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.\"

Post reply
  4783 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 17:27 (5334 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Did you have a traditional Jewish upbringing? -
I was raised in a Reform Jewish family, very secular. I did have a Bar Mitzvah mainly because I was the first-born male on both sides. I quit Sunday school when the Bar M. was accomplished by rote memory, and still recognize only a few Hebrew letters. By culture, coming from New York, I am certainly Jewish, and look at myself as American first, and Jewish second. 
> 
> I've also noted that Intelligent Design has practically NO traction in Europe... and not in China, Japan, India;-The reason is that serious monotheism is on its deathbed in Europe, and the Eastern religions don't insist upon a Godhead. I live in a very fundamentalist part of Texas. I wear a Mesada belt buckle on my work belt. When I am asked about it and explain, I've had people all excited that they are in the presense of a 'chosen one'. :-))

Post reply
  4795 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 20:12 (5334 days ago) @ David Turell

David,-Is it safe then to say we agree that ID is inextricably linked to a specific philosophical framework?-This ties into my greater general skepticism on ID (as a movement). The authors I'm most familiar with propose arguments that they claim are scientific, when in fact they are philosophical interpretations of scientific evidence. These are drastically different activities. Science is about examining the natural world and coming up with explanations suited to the evidence; while on the surface that is what it seems the DI wants to do, the conclusion they reach is itself unscientific. While you might not accept Popper's view that scientific claim must be falsifiable, science simply cannot work if it drops that tenet--nor can it reasonably operate without reductionism; which limits its scope--but that's the entire point of science in the first place: limit the outside variables. The wider the scope, the more unmanageable the data is; hence why "all generalizations are false, including this one." (Twain.) -That is why science itself is operationally agnostic, and though dhw has pointed out that human passions sometimes get in the way; in the grand scheme of things wrong is always removed from the machine. -Part of my intrinsic hatred (yeah, its that strong) of the DI is that the wording of their statements often is worded in such a fashion that it is reporting "scientific results" when in fact it is simply informed opinion. This is misinformation and a disservice to the general public. Most people don't know the differences between philosophy and science, and the DI takes advantage of this by often speaking either from authority or like Dembski, using highly complex equivocations in order to convince the reader that "I'm smarter than you, so trust me." -If you watch how the DI operates it is often more like the church of scientology; especially in the way it handles its opponents. Massimo Pigliucci discussed about a colleague who had his website pulled due to criticism of ID; the content dealt only with Behe's mousetrap argument and the DI claimed libel against the ISP. The ISP pulled the site afraid of a lawsuit until he could move the site to the USA (where content laws absolve ISP's from all libel claims.) For specifics I'd refer you to "Denying Evolution," where Pigliucci goes at length to talk about some of the underhandedness of the DI. -Organizations willing to operate like PETA earn from me nothing but contempt. So I do implore you; Behe might not seem like a snake but being a fellow of this organization is a dubious position.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4780 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 20:22 (5334 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Is it safe then to say we agree that ID is inextricably linked to a specific philosophical framework?-Yes - 
> Behe might not seem like a snake but being a fellow of this organization is a dubious position.-I think I am smart enough to pick and choose information and arguments, without being seduced. I've done alot of reading from many sources and I have arrived at the conclusion about the DNA/RNA code by myself, filtering out information from 360 degrees around me. I doubt Dembski would agree with me since I am almost more deistic than theistic, and I am anti organized religion.

Post reply
  4806 views

Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon)

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 20:04 (5283 days ago) @ David Turell

The BBC Radio 4 programme "Start the Week" this week featured Schlomo Sand and his book "The Invention of the Jewish People". I wondered what your impression of this might be, assuming you have heard of it.-Quote from BBC: In The Invention of the Jewish People, the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand unravels the mythologised history of the Jewish people to claim that the Israelites were never exiled from the "promised land", and that most Jews are descended from converts. What does that mean for the State of Israel? And how far are Palestinian Arabs the true heirs of the biblical Jews? Shlomo Sand argues that a new analysis of the history of the Jews is vitally important for the future of Israel and all its inhabitants.-On a related issue. It occurs to me that all religions are not so much a matter of faith as of tradition, that is of customs and ideas handed down from generation to generation, and in that way are similar to nationalism. Thus faith is not a matter of truth but of buying in to the group-think for the sake of security or a quiet life.

--
GPJ

Post reply
  4763 views

Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon)

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 12, 2009, 17:01 (5281 days ago) @ George Jelliss

The BBC Radio 4 programme "Start the Week" this week featured Schlomo Sand and his book "The Invention of the Jewish People". I wondered what your impression of this might be, assuming you have heard of it.-
Glad you asked the question. I am an Ashkanazic Jew (Eastern European). Our DNA had been studied and does not show much intervention from other groups of people. Sand is a known Marxist, anti-Zionist university professor, who stands with the far left groups in Israel. Most nations have all sorts of opinions. The joke goes that when you have three Jews talking together, you will hear ten opinions. Sand has produced mostly fiction, not non-fiction. Read it and enjoy a novel. The three tribes he uses to talk about conversion, are small disparate groups. We have a tradition of non-proselytizing. Non-Jews must ask to join, and then are taught and have to go through certain rituals.-I have toured Israel in 1983 with a Sabra (a Jew born in Israel) who was a colonel in the tanker corps, had fought in all the wars to that point. I can imagine what he would do to Sands if they ever met. :-))

Post reply
  4774 views

Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon)

by dhw, Thursday, November 12, 2009, 18:12 (5281 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George has reported on a radio programme in which Schlomo Sand claims that "the Israelites were never exiled from the "promised land", and that most Jews are descended from converts. [...] And how far are Palestinian Arabs the true heirs of the biblical Jews?" -George also suggests that religions "are not so much a matter of faith as of tradition, that of customs and ideas handed down from generation to generation, and in that way are similar to nationalism. Thus faith is not a matter of truth but of buying into the group-think for the sake of security or a quiet life."-This ties in with a masterly book which I had the privilege of translating a few months ago. It's by Jan Assmann, and the German title (for anyone out there who reads German) is Das kulturelle Gedächtnis (Cultural Memory). It will eventually be published by Cambridge University Press, but I have no idea when. Here is a taster for you:-"...the historicity of the Exodus is a matter of extreme controversy. On the Egyptian side, there is virtually no evidence on offer. The only mention of Israel in an Egyptian text refers to a tribe in Palestine, and certainly not to a group of immigrants or 'guest workers' in Egypt itself. What matters here, however, is not the historical accuracy but the importance of the story for Israelite memory. One simply cannot overestimate its significance. The Exodus of the Jews from Egypt was the foundational act which provided the basis for the identity not only of the people, but also of God Himself. Wherever the Lord of the Covenant appeared, calling on the Israelites to obey Him, they were referred to as 'my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt' (Leviticus, 25, 55). In other words, right from the start the people were defined by their emigration and segregation."-George's suggestion is a highly perceptive insight into the history not only of the Jews but also of many other religious movements, in which faith is almost synonymous with group identity and continuity. Another interesting observation is that the gods of many early polytheistic societies were confined to locations and even buildings. The huge advantage of Yahweh was that he was everywhere. If you're stuck out in the desert, you don't need a temple, because Yahweh is right with you. Monotheism has its practical advantages.-Let me just give you one more gem: "Rituals help people to achieve a form of coherence and continuity which fits in with Nature. 'Nature revolves but man advances.' This basic distinction between Nature and history ... as formulated by the eighteenth-century English poet Edward Young in his Night Thoughts ... is removed through the principle of ritual coherence. Strict repetition enables man to adapt to the cyclical structure of Nature's regeneration processes, and thus to participate reverentially in the eternal divinity of cosmic life."

