Science vs.? Intelligent Design?

[Makalakumu]

There is no useful evolutionary reason for such a belief-indeed, given the chaos and slaughter that one can historically attribute to "religion," the very notion of a creator and an afterlife seem counterproductive to some, and have a history of counterproductivity. If there is no useful purpose to it, from an evolutionary standpoint, and yet humans everywhere have always believed in such things, then the least complicated reason for it is that there is a God. :lol:

Daniel Dennet suggests that religion evolved just like everything else. He suggests some evolutionary mechanisms and pressures and provides a very plausible and secular explanation for religion.

 

[Makalakumu]

Religion evolved via co-evolution.

 

[elder999]

Daniel Dennet suggests that religion evolved just like everything else. He suggests some evolutionary mechanisms and pressures and provides a very plausible and secular explanation for religion.

That's very interesting, and complex-my point wasn't, however, about the necessity or lack of it, or an explanation of how we're hardwired for it-or even it's lack of utility or utility, something I don't really believe-

My point was that Occam's razor is misapplied in the instance of a Creator, repeatedly. Occam's razor says that Daniel Dennet's suggestions aren't necessary, and are unecessarily complex. Man is hardwired for religion by God-that's the simplest explanation, and any more complex theorizing is unecessary.

 

[Sukerkin]

If we could do all that for God, no one would be having this discussion!

Oh if only ...

Wouldn't it be marvellous to end all the bloodshed and wrangling?

Sorry, an aside to this discussion I know; my apologies.

 

[punisher73]

Oh no, it's radically different. For one thing, everyone can agree that my Mother existed at one point. If she hadn't, I wouldn't be here! Furthermore, while colored by my interpretation, she definitively performed actions for me which can be interpreted. Furthermore, you could find several existing witnesses who can describe in detail those actions, and were actually present for them. If we could do all that for God, no one would be having this discussion!

Your mother's existence wasn't in question only her actions that you interpret as love. You are left with the same analysis that people who believe in a creator are left with. Many people have witnessed things that they interpret as "God". Sometimes even in big groups and they all saw the same thing and thought the same thing. You are placing value judgement on what YOU see and believe it to be more credible than what others see and experience. Hypothetical question: If you had an angel (how ever you interpret how they would look if they existed) appeared to you and said that you were loved by God, what would your reaction be?

 

[Andrew Green]

Your mother's existence wasn't in question only her actions that you interpret as love. You are left with the same analysis that people who believe in a creator are left with. Many people have witnessed things that they interpret as "God". Sometimes even in big groups and they all saw the same thing and thought the same thing. You are placing value judgement on what YOU see and believe it to be more credible than what others see and experience. Hypothetical question: If you had an angel (how ever you interpret how they would look if they existed) appeared to you and said that you were loved by God, what would your reaction be?

Define "Love", then someone might be able to prove its existence. But as long as you are not allowing love to be defined in any concrete way you're not going to be able to prove it exists.

But at the end of the day, from a scientific perspective, I suspect love is a chemical reaction in the brain that influences our behaviour. That is something we can prove.

 

[Empty Hands]

Your mother's existence wasn't in question only her actions that you interpret as love. You are left with the same analysis that people who believe in a creator are left with.

No, it is still a false equivalence. My mother's actions can be observed and verified by independent observers. The same cannot be said for God! It isn't just my subjective interpretation. For instance, I could call my Father and sister as witnesses and they could give their accounts and interpretations. We could even hook my Mom up to an MRI and see whether this whole love business holds up. It is an entirely different class of evidence and interpretation for God. No independent observers!

Hypothetical question: If you had an angel (how ever you interpret how they would look if they existed) appeared to you and said that you were loved by God, what would your reaction be?

Well, you gotta go with the evidence. After getting checked out for medical conditions, I would have to provisionally believe in the supernatural. However, not even that would prove God. What if the angel was a trickster who was trying to fool me? Human mythologies are rife with such figures.

 

[Andrew Green]

We could even hook my Mom up to an MRI and see whether this whole love business holds up. It is an entirely different class of evidence and interpretation for God. No independent observers!

Sorry, but I gotta beat on this a little

We could have multiple observers that see the same sign as "God", we could also hook them up to the MRI and verify that they are experiencing something.

But I don't think many believers want to degrade "God" down to a experience that people have, especially when I imagine the same experience could be registered around many different belief systems. Love is a emotion, something that is felt, and those feelings influence behaviour. We can prove all of that.

We could also prove that in a similar manner the feeling of "God" is real and can influence peoples behaviour as well. What we can't do is take that leap from the sensation of experiencing "God" to their actually being a God that exists outside of a experience people have.

We also can't (I assume) trace that feeling of God in any way that can lead back to a single idea of what God is, a "religious experience", or "God experience" can happen whether you believe in one God, a hundred Gods, or a monkey king.

 

[Ray]

That was my point. Your definition for "proof" of your mother's love is no different than someone's belief in God. It is based on their personal experience and interpretation.

For me, everything in my life is a personal experience. How is it not for you?

 

[Marginal]

I've often wondered why people on both sides of the fence would think that Creationism and Darwinism were mutually exclusive :idunno:

Because evolutionary theory doesn't ever require the presence of a God/creator at any point along the chain.

 

[Ray]

Because evolutionary theory doesn't ever require the presence of a God/creator at any point along the chain.

Not a very compelling explanation.

 

[arnisador]

Because there's no scientific evidence of God, and the Christian Bible clearly conflicts with evolution (e.g., the order of creation of species specified in Genesis).

 

[Marginal]

Not a very compelling explanation.

How compelling can a blind algorithmic process be?

 

[Ray]

How compelling can a blind algorithmic process be?

I meant your response to morph4me's question. Not whatever program you're referring to (or perhaps you're referring to evolution as an algorithm).

 

[Marginal]

I meant your response to morph4me's question. Not whatever program you're referring to (or perhaps you're referring to evolution as an algorithm).

I'd assume the latter since the former makes absolutely no sense given the context.

Evolutionary theory offers an explanation of how life arose. One that doesn't require the presence of a creator at any point in the process. You can tack some God kinda thing on at the beginning if you want to feel a dose of warm fuzziness for both sides, but one doesn't need the other at all to function. The reason that fundies are so offended by evolution is because it doesn't need god to provide a workable explanation. (The fear being that once Johnny hears that his DNA isn't just so 'cause God made it that way, he'll go and beat his mother for lying to him about God. Then Johnny will become a stone killer and be executed by the state. Which means his science teacher will burn in hell for unraveling Johnny's empty, easily shaken faith.)

 

[Ray]

I'd assume the latter since the former makes absolutely no sense given the context.

To some it does.

Evolutionary theory offers an explanation of how life arose. One that doesn't require the presence of a creator at any point in the process. You can tack some God kinda thing on at the beginning if you want to feel a dose of warm fuzziness for both sides, but one doesn't need the other at all to function.

I'm not much for warm fuzziness. And I see clearly that evolution is a very good explanation of how things are and how they became that way; and that it doesn't require a creator. I fully accept evolutionary theory as it is currently understood.

The reason that fundies are so offended by evolution is because it doesn't need god to provide a workable explanation. (The fear being that once Johnny hears that his DNA isn't just so 'cause God made it that way, he'll go and beat his mother for lying to him about God. Then Johnny will become a stone killer and be executed by the state. Which means his science teacher will burn in hell for unraveling Johnny's empty, easily shaken faith.)

That is too bad that "fundies" are offended by evolution. Personally, I don't think anyone is going to burn in hell for teaching evolution...I don't think Heavenly Father works that way. BTW: what's a "fundy?"

 

[morph4me]

Because evolutionary theory doesn't ever require the presence of a God/creator at any point along the chain.

Quite the contrary, if a person is a believer it requires the presence of a God/creator at every point along the chain.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Quite the contrary, if a person is a believer it requires the presence of a God/creator at every point along the chain.

No more so then gravity

 

[Cirdan]

Evolution does not really deny the existence of god. It does however make you feel a bit less special, being part of an ongoing process of change rather than god`s favored special little creature made in his own image. "Intelligent design" is just a reaction to this, an attempt to say god made you perfect for your time, feels good doesn`t it? Sure, fiction will beat sience if you want it to every time. If you excuse me, I`m off to eat raw horse meat to Tor`s honor.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Evolution does not really deny the existence of god. It does however make you feel a bit less special, being part of an ongoing process of change rather than god`s favored special little creature made in his own image. "Intelligent design" is just a reaction to this, an attempt to say god made you perfect for your time, feels good doesn`t it? Sure, fiction will beat sience if you want it to every time. If you excuse me, I`m off to eat raw horse meat to Tor`s honor.

Not really.

Look at a single shot in pool. Past the initial point if contact, or even within it, nothing in the system gives evidence of an intelligent force behind the trajectories of the balls, and yet the balls go where the player intends. The process is entirely natural and mechanical, but the intent of the process is not.

Now you have a trillion balls on an endless table and and a player of infinite skill. The motion of the balls is entirely within the physical constraints of the materials and forces at play and yet when the balls all come to a rest, who's to say they are not exactly where the player intended?

The problem with the ID crowd is that they keep looking for the places where God nudges the balls, tilts the table... has to cheat.

Some people see the mechanics of the motions and say "it all works so no prior intelligence is needed". Some people see the motion of the mechanics and say "there is intent here so there must be intelligence in the intention". And the interpretation I supposed comes down to your metaphysical or romantic leanings