwin's God". Therefore he is, to some extent, a creationist, and in his latest book he implies that one of the interventions was the inevitability of humans (either this was designed into evolution from the beginning or forced to happen). This puts him on the far left wing of creationists, but it's creationism nonetheless. Miller has explicitly said he is a theist, and that deism is dry and meaningless. This means that he believes that God is immanent in the world, and intervenes (as he mentions in “Finding Darwin’s God”. Therefore he is, to some extent, a creationist, and in his latest book he implies that one of the interventions was the inevitability of humans (either this was designed into evolution from the beginning or forced to happen). This puts him on the far left wing of creationists, but it’s creationism nonetheless.

]]> By: JPS http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-801 JPS Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:04:36 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-801 Not sure I agree with the atheist-agnostic conflation: my understanding is that the atheist position is itself a belief or statement of conviction--the idea that there probably, based upon the evidence, is no god. Lack of affirmation is insufficient to claim this status. The agnostic position is generally used to describe either those who are in a transitional or permanent state of uncertainty or, alternately, declare the question unanswerable on some ontological or epistemilogical grounds. I was agnostic by this latter definition (unwilling to make a claim of probability) until I realized how many other things I disbelieved with less conviction than the no-god hypothesis--unicorns, turtles with universes on their backs, 1000-foot gulfs opening outside my front door in the middle of the night, etc. But this is not my invention: Darwin, Dawkins, Douglas Adams, and many others use the conviction-lack of conviction definition to clarify the distinction as well. Nevertheless, I sidestep the whole issue by self-defining as rationalist, secularist, humanist, or some conflation of the three. Since Christians don't go around calling themselves "Amuslims," Hindus "Abuddhists," or Jains "Apagans," it seems to make more sense to choose terms, as the religious have, that reflect the contents of a philosophy rather than the negation of conflicting ones. Not sure I agree with the atheist-agnostic conflation: my understanding is that the atheist position is itself a belief or statement of conviction–the idea that there probably, based upon the evidence, is no god. Lack of affirmation is insufficient to claim this status. The agnostic position is generally used to describe either those who are in a transitional or permanent state of uncertainty or, alternately, declare the question unanswerable on some ontological or epistemilogical grounds. I was agnostic by this latter definition (unwilling to make a claim of probability) until I realized how many other things I disbelieved with less conviction than the no-god hypothesis–unicorns, turtles with universes on their backs, 1000-foot gulfs opening outside my front door in the middle of the night, etc. But this is not my invention: Darwin, Dawkins, Douglas Adams, and many others use the conviction-lack of conviction definition to clarify the distinction as well.

Nevertheless, I sidestep the whole issue by self-defining as rationalist, secularist, humanist, or some conflation of the three. Since Christians don’t go around calling themselves “Amuslims,” Hindus “Abuddhists,” or Jains “Apagans,” it seems to make more sense to choose terms, as the religious have, that reflect the contents of a philosophy rather than the negation of conflicting ones.

]]> By: SDR http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-798 SDR Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:59:56 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-798 #32. You are partly right, but it's also possible to be agnostic and an atheist because one cannot be agnostic without being atheist. All agnostics are by definition atheist. You are defining atheism as being only the active rejection of the idea of a God – this is not really true. No matter how many people try to claim otherwise, by both usage, definition, and the etymology of the construction of the word itself, an atheist is one who lacks belief in a God. Agnostics say that they don't know whether there is a God or not. If they don't know, then they certainly don't have belief that there is one. This is atheism by definition. It's just atheism qualified by a reason for the atheism, which is agnosticism. They might not want to call themselves atheists, but atheism isn't only a label one gives oneself. It is a descriptive term that applies or doesn't where one wants to use the term or not. #32. You are partly right, but it’s also possible to be agnostic and an atheist because one cannot be agnostic without being atheist. All agnostics are by definition atheist. You are defining atheism as being only the active rejection of the idea of a God – this is not really true. No matter how many people try to claim otherwise, by both usage, definition, and the etymology of the construction of the word itself, an atheist is one who lacks belief in a God. Agnostics say that they don’t know whether there is a God or not. If they don’t know, then they certainly don’t have belief that there is one. This is atheism by definition. It’s just atheism qualified by a reason for the atheism, which is agnosticism. They might not want to call themselves atheists, but atheism isn’t only a label one gives oneself. It is a descriptive term that applies or doesn’t where one wants to use the term or not.

