|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If you mean, "What is the purpose of our existence in an existential sense", then no, science will not find an answer to that question, because it is not designed to answer such a question. It is as nonsensical as expecting science to discover if an action is right or wrong.
quote: Science already has discovered quite a lot about why we have a moral code, through human research and also through work done in other primates. Put very simply, we have moral codes because we are social animals, and having moral codes makes it easier to live together in relative harmony.
quote: Again, if you are expecting science to give you an existential-type answer to the purpose of the existence of the universe, that is simply unreasonable.
quote: Where is it written that the universe must provide you with an answer to any question? Why do you feel entitled to know the purpose of existence? What is so frightening about saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: I don't disagree with this or anything else in your post. I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist, why do we have a moral code, or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer. I think many here would agree with this, but it is important to make clear how you're using the word "why". You're not using it in the sense of "What was the immediate cause of such-and-such", which would turn it into a scientific question. You're using it in its spiritual sense, as in "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to. I think many here would agree with this, too. The thread's title states the case too strongly for my taste, but it's a response to claims that ID provides scientific answers. It doesn't. It's a religious view. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: I think many here would agree with this, but it is important to make clear how you're using the word "why". You're not using it in the sense of "What was the immediate cause of such-and-such", which would turn it into a scientific question. You're using it in its spiritual sense, as in "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Absolutely. It is like evolution. Science can study the evolutionary process from a single cell to what we see today but it can't answer the question of why does the process exist in the first place.
Percy writes: The thread's title states the case too strongly for my taste, but it's a response to claims that ID provides scientific answers. It doesn't. It's a religious view. I agree completely. I've done my best to make the point that evangelical atheists like Dawkins make non-scientific claims as well to support their beliefs. However, anything else I could say on the subject would just be a repeat so I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Greg Edited by GDR, : fix quote Edited by GDR, : still fixing quotes Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
schraf writes: If you mean, "What is the purpose of our existence in an existential sense", then no, science will not find an answer to that question, because it is not designed to answer such a question. It is as nonsensical as expecting science to discover if an action is right or wrong. That's what I said. There is no disagreement
scraf writes: Science already has discovered quite a lot about why we have a moral code, through human research and also through work done in other primates. Put very simply, we have moral codes because we are social animals, and having moral codes makes it easier to live together in relative harmony. Science might find how we got a moral code, it canot tell us why we have a moral code.
schraf writes: Again, if you are expecting science to give you an existential-type answer to the purpose of the existence of the universe, that is simply unreasonable. I'm not, which is what I said.
schraf writes: Where is it written that the universe must provide you with an answer to any question? It isn't.
schraf writes: Why do you feel entitled to know the purpose of existence? I don't
schraf writes: What is so frightening about saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that? I'm glad that the Einsteins and Darwins of this world didn't take that attitude. There is nothing frightening about saying that I don't know but I do want to learn as much as I can. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Science can study the evolutionary process from a single cell to what we see today but it can't answer the question of why does the process exist in the first place. The evolutionary process is surely a necessary element of our universe. It seems to follow from the most basic physical processes observed. If we one day find the ultimate ToE (Theory of Everything), and can somehow gain the power to follow its solution through the chaos and complexity, I believe we will see evolution, us, and our moral code all there in the formulae. All gaps will have been removed. However, the biggest question of all will remain... WHY? That simple question is where religion, ID and atheism fit in. And that simple question is surely infintely larger than all of our understanding and all of our gaps put together? Perhaps we should give God (and ~God) the luxury of that space and stop trying to cram him into every conceivable process that psuedo-hints at meta-physicality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
