How have all these different gods evolved?

You kid us not? Evolved gods?
No, no no.
Not even micro-evolved gods.
Because they are indeed irreducibly complex: Take away one of their characteristics, e.g. immortality, and they are no gods no more. Thus, they are designed, indeed intelligently design. And this time we indeed know the designers.

Yet there have been so many gods that we humans have believed existed in all “sincerity.” When we look back on ancient cultures, we don’t ever believe in their gods, but we don’t question those ancient culture’s sincere belief in their gods.

Perhaps you don’t believe that the Hindu gods exist, but surely those that do believe are sincere?

How have all these different gods evolved? Isn’t sincerity of belief the common factor in all beliefs in a invisible, or seldom seen, or hard to see god?

“So if you asssume that god exists there is an identical likelihood that the FSM exists as well.”

Not necessarily. God is immaterial, while the FSM is supposed to be material (primarily starch?). The existence of God does not mean that anything material that can be mentally constructed would necessarily exist. However, it may exist in the minds and imaginations of Henderson & Co.

“If one takes reports of repeated experience of rational and conscious agents serious FSM is indeed compatible with ID.”

I suppose somebody can rationally propagate a lie, knowing it is a lie. This is in remarkable contrast to those who believein God. At least they propagate their belief from a perspective of sincerity.

With that in mind, who is more credible? The Christian who believes what he claims, or the Pastafarian who knows he is propating a fabrication?

“seemingly, you are alreday deeply inside that debacle”

Nope. Only the Pastafarian is faced with the debacle of ‘who designed the pasta’. And we all know the answer to that.

I have not a clue what this means.

In terms of what we all may understand, I can support Fuller if he takes it upon himself to debate with the Darwinists, why they constantly mis represent what ID says and believes and why they feel it is necessary to do so. I happen to believe that would be a devastating argument against the Darwinists if it was allowed to play out. But I doubt that they would ever enter into such a debate. But after watching Fuller debate, I doubt that he is up to it or would have his heart in it.

And maybe he’s just not a good debater.

But his perspective should be considered if the cause is to be advanced.”

First of all, the conference that Fuller debated Conway Morris was not at Cambridge but Kings College London at something called the “Institute of Ideas” and it was in October 2007. When it was posted in September, I thought it was recent. So maybe in a year he has learned something. But StephenB pointed out in the discussion of this conference back in September that Fuller is a Postmodernist or social constructionist and truth made not mean the same thing for him as for many of us. We will have to ask him.

Since he debated Simon Conway-Morris at a high level conference, on ID he has to be considered a spokesperson for ID. Conway-Morris is one of the big names on the naturalistic evolution side. Maybe there isn’t anyone in the UK who could be considered an ID spokesperson but Fuller stepped up to the plate as one.

Who is saying that his perspective will advance the cause? Can we make an argument for that? Is debating Pastafarianism advancing the cause. I do not think so. In fact I believe it will set it back.

So go on about how Steve might be a good guy but what has he done for ID. Not much if you watch the debate.

Now if Steve Fuller will claim he believes in ID, sticks to what ID is about, namely science, then maybe he could be effective and then only when that was accomplished bring up some of his other issues.

You would do well to look into social epistemology, starting at Fuller’s website. His job is not to tell society what to believe, but to comment on the formation of social beliefs.

The idea that science is some sort of “Truth Methodology” is incredibly naive. As I have pointed out in another thread, there is no inductive inference without bias. What constitutes mainstream science in fact comes down to the bias a group of very intelligent people prefers for reasons that in and of themselves are not scientific.

What makes many IDists and many atheists bedfellows is their fondness for pointing out the bias of others while sweeping their own bias, well, under the bed.

Personally, I like methodological materialism as a bias (or explanatory heuristic, in Fullerian terms) in science. But I also have an overarching belief system in which I know the limits of belief formation through empirical science. One may argue — and I will listen closely, though I’m inclined to disagree — that most people in society are not equipped to “put science in its place,” and that a change of bias in science would serve the greater good. My response is that we should teach philosophy in high school, and drive home the point that the beliefs we arrive at by empirical science depend on the assumptions we begin with.

Then again, Fuller suggested in a prior appearance at UD that attempting to “get into the mind of God” might prove to have explanatory value in science. Some people may doubt that, but there is no way to deny it. I would observe, however, that people who believe in God have an ugly tendency not to take “no” as an answer from nature. Selective is reporting is admittedly a problem throughout science, but people looking for proof of their God are especially bad.

So I end by saying, be honest about your bias, and be honest in your reporting. I will support anyone who follows that dictum, even if I disagree with his or her bias.

DaveScot wrote in 76:

Yeah but it’s not like Bill Dembski is doing the authorizing anymore and it’s not like Barry Arrington, who is doing the authorizing, is a fellow of the Discovery Institute.

So I wouldn’t worry too much about those ramifications when the sources are so easily impeached.

Ironically, if he were still the “blog czar,” he’d have banninated himself for that. There’s nothing quite like dismissing a blog by dismissing the blog owner and then bothering to comment, is there? Good Ol’ Dave!

I’m actually all for freedom of expression. And one thing I will express is disgust for people who oppose it and exercise it. This blog is a vast improvement over what it was. The irony of the weeping Expelled expelling left and right was utterly amazing.

I am very pleased to see Steve Fuller here. He is a first-rate intellectual with whom I disagree on various points. But he articulates those points honestly and well, and that makes for good discussion. And good discussion generally leads discussants to better understanding, if only of their own stances.

Fuller values democracy highly, and this seems to be a key aspect of his thinking on social epistemology. He has a long history of asserting that it is the right of the masses to participate in the construction of various beliefs of importance to society, including scientific beliefs.

It happens that I, like the American Founders (who were strongly influenced by Plato’s Republic), believe that democracy leads to chaos. Fuller wants more democracy, and I want less. I believe in democratic election of elites who make better decisions for the people than the people would make for themselves. I also endorse an elitist scientific establishment. Beyond that, I believe in public education in which intellectual elites decide that content and the instructional methodology.

The upshot is that Steve Fuller and I have different values. Yet I value people like him. Something many IDists have not caught onto is that the Golden Rule will get them further in debate than “an eye for an eye.” As Gandhi pointed out, “An eye for and eye, and the whole world goes blind.” If you want discussion that potentially leads the world to see the merits of ID, then you should do all you can to see the merits of discussants and, better yet, their points.

Here comes the motive mongering again. ID People of faith don’t “pretend” anything. They distinguish their faith from their science, while contending that each can be reconciled with the other.

That is what makes them different from Creation Scientists and Darwinists, both of whom inject their faith into their science and its methods.

From an ID perspective, religion and science form an “intersection”; from the CS and Darwinist perspective, religion and science form a “union.” The difference is only everything.

And maybe he’s just not a good debater.

But his perspective should be considered if the cause is to be advanced.