ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 19:17 (5532 days ago) @ xeno6696

I have been asking what exactly constitutes the "I" that does my thinking and takes my decisions, and Matt considers these to be "very advanced philosophical questions". "I wish I could say that the state of these questions has advanced since the 1800s."-Again no disagreement between us, but I'd like to pursue the theme. Perhaps it belongs more to the Identity thread, but it's also linked to culture if not directly to ID. Belief in some kind of soul has permeated the religions of most cultures: the Ancient Egyptians distinguished between the Ba (more or less the personality) and the Ka (a sort of life force), most Amerindian and African tribes have or had their own concepts of soul and an afterlife, the Ancient Greeks, the Hindus, and the three main monotheistic religions all subscribed or subscribe to the view that man is NOT confined to his material self. You consider that the diversity of religions more or less invalidates them all, whereas I take the reverse view: it's the common ground that interests me.-What we have here is an unsolved mystery. We simply do not know what constitutes the "I" that directs the brain cells, is perhaps directed by them (spontaneous ideas, dreams), takes decisions etc. For thousands of years the answer seemed simple: the soul. Now materialists say there is no such thing. We therefore ask: what is this "I"? And the answer is: "We don't know." The 'don't know' may be qualified by: "We expect to find out, and we expect the answer to be within the brain cells", but that is no more than an expression of belief. "There's no evidence of a soul" is another response, but one could argue that the mystery itself is evidence, since no-one will deny the existence of emotions, consciousness, will etc. Furthermore, materialists define evidence as something open to scientific analysis, which disqualifies the psychic experiences that millions of people claim to have had, and creates a kind of philosophical Catch 22. It may, of course, be true that for thousands of years billions of people were and are still out of touch with reality, but I for one lack the faith to say I know what that reality is or is not.-The link to design is the idea that, if we ourselves are not confined to our materials but contain some kind of spiritual essence, this would tie in with the concept of a UI that exists in a different dimension (though it may share certain characteristics with us ... I have to get that in!). It brings together the two mysteries of the origin of life and the source of consciousness, and offers another approach in addition to the complexity argument. -On this subject, you attack such statements as "Life is complex, therefore it must have been designed." I can't remember when, but you also attacked statements like "There is no God". Quite right in both cases. But "Life is complex, and therefore I don't believe in chance and therefore I do believe life must have been designed" seems to me every bit as rational (or irrational) as "I believe in chance and I don't believe there is a God". Your attack was directed specifically and understandably at ID sites with an agenda, but I think it's important not to dismiss the arguments just because of the agenda.-Finally, you wrote: "Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially." I'm intrigued! Perhaps you could briefly explain the "natural" evolution of the Roman arch.