cavediver writes: However, the biggest question of all will remain... WHY? That simple question is where religion, ID and atheism fit in. And that simple question is surely infintely larger than all of our understanding and all of our gaps put together? Perhaps we should give God (and ~God) the luxury of that space and stop trying to cram him into every conceivable process that psuedo-hints at meta-physicality? Well put. I wonder if we can actually ever get to that point though. I just go back to the Lisa Randall quote I used earlier in the thread. "We understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe than ever before". It's a fascinating existence if we aren't afraid to seek the truth wherever it can be found and wherever it leads us. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: It's a fascinating existence if we aren't afraid to seek the truth wherever it can be found and wherever it leads us. Well, yes, of course. But science isn't about the search for truth in any spiritual sense. It's a search for how the universe works, not why the universe is or why it's the way it is. And being a scientist does not in any way preclude seeking spiritual truths. Any scientist or science-oriented person who tells you that science says there is no God is full of bunk. Even Dawkins will tell you that the God he thinks science most rules out is the fundamentalist God, the one who fundamentalists believe created the world around 6000 years ago and who wiped out almost all life on earth with a great flood around 5000 years ago. The evidence clearly contradicts this. But there's no evidence that contradicts even a very personal God who cares about us and answers our prayers. Too many sincerely religious people seem to view it as an either/or, and if they want to insist that their God tells them the earth is young and modern geology is a result of a world wide flood, then I guess it is an either/or and it's just tough patooties for them because all the evidence from the natural world (a natural world that is God's creation) says they're dead wrong. But there is no contradiction between religion and science for those who don't insist that their religion makes accurate scientific statements. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5942 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
schraf writes: What is so frightening about saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that?
gdr writes: I'm glad that the Einsteins and Darwins of this world didn't take that attitude. There is nothing frightening about saying that I don't know but I do want to learn as much as I can. I think you misunderstood schraf. Saying "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I don't want to know". Maybe I misread you but from prior comments it appears that you are happy with the thought that there are things that god did and that is good enough for you - which is the opposite of saying "I don't know". For example
gdr writes: I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist, why do we have a moral code, or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer. In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to. Questions like "why do we have a moral code" are slowly being answered in social evolutionary biology - you want to resist saying "I don't know" and hand that off to some intelligent designer while the scientific minds says "I don't know" but lets try to find out. I will agree that humans tend to resist saying "I don't know" and scientist can be guilty of this weakness also. However, the religious minded resort to explanations in god(s), shamans or in "sacred texts". End of exploration, end of questioning - a dead end. An interesting aside is that "sacred texts" have to have a certain prerequisite antiquity before they are granted such sacred status and are considered sufficiently authoritative to explain the contemporary unknowns - a humorous contradiction if you think about it. The phrase, "I don't know" is actually modern. It is the bedrock motivation behind the scientific way of knowing. It admits the truth of the situation and rejects the well-worn knee-jerk reaction to invoke fictitious god(s), spirits, pixies, arrangement of the stars to explain things for which we have as yet no reliable explanation. So in a sense one of the grandest accomplishments of the modern scientific era is the admission that we don't know some things. Recently I read somewhere that the Pope (the prior Pope i believe) told Stephen Hawking that one should not delve into the earliest moments of the creation of the universe - since that is God's domain. This adequately demonstrates the old way, the Pope was perfectly happy with the explanation that God did it. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: Well, yes, of course. But science isn't about the search for truth in any spiritual sense. It's a search for how the universe works, not why the universe is or why it's the way it is. I wasn't trying to suggest science that science is searching for spiritual truth. I do however believe that it is worthwhile to search for truth in ways that aren't scientific. I don't ever expect to convince anyone of my Theistic beliefs with scientific evidence.
Percy writes: Any scientist or science-oriented person who tells you that science says there is no God is full of bunk. Even Dawkins will tell you that the God he thinks science most rules out is the fundamentalist God, the one who fundamentalists believe created the world around 6000 years ago and who wiped out almost all life on earth with a great flood around 5000 years ago. The evidence clearly contradicts this. But there's no evidence that contradicts even a very personal God who cares about us and answers our prayers. Too many sincerely religious people seem to view it as an either/or, and if they want to insist that their God tells them the earth is young and modern geology is a result of a world wide flood, then I guess it is an either/or and it's just tough patooties for them because all the evidence from the natural world (a natural world that is God's creation) says they're dead wrong. But there is no contradiction between religion and science for those who don't insist that their religion makes accurate scientific statements. AMEN!! Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
iceage writes: I think you misunderstood schraf. Saying "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I don't want to know". Maybe I misread you but from prior comments it appears that you are happy with the thought that there are things that god did and that is good enough for you - which is the opposite of saying "I don't know". I don't think I misunderstood her. What I really hear her saying is that the only way we can find truth is through the scientific method. I am all for using the scientific method to find out anything that we can but I believe that we can also gain knowledge through the non-scientific. I do think that she has limited her ability to learn by rejecting knowledge based on the non-scientific. For example: I think most of us would agree that love is good and hate is bad. It's something we take for granted but I don't believe that we will ever find out why we feel that way using the empirical method. In saying that I believe God created, I am not limiting what I accept from scientists. I am keenly interested to see what the next great scientific discovery will be. I wish they'd hurry up and get on with it because I won't be around here forever. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I do think that she has limited her ability to learn by rejecting knowledge based on the non-scientific. For example: I think most of us would agree that love is good and hate is bad. It's something we take for granted but I don't believe that we will ever find out why we feel that way using the empirical method. Modern technology is coming to the point where it`s possible to see what`s going on iside the brain in real time when people have emotional reactions. May be the empirical method has something to say about why we feel the way we do after all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
fallycorp writes: Modern technology is coming to the point where it`s possible to see what`s going on iside the brain in real time when people have emotional reactions. May be the empirical method has something to say about why we feel the way we do after all. Go back to cavediver's point in this thread. http://EvC Forum: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. -->EvC Forum: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. It doesn't matter what we find out about how we feel, but science can't answer why we feel anything at all. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How?
quote: "Good" and "bad" are completely relative terms and are dependent upon the individual situations in which they are invoked. They are meaningless terms in the general. They are useful only when defined, and the definitions have and will always change in infinite ways.
quote: Let us assume for a moment that you are correct. Why do you think any answer that is not derived from methodological naturalism is going to be reliable? If it isn't testable, then there is no way to determine how close to the truth it is. If you aren't using MN, in other words, all explanations are equally valid. But I do not assume that you are correct. If our feelings of "love" and "hate" are products of the mind, which is in turn a product of the brain, there is no particular reason that MN won't be able to understand it in the future. We've only been really studying the brain as the organ that produces the mind, in earnest, since the 1980's, since PET scans were put into use at that time. Before that, there was research starting in the 1960's that used brain damaged people to dtudy behavir, and a few tests were done during brain surgery. So don't you think it is rather premature for you to poo-poo the possibility of science figuring out where "love" and "hate" come from, and why we think either are "good" or "bad", considering that the study of the brain has only really been going on for 40 years of so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
GDR writes: I am all for using the scientific method to find out anything that we can but I believe that we can also gain knowledge through the non-scientific. I have gained a significant amount of knowledge regarding history, the present and future events by a lifelong intensive study of Biblical prophecy. This is not science perse. Nevertheless it involves research, evidence and observation as does the scientific method. I study and observe history and current events. I become familiar with claims the prophets make. I then analyze and assemble the observations of history and current event to assertain as to whether they satisfy the claims of the Biblical prophets. I also observe the claims of other alleged prophetic sources, some of which contradict Biblical prophets for comparison with the Biblical prophets to assertain as to whether the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy is unique to the Bible and to compare other sources with the Bible. I began this lifelong study about the time of the emergence of the nation of Israel as per the Biblical prophets. This is one of the events that originally got me interested in this source of knowledge. I conclude by emphatically stating that this is a viable unscientific source of knowledge acquired outside of the science method. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Anyone want to discuss the topic {Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance}?
Or have we concluded that ID is based on ignorance and the maintenance of ignorance and logical fallacy in order to fill the gaps with some hypothetical designer instead of "we don't know"? That seems to be the summary position so far. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024