Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The word "agnostic" today is used to denote a person who acknowledges he/she does not know if gods exists...or if they do not exist.

What is this criteria that you have for being agnostic about a god but not about other things that you think do not exist? Are you only guessing about all of this?
What is it that makes one concept unable to be known and another ridicules to even consider to be agnostic about?

1 Reply

@spendius,

It means don't hold religious beliefs (period). Surely that's obvious. We all know that taken literally it is a contradiction in terms.

1 Reply

@igm,

All of us? Every last one of us? As Kant said.

Surely you jest unless you mean just the chosen few. The initiated.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Does this sound like your agnosticism?

Huxley:

"So that I think that even if the creeds, from the so-called "Apostles'" to the so-called "Athanasian," were swept into oblivion; and even if the human race should arrive at the conclusion that, whether a bishop washes a cup or leaves it unwashed, is not a matter of the least consequence, it will get on very well. The causes which have led to the development of morality in mankind, which have guided or impelled us all the way from the savage to the civilised state, will not cease to operate because a number of ecclesiastical hypotheses turn out to be baseless. And, even if the absurd notion that morality is more the child of speculation than of practical necessity and inherited instinct, had any foundation; if all the world is going to thieve, murder, and otherwise misconduct itself as soon as it discovers that [317] certain portions of ancient history are mythical; what is the relevance of such arguments to any one who holds by the Agnostic principle?"

I agree with Huxley in that human "morality" is not beholden to any set of precepts fostered by a religious establishment, but I don't think this has relevance to what we are discussing.

We humans do not think murder is wrong (or that it cannot be condoned in society) because some god supposedly dictated that it is wrong. There is a compelling need to regard murder as a taboo, because society functions better if that taboo is in place.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am assuming you and the others think atheism is superior,

Its not an issue of "my horse is faster than your horse". I feel that several facts discount the pantheon of gods

1Being raised in acatholic tradition, I questioned the underlying facts of our Catechism and the veracity of the Penteteuch. They were laden with many errors, misrepresentations, myth, and plain old bullshit.

Evolution of the divine is something I find interesting in human development but not so much that I want to base my life either
1believing in it or
2sorta believing in it (hedging your 'bet" is kinda lame in my mind)

2 Weve NEVER found any intervention of gods and human lives, or gods and the universe , or goda and the earth. There is way more evidence to the contrary.(That evidence we call "Scientific" did NOT go out to disprove the god myths, it was, instead, being followed uo to explain ohenomena or reactions or, in Darwins case, answering how living things got to the present)

I find it intellectually discomfiting to be confident in my science but still saying"it cant hgurt if I let my bets be covered both ways". Maybe if I find that there IS a god, he wont fail to give me my lollipop when I die.

So, having spent less than a decade as a believer, another 2 decades as an "agnostic" (agnostics sorta are like Unitarians, they reluctantly accept that there is a possibility of a possibility of a god. After my agnosticism was spent (mostly by reading more archeological stuff). I emerged a nice complete atheist whose own life is tailored to do the right things as recognized in natural law..
Ive never taken a position of superirority, Im just fascinated by all the explanations that support all these different worldviews.
So, dont be pissed at me for wanting to get past this diversion. I just find it exhaustingly lacking in any purpose.

As an aside, your position , stated by you in several posts, still rings with a statement that you entertain the possibility of a possibility of the existence of gods. Whether you say you say that or not, its quickly interpretable by what we read.

.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4859275)
Quote:
The word "agnostic" today is used to denote a person who acknowledges he/she does not know if gods exists...or if they do not exist.

What is this criteria that you have for being agnostic about a god but not about other things that you think do not exist? Are you only guessing about all of this?

RL…I can be agnostic about a thing…and still feel that there is enough evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess. Being an agnostic does not preclude one from making guesses about things. I’m not sure why that concept is eluding you, but it is so.

If someone is discussing possible explanations of existence…"a non-created god" as a creator of the universe is one of the things you might consider. Obviously, the alternative of "no gods involved in any way" also has to be considered. For what we call the “universe” one might consider the possibility that what we call "the universe" is all there is; that it might be a subset of a megaverse; that it is part of multiple universes; that it is simply an experiment of powerful non-gods who themselves were either created by gods or not created by gods. All those kinds of things ought to be considered when exploring the very interesting question of “What is existence?” “Has it always been?” “Was it a creation?” and those kinds of questions.

When dealing with those kinds of questions, I say, “I do not know, and I do not have enough evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses"

When it comes to the nonsense of purple unicorns; polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters—I realize I am dealing with an atheist who has no good response to my “I do not know” and is trying to intrude nonsense into the discussion to avoid dealing with the obvious—that he or she probably does not know either.

I simply dismiss those things out of hand.

