I had had hopes that that post might be something related to “intelligence.” How quickly I learned that the contrary was to be true.
[quote=“fred smith”]
Now, while I am more than happy to accept those for the physical sciences and would relish even more being made known about our universe, the fact is (irony) that science cannot prove the beginning of the universe and it certainly cannot tell us what existed before that and what will come after.[/quote]
How do you know that science "cannot prove the beginning of the universe… "? So far, it hasn’t, and you may be right that it never will- but I certainly don’t think it’s been proven that it definitely cannot. As for what will come after, that assumes two things- the Universe will end; and something will somehow be “after” that.
In any case, neither has anything to do with evolution vs. ID
I don’t think it’s ignorant at all- and it certainly doesn’t clash with science as such- most scientists are probably believers of one type or another- physicists in particular, IIRC.
My reply to this argument is that it doesn’t matter what I would rather believe- the question is, what is actually the case. Whether I believe in a personal Creator, the Tao, or an purposeless flux of energy and matter, doesn’t alter the reality- whichever it may be.
No one has been able to prove that there is a God, either, and I think that if you are claiming that a particular something exists, the onus of proof is on you.
The rest of your argument I’m not sure I follow- are you saying the choices are-
(1)belief in a Higher Power/Purpose
(2) Sartrean existentialism , saying that we are condemned to be free and each individual must create his/her own purpose
(3) Nihilistic despair
Of the above, I’ll pick door number two- but I don’t see our choices being that limited
[quote=“fred smith”]I had had hopes that that post might be something related to “intelligence.” How quickly I learned that the contrary was to be true.[/quote]Oh come on, you saw who posted it - not my fault you got let down, you should know better by now.
[quote=“fred smith”]
Science is empirically based. Yet, science also (at least from a philosophical point of view) makes basic premises that are syllogistic. We must refer back to basic concepts that are not proved but are the underpinning for the subsequent empirical “findings” of science. Now, while I am more than happy to accept those for the physical sciences and would relish even more being made known about our universe, the fact is (irony) that science cannot prove the beginning of the universe and it certainly cannot tell us what existed before that and what will come after. So, why is it so “ignorant” to assume that there must be an underlying form to the universe (not some old man with a white beard) that we might term “God?” [/quote]
this is just creationist dichotomising. and, with all due respect, very sloppy reasoning. it’s as acurate as saying “science has so far been unable to conclusively prove the beginning of the universe ergo god did it”.
it is ignorant to believe in something that there is no evidence for. Scientists find evidence for things. Seattle’s Discovery Institute does not.
'm not sure if i’ve fully understood you here. So will need to ask, are you saying that without a belief in god we will fall into “poisonous nihilism”?
if so, i’d like to point out that I don’t believe in a god. i’m a biologist. and yet i still find everyday meaning in my life, i have close friends and family, i have what i think is a fairly good sense of what i’d term right and wrong (as opposed to what a book has told me is “good” and “evil”) and i certainly don’t feel alone in this world.
[quote]
How strange that MT has not bothered to apologize yet for mischaracterizing my argument. No doubt he will be here any minute to apologize… no? hmmm such a surprise? [/quote]
to be honest, i don’t think MT need apologise. your comments are very hard to read. i do get the impression that you deliberately obfuscate your writing in order to make it sometimes hard to not misrepresent your point of view. if you wrote a bit clearer you’d find it much easier to debate with people. and you wouldn’t have to keep asking for an apology.
MikeN:
That is not my point. My point is that we are asked at least from a philosophical point of view to accept certain things about science which are premises for subsequent scientific discoveries but these premises themselves are never proven scientifically. So while you could “prove” the creation of the world and I doubt that science can but let’s say it can, from at least a philosophical point of view, the premises behind those “discoveries” would be clouded by the fact that these premises themselves have never been “proved” scientifically.
Tetsuo: MT demanded an apology from me for words that he claimed I made. I did NOT in fact make the statements that he claimed and I proved that I did not so I then suggested that he might be the one to make the apology since he was in fact the first person to be demanding one himself. Clear now?
Tnai:
I am sorry if these words are not clear to you. I was arguing under the assumption that someone on this thread might have a basic understanding of the history of philosophical discussion on this subject. Also, you seem to be somewhat confused as to what the apology in question was about, but then again, if you had read the entire thread, you might find yourself in a bit better position to understand the arguments being made here? Just a suggestion.
Again, for those who do not seem to be able to read very clearly. No where am I saying I am against “science.” What I am arguing is that science does not have all the answers and in fact, the huge irony of this subject is that much of the premises underlying scientific thought at least from a philosophical point of view have to be accepted “on faith.” Clearly, no one here to date has read much philosophy so this is falling into predictable politicized positions. Pity. This is not a question of science not having yet made certain discoveries. It is the fact that science itself is not always scientifically based.
Also, nowhere did I say that a belief in God was absolutely necessary not to fall into nihilism though I acknowledge that my statements could lead to that perception BUT if we in fact look at the results of the existentialist based approach to life, which I would argue is very much in view in the West these days, what else can we conclude but that for the vast majority, they unlike a brilliant thinker like Sartre do not have the intellectual heft to actually be able to pull it off. So congratulations to anyone who has entered the existentialist sphere and kept their morals and ethics intact and more important their sense of purpose. In fact, Sartre, and this seems to get lost, was calling for a life of action, but for most of this generation, the intellectual laziness of actually understanding his views was lost in the apparent hedonism without responsibility that such a philosophy seemed to give rein to. But, again, examining the number of posts that seem to skate quite happily over the facts, I am forced to conclude that like politics, philosophy in the modern day and age is yet another subject whereby the individual “feels” that he or she is “entitled” to whatever views they want on the subject free of a rigorous intellectual challenge or requisite handling and understanding of the facts. Eh bien…
So onward and downward…
Science has provided theories about the beginning of the universe (big bang) and what existed before it (nothing) and what will come after (implosion, if I remember right). These theories, although they cannot be proven true, are falsifiable. They rely on various observable phenomenon to be true. So far, the data is consistent with the theory. Creationism merely posits a theory for the beginning of the universe, with no way to falsify it.
Has anybody got pics of the saddled dinosaurs or did somebody make it up?
What then of unsubstantiated reports? The only evidence for accepting them is the strength of our belief in the honesty and accuracy of the reporter’s information: thin evidence indeed. Which is why it’s properly called “faith” not “fact,” and in the case of religion, more properly faith in the “truth” of the message than the fact of the particular details.
[color=green]On a mod note[/color], wouldn’t it be great if, rather than demanding apologies (if someone’s sorry, they’ll apologise. If not, what’s the value in the mere words?), we could all read a little more closely, think a little longer, and type a little more slowly? The friendly reminder says “treat people with respect.” Try it out. It pleases your mods and extends their time of service. Thanks.
Okay, I found it while having a bored moment. The museum is answersingenesis.
I wouldn’t agree that belief in honesty and accuracy is the only evidence but then “thin evidence” is still evidence.
without getting into semantics i’d first point out that “faith” and “fact” are not the opposite of each other, faith can also mean “belief with lack of material evidence” and that isn’t the same as “belief with lack of evidence”.
my faith in such unsubstantiated reports would always be based on evidence from past experience and if i feel the truth of such a claim could be substantiated or demonstrated if necessary. i’d have faith in witness reports of the noise from the crowd at the local football stadium but would be less likely to believe someone who said they’d seen a dolphin shopping for an iPod.
again this is based on past experience which is where i’d find my justification. to accept something without logical proof is the more commonly used absolute definitition of “faith” - which, imho, is innacurate.
to an extent, i’d agree with your point about “truth” of the message rather than the fact of the particular details.
but again, i would argue that this would be demonstrated by individual judgment (which is formed through experience - therefore the individual has evidence) rather than accepting it just because it was written in a book or commanded to be a truth by a figure of authority (a priest, or whatever) which in this case is where i’d say an individual was demonstrating ignorance in their belief because of lack of evidence.
phew, sorry for the long post… and for the overuse of the word “evidence”
fred smith, thank you for your clarification. I will respond when i have a spare moment.
I can help there.
Interesting thing is if you take [color=blue]nowhere[/color] and move it a bit you have [color=blue]now here.[/color]
It does work in with the discussion after a fashion.
[quote=“tnai”]to an extent, I’d agree with your point about “truth” of the message rather than the fact of the particular details.
but again, I would argue that this would be demonstrated by individual judgment (which is formed through experience - therefore the individual has evidence) rather than accepting it just because it was written in a book or commanded to be a truth by a figure of authority (a priest, or whatever) which in this case is where I’d say an individual was demonstrating ignorance in their belief because of lack of evidence.[/quote]
Nice post. Hobbes (the dead guy, not ours) called it prudence. Either way, from you or him, I agree. Except that you can’t have experience of many things, and even in the case of events to which you are an eye witness, there will be much that is unknown. In which case, they (authority figures/ reporters) can offer what evidence is available to them, and argument, after which you either fall back on faith in the man (accepted to whatever degree judged appropriate) or take the skeptic’s view (asserting that questionable reportage leaves you no less ignorant).
I suspect that you take a more skeptical line than I, which is fair enough.
Cheers.
[quote]
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said:
Yea, I was happy to read that this morning.
[quote]. . . In the nation’s first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum . . .
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.
“To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect,” Judge Jones wrote. “However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.”
Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled." The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school . . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/2005/12/21/educa … iABgQLVnuw
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
It’s a good call.
FRED said: “the fact is (irony) that science cannot prove the beginning of the universe and it certainly cannot tell us what existed before that and what will come after. So, why is it so “ignorant” to assume that there must be an underlying form to the universe (not some old man with a white beard) that we might term “God?””
Assume what you will.
Obviously nobody knows in any scientific sense what is beyond what we are able to scientifically understand as of now. There’s not reason therefore to pretend to the contrary by suggesting, like indeed ID people do, that some kind of intelligent entity created the universe and humankind.
It would be more productive I guess to look carefully at what science textbooks say, or how they say it, about evolution to make sure they don’t move too much beyond science.
Years ago an arts teacher used to give students one piece of evidence of “sensible” design. When commenting on their drawings of a naked man he would sometime say to a student, “Can’t you see the arm is definitely too short here. It’s not even long enough for the poor guy to wipe himself…”
You should think about that each time you need that part of the design.
Assuming yours is indeed long enough.
To Fred, nihilism should be in itself the best example of poor design and therefore some indication that ID is stupid.
Nil ergo sum.
Quote No. 2 : “My point is that we are asked at least from a philosophical point of view to accept certain things about science which are premises for subsequent scientific discoveries but these premises themselves are never proven scientifically. So while you could “prove” the creation of the world and I doubt that science can but let’s say it can, from at least a philosophical point of view, the premises behind those “discoveries” would be clouded by the fact that these premises themselves have never been “proved” scientifically.”
Quite. Which means people like you will always have the possibility of believing in something beyond what is scientifically known. Hence the “metaphysical world”. Science is OK with that, simply don’t go on pretending to know something you don’t as these ID people do (that’s baaaad).
As to what you believe or assume, my guess is nobody cares.
Quote No. 3 : “the huge irony of this subject is that much of the premises underlying scientific thought at least from a philosophical point of view have to be accepted "on faith”
No they don’t. Anybody can go into science and prove that current hypotheses are wrong. Einstein proved that Newton was one hundred percent wrong.
Good luck.
EB
A long time ago, on August 4, NEONNOODEL said (… my emphasis): “Theory” here means the principles and facts that explain some phenomena and that’s how it is being applied to the Theory of Evolution.
Strangely enough, on the same day, TETSUO said: In science a theory is much more than simply a guess or hypothesis. It is an established paradigm that explains all or most of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested.
I agree with the general idea but I disagree with the word “explain” and I believe that most people, especially science-educated ones, would be better off if they took the time to try and understand that a theory never explains anything.
Rather, a scientific theory should be regarded as a mere interpretation of the facts, i.e. a suggestion of an explanation. It is also certainly the best interpretation of the facts as they are known at the time. But notice how the interpretation offered in his time by Sir Isaac Newton to explain the movement of the Moon, while it was the best at the time, was later proved all wrong by Einstein who offered a completely different interpretation.
Don’t get stuck with Newton, then, move on.
Einstein, too, is just an interpretation. It does not explain anything. All it does and that’s quite something is it agrees with the facts as they are known now (and then maybe not quite given the apparent contradiction between quanta theory and general relativity).
All this does not detract anything to the practical value of a good theory. Newton also helped us to move on, and after three centuries can still today help us with space navigation. BUT, Newton was wrong on the principles. If a theory purport to explain anything at all, it ought to get the principles right in the first place.
There’s no way we can be sure that any theory can do that, which is why they are called theories and not truths.
It’s OK for an engineer to say he can explain why a device works or doesn’t work properly, because it’s understood to mean practical explanation, not anything fundamental. Things get more ambiguous with science because while it provides a basis for the engineer to make things that work properly, most of the time it also gives the impression that we understand the fundamental nature of things, and that’s of course not the case at all.
When we have a good scientific theory, the best we can do is to understand that theory correctly, and nowadays it’s become quite a challenge in itself. But if we do that, it still won’t mean we understand anything fundamental about reality.
The best we can say then about science and fundamental things is by a kind of negative. Science helps us dispel myths.
But then don’t turn the little science we have into yet another myth.
EB
You’d almost think Fred Smith knew to jump ship before he could be included in the [color=blue]“breathtaking inanity”[/color] of it all.
I still have a supsicion FS was arguing just for the hell of it.
[quote]Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of [color=blue]“breathtaking inanity”[/color] and “dragged” their community into “this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”
[/quote]
neither explanation answers anything at all about where this all came from. science has a big bang, id has a god. however it is clear that big bangs do not come out of nowhere, and creators do not come out of nowhere.
that we simply are is not comforting but is probably the best explanation anyone will ever have.
there the simlarities end, you have a scientific theory of evolution which attempts to explain, based on evidence, how life on earth got to its current state, and thus deserves to be taught in a science class–imo as long as it does not make out a big bang to be the new creator–and a pseudo-scientific attempt to use evolution’s obvious and inevitable inability to explain our ultimate origin as implied proof of their pet belief.