Post reply
  4734 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 18:10 (5332 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: 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.-I sometimes wonder if the course of my own beliefs doesn't run perversely against the current. Darwin changed me (quite early in my life) from being an atheist to being an agnostic, and the connection that turned you towards atheism doesn't have the same effect on me, though your argument gives ample grounds for not accepting any ONE religion. Virtually every culture I know of entertains belief in some force outside our everyday material reality. The various myths and the characters that figure in them have taken on the status of literal truth, but I see them as images, and if you set aside the hocus-pocus, the fairy tales, the fetishism, the idolatry, the dogmatism etc., you come to that essential core of a "something" beyond our grasp. In varying forms, this unknown something was almost taken for granted in earlier times, when perhaps people were closer to nature than we are today, especially in the west. And so for me it's not the relativity of religion that is striking but the common ground. The fact that all these different societies believe in something would not persuade me to believe in nothing. -You are under the impression that ID is "a response to be able to hold onto both science and religion", in the sense that those who believe in it are really seeking a scientific justification for their innate beliefs. One can, of course, equally argue that rejection of ID ... which I equate with acceptance of chance ... is a response by atheists seeking a scientific justification for their innate disbeliefs (probably more prevalent on this side of the Atlantic than on yours). Both sides claim that science is on their side, whereas you and I know that science is (supposed to be) neutral. My subjective view of ID is that it has a believable premise (the complexity of life) leading to a shaky argument (some indefinable being), whereas atheism has the solid premise of the material world, and the shaky argument that life's complexities could fashion themselves. I can't base beliefs on shaky arguments, and so I stick in the middle, but that makes me wrong one way or the other, so it's nothing to be proud of!-(I've just read your post under "Two sides". Thank you. I will try to reply in the next day or so.)

Post reply
  4779 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 02:40 (5332 days ago) @ dhw

Matt: 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.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if the course of my own beliefs doesn't run perversely against the current. Darwin changed me (quite early in my life) from being an atheist to being an agnostic, and the connection that turned you towards atheism doesn't have the same effect on me, though your argument gives ample grounds for not accepting any ONE religion. Virtually every culture I know of entertains belief in some force outside our everyday material reality...-I suppose my thoughts here deserve a deeper look. The reason that the relativity strikes at me so much is that it is extremely easy to forget the shaping influence of society. Why I love Nietzsche? He points out with an almost cruel level of consistency, the fact that no one escapes society. No one. The story of god (to me) is one of religion... at one time God(s) were the explanation for absolutely everything. Pagan and animist cultures have a pretty constant tendency to build a mythology from important events, I forget the name of this fascinating documentary I recently watched. The people had an annual tradition of chopping down a tree, stripping it of limbs, and then sticking it back upright, the men would climb it, tie vines to their feet and then leap off. The reason: In the tribal history, a woman was beaten by her husband and finally left him; he chased her and as she lept a gorge holding a vine, her husband didn't and fell to his death. -So while what you say is true, that almost all cultures believe in something spiritual, this something is so incredibly vague and abstract that it becomes meaningless. (I uh... didn't think all THAT up as a kid though.) -My main reason for this line of probing is because to me, a truth can only be truth if it remains such regardless of your frame of reference. In a previous conversation with George, I spoke of certain constants such as PI. While he still might maintain that they are artificial, to me the number itself is meaningless compared to the fact that there IS a constant. -
> You are under the impression that ID is "a response to be able to hold onto both science and religion", in the sense that those who believe in it are really seeking a scientific justification for their innate beliefs. One can, of course, equally argue that rejection of ID ... which I equate with acceptance of chance ... is a response by atheists seeking a scientific justification for their innate disbeliefs (probably more prevalent on this side of the Atlantic than on yours). Both sides claim that science is on their side, whereas you and I know that science is (supposed to be) neutral. My subjective view of ID is that it has a believable premise (the complexity of life) leading to a shaky argument (some indefinable being), whereas atheism has the solid premise of the material world, and the shaky argument that life's complexities could fashion themselves. I can't base beliefs on shaky arguments, and so I stick in the middle, but that makes me wrong one way or the other, so it's nothing to be proud of!
> -I do designate a specific difference between the ID "movement" and the argument for design. One is a vile political machine, the other is an honest philosophical quest for a designer. I'll try to be consistent but when I mean the political entity it's usually ID whereas what David professes to me is simply "Design." I do not apply one set of arguments from them to people like David. -As an agreement and slightly different take on your post, we are the same; but being in a state of unsurety to me is something that over the past few years is something of a badge of courage. Few people are willing to admit they don't know and fewer still are actually comfortable with it. And to be frank; there's nothing to be right or wrong about here. Keep in mind that my Buddhist training has made me quite accepting of the "middle way" between materialism and immaterialism, and I'd rather be in the place to identify perspective as perspective than to be concretely "right." I cannot accept an unstudyable prime-cause and I cannot also accept the precepts of raw materialism. -> (I've just read your post under "Two sides". Thank you. I will try to reply in the next day or so.)

