Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

context for "design" as now I did for "intelligence", both were meant to bypass orthodoxies... but I can come back to it on this experimental approach. When I think of "design" in this context I am not thinking of a conscious designers of any sort making stuff up with X, Y, goals in mind, differently, distinctly,

I don't know why you are presenting this as a counter to what I am saying when it exactly illustrates my point.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"Theists are easy targets for criticism of their POV"

Yes, this is so sad, how the poor dominant culture is attacked by the big nasty minority.

Dominant? I would say that the percentage of our culture that both has a belief in God and argues for that belief in a rational scientific approach is a small minority.

Quote:

Well what can you expect from a bunch of suicidal nihilists anyway?

That no doubt sounded a lot harsher than intended. I'm actually more sympathetic than that having once been literally suicidal myself. (not in the sense that nihilists are, I was never in doubt of my own consciousness.) I only meant that they sought to destroy their own consciousness by seeing it as not real. Our consciousness is the only sense that we are really alive as something more than 'highly evolved animals' IMO.

Quote:

Of course ID is easily attacked if presented as 'science'; because it's not science.

The reason you don't see it as science as you understand it because ID seeks to see a level of abstraction above your current understanding of science in the same way that relativity was a level above Newtonian physics or quarks were a level above our understanding of atoms.

But the approach to understanding this higher level of abstraction still follows reason and the scientific method. In that sense, it is science rather than religion which calls for reliance on 'faith not based on reason'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I would say that the percentage of our culture that both has a belief in God and argues for that belief in a rational scientific approach is a small minority.

And I would argue that, if it is a minority - you aren't part of it.

Where is your replicable testable predictions based on your theory?

Quote:

That no doubt sounded a lot harsher than intended. I'm actually more sympathetic than that having once been literally suicidal myself. (not in the sense that nihilists are, I was never in doubt of my own consciousness.) I only meant that they sought to destroy their own consciousness by seeing it as not real. Our consciousness is the only sense that we are really alive as something more than 'highly evolved animals' IMO.

Thanks for sharing that - I think I understand a bit more your driving need to ascribe meaning where there is none, to condescend to atheists (we're destroying our consciences by seeing them as not real? You really believe this?), your desperate need to think that we are more than highly evolved animals when
a) the idea of 'higher' evolution betrays your base misunderstanding
b) you discount that animals have conscious experience of their existence, and
c) that humans are somehow 'special' (Godly, or god-created?)

Rationalise your classic avoidance behaviour all you like.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

Rationalise your classic avoidance behaviour all you like.

Oh ****, another dialog descends into snark...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Oh ****, another dialog descends into snark...

Oh, sorry, didn't realise that calling someone a suicidal nihilist wasn't snark.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

FBM wrote:

Is nihilism the only alternative? Also, is certain death, cessation of the individual subjective consciousness, really a bad thing, after all? Considering the punted alternative(s), I mean.

There are different ways one can react to nihilism. I agree that oblivion isn't something to fear. Nihilism is more about pointlessness. I just sort of blindly care. It's not based on something rational. What's your take?

Gotcha. I was coming from the angle in which nihilism is the opposite of eternalism. (That may be more of an issue in Asian philosophy.) As for pointlessness, yeah, I also care, while at the same time rejecting any of the teleologies proposed to date, particularly those involving divine plans. My ability or drive to care, to grow and to learn is, as far as I can tell, a product of biology. Each day I posit the same point/reason for living to the best of my ability for today: I woke up this morning. Given the values that I've inherited, living to the best of my ability includes helping others as much as I reasonably can.

0 Replies

@FBM,

This cannot be repeated enough within this "debate".

Quote:

the goal of science is to attack the unknown until it is no more, even if it may be a futile endeavor. The goal of ID and religion in general is to preserve, elevate and promote the unknown until it is no longer questioned.

Pb, Tuna, and Albuquerque throughout their trialogue, present precise reasons why ID can never be an objective dispassionate participant in anything involving scientific inquiry. They keep "setting their own worldview based rules " (as opposed to embracing the honest ignorance needed to drive an investigation) and then they seem to end up drawing an entire discussion to focus only on their worldview's default positions.

I wonder how many times the word "atheist" was used in description of science and scientists herein.

3 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

And/or:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM[/youtube]

Excellent. Towards the end, when he's answering a series of questions with the same "nothing," that's a version of nihilism that I don't mind. Those who think that nihilism necessarily leads to despair, futility, suicidal tendencies and chaos have missed something major, I think.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I have to admit that I'm largely ignorant of Fil's (I think he plays Devil's Advocate a lot?) and Tuna's worldviews, but with regard to Pbft, what you say is a perfect fit.

