\"Bleached Faith\" (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 08, 2009, 23:05 (5525 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
point taken on everything above here:-> Earlier you argue that "religions are about how to deal with human suffering", and "how we should act towards each other as a people; God(s) is/are typically only the central glue to this picture." Well, I'm afraid that without the glue, the religious picture falls apart. All you need is humanism. -In strict terms, the number of humanists in the world is vastly outnumbered by the number of persons subscribing to religions. Gods are used as that glue for the majority of people. I didn't mean that in the universal sense, only in the observed sense. Whether or not we can create a moral system without Gods has no effect on the way the world actually operates in the realm of morals. ->But I agree completely that a UI ... in the sense of some vague, impersonal thingummy ... gets us nowhere and does nothing for us. However, while you have ... in my view quite rightly ... been attacking Intelligent Design (as opposed to Design) for its religious agenda, it's the agenda (as opposed to the science) of the Discovery Institute that actually answers your criticism as well as that made by your "Bleached Faith" author: i.e. that ID "removes religion from the realm of faith and values". If ID is used as a gateway to or defence of Christianity, it helps to provide or bolster the faith and values that might otherwise be lost to the abiogenists. Of course, you're acting the "devil's advocate" again, but the advocacy is getting just a little confusing!-Well, my goal wasn't to be confusing; only to toss out an interesting argument against ID that I hadn't seen before.-You mentioned motivations earlier, in regards to our purposes for being here at this site. -That was an interesting question because I can't really think of one outside of engaging in high-stakes philosophy. I think I've pretty much accepted that in my framework, knowledge is paramount, and those things that cannot be known--cannot be known. And reasoning about things that cannot be known (as an endeavor by the human race) is as futile an exercise as being a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. -In terms of the DI and its "science," one must ask what experiments it is actually conducting, in order to "find the designer." It offers interpretations of scientific evidence, but I can't even remember the last official paper any of those gents published. Interpretations aren't science, but philosophy--you give them too much credit. My problem is that interpretations are opinion, and though opinion can lead you to knowledge, we've already agreed that what they seek is unknowable.

--
\"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.\"