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

StephenB, This discussion reminds me of CS Lewis' discussion at the beginning of Mere Christianity. He remarks how whenever an argument occurs, both people think that they themselves are "right", and that the other person should recognize the objective "rightness" of their position. Everybody does this (or else they wouldn't bother arguing) and it presupposes an objective moral law. Even atheists and moral relativists still find time to condemn the "evil" of G-d, Christian Fundamentalists, Corporations, etc. They should ask how G-d or Corporations can be "evil" or "good" if morals are simply personal preferences or social constructions. Why should your preference overrule mine? We all know there are objective universal morals. Even if our mouths say we don't believe, our actions expose us for what we deep down believe. Just try arguing that I'm wrong to believe so. :)Atom_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

-----"For that matter, are you arguing that only Christians are bound by this code? Do Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, Animists hew to the same code?" If the natural moral law is “natural,” then obviously it applies to everyone and everyone is morally obliged to follow it.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

----Dartos: I don’t think you adequately established that there is a “universal, objective and binding” moral code that applies to Christians. It apples to everyone, not just Christians. Are you trying to tell me that you don't know that its wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, slander, and commit adultery? For that matter, are you arguing that only Christians are bound by this code? Do Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, Animists hew to the same code? It the natural moral law is "natural," then obviously it applies to everyone and everyone is morally obliged to follow it.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

----critter: "What does the Natural moral law say concerning slavery?" It says that it is wrong. Have you never heard of "the inherent dignity of the human person, one of the most important aspects of the natural moral law.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

----mandy: "First step show that there is a “Natural Moral Law” and show it is universal. In my travels, I’ve seen that there is a wide variation in moral positions." There is no variety. The natural moral law written in nature and on every human heart is exactly the same explicit code called the Ten Commandments. Religion is not needed to apprehend it; reason alone testifies to it. Only those who prefer to not live by it reject it. The variety comes into play when one tries to apply that universal binding code to everyday situations, which really does require prudence and wisdom. ----"I am being sympathetic here and trying to help, but I live in a small and very diverse community. Many of the people here are the people you are trying to convince and to ignore what somebody has said about the variability of morals and simple say that they are wrong and declaring there is a “universal moral code” wont wash with the masses. It washes with everyone except those who choose not to follow it. In any case, you are dodging my question and trying to deflect attention away from my question. You said that atheists had a code. I am still waiting for you to make it explcit. Please do that or else frankly acknowledge that the don't have one. The main question still stands: How can atheits be good and moral if the don't believe in goodness and morality?StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Could you sit in a congregation where the Pastor says that Blacks can’t have equality because they don’t have souls and they cannot control their animal instincts. I don’t think that it would have been that uncommon back 50 years ago.
What?? Where are you getting this schlock, mandy? Northern Africa, as part of the Roman Empire, was Christian long before Islam swept through in the eighth century. St. Augustine, premier theologian of the West, was born in Africa and was probably black. Any pastor with seminary training has read Augustine and is likely to know that. It's trolls with no training who are prone to spread crap like that. And that's who is likely to believe it.Lutepisc_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

----Hoki: "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)." 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.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

----Hoki: “Materialism does not such thing. As I’ve lready said, gardening can be a purpose. Materialism is even compatible with “higher” purposes such as the alien-soap thing.” 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. All is law and chance, and, as a result, there can be no free will. According to materialism, if you like gardening, it is because matter forced you to do it. Under the circumstances, there can be no purpose in your life because you don’t have the power to direct your behavior toward any end other than what matter and nature directs you to do. That is why it is such a destructive world view. It denies the inherent dignity of the human person and reduces everyone to animal status. -----“I have no idea why you wrote this little thing as I haven’t been arguing anything about morality or Darwinism.” You have been arguing that materialism, which is the metaphysical foundation for Darwinism, lends itself to purpose just as readily as does ID. In fact, it does not. As I pointed out earlier, materialism rules out all purpose in principle. ID hints at purpose. You have been suggesting that each is equally compatible with purpose. That simply is not the case.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

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?” 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). As for the ad hominem. Well, yes, I sort of called you a dope, but only in a limerick and only in relation to passing the buck on the whole alien thing. If you don’t want to be a dope, then don’t assert panspermia as a way of explaining initial origins or ultimate ends. Well, so long as it was in a limerick, I suppose that it is OK. Morally encouraged, even. There, now don’t you just wish I would stick to the doggerel of limerick verse? I do. I have many wishes.Hoki_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB [21]: It is not science’s job to give you meaning and purpose. Neither is it science’s job to lie and tell you, as materialitic/Darwinism does, that there is no such thing as meaning and purpose. Materialism does not such thing. As I've lready said, gardening can be a purpose. Materialism is even compatible with "higher" purposes such as the alien-soap thing. This moral equivalency thing you have going here is not working. You are always better off with the truth than a lie. Darwinism is a lie. I have no idea why you wrote this little thing as I haven't been arguing anything about morality or Darwinism.Hoki_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

StephenB: I don't think you adequately established that there is a "universal, objective and binding" moral code that applies to Christians. For that matter, are you arguing that only Christians are bound by this code? Do Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, Animists hew to the same code?Dartos_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

The Natural moral law is universal, objective, and binding. ======================= What does the Natural moral law say concerning slavery?critter_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Where am I wrong? First step show that there is a "Natural Moral Law" and show it is universal. In my travels, I've seen that there is a wide variation in moral positions. [A] and [B] depend on this definition.Don't get me wrong, I am being sympathetic here and trying to help, but I live in a small and very diverse community. Many of the people here are the people you are trying to convince and to ignore what somebody has said about the variability of morals and simple say that they are wrong and declaring there is a "universal moral code" wont wash with the masses.mandy_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

-----Mandy: My point is that using the morals argument against atheists is a weak argument and is based around a strawman." Your point happens to be wrong. The Natural moral law is universal, objective, and binding. [A] If it isn't binding, then it isn't morality. It may be a norm, a fad, or a value, but it is not a moral code. [B] Atheists have no universal, objective, binding standard for morals. If you think that they do, you have the floor. Please provide that standard. [C] While you are at it, tell me how you build a well-ordered society around the one you provide.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

The same morals. You have got to be kidding me. What are these standards. Is it moral for Phelp's to picket soldier's funerals? Other Christians welcome homosexuals into the congregations. Some Christians think that it is immoral for a wife to disagree with her husband. Unless you want to play the no true scotsman fallacy, Christian's have a wide range of moral views. Not only that. Send any of us back 50 years and we would all look like soft lefties. Could you sit in a congregation where the Pastor says that Blacks can't have equality because they don't have souls and they cannot control their animal instincts. I don't think that it would have been that uncommon back 50 years ago. As for crime. The number of crimes may be similar but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate The murder rate is much higher. My point is that using the morals argument against atheists is a weak argument and is based around a strawman.mandy_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Mandy #41, I'm baffled. Last time I checked, morals were the same across all Christian persuasions as far as I know (except perhaps for the Catholics' curious preoccupation with birth control), and I can't think of any particular examples of Christian morals having changed over time - though it is certainly true that adherence among professing Christians to those standards has fluctuated. And as for crime rates in the US compared to Australia, you can pick and choose figures but the consensus seems to be that they're about the same (see for example https://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=79128, "Australia’s urban crime rate is on par with most large cities in the United States"). What point are you trying to make, exactly?Stephen Morris_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Stephen #40, Again a strawman argument. Cause and effect are being confused. This argument can be countered by saying that these are totalitarian regimes and these are features shared by all totalitarian regimes religious or not. Stephen is making two arguments: 1. Morals are absolute 2. Atheists do not have a moral basis. For 1. you need to explain why: 1. Morals are not the same across all Christian persuasions. 2. Morals have changed over time. For 2. You need to again compare like with like: America is the most religious developed democracy. Why does it have more crime, divorces, abortions etc than a country like Australia. Even within the society - who has the most divorces? Who is the most imprisoned?mandy_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

mandy #39, Defending the other Stephen, I think you are making the common mistake of confusing 'secular' and 'atheist'. A secular society merely refrains from sponsoring a particular religion at state level, but allows individuals to practice religions freely. Where such societies exist (and there aren't all that many - apart from the US, it's hard to think of examples besides perhaps South Korea and Singapore, and a handful - by no means all - of European countries), they usually have relatively high numbers of practising Christians and in many cases (except in Asia) a Christian 'heritage'. Thus, the behaviours of the atheists in the society are restrained by cultural and social norms. Truly 'atheist' societies, such as North Korea today and most of communist Europe a generation ago (and in its most extreme form in Albania) are characterized by oppression, mistrust, endemic corruption and economic backwardness. This is what atheism logically leads to when there is no counterposing force, and to that extent StephenB's comments were entirely justified.Stephen Morris_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Stephen #32, This argument is fine until somebody comes against a secular society and sees that this is quantitatively not true. There are many reasons to defend religion but strawman arguments about what atheists are like is very dangerous.mandy_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

But to spell out my meaning above, clearly wolves have a complex social structure and a strictly defined pecking order (not to mention chickens as well from which the turn orginated.) There would absolutely be a feeding heirarchy at a carcass and disputes would most definitely arise when pack members attempted to breach it. That's my recollection (but not from the show of which I only watched a few minutes). The comment by Christ seems relevant, because he is continually remarking on the inevitability of the crucifixion long before it happens.JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Tim: I thought that was a great piece of writing you did in the Open Challenge threadJT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

JT at 34, You must not have been watching very closely. I saw that show, and they did not line up. Furthermore, you should know, although you admit that you don't, that the objection the wolf made was not a moral objection. JT at 35, I assume you mean if Jesus was in line; it is not easy to know exactly what Jesus would do, but I'd say it would be incredibly kind and incredibly graceful based on the needs of the "cutter". Things might be different if the grocery in question was in the Temple, but then I doubt Jesus would have been in line in that case. In fact, when was Jesus ever in a line?Tim_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

What Would Jesus Do if someone cut in line at the grocery store: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

[16]: "The assertion that there are no moral absolutes and no human free will is easily refuted by a simple example. A thoroughgoing moral relativist who does not believe humans have free will would never object to someone cutting in line at the grocery store." All I know is that a wolf objects when another wolf cuts in line in front of him at the deer carcass. That was on Nature last night.JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Wow, StephenB at 32, you sum up exactly how I feel when I read so many "arguments" put forth by "the majority". As I have mentioned before, I have a very limited scientific background. That doesn't prevent me from easily seeing the folly, disturbing motives, and well, the bitterness in what so many write. Kinda makes me feel bad that I called Hoki a dope; incivility is insidious.Tim_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

It isn’t very gratifying to read the comments on this thread and realize that Western civilization is crumbling under the assault of anti-intellectualism. This site has sponsored discussions on similar topics in the past, so there are no real surprises. I have known for quite some time that moral illiterates abound, but I have only recently come to appreciate the extent to which so many of them are proud of their ignorance. What they don’t know does hurt them, and it also hurts everyone else. Morality is, after all, the bedrock of freedom. One of the first prerequisites for a well-ordered society is the need for citizens to recognize that the natural moral law provides the unity around which diversity can express itself. The founding fathers summed it up with the phrase, “out of many, one.” They understood that we could count on justice in the courts, in government, and in business, only if citizens understood and followed the natural moral law. Adams made the point very well. He said that our constitution was made for a moral people and would not work with any other kind of populace. Sadly, we are now witnessing the reciprocal effect: A large group of semi-educated partisans who don’t know right from wrong and care even less are putting their ignorance on parade and even trying to pass if off as sophistication. I have now entered into my third round of discussions with misguided materialists who labor under the misconception that citizens can simply rally around the public square and invent some kind of moral code appropriate to human nature, except of course that they do not believe in “human nature.” Predictably, they are quite comfortable suggesting that monkeys can live by the same moral code as men, and have obviously given no thought at all about what it could mean to build a legal/social structure on such a mindless principle. I have no way of knowing how many of these misguided souls are in positions of responsibility or how many of them are just dupes of the system. One thing I do know is that their numbers seem to be growing and they are destroying the culture with their studiously contrived nihilism. Unfortunately, they will not pay the penalty alone; they will be taking the rest of us down with them. I just finished a discussion with someone on another UD thread who is so immersed in moral relativism that he cannot provide a single rational reason why psychopaths should not torture babies. Even on this thread, the gullibility is astounding. Although the natural law has been obvious to all men in all times in all places, Darwinists claim that it cannot be discerned at all. One blogger, who claimed that objective morality cannot “be proven,” also accused me of being “rude,” thus appealing to the same standard of justice that he claims doesn’t exist. Most Darwinists react with the same schizophrenic instinct. The irony never reaches their consciousness because their ideology has made them slaves, and that is what they are---slaves. In effect they are trying to pass of hyper-skepticism as intellectual subtlety, but the two are not at all the same thing. Anyone can say, “I am not convinced,” and they can say it to their dying breath, but it doesn’t change the reality. It really is quite remarkable: On the one hand, they disavow the natural moral law, which all men at all times and all places have acknowledged as real. On the other hand, they affirm Darwinism, which no man at any time or in any way has shown to be the case. How does the human mind get so twisted that it can deny the obvious and assert the impossible? Perhaps it stems from a kind of narcissism that resists being held accountable to anyone for anything. Darwinists keep telling me that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else, and they bristle when anyone dares to question the point. Even so, I have to wonder. What must it be like to have a relationship with people who live by their feelings and make up their own morality as they go along? If they don’t believe in any such thing as truth, how can they be honest? If they disavow any notion of justice, how can they be fair? If they renounce natural law and natural rights, how can they be responsible citizens? Are they capable of delaying gratification for the sake of a higher good? More to the point, do they even recognize a higher good, or anything such as “good” period? By their own admission, they do not. How then, do they claim to be good and moral people while denying goodness and morality? I am still waiting for someone to solve that riddle. Last year, I had an experience on another forum (Ben Stein’s website) that illuminates the problem very nicely. After I had presented three of four rounds of arguments defending the reality of an immaterial mind as a compliment to an organic brain, my adversary began demanding of me certain clarifications on the theoretical boundaries of cognition and intellectual activity. Suddenly, and shockingly, I came to grasp the essence of the problem; he wasn’t asking for an ARGUMENT, he was demanding a DEFINITION. In fact, he had never heard of such a concept as “mind.” After twelve years in a government school and four years in a government sponsored university, no one had ever raised the issue. I wasn’t in a debate at all. I was in a remedial class with a backward student who believed he was the smartest man in the world. Most things can be repaired, but there is one quality that is impervious to remediation---triumphant stupidity. I don’t know how much of that is going on in these present interchanges, but I do know that many come here not knowing what they don’t know and not wanting to know any better. If I knew their ages, I could discern whether they are the perpetrators or the victims. One thing is for sure: They are destructive to the culture and the life of the mind. If I was a parent, I would hate to entrust my child’s education to these dead souls and dead consciences walking around in live bodies.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

May I cheat? Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; esp: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; departing from what is normal esp. as to appear to transcend the laws of nature: attributed to an invisible agent. I got this from Webster's Tenth. Quad, what is your point?Tim_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Tim [29], I defy you to define "supernatural" in a way that is not identical to "intelligent" or "natural". You must be able to define and distinguish your terms before you can go around applying them to things.QuadFather_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Hoki at 27: Yes, I can clarify. Sometimes, I find it somewhat boring to comment by making arguments. I just don't find it interesting or as fun as limericks. "ID is also consistent with your purpose being to have your body fats extracted, turned into soap and sold in swanky department stores on the planet from where the aliens that created us came." 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?" ID is NOT consistent with that idea because our ends, as physically embodied living things, are in some way parallel to that of the aliens who are also physically embodied, see, "Mork has a corpus." As for the ad hominem. Well, yes, I sort of called you a dope, but only in a limerick and only in relation to passing the buck on the whole alien thing. If you don't want to be a dope, then don't assert panspermia as a way of explaining initial origins or ultimate ends. I find ID consonant with the idea of a supernature. Now, the details of that supernature -- whether it be the Christian God or an impersonal life force, or frontloading of some other type, hey, let's even toss in "the Force" -- are not the purview of science, at least what I know about it which is admittedly not much. Two things, though: One, that does not mean that those ideas can not be weighed in on philosophically, and two, just because they may be parsed philosophically, that doesn't mean that science is unable to make at least some contribution to the discussion, i.e. the inductive argument that such a supernature, if not fully understood, exists. There, now don't you just wish I would stick to the doggerel of limerick verse? I do.Tim_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

----Hoki: "ID gives you no objective meaning or purpose either. Sure, ID says that there MAY be an ultimate purpose, but so what? You’re still left in the dark trying to find it. You are infinitely more likely to pursue the wrong purpose rather than the intended one in the event that there actually is one." It is not science's job to give you meaning and purpose. Neither is it science's job to lie and tell you, as materialitic/Darwinism does, that there is no such thing as meaning and purpose. This moral equivalency thing you have going here is not working. You are always better off with the truth than a lie. Darwinism is a lie.StephenB_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply