Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 271 of 301 (371899)
12-23-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by GDR
12-23-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Abstractions
quote:
I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist,
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.
quote:
why do we have a moral code,
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.
quote:
or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer.
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.
quote:
In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to.
Where is it written that the universe must provide you with an answer to any question?
Why do you feel entitled to know the purpose of existence?
What is so frightening about saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 8:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 3:32 AM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 272 of 301 (371902)
12-23-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by GDR
12-23-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Abstractions
GDR writes:
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.
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?"
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 think many here would agree with this, too.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 8:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 3:20 AM Percy has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 273 of 301 (371933)
12-24-2006 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Percy
12-23-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Abstractions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 9:50 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2006 5:22 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 274 of 301 (371935)
12-24-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by nator
12-23-2006 9:32 PM


Re: Abstractions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by nator, posted 12-23-2006 9:32 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by iceage, posted 12-24-2006 3:20 PM GDR has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 275 of 301 (371940)
12-24-2006 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
12-24-2006 3:20 AM


Re: Abstractions
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.
The evolutionary process is surely a necessary element of our universe. It seems to follow from the most basic physical processes observed. If we one day find the ultimate ToE (Theory of Everything), and can somehow gain the power to follow its solution through the chaos and complexity, I believe we will see evolution, us, and our moral code all there in the formulae. All gaps will have been removed.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 3:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 10:40 AM cavediver has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 276 of 301 (371977)
12-24-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by cavediver
12-24-2006 5:22 AM


Re: Abstractions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by cavediver, posted 12-24-2006 5:22 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 12-24-2006 1:08 PM GDR has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 277 of 301 (372008)
12-24-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by GDR
12-24-2006 10:40 AM


Re: Abstractions
GDR writes:
It's a fascinating existence if we aren't afraid to seek the truth wherever it can be found and wherever it leads us.
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. And being a scientist does not in any way preclude seeking spiritual truths.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 10:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 5:07 PM Percy has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 278 of 301 (372034)
12-24-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by GDR
12-24-2006 3:32 AM


Re: Abstractions
schraf writes:
What is so frightening about saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that?
gdr writes:
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.
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".
For example
gdr writes:
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.
Questions like "why do we have a moral code" are slowly being answered in social evolutionary biology - you want to resist saying "I don't know" and hand that off to some intelligent designer while the scientific minds says "I don't know" but lets try to find out.
I will agree that humans tend to resist saying "I don't know" and scientist can be guilty of this weakness also. However, the religious minded resort to explanations in god(s), shamans or in "sacred texts". End of exploration, end of questioning - a dead end.
An interesting aside is that "sacred texts" have to have a certain prerequisite antiquity before they are granted such sacred status and are considered sufficiently authoritative to explain the contemporary unknowns - a humorous contradiction if you think about it.
The phrase, "I don't know" is actually modern. It is the bedrock motivation behind the scientific way of knowing. It admits the truth of the situation and rejects the well-worn knee-jerk reaction to invoke fictitious god(s), spirits, pixies, arrangement of the stars to explain things for which we have as yet no reliable explanation.
So in a sense one of the grandest accomplishments of the modern scientific era is the admission that we don't know some things.
Recently I read somewhere that the Pope (the prior Pope i believe) told Stephen Hawking that one should not delve into the earliest moments of the creation of the universe - since that is God's domain. This adequately demonstrates the old way, the Pope was perfectly happy with the explanation that God did it.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 3:32 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 5:20 PM iceage has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 279 of 301 (372053)
12-24-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
12-24-2006 1:08 PM


Re: Abstractions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 12-24-2006 1:08 PM Percy has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 280 of 301 (372056)
12-24-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by iceage
12-24-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Abstractions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by iceage, posted 12-24-2006 3:20 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by fallacycop, posted 12-24-2006 5:55 PM GDR has replied
 Message 283 by nator, posted 12-24-2006 7:18 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2006 11:34 AM GDR has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 281 of 301 (372060)
12-24-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
12-24-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Abstractions
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 5:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 7:07 PM fallacycop has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 282 of 301 (372062)
12-24-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by fallacycop
12-24-2006 5:55 PM


Re: Abstractions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by fallacycop, posted 12-24-2006 5:55 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by fallacycop, posted 12-25-2006 10:35 PM GDR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 283 of 301 (372065)
12-24-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
12-24-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Abstractions
quote:
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.
How?
quote:
I think most of us would agree that love is good and hate is bad.
"Good" and "bad" are completely relative terms and are dependent upon the individual situations in which they are invoked.
They are meaningless terms in the general. They are useful only when defined, and the definitions have and will always change in infinite ways.
quote:
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.
Let us assume for a moment that you are correct.
Why do you think any answer that is not derived from methodological naturalism is going to be reliable?
If it isn't testable, then there is no way to determine how close to the truth it is. If you aren't using MN, in other words, all explanations are equally valid.
But I do not assume that you are correct.
If our feelings of "love" and "hate" are products of the mind, which is in turn a product of the brain, there is no particular reason that MN won't be able to understand it in the future.
We've only been really studying the brain as the organ that produces the mind, in earnest, since the 1980's, since PET scans were put into use at that time. Before that, there was research starting in the 1960's that used brain damaged people to dtudy behavir, and a few tests were done during brain surgery.
So don't you think it is rather premature for you to poo-poo the possibility of science figuring out where "love" and "hate" come from, and why we think either are "good" or "bad", considering that the study of the brain has only really been going on for 40 years of so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 5:20 PM GDR has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 301 (372166)
12-25-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
12-24-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Unscientific methodology of acquired knowledge.
GDR writes:
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 have gained a significant amount of knowledge regarding history, the present and future events by a lifelong intensive study of Biblical prophecy. This is not science perse. Nevertheless it involves research, evidence and observation as does the scientific method.
I study and observe history and current events. I become familiar with claims the prophets make. I then analyze and assemble the observations of history and current event to assertain as to whether they satisfy the claims of the Biblical prophets.
I also observe the claims of other alleged prophetic sources, some of which contradict Biblical prophets for comparison with the Biblical prophets to assertain as to whether the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy is unique to the Bible and to compare other sources with the Bible.
I began this lifelong study about the time of the emergence of the nation of Israel as per the Biblical prophets. This is one of the events that originally got me interested in this source of knowledge.
I conclude by emphatically stating that this is a viable unscientific source of knowledge acquired outside of the science method.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 12-24-2006 5:20 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by fallacycop, posted 12-25-2006 10:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 290 by iceage, posted 12-26-2006 12:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 285 of 301 (372169)
12-25-2006 11:51 AM


Topic?
Anyone want to discuss the topic {Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance}?
Or have we concluded that ID is based on ignorance and the maintenance of ignorance and logical fallacy in order to fill the gaps with some hypothetical designer instead of "we don't know"?
That seems to be the summary position so far.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2006 12:09 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024