98
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 11:01 am
@izzythepush,
Didn’t say it was the first. Just the best telling of it, IMO.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:02 pm
Quote:
Let me be clear: The people responsible for murdering the journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo on January 7 were the men who pulled the triggers of the Kalashnikovs. Moreover, we've no need to reach into our grab bag of ethical epithets in order to find one that fits these men's characters; we don't need to speak of "barbarism," or a "complete lack of civilized values," or agonize about how they became radicalized—because we know the answer already—but what we can unequivocally assert is that these men, in those rattling, coughing, cordite-stinking moments, were evil. If by evil is understood this: an egotism that grew like a cancer—a lust for status and power and "significance" that metastasized through these murderers' brains. The problem for the staunch defenders of Western values is that each and every one of us possesses this capacity for evil—it's implicit in having an ego at all—so when the demonstrators stood in the Place de la République holding placards that read "JE SUIS CHARLIE," they might just as well have held ones reading: "NOUS SOMMES LES TERRORISTES."

The French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the law exists to restrain our worst impulses, not encourage our best. Those politicians, religious leaders, and commentators who in the hours and days since this atrocity have spoken about freedom of speech as a sine qua non of that liberty which is in turn essential for civilization would've done well to remember both this and their own history: The birth of the French republic was attended by justice—blindfolded and wearing earplugs. It was called the Terror. When the sans-culottes stormed the Bastille they found a handful of prisoners in the ancient bastion, among them the Marquis de Sade, who soon enough found himself elevated to the position of revolutionary judge, dispatching aristos and other reactionaries to the guillotine. It was a nice example of liberation—if by that is meant the freedom to murder for political ends.

The idea that the French secularists have of their political system (and for that matter the British secularists of theirs, the Americans of theirs, and so on), is not only that it encourages their best impulses, but that if it's perfected it will render the entire population supremely free and entirely good. This is a process that both right and left seem to feel is unstoppable—whether powered by some sort of moral "natural selection" or historical determinism. For these boosters the Enlightenment project of perfecting man's moral nature is still underway, and will only end when a (godless) heaven has been established on earth. But such rarefied progress is precisely what is mocked, not only by the murdering of Parisian journalists but by the drone strikes in Syria, Iraq, and Waziristan, which are also murders conducted for religio-political ends. It is mocked as well by the clamoring that follows every terrorist outrage for the suspension of precisely those aspects of the law that exist to restrain our worst impulses, in particular the worst impulses of our rulers: namely, due process of law, fair trials, habeas corpus, and freedom from state-mandated torture and extrajudicial killing.

The memorial issue of Charlie Hebdo will have a print run of 1,000,000 copies, financed by the French government; so now the satirists have been co-opted by the state, precisely the institution you might've thought they should never cease from attacking. But the question needs to be asked: Were the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo really satirists, if by satire is meant the deployment of humor, ridicule, sarcasm, and irony in order to achieve moral reform? Well, when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from H. L. Mencken's definition of good journalism: It should "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." The trouble with a lot of so-called satire directed against religiously motivated extremists is that it's not clear whom it's afflicting, or whom it's comforting.

The last cartoon drawn by Charb, Charlie Hebdo's editor, featured a crude pictogram of a jihadist wearing a hat called a pakol—this would mark the fighter as an Afghan, and therefore as unlikely to be involved in terrorist attacks in the West. Charb's caption flies in the face of this: Above the Afghan jihadist it reads, "Still no attacks in France," while the speech bubble coming from his mouth reads, "Wait, there's until the end of January to give gifts."

Setting to one side the premonitory character of this cartoon, and the strangeness of a magazine editor who was prepared to die for his convictions (or so Charb said after the Charlie Hebdo offices were firebombed in 2011), yet not to get the basic facts about his targets correct, is it right to think of it as satire? Whatever else we may believe about people so overwhelmed by their evil nature that they're prepared to deprive others of their lives for the sake of a delusory set of ideas, the one thing we can be certain of is that they're not comfortable; moreover, while Charb's cartoon may've provoked a wry smile from Charlie Hebdo's readers, it's not clear to me that these people are the "afflicted" who, in Mencken's definition, require "comforting"—unless their "affliction" is the very fact of a substantial Muslim population in France, and their "comfort" consists in inking in all these fellow citizens with a terroristic brush.

This is in no way to condone the shooting of Charb and the other journalists—an act that, as I pointed out initially, is evil, pure and simple, but our society makes a fetish of "the right to free speech" without ever questioning what sort of responsibilities are implied by this right. But then it also makes a fetish of "freedom" conceived of as agency worthy of a Nietzschean Übermensch—whereas the truth of the matter is, as most of us understand only too well, we are in fact grossly constrained in most of what we do, most of the time—and a major part of what constrains us are our murderous, animal instincts.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwpvax/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105
Theo202
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:03 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Well, let's see if the thread get locked then, eh Einstein?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:04 pm
@izzythepush,
sorry wrong thread
0 Replies
 
Theo202
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Occam's Razor doesn't endorse cherry picking, and there's no penalty against complexity, only against assumptions. When you have to explain the motion of the planets in the sky and the precession of the equinoxes then planetary orbits around a fixed sun are a better explanation for the facts - epicycles bring too many assumptions to the table.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:13 pm
@Theo202,
especiallt when it can be measured in real time,
0 Replies
 
Theo202
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Something unproved proves nothing else.

The world doesn't revolve around proof. The value of Occam's Razor is that someone can get an explanation that has a higher probability of being true without having the burden having to provide certainty by proof. The scientific method is all about finding viable theories, it can't prove that a theory is actually true.
Theo202
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:25 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The story of Christ was originally the story of Marduk, then Osiris and finally Odin before Christ.

That's from the Babylonian path. That whore got her arse kicked in the story.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:48 pm
@Theo202,
The value of Occams razor is that it can be used to generally peel away obviously bad options. It's Occam's Razor, not Occam's Law.

Where were you educated, on twitter?
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:50 pm
@Theo202,
This is your only skill. I defer to you, bonehead.
Theo202
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 04:25 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
No, sometimes assumptions are not obvious, especially when you're dealing with religion. Fishing for something to divert from your lacklustre argument, Bob?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 06:09 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
I only get more amazed by your self-admiration. I meant amused.
Theo202
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 07:26 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Yeah, it must suck not to be able to address the actual argument.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 10:04 pm
Florida Man Demands Ban on Bible in Schools Using DeSantis’s Own Law Against Him

https://truthout.org/articles/florida-man-demands-ban-on-bible-in-schools-using-desantiss-own-law-against-him/
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2022 10:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
I'm Christian, and I agree: take Bibles out of school curriculum.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 12:50 am
@bobsal u1553115,
A certain amount of Biblical knowledge is needed to understand a lot of pre 18th Century English literature.

Then again classical knowledge is as important as is a working knowledge of Norse mythology.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 03:02 am
@Theo202,
Theo202 wrote:

Occam's Razor doesn't endorse cherry picking, and there's no penalty against complexity, only against assumptions. When you have to explain the motion of the planets in the sky and the precession of the equinoxes then planetary orbits around a fixed sun are a better explanation for the facts - epicycles bring too many assumptions to the table.


Yeah.

I'm sure William of Ockham back in the 14th century used the razor to explain planetary dynamics!
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 03:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
The case for intelligent design just got a little bit more tenuous.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 03:30 am
@Theo202,
Theo202 wrote:

The case for intelligent design just got a little bit more tenuous.


Maybe so...but we may, unknowingly, be at about the point of 14th century knowledge about the REALITY. We think we humans have advanced. The "scientists" of the 14th century also thought they were advanced.

The scientists of the 25th century may look back on us as little more than cave men...and the scientists of the 30th century may look back on them the same way.

It is my opinion that Occum's Razor and Pascal's Wager are almost worthless when discussing the topics being discussed here. Okay, so you differ with me on that.

Life goes on.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 04:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
“Now I remember.

THIS is where it got abhorrent years ago.”


Frank replied:
Okay, thank you for sharing that. But it still hasn't gotten abhorrent to me this go-around. We can discuss these issues without rancor...without hurling insults...and I am still willing to try to do that.

Obviously you did not like my response to one of your questions. Give it another shot...in a different way. I thought the response I gave, considering the wide scope of your question, was adequate. Essentially you wrote a short essay...and then questioned me about the subtleties of some of its content.

Form a more specific question--self-contained and of a less wide-ranging scope. Here is what I mean about a self-contained specific question:

Since a significant component of my position on the specific "Is there at least one god*...or are there none?"...is: I do not know...

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?

* (When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Alright counselor, I’ll rephrase the question.

Can you give me any indication that you actually read and comprehended any significance aspect of my protein argument?

Your suggestion of 'give an example of what you’re asking for' is a good one.
i.e.
Izzy said: ‘That’s 'The Ninth Configuration'…”

Or you could have done it with a joke:
'Go enervate a few trillion of those kinesins and get outta here.'

As it stood, you gave me no indication that you had even read it, let alone comprehended what I wrote.

Quote:

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?


By your definition, Yes, I am certain there is at least one god.

But as asked with that definition, the proof of that in not in my protein argument. Totally different design paradigm. And because 'serious' scientists are willing to prostitute science with unsupported assumptions (infinite multiple universe, etc) it’s almost impossible to discuss rationally.

That is why I like biology, there is nothing natural about it. With physics it can be argued that all those delicately balanced constants are what they are because they had to be.
But I digress.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 06:38:37