ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 04:46 (5531 days ago) @ dhw

. 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.
> -You're... kind of putting words into my mouth. The common ground between many religions abstracts out to nothing more than very general concepts; soul; ethereal entity(ies), good, evil, chaos, and order. After these generic points, agreement is rapidly lost. The subjectivity provided by theology prevents you from moving beyond generic and abstract concepts and that is what makes them meaningless. You've said as much yourself that you discount the "hocus pocus" parts of religion... well after you take away the "hocus pocus" all you have left is abstract and generic concepts that you cannot move past nor really say anything about. Think about political speech. The more general they are, the less they say; the same with the concepts dealt with by theology. The more general you get, the less you can actually say. Yes, 90% of the world believes in some kind of soul + ethereal presence. Yet none of them can come to any common agreement on what exactly they are or mean. -> 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.
> -I'm afraid I just don't really have anything to say here... if consciousness is an emergent phenomenon resulting from billions of neurons realizing that they are a coherent "self," that still wouldn't answer your question. -We're not born with a concept of "self." Who's to say that the entire idea of "self" isn't simply a learned behavior, something manufactured and necessitated by our use of language? I don't think its possible to answer that question. -> 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. 
> -To my eyes, it only converges two mysteries into one. We are still no closer to a solution...-> 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.
> -It's not that I dismiss the arguments, but that I find them spending more time bickering with atheists or pushing ideologies into school districts; which casts doubt on even the most menial statements. If it makes you feel any better, I've also never read Dawkins (or even Dennett, though I am familiar with some of his arguments.) Tell you what, if you guys can prove to me that the DI isn't simply another PETA, I'll be a little more flexible. -> 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.-On further reflection, Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" should apply to a Roman Arch. "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."-Theoretically, such a system couldn't evolve by chance. However... did-http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Natural-Arches-Screenshot-103364.html-Have to be designed? This raises a good question. The statistics behind such an arch forming are staggering. Yet it too, happens by chance.

--
\"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.\"