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4769 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Thursday, September 24, 2009, 22:04 (5330 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt has raised a number of interesting points under "Irreducible Complexity" and "ID", and since much of the material overlaps, I'm shifting it all to this thread. "Irreducible Complexity" needs to be reduced!-First, I'd like to say a big thank you for your comments about the forum. We've had a few nasty moments, but for the most part the discussions have been rational, amicable, and for me extremely instructive. This has been largely thanks to David and George, who have both contributed virtually from the start, representing opposite viewpoints, but continuing to probe without resorting to stabbing. I must add that your own contributions have given us a very welcome injection of energy and new ideas. Muchas gracias, amigo!-You wrote: A state of unsurety to me is [...] something of a badge of courage. [...] And to be frank, there's nothing to be right or wrong about here. -It probably takes more courage in the USA than in the UK to be an agnostic. Of course we have our share of fundamentalist theists and atheists who consider each other or agnostics to be total idiots, but in general I feel there's more apathy than interest, while among those who do care, perhaps there's a greater degree of tolerance. As for right or wrong, well, there has to be an "ultimate truth" of some kind, but I don't think we'll ever know it.-You wrote: My greater overall point is that for either raw materialism or immaterialism, the conclusions of no god and there is a god are purely filled in by philosophical predisposition on the matter. If you do not have this predisposition, the data is clearly inconclusive.-I'm not sure that either David or George would say their conclusions are based on philosophical predisposition (though maybe they won't identify with "raw"), but that is for them to say. I'm 100% in agreement about the inconclusiveness of the data ... but who knows, maybe my philosophical predisposition favours inconclusiveness.-I offered the concept of a God that was not perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. You wrote: Here we are presented with the fact that the creator is imperfect. [...] Since that might be the case, we would have no way of telling the difference between God and our own selves. My statement is that this line of thinking is projecting humanity for our own sake.-My speculation (ugh, not fact!) runs in the opposite direction from yours: i.e. that the projection goes from God to us, in that design generally reflects the designer. All the phenomena of consciousness, emotion, will etc., could scarcely have come into existence independently of the experience of the being that designed them. I don't think, for instance, he would have been surprised at manifestations of love (or hate) as something totally alien to him, since he had created them. For me this view renders the relationship between God and our world far more comprehensible, and at a stroke does away with the intellectual contortions necessary to explain such contrasts as good and evil. But "no way of telling the difference between God and our own selves"? I think there are vast differences. We don't even know what form he might take ... a universal mind can hardly be compared to a tiny finite body. That mind is incalculably more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative than ours. The human mind simply boggles at its inventiveness. We're not talking only of life on Earth, but of everything else that's out there, of which we know only a fraction. Just as I would argue that mentally and emotionally we differ from animals by degree, I would argue that we differ from God by a degree that's beyond measurement, but it still makes sense to me that if he's there, we are in some respects his reflections. -You agree that almost all cultures believe in something spiritual, but "this something is so incredibly vague and abstract that it becomes meaningless." -I would not equate vagueness and abstractness with meaninglessness. Indefinability, unknowability, maybe. If there's a designer (I really like your distinction between ID and design, by the way ... very useful), I'd say its nature is unknowable; we can only speculate on it (as I've done above), and all religions are based on such speculations. You say, "a truth can only be truth if it remains such regardless of your frame of reference". Clearly such objectivity is impossible here, but I'm not sure that truth is always what matters. Love, beauty, music etc. have a reality and hence a meaningfulness for each of us, though their essential nature may be indefinable and unknowable, and concepts vary from one society to another. Maybe all concepts of the designer are asymptotes (I had to look it up, and it's a really good image). There's no way they can actually join up with the thing itself, but maybe they do come close in their own way. On the other hand, of course, there may not be any "thing" for them to come close to.

Post reply
  4717 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Friday, September 25, 2009, 02:37 (5330 days ago) @ dhw


> You wrote: My greater overall point is that for either raw materialism or immaterialism, the conclusions of no god and there is a god are purely filled in by philosophical predisposition on the matter. If you do not have this predisposition, the data is clearly inconclusive.
> 
> I'm not sure that either David or George would say their conclusions are based on philosophical predisposition (though maybe they won't identify with "raw"), but that is for them to say. I'm 100% in agreement about the inconclusiveness of the data ... but who knows, maybe my philosophical predisposition favours inconclusiveness.
> -Matt is correct. His insights are good. I recognize that my philosophical predisposition is toward design. I admit George may be right. But to my mind the evidence favors my point of view. And some if the data is quite raw.

Post reply
  4775 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Friday, September 25, 2009, 03:18 (5330 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:-> You wrote: My greater overall point is that for either raw materialism or immaterialism, the conclusions of no god and there is a god are purely filled in by philosophical predisposition on the matter. If you do not have this predisposition, the data is clearly inconclusive.
> 
> I'm not sure that either David or George would say their conclusions are based on philosophical predisposition (though maybe they won't identify with "raw"), but that is for them to say. I'm 100% in agreement about the inconclusiveness of the data ... but who knows, maybe my philosophical predisposition favours inconclusiveness.
>-Though David already chimed in: The logic is inescapable. If you do not have actual knowledge about the creator, all you are doing is airing opinion or conviction. (This makes me unpopular with many people, but its true.) You can make inferences all you wish, but as you are well aware, cogency isn't the same as soundness. 
 
> I offered the concept of a God that was not perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. You wrote: Here we are presented with the fact that the creator is imperfect. [...] Since that might be the case, we would have no way of telling the difference between God and our own selves. My statement is that this line of thinking is projecting humanity for our own sake.
> -My issue with the "imperfect designer" is probably due to my barbarian instincts that tell me that a being as powerful as this god could've done things a little better. I realize I'm little better than a Calvinist; but note they share that same Teutonic tendencies. -> ... For me this view renders the relationship between God and our world far more comprehensible, and at a stroke does away with the intellectual contortions necessary to explain such contrasts as good and evil. But "no way of telling the difference between God and our own selves"? I think there are vast differences. We don't even know what form he might take ... a universal mind can hardly be compared to a tiny finite body. That mind is incalculably more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative than ours. The human mind simply boggles at its inventiveness. We're not talking only of life on Earth, but of everything else that's out there, of which we know only a fraction. Just as I would argue that mentally and emotionally we differ from animals by degree, I would argue that we differ from God by a degree that's beyond measurement, but it still makes sense to me that if he's there, we are in some respects his reflections. 
> -The only thing I can really say here is what my signature spams. Though Xenophanes was critiquing Homer, his words can be cleverly misconstrued to say that the "humanness" of gods is really just that of ourselves and our race collectively looking in the mirror. How much of what we know about the creator only comes from ancient peoples long past that had no access to ANY of the basic knowledge about the world that we currently possess? If we say that literal traditions are also meaningless, it destroys an even larger array of humanity. When you take all the humanity away from god(s) and make them that totally abstract... I actually agree with some Christian theologians when they say that there is no point in worshiping such a cold and distant deity. -> You agree that almost all cultures believe in something spiritual, but "this something is so incredibly vague and abstract that it becomes meaningless." 
> 
> I would not equate vagueness and abstractness with meaninglessness. Indefinability, unknowability, maybe. If there's a designer (I really like your distinction between ID and design, by the way ... very useful), I'd say its nature is unknowable; we can only speculate on it (as I've done above), and all religions are based on such speculations. You say, "a truth can only be truth if it remains such regardless of your frame of reference". Clearly such objectivity is impossible here, but I'm not sure that truth is always what matters. Love, beauty, music etc. have a reality and hence a meaningfulness for each of us, though their essential nature may be indefinable and unknowable, and concepts vary from one society to another. Maybe all concepts of the designer are asymptotes (I had to look it up, and it's a really good image). There's no way they can actually join up with the thing itself, but maybe they do come close in their own way. On the other hand, of course, there may not be any "thing" for them to come close to.-Well, I can't speak for the designer, but what we do in Calculus is see what number the asymptote is moving infinitely towards and say "that's the answer."

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4756 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Saturday, September 26, 2009, 22:07 (5328 days ago) @ xeno6696

There's no real disagreement between us on any of the points you raise, and no-one but the most hardened fundamentalist would say the data are conclusive, but I find the discussion interesting in itself, so I'll follow it up if I may.-I'd wondered if David and George would agree with you that their conclusions were based on philosophical predisposition, and David confirmed that his were. You wrote: "If you do not have actual knowledge about the creator, all you are doing is airing opinion or conviction." No-one can argue with that. But in no context that allows for different viewpoints (religion, morality, aesthetics, politics) can conclusions be based on actual knowledge, so what are they based on? It's the word "predisposition" that I hesitate over, as it seems to suggest that conclusions are reached by fitting evidence to conviction rather than the other way round. It's a murky field. Once someone has reached his conclusion, he may well subconsciously begin to manipulate the evidence, but has he reached the conclusion because of his philosophical predisposition? If we take the real-life case of a Jew who became an agnostic who became a panentheist, what conclusions are based on predisposition and what on evidence? One can hardly argue that interpretation of the evidence depends on the philosophical predisposition if the philosophical predisposition has undergone a double change! -On the subject of the "humanness" of the gods, you wrote that Xenophanes could be saying it's really just that of ourselves and our race collectively looking in the mirror. "When you take all the humanity away from god(s) and make them that totally abstract...I actually agree with some Christian theologians when they say that there is no point in worshiping such a cold and distant deity." -I agree too. But you seem to have taken no notice of my reverse speculation ... namely, that God has created us in his image: we, the design, reflect the designer. I don't, of course, mean in form, but in our mental/emotional/ intellectual makeup. I won't repeat the arguments I put forward in my post of 24 September at 22.04, except to say that this perspective seems to me to provide a logical basis for the human side of God, although of course it runs counter to the "perfect" image fostered by the main religions. -As regards the "asymptote", it's a term I'm not familiar with, so I'm probably using it wrongly! But the definition "a line that draws increasingly nearer to a curve without ever meeting it" makes for a great image, not just for religions trying to capture God, but for many of our human endeavours ... not least, our attempt to grasp reality through language.

Post reply
  4723 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 01:59 (5328 days ago) @ dhw

On the subject of the "humanness" of the gods, you wrote that Xenophanes could be saying it's really just that of ourselves and our race collectively looking in the mirror. "When you take all the humanity away from god(s) and make them that totally abstract...I actually agree with some Christian theologians when they say that there is no point in worshiping such a cold and distant deity." 
> 
> I agree too. But you seem to have taken no notice of my reverse speculation ... namely, that God has created us in his image: we, the design, reflect the designer. I don't, of course, mean in form, but in our mental/emotional/ intellectual makeup. I won't repeat the arguments I put forward in my post of 24 September at 22.04, except to say that this perspective seems to me to provide a logical basis for the human side of God, although of course it runs counter to the "perfect" image fostered by the main religions. 
> -This discussion is exactly why my position only goes to the universal intelligence proposal. We cannot know anything about God's attributes or his personality, but for some reason I do feel comfortable with the thought that there is a greater power out there. Since He created us through evolution, He might have some feelings of closeness toward us. How close, only He knows. And I can live with that. Was I predisposed before I entered into my 30 years of study? No. But I was convinced by the time I had studied the findings of cosmology, the standard model, the discoveries of particle physics, all of which tied together so beautifully. Studying Darwin only convinced me more. Since we did not observe evolution, and his theory is so full of holes, it has to be taken on faith that life appeared de novo from inorganic matter and ended up as complicated as human biochemisty is known to be. Out of nowhere we see an extremely complex DNA/RNA code to run life. From the simplest to the most complex, all life has to have that code. It had to appear with the earliest, the very first true living organism. An ameba has a DNA molecule longer than ours, more bases and only a few genes. Fit that into Darwin.

Post reply
  4744 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 04:01 (5328 days ago) @ David Turell

On the subject of the "humanness" of the gods, you wrote that Xenophanes could be saying it's really just that of ourselves and our race collectively looking in the mirror. "When you take all the humanity away from god(s) and make them that totally abstract...I actually agree with some Christian theologians when they say that there is no point in worshiping such a cold and distant deity." 
> > 
> > I agree too. But you seem to have taken no notice of my reverse speculation ... namely, that God has created us in his image: we, the design, reflect the designer. I don't, of course, mean in form, but in our mental/emotional/ intellectual makeup. I won't repeat the arguments I put forward in my post of 24 September at 22.04, except to say that this perspective seems to me to provide a logical basis for the human side of God, although of course it runs counter to the "perfect" image fostered by the main religions. 
> > 
> 
> This discussion is exactly why my position only goes to the universal intelligence proposal. We cannot know anything about God's attributes or his personality, but for some reason I do feel comfortable with the thought that there is a greater power out there. Since He created us through evolution, He might have some feelings of closeness toward us. How close, only He knows. And I can live with that. Was I predisposed before I entered into my 30 years of study? No. But I was convinced by the time I had studied the findings of cosmology, the standard model, the discoveries of particle physics, all of which tied together so beautifully. Studying Darwin only convinced me more. Since we did not observe evolution, and his theory is so full of holes, it has to be taken on faith that life appeared de novo from inorganic matter and ended up as complicated as human biochemisty is known to be. Out of nowhere we see an extremely complex DNA/RNA code to run life. From the simplest to the most complex, all life has to have that code. It had to appear with the earliest, the very first true living organism. An ameba has a DNA molecule longer than ours, more bases and only a few genes. Fit that into Darwin.-Well, my notion of predisposition digs alot deeper into subconcious areas; none of us ever think we're predisposed at any time, but we are. I am, you are (and were), and so is/was all the rest of us. It isn't possible to be impartial. -As for the Amoeba claim, natural selection is only supposed to operate if there's a need. The genome can grow as big as it wants, its only going to kill a creature if it develops something 'bad.' This falls into that category of "neutral" mutations we were discussing sometime before. You've got good, neutral, and bad.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4688 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 19:38 (5327 days ago) @ xeno6696


> An ameba has a DNA molecule longer than ours, more bases and only a few genes. Fit that into Darwin.
> 
> 
> As for the Amoeba claim, natural selection is only supposed to operate if there's a need. The genome can grow as big as it wants, its only going to kill a creature if it develops something 'bad.' This falls into that category of "neutral" mutations we were discussing sometime before. You've got good, neutral, and bad.-Matt; You missed the point I was making, perhaps due to my poor composition of thoughts. First, you know the key point that when the first living cellular forms appeared, DNA was there; pleuropneumonia and mycoplasma organisms have much smaller DNA than amoeba, but the issue I was making concerns the primary fact. Without DNA there isn't life. How does a complex code to run life appear immediately as life appears. It doesn't fit Darwin. This is an issue of natural selection and the 'need' to have a controlling and guiding code. This could not have occurred by neutral mutations. There had to be very active succession of good mutations to cause this. Next point, key point, even simple organisms, representing early life on the tree, have large complex DNA molecules, to run their very complex biochemistry. This is why the idea of an RNA World was so appealing, to jump start the process of life, a life that requires a DNA in charge. But an RNA World is also a jump start. That is why it is so important that you read Shapiro. He is the best skeptical Darwinist you will find.

