ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 19, 2009, 19:55 (5335 days ago)

This is probably more for Mr. Turell than for anyone else, but feel free to pipe in, public!-Previously I'd mentioned the cultural influence religion plays in our lives and how it shapes our own particular mannerisms on this issue. Precisely why I brought this up was confirmed when you mentioned recently that you are Jewish. -Did you have a traditional Jewish upbringing? -I ask this because my religious upbringing was pretty shallow, and as such, most of my thoughts on God were never really indoctrinated in me. You mentioned Behe is a Catholic, and to me that sounds another bell for me. Dembski is Baptist. Note that all of the ID proponents do cling to some form of religion; this should be a warning that there is a theological basis underlying ID. (I'll return to this point shortly.)-The biggest reason I originally became an atheist, wasn't due to evolution or any other such phenomenon. I made a connection: what religion a person follows is largely determined by where you're born. If you were born in India: You'll be Hindu, perhaps Muslim. If you were born in northern Togo, probably an Animist; Ethiopia--Christian. This decided for me at a very early age, that religion was relative. What other things are relative? Food. Sports. Language. What isn't relative? Scientific findings. Gravity is gravity anywhere. Cells are cells everywhere. Atoms and molecules... you name it. -I've also noted that Intelligent Design has practically NO traction in Europe... and not in China, Japan, India; the only place that Behe, Dembski, and the DI sells books is in the United States & Canada where Lutheran-style fundamentalism rules the roost. Returning to my theological basis point, if religion influences your upbringing, and then you get to college and study evolution, you're going to want to fit evolution into your theological framework somehow. But since most scientists are materialists, they won't let you, so you start a "Cultural Renewal" in order to allow your theologically-based take on evolution become acceptable, so you can continue not allowing your views to be unchallenged. (I note that this is an intrinsically human response, however irrational.) -If you've followed the DI as long as I have, they pretty much blame materialism for every sin man has ever committed. While I'm not a staunch materialist, I'm aware that there is no way to do science without it. You're allowed to draw a "design inference" but remember that since it is not falsifiable--it isn't science, it's philosophy. Conversely, the statement "God does not exist" falls under that exact same tenet. All findings in science have to be falsifiable, largely do to the statistical principle of the null hypothesis, which I won't go into here. -You're not the first to claim that I'm not being "open-minded" in regards to ID. I am, but again, the source has to be non-political. Behe might be a nice guy, but if his stated goal is to overturn "materialism," in-line with the DI, then this forces any decent person to question the motives mercilessly--which wouldn't have to happen had he done it alone. I can't trust the motives, therefore I can't trust the science--just like you don't accept the UN's climate panel. -[EDIT] Forgot to tie this in: Those that have had strong religious upbringings tend to be the ones who find a way to maintain that part of their psyche. Flew might be the only exception to this (if he's now an ID advocate) but I'd bet he had a religious upbringing himself. In American society, you can't escape God OR Jesus, it is ingrained in our culture. ID to me appears more of a response to be able to hold onto both science and religion in a way acceptable to the extremes on both sides--though it's not doing a good job on one of the two.-dhw, your response is still in the making. It'll have to be a 2-parter...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"