Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 5) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 06, 2011, 19:22 (4653 days ago) @ xeno6696

Well, I won't lie... I was a little disappointed with this chapter. -Ultimately David's argument is that we can infer a designer because our brain can't be described by darwinian natural selection.-Again, I simply put forth artificial selection as a sufficient explanation as to how we ultimately became so intelligent so quickly. Dogs. I rest my case. -Jury's out on consciousness, but you didn't really hit consciousness that hard, though I disagree that emergence necessitates dualism. -But the last half of the chapter is the one that let me down. Ultimately David's argument here is "because we can think, we were clearly designed." David writes lovingly about the miracle that our universe is describable by mathematics, and cites Einstein even.-My counter to both David and Einstein here is:-"How spectacular is it really, when the most precise language man has invented describes the world precisely?"-David further digs into the notion of scientific intuition as further evidence of our greatness; but I would like to draw his attention to a quote from Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Science itself is a much better human analog for natural selection than any other endeavor: paradigm shifts happen only when some one reinterprets old data in a new way, thus extending a theory, or displacing an old one. However, this is not amazing... not to me. Mathematics by itself progressed one theorem at a time over at least 5000 years. Physics progressed similarly over the last 500 or so years, but it moved faster because more people participate, AND computers have shorted calculation times. -I would agree with you here if even Einstein's theory resulted from something no one knew... it came by observing anomalies in current theories. -Don't mistake the forest for the trees.... I find Aeschylus and Shakespeare more divinely inspiring than science, in regards to human intellect! But the main reason this argument feels weak to me is that it more or less says "we were designed because WE are so smart..."-Unless I oversimplified it, it makes me cringe! (Sorry! :-/ )

--
\"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.\"