Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

Quote:
It's also our propensity to keep our environment peaceful as well as to eat Uncle Frank when we get really hungry.
.

No comment.

well its better than eating Aunt Fanny.

0 Replies

Now there's a man with a structured ethical system if ever I saw one.Unless he's a dietician.

0 Replies

Spendius why are you not down the pub?

0 Replies

Because if I go to the pub at,or before,3.10 pm Western Pacific Time I have a statistical probability in the upper quartile segment of the graph of falling into ditches or other obstacxles that this stupid government has seen fit to arrange.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I figured that out when,despite the fact that I knew I responded positively to large white breasts,I couldn't work out why I responded as positively as I did.I must have developed an axiomatic structure of ethics based on an early experience which I was not consciously aware of.Probably a much repeated experience.It certainly got me thinking.

No, that wouldn't be an ethical imperative, and wouldn't have anything to do with ethics at al really.

spendius wrote:

If I do I am up for having it out.Isn't that the trick Freud used.Trying to frighten the well brought up young ladies by telling them that they unconsciously wished to have......fill in as required.

I see my "unconscious" remark has struck a silly chord. You're reading a lot of stuff innto it that isnt really there, I only meant to say that you didn't seem quite aware of all of your premises, and that many people go trough life without analysing the foundations of their ethics.

spendius wrote:

Thanks for the "seem" though.

It was my impression is all.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
You conclude that since evolution tends to produce, over generations, whichever behavioural biases are most conductive to spread the genetic material of the individual exhibiting them trough the population, it follows from the theory of evolution that one should do anything in ones power to spread ones genetic material, irrespective of other considerations.

It seems reasonable in some ways.That is quite a complex question.Many a man has wrestled with that in moments of high excitement.

See, you're doing it again. Read the "quotes" below, make sure you understand what I mean by them, and let me know if you disagree.

I just wrote:

An ethical imperative can only ever follow from another ethical imperative.

I then wrote:

An ethical imperative can be considered self evident.

This amounts to positing it as an axiom. All ethical imperatives which are not axioms are deducted from such axioms, though ofthen in conjunction with postulates about how the world works.

(Since people aren't always too concerned with which of their more fundamental ethical imperatives follow from which, ethical systems are sometimes founded on circular structures of imperatives, where it is arbitrary which ones are the axioms, and which follow from them.)

Finally I wrote:

An ethical imperative also can follow from another ethical imperative in conjunction with a statement of fact, such as:

Ethical premise: One ought to smell awfully.
Postulate: Not bathing causes one to smell awfully.
Conclusion: One ought not to bathe.

Notice though, that without the ethical premise, the conclusion does not follow.

That is what I see you doing with respect to evolution. You posit a statement of fact, that natural selection would tend to favor such and such behaviour, and then attempt to conclude with an ethical imperative, without making clear your ethical premise.

(You need to posit an ethical imperative in order to deduct one, but we've been over that.)

(Oh, and all I meant to convey with the "unconscious" remark was that I didn't think you were omitting stuff on purpouse.)

spendius wrote:

Quote:
That only follows from the theory of evolution in conjunction with the inference of intent and the imperative to function as intended, both of which I and most other atheists would reject.

I'm not sure what you mean.There is a natural urge to spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide.There is also a natural urge to lead a peaceful existence.Are these "intents".(Answer-they can be but you have to stay on the move in comfort.)

You are concluding with an ethical imperative, but you do not posit one as a premise in plain text. That makes your argument a non-sequitur.

Instead of leaving it at that, I took it upon myself to try to deduct from your conclusion and postulate what that premise might have been. I now have two of your arguments to work with:

spendius wrote:

Ethical premise: *UNKNOWN*
Postulate: Natural selection tends to favour such and such behaviour.
Conclusion: We ought to behave in such and such a manner.

In order for this to follow your ethical premise would have to be something like

Ethical premise: One ought to behave in such a manner as to be favored by natural selection.

I reject every variety of that premise.

spendius wrote:

Ethical premise *UNKNOWN*
Postulate: "There is a natural urge to spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide"
Conclution: One ought to "spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide"

That only follows if Your ethical premise is omething in the order of:

Ethical premise: One ought to follow ones natural urges.

I reject that ethical imperative. Perhaps if you inserted a bunch of caveats, some people might be inclined to agree with it, but those caveats would simultaneously make the thrust of your argument moot.

If you just state your ethical premises clearly when you make an argument you intend to conclude with an ethical imperative, I won't have to do all this guesswork in order to contend those premises.

spendius wrote:

No missing link you mean.Where is the transition from animal to man.When is "that" an animal and when is "that" a man.I'd look pretty stupid calling IDers loonies and barmpots unless I could answer that under serious scrutiny.

I consider one to be a subsection of the other.

0 Replies

What's intelligent design? I mean really do we care? As longest we know that we have our health,family, and jobs then we know that there is a God watching over us.

0 Replies

One can know if ones family exists or if one has a job..but one can only assume there is a God watching over us.

0 Replies

Quote:

What's intelligent design? I mean really do we care? As longest we know that we have our health,family, and jobs then we know that there is a God watching over us.

So if one isn't so healthy and have no family or job God isn't watching over you.

0 Replies

Gungasnake placed this on the Religion Forum.

Longish article begins thus:

Quote:

In 1920, Winston Churchill spoke of a group of Enlightenment conspirators who had produced a system of morals and philosophy "as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible." He observed that this malignant worldview "has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing" (Zionism versus Bolshevism).

This malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy entered into the world during the Enlightenment, where it seems as if another Garden of Eden seduction occurred. It appears as though certain Enlightenment thinkers?-Darwin, Marx, Hegel, Saint-Simon, and Rousseau among others, ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and each man received certain ideas which, when combined with the others, produced a malignancy-filled system of philosophy comparable to a grimoire of goetia (black magic) which, like Sauron's One Ring, holds out for the bearer a seductive illusion of power, wealth, and glory. The key to the power, according to the grimoire, is through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions so necessary for the continuance of mankind. In his book, The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton described the reversal process as the ''theology of demons'' and said it is sadistically anti-human and anti-childhood. It is intrinsically evil....

I wouldn't go as far as this myself but it provides food for thought regarding those who may well agree with it.We do seem to have a degree of "arrested development" (fm's 'mush'),"envious malevolence" (consumption competitions) and "impossible equality"(New Orleans and Africa).

The key sentence is the one beginning-"The key.."

0 Replies

If we had any doubts that ID was a religion, Pat Robertson has cleared it up for us.

Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they ``voted God out of your city'' by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

`I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city,'' Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's ``700 Club.''CNN Link

0 Replies

What this guy says has nothing to do with anything except himself and those daft enough to take any notice of him.He's obviously completely round the twist if he said that.If he actually believes it I mean.He might be taking the piss.

0 Replies

blatham Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:23 pm Post: 1663474 -

Quote:

"It may also be the case that notions of the supernatural are an unavoidable consequence of human psychology (though I doubt it, in any strong sense at least) but the two phenomena are not the same. "God" and moral notions don't have to march together. That they commonly do ought not to surprise. God and national notions often march together as well. "

Perhaps, but your doubt may have a valid foundation. I see the human mind in search of explanations of natural phenomena as the basic foundation of both religion and science. When these explanations are not informed by the necessary facts gathered and analyzed in an unbiased way we then see the crutches of magic and superstition as default mechanisms of explanation. Religions or theists long for an organized explanation involving Intelligence and Intent. This is top down design and science neither approves nor refutes this line of thought. Indeed, the value of basic scientific research comes from its explanations of elemental causes of physical events, many serendipitous in nature.

However, theocracy demands such a design construct and therefore the necessity of Intelligent Design by an intelligent designer. Implicit and necessary in such explanations is intent. Those in the evolutionary camp specifically eschew such reasoning simply because it abdicates the search for knowledge. After all, if worldly events, at any level, can be ascribed to mystical entities' arbitrary decisions then their reasonings certainly cannot be known by mere mortals (God works in mysterious ways), so why bother with such pursuits?

Science does not concern itself with saving souls either presently or in the afterlife. Its goals are more mundane. Science gets down on its hands and knees and grubs around for the simplest of answers that fit its observations. The wonderful thing about these little grains of truth, discovered by the scientific method, is that, once so verified, they may be used to build larger and more comprehensive blocks and edifices of scientific explanation.

Religion starts off with all encompassing explanations which then must suffer the "slings and arrows" of ever updated truths and/or parishioner moral attitudes. This forces its proponents to engage in either of two courses of action. The first is changes to accepted doctrine the second being a counter attack upon the perceived threat. Many examples abound regarding the first. The second has been manifest in theological counter attacks whereby efforts are seen to introduce religion into educational settings under the poorly effected ruse of ID.

The second part of your quote, regarding morals, I must also agree with. Many feel that to live a life without the belief in an all powerful Deity is to live one that is amoral, at best, or immoral, at worst. This mindset is wrong on two counts. The first is that human beings or any responsible free agent cannot live a moral life sans Godlike control. The second more pernicious fallacy then follows ?- those who do not believe in specific deities and modes of worship cannot possibly be, at least, as moral as those who do. They are now second class or sub-human, this then sets up all manner of inequities from which springs divers mischief such as castes and even slavery.

In that same vein we see spendius' Post: 1664027 which informs us that:

Quote:

"Bernie wrote-
Quote:
Moral notions are an absolutely unavoidable part of human social existence.

That concedes the ID case. What possible moral notions can exist in a meaningless universe. Only power can exist in such a universe. If the power is disguised as morals so be it. In an ideal SD world even unselfishness and love could only result from selfish strategy. I think you have become so familiar and so complacent with taking advantage of attitudes ingrained by Christian beliefs that you have forgotten where they derive from. Evolution is a war of all against all in a red in tooth and claw struggle for existence which would terrify most people if it was applied to human societies in general"

Any one reading earlier parts of my post will not be surprise to learn that I do not believe any concessions have been awarded to ID by the observation that "Moral notions are an absolutely unavoidable part of human social existence" In fact many deeper thinkers than myself feel just the opposite. In fact Dan Dennett in his book "Freedom Evolves" makes a good case for crediting Darwinian algorithms for morals. This is a little involved and uses game and chaos theory combined with agents of intent but when understood, presents a tight explanation wherein no magic is needed to explain moral agency. Those interested should see the above book's Chapter 7 "The Evolution of Moral Agency". Actually the reasoning starts with altruism, kind of. This altruism, of sorts, Dennett labels "Benselfishness" and follows from that founding father's famous quote spoken to encourage unity in signing the Declaration of Independence:

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately"

--Benjamin Franklin

An absolutely wonderful quote, replete, in Dennett's words, of " rippling red-white-and-blue in the breeze, redolent with the aroma of apple pie, a fine, noble, inspirational thing for our hero to have said" But looking closer we see the sly old codger's appeal to "the craven self-interested prudence of his listenersJoin or die." Not exactly a shinning example of pure altruism, given its existence, but certainly exuding gobs of moral value. Is this farsighted self-interest? Perhaps, but what is the value of social mores and their practice if not to look far down the road for better societal relations? The message is clear, the development of morals is found in the build up from "selfish" even "base" instincts. But the intent is not in evolution or even in the individual entity (intent exists here at "higher" biological levels but is not farsighted and altruistic), in fact, the intent to promote betterment of the species is non-existent. But the short term selfish (benselfish?) interest in combination with cultural memory can form a larger moral building block that can then be incorporated into cultural mores. It then becomes "obvious", to all, the wisdom of morality. Therefore, what we see is not morality emanating from religion but, at best, religion developing alongside social mores.

JM

0 Replies

JM-

I have just returned from the pub and I do believe I agree with your fine post.I'll sleep on it and ,if,in the morning,I feel the need to revise my view I will inform you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nov 11, 3:48 PM EST
Pope Cites Universe's 'Intelligent Project'

By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published the full text of his remarks in its Thursday editions.

Benedict focused his reflections for the audience on scriptural readings that said God's love was seen in the "marvels of creation."

He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.

"With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word - this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos - is also love."

His comments were immediately hailed by advocates of intelligent design, who hold that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power. Proponents of the theory are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language and does not belong in science curriculum.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

pope on creation

0 Replies

My station in life is far to humble for me to even consider arguing with The Pope.

0 Replies

"Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday.."

It was informal.

0 Replies

Is Austria a large and important country?

0 Replies

"Rather vague and unimportant" sums up pretty accurately the remarks by Benedict.

And if he did indeed "criticize those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order" then we can add disengenuous or spin-happy or uninformed as well.

The relevant argument, of course, is not that the universe is absent such a supernatural "design/designer" but rather that there is no logically or scientifically compelling reason to posit one (and rather a lot of sociogical reasons to illuminate why we might so try).

0 Replies

Hey Bernie-

I've been trying to explain that for months now.

In Hofstadter's essay on Woodrow Wilson in The American Political Tradition there is this-

"If Wilson's legal dialectics appeared singularly weak,it was because he was forced to find legal reasons for policies that were based not upon law but upon the balance of power and economic necessities."

0 Replies

hi spendie

Absolutely beautiful autumn morning here in NY. One has the urge to rush out, climb a tree, and get into some serious apple-biting.

Good politics, like good sex, is in-the-moment creative.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know