|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2005 : 07:29:40 [Permalink]
|
I'll agree that it qualifies for being taught alongside religion, but ID certainly doesn't belong in philosophy!
The study of philosophy is necessarily systematic; else it is not a study. As such it must remain entirely divorced from faith and remain firmly tied to reason.
An intelligent designer of the universe, not to mention the idea of "...volition, under no subservience to any other principle" is so rife with contradictions that no serious philosopher would consider it even oonce.
A philosophical god cannot be an entity. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 07:47:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
I see no concrete falsification method for the generalized version of the Great Architect conjecture, no.
RE delicate balances, etc. I don't think most agnostics (me, anyway) would have a problem agreeing that if one goes back enough eons in time, or developmental layers (before the Big Bang, for example) ID is as conceivable as any other explanation as to what might have "started it all"... as such, keeping the issue firmly planted in the Philosophy department.
I see what you mean. Keep the disciplines of hard science and things like philsophy, which deal with things coming from the so-called abstractions of mind, separate. Indeed that is useful. But at some level it is intuitive to see that mind meanings and physical reality are somehow unified. (imo, the limitations of our physical brain wiring does not permit us to unify these seemingly disparate areas of exploration.)
quote:
The disagreements start when people speculate that Man/Earth had some kind of significance to the designer as opposed to any other mammal, insect/planet, ephemeral object... or moreso as to the nature of such a special significance (that's where religions come in) that people can generally objectively agree upon without relying upon dogma, or "reaching" extensively.
I don't think it is much of a reach that all true humans have a capacity for God contemplation. The animals apparently do not. Now, God contemplation may be a bizarre delusional characteristic of our species. Or it could be that we *are* indeed entering upon the earliest evolutionary stages of God perception, a God who is truly there. If so, we can respond to God in a way that animals cannot, which *would* make us special I think. Sons of God. Unfortunately, in mankind's stage of dangerous adolescence, all kinds of evil result when one group think of themselves as more special than other.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 08:04:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobiMarkie -
The point of the article is that because ID cannot be falisified, in any of it's incarnations, it is not science. It is a philosophical/theological argument. It should therefore not be taught along side or instead of scientific theories like evolution. I have no problem at all with it being included in some sort of philosophy class or comparative religions class in public schools. But it should not be confused with science. This is the heart of the issue. Not whether ID is worth discussing or not, or possibly true or not, but how it should be discussed and in what forum. Do you agree?
Yes I agree. However, also eliminate the teaching of strict naturalism. Science has shown convincingly that evolution has occurred, but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
Mark
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 08:12:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
It is definitely a belief that there is something *else* involved. There is no supporting evidence for anything other than material mechanism.
This is not belief, it just is.
One could argue that it is just a "belief" that planes are able to fly by using airflow over a certain shape to create low pressure thus providing lift (a purely mechanistic explanation). Maybe there is *something* more to it, like a hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being is holding the plane up (or pushing the ground away).
This is unreasonable and lacks any evidence supporting it. And it is not falsifiable.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 09/27/2005 08:17:13 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 08:12:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I'll agree that it qualifies for being taught alongside religion, but ID certainly doesn't belong in philosophy!
The study of philosophy is necessarily systematic; else it is not a study. As such it must remain entirely divorced from faith and remain firmly tied to reason.
An intelligent designer of the universe, not to mention the idea of "...volition, under no subservience to any other principle" is so rife with contradictions that no serious philosopher would consider it even oonce.
A philosophical god cannot be an entity.
Subjectmatter, feel free to elaborate rather than simply asserting what I am saying is full of contradictions. And feel free to offer your idea of what a philosophical god is.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 08:22:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
It is definitely a belief that there is something *else* involved. There is no supporting evidence for anything other than material mechanism.
This is not belief, it just is.
Rather, if you see one hundred stones stacked upon one another in the middle of a deserted forest, it is a matter of belief rather than rigourous logic to assert that it is the result of a purely unintelligent process.