Post reply
  4774 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 03:53 (5328 days ago) @ dhw

There's no real disagreement between us on any of the points you raise, and no-one but the most hardened fundamentalist would say the data are conclusive, but I find the discussion interesting in itself, so I'll follow it up if I may.
> 
>But in no context that allows for different viewpoints (religion, morality, aesthetics, politics) can conclusions be based on actual knowledge, so what are they based on? It's the word "predisposition" that I hesitate over, as it seems to suggest that conclusions are reached by fitting evidence to conviction rather than the other way round. It's a murky field. Once someone has reached his conclusion, he may well subconsciously begin to manipulate the evidence, but has he reached the conclusion because of his philosophical predisposition? If we take the real-life case of a Jew who became an agnostic who became a panentheist, what conclusions are based on predisposition and what on evidence? One can hardly argue that interpretation of the evidence depends on the philosophical predisposition if the philosophical predisposition has undergone a double change! 
> -My observation is that we are all "front-loaded" from the day we're born. It strikes no one as an odd thing that people tend to gravitate towards things that made them happy as children. It is a guarantee that we are all predisposed towards something. One of my best friends growing up had a Lutheran pastor for a father. It strikes no one as odd then that he makes sure his kids don't miss any Sunday. -The really good question--the hard question is "how to separate conclusions based on predisposition and which ones on evidence?" Here I must take a firm stance: It is not possible to accept an inferential conclusion without the predisposition that sits behind it. -(Obviously I mean this for non-quantitative claims.) -A human isn't tied to a disposition, but before one can accept a deity, it must be comfortable for them to do so in the first place. I could never have been an atheist if it wasn't comfortable... no one holds positions that force them to be conflicted (unless you're Catholic). :-P-> On the subject of the "humanness" of the gods, you wrote that Xenophanes could be saying it's really just that of ourselves and our race collectively looking in the mirror. "When you take all the humanity away from god(s) and make them that totally abstract...I actually agree with some Christian theologians when they say that there is no point in worshiping such a cold and distant deity." 
> 
> I agree too. But you seem to have taken no notice of my reverse speculation ... namely, that God has created us in his image: we, the design, reflect the designer. I don't, of course, mean in form, but in our mental/emotional/ intellectual makeup. I won't repeat the arguments I put forward in my post of 24 September at 22.04, except to say that this perspective seems to me to provide a logical basis for the human side of God, although of course it runs counter to the "perfect" image fostered by the main religions. 
>-Though I don't reject the notion, the fiery Teuton in me dislikes the concept of a God whose power you cannot fear... and I couldn't fear such a creature. 
 
> As regards the "asymptote", it's a term I'm not familiar with, so I'm probably using it wrongly! But the definition "a line that draws increasingly nearer to a curve without ever meeting it" makes for a great image, not just for religions trying to capture God, but for many of our human endeavours ... not least, our attempt to grasp reality through language.-I think of humanity as waves on a beach. Each generation plies a little more inland, then retreats into the mists whence it came, taking with it a little bit of what it conquered.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4767 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Monday, September 28, 2009, 16:07 (5326 days ago) @ xeno6696

Though I don't reject the notion, the fiery Teuton in me dislikes the concept of a God whose power you cannot fear... and I couldn't fear such a creature. -
With my background raised on the OT God, I know what a fearful God is like. I don't buy all that stuff in the OT. A UI is going to be reasonable, not fearful, but perhaps you are a fan of Wagner and the Valkyrie?

Post reply
  4739 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 28, 2009, 17:04 (5326 days ago) @ David Turell

Though I don't reject the notion, the fiery Teuton in me dislikes the concept of a God whose power you cannot fear... and I couldn't fear such a creature. 
> 
> 
> With my background raised on the OT God, I know what a fearful God is like. I don't buy all that stuff in the OT. A UI is going to be reasonable, not fearful, but perhaps you are a fan of Wagner and the Valkyrie?-I love Nietzsche... of course a love of Wagner necessarily grew out of that. Though, I sincerely do not share the Wagner's anti-semitic tendencies. -This is probably sharing too much info, but the religions that inspire me most are actually the Pagan ones centered around both the Norse and Mesopotamian gods. (Greek & Egyptian fast on their heels.) This is because the world our ancients lived in was one where you really did "walk with the Gods." It was a more simple, much more primitive time; we could live more peaceably with our animal instincts. I said before that I wished I could believe, this is why. All things modern religion (Buddhism included) teaches us to subdue and subvert are things that actually make us who we are; greed, lust, envy, wrath... In small doses and directed properly they make great men from dust. They are to be venerated as the human and frail attributes they are and not suppressed for abstract purposes. In short, I find more worth in man to worship than a creator deity or Universal Intelligence gives us; however unsophisticated that makes me. You might gain Telos from those concepts, but they rob human religion of its meaning in the same breath. -I spent some time after high school trying to learn the ancient runic language, but I concluded early that I'll need to spend time in Scandinavia to find someone able and willing to teach me. -I'm quite familiar with Snorri Sturrlson's "Poetic Edda," and even scored some unexpected brownie points on a short paper I wrote that was analyzing Nietzsche's dwarf caricature with what was known about dwarves from the Edda. (Nietzsche was a friend of Wagner, so it didn't seem a stretch for me that it was THAT kind of dwarf he had in mind.) -And David, even though it seems like I "hold my nose" about design, I don't. I hate the politicization of it. You should too. Politicizing *any* type of religious movement is always dangerous, and complicates matters more than they necessarily need to. I shouldn't have to question the political motives of my authors.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4747 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Monday, September 28, 2009, 19:54 (5326 days ago) @ xeno6696


> And David, even though it seems like I "hold my nose" about design, I don't. I hate the politicization of it. You should too. Politicizing *any* type of religious movement is always dangerous, and complicates matters more than they necessarily need to. I shouldn't have to question the political motives of my authors.-In the previous entry I noted that I use some of the material they present with my own interpretation of it. If I understand their politics I can account for it in my own thought pattern. Remember, I think ID is a reasonable theory, without the politics. You are being too black and white.

Post reply
  4797 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 28, 2009, 20:31 (5326 days ago) @ David Turell


> > And David, even though it seems like I "hold my nose" about design, I don't. I hate the politicization of it. You should too. Politicizing *any* type of religious movement is always dangerous, and complicates matters more than they necessarily need to. I shouldn't have to question the political motives of my authors.
> 
> In the previous entry I noted that I use some of the material they present with my own interpretation of it. If I understand their politics I can account for it in my own thought pattern. Remember, I think ID is a reasonable theory, without the politics. You are being too black and white.-Political organizations don't have to obey anything outside of their own specific agenda. The DI is an organization that has proclaimed that its goal is to promote design in an effort to infuse evangelical Christianity into every facet of public life--which as someone who's read the "Wedge Document," you are aware of. Anyone who openly affiliates with the organization implicitly supports this cause, and none have came forward to outrightly deny this facet of the "Institute's" purpose. Anything that spews forth should be viewed as propaganda first. If it wasn't a political entity, I would frankly have a much better appraisal of it. -I think that some arguments deal with ID claims pretty well. Irreducible Complexity = Argument from incredulity. It's not enough to point out life is complex. The complexity argument says "Life is complex, therefore it must have been designed." Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially. -Here's a quote from Dembski:
 http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.04.Backlash.htm) Dembski wrote, "I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages." -Dembski flat out cares more about "getting the last word" than a scientific approach. The DI has not censured him. -David, if an organization is willing to lie to the public to achieve its goals, it shouldn't be trusted, and neither should anyone associated with it. This isn't a "black and white" issue it's purely one of moral common sense. Unless you claim either moral relativism or consequentialism, wrong is wrong. If a university engaged in the same type of behavior as the DI, it would lose accreditation. -The DI needs to grow up.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4836 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Monday, September 28, 2009, 20:42 (5326 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: "The really good question ... the hard question is "how to separate conclusions based on predisposition and which ones on evidence?" Here I must take a firm stance: It is not possible to accept an inferential conclusion without the predisposition that sits behind it."-For me this simply boils down to saying that whenever we have a choice, our process of decision-making will be inseparable from our character, and I don't see that anyone can argue with that. As far as I'm concerned, the really good question ... the hard question ... is the extent to which our character or our predisposition is within our own control. It's the same theme as identity and free will. If what constitutes my identity is a mixture of heredity, environment and experience, what exactly is the "me" that weighs up the evidence and comes down on one side or the other ... or plonks itself in the middle?
 