Quote:

What is it that makes one concept unable to be known and another ridicules to even consider to be agnostic about?

The above explanation may answer this question, but if not, quote me an example of what you mean (QUOTE MY WORDS EXACTLY and let me know where you got it from so I can see it in context), and I will try to explain why I wrote what I wrote.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

(QUOTE MY WORDS EXACTLY and let me know where you got it from so I can see it in context), and I will try to explain why I wrote what I wrote.

Quote:

When it comes to the nonsense of purple unicorns; polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters—I realize I am dealing with an atheist who has no good response to my “I do not know” and is trying to intrude nonsense into the discussion to avoid dealing with the obvious—that he or she probably does not know either.

Using the logic you are using, "you say"

Quote:

If someone is discussing possible explanations of existence…"a non-created god" as a creator of the universe is one of the things you might consider. Obviously, the alternative of "no gods involved in any way" also has to be considered. For what we call the “universe” one might consider the possibility that what we call "the universe" is all there is; that it might be a subset of a megaverse; that it is part of multiple universes; that it is simply an experiment of powerful non-gods who themselves were either created by gods or not created by gods. All those kinds of things ought to be considered when exploring the very interesting question of “What is existence?” “Has it always been?” “Was it a creation?” and those kinds of questions.

When dealing with those kinds of questions, I say, “I do not know,

You are saying that you do not know if a God has anything to do with all of this, if this is so then if it is possible and there is a God that has created all of this then how can you say that there are no purple unicorns; polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters?
Would that not be up to him if he wants there to be and how can you be for certain that he does not? If he does exist I would say that these things are possible if that is what he chooses or has chose to create.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
I am assuming you and the others think atheism is superior,
Its not an issue of "my horse is faster than your horse". I feel that several facts discount the pantheon of gods

By superior…I am simply saying that it appeals to me more than any alternative. That certainly is what I mean when I suggest that agnosticism is superior to any of the alternatives…that it appeals to me (seems more reasonable and logical) TO ME than any alternative.

Quote:

1Being raised in acatholic tradition, I questioned the underlying facts of our Catechism and the veracity of the Penteteuch. They were laden with many errors, misrepresentations, myth, and plain old bullshit.

I had the same unfortunate background as you…and I agree, the entire basis for the religion (from early Judaism through current Christianity) seems to be bullshit…and appears to be replete with so many errors and inconsistencies it boggles my mind that any intelligent individual buys into that kind of thing. Any reasonable assessment of the evidence (the writings themselves) would lead to a guess that the entire story (the Bible) is essentially a self-serving history of the ancient Hebrews with an almost absurd mythology included. But I know intelligent, decent, reasonable people who think otherwise. ! That is something I have to acknowledge.

Quote:

Evolution of the divine is something I find interesting in human development but not so much that I want to base my life either
1believing in it or
2sorta believing in it (hedging your 'bet" is kinda lame in my mind)

Stop thinking of it as “hedging your bet”…or “sorta believing in it”…and take it as a simple acknowledgment of “I DO NOT KNOW THE REALITY AND CAN NOT RULE ANYTHING IN OR OUT”…and it becomes a snap. I think the problem many atheists have is they view the agnostic position as one of weakness…as one of “hedging bets.” I cannot say about others, but for me it is not.

Quote:

2 Weve NEVER found any intervention of gods and human lives, or gods and the universe

How do you know that? How would a god intervene? Is there something to prevent a god from intervening and preventing any human from realizing it has intervened? Could a more advanced civilization not travel to our planet, intervene in some way and prevent puny, primitive people like us from ever realizing it? And if an advanced civilizations could do it…why couldn’t a god do it? You do not know that no gods (or aliens) have ever intervened…and not finding evidence that they have is not evidence that they haven’t.

Quote:

There is way more evidence to the contrary.(That evidence we call "Scientific" did NOT go out to disprove the god myths, it was, instead, being followed uo to explain ohenomena or reactions or, in Darwins case, answering how living things got to the present)

There is no reliable evidence in either direction. A god…or an advanced civilization could be influencing us…and we could be completely oblivious to it.

Quote:

I find it intellectually discomfiting to be confident in my science but still saying"it cant hgurt if I let my bets be covered both ways". Maybe if I find that there IS a god, he wont fail to give me my lollipop when I die.

You are hung up on that “hedging bets” scenario. If I could help you get over it, I would. If I could convince you to try to view it without that in mind, I would.

Quote:

So, having spent less than a decade as a believer, another 2 decades as an "agnostic" (agnostics sorta are like Unitarians, they reluctantly accept that there is a possibility of a possibility of a god. After my agnosticism was spent (mostly by reading more archeological stuff). I emerged a nice complete atheist whose own life is tailored to do the right things as recognized in natural law..
Ive never taken a position of superirority, Im just fascinated by all the explanations that support all these different worldviews.
So, dont be pissed at me for wanting to get past this diversion. I just find it exhaustingly lacking in any purpose.