]]> By: Insightful Ape http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-797 Insightful Ape Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:49:50 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-797 Hi #31, I just wanted to me a couple of comments. It is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. If you are thinking about a generic "deity", I agree, it is truly unknowable. But if you are talking about god with upper case G- the God of Christianity or Islam-my position is rejection, because that hypothesis is internally inconsistent. It just doesn't hang together. As for the Big Bang-what really happened and why-there are a number of models physicists are working on(I can give you references if you want to). We may or may not have a definite answer in our lifetimes. What I am not willing to do is to throw up my hands and say, it must have been an act of god. Hi #31, I just wanted to me a couple of comments.
It is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. If you are thinking about a generic “deity”, I agree, it is truly unknowable. But if you are talking about god with upper case G- the God of Christianity or Islam-my position is rejection, because that hypothesis is internally inconsistent. It just doesn’t hang together.
As for the Big Bang-what really happened and why-there are a number of models physicists are working on(I can give you references if you want to). We may or may not have a definite answer in our lifetimes. What I am not willing to do is to throw up my hands and say, it must have been an act of god.

]]> By: a daughter's mother http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-795 a daughter's mother Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:08:39 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-795 I'm finding the comments even more interesting than the original post. My own position is agnosticism. I find anyone who "knows" either that there is or isn't a God is putting limits on what God is by first defining their understanding or wishful thinking of what that deity is, and then comparing that to the world they observe around them and their judgments of it opposed to what it "should be". The process doesn't seem productive. I'm not ready to make that decision until someone can actually explain the big bang in terms of what came before and how it happened - good luck with that, by the way - or until I die and find out for myself. And as I understand it, I won't be back to let you know which it is. I’m finding the comments even more interesting than the original post. My own position is agnosticism. I find anyone who “knows” either that there is or isn’t a God is putting limits on what God is by first defining their understanding or wishful thinking of what that deity is, and then comparing that to the world they observe around them and their judgments of it opposed to what it “should be”. The process doesn’t seem productive.

I’m not ready to make that decision until someone can actually explain the big bang in terms of what came before and how it happened – good luck with that, by the way – or until I die and find out for myself. And as I understand it, I won’t be back to let you know which it is.

]]> By: consilium http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-784 consilium Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:54:35 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-784 It's generally a bad sign when somebody posting to the internet sets his nym to something pretentious, like "truthseeker" or "wisdom", or to some Latin word, like "facilis". It’s generally a bad sign when somebody posting to the internet sets his nym to something pretentious, like “truthseeker” or “wisdom”, or to some Latin word, like “facilis”.

]]> By: JPS http://quichemoraine.com/2009/04/losing-millers-god/#comment-781 JPS Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:53:43 +0000 http://quichemoraine.com/?p=697#comment-781 To Insightful Ape @ 18: <blockquote>Is this what happens when people try to have it both ways?</blockquote> It does seem to me that Miller, at least in his book, is trying to split the difference between Deism and active Theism. However, he gets around theodicy by explaining that a universe allowed to evolve in all possible ways is necessary for the existence of free will (in which he is correct). To SLC @ 25: <blockquote>It is possible that Prof. Millers’ theological views are evolving. It may be that at the time of the writing of, “Finding Darwins’ God,” he believed in an intervening god but his position is now veering toward Deism.</blockquote> You may well be correct, as the book is from 1999. All I can reply with is that Miller still claims to be a Roman Catholic in his current talks. I recently presented a paper on FDG in which I argued that Miller foists the evidential burden for his orthodox views (the Virgin Birth and resurrection) off onto disciplines in which he is inexpert (Near Eastern history and archeology) in precisely the same manner that Phillip Johnson does from law to paleontology. The result is that in the same book in which he takes Behe to task for the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy, he merely restates it in a manner more difficult to falsify. As I replied to a questioner, it would be really interesting to live in that guy's head for a day, observing how one keeps empirical training from chasing down crude ancient world myths. To Insightful Ape @ 18:
Is this what happens when people try to have it both ways?

It does seem to me that Miller, at least in his book, is trying to split the difference between Deism and active Theism. However, he gets around theodicy by explaining that a universe allowed to evolve in all possible ways is necessary for the existence of free will (in which he is correct).

To SLC @ 25:

It is possible that Prof. Millers’ theological views are evolving. It may be that at the time of the writing of, “Finding Darwins’ God,” he believed in an intervening god but his position is now veering toward Deism.

You may well be correct, as the book is from 1999. All I can reply with is that Miller still claims to be a Roman Catholic in his current talks.

I recently presented a paper on FDG in which I argued that Miller foists the evidential burden for his orthodox views (the Virgin Birth and resurrection) off onto disciplines in which he is inexpert (Near Eastern history and archeology) in precisely the same manner that Phillip Johnson does from law to paleontology. The result is that in the same book in which he takes Behe to task for the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy, he merely restates it in a manner more difficult to falsify. As I replied to a questioner, it would be really interesting to live in that guy’s head for a day, observing how one keeps empirical training from chasing down crude ancient world myths.

]]>