|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I don't deny for one minute that people can influence the ideas of others.
PaulK writes: At the heart of it, memes are just ideas that people pass on to other people. Sometimes they change in transmission. We could, for instance consider a language as a meme. So I think that memes are largely an abstraction and development of the analogy between biological evolution and the evolution of languages. I don't have a problem with this either. My problem is with those that use a meme as a physical replicator of ideas.
Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" writes: Just as genes propogate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propogate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain by a process which, in the broad sense of the term, can be called imitation. What is scientific about that. For that matter, a meme could just as easily be metaphysical as it could be physical. Is an idea physical or metaphysical. If I teach my kids that Atheism represents the truth of our existence have I participated in a physical or a metaphysical process, and how can I through empirical testing come to a conclusion? If one considers the concept of memes to be scientific then they have no argument to use to say that ID isn't scientific. In my view, neither are. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
RickJB writes: This statement represents the "disneyfication" of nature at its worst. Also, all of this can be far more clearly understood in other ways. It may be able to understood in other ways, but those other ways aren't scientific either.
RickJB writes: Memetics can and will be put to the test. It is a relatively new idea and it will stand or fall depending on the evidence that scientists are able to find in support of it. No one has "faith" in it. Your haste to denounce it is more of a reflection of your prejudices against it than it's failings as a hypothesis. Memetics as the study of cultural evolution is fine by me. It is those like Dawkins, (who coined the term "meme" to replace Cloak's term of cultural replicator), takes this study and uses his scientific credentials to promote his faith in Atheism, or his belief that only the physical exists. As I said earlier, if there is such a thing as a meme, there is no way of proving whether it is physical or metaphysical.
RickJB writes: In any case, memetics aside, you are still having to ignore all the other evidence in support of evolution to sustain your "science as faith" argument. I have no argument with evolution, and I certainly don't hold that science is faith. What I am saying is that when scientists or anyone go beyond what is scientific then it does become an issue of faith. Basically, Dawkin's idea of a meme holds that an idea or an emotion is a physical entity whereas a theist such as myself is inclined to the believe that they are metaphysical. Edited by GDR, : I had missed your last paragraph Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I do. Thanks
Greg Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
GDR writes: My problem is with those that use a meme as a physical replicator of ideas.RAZD writes: Please demonstrate one place where someone has said that there is a physical replicator here - direct from Dawkins would be a good start .. There have been many comments in this thread that have said that the study of memes is scientific. Dawkins goes so far as to draw parallels between genes and memes. In my view, genes are scientific and memes aren't.
Dawkins wrires in "A Devil's Chaplain" writes: Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary or capricious. They are exacting, well honed rules, and they do not favour pointless self-serving behaviour. If memes are scientific then they have to function within the physical or natural world. What empirical test is there to prove that such a thing as a meme exists? I'm out of time so I'll just post what I have. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Rather than try to go through everyone's post and try and answer each point, (it is midnight), I'll just try to quickly summarize my position and let it go at that.
It appears to me that there is a double standard for those who argue the Theistic or Atheistic point of view. Proponents of ID sometimes will try and argue that their position is scientific. Frankly I agree that it isn't. At any rate that POV is not given any credence at all because there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a metaphysical intelligent designer. Atheists such as Dawkins however seem to get a free ride when the espouse views for which there is no scientific evidence. Certainly, there are studies that show the cultural evolution occurs. Ideas are passed around within a family or within a given culture. However to assign the idea of a meme as a cultural replicator and call it science is in my view no different than calling ID science. Some posters have said that a meme is merely an idea. If that is the case then I would agree that I don't have a point. However, the quotes of Dawkins that I've already given indicate that he believes a meme is more than just an idea. He theorizes that a meme functions in many ways like a gene, as he compares meme pools to gene pools. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: You individually might not, but IDists in general certainly do. This is the primary reason why they say things like, "We cannot know the nature of the designer or how he designed." I hope this raises red flags for you all over the place, just as it would if evolutionists were to say, "We cannot know the processes that produced evolution nor their modes of operation, but we know evolution occurred." I have re-read both of your posts and after having digested them I understand better your point and I agree.
Percy writes: Science is the study of the observable universe. We can't study parts of our universe that aren't observable (directly or indirectly), and we certainly can't study anything outside our universe. If the designer is outside this universe, as you suggest, then it cannot be an object of scientific study, and so ID isn't science. I agree
Percy writes: It's certainly not an either/or situation. Ideas have a physical representation in the brain that is inaccessible to our current science, so we can only understand ideas on a metaphysical level. It would be incorrect to conclude that because our current level of expertise doesn't allow an understanding at the underlying physical level that therefore that physical level does not exist. All evidence we have indicates that ideas are expressions of physical activity in the brain, we just can't figure out the physical level at this point in time. We might never figure it out. Just because there is physical activity in the brain when idea is formed, (which comes first; the idea or the physical activity), doesn't make the idea itself physical. As you say, science might never figure it out. As I've said earlier, when Theists are accused of filling the gaps left by science with God. Aren't Atheists doing the same thing when they pass off the gaps in science as something scientists just haven't figured out yet? Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
jar writes: No, not at all. Saying that we do not yet know and answer is entirely different than saying the answer is God. For one thing, answers are limiting unless they lead to new questions. They are a dead end. I have never suggested that anybody should throw their hands up in the air and stop seeking truth. When we say we don't know the answer then the answer could be God or it could be we just haven't found it yet. However, regardless of one's opinion the search should continue.
jar writes: ID is a dead end, a termination, a death of ever understanding; ID is the Truimph of Ignorance over Knowledge. In the first place ID means different things to different people but in any case labelling their position as ignorant isn't really useful. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: Iceage already responded to this, saying, "When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now." I don't disagree with this or anything else in your post. I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist, why do we have a moral code, or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer. In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to.
Percy writes: Iceage already responded to this, saying, "When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now." I don't disagree with this or anything else in your post. I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist, why do we have a moral code, or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer. In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to. I have read the other responses but I'm out the door for the evening and don't have time to repond to them all individually. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: I think many here would agree with this, but it is important to make clear how you're using the word "why". You're not using it in the sense of "What was the immediate cause of such-and-such", which would turn it into a scientific question. You're using it in its spiritual sense, as in "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Absolutely. It is like evolution. Science can study the evolutionary process from a single cell to what we see today but it can't answer the question of why does the process exist in the first place.
Percy writes: The thread's title states the case too strongly for my taste, but it's a response to claims that ID provides scientific answers. It doesn't. It's a religious view. I agree completely. I've done my best to make the point that evangelical atheists like Dawkins make non-scientific claims as well to support their beliefs. However, anything else I could say on the subject would just be a repeat so I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Greg Edited by GDR, : fix quote Edited by GDR, : still fixing quotes Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
schraf writes: If you mean, "What is the purpose of our existence in an existential sense", then no, science will not find an answer to that question, because it is not designed to answer such a question. It is as nonsensical as expecting science to discover if an action is right or wrong. That's what I said. There is no disagreement
scraf writes: Science already has discovered quite a lot about why we have a moral code, through human research and also through work done in other primates. Put very simply, we have moral codes because we are social animals, and having moral codes makes it easier to live together in relative harmony. Science might find how we got a moral code, it canot tell us why we have a moral code.
schraf writes: Again, if you are expecting science to give you an existential-type answer to the purpose of the existence of the universe, that is simply unreasonable. I'm not, which is what I said.
schraf writes: Where is it written that the universe must provide you with an answer to any question? It isn't.
schraf writes: Why do you feel entitled to know the purpose of existence? I don't
schraf writes: What is so frightening about saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that? I'm glad that the Einsteins and Darwins of this world didn't take that attitude. There is nothing frightening about saying that I don't know but I do want to learn as much as I can. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
cavediver writes: However, the biggest question of all will remain... WHY? That simple question is where religion, ID and atheism fit in. And that simple question is surely infintely larger than all of our understanding and all of our gaps put together? Perhaps we should give God (and ~God) the luxury of that space and stop trying to cram him into every conceivable process that psuedo-hints at meta-physicality? Well put. I wonder if we can actually ever get to that point though. I just go back to the Lisa Randall quote I used earlier in the thread. "We understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe than ever before". It's a fascinating existence if we aren't afraid to seek the truth wherever it can be found and wherever it leads us. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: Well, yes, of course. But science isn't about the search for truth in any spiritual sense. It's a search for how the universe works, not why the universe is or why it's the way it is. I wasn't trying to suggest science that science is searching for spiritual truth. I do however believe that it is worthwhile to search for truth in ways that aren't scientific. I don't ever expect to convince anyone of my Theistic beliefs with scientific evidence.
Percy writes: Any scientist or science-oriented person who tells you that science says there is no God is full of bunk. Even Dawkins will tell you that the God he thinks science most rules out is the fundamentalist God, the one who fundamentalists believe created the world around 6000 years ago and who wiped out almost all life on earth with a great flood around 5000 years ago. The evidence clearly contradicts this. But there's no evidence that contradicts even a very personal God who cares about us and answers our prayers. Too many sincerely religious people seem to view it as an either/or, and if they want to insist that their God tells them the earth is young and modern geology is a result of a world wide flood, then I guess it is an either/or and it's just tough patooties for them because all the evidence from the natural world (a natural world that is God's creation) says they're dead wrong. But there is no contradiction between religion and science for those who don't insist that their religion makes accurate scientific statements. AMEN!! Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
iceage writes: I think you misunderstood schraf. Saying "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I don't want to know". Maybe I misread you but from prior comments it appears that you are happy with the thought that there are things that god did and that is good enough for you - which is the opposite of saying "I don't know". I don't think I misunderstood her. What I really hear her saying is that the only way we can find truth is through the scientific method. I am all for using the scientific method to find out anything that we can but I believe that we can also gain knowledge through the non-scientific. I do think that she has limited her ability to learn by rejecting knowledge based on the non-scientific. For example: I think most of us would agree that love is good and hate is bad. It's something we take for granted but I don't believe that we will ever find out why we feel that way using the empirical method. In saying that I believe God created, I am not limiting what I accept from scientists. I am keenly interested to see what the next great scientific discovery will be. I wish they'd hurry up and get on with it because I won't be around here forever. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
fallycorp writes: Modern technology is coming to the point where it`s possible to see what`s going on iside the brain in real time when people have emotional reactions. May be the empirical method has something to say about why we feel the way we do after all. Go back to cavediver's point in this thread. http://EvC Forum: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. -->EvC Forum: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. It doesn't matter what we find out about how we feel, but science can't answer why we feel anything at all. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