I am not pissed at you…or any atheist advocating what they see to be a reasonable position. I want you not to be pissed with me for advocating what I see to be a reasonable position.

Quote:

As an aside, your position , stated by you in several posts, still rings with a statement that you entertain the possibility of a possibility of the existence of gods. Whether you say you say that or not, its quickly interpretable by what we read.

I am committed to an open mind on the question of whether gods exist or do not exist. If you see that as a defect of some sort, I don’t know how to deal with it.

Thanks for replying, Farmerman. Thanks particularly for replying the way you did.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

You are saying that you do not know if a God has anything to do with all of this, if this is so then if it is possible and there is a God that has created all of this then how can you say that there are no purple unicorns; polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters?

You missed the part where I said, “I simply dismiss those things out of hand. “

I did not say there are no purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters. I said I simply dismiss those things…meaning I dismiss those kinds of intrusions into a serious discussion of “What is Reality?” My guess, based on what I know about the questions of purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…is that they do not exist. My guess is they are simply the fabrication of atheist trying to intrude nonsense into a serious discussion.

Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if there is a GOD…or if there are gods in the Reality of existence. I do not know if gods exist.

DO YOU?

I do not know there is no possibility of gods…and do not know that there are no gods in existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that a GOD has to exist to explain Reality and existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that gods cannot possibly exist.

DO YOU?

Based on that, I see no way to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

DO YOU?

You may…and if so, good for you. But I DO NOT.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You missed the part where I said, “I simply dismiss those things out of hand. “

I did not say there are no purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters. I said I simply dismiss those things…meaning I dismiss those kinds of intrusions into a serious discussion of “What is Reality?” My guess, based on what I know about the questions of purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…is that they do not exist. My guess is they are simply the fabrication of atheist trying to intrude nonsense into a serious discussion.

Fair enough, that is what I do as well. I also do the same when theist use the word God.

Quote:

Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if there is a GOD…or if there are gods in the Reality of existence. I do not know if gods exist.

DO YOU?

I do not know there is no possibility of gods…and do not know that there are no gods in existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that a GOD has to exist to explain Reality and existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that gods cannot possibly exist.

DO YOU?

Based on that, I see no way to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

DO YOU?

You may…and if so, good for you. But I DO NOT.

If I replace your word God with the words purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters, your logic seems to remain the same.

What do you think?

I think you are guessing

Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if there are purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…or if there are gods in the Reality of existence. I do not know if gods or purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters exist.

DO YOU?

I do not know there is no possibility of gods purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…and do not know that there are no gods or purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters in existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that a GOD or purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters has to exist to explain Reality and existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that gods nor purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters cannot possibly exist.

DO YOU?

Based on that, I see no way to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

DO YOU?

If there is know evidence then all we can do is guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How do you know that? How would a god intervene?

Weve looked at the reported interventions in the various "sacred Literatures" and found it incorrect or weve found strong evidence of natural causes. Also, therise of life on this planet was a natural reflection of the changing environment through time. We know that pretty damn well. What we dont know is what we can spend our time to find now, we look for mechanisms .

Quote:

Could a more advanced civilization not travel to our planet, intervene in some way and prevent puny, primitive people(from realizing it?)

Sure, but why would that be a subcategory fo the Divine?. If life were seeded at some point It certainly makes a neat story but hardly worth a literature and a priesthood. ((Id entertain several reasearch grants IF we had found such evidence. The Creationists are fond of taking the "Cambriian WExplosion" out of the garage and parading it as an example of such an" evolutionary kick start", yet science finds more and more the pattern of the development opf life in the 45 to 60 million years after the Cryogene " the great Planetary Ice Age" that included the documented and well evidencedseveral edaphic features responsible for development of life with "seafood shells" Again, its traceable and hardly worth anything but a scince fiction story to the contrary

Quote:

There is no reliable evidence in either direction. A god…or an advanced civilization could be influencing us…and we could be completely oblivious to it.

Thats a belief system on your part. It is based upon an assertion that reminds me of the basis of ID"theory" which states merely that "LIFE ON THOIS PLANET IS TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE ARISEN NATURALLY"> Thats their entire argument, nothing to argue with, buy it or reject it. Ive asked all the IDers who used to frequent here for any suites of evidence and Id always get back some form of their basic assertion. Thats what I find tiresome
I reject "we dont know enough" along with the IDers argument because it isnt based upon any degree of scientific sophistication. because I have seen strong evidence to the contrary and choose to waste my time doing that..
The evidence just keeps piling up and we fill in important gaps almost weekly and, although we dont see a lot of gods hanging around, we do, on the contrary, see a beautiful pattern of the relationship of planetary life to the "Bauplan" of the planet that its much more fascinating to exercise my brain on such problems than it is to insert periodic stops that require divine intervention.
Remember , as set is constantly reminding us , ATHEISM merely means a'theos, or "without a god", and thats pretty much what modern biology is ubderpinned by.
If some evidence does show up that suggests some kind of intervention by aliens, panspermic microbes, gods, or pasta, Ill worry about it then and have fun speculating like everyone else in the sciences. However, to me, that would ultimately be a complete downer especially knowing that some key features of life would have to remain a mystrey or as the cartoon states "And Then A miracle Happens".
Practical science, boring history, stamp collecting archeology, and genetics all keep chucking caltrops onto the theists roads, but what the planet reveals to us via these disciplines is ,to me,much more a fascinating destination than is the creed that the priests demand (or even stipulating to a "possibility" of divine intervention.
You seem to accept an Infinitely small chance , but a chance nevertheless. Thats ok, but when we establish (what the stisticians call) the 6 log evidence, Ive entirely rejected the concept of an outside chance.

My belief system includes a long shot that says that some day we will understand it all. Maybe then we or our masters the robots, will become the gods.
.

1 Reply

Given that this thread is going down this idiotic road anyway . . . agnosticism which selectively rants about theism, while ignoring all other forms of supernatural allegation is an intellectual shell game, and Eorl's nonsense notwithstanding, is not only not superior, but has about as much intellectual integry as the speculative thinking of elementay school children. We don't "know" that fairies, pixies and elves (or other "spirits" such as the Japanaese kami) possessing supernatural powers don't exist, so it would behoove us to be as agnostic about them, were there a shred of justification for this intellectual superiority bullshit. Beliefs in such supernatural beings is as ancient and as ubiquitous as the belief in a god superstitions.

It is beyond me how anyone can allege that there is any intellectual integrity at all in keeping an open mind about superstition, never mind claiming it is an intellectually superior position. There is a great deal about life and the cosmos that we don't know, and the most thrilling human enterprise is trying to find out. But when one reacts to the unknown, with the necessity for evidence, by resorting to poofism ("and then a miracle happens" as FM has it), there not only is nothing intellectually convincing about it, it's intellectually embarrassing (or ought to be) for anyone who can't do better than that.

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png

I don't have a problem with idle speculation, nor with keeping an open mind about things. It is hilarious bullshit, however, to suggest that there is any intellectual merit in keeping an open mind about superstitions, never mind claiming that it's a superior position. The only reason the self-congratulatory agnostics make a special case for theism is the weight of thousands of years of hide-bound, institutionally powerful superstition--none of them, were they being entirely honest, would accord the same serious consideration to the ruck of the rest of the mountain of silly human superstitions.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

ya know youre gonna get yelled at. Turn your speakers down

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

So, having spent less than a decade as a believer,....

I assume that this period of time was completed before the problem of the female arose.

Quote:

I emerged a nice complete atheist whose own life is tailored to do the right things as recognized in natural law..

What we need now is guidance on the approach the complete atheist recommends towards this hardly insignificant perplexity in terms of natural law.

It is something of an absurdity for a complete atheist to adopt the Christian approach to the female sex, in contradistinction to the somewhat obvious conclusions of natural law, and to insult our intelligence by trying to conceal the embarrassment with a snowstorm of cheap sophistries and vague terms and pointedly ignoring questions relating to such matters as Dr Murray's tremendous genetic feat of getting 8 kids out of 5 different females.

One gets the sense, once again, that the circles are being squared by that time-honoured standby, the reliable old flyblown assertion.

The same difficulties also apply to most other biologically determined necessities.

Whatever you like to call yourselves, chaps, in the service of predatory emulation, as long as you behave like well brought up little Christians we can all sleep easily in our beds.

Just try tailoring your behaviour to natural law.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Thats new, spendi is offering advice as to how to get laid

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It is a pity that Setanta ruined an otherwise excellent post by using the word "silly".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Winning the lottery is the best way known to man fm. That will get you laid as often as you can take it.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Increasing ones income has always conferred sex appeal and an importance of ones spoken word. Tell me somethin I dont know

0 Replies

@spendius,

fm seems innocently unaware that the purpose of the geology certifications he has been instrumental in distributing is to get access to money and thus access to getting laid.

The idea that it is to find oil is the reason oil is called oil.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Who gives a rat's ass. Keeping an open mind about things which are amenable to investigation, such as the ramifications of environmental pollution, or the nature of finds which may fill in gaps in the fossil record is sensible, and laudable. Keeping an open mind about superstitions--for which the only justification is "ya gotta have faith" is not only not laudable, it's deplorable. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know