AgnosticWeb.com - Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon)

Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon) (reply)

dhw — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:12:26 +0000

George has reported on a radio programme in which Schlomo Sand claims that "the Israelites were never exiled from the "promised land", and that most Jews are descended from converts. [...] And how far are Palestinian Arabs the true heirs of the biblical Jews?" -George also suggests that religions "are not so much a matter of faith as of tradition, that of customs and ideas handed down from generation to generation, and in that way are similar to nationalism. Thus faith is not a matter of truth but of buying into the group-think for the sake of security or a quiet life."-This ties in with a masterly book which I had the privilege of translating a few months ago. It's by Jan Assmann, and the German title (for anyone out there who reads German) is Das kulturelle GedÃ¤chtnis (Cultural Memory). It will eventually be published by Cambridge University Press, but I have no idea when. Here is a taster for you:-"...the historicity of the Exodus is a matter of extreme controversy. On the Egyptian side, there is virtually no evidence on offer. The only mention of Israel in an Egyptian text refers to a tribe in Palestine, and certainly not to a group of immigrants or 'guest workers' in Egypt itself. What matters here, however, is not the historical accuracy but the importance of the story for Israelite memory. One simply cannot overestimate its significance. The Exodus of the Jews from Egypt was the foundational act which provided the basis for the identity not only of the people, but also of God Himself. Wherever the Lord of the Covenant appeared, calling on the Israelites to obey Him, they were referred to as 'my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt' (Leviticus, 25, 55). In other words, right from the start the people were defined by their emigration and segregation."-George's suggestion is a highly perceptive insight into the history not only of the Jews but also of many other religious movements, in which faith is almost synonymous with group identity and continuity. Another interesting observation is that the gods of many early polytheistic societies were confined to locations and even buildings. The huge advantage of Yahweh was that he was everywhere. If you're stuck out in the desert, you don't need a temple, because Yahweh is right with you. Monotheism has its practical advantages.-Let me just give you one more gem: "Rituals help people to achieve a form of coherence and continuity which fits in with Nature. 'Nature revolves but man advances.' This basic distinction between Nature and history ... as formulated by the eighteenth-century English poet Edward Young in his Night Thoughts ... is removed through the principle of ritual coherence. Strict repetition enables man to adapt to the cyclical structure of Nature's regeneration processes, and thus to participate reverentially in the eternal divinity of cosmic life."

Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon) (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:01:41 +0000

The BBC Radio 4 programme "Start the Week" this week featured Schlomo Sand and his book "The Invention of the Jewish People". I wondered what your impression of this might be, assuming you have heard of it.- Glad you asked the question. I am an Ashkanazic Jew (Eastern European). Our DNA had been studied and does not show much intervention from other groups of people. Sand is a known Marxist, anti-Zionist university professor, who stands with the far left groups in Israel. Most nations have all sorts of opinions. The joke goes that when you have three Jews talking together, you will hear ten opinions. Sand has produced mostly fiction, not non-fiction. Read it and enjoy a novel. The three tribes he uses to talk about conversion, are small disparate groups. We have a tradition of non-proselytizing. Non-Jews must ask to join, and then are taught and have to go through certain rituals.-I have toured Israel in 1983 with a Sabra (a Jew born in Israel) who was a colonel in the tanker corps, had fought in all the wars to that point. I can imagine what he would do to Sands if they ever met. )

Faith and Tradition (was ID as a Cultural Phenomenon) (reply)

George Jelliss — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:04:13 +0000

The BBC Radio 4 programme "Start the Week" this week featured Schlomo Sand and his book "The Invention of the Jewish People". I wondered what your impression of this might be, assuming you have heard of it.-Quote from BBC: In The Invention of the Jewish People, the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand unravels the mythologised history of the Jewish people to claim that the Israelites were never exiled from the "promised land", and that most Jews are descended from converts. What does that mean for the State of Israel? And how far are Palestinian Arabs the true heirs of the biblical Jews? Shlomo Sand argues that a new analysis of the history of the Jews is vitally important for the future of Israel and all its inhabitants.-On a related issue. It occurs to me that all religions are not so much a matter of faith as of tradition, that is of customs and ideas handed down from generation to generation, and in that way are similar to nationalism. Thus faith is not a matter of truth but of buying in to the group-think for the sake of security or a quiet life.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:28:52 +0000

