|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: Great. If science was based on personal incredulity, you would be making a great case against a well understood mechanism of evolutionary systems.
quote: Hmmm... that doesn't seem to make any sense.
quote: That's great.
quote: You're welcome to do that of course. However science is based on empiricical evidence, testable inferences from that evidence, and clear reasoning. Science is no more than the common sense reasoning that people use every day to solve ordinary problems, only applied consistently and rigorously to specific problems. This kind of evidenced reasoning is what we all use in our day to day life. After all, what kind of a person makes investment decisions based on the symmetry of a corporate logo, or the harmony of the company jingle? And certainly there are beautiful aspects to nature, but there are just as many ugly and brutal aspects. I don't see how, on balance, you can conclude that the universe has any overall 'magical' symmetry or harmony. In fact, the sheer scale of the universe and our own relative insignificance seems to indicate that our world and everything that occurs on it is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.. hardly consistent with a YEC or fundamentalist viewpoint. [Edited by a more lucid and well rested Rationalist for clarity.] [This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
I appreciate your candid and rapid response, incoherent in parts due to your haste, understandable.
Science, I agree must follow empirical parameters, albeit it does not seem to care about excellencies (e.g., harmonies, symmetries, and proportions). Excellencies must be reckoned with, however, in any grand scheme. How concockted (forgive spelling errors for I too am in haste this evening), how fortuitous, and how wonderful that we exist! Empiricism fails to compute. Science fails (in its modern definition(s). Naturalism fails. The mega-ToE fails. Only the YEC model really makes sense regarding excellencies per se (in my metaphysical opinion). To state empiricism has all the answers is to try to perceive life's tangible effects in a non-redeeming, sadistically detached manner. Sadistic it seems to me because as creatures we become dreadfully aware of our loneliness and damnation enough without having empirical philosophies too be-cloud the metaphysical and spiritual ones. The realities are different. Modern science works as a tool only for our having dominion over our space-time events, but it doesn't always answer the 'why's, the metaphysical worlds, the primary causes, nor the reality(s) that you are. Empiricism will never explain the rapturous joy of a song, wife, oil-painting, out-of-body experience, redeeming love, redeeming observations in nature, excellencies, perfections, redundant virtues, etc., etc. Our real worlds (and those of our children) of your mind, heart, soul, and inner-strength, etc. defy most empirical inquiry. Rationalist: I have 4 science degrees (which I count as dung to explain the grand scheme of things): Psychology (B.S), Elec. Eng Techn. (A.A.S.), biomedical sci(M.S), and podiatry (D.P.M.). None of them come close to explaining the human psyche in empirical terms. Empiricism is merely a tangible method of science; I'm not sure it even stimulates scientific inquiry at all? What do you think? Does the mega-ToE stimulate scientific inquiry? If so, is the stimulous sadistically inspired? For how could anyone believe enzyme excellencies evolved at all, let alone your psyche, music, art, and all our surreal communications per se? Or is the stimulous for mega-ToE inquiry one of dominating our space-time events? I doubt that (unless there are grant dollars involved). Who would want to jump on a mega-ToE boat and why, rationalist? Give me a reason. Truth? Hope? or to be the enemy of truth and hope?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Am I right in saying that you don't beleive certain things
could have evolved, becuase ... well ... you don't beleive they could have evolved ? That seems to be the gist of your post. Why would anyone want to know how things work? If you wanted to know how things work what would be the bestway to do that? You could read a manual, sure, good starting point, but tofully appreciate how something operates you need to look at it, study it ... isn't that empiricism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]S: How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system/structure and a naturally-occurring one that we either: don't understand yet, or don't have the capacity to understand? P: Without begging defintions at this point. Intelligently-Designed system/structures, IDSs (if you will) and naturally-occurring system/structures, NOS's seem to obviously overlap in many of their apparent existences.quote: Ummmm, right. Getting back to the original question... How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we 1) Don't understand yet, or 2) Don't have the capacity to understand? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: I was somewhat sleep deprived at the time. I have edited the post to clean it up a bit.
quote: These excellencies are subjective. You see magical harmonies, symmetries, and proportions. I don't. I see mosquitos, cockroaches, cancer, hurricanes, and planet destroying asteriods careening through our solar system. That is not to say that I believe that the universe is Satan's playground, hostile to us and "red in tooth and claw". It simply is what it is. It was not made 'for' us, does not care that we exist, and will not weep for us if we were to suddenly disappear.
quote: But if we didn't exist, would we be here celebrating?
quote: Only YEC satisfies your feelings about how the universe should be. But your feelings about the universe or the various scientific theories you mention have little to do with whether they are true or not.
quote: Sadistic? I don't think so. Nor detached. In any case, science does not claim to have "all the answers". But I don't think you are concerned with science having "all" the answers, just it having some answers that you would prefer it didn't have. For instance, there is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence which supports the hypothesis that Earth is very old, and that all life evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years.
quote: We only become aware of our damnation if we believe in damnation. I do not.
quote: Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. But again, that doesn't mean it doesn't have "some" of the answers.
quote: It explains them well enough.. but those explanations just aren't very satisfying to most people. People "want" to believe in magic, in an ethereal otherworld where things like love, joy, art, and the other supposedly ineffable aspects of human life exist unsullied by scientific description and examination. But love, for example, is a result of evolutionary mating instincts. Love, joy, the 'appreciation' of art, and all other emotions are merely biochemical processes which take place in the various structures of your brain. This may not be emotionally satisfying, but it is the truth, and who said that what is true had to be emotionally satisfying anyway?
quote: Certainly many of them come very close to explaining the human psyche in empirical terms. Have you read "How the Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker, or any of the wide variety of scholarly papers and popular books on the subject. I am afraid the human psyche is not nearly as impenetrable as you would make it out to be.
quote: It is inspired by the desire to know the truth (at least as well as it can be known) and not to stroke our egos by pretending cosmic importance, or make ourselves feel better by merely reinforcing what we want to believe.
quote: It's quite easy.
quote: Well, my choice would be truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Peter, I'll agree with you that empirical attitude is appropriate for tackling life's knowns and attemping to tackle many of life's unknowns, in an attempt to have dominion over our environment, for example.
But to deny the redemptive observations (A.K.A. via a Redeemer) as arbitrarily empirical is neither rational nor ethical (in my opinion). Because, you and I don't even know what light is, let alone music, psyche, really viable mega-ToE mechanisms, nor love in all its myriad forms: Empiricism seems to be gappy, incomplete, superficial, and in denial of cosmic orderly excellencies as described. Correct me and thanks for your response. Phil
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
OK Shraf, don't think I can go into 3rd level apperceptive rebuttals of rebuttals (etc.) at this time.
I'll comment on some dissonant and coherent objections you seem to have made. Scientists, even naturalists, (I stand corrected) are often very passionate, both in and out of their professions. My atheistic collegue, my atheistic identical twin, and the last Darwin lecture I saw on the liberal channel all have seemed very passionate; much more than my narrow-minded redemptive observations lead me to be; for my passion in viewing so many redemptive observations is not well accepted (both within and without). Albeit those redemptive observations exist and must be reckoned with, even with scientific inquiry. Or what do you suggest?: Forget observing our material, soulish, and supernatural benefits? Explain them empirically? Deny the spiritual and/or psyche worlds as valuable? Stop reading our Bibles? Look for vicarious ethical solutions via science? Our vicarious sufferings (curse) demand valid appropriate scientific and ethical inquiry. Empirical answers are only a fraction complete: the gaps they have increasingly left in our knowledge demand a non-empirical (metaphysical) God-of-the-gaps argument, regardless of your or my arbitrary disdain for this God-of-the-gaps necessity. For one empirical question (whether answered or not) begets more questions until a vicious compulsively neurotic confusion is manifest ... not to deride emprical science. For example, with all we know about light, it increasingly evades our understanding: you and I will never fully appreciate light in all its phenomenal excellencies. When will this forum realize that empirical study is a dead-end street once it becomes an end instead of a means to an end, i.e., to negotiate any given event within our complex space-time continuum? Scientists (especially myself -- with 4 science degrees, that I now count dung that I may win Christ, or at least not forget the innumerable cosmic benefits we're blessed with): WAKE UP! Sleepily, Philip
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Thanks for your indepth and thought out reply:
I'll home in on excellencies, detachment, and sadism. To deny unquencheable excellencies observed and expected to be observed in nature seems bigoted even under empirical grounds. Light in the darkness for example: Light is unquencheable and harbours innumerable electromagnetic harmonies, symmetries, and proportions that we don't have time to speak in particular now. To state that all is chaos and darkness is bigotted, non-factual, and a lie. (Forgive my bluntness, Rationalist, I'm probably the biggest liar on this forum with regards to describing excellencies empirically; sorry) Sadistic and detached you are not. You seek truth as do I. You want answers that fit the empirical mold. I respect that as long as you realize empiricism miserably fails in dealing with excellencies (redemptive and otherwise) that we grapple with, i.e., to obtain control for our (human/humane) benefits. Now, this other argument remains: Excellencies (all-pervasive) are multiplied in nature and cannot be quenched via rational or empirical arguement. We are not in hell (yet), total darkness, chaos, and/or universal decay, as would be expected under a purely empirical model, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
Which of these are excellencies?
1. Radioactive decay2. The muon 3. Mold 4. Super Nova 5. Flies and their pupae (maggots) 6. The Ebola virus 7. Quantum electrodynamics 8. The fungus which causes Atheletes Foot 9. The Big Bang and the expanding cosmos 10. Devastating underwater landslides and tsunamis [This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-31-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Look, I know that for someone with all those degrees, it must be difficult to reconcile the fact that you want to consider yourself a modern, well-educated, intelligent person, with your simultaneous belief in your particular literal interpretation of certain parts of a certain translation of the Christian Bible.
The cognitive dissonance you must experience every time your mind struggles with the backflips and double axles it must perform during the immense task of ignoring the vast amounts of physical evidence in favor of the ToE! It would be much easier if you were not an intelligent person. Then you wouldn't have to actually choose to seek out your ignorance and embrace it as some kind of badge of honor or something. In fact, you admittedly gleefully rejoice in your ignorance, calling it "God!" I find this terribly sad; that you or anyone would follow a religion's dogma which requires you to leave your mind at the door. This is why you don't have a simple, direct answer to my question of how can we tell the difference between a ID system and a natural one we don't understand. Your answer, if you truly accepted what your religion seems to require you to, should have been, "I believe that the world was Intelligently Designed by the Christian God of the Bible in the way and manner in which I interpret the Bible says it did, and no scientific evidence will ever sway me from this belief." It seems to me that you want to appear as an intelligent, educated, modern, person, and therefore you can't quite bring yourself to answer this way, particularly because you have already emphasized your science background so much. You want to use science when it suits you, but then when it doesn't, and you come up against that cognitive dissonance I mentioned, you babble on and on with all of that "redemptive" nonsense in order to somehow fool yourself that you are actually responding at all to what I wrote. It is a SIMPLE question and this is the third time I will have asked it; How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one we either, 1) don't understand yet, or 2) don't have the capacity to understand. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
The first 9 appear relatively more excellent in their harmonies, symmetries, and proportions; albeit some, like the fungus are destructive (cursing) as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
It appears you can not perceive redemptive observations in nature. Understandable: we're all apt to be empirically blind in this matter.
But its foolish to deny your own let alone anyone else's redemptive excellencies using even empirical reasoning. Redemptive excellencies will always be dissonant to our supposed naturalistic grand scheme(s) and will always testify against those who exploit a purely naturalistic scheme. Whether you cite such redemptive events as Christ or directly oppose such events as observable (anti-Christ and/or anti-scientific) will never refute those events. Give it up, Shraf, please. Count your empirical blessings; see the silver lining on every observable cosmic event, despite the naturalistic tendency to deny those observed excellencies. Reasonably deduct that it was all designed by a Jesus-Christ-like ID. Why not steal a little faith in that redemptive science; get caught up in it; sing or cry a little prayer to it; love it; let it love you back, as it always has.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Fourth time I have asked: How do we tell an Intelligently-Designed system from a natural one that we 1) Don't understand yet, or 2) Don't have the capacity to understand? (Helpful Note: It's perfectly fine to say that you believe because you want to believe, and that there is no evidence. I have no opinion on religious beliefs of others. However, as long as you say that there is scientific evidence of ID, I will continue to ask the question. As long as you avoid giving some kind of answer, I will consider you to be avoiding the question.) ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Athlete's foot fungus is not destructive from the fungus' point of view, and probably not destructive from the viewpoint of any infectious organisms which are introduced secondarily, as well. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
In order to investigate something empirically, surely
we need to find evidences. Empiracle observations that confirm or deny the proposition. If we have a proposal for which no empirical evidence can befound, then surely we must question the proposal, rather than the method.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024