Don’t Give Up The Faith!

_{Gil Dodgen

February 20, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Given enough time, inanimate matter — through the laws of chemistry and physics, and with enough random trials, filtered by natural selection which throws out stuff that doesn’t work — will self-organize into highly sophisticated information-processing machinery that produces the human mind.

How could this ultimate truth not be obvious, except to those who have been indoctrinated with silly anti-scientific beliefs, like that there might be “design” in this whole process? How could anyone with an IQ above room temperature deny such an obvious truth?

Science has proven it. The debate is over. The mechanism described above can explain everything. All real scientists accept it.

All you ID guys should get a life and admit that your lives have no ultimate meaning or purpose, because everything is all meaningless and purposeless. It’s all chemistry, physics, and chance.

Crap! I just figured something out. If my life has no ultimate meaning or purpose, how am I supposed to get a life?

I’ll have to ruminate on that one.

Trust me. I’ll get back to you with an answer later. In the meantime, don’t give up the faith!

Comments

----Hoki: If only matter exists, then there can be nothing but matter or that which is grounded in matter. A mind (not the brain labled as mind [as in epiphenominlism]) cannot be grounded in matter because we know from experience that it can resist and even reverse an impulse from the brain, which is, itself, a slave to matter and can resist nothing. We can, in fact, exercise self control through the use of an immaterial mind and will. In such instances, the mind and will refuse to accept the animalistic, law-like, materialist promptings of the brain and either redirect matter or choose something different than what the brain is bidding one to do. If there was no immaterial mind or will, the brain would simply obey natures laws and we would have no free choice. That is why all materialists are committed to reject any notion of fre will. To have a brain and no mind is to be an animal, and to not believe in minds is to countenance humans acting like animals.StephenB_{March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Sorry for taking so long to respond. I'm not even sure I you're going to be checking this thread any more. Anyways: If everything is matter, then obviously there can be no such thing as minds, souls, justice, truth, purpose, goodness, morality or any other type of non- material reality. Remember, materialism claims that matter is the ONLY reality. Well yes, these things can exist if matter (e.g your brain) creates the perception of these things existing. Computer programs can have purposes even though they are purely material (I doubt that they are aware of the purpose, however). Of course, these immaterial entities don't exist in any absoulte terms (which I suspect is what you're after).Hoki_{March 3, 2009
March
03
Mar
3
03
2009
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

That should read, for [some] not "them", it could be a design principle in nature.StephenB_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

----Hoki: "Now, why is it in all of a sudden theism? I would agree that ID requires some sort of dualism, but it would not have to be theistic. So, your statement should be that “immaterialism” CAN provide purpose. You could also say that it allows you to to assign any conceivable sort of purpose to yourself (and others). Both dualism and monism are philosophical rather than scientific paradigms. ID can fit inside the dualistic paradigm, while it cannot fit in the monistic paradigm. Dualism, (two realms) argues for two realms, i.e, Creator/creation, mind/brain, spirit/matter, soul/body. Monism reduces everything to one realm, cutting out the top layer ie. No creator, brain only, matter only, body only. Materialism is one kind of monism. There is another kind of monism called “Idealism” which is not too popular these days but used to be the rage. In any case, Darwinism fits in with monism, because it acknowledges only matter. Does ID require dualism? From a scientific perspective, the answer is no. In that respect, the designer need not be a Divine creator, a superhuman, or a person at all. For them, it can be a “law” or a principle in nature. From a scientific standpoint, I can’t dispute the point. From a philosophical perspective, however, it makes no sense. Why? All of empirical reality is changing. If the “law,” as designer, is part of nature, then it is also a part of that changing reality, which means that it could not be its designer. An unchanging law cannot also be a changing law. This, by the way, is why we discuss things other than ID science. ----“Your claim that materialism militates against purpose and meaning is simply wrong.” Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it leaves no room for it. If everything is matter, then obviously there can be no such thing as minds, souls, justice, truth, purpose, goodness, morality or any other type of non- material reality. Remember, materialism claims that matter is the ONLY reality. Also, materialism rules out free will, so even if there was a purpose, the creature could not choose to fulfill it. The best it could do is to follow its own nature. What good would purpose be without choice? ----“There are more than one type of philosophical materialism and while some would say that there is no such thing as purpose (as we use the term) others do allow for such an abstract term. Now, we could always argue whether or not such purposes are ultimate or not…” Yes, you are right, there is such a thing as “epiphenomilism.” Materialism says everything is matter, while epephenomilism says everything is “grounded” in matter. The second claim is not quite as strong as the first, but, as it turns out, the difference doesn’t count for much. In the end, matter is still calling the shots. ----“I never had the intention of engaging in a debate about morality. I will also refrain from starting now.” OK.StephenB_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB: On the other hand, ID cannot provide meaning, I'm glad we agree. I brought this up in the beginning because GilDodgen's post was filed under "Intelligent Design". The two counterparts are [A] Monistic Materialism and [B] Dualistic Theism. Both are philosophical world views and each can logically be compared to the another. Theistic Dualism does indeed provide purpose and meaning, while Materialistic monism militates against purpose and meaning. Now, why is it in all of a sudden theism? I would agree that ID requires some sort of dualism, but it would not have to be theistic. So, your statement should be that "immaterialism" CAN provide purpose. You could also say that it allows you to to assign any conceivable sort of purpose to yourself (and others). Your claim that materialism militates against purpose and meaning is simply wrong. There are more than one type of philosophical materialism and while some would say that there is no such thing as purpose (as we use the term) others do allow for such an abstract term. Now, we could always argue whether or not such purposes are ultimate or not... Do you acknowledge the natural moral law as an objective standard of morality? I never had the intention of engaging in a debate about morality. I will also refrain from starting now.Hoki_{February 26, 2009
February
02
Feb
26
26
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Hoki, I was not talking about you. It was a refection on my experiences on this blog, but I can understand how you might interpret it that way given prior events. Meanwhile, do you have anything to say about my substantive point @77, which summarizes your basic misunderstanding.StephenB_{February 25, 2009
February
02
Feb
25
25
2009
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Given that roughly half of GilDodgen's opening post dealt with purpose and didn't deal with morality at all, I wonder if Tim and StephenB's comments regarding people seemingly latching onto trivial points/subpoints was really meant for me.Hoki_{February 25, 2009
February
02
Feb
25
25
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Tim, I know exactly what you mean. One of the reasons I don't often write long posts is because my adversaries often look for a qualifying statement in a subpoint and play it up as if it was the main argument.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

