Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Anyone who considers ID is not a scientist”

William Dembski
October 1, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

… I leaned across to the head of the laboratory of development[al] neurobiology at one of the important American universities, and said: “Quite a line-up of scientists supporting ID, isn’t there?”

The reply was furious, and the conclusion came out with venom: anyone who considers ID “is not a scientist.”

I let it lie there. But something I once read, written by a man who was not a Christian, came to mind: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.

“That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

That was Albert Einstein. Not a scientist?

[For the full article, go here.]

Comments
jboze There's almost certainly "survival of the species" instincts at work at all levels including human species. Survival of the individual isn't always the overriding instinct. Social amoebas, usually a lone protozoa, cluster during famines into a slug form where a few of them at the tip of the slug produce spores, then the survivors disband. Many of them must die during the spore producing process and the dead don't pass on their genes. Others survive the process but aren't necessarily the ones that get their genes into the spores. These are often used as an example of how multicellular organisms might have evolved.DaveScot
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
that still doesnt explain a lot of trivial things in human life that run counter to the "goal" of reproducing. im telling you, flesh robots who care for their young just to make sure theyre alive, healthy, and able to reproduce would be an ultimate goal with this theory in my mind. when i said life forms that need a lot of energy- i meant humans at all. large mammals period. if genes were selfish AND smart, theyd stick to low energy life forms that are much smaller than us, that need less space, less time to make more genes, etc. a lot of morality is pro-life, but pro-life for others and death or risk of death to you. so, that doesnt make a whole lot of sense. still- with the concept of an evolved morality and ethics (i still dont think mutations could bring forth any sort of ethical code without a code-giver) - were still left with morality that is nowhere near absolute. heck, it could just evolve into something else at anytime. were still left with relative morality, which means nothing in the end, because its just a stepping stone to a more "progressive" morality (which is what we see many trying to push today- an anything goes attitude, the 'if it feels good, do it' morality thats been on the rise in the past half century. and i cant see any good that has come from this new "progressive" attitude.) abortion, drug and alcohol abuse rampant (among even the youngest in society), crime on the rise, all lifestyles being accepted and seen as perfectly 'normal' and perfectly fine, disrespect among children, a lack of respect between adults in general, higher divorce rates, std rates skyrocketing due to out of wedlock sex, and on and on. we can easily point to the idea that morality is relative for these problems and more. i think without moral absolutes, its only a matter of time before we "evolve" a different morality and eventually anything WILL go (survival of the fittest in the purest form- only a matter of time with a relative morality and ethical code.) i didnt even see the part about souls until i scrolled up just now. i dont know about souls. if theres a god, then there are souls- no doubt. what god would create beings that are like candles, burning away until the wick is totally gone and thats that. i think that idea of god is just lazy. id probably be of the dualist camp- our souls and our bodies are connected, but our souls make us what we are as a whole. the soul is the driver and the brain is the car. they work hand in hand, but need not be entertwined to survive independently. so id say that the soul is the base of who we are and our morality and the brain is the vehicle to which we express all of this in the natural world. so i guess when i say God built right and wrong into our brains- we could see it both ways. its built into our souls in a generalized sense but manifests itself thru our brains in the natural world.jboze3131
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
Dan - So those guys somehow accepted that there was no God because of why? And they found the idea totally depressing but resigned themselves to it? That is why I don't read those philosophers. They are fools. I see some brief synopsis of what so-and-so said and I find it absurd, and their writings meticulous and dull, so I have not read much of them. But that didn't ansawer my question - what is morality, really? Jboze, You have some idea that we could be like ourselves but yet somehow have simple structures that expend few resources. I see no evidence that could be the case. Life as we know it requires just the complex infrastructure that scientists are uncovering. What I said was that altruistic acts could be compatible with the selfish gene theory because there are definite rewards for helping relatives or tribal members, and therefore people might mistakenly take it too far, and help a stranger. I don't say that I believe the selfish gene theory, but it is on the money in a lot of ways, and that is why it is fairly compelling. You say right and wrong couldn't evolve, but most right and wrong are completely logical and life-affirming. If we look at things from an evolutionist point of view, we can say that the human brain evolved to become intelligent for survival reasons, and therefore it has logic and can understand consequences, and that most of morality makes perfect sense for the greatest good and smoothest relations among people. So evolution could definitely evolve it (if indeed evolution evolves much of anything). Morality is pro-life and that is what evolution is about. So you say God builds right and wrong into our brains. What about our souls then? How do they know right and wrong?avocationist