George, to take an example, says he has no "philosophical predisposition" towards atheism, but is an atheist because that is how he evaluates the evidence. Of course he's not going against his own character, and I'm sure he's comfortable with the decision. I suspect that he also thinks he is in control of the processes that have led to the decision. So what part of the self has directed his brain cells to come up with it? What, in short, is the essential "George" that conducts such intellectual operations? And can its predispositions not be changed by new experiences? Supposing he hitchhikes along the road to Damascus and has a vision, might he not take a new decision that runs contrary to his existing predisposition? How do we know what potential dispositions are inside us until experience brings them out? I must stress that none of this is an argument against your own. I'm simply trying to delve a little deeper in order to find out what constitutes the nature of the predisposition that underlies our decision-making, and I'm asking whether we do or do not have at least a degree of control over the decision-making process. -On a different subject, I had put to you the speculative concept of a God that has made us in his image, in the sense that we reflect his own mental/emotional/intellectual makeup (though on a vastly reduced scale). You say that the fiery Teuton in you dislikes "the concept of a God you cannot fear...and I couldn't fear such a creature." You have obviously never lived under a dictatorship. Perhaps the fiery Teuton in you could imagine itself as a Jew in Nazi Germany, and then imagine a dictator God that has created humans in its own image. Don't tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you!

Post reply
  4795 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 14:16 (5326 days ago) @ dhw

Matt: "The really good question ... the hard question is "how to separate conclusions based on predisposition and which ones on evidence?" Here I must take a firm stance: It is not possible to accept an inferential conclusion without the predisposition that sits behind it."
> 
> For me this simply boils down to saying that whenever we have a choice, our process of decision-making will be inseparable from our character, and I don't see that anyone can argue with that. As far as I'm concerned, the really good question ... the hard question ... is the extent to which our character or our predisposition is within our own control. It's the same theme as identity and free will. If what constitutes my identity is a mixture of heredity, environment and experience, what exactly is the "me" that weighs up the evidence and comes down on one side or the other ... or plonks itself in the middle?
> 
> George, to take an example, says he has no "philosophical predisposition" towards atheism, but is an atheist because that is how he evaluates the evidence. Of course he's not going against his own character, and I'm sure he's comfortable with the decision. I suspect that he also thinks he is in control of the processes that have led to the decision. So what part of the self has directed his brain cells to come up with it? What, in short, is the essential "George" that conducts such intellectual operations? And can its predispositions not be changed by new experiences? Supposing he hitchhikes along the road to Damascus and has a vision, might he not take a new decision that runs contrary to his existing predisposition? How do we know what potential dispositions are inside us until experience brings them out? I must stress that none of this is an argument against your own. I'm simply trying to delve a little deeper in order to find out what constitutes the nature of the predisposition that underlies our decision-making, and I'm asking whether we do or do not have at least a degree of control over the decision-making process. 
> -You ask some very advanced philosophical questions here. How does one know "the thing in itself" without negating the subject or the object? How do I know that it is I who thinks, especially when the thoughts come unbidden and typically of their own free will, not my own? I wish I could say that the state of these questions has advanced since the 1800s. Is free will faith-based?-
> On a different subject, I had put to you the speculative concept of a God that has made us in his image, in the sense that we reflect his own mental/emotional/intellectual makeup (though on a vastly reduced scale). You say that the fiery Teuton in you dislikes "the concept of a God you cannot fear...and I couldn't fear such a creature." You have obviously never lived under a dictatorship. Perhaps the fiery Teuton in you could imagine itself as a Jew in Nazi Germany, and then imagine a dictator God that has created humans in its own image. Don't tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you!-It is clear that I sent you down the wrong path here...-The more "human-like" you make your god, the less mystical and more concrete it becomes. If its like a human, it is something that I not only can understand, but something I can also destroy pieces of. If it is something I can understand, the less mysterious its nature. If it is something I can destroy the less fear I can have towards the thing. -Knowing what I know about man, if we are created in God's image and God truly does have the power to create and destroy life, than there is no way that this God couldn't be a dictator, his presence known and felt, shackles around our feet. Looking into a mirror is like looking past yourself and into the eyes of God in this sense. I could only fear this God if I feared myself, if I didn't know my own 'soul' and its deepest depths as well as its soaring highs. Obviously, we are not in shackles; God's presence if he exists isn't one of we being shackled and therefore isn't explicit. That means that at the worst, God does not care about us at all, but he also doesn't care about us too much... or we'd have shackles of the padded and pillowed variety.-There is nothing to fear in this God.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4807 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 19:17 (5324 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.

Post reply
  4823 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 02:22 (5324 days ago) @ dhw

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.
 Hear, Hear! Exactly the point I have been making. Good information is not poisoned by the messenger.- 
> 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.-Naturally, only after a bright Roman conceived of the keystone. All curvilinear structures are stronger than straight ones.

Post reply
  4831 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 13:46 (5324 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
> Hear, Hear! Exactly the point I have been making. Good information is not poisoned by the messenger.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Naturally, only after a bright Roman conceived of the keystone. All curvilinear structures are stronger than straight ones.-My point on the arch (look at my response to dhw) is that arches appear in nature without the need of a designer nor a keystone. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Statistically, they aren't very likely to form, but they do.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4796 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 14:45 (5324 days ago) @ xeno6696


> My point on the arch (look at my response to dhw) is that arches appear in nature without the need of a designer nor a keystone. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Statistically, they aren't very likely to form, but they do.-Good point. Actually, and I wish I could remember the name of the layer of stone out West, there is a type of rock that naturally decays into arches, as in Arches National Park. I think it is a type of sandstone. I remember seeing partial arches in the cliffs in two dimensions. Statistically they are very likely to form as the Park has about 2,000.

Post reply
  4770 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 04:46 (5324 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.\"

Post reply
  4905 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 05:52 (5324 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.-Arches national monument happned because the properties of the unlying granite stone has the properies to allow arches by erosion.

Post reply
  4888 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 03, 2009, 20:44 (5321 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
> 
> Arches national monument happned because the properties of the unlying granite stone has the properies to allow arches by erosion.-But if we ask the question "What are the odds that it appeared," and the continue to drill down the questions to "What are the odds that those atoms appeared in those places," don't we continue to make the event more and more unlikely? -I only ask because most of the ID "statistical" arguments I've seen appear to be made by continuously drilling the scope down. (Was rereading some sections of "Black Box.")

