So, what is Intelligent Design?

[Iacchus]

What is Intelligent Design? Is it possible to acknowledge that Goddidit and acknowledge the merits of evolution as well? I think so. Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally.

What do you think?

 

[Tricky]

What is Intelligent Design? Is it possible to acknowledge that Goddidit and acknowledge the merits of evolution as well? I think so. Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally.

What do you think?

Of course it is possible to acknowledge evolution and at the same time claim that there was a plan behind it. But making such a claim adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge. It merely allows magic-needing people to acknowledge that science works while maintaining their own little fantasy about their Sky Daddy. It is the result of cognitive dissonance forcing religious people to find new ways to force-fit their philosophy onto an unsympathetic real world.

 

[Iacchus]

Of course it is possible to acknowledge evolution and at the same time claim that there was a plan behind it. But making such a claim adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge. It merely allows magic-needing people to acknowledge that science works while maintaining their own little fantasy about their Sky Daddy. It is the result of cognitive dissonance forcing religious people to find new ways to force-fit their philosophy onto an unsympathetic real world.

In other words you're saying God doesn't exist.

 

[Tricky]

In other words you're saying God doesn't exist.

I have no evidence for a God, but like most atheists, I do not claim to know for certain that one does not exist. With proper evidence, I could be convinced. You got any?

But if one does exist, I would guess that it is unlike anything you or anyone else has ever imagined. Quit trying to force your god into human mold.

 

[Iacchus]

From the previous thread, Upchurch's angry rant ...

But you said something to the effect of "One sun means one God." Well there are lots of suns, so by your own reasoning, that means lots of gods. Or perhaps each solar system has it's own god who can't do anything outside of that solar system. It's really hard to tell what you mean when you keep making such self-contradictory statements.

And yet there is only one sun that we are familiar with (in a representative sense), and hence One God.

If you scroll back to my little idealized debate, you will note that I mentioned how ID people seem to think that their kind of intelligence is the same as the Designer's intelligence. This amounts to collossal hubris, and you have verified your own exaggerated sense of self-importance by your own words. God could be anything. It doesn't have to be like you (and I certainly hope it's not. )

Well first of all we have to go with the evidence that's presented to us -- as much as I'm sure you disdain the use of the Bible -- and backtrack from there if need be.

 

[Tricky]

From the previous thread, Upchurch's angry rant ...

And yet there is only one sun that we are familiar with (in a representative sense), and hence One God.

No, I'm quite familiar with a number of suns. Sol happens to be closer, but they are all pretty much the same kind of fusion machine.

And what the heck do you mean by "in the representative sense"? I assume it means it is the only one you call "the sun", but that labelling means absolutely nothing. They are all suns. Sol happens to be the one we are orbiting.

Well first of all we have to go with the evidence that's presented to us -- as much as I'm sure you disdain the use of the Bible -- and backtrack from there if need be.

LOL. Yeah, I have a few problems with the bible as evidence, especially its numerous self-contradictions.

The evidence that I trust is testable and replicable. 2000 year old books of philosophy and personal anecdotes don't fit into that category.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And yet there is only one sun that we are familiar with (in a representative sense), and hence One God.

Wow.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Iacchus,

The book The Design Inference, by Dembski is great!

It was published by Cambridge University Press in their Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory.

You can also check out http://www.designinference.com/.

Sure, ID is more friendly towards theism than atheism, but intelligent design does not specify a designer, as you can detect design without knowing who the designer(s) is.

 

[jj]

Tautological Creationism

There's something I call "tautological creationism".

It's the kind of "creation" where the universe was suddenly created at some point (it doesn't matter when) looking like it's been around for about 15 billion years, and then after this point of creation it's let run itself with exactly zero outside interference.

That's all the data can suport. This leaves us with two possibilities:

1) There is no creator
2) The creator has is either maliciously misleading or has a cosmic sense of humor.

 

[Iacchus]

I have no evidence for a God, but like most atheists, I do not claim to know for certain that one does not exist. With proper evidence, I could be convinced. You got any?

But if one does exist, I would guess that it is unlike anything you or anyone else has ever imagined. Quit trying to force your god into human mold.

Well I suppose it should be as easy as saying look around you, because if He does exist, what other evidence is there?

