Hi, here's a thread for evolution vs. intelligent design discussion
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:08
From: Jsecure Hanks Why did the big bang happen. Why do we exist. Why is there a world at all. Why did humans come about. Why are we here. Answers please, science knows all... Why did the big bang happen? We don't know, yet. Why do we exist? Because we do not not exist, ergo, we exist. If you're looking for a purpose in life science can't help you there. Why did humans come about? Why did giraffes or tapeworms or dung beatles or sloths? We all fill ecological niches (with the exception of man who has evolved to the point of not being shoehorned into a single niche when we learned to domesticate animals and crops). As with your last question I think you're looking for existentialism which science does not seek nor claim to provide. Why are we here? Existentialism again. Science seeks to answer how we came to be. It does not attempt to attribute human motive to nature.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 09:10
From: Chip Midnight Why did the big bang happen? If you're looking for a purpose in life science can't help you there. Science seeks to answer how we came to be. It does not attempt to attribute human motive to nature. Like I said. Science will tell you HOW. It won't tell you WHY.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:12
From: Jsecure Hanks Like I said. Science will tell you HOW. It won't tell you WHY. It depends on your definition of "why." Science does explain why things happen in that it shows direct cause and effect. It does not explain "why" in the existential sense. Do you understand the difference?
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 09:15
From: Chip Midnight It depends on your definition of "why." Science does explain why things happen in that it shows direct cause and effect. It does not explain "why" in the existential sense. Do you understand the difference? I think everyone does. But that's my point. Science could, for instance, say water falls off the top of a waterfall because of gravity. But it couldn't say why water exists, or why I chose to use water and a waterfall as a demonstration. To cover this gap in science's ability people tend to fob us off with "Oh it was random". Yeah, maybe. But maybe there's a why behind it. In any case you won't be getting it from science. In my previous posts, I was attributing cause and effect to HOW, which it kind of is. How did the water get from the top of the waterfall to the bottom? Gravity pulled it.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:19
From: Jsecure Hanks I think everyone does. But that's my point. Science could, for instance, say water falls off the top of a waterfall because of gravity. But it couldn't say why water exists, or why I chose to use water and a waterfall as a demonstration. To cover this gap in science's ability people tend to fob us off with "Oh it was random". Yeah, maybe. But maybe there's a why behind it. In any case you won't be getting it from science. In my previous posts, I was attributing cause and effect to HOW, which it kind of is. How did the water get from the top of the waterfall to the bottom? Gravity pulled it. That would also be "why" the water went from the top of the waterfall to the bottom. If you feel that's not why then most likely you are attempting to attribute nature with human motives. There is no why in science beyond cause and effect. Nature has no other motives.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 09:21
From: Chip Midnight That would also be "why" the water went from the top of the waterfall to the bottom. If you feel that's not why then most likely you are attempting to attribute nature with human motives. There is no why in science beyond cause and effect. Nature has no other motives. So that satisfies you. "No reason". Why are we? "No reason". Okay, then you take that away with you. I still look for more than "No reason" when I ask "why".
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:26
From: Jsecure Hanks So that satisfies you. "No reason". Why are we? "No reason". Okay, then you take that away with you. I still look for more than "No reason" when I ask "why". I am comfortable with "I don't know." I think the major difference between people comfortable with scientific explanations of things and those who turn to mythology and mysticism for answers is that the mystic is very uncomfortable with "I don't know," so he makes up answers that can't be supported by evidence or rejects science because it doesn't yet fill in all the blanks. I don't need a "purpose" in life. It's enough that I am here, that I am curious, and that I have a human lifespan to explore.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-10-2005 09:30
From: Jsecure Hanks Answers please, science knows all... Actually I stated that your premise above was false because it's religion that has all the answers, not the field of science. As an aside, I've always found it humorous that religious mythology written thousands of years ago provides a complete and unchanging picture of the universe. Wouldn't it make sense, especially in the face of all the antiquated and superstitious resurrections, miracles, and lamb's blood, that it would change over time?  I see what you're saying about the question of "why" now. The old saying that the scientific method cannot answer the "why" comes from the false assumption that the universe and those things within it have a purpose; this purpose being given by a creator. This is an old-school straw-man argument rendered moot simply because the supposition that there is a creator that provides purpose itself is false. ~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 09:32
From: Chip Midnight I am comfortable with "I don't know." I think the major difference between people comfortable with scientific explanations of things and those who turn to mythology and mysticism for answers is that the mystic is very uncomfortable with "I don't know," so he makes up answers that can't be supported by evidence or rejects science because it doesn't yet fill in all the blanks. I don't need a "purpose" in life. It's enough that I am here, that I am curious, and that I have a human lifespan to explore. You should read my post. I said I think science is right on what it has proven. But I'm not sure WHY. Your post makes me out to be a wacko because I don't assume everything is due to some anonymous science, despite the answers not being there, and I should just shut up and wait for a scientist to come explain it all. Well Excuse me if I do want to leave all options on the table. And if I want to explore the possibility that there is a god, excuse me for that too. I don't reject science. I just leave all the options on the table. And for myself, I have a leaning towards believing in a God. But I don't think that means I'm a wacko. And science still can't explain WHY.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:34
From: Jsecure Hanks Well Excuse me if I do want to leave all options on the table. And if I want to explore the possibility that there is a god, excuse me for that too. I don't reject science. I just leave all the options on the table. And for myself, I have a leaning towards believing in a God. But I don't think that means I'm a wacko. And science still can't explain WHY. You are correct. Science cannot explain why people so desperately want to believe in things for which there is no evidence... my personal theory? Fear of death.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 09:39
From: Chip Midnight You are correct. Science cannot explain why people so desperately want to believe in things for which there is no evidence... my personal theory? Fear of death. What if there is a God, and he created the universe via the big bang in a scientific way. I bet he'd be pissed you made people who believed in him feel stupid, instead of having respect for the thoughts, theories and beliefs of a fellow colleague and human being.
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 09:42
And as an additional, science cannot prove God does not exist, and it cannot fully explain the HOW and WHY of the creation of the universe, so I think it is silly to shut off access to the creationist theories that exist, for those who seek them.
Science is a religeon too. How many times has Stephen Hawking or Einstein's theories been rewritten, or scrapped altogether? What you put your faith in today, you may be forced to abandon tomorrow. But I'm not going to give you a hard time about it. Neither do I believe solely in creation theory or scientific theory.
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
10-10-2005 09:43
I wonder why no one is angry about teaching Chemistry or Quantum Physics in science classes. Both of these sciences cause more questions then they do answers. Both of them have parts that can never be experimented on by the children. Both of these sciences make statements about things that simply cannot be observed. Yet, both of these studies are science for one very simple reason.
They both arrive at their conclusions because of what can be observed. Neither of them are considered perfect. These two sciences have changed by leaps and bounds over the last 20-60 years. There is no orthodoxy. You have no idea what the scientific models will be in the next decade. Are they suddenly evil because they aren't perfect? If you think evolution has no place in a science class, you might as well get rid of half of the stuff taught in science class. If you think the theory that God is real and created the world should be taught in science class, you better have some very good observable evidence to back that theory up for it to be considered as a science. I might buy the argument that there is evidence that something intelligent can design life in the universe. I have never heard of non-emotional evidence that the Christian God exists, and I have heard of way too much evidence that life is not designed intelligently. There are too many "mistakes" in life we can look at that only make sense if they occured from the lack of an intelligent intervention. That is why I can't view ID as a science, ecspecially when they bring religion into the mix.
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-10-2005 09:47
From: Chip Midnight ... my personal theory? Fear of death. I actually think it goes well beyond fear of death, Chip. Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that humans have evolved the ability to spontaneously form shared belief systems (just like language), as it provides a comparative advantage over humans which do not. What's interesting is that according to evolutionary psychologists, the scientific method and the catalog of theories which are encompassed by science, are thus a shared belief system which serves the exact same purpose as religious dogma. To me, what causes one group to adopt a shared belief system that is logical, testable, and repeatable versus another group which adopts a belief system that is untestable mythology is the real question. I assume it's due to one's exposure to various belief systems at youth by one's parents, as well as natural analytical abilities. ~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:48
From: Jsecure Hanks What if there is a God, and he created the universe via the big bang in a scientific way. I bet he'd be pissed you made people who believed in him feel stupid, instead of having respect for the thoughts, theories and beliefs of a fellow colleague and human being. As soon as believers present direct evidence of the existance of a god or gods I will take them seriously. Until then I will think of them as people who let the desire for something to be true outweigh rational standards for evaluating the veracity of supernatural claims. If you believed in everything that had as little supporting evidence as the existence of a god then you would believe absolutely everything. I could make up something right now and you'd have to believe it, or at least pretend to take it seriously. I do not believe that it is disrespectful or rude to dispense with the politically correct notion that all ideas are equal. They are not. Further, I believe that what compells people to believe there must be a satisfactory answer to the question "why are we here and what is our purpose?" is the exact same arrogance that made people believe the Earth was the center of the universe.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 09:59
From: Ulrika Zugzwang I actually think it goes well beyond fear of death, Chip. Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that humans have evolved the ability to spontaneously form shared belief systems (just like language), as it provides a comparative advantage over humans which do not. What's interesting is that according to evolutionary psychologists, the scientific method and the catalog of theories which are encompassed by science, are thus a shared belief system which serves the exact same purpose as religious dogma. I agree with all of that if you consider the "purpose" to be developing a framework within which to understand and communicate about the world around us. From: someone To me, what causes one group to adopt a shared belief system that is logical, testable, and repeatable versus another group which adopts a belief system that is untestable mythology is the real question. I assume it's due to one's exposure to various belief systems at youth by one's parents, as well as natural analytical abilities. I also think it goes beyond fear of death, but not much. If god myths didn't also have a carrot and stick, how many believers would there be? If there was no ultimate reward to seek or dire consequence to avoid religion would no longer exist. Religion is ultimately all about self interest.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Cartridge Partridge
Noodly appendage
Join date: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 999
|
10-10-2005 10:03
From: Chip Midnight Further, I believe that what compells people to believe there must be a satisfactory answer to the question "why are we here and what is our purpose?" is the exact same arrogance that made people believe the Earth was the center of the universe. Precisely. But the implications of that are scary. Darwin's theory strongly suggest this lack of meaning, even if it doesn't prove it. This is why so many people still find painful even seriously considering it, after so many years and being the theory scientifically stronger than many other well accepted scientific theories about other subjects.
_____________________
aku cinta kamu sepenuh hati, rinaz sayangku.My short term memory died about 10 years ago. It's the last thing i remember. Did i tell you already?
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 10:06
From: Cartridge Partridge Precisely. But the implications of that are scary. Darwin's theory strongly suggest this lack of meaning, even if it doesn't prove it. This is why so many people still find painful even seriously considering it, after so many years and being the theory scientifically stronger than many other well accepted scientific theories about other subjects. Agree completely, though I will never understand why the implications are scary. To me the idea of a capricious, judgemental, sadistic, megalomaniac god is far more frightening. 
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Cartridge Partridge
Noodly appendage
Join date: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 999
|
10-10-2005 10:10
From: Chip Midnight Agree completely, though I will never understand why the implications are scary. To me the idea of a capricious, judgemental, sadistic, megalomaniac god is far more frightening.  Well, there's always a hope to please him and be saved... Disclaimer: I am not sustaining this is how religion works. I only say that some people might find this a good reason for being a believer. Obviously, they are wrong, from a religious point of view too.
_____________________
aku cinta kamu sepenuh hati, rinaz sayangku.My short term memory died about 10 years ago. It's the last thing i remember. Did i tell you already?
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-10-2005 10:11
From: Chip Midnight I also think it goes beyond fear of death, but not much. If god myths didn't also have a carrot and stick, how many believers would there be? If there was no ultimate reward to seek or dire consequence to avoid religion would no longer exist. Religion is ultimately all about self interest. Evolutionary psychologists would not agree with this. The innate ability (and need) to adopt a shared belief system will lead to the spontaneous creation of religion in all isolated groups of humans. This includes the nuances of religions you mention, such as self-reinforcing concepts (fear of Hell, inquisition, promise of paradise). It's interesting to note that for every language (another innate ability), there exists a unique religion. It's only in recent times that language and religions have begun the process of homogenization. Finally, what's interesting is that this theory goes beyond individual self interest. If humans have an evolved innate ability (and need) to adopt shared belief systems, one would have to show that the advantage was conveyed directly to the gene's ability to propagate. I have another question for you. In all my years of trying to undo religious dogma, I only have been able to convert a single individual and then only temporarily. Have you had any more success? ~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 10:34
From: Ulrika Zugzwang I have another question for you. In all my years of trying to undo religious dogma, I only have been able to convert a single individual and then only temporarily. Have you had any more success? Depends on your definition of success  I have one very good friend who was a believer when I met him and now can argue against religion as well as I can. He was a rarity though since he was actually open to having his ideas challenged and is a very rational thinker. His belief was the product of upbringing and political correctness and when he found that he couldn't logically support it he changed his tune (the point at which a more serious believer would stick his fingers in his ears and start shouting scripture). It was the result of dozens of hours of good natured debate over friday night bottles of wine. Also, many of the other atheists I know are former believers though I had no direct hand in their transformation. For most people religion is an addiction.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
|
10-10-2005 10:45
Coming back to this thread, I have to ask: What is the difference between social and political ideology, and religious dawgma? The difference between ideology and woofma, and science - is method. Pure and simple and not worth the time and resources spent debating beside and around the topic. (Yes, there is a difference between ideology and bowwowma, but it's not so obvious and concrete and indisputable as it is with science.)
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 10:48
From: Seth Kanahoe Coming back to this thread, I have to ask: What is the difference between social and political ideology, and religious dawgma? One involves an imaginary man in the sky. The other two do not From: someone The difference between ideology and woofma, and science - is method. Pure and simple and not worth the time and resources spent debating beside and around the topic. (Yes, there is a difference between ideology and bowwowma, but it's not so obvious and concrete and indisputable as it is with science.) An excellent point... the obviousness of which is unfortunately lost on most.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
|
10-10-2005 10:53
The problem here is that supporters of ID wish it to be taught as science. It's not science. Sorry.
If one wishes to teach ID as theology or philosophy, I don't particularly have a problem with that.
Questions of "why are we here" is not a scientific question --it's philosophic. Frankly I still think ID has a long way to go before it could even be considered proper philosophy, it's really just a question at this point. Frankly, I'd rather teach children how to question things than what they should question. If we are to get at the heart of "faith" we must consider that the "original sin" in judeo-christian religion is the excercise of free will by human beings. It would seem to me that the strongest message given in the bible then, is that it's wrong to think for one's self. It's wrong to question dogma, It's wrong not to obey the Godhead.
No thanks. Faith to me is simply trying to vomit up the apple.
|
Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
10-10-2005 10:54
From: someone I have another question for you. In all my years of trying to undo religious dogma, I only have been able to convert a single individual and then only temporarily. Have you had any more success? I've managed to convert quite a few people. I owe my success rate to my ability to give incredible blow jobs. (seriously) I have converted: - Jehovah's Witness (the hardest of all. I was so proud of myself) - Mormons, numerous (those young guys didn't stand a chance, and they come right to your house!) - Baptists (kinky bastards, easy to turn to the dark side) - Methodists - Lutherans (tougher than you'd think) And many many more!
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
|