See, this is why I hate writing out long arguments. When I make good ones, which I'll be the first to admit may not happen near enough, they are ignored. When I don't explain myself clearly, or if that explanation involves some further analogy, my counterpart always seems to latch on to some aspect of my writing which I would normally consider to be trivial. I have re-read my two stanza limerick at 20 and think that that about sums up what I meant when considering initial origins, "ends" (on which I do believe ID can comment, if in a severely contracted way), panspermia, the supernatural, and bien sur alien soap! So, my apologies to Hoki and thanks and praises to StephenB (see 32!!), but I'd say this thread is done -- done for me, at any rate.Tim_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

----Hoki: "Given that the comment only included quotes by Tim and wasn’t addressed to anyone at all, I wonder if I am now entitled to some ad hominem’s myself. Pretty please with sugar on top!" You are correct on both counts. Let me do it for you. How about this: StephenB was a pin head @64 for failing to realize that he had pulled out Hoki's quote to Tim and jumped on in and then forgot what he did.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

----Hoki: "I also like the way you endorse personal attacks and display clear signs of pride in a thread where there is a lot of arguments about morality." You have a point. I retract my snippy remarks and my apparent endorsement of personal attacks. I hope that you will give me another chance to do better. Meanwhile, do you have anything to say about the most discussed point on the thread? Do you acknowledge the natural moral law as an objective standard of morality? Also, you really do not seem to grasp some of the major points being made here. Your question about ID providing no more purpose than materialism was misguided. Let me explain why. The two counterparts are [A] Monistic Materialism and [B] Dualistic Theism. Both are philosophical world views and each can logically be compared to the another. Theistic Dualism does indeed provide purpose and meaning, while Materialistic monism militates against purpose and meaning. On the other hand, ID cannot provide meaning, because it is only a methodology for detecting design. It cannot transcend )the design and provide meaningful explanations about why we are here or where we are going. That is the job of Theistic dualsim, (one example of which could be Christianity. Do you see my point?StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Tim: Hoki, are you purposely wasting our time here? YOU were the one who initiated the idea of alien soap as a possible end for us (as physical beings) that ID would not have a problem with while TOTALLY ignoring the fact that now you have alien that also would have to have some ends also (as physical beings). Who cares if it is soap or not. Yes.... and the purpose of the aliens could very well be TOTALLY irrelevant to our purpose - unless, of course, whoever designed the aliens for a purpose also intended for the aliens to design us. If the aliens' own purpose was never to make us then we hardly have to regress in this way (hence my regress and determinism comment). Do you understand why I asserted that your initial point was dopey? Oh, sweet morality. If not, here it is again: “If you don’t want to be a dope, then don’t assert panspermia as a way of explaining initial origins or ultimate ends.” But then I never used it to explain initial origins. And see my note just above for why my scenario would involve ultimate purpose. If you have to indulge in ad hominems, can't you at least be funny - as in "I suspect that you smell of elderberries" or something.Hoki_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Well, you are not very consistent, but you are definitely going in the right direction. I attribute your improvement to my lighting round tutorials. I fail to see my inconsitencies. Could you point them out a little more precisely? I also like the way you endorse personal attacks and display clear signs of pride in a thread where there is a lot of arguments about morality.Hoki_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Why would I know that you were referring to Tim when you were addressing me? Why not try again by addressing my comments to me and addressing Tim’s comments to him. That always works well. Given that the comment only included quotes by Tim and wasn't addressed to anyone at all, I wonder if I am now entitled to some ad hominem's myself. Pretty please with sugar on top!Hoki_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Tim @33. I have not found you to be uncivil in your correspondences. Sometimes, it takes a little cold water to wake people up and I think you dispense your doses in the right proportions.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB @71, Pardon? I've just been told that I am wrong without any explanation. I would hardly call this a victory. I wont deny that there is a common set of ethics that we in the west have developed. You still need to show that these rules or ethics or laws are Divine in origin and not just an outcome of the logical achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. No doubt you can quote people who echo these ideas through history, but my reading of history has shown that morals have changed.mandy_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

----Hoki on 2/23/2009: ----"As I’ve lready said, gardening can be a purpose. Materialism is even compatible with “higher” purposes such as the alien-soap thing. ----Hoki on 2/24/2009: ----"Seems not, since materialism only requires these things to have a physical basis. (I doubt, though, that any materialist has tried to include gods or souls)." Well, you are not very consistent, but you are definitely going in the right direction. I attribute your improvement to my lighting round tutorials.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Thanks Upright BiPed. I usually lurk when I'm busy and busy I've been lately. AtomAtom_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

I want to thank the materialist Darwinists for proving my point better than I ever could. Every word of my post @32 is being confirmed.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Hoki, I wrote: "I disagree with the overall idea of what you are saying. Although technically it is possible that our purpose is to become soap for aliens, if we are talking about ultimate ends, then the question is merely shifted to “What kind of soap or other nastiness is the ultimate end for those aliens?” You responded: "Why would it be? ID rejects infinite regresses (or so I’ve read here on occasion). And even if it doesn’t, it in no way follows that whatever created “our” aliens had any intention of having them eventually creating us (unless you’re advocating determinism)." Hoki, are you purposely wasting our time here? YOU were the one who initiated the idea of alien soap as a possible end for us (as physical beings) that ID would not have a problem with while TOTALLY ignoring the fact that now you have alien that also would have to have some ends also (as physical beings). Who cares if it is soap or not. Determinism is not essential to the argument nor is infinite regress. Do you understand why I asserted that your initial point was dopey? If not, here it is again: "If you don’t want to be a dope, then don’t assert panspermia as a way of explaining initial origins or ultimate ends."Tim_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

---Hoki: "I’m sure it will make sense if you go back and read Tim post to which I was actually responding. If you still have problems after this, I will be glad to clarify." Why would I know that you were referring to Tim when you were addressing me? Why not try again by addressing my comments to me and addressing Tim's comments to him. That always works well.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Atom, you are right, of course. I wonder if your angle will resonate, or will it, too, be met with the "no concession policy."StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

#64, These a wonderful sentiments from enlightened people but they don't represent the mainstream position of people through history and even now. 200 years ago, the mainstream thought that Slavery was okay and Negros were inferior and used the Bible to back this up. 50 years ago, mainstream people thought that segregation was okay and mixed marriages were wrong and used the Bible to justify it. In thirty years, I'll bet a bottle of Penfold's finest red that our Grandchildren will say that gay marriage is fine and that Christians have always supported gay marriage.mandy_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

mandy, You should read this: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htmClive Hayden_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

StephenB: You have introduced many technical terms in the paragraph and many of them do not seem to fit. ID doesn’t reject “infinite regress.” What does “determinism” have to do with what you are discussing? What does aliens have to do with anything? Try to stay with one idea. I'm sure it will make sense if you go back and read Tim post to which I was actually responding. If you still have problems after this, I will be glad to clarify.Hoki_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Do you know the true philosophical definition of “materialism?” It holds that all things are composed of matter and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. That means there are no immaterial things such as God, souls, minds, or for that matter, justice, goodness, or purpose. Do you know? Seems not, since materialism only requires these things to have a physical basis. (I doubt, though, that any materialist has tried to include gods or souls).Hoki_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

#53 The Baptists support for slavery in the US. http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm Rev. Payne argued that Negroes weren’t descended from Adam and Eve. “... Adam and Eve being white, ... they could never be the father or mother of the kinky-headed, low forehead, flat nose, thick lip and black-skinned negro...” I am not knocking religion and realised that some Christians led the way for the end of Slavery and segregation, but the majority of people a couple of centuries ago accepted that the negro was inferior, possibly not the children of Adam and Eve and used the Bible to tell them that this was true.mandy_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Atom, Its nice to see you backUpright BiPed_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

StephenB @53, I am not avoiding the question. You are not listening to my answer. You say that the moral code is universal, that it is objective. You say that it is everywhere. So far you remind me of people talking about the Phlogiston theory. You require this universal moral law to support your own theory of God, but you have failed to show that it does exist. Until you do this, the rest of your argument does not make sense.mandy_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

And btw, I'm sure the others on this thread probably think it is wrong for you to try to impose your moral code on others (while at the same time imposing their moral code on your actions by defining them as wrong.) If your belief in a universal moral code isn't always wrong (universally wrong), then at least sometimes it is right, which means that there does exist at least some universal moral code sometime. But a universal moral code that exists at least once is universal for all times by definition. Or else it isn't a universal moral code. Furthermore, if your actions and beliefs aren't objectively wrong, why are they arguing with you?Atom_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply