My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads

_{Gil Dodgen

September 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Because of my many duties and responsibilities I post infrequently at UD. However, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon: My posts seem to inspire a great amount of debate and very long threads, as is the case here.

I have a theory about why this is the case.

My thesis is that people like me, a former materialist atheist, who have been influenced by logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., the ID movement) represent the greatest threat to the reigning nihilistic and anti-intellectual Darwinian orthodoxy.

Comments

Sorry, Clive, could you please answer my questions - I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say, and I'd appreciate it if you would directly engage with what I'm writing. I don't think we have a definitive answer to your question, and I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of materialism, which is where it seems you want to take us. If that's the basis of your reasoning, them please lay it out to us all.Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Heinrich,
Sorry, I can’t see how you come to this conclusion. We’re back to thinking that Gil plays the piano well: surely “Gil plays Chopin etudes well” is a value judgement. But in what sense is that an “ought”? Perhaps he plays them really badly – but so? He might play them badly but enjoy playing them (ever heard of Florence Foster Jenkins?). So where is the “ought”? I also don’t see a universal moral imperative to love one another. AFAIKS, that’s only a Christian imperative: other religions teach different ways to get on with each other with respect. I’m also not sure about how you square “We do have a moral obligation to love one another” with your earlier statement “It’s a value judgment, a person either ought or ought not to be loved.”. I would have thought that if we were meant to love one another, that meant we were meant to love everyone. The parable of the Good Samaritan springs to mind.
Does love physically exist as a material "is"?Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Love is an ought because it is a value judgment. ... We do have a moral obligation to love one another, ...
Sorry, I can't see how you come to this conclusion. We're back to thinking that Gil plays the piano well: surely "Gil plays Chopin etudes well" is a value judgement. But in what sense is that an "ought"? Perhaps he plays them really badly - but so? He might play them badly but enjoy playing them (ever heard of Florence Foster Jenkins?). So where is the "ought"? I also don't see a universal moral imperative to love one another. AFAIKS, that's only a Christian imperative: other religions teach different ways to get on with each other with respect. I'm also not sure about how you square "We do have a moral obligation to love one another" with your earlier statement "It’s a value judgment, a person either ought or ought not to be loved.". I would have thought that if we were meant to love one another, that meant we were meant to love everyone. The parable of the Good Samaritan springs to mind.Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

If you don’t mean physical thing, then what do you mean?
I mean a mental thing, basically. That's why I'm puzzled with your statement that "love is not produced by or invented by material movements." Do you not think that bodily processes (including the processes that generate consciousness) produce love, by which I mean the sensations and ideas we associate as the feeling of love?LarTanner_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Cassandra: You asked, "Could you please describe how intelligence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?" This is based on my understanding of the Second Law as described by Granville Sewell in In the Beginning. According to him the Second Law applies to open systems as well as closed systems, and says that the amount of order in a system at time t+1 will always be less than the amount at time t plus the amount that is imported across the boundary of the system, if I understand him correctly. If one looks at the earth as an open system, where the order flowing across the boundary is basically solar energy, then the question is, does the order that we create every time we make a computer, or a building, or a piece of music, or write a letter to someone exceed the energy it took us to create it. Since the answer to that question is yes, we have violated the Second Law. To Granville: Have I got this right?Bruce David_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

LarTanner, My apologies if you do not mean "physical thing" when you say that love doesn't exist because it isn't a real thing. If you don't mean physical thing, then what do you mean? I mean that love is not produced by or invented by material movements, anymore than laws of logic are invented by something traveling 2 miles an hour and weighing 15 pounds. Material relations won't get it for you.Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

