|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: International opinions: USA on science! | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Annafan Member (Idle past 4609 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Annafan Member (Idle past 4609 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Annafan Member (Idle past 4609 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
First of all, Nemesis, I appologize if I give the impression of 'breaking into' your private conversation with Hauk. But I noticed some of the obvious 'vulnerabilities' in his post, obviously due to some inexperience, and I couldn't hold it, hehe
hauk writes:
I'm actuali a computer engineer working on computer games (Games, unlike the bacteria flagell, still need intelligent designers). I also have some education in history. Primarily european history. NJ writes: I assume that was a jab at Michael Behe and all the proponents who belive that bacterial flagellum is indicative of something being, as he calls, "irreducibly complex." I happen to agree with Behe being that it would certainly seem that nature manifests the design of a preexistent cognizance. Just with flagella alone we would have to consider all of its contrivances and how they are harmoniously configured towards a central function. I feel that a purely naturalistic explanation demonizes intuition and balks progress. Naturalism alone is an obscurant which stands in the way of science, in my opinion. Perhaps we can speak more in depth about that in a more relevant topic. It would certainly be interesting to hear how "This is intelligently designed, let's stop investigating it!" would advance science. I'm listening... Maybe start by imagining what would have become of the great Middle Ages if they would have adopted that stance back then! And oh, the flagella example no longer poses any 'problems' and Behe had to dig up something new already, if you didn't hear the news. Obviously, he can go on like that for quite some time... More than enough goalposts to move, lol.
NJ writes: I can't seem to make the connection from religion and war. I seem to make a much broader connection that cuts to the heart of man. I find this connection especially easy to make in light of the existance of such monsters as Stalin, Lenin, Tse-Tung, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... {all athiests}. NJ writes: I think you need to re-research history and understand that it isn't religion that causes people to persecute other people, its man's sinful and fallen nature. And whether it comes under the guise of religion or of science or of any other attempted justification, only God will judge us on those actions. Not much to argue there... Religion isn't necessary for war. But I would argue a bit of religiosity certainly helps to know that your cause is the 'right' one, without having to think a little further?
hauk writes: Allright, so the reason why I'm so affraid of the I.D. movement is that it is competing with science, and any progress for ID theory will be on the cost of science. And science is always neutral. NJ writes: Science itself is neutral, but most unfortunately, it isn't so for the ones interpreting it. The polarization is clear that on one side we have a group who seeks to explain the natural world around them through the magnificence of God, and on the other end of the spectrum, we have group of people who seek to eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them. (bold by me) "Eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them?" That's just nonsense, a strawman. The problem is that a certain version of 'God', put forward by certain fundamentalist people, conflicts with open minded research. Of course, when it is not allowed to think anything that threatens an unsupportable worldview, you get polarisation. There's plenty of room for a 'God' left if you really need one.
hauk writes: Charls Darvin did not invent the shocking truth about our origin, he discovered it. Dont shoot the messengers. NJ writes: Darwin did nothing of the sort. Most of Charles' work was an extrapolation off the works of his grandfather, Erasmus. Wow... He never collected thousands of observations and facts during his several-year trip on the Beagle(you know, observation, empiricism?) ? That's quite new.
NJ writes: In any case, even the Greeks dabbled with the notion of evoluton, however, after being rejected by Aristotle it faded into obscurity. The point being that man has always had a tendency to shy away from the notion or the need for a Creator to necessitate and oversee all of the physical world. At the time of Origins, Darwin most certainly didn't claim that his theory eradicted a "Creator". He uses the word itself quite a few times. Of course, he was aware that it eradicated a certain type of Creator (one that was necessary to intervene in evolution). And although you are right that the notion of somekind of evolution existed before, Darwin (and Wallace) got it out of the realm of speculation and philosophy.
NJ writes: I think that any child should be exposed to many different possible explanations and have them draw their own conclusion based upon the evidence, or lack thereof. Of course you want all those hundreds of creation myths to be taught... And of course in science class, where they obviously belong. Or maybe just ONE particular one, for some (good?) reason? You know, if we're really lucky there might maybe be some time left for mathematics, grammar, geography and (real) biology...
NJ writes: Being that ID has now achieved parity with ToE in the mainstream, it obviously has gained its success through science. Why you think that ID'ers want to eradicate science is beyond me. This apparent belief you hold to is what makes me question what you know about it. He apparently knows a good deal more than you, lol. And, has it really achieved parity in the mainstream? And if it would, would it follow in any way that it gained success through science? Some popular books carefully pushed by propaganda don't equal science AFAIC.
NJ writes: For as impossible some that seems to you, it is equally, if not more impossible for me to believe that everything derives from nothing, and that complex organisms and ecosystems can arrive and propagate successfully via mutation and natural selection. Its absolutely absurd to me when looking at all of what life is from a holistic point of view. What has always made my head spin, is how people like you consider the concept 'explanation'. You come to the conclusion "Goddidit", and your curiosity is satisfied. I never understood that. What value does a particular 'explanation' have when it can be applied to every possible question, present and future? It is completely beyond me! It literally is a showstopper void of any useful information.
NJ writes: Being that people talk about God whether good or bad is a fact that its an important topic. On some level, some of this sinking in. People don't talk about that which is boring and nonsensical. This forum is devoted to such topics. So, on some level you'd have to admit that creation theory has some merit, otherwise, why would there be such an outpouring over nothing at all? Did you really write that???? Nice word choice, 'merits'... Concepts, no matter how worthless/wrong/imaginary in themselves, obviously DO have significant (negative) effects on reality quite often. Does Nazism have 'merits'? Does Muslim terrorism have 'merits'?
Hauk writes: As an atheist I feel i have a "religion" of my own. NJ writes: I couldn't agree more. You are one of few to actually admit that to yourself. Whether we are atheistic or theistic, religious notions obviously has some sort of significance that has yet to have been explained by any naturalistic explanations. Obviously, Hauk speaks for himself. But I think he just poorly worded it. There are definitely very important differences between atheism and religion, which clearly make that they can not simply be classified together. =====================================================================
positiveatheism.org writes:
=====================================================================
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. hauk writes: I am aware of my instincts and try to make the world the best place possible for me, people around me, and my potential kids in the future. To me, darvins evolution theory is actually contributing to make life seem worth living. It gives life meaning. If some new science (real science), should teach us otherwise, i would still accept it. NJ writes: This begs the question, if there is no greater purpose to life, then why or how do humans have notions of morality? What about Darwin's theory is worth living? Why not just "be"? Why can't humans just exist without any cares? Why do we feel the sting of despair or feel overjoyed with a sense of adulation if there was not something beyond the act of feeling it, itself? Why does everything have to have a reason/goal? Why should notions of morality be linked to some 'purpose' in life?
NJ writes: You know, I used to be an athiest... well, an Agnostic. After resisting for 24 years, I finally was bestowed some revelation, an epiphany of sorts. You mean, like how some people suddenly 'know' they are Napoleon? 
NJ writes: Any attempt to rationalize it would just not suffice. But this prompted me to reexamine the questions I had asked before. The point being, I've been on both sides of the coin and I truly do understand the athiestic mind. Believe me, I get it. I really do. You asked me about trusting an athiest. I don't adherently distrust athiests. So many friends and coworkers are athiests. I don't flmae them over this. I don't preach to them. I let them be until they ask specific questions. But one has to ask what worth there is "trusting" a person who has absolutely no moral compass to traverse life. If lying is wrong, then why? If there is such a thing as morals, then who sets the standard? Euhhh... If there is such thing as morals, exactly which religious manuscript do you choose to define your standards? Do you always agree when a book itself says it is the right one?
NJ writes: You also stated that you don't recieve information from ancient manuscripts who wrote it before they knew nothing about anything. Um, that's just ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people 5,000 years ago were somehow less intelligent? I hope that isn't the case because you'd fail miserably in trying to prove your case. Intelligence does not equal knowledge. People back then had the disadvantage that they couldn't stand on the shoulders of the giants that we had. We learned a couple of things over the last 5000 years. regards, Annafan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Annafan Member (Idle past 4609 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Annafan writes: It would certainly be interesting to hear how "This is intelligently designed, let's stop investigating it!" would advance science. NJ writes: Being that there was nothing even remotely akin to me saying that we need to stop investigating anything, I'm not sure how to respond to your words. Can you elaborate on what you meant so I can answer you? Well, you didn't say it but it is the consequence. Can you show me how 'it was designed by an intelligent being' differs from 'stopping to investigate'? Can a scientist, who comes to the ID conclusion, really be expected to gather additional useful knowledge about a particular subject? Does the ID conclusion leave any room for useful additional information? Can any additional information claim to be useful, if it just floats in the middle of the air and doesn't somehow integrate into our total body of (naturalistic) knowledge? Does it really deserve the label 'knowledge'? And a very important question: how can he/she possibly KNOW at some point that the ID conclusion is 'valid'. Given that a continued research into naturalistic explanations in biology and all other fields of science continuously keeps producing those naturalistic explanations, eventually? In other words: does a scientist really have any other choice but continuing her research after naturalistic explanations? In short: once you accept the 'ID' stance, science is effectively thrown out of the window. That is the implication. Science comes to a halt. Apart from these general points, I won't address your examples of so called 'Irreducible Complexity' individually (I'm not the right the person to do it, and there are a million threads about it already in these forums).
NJ writes: Everyone constantly looks for justification one way or another. Religion is yet another tool for someone to manipulate another group I won't disagree... It's an interesting question though, whether in the absence of organized religion, there would be ANY sort of agreement about anything spiritual. Isn't organized religion, and the diversity and disagreements that come about, a natural consequence of the vagueness and interpretability of scriptures?
Annafan writes: "Eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them?" That's just nonsense, a strawman. The problem is that a certain version of 'God', put forward by certain fundamentalist people, conflicts with open minded research. Of course, when it is not allowed to think anything that threatens an unsupportable worldview, you get polarisation. NJ writes: There are people who hate the notion of God, whether they are overt about it or whether it comes across ever-so tacitly. It exists. And anyone so obtuse as to not be able to recognize that isn't qualified to counter-argue that point. Wow, that's a nice bullet-proof formulation, lol. I'm already glad that you just claim 'there ARE people' and not that 'ALL scientists' hate God. Personally (granted, I'm not a scientist), I really don't feel like I 'hate' God. Mostly because it's hard to genuinely hate something you think doesn't exist (try to hate the Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.. It just doesn't work! ) The real explanation is pretty simple: when a scientist is open-mindedly investigating nature, he doesn't like to be told that someone's particular version of 'God' doesn't want him to look deeper into something. It is not the God that is hated, but the people behind it who impose their particular God, to which the scientist himselve can not relate. How would you feel if a Pastapharian told you that you shouldn't further investigate the evolution in the number of pirates over the last 5 centuries, for example?
NJ writes: (Charles Darwin)Where he went awry was asserting that every living thing is ultimately related by noticing different colors, shapes, and sizes of beaks. He had a very sharp mind, indeed... That's why roughly only two people could connect the dots at the time, with the evidence available at that time. No hereditary mechanism available, no molecular genetics... and still they already saw it! All credit to Charles and Alfred.
NJ writes: Nowhere did I say that Darwin wanted to eradicate the Creator. I said that people have used his book as the first compelling reason to dissasociate oneself from the necessity of there ever being a Creator. Equally many, or even more, have just repositioned that Creator. Often only after a serious personal spiritual struggle, but they were honest to themselves that the evidence could not be denied.
Annafan writes: Of course you want all those hundreds of creation myths to be taught... And of course in science class, where they obviously belong. Or maybe just ONE particular one, for some (good?) reason? NJ writes: You might be surprised to know that I happen to agree with you on some level. I don't think that theology has a place in the science classroom, nor does science have room in the theology classroom. And its not that they are mutaully exclusive, but that so much of both are open to interpretation. Recognizing that a higher cognizance may exist does not mean that we have to define what the Creator is. Could we ever really understand something so great? But if we can determine that there is a Creator, supported by science, then it gives us a more compelling reason to look at the theological aspects as well. But the Creator has no place in ToE. It just doesn't. Ok , so we probably would get along pretty well. I still just don't understand why you can at the same time maintain that science and theology AREN'T mutually exclusive (which many practicing scientists will agree), and yet have so much trouble to accept evolution. You say 'Recognizing that a higher cognizance may exist does not mean that we have to define what the Creator is.', but isn't that exactly your problem? That you want your particular type of Creator, while the evidence points against that particular type?
NJ writes: Its only in your imagination that creationists pose some sort of threat to science, especially when so many of them are scientists. Any one of them who wants Creation to be thought alongside evolution, in science class, is MORE than an imaginary threat. And that happens to be the standard meaning of creationist in this whole argument.
Annafan writes: And, has it really achieved parity in the mainstream? NJ writes: Perhaps 'parity' was a bit much, but it is undeniable that a rather large scientific exodus has taken place. Many defectors once indoctrinated by evolution are finding themselves in support of a more laudable theory. Since I myself am a defector, I understand this very well. Maybe the theory is more 'laudable', but I still prefer theories for their usefulness.
Annafan writes: What has always made my head spin, is how people like you consider the concept 'explanation'. You come to the conclusion "Goddidit", and your curiosity is satisfied. NJ writes: You presume to know so much about me, but how fair is that? Do you honestly believe that the answer of "Goddidit" is satisfying answer for me? I in no way would satisfied by an answer of such brevity. I enjoy science, just like I enjoy history or any other subject. Apparently it satisfies you. Because it is what ID inevitably points to. There is absolutely nothing usefull to be learned about a supposed intelligent designer. The conclusion itself paralyses the urge for deeper understanding. It is, by all means, a "Goddidit".
NJ writes: Because everything in life does have a purpose. You take a dump for a reason. You eat for a reson. You sleep for a reason. You breath for a reason. You have a heart for a reason. You have a brain for a reason. And this example could be said of all organisms. So why should the conglomerate of all life have no purpose, when demonstration shows that there is some purpose for everything? Purpose is interpretation. Does a flower 'like' the sun, or does it happen to grow towards the sun through biochemical principles? It all depends on whether you want to give it an anthropomorphic twist or not.
NJ writes: No, a little deeper than that. But something like that only comes by asking for it, praying for it, and meaning it. If you have not, its because you ask not. And if the American fastfood culture of now, now, now, doesn't happen in the timeframe you wish or in the manner you wish, then you will continue to wait in frustration. I'm not American and I don't like fastfood
Annafan writes: If there is such thing as morals, exactly which religious manuscript do you choose to define your standards? Do you always agree when a book itself says it is the right one? NJ writes: That isn't a question that I can answer for you. Not entirely unexpected
NJ writes: I understand your premise, but surely on some level you understand that some things are right and some things are wrong. I assume that you understand that absolutes do in fact exist but its going to take you a ilttle investigating to ascertain those truths. The fact that I understand the absolutes, without needing a book for it, speaks for itself. I'm not sure I like the word "absolutes", though. These are just principles that apparantly imposed themselves because they happen to be successful. They impose themselves on (most of) us, by making sure that we like them. So "emerge" is a better word than "impose". Empathy is a simple word for the basic principle behind it all.
NJ writes: Knowledge begats knowledge as one builds off another. But we'd likely not be where we are today without the invention of the wheel. And if we were teleported into the past without any knowledge of current evwents and current inventions, we'd be just as ignorant as they were. But ignorant realy isn't a dirty epithet. We are all ignorant of most things. I'd be hard pressed to believe that we even have 1% of the answers and yet mankind shamelessly parades around as if he gave himself knowledge, as if gave himself oxygen. Well, if the knowledge doesn't come from ourselves, then where does it come from?
NJ writes: I just think that we'd better eat some humble pie when it comes to nature, whether we subscribe to atheistic or theistic beliefs. Openminded investigation is not arrogance. Capitulating and taking the easy 'intelligently designed' way out is not a sign of humility. We have to take our own future into our own hands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Annafan Member (Idle past 4609 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