We need to make a few personal adjustments, as the various posts sometimes lead to confusion as to who has said what. > > 1) You wrote: "A UI of the sort that David and you espouse..." I do not espouse a UI. I merely put forward suggestions as to its possible nature if it exists. I wrote explicitly: -Espouse was clearly the wrong word. Sometimes when I try to be more clever with my use of language it bites me. Good thing I have quick access to a dictionary! -It seems that in the grand scope of things, both you and I play a pretty distinct game of "Devil's Advocate." I wasn't quite aware that you were/are up to the exact same thing as myself. For the rest of your post here--point taken. -You are correct: The tangent I start on here is better suited to the "Bleached Faith" thread anyway--though the focus is still on the "generic UI" concept that ID claims to support.-I do continuously hope that I bring something of interest here.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

dhw — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:39:10 +0000

We need to make a few personal adjustments, as the various posts sometimes lead to confusion as to who has said what. -1) You wrote: "A UI of the sort that David and you espouse..." I do not espouse a UI. I merely put forward suggestions as to its possible nature if it exists. I wrote explicitly: "My plea is not for belief in a soul or in an ethereal presence, but for open-mindedness towards concepts that have permeated human cultures since time immemorial." I have indeed been following your discussion with David. You write: "There's a human component to these old religions that creates a more vibrant and dare I say, sacred feeling, that is lost when the image of God becomes an 'all-encompassing everything'." That of course is a matter of personal opinion, but Asatru gods are still gods, and if my Wagnerian memory serves me correctly, don't the Valkyries take the souls of dead heroes to Valhalla? My point is that all these religions have common ground (a divine being or beings, souls) which might just possibly suggest a common truth. Interestingly, you disliked the concept of a UI with human components, whereas you seem to quite like the human components of the Scandinavian gods. As David has pointed out, if it's fear you want (not to mention myth and human interaction with the divine), the OT God can hold his own against anyone.-2) You wrote: "I almost take offense to the suggestion that I'm not being open-minded." Please don't take (or even almost take) offence. My plea was a general one, and was not directed at you personally, although since the post was a response to yours, I can see why you took it that way. I wrote: "It's just possible that your 90% of the world (I haven't counted) has cottoned onto something that your 10% has lost touch with". This was a reference to your statistic of people in the world who believe in a soul + ethereal presence ... not to your personal leanings! Most of my posts are an attempt to keep doors open, and so when certain concepts are described as meaningless or as fairy stories, I try to explain why I myself do not dismiss them, i.e. why one should keep an open mind. -3) And so to the famous Roman arches. You had written: "The statistics behind such an arch forming are staggering". I responded that by comparison the statistics behind our own appearance were "can't-stagger-any-further" staggering. You ask: "By what knowledge can you make that claim?" Quite right. I have no such knowledge, and should have said "in my opinion", rather than simply tottering in your statistical wake. In your second post, you wrote: "claims such as the odds of life happening by chance are .00000015 are meaningless." I agree. I've never made such a mathematical claim. But I will gladly explain why, in my view, the chances of the arch appearing naturally seem "staggeringly" better than our own. For all its complexity, as far as I know the arch has no faculty for reproduction, thought, movement, memory, imagination, consciousness, emotion, sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell etc. Each of these faculties, I believe, is of great complexity, and yet they are all encompassed within a single tiny space. After centuries of study, scientists have made enormous progress in explaining how the various mechanisms function, but there are still vast areas of uncertainty, and they still haven't succeeded in producing a living, replicating, evolvable body. By contrast, the Romans had no trouble building their arches thousands of years ago. My opinion is based fair and square on the incredulity factor, just as faith in God or chance is built on the credulity factor. There is a personal borderline beyond which each of us is unable to go. For example, I myself cannot believe in any sort of personal god. I can, however, believe that a block of stone may form an arch without the intervention of a designer (would you say I am being too credulous?). But I cannot believe that inanimate matter can spontaneously come to life, replicate, give itself evolutionary powers etc....you know the rest. As you point out: "Statistics are only meaningful when we know everything about the system we're studying; that we know all its variables. We don't." And since we don't know, we can only say what seems credible or incredible to us, and try to explain why.-[I have just read your extremely interesting post under "Bleached Faith", and will respond in due course.]

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:17:11 +0000

dhw, I need to expand: > Saying that a direct line of contingencies necessitates astronomical odds in terms of the going from matter to us is "can't-stagger-any-further" is betraying lack of knowledge of an important detail or two. > You've mentioned here that the odds of that arch appearing are better than that of us appearing. By what knowledge can you make that claim?-My question is for a purpose here. By invoking the odds "of all things appearing by chance," this amounts to having knowledge about the origins; something which we lack. Turell thinks that because certain enzymes need to be, certain processes cannot exist. While this is a valid observation, it isn't knowledge. It isn't something that he can know: As I've tried to point out, it could well be that whatever was the start of life, may not have even looked like RNA or DNA. The thing that frustrates me when you or David try to apply statistics, is that those statistics are based on a lack of knowledge. With only 8 of 20 amino acids present at the start of our planet, of course the odds of life forming are bad. However, our lens is cloudy when looking that far back. I said before that statistics are only meaningful when we know *everything* about the system were studying; that we know all its variables. We don't. And since we don't, claims such as "the odds of life happening by chance are .00000015," are meaningless. The odds at present are as random and unknowable as a cosmic game of pinata.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:44:51 +0000

http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Natural-Arches-Screenshot-103364.html ... > > > Have to be designed? This raises a good question. The statistics behind such an arch forming are staggering. Yet it too, happens by chance. > > Arches national monument happned because the properties of the unlying granite stone has the properies to allow arches by erosion.-But if we ask the question "What are the odds that it appeared," and the continue to drill down the questions to "What are the odds that those atoms appeared in those places," don't we continue to make the event more and more unlikely? -I only ask because most of the ID "statistical" arguments I've seen appear to be made by continuously drilling the scope down. (Was rereading some sections of "Black Box.")

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:34:49 +0000

dhw, > First of all, my apologies if I put words into your mouth. I used "invalidates", but "makes them meaningless" is not, I agree, quite the same thing. > > You've used politics as an analogy, but again we're approaching the subject from completely different angles. You seem to be looking for precision where there can't be any, and I'm simply stating a possible explanation (no more than that) of mysteries. I certainly don't expect you to provide answers to these questions yourself! My analogy would be ten witnesses to an accident giving ten different accounts. The fact that their reports are different does not mean that the accident didn't happen, or that there is no objective truth beyond their subjective accounts. In other words, I'm suggesting that all these different religions and concepts may be seen as attempts to grasp the same ungraspable truth. Common agreement on the details is impossible, because if there really is a "soul" and an "ethereal presence" they are almost certainly beyond our philosophical and scientific reach. For a materialist, that makes them into fairy stories, but for a neutral like myself, they are no more and no less a fairy story than inanimate matter coming to life and giving itself evolutionary powers. My plea is not for belief in a soul or in an ethereal presence, but for open-mindedness towards concepts that have permeated human cultures since time immemorial. It's just possible that your "90% of the world" (I haven't counted) has cottoned onto something that your 10% has lost touch with. > -For that I would ask if you've read some of my posts recently with David that involve my explorations into much of my ancestry's pagan heritage. Saying that I'm out of touch with mysticism; there's a connection there that cannot be ignored. A UI of the sort that David and you espouse... sounds much more out of touch with the more wild and human elements that moved man of old. The thoughts that come to mind when say, meditating on Odin, as well as the emotions that it evokes, is not something translatable, and indeed even as someone who purports to be "godless," I get a great deal of insight both meditating on this ancient mythos as well as others. The only difference between myself and someone who actually follows Asatru, is that I am both willing and ready to admit that both the emotions and images these old gods conjure, are completely within my own head; images that live and die only within me. (For the record, I'm not stating I worship Odin.) There's a human component to these old religions that creates a more vibrant and dare I say, sacred feeling, that is lost when the image of God becomes an "all-encompassing everything." I also get similar moving feelings when listening to medieval chants (specially those written by "Anonymous 4."), and certain books of biblical Apocrypha. I almost take offense to the suggestion that I'm not being open-minded. My study of religion is probably more extensive than my knowledge of computers and math. -Religion and the experiences they evoke are something that is properly emotional in nature. Logic didn't even play a role in it until Plato/Aristotle. (Not as a structured system of inquiry.) To me, religion is properly seen as a cultural mechanism that binds humans together. - > The "Roman arches which evolve naturally as well as artificially" are a hilarious misunderstanding. I would call them "natural arches", so I was trying to figure out how the Romans could have devised arches that grew of their own accord! However, I would say this is a somewhat disproportionate analogy. If the statistics behind the chance formation of your inanimate block are "staggering", the statistics behind the chance formation of your living, moving, seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, reproducing, remembering organic machine are so staggering that they totter off the statistical stage and collapse at the bottom of the pit of can't-stagger-any-further statistics.-You see I think on statistical arguments we come from such drastically different backgrounds that when I'm staring at the midday sun, you're looking at the full moon; we're on opposite sides of the world. -Saying that a direct line of contingencies necessitates astronomical odds in terms of the going from matter to us is "can't-stagger-any-further" is betraying lack of knowledge of an important detail or two. You've mentioned here that the odds of that arch appearing are better than that of us appearing. By what knowledge can you make that claim?

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

dhw — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:09:02 +0000

Me: What we have here is an unsolved mystery. We simply do not know what constitutes the "I" that directs the brain cells, is perhaps directed by them (spontaneous ideas, dreams), takes decisions etc.-George: I've already expressed my view that what "we" are is defined by our past history, but you don't seem to be impressed by this approach. What constitutes "me" is my whole history, nature and nurture. I don't see any great unsolved mystery here. The decisions I make are partly based on conscious reasoning, which proceeds by logical manipulation of language, but I recognise that a lot of them depend on subconscious events of which my conscious part is not always entirely aware except perhaps as vague "feelings". I see no reason to go into theories of disembodied minds or souls.-As before, we seem to be discussing this on different levels. Your account of the components of character and decision-making seems to me to be spot on. But what you can't tell me is the source of your conscious reasoning, and indeed of your consciousness and of your subconsciousness, and of your ability to manipulate language, and of the vague "feelings" you have. Materialism suggests that it's all a matter of electrical impulses discharged by the brain, but we don't know how these impulses can be translated into consciousness, reason, imagination, emotion, memory, etc., and we don't know how our history and nurture imprint themselves on the material cells which emit the impulses that give us our identity. Matt has called these "very advanced philosophical questions", and perhaps they are actually very advanced scientific questions, but we don't have the answers, and therein lies the mystery that you are unable to see.-In the context of this discussion, I have pointed out that religions of most cultures believe in some kind of "soul" ... i.e. a form of being that exists independently of the brain cells. -George: This sort of argument proves nothing. People in these cultures have also believed in demonic possession, magic, witchcraft, fairies and suchlike. Or are you arguing that there is some reality in these beliefs too?-The argument is not meant to prove anything, and I have said repeatedly that what interests me is not the differences between the religions, i.e. details like those you've listed above, but the common ground. Each one has some kind of immaterial existence at its centre, and it may be that in their varied ways they are based on a universal truth. I stress "may be". I'm not a believer. I simply recognize that there are questions ... such as the origin of life and the source of consciousness ... to which there are as yet no answers. I'm therefore prepared seriously to consider the answers that are on offer in terms of material v. non-material, while bearing in mind that neither belief can take root without a large helping of faith. I might add that the least satisfactory solution of all seems to me the denial that there is a problem ... though that is an approach shared by many theists and atheists alike.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

dhw — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:59:32 +0000

Matt: The common ground between many religions abstracts out to nothing more than very general concepts [...] The subjectivity provided by theology prevents you from moving beyond generic and abstract concepts and that is what makes them meaningless. [...] Think about political speech. The more general they are. The less they say. [...] Yes, 90% of the world believes in some kind of soul + ethereal presence. Yet none of them can come to any common agreement on what exactly they are or mean.-First of all, my apologies if I put words into your mouth. I used "invalidates", but "makes them meaningless" is not, I agree, quite the same thing.-You've used politics as an analogy, but again we're approaching the subject from completely different angles. You seem to be looking for precision where there can't be any, and I'm simply stating a possible explanation (no more than that) of mysteries. I certainly don't expect you to provide answers to these questions yourself! My analogy would be ten witnesses to an accident giving ten different accounts. The fact that their reports are different does not mean that the accident didn't happen, or that there is no objective truth beyond their subjective accounts. In other words, I'm suggesting that all these different religions and concepts may be seen as attempts to grasp the same ungraspable truth. Common agreement on the details is impossible, because if there really is a "soul" and an "ethereal presence" they are almost certainly beyond our philosophical and scientific reach. For a materialist, that makes them into fairy stories, but for a neutral like myself, they are no more and no less a fairy story than inanimate matter coming to life and giving itself evolutionary powers. My plea is not for belief in a soul or in an ethereal presence, but for open-mindedness towards concepts that have permeated human cultures since time immemorial. It's just possible that your "90% of the world" (I haven't counted) has cottoned onto something that your 10% has lost touch with.-The "Roman arches which evolve naturally as well as artificially" are a hilarious misunderstanding. I would call them "natural arches", so I was trying to figure out how the Romans could have devised arches that grew of their own accord! However, I would say this is a somewhat disproportionate analogy. If the statistics behind the chance formation of your inanimate block are "staggering", the statistics behind the chance formation of your living, moving, seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, reproducing, remembering organic machine are so staggering that they totter off the statistical stage and collapse at the bottom of the pit of can't-stagger-any-further statistics.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:36:52 +0000

dhw writes: "Belief in some kind of soul has permeated the religions of most cultures: the Ancient Egyptians distinguished between the Ba (more or less the personality) and the Ka (a sort of life force), most Amerindian and African tribes have or had their own concepts of soul and an afterlife, the Ancient Greeks, the Hindus, and the three main monotheistic religions all subscribed or subscribe to the view that man is NOT confined to his material self. You consider that the diversity of religions more or less invalidates them all, whereas I take the reverse view: it's the common ground that interests me."-This sort of argument proves nothing. People in these cultures have also believed in demonic possession, magic, witchcraft, fairies and suchlike. Or are you arguing that there is some reality in these beliefs too?- dwh further: "What we have here is an unsolved mystery. We simply do not know what constitutes the "I" that directs the brain cells, is perhaps directed by them (spontaneous ideas, dreams), takes decisions etc."-I've already expressed my view that what "we" are is defined by our past history, but you don't seem to be impressed by this approach. What constitutes "me" is my whole history, nature and nurture. I don't see any great unsolved mystery here. The decisions I make are psrtly based on conscious reasoning, which proceeds by logical manipulation of language, but I recognise that a lot of them depend on subconscious events of which my conscious part is not always entirely aware except perhaps as vague "feelings". I see no reason to go off into theories of disembodide minds or souls.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:45:20 +0000

> My point on the arch (look at my response to dhw) is that arches appear in nature without the need of a designer nor a keystone. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Statistically, they aren't very likely to form, but they do.-Good point. Actually, and I wish I could remember the name of the layer of stone out West, there is a type of rock that naturally decays into arches, as in Arches National Park. I think it is a type of sandstone. I remember seeing partial arches in the cliffs in two dimensions. Statistically they are very likely to form as the Park has about 2,000.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:46:14 +0000

Your attack was directed specifically and understandably at ID sites with an agenda, but I think it's important not to dismiss the arguments just because of the agenda. > Hear, Hear! Exactly the point I have been making. Good information is not poisoned by the messenger. > > > > Finally, you wrote: "Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially." I'm intrigued! Perhaps you could briefly explain the "natural" evolution of the Roman arch. > > Naturally, only after a bright Roman conceived of the keystone. All curvilinear structures are stronger than straight ones.-My point on the arch (look at my response to dhw) is that arches appear in nature without the need of a designer nor a keystone. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Statistically, they aren't very likely to form, but they do.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:52:13 +0000

http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Natural-Arches-Screenshot-103364.html ... > Have to be designed? This raises a good question. The statistics behind such an arch forming are staggering. Yet it too, happens by chance.-Arches national monument happned because the properties of the unlying granite stone has the properies to allow arches by erosion.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:46:27 +0000

. You consider that the diversity of religions more or less invalidates them all, whereas I take the reverse view: it's the common ground that interests me. > -You're... kind of putting words into my mouth. The common ground between many religions abstracts out to nothing more than very general concepts; soul; ethereal entity(ies), good, evil, chaos, and order. After these generic points, agreement is rapidly lost. The subjectivity provided by theology prevents you from moving beyond generic and abstract concepts and that is what makes them meaningless. You've said as much yourself that you discount the "hocus pocus" parts of religion... well after you take away the "hocus pocus" all you have left is abstract and generic concepts that you cannot move past nor really say anything about. Think about political speech. The more general they are, the less they say; the same with the concepts dealt with by theology. The more general you get, the less you can actually say. Yes, 90% of the world believes in some kind of soul + ethereal presence. Yet none of them can come to any common agreement on what exactly they are or mean. -> What we have here is an unsolved mystery. We simply do not know what constitutes the "I" that directs the brain cells, is perhaps directed by them (spontaneous ideas, dreams), takes decisions etc. For thousands of years the answer seemed simple: the soul. Now materialists say there is no such thing. We therefore ask: what is this "I"? And the answer is: "We don't know." The 'don't know' may be qualified by: "We expect to find out, and we expect the answer to be within the brain cells", but that is no more than an expression of belief. "There's no evidence of a soul" is another response, but one could argue that the mystery itself is evidence, since no-one will deny the existence of emotions, consciousness, will etc. Furthermore, materialists define evidence as something open to scientific analysis, which disqualifies the psychic experiences that millions of people claim to have had, and creates a kind of philosophical Catch 22. It may, of course, be true that for thousands of years billions of people were and are still out of touch with reality, but I for one lack the faith to say I know what that reality is or is not. > -I'm afraid I just don't really have anything to say here... if consciousness is an emergent phenomenon resulting from billions of neurons realizing that they are a coherent "self," that still wouldn't answer your question. -We're not born with a concept of "self." Who's to say that the entire idea of "self" isn't simply a learned behavior, something manufactured and necessitated by our use of language? I don't think its possible to answer that question. -> The link to design is the idea that, if we ourselves are not confined to our materials but contain some kind of spiritual essence, this would tie in with the concept of a UI that exists in a different dimension (though it may share certain characteristics with us ... I have to get that in!). It brings together the two mysteries of the origin of life and the source of consciousness, and offers another approach in addition to the complexity argument. > -To my eyes, it only converges two mysteries into one. We are still no closer to a solution...-> On this subject, you attack such statements as "Life is complex, therefore it must have been designed." I can't remember when, but you also attacked statements like "There is no God". Quite right in both cases. But "Life is complex, and therefore I don't believe in chance and therefore I do believe life must have been designed" seems to me every bit as rational (or irrational) as "I believe in chance and I don't believe there is a God". Your attack was directed specifically and understandably at ID sites with an agenda, but I think it's important not to dismiss the arguments just because of the agenda. > -It's not that I dismiss the arguments, but that I find them spending more time bickering with atheists or pushing ideologies into school districts; which casts doubt on even the most menial statements. If it makes you feel any better, I've also never read Dawkins (or even Dennett, though I am familiar with some of his arguments.) Tell you what, if you guys can prove to me that the DI isn't simply another PETA, I'll be a little more flexible. -> Finally, you wrote: "Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially." I'm intrigued! Perhaps you could briefly explain the "natural" evolution of the Roman arch.-On further reflection, Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" should apply to a Roman Arch. "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."-Theoretically, such a system couldn't evolve by chance. However... did-http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Natural-Arches-Screenshot-103364.html-Have to be designed? This raises a good question. The statistics behind such an arch forming are staggering. Yet it too, happens by chance.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:22:20 +0000

Your attack was directed specifically and understandably at ID sites with an agenda, but I think it's important not to dismiss the arguments just because of the agenda. Hear, Hear! Exactly the point I have been making. Good information is not poisoned by the messenger.- > Finally, you wrote: "Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially." I'm intrigued! Perhaps you could briefly explain the "natural" evolution of the Roman arch.-Naturally, only after a bright Roman conceived of the keystone. All curvilinear structures are stronger than straight ones.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

dhw — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:17:59 +0000

I have been asking what exactly constitutes the "I" that does my thinking and takes my decisions, and Matt considers these to be "very advanced philosophical questions". "I wish I could say that the state of these questions has advanced since the 1800s."-Again no disagreement between us, but I'd like to pursue the theme. Perhaps it belongs more to the Identity thread, but it's also linked to culture if not directly to ID. Belief in some kind of soul has permeated the religions of most cultures: the Ancient Egyptians distinguished between the Ba (more or less the personality) and the Ka (a sort of life force), most Amerindian and African tribes have or had their own concepts of soul and an afterlife, the Ancient Greeks, the Hindus, and the three main monotheistic religions all subscribed or subscribe to the view that man is NOT confined to his material self. You consider that the diversity of religions more or less invalidates them all, whereas I take the reverse view: it's the common ground that interests me.-What we have here is an unsolved mystery. We simply do not know what constitutes the "I" that directs the brain cells, is perhaps directed by them (spontaneous ideas, dreams), takes decisions etc. For thousands of years the answer seemed simple: the soul. Now materialists say there is no such thing. We therefore ask: what is this "I"? And the answer is: "We don't know." The 'don't know' may be qualified by: "We expect to find out, and we expect the answer to be within the brain cells", but that is no more than an expression of belief. "There's no evidence of a soul" is another response, but one could argue that the mystery itself is evidence, since no-one will deny the existence of emotions, consciousness, will etc. Furthermore, materialists define evidence as something open to scientific analysis, which disqualifies the psychic experiences that millions of people claim to have had, and creates a kind of philosophical Catch 22. It may, of course, be true that for thousands of years billions of people were and are still out of touch with reality, but I for one lack the faith to say I know what that reality is or is not.-The link to design is the idea that, if we ourselves are not confined to our materials but contain some kind of spiritual essence, this would tie in with the concept of a UI that exists in a different dimension (though it may share certain characteristics with us ... I have to get that in!). It brings together the two mysteries of the origin of life and the source of consciousness, and offers another approach in addition to the complexity argument. -On this subject, you attack such statements as "Life is complex, therefore it must have been designed." I can't remember when, but you also attacked statements like "There is no God". Quite right in both cases. But "Life is complex, and therefore I don't believe in chance and therefore I do believe life must have been designed" seems to me every bit as rational (or irrational) as "I believe in chance and I don't believe there is a God". Your attack was directed specifically and understandably at ID sites with an agenda, but I think it's important not to dismiss the arguments just because of the agenda.-Finally, you wrote: "Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially." I'm intrigued! Perhaps you could briefly explain the "natural" evolution of the Roman arch.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:21 +0000

Matt: "The really good question ... the hard question is "how to separate conclusions based on predisposition and which ones on evidence?" Here I must take a firm stance: It is not possible to accept an inferential conclusion without the predisposition that sits behind it." > > For me this simply boils down to saying that whenever we have a choice, our process of decision-making will be inseparable from our character, and I don't see that anyone can argue with that. As far as I'm concerned, the really good question ... the hard question ... is the extent to which our character or our predisposition is within our own control. It's the same theme as identity and free will. If what constitutes my identity is a mixture of heredity, environment and experience, what exactly is the "me" that weighs up the evidence and comes down on one side or the other ... or plonks itself in the middle? > > George, to take an example, says he has no "philosophical predisposition" towards atheism, but is an atheist because that is how he evaluates the evidence. Of course he's not going against his own character, and I'm sure he's comfortable with the decision. I suspect that he also thinks he is in control of the processes that have led to the decision. So what part of the self has directed his brain cells to come up with it? What, in short, is the essential "George" that conducts such intellectual operations? And can its predispositions not be changed by new experiences? Supposing he hitchhikes along the road to Damascus and has a vision, might he not take a new decision that runs contrary to his existing predisposition? How do we know what potential dispositions are inside us until experience brings them out? I must stress that none of this is an argument against your own. I'm simply trying to delve a little deeper in order to find out what constitutes the nature of the predisposition that underlies our decision-making, and I'm asking whether we do or do not have at least a degree of control over the decision-making process. > -You ask some very advanced philosophical questions here. How does one know "the thing in itself" without negating the subject or the object? How do I know that it is I who thinks, especially when the thoughts come unbidden and typically of their own free will, not my own? I wish I could say that the state of these questions has advanced since the 1800s. Is free will faith-based?- > On a different subject, I had put to you the speculative concept of a God that has made us in his image, in the sense that we reflect his own mental/emotional/intellectual makeup (though on a vastly reduced scale). You say that the fiery Teuton in you dislikes "the concept of a God you cannot fear...and I couldn't fear such a creature." You have obviously never lived under a dictatorship. Perhaps the fiery Teuton in you could imagine itself as a Jew in Nazi Germany, and then imagine a dictator God that has created humans in its own image. Don't tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you!-It is clear that I sent you down the wrong path here...-The more "human-like" you make your god, the less mystical and more concrete it becomes. If its like a human, it is something that I not only can understand, but something I can also destroy pieces of. If it is something I can understand, the less mysterious its nature. If it is something I can destroy the less fear I can have towards the thing. -Knowing what I know about man, if we are created in God's image and God truly does have the power to create and destroy life, than there is no way that this God couldn't be a dictator, his presence known and felt, shackles around our feet. Looking into a mirror is like looking past yourself and into the eyes of God in this sense. I could only fear this God if I feared myself, if I didn't know my own 'soul' and its deepest depths as well as its soaring highs. Obviously, we are not in shackles; God's presence if he exists isn't one of we being shackled and therefore isn't explicit. That means that at the worst, God does not care about us at all, but he also doesn't care about us too much... or we'd have shackles of the padded and pillowed variety.-There is nothing to fear in this God.

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

dhw — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:42:07 +0000

Matt: "The really good question ... the hard question is "how to separate conclusions based on predisposition and which ones on evidence?" Here I must take a firm stance: It is not possible to accept an inferential conclusion without the predisposition that sits behind it."-For me this simply boils down to saying that whenever we have a choice, our process of decision-making will be inseparable from our character, and I don't see that anyone can argue with that. As far as I'm concerned, the really good question ... the hard question ... is the extent to which our character or our predisposition is within our own control. It's the same theme as identity and free will. If what constitutes my identity is a mixture of heredity, environment and experience, what exactly is the "me" that weighs up the evidence and comes down on one side or the other ... or plonks itself in the middle? George, to take an example, says he has no "philosophical predisposition" towards atheism, but is an atheist because that is how he evaluates the evidence. Of course he's not going against his own character, and I'm sure he's comfortable with the decision. I suspect that he also thinks he is in control of the processes that have led to the decision. So what part of the self has directed his brain cells to come up with it? What, in short, is the essential "George" that conducts such intellectual operations? And can its predispositions not be changed by new experiences? Supposing he hitchhikes along the road to Damascus and has a vision, might he not take a new decision that runs contrary to his existing predisposition? How do we know what potential dispositions are inside us until experience brings them out? I must stress that none of this is an argument against your own. I'm simply trying to delve a little deeper in order to find out what constitutes the nature of the predisposition that underlies our decision-making, and I'm asking whether we do or do not have at least a degree of control over the decision-making process. -On a different subject, I had put to you the speculative concept of a God that has made us in his image, in the sense that we reflect his own mental/emotional/intellectual makeup (though on a vastly reduced scale). You say that the fiery Teuton in you dislikes "the concept of a God you cannot fear...and I couldn't fear such a creature." You have obviously never lived under a dictatorship. Perhaps the fiery Teuton in you could imagine itself as a Jew in Nazi Germany, and then imagine a dictator God that has created humans in its own image. Don't tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you!

ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:31:55 +0000

> > And David, even though it seems like I "hold my nose" about design, I don't. I hate the politicization of it. You should too. Politicizing *any* type of religious movement is always dangerous, and complicates matters more than they necessarily need to. I shouldn't have to question the political motives of my authors. > > In the previous entry I noted that I use some of the material they present with my own interpretation of it. If I understand their politics I can account for it in my own thought pattern. Remember, I think ID is a reasonable theory, without the politics. You are being too black and white.-Political organizations don't have to obey anything outside of their own specific agenda. The DI is an organization that has proclaimed that its goal is to promote design in an effort to infuse evangelical Christianity into every facet of public life--which as someone who's read the "Wedge Document," you are aware of. Anyone who openly affiliates with the organization implicitly supports this cause, and none have came forward to outrightly deny this facet of the "Institute's" purpose. Anything that spews forth should be viewed as propaganda first. If it wasn't a political entity, I would frankly have a much better appraisal of it. -I think that some arguments deal with ID claims pretty well. Irreducible Complexity = Argument from incredulity. It's not enough to point out life is complex. The complexity argument says "Life is complex, therefore it must have been designed." Roman arches are also complex structures; yet they evolve naturally as well as artificially. -Here's a quote from Dembski: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.04.Backlash.htm) Dembski wrote, "I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages." -Dembski flat out cares more about "getting the last word" than a scientific approach. The DI has not censured him. -David, if an organization is willing to lie to the public to achieve its goals, it shouldn't be trusted, and neither should anyone associated with it. This isn't a "black and white" issue it's purely one of moral common sense. Unless you claim either moral relativism or consequentialism, wrong is wrong. If a university engaged in the same type of behavior as the DI, it would lose accreditation. -The DI needs to grow up.