@Clive Hayden 104:
Yes, LarTanner.
I said that love is a physical is? That's news to me. I think what I actually said was quite different:
Love does not “exist.” It is not a real thing but an emotion felt by a person through means of the body.
Mr. Hayden, I don't know why or how to accept your definition of love as somehow transcendent and as unaffected by "material movements" in the human brain. Can you please clarify?LarTanner_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Heinrich,
Did anyone claim that it is a physical “is”?
Yes, LarTanner.
But then how is love an “ought”? In what sense is there a necessity (moral or otherwise)? And what about people who ought not to be loved, but are?
Love is an ought because it is a value judgment. It transcends material movements, and isn't affected by them, nor created by them. We do have a moral obligation to love one another, but to say that it is a physical imperative is a category confusion. It would be like saying 2 pounds at 30 miles and hour for 4 days equals love. As to people who ought not to be loved, but are, that's all in the arena of oughts, just as morality can be broken, doesn't mean it was physically broken.Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Pedant, See Clive at 100. My only intent in positing the question is in stating pretty much what Clive so succinctly clarified. I think in truth your answer is that love is a good thing, even though you appear to avoid being so bold. And my point is simply that such is a value judgement. I fail to see how this is so difficult. Also, I disagree quite emphatically that we merely call what we like good and what we dislike bad. Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. Some people like cigarettes. Does that make them good? Some people hate people of certain races. Does that make people of those races bad? Is there no other basis for your value judgments apart from fancy? If I may illustrate this with a question that might strike at our emotions a bit more intensely, "is rape bad simply because we dislike it?" If we all of a sudden start liking rape, would that make it good? If I witness someone being raped, and it is clear that the person does not like it, while the perpetrator seems to enjoy doing it; does rape have then two contradictory values at the same time? How could we then come up with any laws based on value judgments? I think the obvious answer is "we could not."CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Cassandra: Intelligence does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it transcends it. In other words, we here have an externally injected organisaiton that actively puts things in order relative to purpose and function. We are not left to random exchanges of energy and movements of masses. Condider the difference between a tray of 200 dice shaken at random, and a similar one with the dice reading 1 to 6 in succession, row by row. T%he former is easily accomplished by foirces of blind chance and mechanical necessity, the latter is by intelligence. And, there is an energy flow associated with the intelligence, but it is now purposeful and organising. Down that road lieth a key insight of Intelligent Design theory. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

People are loved, that’s true, but that isn’t a physical “is”, you cannot find it laying in the street.
Did anyone claim that it is a physical "is"? It seems that you now accept that love is an "is", but perhaps not a physical "is" (I'm not sure about your claim that it can't be remove surgically, but that's an empirical claim). But then how is love an "ought"? In what sense is there a necessity (moral or otherwise)? And what about people who ought not to be loved, but are?Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Heinrich, Material movements only have relations to each other in the sense of speed, weight, height, direction, mass, density, velocity, etc., they do not touch on metaphysical value judgments of love or freedom or dignity. People are loved, that's true, but that isn't a physical "is", you cannot find it laying in the street. Nor, in principle, could it be surgically removed from your brain. It doesn't locally exist as its own bit of matter. Anymore than the beauty of Chopin (which ought to be loved, or at least admired) physically exists and can be cut into sections and carried in your pocket.Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Eh? So Gil's playing of Chopin ought to be well played, but can't actually be well-played? Sorry, I'm not buying that (although I might buy Gil's albums). Similarly, I love my wife. I don't see that as an "ought" - I simply do love my wife. Some people don't love their wives, which may be unfortunate but that is still the case: it is an "is not". I'd still like to know where this leaves people who are loved, but ought not to be.Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: Do you believe love is a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on the kind of love. My love for my spouse and my spouse's love for me make us both happy and keep us from hurting each other. We like that. We call things we like "good" and things we don't like "bad."Pedant_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Heinrich, It's a comparison to how something ought to be, not how it is, and that can only be a metaphysical comparison in metaphysical endeavors like love and freedom. Neither of which can you get the comparison for the ought from the is.Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Pedant, Do you believe love is a good thing or a bad thing?CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Huh? A value judgement is a conclusion about assigning a value to something, not a decision about how to act, hence it's not necessarily an "ought". How is a judgement that a Chopin etude is well-played (surely a value judgement) an "ought"?Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Heinrich,
I do, but where’s the necessity implied by “ought”? And what about the people who ought not to be loved, but still are?
All value judgments are "oughts" or "ought-nots." You cannot get either one from an "is".Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Clive, Love is a value judgment? That is something I have not encountered before, even in my Parochial schooling. Like Heinrich, I would like to know where that comes from.Pedant_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

I do, but where's the necessity implied by "ought"? And what about the people who ought not to be loved, but still are?Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Heinrich,
Sorry, that confuses me even more. Firstly, it’s about particular instances of love, not Love itself. Secondly, if it is a value judgement, where does that leave people who are loved but whom you think ought not to be loved?
You don't understand that love is a value judgment? Like determining dignity?Clive Hayden_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

You have stated this a couple of times, Clive. But what do you mean by love being an “ought”? I can’t work it out, I’m afraid.
It’s a value judgment, a person either ought or ought not to be loved.
Sorry, that confuses me even more. Firstly, it's about particular instances of love, not Love itself. Secondly, if it is a value judgement, where does that leave people who are loved but whom you think ought not to be loved?Heinrich_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Bruce David (82),
the ONLY force in the Universe capable of producing CSI (or of violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to put it another way) is intelligence, in which we all participate.
I haven't heard this claim before. Could you please describe how intelligence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?Cassandra_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Bruce, "The only thing I would amend is that to call love a concept really isn’t accurate (and I do realize that it was I who first used the term). But when we begin to try to discuss the transcendent, words necessarily fail us." Yes, I picked up on this as well, and addressed it in my last post. Another semantic error I made was in the use of "human terms." Of course all terms that we are fully aware of are human. What I meant though is conceptions, which an average human being can understand at a particular historical period. I think it's related to the failure of our words in light of attempting to conceive of transcendence. People speak of the "Language of God." It's another "concept" we know must be and which ID infers, yet we can't quite put our finger on it. So contrast "human terms" with the "Language of God."CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, others (maybe KF?) I'm a little confused about a "primitive" concept; particularly it's definition as a concept that cannot be defined except in terms of itself. As such, a number of issues came to mind in this regard: A) Can love not be defined in terms of it's opposite, or what it is not? (see B) I ask this in light of what scripture says about love in 1 Cor:13. "Love is kind, love is gentle... love does not seek it's own, is not puffed up...."(etc). These appear to be descriptions of what love is in human terms; using affirmations and negations, while they are not in the strictest sense definitions of love. B) I sense that there are two orders of love: love as in God's character (who God is); which is in line with transcendent reality (necessity), and love as we experience it in a material world, yet still reflective of God's transcendent character, only on a "lower plane." On a related side matter; this is what I sense is part of the misconception among materialists of what we theists claim to understand about God. Materialists seem to conceive of "God" as a completely separate and uninvolved entity, which cannot have any real impact on the material world. Thus. they insist that such a god does not exist. And I should add that many theists who have allowed their thinking to be melded with materialist metaphysics, quite often view God in the same way, yet they don't reject such a god; which to me is quite baffling. We non-materialistic theists (I guess "materialistic theist" is really an oxymoron :) ) all know that the concept is completely wrong, and we are able to articulate why this is so through basic logical reasoning apart from scripture. Perhaps this wasn't always so; and it seems to me in light of scripture that at one time in the epistemological history of theism, people claimed to have much more direct miraculous encounters with God, and if those encounters were real, the logical reasoning behind our current basis for belief may have been unnecessary. So our development of teleological and other arguments for God's existence became necessary, yet no less valid out of an increasing absence of God's more direct miraculous involvement in the affairs of human beings as the result of the increase of sin in the world. At least this is what scripture seems to suggest. Materialists depend on descriptions of God from the very scriptures we theists depend on for spiritual guidance, while not necessarily as the complete basis for our belief. As such, I sense that there is a failure on the part of materialists to understand that we take scripture as a whole, and in light of basic logical reasoning, which developed throughout our hystory. We had a side discussion on UD not long ago about how Christians view faith; which is related to this issue. Faith (at least for many Christians) is not simply blind belief, but trust based on reasonable evidence that what is said is true to the extent of action. But materialists still insist that we believe faith to be blind acceptance. The ancient people of the scriptures were no less motivated by reason with regard to faith; only their reasoning was much more in line with a more direct miraculous encounter with God; rendering our current teleological and other arguments less necessary; although still very much a part of their theology as well, as we can see by scripture itself. Also, quite often parts of scripture, which define God in terms, which the people of the scriptures could comprehend, are limited in actually defining who He is. Yet materialist atheists in particular pick up on these cultural conceptions to ridiculous degrees in conceiving what we theists believe about God. An example: If scripture mentions that we are "created in the image of God," this necessitates that we look like God physically. At the same time we are accused of being literalists by the oxymorons I mentioned earlier. To Christian theists it is the whole of scripture, which gives us the greatest comprehension, and not simply those eisegetical excerpts; which only serve to confuse, and which lead ultimately to a painfully incomplete understanding. The whole of scripture does not lend itself to an understanding that being created in God's image necessitates that God physically looks like us, or that we physically look like God. Materialists such as Dawkins et al, appear to take the lower plane understanding to be a complete picture of who we theists believe God is; and as such, they reject it on those merits alone, without consideration of either the whole of scripture and the extra-scriptural logic, which leads many thinking theists to be theists. C) And another question: is a primitive concept not actually the same as what I've defined as a transcendent concept? In other words, a primitive concept is perhaps better defined as that which must be, rather than that which cannot be defined apart from itself? I had to think about this a bit after I posted #83, because it seems to me that it touches on some very important distinctions; which may help in our understanding of consciousness, spirit soul and mind. "Reflective of God's character" is not the same as God's character. Therefore, when we talk of love in human terms, we are not talking of love as in "who God is." As scripture clarifies, love can be defined in human terms (as in the "lower plane" I mentioned), but it cannot be defined on the transcendent plane as in "who God is," because God cannot be defined "in terms of (Him)self," Which leads to the question: "is God the only truly "primitive concept", and all that God is (love, truth, beauty, holiness goodness, etc, and much of which we don't yet know, gains it's "primitive" nature by being intrinsic to God?" This is why I have a problem with the term "primitive." I think "transcendent" is a better term. God is not in my mind primitive, and neither is He merely a concept. The end of the matter is that God must be, and all other reality flows from His essence. I don't mean this as a mental exercise, but I wonder if you can offer some thoughts to clarify my confusion. I'm not well read in philosophy, so perhaps there is something I haven't read, which can help.CannuckianYankee_{September 17, 2010
September
09
Sep
17
17
2010
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Cannuckian Yankee: Yes, I agree. The only thing I would amend is that to call love a concept really isn't accurate (and I do realize that it was I who first used the term). But when we begin to try to discuss the transcendent, words necessarily fail us. They simply aren't capable of carrying that kind of meaning. So we do the best we can to try to invoke our meaning using these imperfect vehicles.Bruce David_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

"In that respect, scripture is decidedly anti-materialistic." Before anyone points out the obvious here, I need to fix this a bit: "in ALL respects, scripture is decidedly anti-materialistic."CannuckianYankee_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, "now that Darwinism has been overturned (and it has been, folks)," And I thank you in being so bold as to saying so. :)CannuckianYankee_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, Yes, I believe you are correct; it is a primitive concept. Please bear with my musings here: I'm not certain (at least with respect to theism) that love could be categorized merely as one. Clearly "love" as we humans experience it can be defined in terms of the Character of God. However, if God IS love, then perhaps not. God cannot be defined except "in terms of (Him)self." We refer to concepts such as a "necessary first cause," and a "prime mover," but these concepts don't define God; they merely suggest or infer the God's necessity. I would offer a higher concept (and I maintain no pretense of originality here) - a transcendent concept; one which must be so in terms of all reality. It may not appear obvious, but it is clear at least to me that love is such a concept. We theists take it on faith, as there are gaps in our understanding of reality, but when all reality is taken into consideration (and we appear to have enough of the gaps filled in to be aware of this), love must be so. But then again, since I can't say exactly what the "so" is that love must be, it fits with the primitive concept. So in light of this, a transcendent concept would be a primitive concept that must be. Love must be in order for all reality to be. Perhaps I'm being a little too analytical here, but it makes sense that there are certain concepts, which must be (and not necessarily definable apart from themselves). I would probably use caution in determining what other concepts fit in this category, but I would hazard a preliminary guess that truth would also; and perhaps hope, and if I'm inclined to go further from a Christian perspective; joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. Maybe I'm bringing too much into this, and all these are merely sub-aspects of love. What is interesting about these, however, is that scripture defines them as "fruit of the spirit." They are what "ought" to come out of the spirit of our humanity as reflective of God's character. In other words (and not to minimize the full scriptural meaning of them), they cannot be defined in reference to material things alone. In that respect, scripture is decidedly anti-materialistic.CannuckianYankee_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

While we're on the subject of being in the image and likeness of God, it has occurred to me while following this Darwinism controversy that another aspect of ourselves in which we mirror God is in our ability to produce CSI. Or put another way, our ability to create complex structures, either physical, literary, musical, artistic, or even the simple production of linguistic utterances. Every sentence we speak or write longer than what, 100 characters, is an example of CSI. It is truly awesome to me to realize that now that Darwinism has been overturned (and it has been, folks), the ONLY force in the Universe capable of producing CSI (or of violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to put it another way) is intelligence, in which we all participate.Bruce David_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply