|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Or it hints that the writer viewed the sky as a solid covering over the earth, like the other people at that time did. Which is more plausible? -
quote: I'm not aware of any physical phenomena in General Relativity that "rolls up" space. On the other hand, if you have seen a really good storm front coming on then you get a good feeling what "rolling up the heavens" might actually mean. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You must admit that chance is the beginning of evolution. I know that natural selection is the supposed guiding factor for evolution. I know hat natural selection is not chance. But natural selection only operates on organisms that are able to reproduce, replicate, duplicate or whatever. Bear in mind that to make the first living thing, natural selection could not work. It is then that the randomness really plays the role that most people forget about. But that remains to be demonstrated. If we knew what the first life was, and the conditions under which it arose, then maybe we could say whether the origin of life was high;y improbable --- or highly probable --- or impossible bar a miracle --- or completely inevitable. But we cannot assign a probability to something-but-we-don't-know-what happening under certain-conditions-which-we-can't-identify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
conclusions reached in the Bible should be used in science. Could you let me know where he states this? It isn't in any of the quotes so far discussed, that's all.
But since God is the powerful being we so believe, He must be able to communicate to us, and able to do it well. You forget one thing. The possibility that God created the universe, communicated it to us clearly, and that the books compiled in The Holy Bible are absolutely nothing to do with that communication. The other possibility is that God, having made the universe, was capable of communicating to us well, but didn't. Wanting instead for us to figure it out for ourselves. Any number of possibilities exist. I'm all for continuing to investigate rather than relying on 'this specific god did it as described in this specific piece of Bronze age writing'. It is such a defeatest position, it is a position of wilful ignorance.
Bear in mind that to make the first living thing, natural selection could not work. It is then that the randomness really plays the role that most people forget about. Of course, that is effectively saying that evolution doesn't rely purely on chance, but only the first living thing. That means that potentially 3.5 billion years of evolution is non-chance based. So, the first life? Who can say what kind of chance we are looking at here? We don't know what our initial conditions, so we cannot calculate these probabilities - it could be inevitable for all we know.
And Galileo was mistaken To close on a cheap rhetorical trick: Galileo mistaken or...you Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Any number of possibilities exist. I'm all for continuing to investigate rather than relying on 'this specific god did it as described in this specific piece of Bronze age writing'. It is such a defeatest position, it is a position of wilful ignorance. That's fair enough, but science could be that torch in the dark, and may never bring an answer to people. This quote covers a range of issues, does it not? It pertains to peoples' beliefs in general. In your lifetime it's unlikely that science will bring an answer to it all. Not that that will matter to you, but my point is that some would prefer an answer that makes sense, rather than a none-answer. For some, there is ample evidence to suggest an intelligent force is probable, and so they settle with that. That's not so bad. It's quite convenient that "possibilities" exist. It's like saying, "oh, my torch doesn't reach that area, but let's not use anything else to bring light to it, because it's quite possible that my torch will reach that area in the future, and my torch has been successful in the past aswell." Yet remember that TRUTH doesn't belong to science, logically? It's like you're saying, "You can't ever infer God". Frankly, people think that an intelligent force brings light. It makes sense of a number of mysteries. The universe being tuned for exmple, vaguely, or fine-tuned, same difference. Reality is. Why is reality so = this is why. God is a good answer because he answers for why things are. An example of such Theist thinking would go; "Why is time there, well, for events to unfold. Why is there light, for energy. Why is space a vacuum? To radiate heat. Why is there water? An atmosphere, why is the set-up for life correct......" Anyway, the arguments, aren't what matter Mod'. My examples can be poor, and it's academic, because my point is that a Theist way of thinking is basically to say that reality is here on purpose, and that all those things aren't just coincidences. Is it so wrong, to give credence to reality? It's an error to incapacitate a potential inference. It's like saying, "you can never conclude that 2+2 is 5". . Fair enough - Goddidit is faulty for a reason, but as long as you are not saying, "God can never ever have done it even if it makes tremendous sense, and answers well for things". What if we define 5 as "4"? The problem with God, for me, is that he's like a theory that fits all of the facts, but just can't be proven to be the correct theory. A theory that answers for all of the variables, or explains them well, is atleast one worthy of investigation. Even if it's only a personal investigation. Okay, I've had my say now. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hi Mike,
Can I just say that it is a pleasure to receive well crafted responses such as this? You have a way with words and clearly understand the issues at stake. There may have been some communication error on my behalf that I hope to clear up now. It is perfectly fine for a human being to say "God did it", or variants thereof. It is perfectly fine for a scientist who is also human to do that very thing. No problems with anyone who does that. What I take issue with, is when people/scientists try to state that this conclusion is scientific. OR when scientists have a God Did It conclusion and consider that to be the final answer on the subject. I think once you have decided that God has done it, it becomes incredibly easy to stop looking so hard for answers - you already have one you are philosophically happy with. The philosophical conclusion that God did something is anathema to scientific discovery. Even if, at any given time, it turns out to be a correct conclusion, science should not stop until it has either demonstrated that that is the case (probably not going to happen) or finds another explanation. If it can't find one, it should still look for one. Science is a philosophy of no final answers, nothing is conclusive in science, so any conclusion that states something absolutely is a conclusion which is saying 'stop looking for a better answer'. That is something human, but should be warned against to journeymen scientists. As a human, they might be satisfied, but as a scientists it is their obligation to never be satisfied. Not only can you infer God, it is something that is done by millions, and we should not ignore that. Scientists can do it too - but in so doing they must not stop asking. Had Newton continued to ask, he probably would have solved the problem, it was well within his powers to do so. However, he chose to stop asking and was scientifically satisfied with an ID invocation. This is bad.
The problem with God, for me, is that he's like a theory that fits all of the facts, but just can't be proven to be the correct theory. Precisely. The problem is that we can never be sure the God theory is right this time. We know for a fact that the God theory has been invoked erroneously time and again, and has stopped a scientist from going further.
A theory that answers for all of the variables, or explains them well, is atleast one worthy of investigation. Even if it's only a personal investigation. It is worth investigation, but it has a problem. How can you know if God did it, or something you can't explain did it? Is the sun actually Ra's chariot coursing through the sky, plunging into the underworld to fight evil every night? Or is it a nuclear reactor 120 billion metres away? Personally, it has the same problems. How does one know that any revelation is independent of the thinker? We can say for sure that plenty of revelations are wrong, because they are contradictory. It is fine to ponder these things, but any conclusion that is reached simply ends up being little more than opinion. Science is about explaining things. We can't explain things based on our opinions. The world works regardless of how we think it works, but science allows us to do practical things and learn about our universe in a way that we can have some confidence in. I don't rate my chances with opinion. God, if one exists, is probably smarter than me. Thus: it knows the quandary well. I trust that any god that does exist will not expect me to accept my cultural opinion (religious faith in whatever has been told to me) as a final answer. My personal opinion is that faith is another word for giving up being critical. I don't take people I meet on faith when they say they have a bridge for sale for example. Nor do I take on faith what some people I will never meet say about a metaphorical bridge (salvation) that requires I change my personal morals. My opinion in science is that giving up being critical is anathema to discovery. And as such faith should not enter into a scientific conclusion. ID, is simply asserting that a Designer does exist and was involved because as people we cannot explain something. As such, we should warn students away from that. Scientists are always working at the forefront, they are testing and discovering new things. If they cannot solve how a particular bacteria manages to metabolise some chemical - they cannot say that an undetectable entity is fiddling with things and expect that to be the final word. They might privately think it, but if they stop looking, it is just saying 'I give up. It can't be solved'. I say that it is the philosophy of ignorance because if everyone followed the philosophy we would be ignorant of many things today, and will be ignorant of many other things in future. The less people rely on the ID crutch, the more discovery is made possible. Thus my conclusion that science is the philosophy of discovery, and ID is the philosophy of ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You must admit that chance is the beginning of evolution. Generally speaking 'life' is the beginning of evolution - but then we need to define 'life' eh? More difficult than it seems at first. (see Definition of Life On the other hand, what we need for evolution to work is a replication system involving copies that are variations on a theme, where the variations are passed on to the copies in the replication process and then new variations on those copied themes produced, copies where natural selection can operate in restricting which variations are available to the next generation based on those from the previous generation that best enable the survival or replication of the mechanism. We could define life as any replication system where evolution is part of the process. Crystals replicate but are not subject to natural selection in the way the copies are made and passed on. Viruses replicate using materials outside the virus, but they are subject to evolution - they adapt and change over time due to mutation and natural selection. The first replication systems may well not have qualified for 'life' by any current definitions, but still have provided a platform where natural selection operates. So one way to define life would be any system where natural selection operates on variations within a population of self replicating mechanisms such that change over time occurs within the population that improves the chances of the self replicating mechanisms to survive or to self replicate. This could be a single organic molecule -- we don't really know at this point, but evidence is pointing in that direction: SELF-REPLICATION: Even peptides do itBy Stuart A. Kauffman This article originally appeared in Nature 382 August 8, 1996. Copyright 1996 by Nature. available on-line quote: The RNA Worldby Brig Klyce on-line article quote: RNA-catalysed RNA polymerization using nucleoside triphosphates.By Ekland EH, Bartel DP. Nature. 1996 Sep 12;383(6596):192. - PubMed Abstract quote: RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension.By Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP. Science. 2001 May 18;292(5520):1278. - PubMed Abstract quote: There is more, but essentially what we increasingly see is that cellular life doesn't need to exist for the processes of evolution (variation in copies and selection of those copies that are more 'fit' to survive or replicate) to operate on the replication of molecular systems. So when we talk about for formation of life by natural means (eg -- abiogenesis), we are talking about the chemical formation of these replicating molecules, and what kinds of chemical processes can cause these molecules to form and what kinds of building blocks did these chemical processes have available to work with. Chemical processes are not entirely random - molecules only form in certain ways, bonds can only form under certain conditions. We also know that certain prebiotic and organic chemicals were readily available. Building Blocks of Lifeby RAZD on EvC Forum RAZD - Building Blocks of Life quote: We do not need to consider how these molecules could have formed or what kind of chance is necessary for them to form: they were available. Thus, while we may need "chance" to make the proper connections - the actual chemical bonds between available prebiotic molecular building blocks to form a replicating molecule - the readily available material, the basic chemical behavior of molecules that only bond in a certain number of ways (not endless) and the minimum basic replication requirements needed, all mean that the possibilities could well have been such that it was more just a matter of time rather than a matter of "impossible" odds. We may need "chance" to toss a coin and get a heads instead of a tails, but no one will argue that no matter how long you keep tossing the coin that you will never get a heads result. And once a replication system has started producing more replicating molecules it is no longer a matter of chance, but a faits accomplis. At this point the best we can say from a scientific point of view is that we don't know. Some people may choose to conclude that their preferred god is responsible, but that is -- as all faith truly is -- the leap of faith. So whether Newton was right or not to assume a designer is open to debate. It could be the same as assuming that a designer is responsible for all the patterns seen in a kaleidoscope, when it is as much a matter of the point of view of the observer whether a pattern truly exists or not: One person only looking through the eyehole sees marvelous patterns. Another person looks at the back and sees jumbled block of random colored chips, opens the kaleidoscope and finds mirrors that cause the appearance of patterns. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Confidence writes: Otherwise, if the good book is wrong, then God himself did not know the universe He allegedly created. This is a false dichotomy. If the Bible is the indeed the work of humanity then there is no reason to expect the universe to conform to any kind of biblical description.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi Mike, Can I just say that it is a pleasure to receive well crafted responses such as this? You have a way with words and clearly understand the issues at stake. Thanks Mod. I also enjoy your posts and am aware that you have a good knowledge span. I also perceive that you understand that negative personal comments are never necessary. I also employ this philosophy.
It is perfectly fine for a human being to say "God did it", or variants thereof. It is perfectly fine for a scientist who is also human to do that very thing. No problems with anyone who does that. What I take issue with, is when people/scientists try to state that this conclusion is scientific Excellent. We have a 100% record in constructive debate. I'm satisfied with your in-depth explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
RickJB touched on this issue, but I'll go a little further. Or rather, in a different direction.
But conclusions reached in the Bible should be used in science. Otherwise, if the good book is wrong, then God himself did not know the universe He allegedly created could it be, that if God was the author, he just left some stuff out? You know, like it's not really that important to know how gravity works or the correct physics compared with getting into heaven. Wouldn't, and doesn't, all that science mumbo-jumbo just confuse matters in the "good book"? Is the book about salvation or science? It's damn good if you're using it as a life guide. Piss poor as a science guide. Does this, then, not lead to the conclusion that perhaps science is not the focus of the bible? Do you use a bird-book for looking up what type of lizard you're looking at? As to the whole gallileo deal:you do realize he was being persecuted by the Inquisition, right? His comment, about not abandoning reason, was in response to the Inquisition demanding that he do just that, and accept at face-value what is in the bible as true. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6346 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
What I take issue with, is when people/scientists try to state that this conclusion is scientific. OR when scientists have a God Did It conclusion and consider that to be the final answer on the subject. Maybe you confuse me with whoever has a God Did It conclusion. I do not believe that science is evil. I believe science is a tool for us to understand the world around us, but also to glorify God with the marvel at how the creation works.
Science is a philosophy of no final answers, nothing is conclusive in science I believe naturalism is a philosophy(religion) that is never conclusive because it assumes there is no God. But not science. I'm surprised that one such as you made a statement like this. The reason why we continue in science is not because there are no conclusions, but because there is so much depth, intricacies, beauty just waiting to be explored. For instance, we can conclude that atoms exist. We have observed them, but we can continue farther, electrons and protons exist. But what makes up protons and electrons? ... science, delving deeper into the glory of God. It is a continuous quest, because the Creator is infinite in wisdom. Who knows how much farther we can go into the nature of the basic elements that we know right now, or the limits of the universe? Laws of physics, mathematics. The weather, the human mind. All wonders of creation to be explored. Just a reminder that the Creator might not take to well to have His handy work being attributed to randomness. Or whatever forces other than Him you might attribute it to. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
It would help if you replied to the correct message.
your response has nothing to do with my message 24. I am not sure who's message you are replying to. It'll also let the person who you intended to reply to know that you have, without a doubt. care to take a go at my message 24, though? Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi there. Welcome to the forum.
I believe naturalism is a philosophy(religion) that is never conclusive because it assumes there is no God. But not science. I'm surprised that one such as you made a statement like this. The reason why we continue in science is not because there are no conclusions, but because there is so much depth, intricacies, beauty just waiting to be explored. Science works from theories based on induction. This means that one can make a theory that would explain the facts, in the least and that would satisfy the parameter of making predictions. Then the build up of evidence (induction) to favour that theory, would give it merit. I think that this is why Mod' says that science doesn't have conclusions, in the absolute sense. This is becauseone would seek evidence that would confirm his/her theory, with a strong emphasis on falsification. (Evidence to the contrary of that theory). Naturalism, as far as I am aware, has not been mentioned. Science doesn't bring any assumptions, except valid ones, based on work which has been confirmed as factual. So far, scientifically, "God" isn't mentioned in proper theory, because he does not pertain to any experimental results. It's quite true that God could be a conclusion, but then he would also have to be a tentative conclusion, because of what Mod said. He would then be subject to modification by dissent. There's also a problem with that which we would expect to evidence God. For example, in a theory, one builds his/her construct and then can simply look for evidence to fit with that framework. Whereas with God, no one can say what would evidence him. God is beyond falsification, because of ad hoc improvisations; which is to say that one can "fix" it so that God can still pass as a theoretical truth, because of a posteriori reasoning. This is why I said that God is a theory, but he can't be proved. Because there is no evidence that would allow valid inference, technically. That's my problem, he makes all the sense in the world to me, but he can't be proved. As long as he is allowed to be inferred, which he is, then I have no problem. (What I mean by that is that he can possibly be inferred if he is done so logically, which he hasn't been thus far.)
I believe science is a tool for us to understand the world around us, but also to glorify God with the marvel at how the creation works. Mod' is fine with that opinion. He mentioned that in the post you responded to. I also have this opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
mtw writes: Confidence writes: I believe science is a tool for us to understand the world around us, but also to glorify God with the marvel at how the creation works. Mod' is fine with that opinion. He mentioned that in the post you responded to. I also have this opinion. This agnostic has no objections to such an opinion either...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I believe naturalism is a philosophy(religion) that is never conclusive because it assumes there is no God. But not science. I'm surprised that one such as you made a statement like this. The reason why we continue in science is not because there are no conclusions, but because there is so much depth, intricacies, beauty just waiting to be explored. Are you saying that science is not inherently tentative?
For instance, we can conclude that atoms exist. We have observed them, but we can continue farther, electrons and protons exist. But what makes up protons and electrons? We haven't really seen atoms. We can certainly conclude that they exist - but that conclusion isn't inherently final. We can use it to build our base of knowledge more and more. At any time, it could be shown to be false. Given the usefulness of the concept it may be that something else exists at that level that gives us similar results to atoms, but that some other model explains things even better.
Who knows how much farther we can go into the nature of the basic elements that we know right now, or the limits of the universe? Laws of physics, mathematics. The weather, the human mind. All wonders of creation to be explored. I take it then, that you are pro-evolution being taught to our students. We wouldn't want to bar discovery just because some people think that God did it. We want to go into the nature and limits of the universe right to the core, so we need to teach children what we already know, so that maybe they can add to that knowledge base.
Just a reminder that the Creator might not take to well to have His handy work being attributed to randomness. Or whatever forces other than Him you might attribute it to. And a reminder that it might not take too well to its handy work being attributed to some bronze age superstition. It might not take too well to us psychologically ceasing discovery because we don't want to upset some fiction we made up. Since we don't know what this creator is, we cannot know for sure what will upset it - if anything. If it is Yahweh, then I'm sure he'll be really annoyed...but the level of annoyance from this creator entity depends on its capacity to be annoyed and how absurd and petty it is. Edited by Modulous, : childlike spelling error Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Good man.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024