Mark
|
| Edited by - markie on 09/27/2005 08:25:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:13:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yes I agree. However, also eliminate the teaching of strict naturalism. Science has shown convincingly that evolution has occurred, but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
Okay, because this is so absurd, I can't help but respond with my impression of the teaching various of classes ten years after "markie's law" goes into effect...
Physics:A decade ago, I would use this time to talk about Newton's F=ma, but since I've been prohibited from teaching anything based upon "strict naturalism," today we'll just watch a movie. Yes, like every other day in this class. Geology:Yes, yes, yes. There is tons of evidence about how the Earth formed, and that it did so about 4.5 billion years ago. But that's as much as I can say, since putting all those pieces of evidence together into a coherent whole can't be distinguished from religion by some portion of the population. Wood Shop:Sorry, kid. I can't tell you how long it'll take that glue to dry, or even if that glue will ever dry. I'd lose my job if I did. Feel free to join in, folks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:24:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
[Rather, if you see one hundred stones stacked upon one another in the middle of a deserted forest, it is a matter of belief rather than rigourous logic to assert that it is the result of a purely unintelligent process.
If I had lots of evidence as to how the stones were stacked by natural process, it would not be belief. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:25:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Subjectmatter, feel free to elaborate rather than simply asserting what I am saying is full of contradictions. And feel free to offer your idea of what a philosophical god is.
Mark
Certainly:
Anything which is intelligent must necessarily be composed of some form of matter which interacts with itself. (this is not to say that this matter has the same physical properties as matter as we know it, but it must be matter in that it interacts in a system) Anything which is not composed of matter; eg. a form, must be unchanging as it cannot interact with anything and only exists in virtue of knowledge a priori. The fact of change necessarily implies interaction, and interaction is the definition of matter.
As such a thing therefore must be composed of matter it cannot be completely independent of principles apart from volition as volition on its own cannot interact with matter (unless your idea of volition is composed of matter, in which case the idea of free will is entirely absent in your view of the world).
As to the philosophical god... I have always disliked the term. You will find it in the writings of Aristotle as the 'Prime mover', which I understand to be the condition of motion...
In Kant there is a philosophical god in the sense that god "is an idea in our minds" and one can further argue about the form of the whole being 'god', 'god' simply being the idea that parts form a whole. But saying that I find questionable as it is unclear exactly what characteristics it shares with the religious god...
You will also find in Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' a far better argument against the existence of god than the one I have put forward here. The one I have given above only deals with an idea of God being an intentional entity. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:27:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yes I agree. However, also eliminate the teaching of strict naturalism. Science has shown convincingly that evolution has occurred, but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
Okay, because this is so absurd, I can't help but respond with my impression of the teaching various of classes ten years after "markie's law" goes into effect...
Physics:A decade ago, I would use this time to talk about Newton's F=ma, but since I've been prohibited from teaching anything based upon "strict naturalism," today we'll just watch a movie. Yes, like every other day in this class. Geology:Yes, yes, yes. There is tons of evidence about how the Earth formed, and that it did so about 4.5 billion years ago. But that's as much as I can say, since putting all those pieces of evidence together into a coherent whole can't be distinguished from religion by some portion of the population. Wood Shop:Sorry, kid. I can't tell you how long it'll take that glue to dry, or even if that glue will ever dry. I'd lose my job if I did. Feel free to join in, folks.
Don't be silly now David :) By all means teach that F=ma, but please don't teach that this law is self originating and has no origin in a higher Source, simply because we can't directly observe this higher power.
Mark
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:31:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't be silly now David :) By all means teach that F=ma, but please don't teach that this law is self originating and has no origin in a higher Source, simply because we can't directly observe this higher power.
Don't teach it might have a higher Source in a physical science class either. Don't teach anything about its "source". If the higher power cannot be observed, then pragmatically speaking it does not exist and can be ignored in the physical sciences. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 09/27/2005 11:22:16 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:39:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Subjectmatter, feel free to elaborate rather than simply asserting what I am saying is full of contradictions. And feel free to offer your idea of what a philosophical god is.
Mark
Certainly:
Anything which is intelligent must necessarily be composed of some form of matter which interacts with itself. (this is not to say that this matter has the same physical properties as matter as we know it, but it must be matter in that it interacts in a system) Anything which is not composed of matter; eg. a form, must be unchanging as it cannot interact with anything and only exists in virtue of knowledge a priori. The fact of change necessarily implies interaction, and interaction is the definition of matter.
As such a thing therefore must be composed of matter it cannot be completely independent of principles apart from volition as volition on its own cannot interact with matter (unless your idea of volition is composed of matter, in which case the idea of free will is entirely absent in your view of the world).
As to the philosophical god... I have always disliked the term. You will find it in the writings of Aristotle as the 'Prime mover', which I understand to be the condition of motion...
In Kant there is a philosophical god in the sense that god "is an idea in our minds" and one can further argue about the form of the whole being 'god', 'god' simply being the idea that parts form a whole. But saying that I find questionable as it is unclear exactly what characteristics it shares with the religious god...
You will also find in Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' a far better argument against the existence of god than the one I have put forward here. The one I have given above only deals with an idea of God being an intentional entity.
Interesting. Among other things I could ask, do thoughts have "form"? Yet they seem to change as they interact with matter.
Personally I don't conceive of ultimate Deity having 'form' because of course that would imply a 'space' context of sorts which frames Deity and hence would be comparable to Deity, which is self contradictory.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:18:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Don't be silly now David :)
How could I avoid being silly in the face of such absurdity?quote:
By all means teach that F=ma, but please don't teach that this law is self originating and has no origin in a higher Source, simply because we can't directly observe this higher power.
Just like biology professors don't teach that the laws of physics and chemistry which allowed self-replicating, evolvable molecules (and later, life) to form on Earth had no origin in a higher source?
Or did those anonymous teachers of yours actually state that no part of the natural world could possibly have come from a higher source at all, ever? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:54:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Or did those anonymous teachers of yours actually state that no part of the natural world could possibly have come from a higher source at all, ever?
Of course it is not put this way. Rather it is conveyed that science has uncovered that blind material mechanism is indeed enough to explain how life evolved from molecules to self conscious beings. That is simply not the truth, at least at this stage of science.
Can anyone spot the illogic?
1 - we observe material changes in evolutionary progress.
2 - genetic mutation, adaption, natural selection, genetic drift are observed to occur.
3 - nothing else has been observed, thus nothing else is responsible for evolution, thus step two is sufficient explantion for evolution.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 11:41:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Or did those anonymous teachers of yours actually state that no part of the natural world could possibly have come from a higher source at all, ever?
Of course it is not put this way. Rather it is conveyed that science has uncovered that blind material mechanism is indeed enough to explain how life evolved from molecules to self conscious beings. That is simply not the truth, at least at this stage of science.
Is it really conveyed that way, or is it conveyed that there is a current best scientific explanation for anything we've got a theory for?
But wait, you're not talking about the origins of life, but common descent. Oh, holy crap!
I've gotta ask, markie: do you agree that the evidence shows that man and chimps both evolved from a common ancestor?quote:
Can anyone spot the illogic?
1 - we observe material changes in evolutionary progress.
2 - genetic mutation, adaption, natural selection, genetic drift are observed to occur.
3 - nothing else has been observed, thus nothing else is responsible for evolution, thus step two is sufficient explantion for evolution.
Yes, the illogic is yours, markie. If nothing else has been observed, then either step two is responsible, or something which is not known to exist is responsible. Which one is scientific?
More importantly, we have no reason to believe that step two is not sufficient. Do you have a good, scientific reason we should think that all the known mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to take us from a primordial cell to the biodiversity we see today? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
