Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

You see folks--the brake had to be put on science by the Church because the thought of Caligula sat in the Oval Office is not something a sensible man would contemplate for long. The tilling of the moral ground had to be done first.

I daresay that point was made to Galileo. Certain aspects of stem-cell research are at a similar point. It's what Mary Shelley had in mind when she brought Prometheus into the 19th century.

It isn't as if the world has no suspicions concerning the efficacy of rational, empirical, reasoning, logical kinda ****. With this technology there's no telling where that might go.

We may need the Church more now than ever we did. The fact that no matter how much we laugh at it The Pope leads the news anytime he fancies putting his mind to it suggests that a bit.

It's quite amusing imagining ed. or fm watching The Pope leading the news blessing the faithful in St. Peter's square and shouting at the telly. The close-ups of the devout nuns' faces must aggravate them no end.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Frank's pony has not learned any new tricks in its several year absence. Until we, to the main subject, not Franks narcissistic preening, return, this thread is totally fucked.

4 Replies

@farmerman,

There is nothing wrong with using this thread to discuss related philosophical issues.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa . . .

I'll stop feeding the troll . . .

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Whatever it is it is heap powerful medicine. I assume the "subcontinent" is the USA.

No. My reference to the subcontinent goes to the Indian subcontinent. The only time I have personally encountered the term “immaterial states” is during discussions with people wedded to mystical Indian thinking. Perhaps it has relevance elsewhere, but I have not encountered it elsewhere. That is what brought me to the thought I shared.

Quote:

What's your intuition on thoughts being material objects? Are you agnostic about intuition?

I have no idea if thoughts have a material aspect. From what I’ve been reading lately, many scientists are beginning to wonder whether material objects have a material aspect. The deeper into quantum particles they go…the more space they find…and some seem to think that the ultimate small particle will actually be a non-mass energy unit of some sort. If that is the case, perhaps mass is just an illusion. I do not know…so I am agnostic on it.

Quote:

You haven't answered my post. There can be no question that immaterial states in mind either exist or they don't exist. I have dealt with my agnosticism on that important matter by dividing my time between the choices. Hence I sometimes feel philosophical and sometimes I'm a clockwork orange. I get a good laugh either way.

Can’t answer it, because I have no contact with it. Sorry.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Of course, you are not and never have been my friend. This insistence on the passive-aggressive sneers about me being "your friend," and about loving me are just another example of your immaturity.

Thank you for sharing that, Set. Allow me to respond in return that this kind of response from you reinforces and increases my pity for you.

Sorry, I know you don't like to hear that, but you did ask me to be honest.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

For all the reasons I gave earlier in my previous response.

Sorry about that as I posted that before I re read your post and it was to late to delete my post

The problem that I see is that if unicorns or the purple accountant working on a moon of Saturn, Flying Spaghetti monsters Gods and so forth are all man made concepts that have no evidence to support them why would you give more credit to a God as being a possible manifestation of the Reality of existence?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Frank's pony has not learned any new tricks in its several year absence. Until we, to the main subject, not Franks narcissistic preening, return, this thread is totally fucked.

I was having a reasonable, intelligent, friendly discussion with some people I haven't talked with in a long time...including you, Farmerman. You posted a comment to me...I responded in a reasonable, friendly way.

Now you are up to this!

Not sure what is bugging you...but if you do not want to talk with me, don't.

Same thing with Setanta.

You both have a huge bug up your butts for no decent reason.

In any case, this thread has gone on for years...and most of what has to be said on the initial subject has been said. The tangent was mostly for me to say hello to old acquaintances and to meet a couple of new people. As Wandel said, this is not inappropriate sidebar discussion for an old thread.

No narcissistic preening going on from my side of the discussion. You might man up, though, and tell me what I have done to bug you so much.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with using this thread to discuss related philosophical issues.

Good gracious wande. Arguing with your leader. Frank and Setanta slagging each other off. What's with you non-Christians?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have no idea if thoughts have a material aspect.

That's not the point Frank. The question is whether thoughts are immaterial. Thoughts do exist. I think therefore I am. Being agnostic about that allows that they might be. Or that they might not be.

If, as you say, you don't know, then the subject of the thread is not on your radar. The banging on a pan with a baking spoon comes to mind. As a thought in my head.

You admit not knowing whether ID is Science or Religion.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Until we, to the main subject, not Franks narcissistic preening, return, this thread is totally fucked.

Am I included in the "we" fm?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Is your name Frank?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You admit not knowing whether ID is Science or Religion.

One…I would not “admit” not knowing something like that, I would simply acknowledge it.

Two…at no point have I ever said that I do not know whether ID is science or religion. ID is ID…neither science nor religion in my opinion. I cannot conceive of me ever phrasing a thought about this issue remotely like you suggested here.

What I have said on the subject, Spendius, (several times, in fact) is: If there is the possibility of a GOD, there is the possibility of Intelligent Design.

On many occasions I have added that if there is a GOD…and if the GOD actually designed this mess…and if we want to consider this to be “intelligent” design…

…it seems to me that the “design” was to allow life to somehow spontaneously occur and to evolve to what we presently are. In other words: What science is now discovering about how we came to be what we are…would have to be the “design” the GOD intended.

The nonsense that some god put humans here on the planet a few thousand years ago seems laughable to me…and my guess would be that “the way we became what we are” does not resemble that scenario even remotely. But that is a guess…because I do not know the nature of Reality. It is entirely possible that “what we are now” is the Intelligent Design of a GOD who created everything now in place just minutes ago…complete with a bunch of phony “memories.”

Who knows what the Reality actually is?

I understand some theists want to assert the Reality is one thing…and some atheists want to assert it is something else…and one of them may be correct; neither of them may be correct; and by some twist of logic we are not yet capable of comprehending, both may be correct.

ME—I do not know and I acknowledge that I do not know. I am an Agnostic.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It is entirely possible that “what we are now” is the Intelligent Design of a GOD who created everything now in place just minutes ago…complete with a bunch of phony “memories.”

Yes that is it. All of the post from the days before this one are a bunch of phony “memories.” and this God is never going to let you in on his secret.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

On reading (scanning) Huxley’s Collected Essays I’d say the essence of what he said is not what you call agnosticism and I don’t think Huxley would call you an agnostic. It is closer to what I said earlier that you should start by not holding the views of theism and only adopt a view if there is evidence for it. This is not as you describe yourself when you say that you cannot reject there are gods or there are no gods:

Frank Apisa wrote:

…but as to the question of whether or not a god or gods are involved in the Reality of existence….I DO NOT KNOW.

Huxley would not have reached this point he would still be clearing the ground that appears before this question ever arose. Show me where the originator of the term explicitly or implicitly says he will not reject god or gods because he does not know? I conclude that you are not an agnostic in the true sense of the word. You have made up an argument to suit your own needs and hijacked Huxley’s true intent for you own purposes... or have misunderstood Huxley’s essays.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It is entirely possible that “what we are now” is the Intelligent Design of a GOD who created everything now in place just minutes ago…complete with a bunch of phony “memories.”

I tossed that idea on to the thread about 7 years ago Frank. There was no mileage in it at all. As I knew there wouldn't be.

If someone else in 2312 suggests the idea, as I have little doubt some joker will, it being so corny and common, it can only have credibility if we don't exist yet. Why not a micro-second ago? On a permanent cusp of becoming so to speak.

What do you think about duty as a material object? The thought of duty taking precedence over self preservation, or even over personal convenience, if it is a constructed (conditioned some might call it) material object is hardly likely to produce a warrior race capable of taking on opposition which sees such self-effacing duty as being rewarded by eternal bliss. Whatever the merits of the reasoning logic and rational, empirical reality checks.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Now you are up to this!

Not sure what is bugging you...but if you do not want to talk with me, don't.

Same thing with Setanta.

You both have a huge bug up your butts for no decent reason

I think that set and I have some understandings of your review of Frank Apisa's Catechism. Youve tried to ascend a high point all the while denying that you are doing so. The funny-ness wears off and it gets (at least to me ) tiresome.
Youve only now discussed the topic of this thread without a precursor visit down memory-lane with ytou. If you feel that agnosticism is superior and is one being "true to ones fashion" FINE. You have my blessings to believe that and I really understand your position. I JUST DO NOT SHARE IT and I see that you are a few jots south of going ballistic again. SO, I will duck out and let this thread turn into whatever you wish. It will ultimately return when you either
1. learn that your religious distinction is unimportant to an "evidence " base , or to this thread.OR

2You will go off in a huff of smoke again.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I think Frank is right. If you define atheism as the hard form "There are no gods" then that is a belief and it lays claim to knowledge you don't have. Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position, even if, as in my case, atheism is the everyday label that suits me better, since it's wrongly but widely assumed that agnostics give each god a 50/50 chance.
Alternatively, allowed the soft "I do not believe in any gods" defintion of atheism, then I can claim that also, but I think Frank can too.

2 Replies

@Eorl,

I have already addressed that issue. But if you want to chew on it, help yourself. I've agreed to stop derailing this thread with this nonsense, so if you want to continue, you can do so without me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I think we've been over it all many times for the better part of a decade, though I've altered my position somewhat in that time.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know