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
avocationist- the point is, if selfish gene theory is right, then our only goal should be to make more selfish genes. we could have easily evolved over a billion yrs into life forms that need very little food, expend very little energy, take up very little space, reproduce quickly and often and thats that. why then do we have humans at all- all of whom take up a lot of space, need a lot of energy which demands more food, and not all of us perform our ultimate "goal" of reproducing. why create a life form that will have free will to choose never to reproduce? no reproduction, no new selfish genes. how can a gene be selfish to begin with if there are no absolutes. no absolutes, no selfishness. no selfishness, then why desire to make more genes at all? if its all purposeless, why do they posit a purpose (make more genes) at all? with a selfish gene theory, chaos SHOULD reign. we should WANT to kill off the lesser among us (the old, the sick, those who are mentally retarded, etc). they drag us all down if life is just an endless cycle of new selfish genes wanting to make more selfish genes. you say that we exist because no system is perfect- if evolution is THIS imperfect (its horribly sad at its job if it created humans to do what they do), then theres no way to reasonably claim it is responsible for the millions of forms of life we see on the planet. fact is- if life was this way, we should kill off all the criminals AND the weak and "lesser" among us. we should strive to breed a super race that can live longer, stop thinking and feeling and just ACT like robots. robots in a dna factory. that would be the ultimate goal if selfish gene theory is correct, yet no one advocates this as far as i know. that and risking your life for a stranger- im not sure what reward is there besides the reward of doing what is right. but if selfish genes are correct then nothing IS right. theres no right and wrong absolute, and in the end- right for selfish genes would be to protect yourself to make more genes and say to hell with the stranger in trouble. morality comes from a source. EVERY absolute comes from a source, and the source MUST, by definition, be higher than humans. god is the only reasonable explanation. were very inefficent beings when it comes to making more and more dna (our genes SHULD trick us into sleeping with as many people as we can and never use birth control!), but were very efficient when it comes to changing the hearts of others. why have that desire to change anyones heart if there is no ultimate purpose? why evolve life forms at all that asks these questions to begin with? its as if the boss selfish gene WANTED his employees to go out and join the union. morality, as i said, comes from god. god builds into the human brain right and wrong. we still have free will tho (with selfish genes, we truly have no free will and are just controlled, unknowingly, by the genes) so we can choose to do right or wrong. many things that would make sense with the SG theory dont make sense with morality. we dont kill off the old, sick, etc. we dont let people drown, we dont accept things that are inherently wrong. right and wrong couldnt have possibly evolved yet are exactly the same in every single person alive on the planet, and every person who has ever lived. it just doesnt make sense. right and wrong should be different based on location, societal differences, etc. tho some socities have, in the past present and future, practiced some very bad things, it never made those bad things truly RIGHT. people have often done things they KNOW are bad but make excuses as to why its okay for them to do these things...all the while- true absolute right and wrong were the same for all of us, even if we choose to do wrong.jboze3131
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Hi Avocationist, Thanks for the message and here is a brief proof of the obvious if you are exposed to these philosophers: Look at Satre No Exit. He portrays life as hell because MAn has finally understood that there is no loving God to care for him. The title sums up the story; the play ends with the words "Well, let's just get on with it." In Jacques Monot's Chance and NEcessity, he states that Man finally knows he is alone in the meaningless immensity of the Universe. Look at Samuel Beckett's play, Waiting for Godot. Two men waiting while making mind numbing conversation for what- a man who never shows up. Emerson stated that we all live lives of quiet desperation. This is because we have no God to give us moral absolutes. Ayn Rand wrote of the virtues of selfishness because no one has a right to hold you accountable because there is no God and there are no morals other than selfishness. Regards DAn I can go on, but I recommend that you read REasonable Faith by WL Craig.Dan
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Dan - You throw all those boring philosophers at me. Weren't some of them atheist? If you've read them, tell me why we need God for moral values. You can't just say it's false. I'm surprised to see Nietzsche in there. I think half his problem was he read and believed Darwin. JBoze, The reason we care for and risk ourselves for people we don't know is that nothing is perfect (why do you suppose a blind natural process would be so perfect that everythig would be like a factory?) and that we are designed to get a positive reward when we help other people survive. The reason we don't let criminals run amok is that they are very destructive and the majority of people want a reasonably safe and predictable interaction with other people, so they gang up and oust them. I once had a juvenile delinquent-type stepson (hey, I didn't raise him) who would say really awful, dishonest, scheming things. I pointed out to him that if everyone acted as he did, all our lives would be full of stress and hassles. Eveyone would get robbed and ripped off multiple times, we would have to exert constant efforts to prevent crime against ourselves, and we would be angry a lot. This had not occured to him. As to the rest of your many questions, you forget that humans are very complex and therefore quanitity is not the only value. People who have way too many kids become exhausted, all the kids are raised more poorly, nutrition suffers and infant mortality rises. Animals do not overreproduce under normal circumstances. What I am trying to understand is how God relates to morality. For example, murder is bad because it is anti-life in more ways than just the obvious. It creates fear and stress, which lower immunity and shorten life span. Now you tell me why murder is wrong in your book.avocationist
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
PS. the book i just wrote (aka my last comment)- thats what you get when you try to think of issues like this at 1 AM. :)jboze3131
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
avocationist- i dont see how a selfish genes worldview would make sense of compassion and love for people you dont even know. if youre driving down the street and you see someone lying on the ground bleeding, you stop your car and get out to help them. natural instinct would tell us to get out of the car and do soemthing even if we saw that the injured person was lying on the ground next to a big grizzly bear which is why the person is bleeding to begin with. wouldnt a selfish gene tell us- save yourself, live on to reproduce more selfish genes? thats not how it goes tho, people would get out and often times risk their own lives for others- others they dont even know. our selfish genes, as i think i said above, might be selfish but they must also be pretty bad at their jobs if this worldview is correct. why wouldnt a flesh robot be better? if dna controls all of life and basically controls all of our actions (the selfish genes just want to make more and more selfish genes, using living creatures to do so), then a flesh robot would be much better for the job. this type of being could be programmed by selfish genes to care for their young and try to help others and themselves stay alive in order to make more selfish genes. this worldview basically tells us that all life is basically just a race to make more and more dna with no purpose, no goal, no guidance, no value, nothing. why evolve beings to care about others they dont even know...why find beauty in the nature and in manmade objects- why laughter, why romance, why dreams and aspirations, why fears? these selfish genes have changed life into millions of various forms somehow, yet its so bad at what it does it screws up and makes people who care, think, feel, share, love, empathize, etc? if the world is a selfish genes factory, then all life would be better suited to get down to making more genes and thats that. why societies that know that having 10 babies isnt a good idea? that having children ourside of marriage isnt good? why couple together at all? wouldnt it be a better mechanism just to evolve beings that mate, a baby is born a few days later, the mother takes care of the baby for a few weeks and sends it on to make more babies and more selfish dna? the selfish gene boss has got to be pissed at how bad a factory line he has going here (all the stuff that serves no purpose to make more dna- laughter, romance, playing, marriage, dreams, jobs, etc) all of those things could be compared to a factory where the workers on the line all sat around doing nothing instead of pumping out as many widgets as they can. heck- sex alone doesnt make sense with selfish genes. why evolve sexual beings at all when only half of the good stuff is passed on? then you have the time to carry the baby, the many yrs to care for it. many more yrs before its ready to go out and make more selfish genes. okay, i got off on a very long rant about why the selfish genes are really bad at what theyve supposedly work to create. if any factory ran the way humans do in the sense of seflish genes- the factory would be out of business in a week. as for morality- i take into consideration all the facts that make the selfish genes idea so absurd (in other words- why evolve beings that are so inefficient at making more dna to begin with? they take yrs to do it, many of them choose to never do it, and when they do they often times risk their own lives, screwing up the process, for others they dont know at all). it should all be about #1 and covering your butt. doing whatever you can to make more babies. to live long enough to evolve the species. an evolved morality shouldnt possibly be universal. over tens of thousands or millions of yrs (depending on what info. you look at), morality itself should have evolved, if only the slightest bit- to make for better dna factories. humans are terrible dna factories for the reasons i mentioned above. yet we find that morality IS absolute and that it IS COMPLETELY universal to all people in all places in all times. some ethical changes occur and differ between different groups, but even then basic core morality stays the same. the same things have always been wrong and the same things always right. since these absolutes exist and havent changed (or in any way 'evolved'), they had to come from somewhere. you cant have any absolute without a source for it. also- if we go with the selfish gene theory and use it for morality- we might as well close down all the prisons, let people do whatever their genes tell them to do and go with that. well lose people, but in the end- the genes will continue to rule us as they do in this theory and theyll be better able to get us to make more and more of their little friends. if morals are relative- then we should live with whatever goes with each person. no sane person would advocate this, but why? it makes sense with the theory of selfish genes. people oppose the idea as insane because they know deep down that morals ARE, in fact, absolute and nowhere near relative.jboze3131
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
"Superior Reasoning Power" Today I discovered Dr. William Dembski's weblog. On October 1, 2005, Dr. Dembski quoted columnist Mary Ellen Symon's response to a universal negative assertion that "anyone who considers ID `is not a scientist.'":Adam's Thoughts
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
It is very simple. The argument for universal moral values without God is false. Sarte admitted this as did Betrand Russell, Neitzche, Camus, Rand, Pojman ect. It is incomprehensible to consider universal moral values without God. Universal moral values are substited by societal norms. Also, all biologists and philosophers of science know that life begins at conception. It is ridiculous to consider otherwise. The debate is about personhood- not life. DanDan
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Jboze, Please explain how the existence of God affects right and wrong. It seems to me the selfish gene theory works quite well. I disagree that we would be robotic if it were true. We have empathy and sympathy in decreasing intensity as the relationships are further from us. A strong sense of empathy gets built into mammals so that mothers will care when their babies cry. It suits group-forming animals to have group sensitivity. Human beings are tribal in nature, which is to say that before the building of city states they naturally live in extended family groups with strong cohesion, culture and history together. In such cultures, thievery makes little sense as everyone is connected to everyone else in the tribe. Yet some such tribes will steal from other tribes. It seems to me that as people began to create civilization, they got confused because they lost the strong tribal norms and lived among a larger number of people. Crime arose. Crime as we know it hardly exists in simple tribal societies. So now we are slowly learning to consider larger and larger groups as at least somewhat important to us - for example those suffering during natural disasters. I'm playing devil's advocate, but I don't see the problem with my reasoning.avocationist
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
i wouldn't lump varying ideas of when exactly life starts into the overall idea of ethics and a moral absolute. i don't think there are any civilizations that can deny a basic core set of moral absolutes. another thing that came to mind is the fact that we feel anything at all when something bad happens to someone. in a survival of the fittest world, when someone drowns and we don't help them- we shouldn't really feel anything at all. what would be the survival purpose in caring at all? our selfish genes would just fool us into "realizing" that there are no absolutes and that things merely happen because they happen- no right and wrong built into us, no absolutes to go along with any emotions. caring at all, feeling heartache and such over things that don't even affect us personally (watch a medical story on a stranger with a terrible disease) makes little sense when only speaking of selfish genes and mere chemicals. worry over the well being of others (even worry and pain felt for those we might not even know but have seen on TV) causes stress, which can lead to disease, which is quite the opposite of survival. if selfish genes were productive, we'd be walking flesh robots without worry, love, friendship, caring for others, etc- all feelings that can easily lead to mental and bodily pain and disease, which would surely have an effect on your ability to produce more selfish genes. (in other words, the selfish genes are supposedly selfish but pretty bad at their real job- to replicate and pushing us toward reproduction to produce more selfish genes.) it's all a mess with a survival of the fittest, purposeless universe worldview.jboze3131
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
The text left out after the > above should be ** jboze3131 wrote: “…there is no such thing as right and wrong without God-” Bull! It’s obvious at many levels that certain behaviors harm other people and since we all depend on each other to make a society work it harms yourself to some degree.**RussellBelding
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Norman wrote > I'd like to agree with you both at different layers. jboze, it seems, is talking about a final position. With no final arbiter of "wrong ... optional ... right" valuations we are left with collective and subjective valuations. Norman is appealing to a common agreeemnt on what is harmful and most of us can say yes to his statement. Some valuations are not clear even in communities of Christian believers. For example Christians with similar authority sources and decision making processes have partial agreement deciding when human life begins. Two options are at conception and after the nervous system is differentiated. Norman, when the going gets tough, what authority sources and decision making process do you appeal to?RussellBelding
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
ajl- never heard that theory. it's always easy to posit such an idea tho, considering it would be completely unprovable in any manner. it's classic tho, we've been tricked into doing certain things (which gives an illusion of right and wrong, free will, etc.) but the actions we're tricked into aren't in any advantageous to our own survival. so many try to claim theories that question evolutionary processes are merely "god of the gaps" arguments, but what do you call it when evolutionary theory proposes such absurd ideas (ideas that, fortunately, have no true value in any rational-based world.) i guess drowning victims everywhere should thank our genes for fooling us into thinking those who save them are merely doing what is truly right. why a purposeless process with no real goal would have us do any of this to begin with is anyones guess!jboze3131
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
The idea that evolution is an unguided process is something that might lose vogue with future biologists. In fact, quite the contrary, most living systems bear an astonishing form of biological convergence. That is, they are not related, yet, they show similar features and traits time in and out. If evolution is so random, then why does it repeat itself and strive towards intelligence. If you read the works of Simon Conway Morris, you'll see that evolution is indeed a constrained process. I actually e-mailed him and he told me that his form of teleological evolution is much more "adventerous" than ID. I'm not so sure what he means by this.Benjii
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
"...sometimes these people who save the person stuck in the river perish themselves. that sort of action wouldnt make sense in a survival of the fittest model...." jboze, the argument I've heard is that our 'genes' have tricked us into altruism. That is, we are too stupid to survive on our own, so evolution had to create a mechanism to make us think we should do something (like save a drowning person). Fortunately, the unguided, random process of evolution knows better than us in these matters. I'm sure glad something is looking out for us, even if its nothing!ajl
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
well, the same goes from there, i think. where could an objective standard come from without a higher power? an evolutionary model wouldnt make much sense, because were left with survival of the fittest (and the like), which would mean that there could be no true SOLID, lasting objective standard. sometimes people jump into raging rivers to save others...sometimes these people who save the person stuck in the river perish themselves. that sort of action wouldnt make sense in a survival of the fittest model. nor would it make sense if morals were changing and that its all about looking out for number 1. i think we can agree that when you see someone drowning, your automatic instinct is to not think of your own safety and jump into the river and save the other person. putting their rescue above your own safety. i dont see how any evolutionary model could make sense of what (without an objective standard) seems like an insane idea (to risk your life for strangers without even thinking of your own safety- just running a basic autopilot that demands- "the right thing to do is to save this person.") i think we are left with only one option- someone or something (i propose that someone is god) created the standard to begin with. the standard is real, which is why its the same across the globe throughout all of history. there has been no "progression" in this sense at all on any basic level.jboze3131
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
jboze3131: “…there is no such thing as right and wrong without God-” Norman Doering: "Bull! It’s obvious at many levels that certain behaviors harm other people and since we all depend on each other to make a society work it harms yourself to some degree." A more generalized, yet still accurate, statement that jboze could have said is "there is no such thing as right and wrong without an objective standard". If that is still "Bull" to you then you are only fooling yourself.Lurker
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Dougmoran that last quote is an interesting one. I believe the hillbilly country version of that saying would be "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." :)Smidlee
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
So many expert opinions... here's a few more: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms, this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force, which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Theory, from his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, 1918. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" - Max Planckdougmoran
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
norman, as many have pointed out...if what you say is true and there is right and wrong and it just somehow "evolved" in all of mankind (animals do not act like humans- which is why we have the phrase 'acting like an animal'). you cant deny the basic differences between all other life and man. if what you say is true, then anything SHOULD be able to go. if its just survival of the fittest, then right and wrong are illusions that should be ever changing depending on what set of right and wrong allows us to better survive and reproduce our "selfish genes." we all are born with the ability to know what is right and what is wrong, and all people from all places are both with the same set of core values- murder and stealing is always wrong, as you mentioned. there are things with all people in all lands that are right and wrong- we would have had to evolve seperately this ability to decipher ethics (it wouldnt have been an adaptation that would have made a big enough change to kill off all those without the new "mutation" or anything like that.) so, why the universal moral code? universal being the key word. in the sense of survival of the fittest- ethics makes no sense whatsoever. the system of ethics all humans have is counterproductive to the supposed plan for the universe (selfish genes that demand you reproduce and reproduce and reproduce). it goes opposite to what we would see if mud to man were true- why would RM+NS somehow create ethics at all since it goes against the "plan" for all the rest of evolution? it doesnt make sense. too much of it doesnt make sense. and in the end, chemicals themselves would have to decide right and wrong. you mentioned examples of chemicals but theyre results of intelligent causes. unguided, unplanned, purposeless processes acting on chemicals and those chemicals creating the very concept of right and wrong? i can think of few things as far fetched.jboze3131
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Mr. Doering - Not to argue with you, since nothing I say will convince you, but I would like to clear up a common misconception about the Christian concept of heaven and hell: It is not a system of rewards and punishments. God doesn't send people to hell because they don't follw his arbitrary rules, or to heaven because they helped an old lady across the street. God created us to know and love Him. Heaven is eternitiy in the loving presence of God, while Hell is eternal separation from Him. In both cases people end up there because that is where they choose to go. Free will demands that God allow people to reject Him.jimbo
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Correction: he *was* a very cold hearted personSmidlee
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
To me Albert Einstein was a fruitcake which is why the world looks up to him. According to what I've read he was a dead-beat dad who wanting nothing to do with his own children. While he may have been smart he had a very cold heart person so no doubt he didn't believe in a personal God since he walked away from his family. Science was Einstein's god and religion.Smidlee
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
jboze3131 wrote: "i dont think that most religious people live the way they do because of fear of punishment or hope of reward. that surely isnt the message of the christian religion- 'do good just to stay out of hell.'" Then why have a heaven and hell? jboze3131 wrote: ".... chemicals cant choose right and wrong,..." You might as well say that hydrogen atoms can't warm a planet -- but they do when enough of them fall together and fusion starts inside our sun. You might as well say metal and silicon can't play chess, but arrange that metal and silicon into a computer called Deep Blue and it can defeat a grand master. So, arrange chemicals into a human being with a brain who have to live in social settings and they might evolve ideas about right and wrong. jboze3131 wrote: "flesh machines (which is all that humans are to some people) cant make sense of right and wrong." How do you know, first that they can't, and second that you can make sense of right and wrong? jboze3131 wrote: "...there is no such thing as right and wrong without God-" Bull! It's obvious at many levels that certain behaviors harm other people and since we all depend on each other to make a society work it harms yourself to some degree. jboze3131 wrote: "... where it would it come from? social norms?" From common sense and reason. From knowing the situation you live in. From wanting to live a good life and be judged well by yourself and others. From a recognition that a society needs rules of conduct in order to function. jboze3131 wrote: "...well, right and wrong are universal, ..." Some are universal. For example, no society allows for theft and murder, we all have to earn our way by doing something other people want done. Without those laws and ideas within us society would crumble. jboze3131 wrote: "...so it cant be social norms..." It's not an either or situation. Some aren't universal, those are the social norms. For example, in some Islamic countries women have to Burkas and other special clothes, some even are required to cover their faces. During the Taliban rule of Afghanistan the world got a good look at what happens when religious zealots gain control of a government. Television images of women being beaten forced to wear burkas. To an American woman not being able to show her face would be dehumanizing, but many Afghan women were okay with being faceless blobs in social settings, some choose it after they were free to choose. That's a social norm and it coexists with the universals. It's not the either or you think it is. jboze3131 wrote: "(all societies havent grouped together to decide right and wrong)…morality couldnt possibly have evolved in a darwinist sense, ..." Wrong. It could evolve. In fact there are non-human societies with clear rules and no known concept of god. For example, ants and bees, wolf packs, dolphin clans, etc... In fact murder is far more rare among other social animals than amoung men. jboze3131 wrote: "where does sympathy itself come from?" Mirror neurons are one possibility: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.htmlNorman Doering
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” ---------------------- i dont think that most religious people live the way they do because of fear of punishment or hope of reward. that surely isnt the message of the christian religion- "do good just to stay out of hell." i think theres no way to make sense of "ethical behavior" outside of belief in God. chemicals cant choose right and wrong, "flesh machines" (which is all that humans are to some people) cant make sense of right and wrong. heck, there is no such thing as right and wrong without God- foe where it would it come from? social norms? well, right and wrong are universal, so it cant be social norms (all societies havent grouped together to decide right and wrong)...morality couldnt possibly have evolved in a darwinist sense, since its purposeless and a mere cosmic accident that were here at all- no accident and purposeless entity can possibly have a concept of right and wrong. in that sense, id totally have to disagree that ethics comes from sympathy (the problem is- where does sympathy itself come from?)...education and social ties have little bearing on what a person KNOW is inherently right and wrong and how to use right and wrong to better his character. like i said tho, i think most religious people strive for better characters because thats what God's purpose for us is- the greatest of all the commandments (speaking again of christianity, of course) is to love your neighbor your like yourself...love the lord, love all people. just because thats the way its supposed to be. science and philosophy and religion mixed together.jboze3131
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, b een placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our we ak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." [Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press] "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press] "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." [Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann] "The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of div ine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in wh ich scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress .... If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate maknind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, s cientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections disc overed to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it t o run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understand ing he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to m an. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious imulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contibutes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life." [Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941] "The only source of knowledge is experience" -- http://www.fys.ku.dk/~raben/einstein/ "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."Norman Doering
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
nice article. glad to see some people can write about this issue with some sense and not label those who support ID as fools with no credentials who aren't "real scientists." i'm wondering tho- i don't buy into microevolution being used to cover macroevolution. from the evidence, i see that things have a built in ability to adapt to life, but i don't see that equaling mud to man evolution. i don't think the evidence points to common ancestry at all- i think you could see the evidence with the presupposition that mud to man is the way things happened and get to that point. but without that starting point, i think you can also, just as easily, see the same thing as common design (a designer would use the same types of molecules, the same basic forms and shapes, dna would match with life forms that have the most similar shape, size, body form, other features, etc). what would that make me exactly? i think we can infer design from nature just as we can infer design when we go out and see objects that are clearly man made as opposed to other objects which are clearly not made by an intelligent being. but, i also think that mud to man macroevolution is nonsense...if scientists can't break the species barrier in the lab, then it's not going to somehow happen via RM+NS in nature without any goal or purpose behind it all. kind of also wondering about everyone else. views and such. because that article seemed to imply IDers were all of the same mind in a sense. but i don't think that's the case really. ??jboze3131
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Reminds me of this little piece: http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=628&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more628Mario A. Lopez
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply