Identity (Identity)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 11:30 (5567 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt cannot answer the questions I asked at the end of my post of Tuesday 25 August at 07.55. Nor of course can I, though I think this discussion still has a long way to run. - You write "There are some questions that do not have a binary answer. I really wish I could provide even a belief, but with how little we actually know in this area, I would feel I would be putting a lie to my lips by offering even a belief. [...] I feel you and I become more kin every day." - We are indeed in exactly the same position in this respect (as I think we are in many other areas too, including elephant territory). However, there is a subtle difference between us. You don't understand why David's view of evolution and symbiosis "somehow makes a designer more palatable". David has already answered for himself, and I have posted part of my answer on the "Nature's IQ" thread. I take each of these "Nature's IQ" and "Evolution" posts only as a section and not as the whole of the argument. The basis of it all, as we have repeated ad nauseam, is the complexity of life, and so I can understand perfectly well why someone would find the evidence for design overwhelming enough "to justify the belief in a creator". Where one goes from there is another matter, and David has his own (perhaps somewhat unconventional) views on such a being. However, I can also understand perfectly well that the very concept of a designer raises insoluble problems (see "Arguments Against Design", 29 July at 13.13). I remain open-minded/on the fence/pressing the pause button/hopelessly indecisive, and therefore absolutely not prepared to dismiss people's personal experiences as possible evidence, whereas I think you are more inclined towards the materialist view because of what you call your "scientific conservatism".