1 Reply

@FBM,

My views on Nihilism were expanded a great deal by THE BIG LEBOWSKI

viz:

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Great scene. Poor Donny.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Gotcha. I was coming from the angle in which nihilism is the opposite of eternalism. (That may be more of an issue in Asian philosophy.) As for pointlessness, yeah, I also care, while at the same time rejecting any of the teleologies proposed to date, particularly those involving divine plans. My ability or drive to care, to grow and to learn is, as far as I can tell, a product of biology. Each day I posit the same point/reason for living to the best of my ability for today: I woke up this morning. Given the values that I've inherited, living to the best of my ability includes helping others as much as I reasonably can.

Excellent. Towards the end, when he's answering a series of questions with the same "nothing," that's a version of nihilism that I don't mind. Those who think that nihilism necessarily leads to despair, futility, suicidal tendencies and chaos have missed something major, I think.

I agree. Pointlessness is good sometimes. If you're on the beach on a sunny day, it's better to put away the notion that there's some purpose to it. That would take you away from living now.

The nihilism that can be associated with atheism is along the lines of The Myth of Sisyphus. It doesn't come from atheism. It's just that religion tends to provide a wall against it. But it's still there. There's a book in the Old Testament that talks about it: Ecclesiastes.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

The nihilism that can be associated with atheism is along the lines of The Myth of Sisyphus.

Um - wasn't Sisyphus in the 'hell' of the Greek Pantheon? Sounds a little unatheistic. But I'm probably not following your line of reasoning very well.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

The book by Camus. Wink

0 Replies

@farmerman,

My very unique view of a rational possible ID theory is as far from religion as pluto is from the sun....but heck take it your way. I think Einstein would get my point in a minute while you well we both have trouble between deciding the value of Science compared to Philosophy and I am sure you by now sub consciously intuit I got the better of it in that debate...So your biased towards my unorthodox experimenting with concepts. I made it abundantly clear I am a passionate defender of Darwinism as equally I clarified my view of ID is quite unique and has nothing to do with any classical notion of agents consciousness or Gods of any sort. In fact my view is quite radical in the sense that looks at consciousness as an sophisticated illusion, I utterly dismiss it as special anything. Its not just about Gods its about people to. From where I stand there isn't much difference between a human and a rock, just some more elaborate tricks but the same fundamental processing information nature...Lots of levels of grey that common sense simply does not grasp. When a rock heats up it is processing info at the most basic level...in that very broad sense it is aware of "heat" in the least as info crossing through its "body"...
Final point being when I throw words or expressions as "timeless archetype" you don't have the conceptual background and lingo to deal with it. That simple !

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"Oh ****, another dialog descends into snark..."

Oh, sorry, didn't realise that calling someone a suicidal nihilist wasn't snark.

You thought my conclusion about nihilism and tuna's take on it was about you personally? I have no idea what your global POV is.

I'm always interested in those though.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I wonder how many times the word "atheist" was used in description of science and scientists herein

Don't know if you noticed, but in our previous dialog on ID I used the term 'opponents of ID', not atheists for just the reasons you are implying. There is a very active religious group that attacks the Discovery Institute over the issue of ID.

Nothing is as simple as 'atheist vs theist'. Sometimes I think that 'fight' is like the one between Shia and Suni in Islam and just as pointless.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

There's a book in the Old Testament that talks about it [nihilism]: Ecclesiastes.

Good bit of wisdom from Soloman there. To paraphrase him: "Sometimes ya just gotta say '**** it'. Eat, drink, be merry and enjoy the fruits of your labor." Gonna fire up my favorite Hotrod and do just that today.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Youve been most gracious in your terminology but, nevertheless, whenever this topic arises, it seems to degrade at the most simplistic levels .

I was trained in the Nicomachean ethics and Paulian "reasons". While I ubscribe to"the good that ARis was talking about", Seems to me, as I diverged from Theistic anything, the reasons that my forebears did"The good" (not the Jews but the Christians) was to "cash in" with a payback.
SImplistic but quite Catholic.
SCience doesnt deny anything, it just doesnt need everything in its pursuit.It only uses whatever can be evidenced, repeated, and falsified.
Im K with that.

As I pass time in thee "culture wars", I see that, perhaps , the Discovery Intitute is, finally, coming around to that way of thinking. (I hope)

0 Replies

I am so happy I came to this thread first thing this morning.

Every time I hear one of the atheists here speak of science or logic...I laugh my butt off. It truly is funny as all get-out.

The atheist really think they are being logical and "scientific" in their discussions here...when in fact, their basic thesis is a primer lesson in lack/misuse of logic...and what the antithesis of science would be.

Damn, I needed that laugh this morning.

Bet today will be a great day despite the cloudiness and rain.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know