Of course that doesn't fit the bill with most people because all they can see is what they experience through their "physical senses." In which case maybe it's not so much a matter of discovering the evidence, as it is a matter of interpreting it? Indeed, and where might that interpretation come from, except from within?

As the scriptures say, "The kingdom of heaven is within."

 

[Tricky]

Sure, ID is more friendly towards theism than atheism, but intelligent design does not specify a designer, as you can detect design without knowing who the designer(s) is.

I politely disagree. You can detect patterns, in a snowflake or a fractal, but it doesn't require any design. It is simply the way things fit together. To require that patterns be created by "designer" is an emotional inability on the part of the investigator to admit that there are simply some things he cannot (yet) explain. It is tempting (and comforting) to hypothesize a higher consciousness that can explain these things, but it is intellectually lazy. Look at all the things that used to be explained by "goddidit", but now have perfectly mundane explanations thanks to the tireless work of scientists who would not accept "because that's the way God made it" as an answer.

 

[Tricky]

Well I suppose it should be as easy as saying look around you, because if He does exist, what other evidence is there?

Believe me, I look around a lot. I still see no evidence.

Of course that doesn't fit the bill with most people because all they can see is what they experience through their "physical senses." In which case maybe it's not so much a matter of discovering the evidence, as it is a matter of interpreting it? Indeed, and where might that interpretation come from, except from within?

Well good. At least you admit that it is your own personal interpretation. This is the crux of the matter. Real truth does not require interpretation. It is testable and repeatable. As you well know, no two biblical scholars interpret the Bible the same way. If none of them are definately wrong, then you must admit that there is no absolute "truth" in the bible, but only what your own mind interprets. That is fine in philosophy, but when it comes to explaining how the world works, I require a little more objectivity.

As the scriptures say, "The kingdom of heaven is within."

Another way to phrase this might be "it's all in your mind."

 

[Iacchus]

But if one does exist, I would guess that it is unlike anything you or anyone else has ever imagined. Quit trying to force your god into human mold.

First of all you have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before you can address whether Jesus Christ was the son of God or, in fact God Himself. And until you do, you can't even begin to think about the possibility along these lines.

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Tautological Creationism

There's something I call "tautological creationism".

It's the kind of "creation" where the universe was suddenly created at some point (it doesn't matter when) looking like it's been around for about 15 billion years, and then after this point of creation it's let run itself with exactly zero outside interference.

That's all the data can suport. This leaves us with two possibilities:

1) There is no creator
2) The creator has is either maliciously misleading or has a cosmic sense of humor.

Well what if we were to put it this way ... If God didn't conceal Himself from us maybe we wouldn't seek Him? ... or, "meaning" itself.

In other words maybe all God is is the quest for meaning?

 

[Phil]

First of all you have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before you can address whether Jesus Christ was the son of God or, in fact God Himself. And until you do, you can't even begin to think about the possibility along these lines.

No, I think that you have to ascertain whether or not god exists. It seems Tricky is fine with a naturalist or skeptical worldview, and not thinking along those lines at all.

For the record, we would all love to see the proof of god's existence, but the universe is neither better nor worse for a non-theist without it. It just is what it is.

Well what if we were to put it this way ... If God didn't conceal Himself from us maybe we wouldn't seek Him? ... or, meaning itself.

In other words maybe all God is is the quest for meaning?

You seem to be trying real hard, but I'm reading ontology here.

 

[Tricky]

First of all you have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before you can address whether Jesus Christ was the son of God or, in fact God Himself. And until you do, you can't even begin to think about the possibility along these lines.

I take it then that you have been able to ascertain whether God exists or not. Did you reach this discovery because you simply cannot concieve of how all this could happen without a God? If so, I would ascribe this to your inability to conceive of possibilities outside of your own beliefs. Does the thought of "no God" so horrify you that you simply refuse to let your mind contemplate it?

Well I have contemplated God. I have contemplated many Gods. I was a Christian until my late teens and I have looked at many other belief systems, and I have found that none of them (so far) could stand up to intellectual scrutiny. None of them had tenets that could pass a rigorous test. They contradicted each other and themselves. So I settled into a philosophy which acknowledges other possibilities, but requires them to present hard evidence (more than "just look around you"). In my opinion, that is the only fair way to evaluate belief systems. None of them have presented any evidence so far, so I remain an atheist until they do.

 

[Iacchus]

No, I think that you have to ascertain whether or not god exists. It seems Tricky is fine with a naturalist or skeptical worldview, and not thinking along those lines at all.

No, we have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before we can question whether we were created in His image.

You seem to be trying real hard, but I'm reading ontology here.

Ontology? What do you mean? ...

 

[Max560]

What is Intelligent Design? Is it possible to acknowledge that Goddidit and acknowledge the merits of evolution as well? I think so. Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally.

What do you think?

It seems unlikely that the theory of evolution is going to be upended by evidence.

As evidence in support of evolutionary theory continues to mount, you can see a corresponding "evolution" of theistic thought on the subject.

First, there is a hostile, flat out rejection of any non-god/bible centered idea. Whenever possible, proponents of the new theory are persecuted and forced to recant (e.g., Galileo).

Next comes a long struggle where efforts are made to supress any work which would strengthen the non-churchsanctioned theory. This usually has the effect of slowing down the accumulation of knowledge. Thankfully, this tactic is never completely successful.

Finally, as the knowledge base grows, and it becomes increasingly obvious that the theological position is flat out wrong, a need to save face and to preserve the faith develops. The best way to do this seems to be to finally accept the theory, and simply append the notion "because God designed it that way". Further face saving seems to involve distancing onesself from the previously held hardline stance- for example:

"Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally".

The idea seems to be that theists want to demonstrate that they were in the evidence based camp all along, yet at the same time preserve their belief system. The "I think there is merit in theory X, just like God planned it" approach seems to fit the bill nicely. You get the benefit of appearing capable of rational discourse in regards to theory X, without really having to defend the glib arguement of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is such an easy stance to take in regards to evolution. You don't even have to provide evidence to support it-you just have to say "that's just the beauty of God's design" to whatever evidence is presented.

People will question the Intelligent Design stance, but if you hold this stance, no one will really force the issue with you. No one expects you to actually provide evidence to support this position, because no one believes you can support the position. Instead, the arguement gets deflected or derailed somehow, and the topic gets dropped. This will give you some sense of satisfaction in that no one was able to disprove your view point, and as long as you don't really do some critical thinking about your own position, you can keep your belief system relatively intact.

 

[Iacchus]

I take it then that you have been able to ascertain whether God exists or not. Did you reach this discovery because you simply cannot concieve of how all this could happen without a God? If so, I would ascribe this to your inability to conceive of possibilities outside of your own beliefs. Does the thought of "no God" so horrify you that you simply refuse to let your mind contemplate it?

I discovered it because I was forced up against the wall with it, and am afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that for now.

Well I have contemplated God. I have contemplated many Gods. I was a Christian until my late teens and I have looked at many other belief systems, and I have found that none of them (so far) could stand up to intellectual scrutiny. None of them had tenets that could pass a rigorous test. They contradicted each other and themselves.

Yes, this was one of my great experiences of life as well, but unfortunately I wasn't ready for the discovery I made next (in reference to above).

So I settled into a philosophy which acknowledges other possibilities, but requires them to present hard evidence (more than "just look around you"). In my opinion, that is the only fair way to evaluate belief systems. None of them have presented any evidence so far, so I remain an atheist until they do.

Yes, I said the same thing when the Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door (i.e., early on), "That if God does exists, there's no way I'm going to accept it upon these people's say so and, He would have to reveal Himself to me personally or, in a way that I can understand." And that's essentially the way it happened.

 

[Phil]

No, we have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before we can question whether we were created in His image.

Forgive me, but I didn't read any post in this thread that made that argument. Perhaps I overlooked it.

Ontology? What do you mean? ...

Well, not that I hold sway over what you or anyone on this board does, but I would advise you that if you are going to argue in favor of the existence of god---and again maybe I've read too much into your posts---but if you are, it's a good idea to define what you mean by "God" up front.

An ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term "God", and generally those arguments cause discussions to devolve into philosophical nonsense, and no conclusions can be drawn.

But if you define what you mean by "God" at the outset, we can proceed more smoothly.