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4965 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Friday, October 02, 2009, 12:59 (5323 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: The common ground between many religions abstracts out to nothing more than very general concepts [...] The subjectivity provided by theology prevents you from moving beyond generic and abstract concepts and that is what makes them meaningless. [...] Think about political speech. The more general they are. The less they 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.-First of all, my apologies if I put words into your mouth. I used "invalidates", but "makes them meaningless" is not, I agree, quite the same thing.-You've used politics as an analogy, but again we're approaching the subject from completely different angles. You seem to be looking for precision where there can't be any, and I'm simply stating a possible explanation (no more than that) of mysteries. I certainly don't expect you to provide answers to these questions yourself! My analogy would be ten witnesses to an accident giving ten different accounts. The fact that their reports are different does not mean that the accident didn't happen, or that there is no objective truth beyond their subjective accounts. In other words, I'm suggesting that all these different religions and concepts may be seen as attempts to grasp the same ungraspable truth. Common agreement on the details is impossible, because if there really is a "soul" and an "ethereal presence" they are almost certainly beyond our philosophical and scientific reach. For a materialist, that makes them into fairy stories, but for a neutral like myself, they are no more and no less a fairy story than inanimate matter coming to life and giving itself evolutionary powers. My plea is not for belief in a soul or in an ethereal presence, but for open-mindedness towards concepts that have permeated human cultures since time immemorial. It's just possible that your "90% of the world" (I haven't counted) has cottoned onto something that your 10% has lost touch with.-The "Roman arches which evolve naturally as well as artificially" are a hilarious misunderstanding. I would call them "natural arches", so I was trying to figure out how the Romans could have devised arches that grew of their own accord! However, I would say this is a somewhat disproportionate analogy. If the statistics behind the chance formation of your inanimate block are "staggering", the statistics behind the chance formation of your living, moving, seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, reproducing, remembering organic machine are so staggering that they totter off the statistical stage and collapse at the bottom of the pit of can't-stagger-any-further statistics.

Post reply
  4785 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 03, 2009, 20:34 (5321 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> First of all, my apologies if I put words into your mouth. I used "invalidates", but "makes them meaningless" is not, I agree, quite the same thing.
> 
> You've used politics as an analogy, but again we're approaching the subject from completely different angles. You seem to be looking for precision where there can't be any, and I'm simply stating a possible explanation (no more than that) of mysteries. I certainly don't expect you to provide answers to these questions yourself! My analogy would be ten witnesses to an accident giving ten different accounts. The fact that their reports are different does not mean that the accident didn't happen, or that there is no objective truth beyond their subjective accounts. In other words, I'm suggesting that all these different religions and concepts may be seen as attempts to grasp the same ungraspable truth. Common agreement on the details is impossible, because if there really is a "soul" and an "ethereal presence" they are almost certainly beyond our philosophical and scientific reach. For a materialist, that makes them into fairy stories, but for a neutral like myself, they are no more and no less a fairy story than inanimate matter coming to life and giving itself evolutionary powers. My plea is not for belief in a soul or in an ethereal presence, but for open-mindedness towards concepts that have permeated human cultures since time immemorial. It's just possible that your "90% of the world" (I haven't counted) has cottoned onto something that your 10% has lost touch with.
> -For that I would ask if you've read some of my posts recently with David that involve my explorations into much of my ancestry's pagan heritage. Saying that I'm out of touch with mysticism; there's a connection there that cannot be ignored. A UI of the sort that David and you espouse... sounds much more out of touch with the more wild and human elements that moved man of old. The thoughts that come to mind when say, meditating on Odin, as well as the emotions that it evokes, is not something translatable, and indeed even as someone who purports to be "godless," I get a great deal of insight both meditating on this ancient mythos as well as others. The only difference between myself and someone who actually follows Asatru, is that I am both willing and ready to admit that both the emotions and images these old gods conjure, are completely within my own head; images that live and die only within me. (For the record, I'm not stating I worship Odin.) There's a human component to these old religions that creates a more vibrant and dare I say, sacred feeling, that is lost when the image of God becomes an "all-encompassing everything." I also get similar moving feelings when listening to medieval chants (specially those written by "Anonymous 4."), and certain books of biblical Apocrypha. I almost take offense to the suggestion that I'm not being open-minded. My study of religion is probably more extensive than my knowledge of computers and math. -Religion and the experiences they evoke are something that is properly emotional in nature. Logic didn't even play a role in it until Plato/Aristotle. (Not as a structured system of inquiry.) To me, religion is properly seen as a cultural mechanism that binds humans together. -
> The "Roman arches which evolve naturally as well as artificially" are a hilarious misunderstanding. I would call them "natural arches", so I was trying to figure out how the Romans could have devised arches that grew of their own accord! However, I would say this is a somewhat disproportionate analogy. If the statistics behind the chance formation of your inanimate block are "staggering", the statistics behind the chance formation of your living, moving, seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, reproducing, remembering organic machine are so staggering that they totter off the statistical stage and collapse at the bottom of the pit of can't-stagger-any-further statistics.-You see I think on statistical arguments we come from such drastically different backgrounds that when I'm staring at the midday sun, you're looking at the full moon; we're on opposite sides of the world. -Saying that a direct line of contingencies necessitates astronomical odds in terms of the going from matter to us is "can't-stagger-any-further" is betraying lack of knowledge of an important detail or two.
You've mentioned here that the odds of that arch appearing are better than that of us appearing. By what knowledge can you make that claim?

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4764 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 04, 2009, 04:17 (5321 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw,
I need to expand:
 
> Saying that a direct line of contingencies necessitates astronomical odds in terms of the going from matter to us is "can't-stagger-any-further" is betraying lack of knowledge of an important detail or two.
> You've mentioned here that the odds of that arch appearing are better than that of us appearing. By what knowledge can you make that claim?-My question is for a purpose here. By invoking the odds "of all things appearing by chance," this amounts to having knowledge about the origins; something which we lack. Turell thinks that because certain enzymes need to be, certain processes cannot exist. While this is a valid observation, it isn't knowledge. It isn't something that he can know: As I've tried to point out, it could well be that whatever was the start of life, may not have even looked like RNA or DNA. The thing that frustrates me when you or David try to apply statistics, is that those statistics are based on a lack of knowledge. With only 8 of 20 amino acids present at the start of our planet, of course the odds of life forming are bad. However, our lens is cloudy when looking that far back. I said before that statistics are only meaningful when we know *everything* about the system were studying; that we know all its variables. We don't. And since we don't, claims such as "the odds of life happening by chance are .00000015," are meaningless. The odds at present are as random and unknowable as a cosmic game of pinata.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4823 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Monday, October 05, 2009, 08:39 (5320 days ago) @ xeno6696

We need to make a few personal adjustments, as the various posts sometimes lead to confusion as to who has said what. -1) You wrote: "A UI of the sort that David and you espouse..." I do not espouse a UI. I merely put forward suggestions as to its possible nature if it exists. I wrote explicitly: "My plea is not for belief in a soul or in an ethereal presence, but for open-mindedness towards concepts that have permeated human cultures since time immemorial." I have indeed been following your discussion with David. You write: "There's a human component to these old religions that creates a more vibrant and dare I say, sacred feeling, that is lost when the image of God becomes an 'all-encompassing everything'." That of course is a matter of personal opinion, but Asatru gods are still gods, and if my Wagnerian memory serves me correctly, don't the Valkyries take the souls of dead heroes to Valhalla? My point is that all these religions have common ground (a divine being or beings, souls) which might just possibly suggest a common truth. Interestingly, you disliked the concept of a UI with human components, whereas you seem to quite like the human components of the Scandinavian gods. As David has pointed out, if it's fear you want (not to mention myth and human interaction with the divine), the OT God can hold his own against anyone.-2) You wrote: "I almost take offense to the suggestion that I'm not being open-minded." Please don't take (or even almost take) offence. My plea was a general one, and was not directed at you personally, although since the post was a response to yours, I can see why you took it that way. I wrote: "It's just possible that your 90% of the world (I haven't counted) has cottoned onto something that your 10% has lost touch with". This was a reference to your statistic of people in the world who believe in a soul + ethereal presence ... not to your personal leanings! Most of my posts are an attempt to keep doors open, and so when certain concepts are described as meaningless or as fairy stories, I try to explain why I myself do not dismiss them, i.e. why one should keep an open mind. -3) And so to the famous Roman arches. You had written: "The statistics behind such an arch forming are staggering". I responded that by comparison the statistics behind our own appearance were "can't-stagger-any-further" staggering. You ask: "By what knowledge can you make that claim?" Quite right. I have no such knowledge, and should have said "in my opinion", rather than simply tottering in your statistical wake. In your second post, you wrote: "claims such as the odds of life happening by chance are .00000015 are meaningless." I agree. I've never made such a mathematical claim. But I will gladly explain why, in my view, the chances of the arch appearing naturally seem "staggeringly" better than our own. For all its complexity, as far as I know the arch has no faculty for reproduction, thought, movement, memory, imagination, consciousness, emotion, sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell etc. Each of these faculties, I believe, is of great complexity, and yet they are all encompassed within a single tiny space. After centuries of study, scientists have made enormous progress in explaining how the various mechanisms function, but there are still vast areas of uncertainty, and they still haven't succeeded in producing a living, replicating, evolvable body. By contrast, the Romans had no trouble building their arches thousands of years ago. My opinion is based fair and square on the incredulity factor, just as faith in God or chance is built on the credulity factor. There is a personal borderline beyond which each of us is unable to go. For example, I myself cannot believe in any sort of personal god. I can, however, believe that a block of stone may form an arch without the intervention of a designer (would you say I am being too credulous?). But I cannot believe that inanimate matter can spontaneously come to life, replicate, give itself evolutionary powers etc....you know the rest. As you point out: "Statistics are only meaningful when we know everything about the system we're studying; that we know all its variables. We don't." And since we don't know, we can only say what seems credible or incredible to us, and try to explain why.-[I have just read your extremely interesting post under "Bleached Faith", and will respond in due course.]

Post reply
  4796 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, October 05, 2009, 13:28 (5320 days ago) @ dhw

We need to make a few personal adjustments, as the various posts sometimes lead to confusion as to who has said what. 
> 
> 1) You wrote: "A UI of the sort that David and you espouse..." I do not espouse a UI. I merely put forward suggestions as to its possible nature if it exists. I wrote explicitly: -Espouse was clearly the wrong word. Sometimes when I try to be more clever with my use of language it bites me. Good thing I have quick access to a dictionary! -It seems that in the grand scope of things, both you and I play a pretty distinct game of "Devil's Advocate." I wasn't quite aware that you were/are up to the exact same thing as myself. For the rest of your post here--point taken. -You are correct: The tangent I start on here is better suited to the "Bleached Faith" thread anyway--though the focus is still on the "generic UI" concept that ID claims to support.-I do continuously hope that I bring something of interest here.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply
  4793 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 19:36 (5323 days ago) @ dhw

dhw writes: "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."-This sort of argument proves nothing. People in these cultures have also believed in demonic possession, magic, witchcraft, fairies and suchlike. Or are you arguing that there is some reality in these beliefs too?-
dwh further: "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."-I've already expressed my view that what "we" are is defined by our past history, but you don't seem to be impressed by this approach. What constitutes "me" is my whole history, nature and nurture. I don't see any great unsolved mystery here. The decisions I make are psrtly based on conscious reasoning, which proceeds by logical manipulation of language, but I recognise that a lot of them depend on subconscious events of which my conscious part is not always entirely aware except perhaps as vague "feelings". I see no reason to go off into theories of disembodide minds or souls.

--
GPJ

Post reply
  4837 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by dhw, Saturday, October 03, 2009, 15:09 (5322 days ago) @ George Jelliss

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.-George: I've already expressed my view that what "we" are is defined by our past history, but you don't seem to be impressed by this approach. What constitutes "me" is my whole history, nature and nurture. I don't see any great unsolved mystery here. The decisions I make are partly based on conscious reasoning, which proceeds by logical manipulation of language, but I recognise that a lot of them depend on subconscious events of which my conscious part is not always entirely aware except perhaps as vague "feelings". I see no reason to go into theories of disembodied minds or souls.-As before, we seem to be discussing this on different levels. Your account of the components of character and decision-making seems to me to be spot on. But what you can't tell me is the source of your conscious reasoning, and indeed of your consciousness and of your subconsciousness, and of your ability to manipulate language, and of the vague "feelings" you have. Materialism suggests that it's all a matter of electrical impulses discharged by the brain, but we don't know how these impulses can be translated into consciousness, reason, imagination, emotion, memory, etc., and we don't know how our history and nurture imprint themselves on the material cells which emit the impulses that give us our identity. Matt has called these "very advanced philosophical questions", and perhaps they are actually very advanced scientific questions, but we don't have the answers, and therein lies the mystery that you are unable to see.-In the context of this discussion, I have pointed out that religions of most cultures believe in some kind of "soul" ... i.e. a form of being that exists independently of the brain cells. -George: This sort of argument proves nothing. People in these cultures have also believed in demonic possession, magic, witchcraft, fairies and suchlike. Or are you arguing that there is some reality in these beliefs too?-The argument is not meant to prove anything, and I have said repeatedly that what interests me is not the differences between the religions, i.e. details like those you've listed above, but the common ground. Each one has some kind of immaterial existence at its centre, and it may be that in their varied ways they are based on a universal truth. I stress "may be". I'm not a believer. I simply recognize that there are questions ... such as the origin of life and the source of consciousness ... to which there are as yet no answers. I'm therefore prepared seriously to consider the answers that are on offer in terms of material v. non-material, while bearing in mind that neither belief can take root without a large helping of faith. I might add that the least satisfactory solution of all seems to me the denial that there is a problem ... though that is an approach shared by many theists and atheists alike.

Post reply
  4740 views

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 22:29 (5327 days ago) @ dhw

I've not been following this thread closely, but I thought perhaps I should respond to the folllowing from dhw:-I'd wondered if David and George would agree with you that their conclusions were based on philosophical predisposition, and David confirmed that his were. You wrote: "If you do not have actual knowledge about the creator, all you are doing is airing opinion or conviction." No-one can argue with that. But in no context that allows for different viewpoints (religion, morality, aesthetics, politics) can conclusions be based on actual knowledge, so what are they based on?-The problem with this approach is that it is based on black and white logic. I would say as usual that I base my views on the evidence, and the only difference between the subjects you mention and subjects like physics or biology are that the facts may be more difficult to ascertain with the same level of certainty. In other words I make a probabilistic judgment based on the evidence. -In the case of the question of a creator god, of the usual kinds proposed by the main religions, I consider my conclusion that there is no such being as certain as, say, the existence of Australia. I don't have any "philosophical predisposition" towards atheism. I'm an atheist because that is how I evaluate the evidence. I'm sure I've said this many times already.

--
GPJ

Post reply
  4780 views
RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum