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

As I see it, love is one of those things that cannot be defined in terms other than itself. There is a word for what I'm talking about in philosophy, but I can't remember it exactly. Primitive concept? Love, as someone pointed out above, is one of the aspects of ourselves in which we are in the image and likeness of God. One of the ways in which we evolve in our lives on earth is in the continual refinement and expansion of our experience and understanding of Love. Ths is one of the glories of being human, and one's philosophy matters little in that process. That is why even materialists grow in their understanding of Love, even while their rational minds understand it not at all.Bruce David_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Heinrich,
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.Clive Hayden_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

zeroseven, As I write this I'm watching a documentary on David Lynch. He's my favorite director.Clive Hayden_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, why do you see the reductionist position as arrogant? I see it as the opposite of that.zeroseven_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Clive, you surprise me. In a good way. David Lynch once described "Lost Highway" as a film about the impossibility of finding love in hell. (Or something like that).zeroseven_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

(sorry for reposting this, but otherwise it'll get lost up-thread thanks to moderation)
Because atoms in motion amount to only an “is” whereas love is an “ought”.
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.Heinrich_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Berceuse: Gil, your sarcasm suggests that you took my comment a little too personally... I was just being willfully provocative. Perhaps that explains the long threads?GilDodgen_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Innerbling, "Rather than action I would say that love is a state of being or God from which all loving actions manifest." Yes, I would say that is more precise. It's not simply the action; rather the action is God's manifest character. If we love, we do what is characteristic of God. We had a discussion not long ago concerning our being created in the image of God. I can't remember who raised the issue - we can perhaps go back to previous posts and find out (I think it was in another of Gil's long threads :) ), but it seems to me that part of what is meant by our being created in God's image is our capacity to love and overall, our ability to do what is characteristic of God. We have the capacity to love, to create, to reason, to express joy, sorrow, anger, and a magnitude of other positive passions, which define us as uniquely human. I'm not certain if passion is the right word, but all of these things seem to be outside the purvey of materialistic magisterium (to use Gould's term).CannuckianYankee_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Borne @68, You say many things in your reply to my earlier post. I want to respond to everything fairly, yet without getting long-winded or generating an unmanageable number of topics and sub-topics. We disagree about the definition of “love.” Fine. However, in my opinion the notion of “real meaning” is a chimera. Calling “Basic love” an “act of will” does not give your definition “real meaning,” and I claim no “real meaning” for my definition. In short, “real meaning” is a false issue. You say, “Under materialist views ‘you are nothing but a pack of neurons.’” I agree with you, but I would use phrasing that seems more accurate to me: We are packs of neurons (or packs or atoms, or packs of whatever), but we’re pretty cool because of how we work. Working together, our neurons (or atoms or whatever) do some interesting things. You ask, “Why should I care what a pack of neurons is doing, any more than what a rock is doing?” I would not presume to offer my reasons for why you should care about another human being, or yourself, or an animal, or a society, or an ecosystem, or an economy, or a trinket, or an idea, or a symbol, or a nation, or a heritage, or life itself, or anything else. But may I turn your question around and ask why being a “pack of neurons” would make you any less of a caring person? You say, “if the materialist view were true, it makes no sense at all in any ultimate way, as sense becomes yet another phenomenon of the activity in a brain, with no solid reality underlying it.” I’m not totally comfortable with your phrasing, but I agree with the “no ultimate sense” part. You say, “there is an ultimate, absolute sense to reality or there is none at all.” Maybe. We are sense-making beings. I don’t know that there’s an “ultimate sense,” but I’ll keep thinking about it and looking for it. I’m sure others will, too. I see no great loss if there actually is no “ultimate sense.” You say, “If non rational nature is the cause of all thoughts then all thoughts are the result of non-thought and nothing rational. And that makes ‘sense’ to you?” Yes, it makes sense to me. Matter in motion and interacting with other matter is amazing. Human reason, as astounding as it is, is also quite fallible and limited. My point is only that I think you underestimate non-rational nature and overestimate human reason. You say, “You cannot test your brain using your brain.” You can, but there are other ways to test the brain that are as good and better. You ask “‘He that created the eye, does he not see?’ See?” For myself, no. I don’t recognize any “he” that “created” the eye or anything else. What and whatever we see is the result of our own efforts, so much as I can tell. I apologize for such a lengthy post.LarTanner_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

07, Re: 49: I doubt if most Christians rely on what most Christians say about love. Speaking as one, we rely on what the Good Shepherd said about love. One has to consider the source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:1-18&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15:13&version=NIVCannuckianYankee_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee in 69: "...what I sense Innerbling saying is that in order to make that rational choice, we are not simply relying on feelings caused by atoms in motion. We depend upon something more than a feeling; or even a “spiritual feeling” as WM insinuates. Love is not simply a feeling, but a doing..." What I meant to say is that we need a worldview where choosing love is always the most rational choice even when that choice would mean social isolation, violence or even death. Rather than action I would say that love is a state of being or God from which all loving actions manifest.Innerbling_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Collin, Re: 66: I agree fully. However, what I sense Innerbling saying is that in order to make that rational choice, we are not simply relying on feelings caused by atoms in motion. We depend upon something more than a feeling; or even a "spiritual feeling" as WM insinuates. Love is not simply a feeling, but a doing, which goes against what raw materialism dictates. In the Christian scriptures, the greatest love is defined in terms of an action, not simply a feeling. That action specifically is laying down one's life for another. Materialism dictates no such action. In fact, it seems to go against the materialist mantra of survival.CannuckianYankee_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

LarTanner
Borne @33, My understanding of love as being a by-product of the mind and body makes it able to be described. If I understand you, love has some “meaning” or “value” beyond what people would communicate to one another about it. I fail to see how this view supports itself.
This is because your definition of love is wrong. Indeed, under your definition, it has no real meaning at all. Basic love is an act of will, not mere subjective feelings generated in flesh by electro-chemical stimuli. Under materialist views "you are nothing but a pack of neurons". Why should I care what a pack of neurons is doing, any more than what a rock is doing? In that case, its nothing but the laws of chemistry and physics acting in accordance with environmental stimuli. Is that your view of life?
... We might clarify to say “makes sense to us,” as sense is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes and no. The subjective experience of reality may make no "sense" to any given individual in a given circumstance. But if the materialist view were true, it makes no sense at all in any ultimate way, as sense becomes yet another phenomenon of the activity in a brain, with no solid reality underlying it. Iow, there is an ultimate, absolute sense to reality or there is none at all.
Those Lewis quotes do nothing for me, esp. the first one which sounds nice but has little actual substance
Then, either you did not understand what he said or you simply don't like it. Maybe read the contexts to get a better grasp. If non rational nature is the cause of all thoughts then all thoughts are the result of non-thought and nothing rational. And that makes "sense" to you? Either our faculties of thought and reason are founded in and in accordance with reality or they are not. If all we call "thought" is merely the results of billions of evolutionary accidents, we cannot know they are valid. You cannot test your brain using your brain. "He that created the eye, does he not see?" See?Borne_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Collin in 66: "But in another sense, I think that loving other people is the most rational choice anyone can make." Yes I agree within my worldview but as far as I can deduce this doesn't apply to materialistic worldview however. Within materialism/atheism there is no rational reasons as far as I know to be nothing else than self-serving, might makes right kinda person.Innerbling_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Innerbling, I recently read a Roman poet (I think it was Plutarch) who said, "God cannot be both wise and loving." While I don't agree, I thought it was a funny/insightful statement. But in another sense, I think that loving other people is the most rational choice anyone can make.Collin_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Winston Macchi in 45: "But seriously, so what if love, happiness, pity are ‘just’ atoms in motion. Does that make them any less real, any less significant, any less important to the atoms in motion that are typing this response right now. I (and by I, I’m referring to a particular grouping of ever changing atoms) see no reason it should, indeed I find it astounding and beautiful that my love for my daughter is not merely some ‘spiritual’ feeling but a true physical phenomenon. It seems many on the ID side find it distasteful to the point of insulting and I’m not sure why. Could you possibly offer and explanation? The transcended origin is necessary for love to be any different than the feeling of nausea or any other physical reaction one can think of. In materialistic and reductionist causal chain from matter and motion to love there is no quantitative difference between nasty chemical reaction in the stomach and love except that the chemical reaction in the stomach can be more significant in quantity. So when I would have to make a rational choice as an materialist whether to love someone or not when there is a cost involved (always is) the rational choice through deduction would be always to choose not to love anyone.Innerbling_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

If I were able to correct my previous post, I would replace the word "pain" in the sentence, "Ask a programmer how she could program a computer to actually feel pain, for example." with the word "love", so the sentence would read, "Ask a programmer how she could program a computer to actually feel love..."Bruce David_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: "reductionists believe that atoms in motion are the cause of consciousness" Actually, reductionists like Winston Macchi say that consciousness IS just atoms in motion. In my view, such a position is absurd. It's like saying that my car is a tree. They simply aren't the same thing. Consciousness is what it is, and atoms in motion are something else entirely. More sophisticated reductionist thinkers will say that atoms in motion CAUSE consciousness. However, as we all know, no one has the slightest idea, not even a theory, of how such a causal relationship could operate. The best anyone has done is to call consciousness an "epiphenomenon" of neural activity in the brain. But that is just putting a label on ignorance. Ask a programmer how she could program a computer to actually feel pain, for example. It is my view that conscious experience is in fact the reductio ad absurdum of the materialist position. Conscious experience is the fundamental fact of our existence. It is the one thing that must be explained by any metaphysical position. And there is no explanation for it in materialism.Bruce David_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

equinoxe@40 Darwinian theory does not invoke necessarily materialistic assumptions. (One can be a non-materialist subscriber to Darwin’s theory of natural selection.) But, arguably, the converse is true: materialistic assumptions might be said to lead necessarily to something like Darwinian theory. CannuckianYankee@42 True. However, one must subscribe to what Gould temed NOMA to one degree or another. For a lot of thinking theists, NOMA is intellectually shallow. If God exists, NOMA is simply false. Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelsonbevets_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Gil, your sarcasm suggests that you took my comment a little too personally (while seemingly ignoring the positive points). It wasn't necessary.Berceuse_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Everyone who posts in this thread except for me thinks angry old men are sexy.tragic mishap_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

AussieID (and Gil): Point proven … another Gil-Dodgen-inspired-long-thread! Well said! And this post is another small contribution :) .gpuccio_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Winston Macchi: But seriously, so what if love, happiness, pity are ‘just’ atoms in motion. Does that make them any less real, any less significant, any less important to the atoms in motion that are typing this response right now. I (and by I, I’m referring to a particular grouping of ever changing atoms) see no reason it should, indeed I find it astounding and beautiful that my love for my daughter is not merely some ‘spiritual’ feeling but a true physical phenomenon. It seems many on the ID side find it distasteful to the point of insulting and I’m not sure why. Could you possibly offer and explanation? But the point is all in that "just". Your response, like mine, is not "just" atoms in motion. It has a specific form, which is CSI, and is caused by a conscious experience in you (or in me). It is, IOWs, an intelligently ordered output describing a conscious experience to other conscious experiencers, through the convention of language. While atoms in motion are certainly instrumental for that, they are in no way the cause of the experience. That is the point: reductionists believe that atoms in motion are the cause of consciousness, and therefore of love and so on. That is very different from believing that consciousness and love express themselves by shaping atoms in motion in meaningful and beautiful forms, which is a very satisfying thought, as you say. I am not arguing here which positions is better: it is well known that I believe firmly that the reductionist position about consciousness is irrational, arrogant, inconsistent, so it is useless that I bring again my arguments. Bur it is important to be clear about the difference between the two positions: for those who believe that consciousness is an independent principle of reality, and that it simply expresses itself through matter, and is not generated by it, love and thoughts and all the rest are not, and can never be, "just" atoms in motion.gpuccio_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

(Often, blog threads are like a party in which people form groups having separate conversations, as in the present case. GilDodgen throws good parties.) Above, Clive Hayden said Love is an ‘ought’ which cannot be the result of an ‘is’. I see some basis for this claim in the concept of loyalty, but I don’t see why love can’t arise spontaneously. A mother ought to love her child, but there is also what has been called “maternal instinct,” which seems to be as real in humans as in other species. Maybe I shouldn’t be so personal, but I love my spouse and my children from my heart, not from my mind. Maybe Mr Hayden is taking his “ought” from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, 5:28?Pedant_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Because atoms in motion amount to only an “is” whereas love is an “ought”.
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.Heinrich_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

There ya go Gil! Point proven ... another Gil-Dodgen-inspired-long-thread!AussieID_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Borne:
“Biology is the study of the complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
Iow, materialism requires that one debunk the obvious design because of a priori prejudice against it.
I don't buy your argument; you are not restating in other words what Dawkins wrote. Looks more like you are reading something into his words that isn't there.Cabal_{September 16, 2010
September
09
Sep
16
16
2010
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Winston, But seriously, so what if love, happiness, pity are ‘just’ atoms in motion. Would you mind explaining how love, happiness, and pity are atoms in motion? Can we go out in the world and find the atoms needed to make love as we can with water or oxygen? You described yourself as a 'particular grouping of ever changing atoms', I'd be interested to know your thoughts on self worth. Does that make them any less real, any less significant, any less important to the atoms in motion that are typing this response right now. Does it make the atoms any less real? No. Does it make them any less significant? Depends on how one's atoms are moving. zeroseven, I certainly would not rely on an IDist or a Christian to tell me what love is. I defer to Shakespeare, Joy Division, David Lynch, and Nick Cave for that. Preferring a particular grouping of ever changing atom's definition of love to another particular grouping of ever changing atom's definition. Makes sense.Scruffy_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

Hey zeroseven, I certainly agree that the aforementioned group you mention can give you insights into 'love', but I would suggest that Christians and IDists may do the same. Nick Cave I've followed for years,having friends who lived for anything that came from The Birthday Party, but his songs also reflect what love is/isn't depending on the mood of the man and the occasion he writes about. Love changes for him as does his beliefs: he once said he was Christian then he says he doesn't believe in a personal god. What utterance will be next? As to the director David Lynch, his projections of love are certainly, well, interesting ... but he has had about 4 marriages to date and other failed relationships? Are you learning about 'love' from him by the way NOT to do it? He also paid, if I'm right, about $1 million to further his Transcendental Meditation techniques. Has he been able to progress through hopping, floating and flying in his Yogic Flying? Yes, it's off the topic of 'love', but it should make you think about your role models and WHY you would defer to them ... Why are these ones 'right' to you and the others intolerable?AussieID_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

zeroseven,
I certainly would not rely on an IDist or a Christian to tell me what love is. I defer to Shakespeare, Joy Division, David Lynch, and Nick Cave for that.
I like everyone that you've mentioned there, although I'm not crazy about Shakespeare. I love David Lynch, almost as much as I love C. S. Lewis. There's a lot of similarities. They each borrow from an ethic they don't invent. They each know that love is more than the material script on the page, either in the book or the screenplay, in the same way that it is more than the material movements in the body.Clive Hayden_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply