FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Evolution/Intelligent Design (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Evolution/Intelligent Design
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres,
Yes, and it's entirely possible that the next 1000 times I flip a balanced coin, it'll come up heads. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

On purely theoretical grounds, existentialism trumps epistemology. however, that gets thrown out the door as soon as you input empiricism. The fact is that coin will turn up heads around 500 times as has almost every coin that it's ever been tried on, fitted to a normal distribution.

The painstakingly worked out rules of scientific epistemology yield up definable confidence, if you assume that we exist in one of the subsets of universes where events occur according to deterministic rules. As this assumption has been and is constantly being supported by empirical experience and as it is necessary for us, constituted as we are, to deal with the world, the problems of existentialism can be safetly treated as little more than a philosophical abstraction. If we're wrong about that, which seems highly unlikely in the weight of what actually occurs, there's not a whole heck-a-ra-doo we could do about it anyway

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
rivka:
quote:
Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily.
I'll grant you that. However, in my experience the type of scientist I'm aware of who believes in a post-Eden static world I have dismissed with the caveat "real scientist" primarily because all that I have read from such self-proclaimed scientists has been garbage from a scientific standpoint. I'll grant that you have most likely been exposed to far more scientists and scientific literature than I have, but I do try to keep abreast of the field as much as a layman of varied interests can. If I can I will look into the authors you mentioned (do they fall into the category in question? If not, can you point me to some who do that you respect?) and will temper my dismissal until I do. [Smile]

quote:
Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
I'm not sure I can concede this. Surely the one belief implies a God with some pretty important differences from the God indicated by the second belief. It surprises me that someone with the logical mind and (heretofore-evidenced) well-examined faith that you seem to me to have would dismiss this so glibly.

quote:
I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
This attitude baffles me coming from a scientist. Actually, it baffles me coming from a person of faith as well. I've been under the impression from other things you've written that you're a science teacher. As a teacher of science, how can you not care whether the subject you teach can actually show us anything real? If the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old, how can we trust science to be able to indicate anything with any degree of validity when almost everything we know from science indicates an Earth orders of magnitude older.

As a person of faith, how can you not care whether the earth is only 5 minutes old or not? I'll assume this is hyperbole on your part, but my puzzlement holds for any value less than 4000 years old. Can you conceive of and respect a God who would basically create a grand deception and hold people accountable for being deceived? Or do you think that he will not hold people accountable regardless of what they believe or perceive? If the Earth is only 5 minutes old, well we shouldn't really care about the Holocaust or the genocides in Africa because they really didn't happen, did they? They are all part of this grand illusion thrust upon us by a capricious and unknowable God. Please tell me you don't really believe this or even entertain the possibility outside the philosophical sandbox.

*****

Tres:

You've been using a lot of words I recognize as English, but I can't parse the meaning of much of what you have posted.

quote:
This is not true because science can't logically prove what is "likely" to be right. This is because we have no idea what the likelihood is that things will change tommorrow. Yes, the sun has risen every day of my life. That doesn't mean the probability that it will rise tommorrow morning is 100%. It doesn't mean it is 99%. It doesn't even mean it is over 50%. This is because, whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason. Unlike a game with fixed parameters and rulests, like rolling a die, the future of the universe is open ended. We can assume the rules, and we do, but we don't know what the rules are for sure. Because of this, we can't calculate what is LIKELY to be true any better than we can calculate what WILL be true.
How is the future of the universe open-ended yet the future of the rules of dice games is not? Do not the rules of probability for dice depend on the same factors that determine whether tomorrow's Universe will be just like today's? You write, "whatever the probability was today, it could change completely tommorrow for any or no reason." How, then, can you use the word "probability" for things referring to today? There could have been no calculated probability for today either, if there can't be one for tomorrow. And if we can't calculate a probability for the sun's rising tomorrow, how can we calculate a probability for the throw of a dice. As has been stated before, you seem to be defining terms in this discussion at your own convenience, apparently now even within the same sentence.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
Firstly, I actually know quite a number of scientists of the type you dismiss so readily.
I'll grant you that. However, in my experience the type of scientist I'm aware of who believes in a post-Eden static world I have dismissed with the caveat "real scientist" primarily because all that I have read from such self-proclaimed scientists has been garbage from a scientific standpoint. I'll grant that you have most likely been exposed to far more scientists and scientific literature than I have, but I do try to keep abreast of the field as much as a layman of varied interests can. If I can I will look into the authors you mentioned (do they fall into the category in question? If not, can you point me to some who do that you respect?) and will temper my dismissal until I do. [Smile]
You misunderstand me. I mean, know personally. I actually agree with your assessment of much of the science produced by such viewpoints. (And none of the authors I cited hold such views. They all are of the God-guided evolution school, more or less.) I merely disagreed with your claim that they don't exist. They do, and they are "real scientists."

quote:
quote:
Secondly, you may see the two views as incompatible with the same concept of God (and I know some in that camp who would surely agree with you!), but I do not. IMO, regardless of His methodology, He had -- and has -- a plan. The method simply doesn't matter much. *shrug*
I'm not sure I can concede this. Surely the one belief implies a God with some pretty important differences from the God indicated by the second belief. It surprises me that someone with the logical mind and (heretofore-evidenced) well-examined faith that you seem to me to have would dismiss this so glibly.
I know I sound glib. But I really do believe that the method doesn't actually matter. He could have done it any of the ways -- created the universe a moment ago (actually, I believe He did that as well, more on that later); created it full-fledged less than 6000 years ago; created it utilizing evolution and natural laws. Therefore I choose to believe that it is most likely that he did the latter, but I'm not invested in that belief. If it's one of the first two, that's fine.
quote:
quote:
I should clarify that if the world really is less than 6000 years old, that's fine with me too, and I consider it perfectly possible. It may be 5 minutes old too -- how would we know? And therefore, I don't think the actual age matters much.
This attitude baffles me coming from a scientist. Actually, it baffles me coming from a person of faith as well. I've been under the impression from other things you've written that you're a science teacher. As a teacher of science, how can you not care whether the subject you teach can actually show us anything real? If the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old, how can we trust science to be able to indicate anything with any degree of validity when almost everything we know from science indicates an Earth orders of magnitude older.

As a person of faith, how can you not care whether the earth is only 5 minutes old or not? I'll assume this is hyperbole on your part, but my puzzlement holds for any value less than 4000 years old. Can you conceive of and respect a God who would basically create a grand deception and hold people accountable for being deceived? Or do you think that he will not hold people accountable regardless of what they believe or perceive? If the Earth is only 5 minutes old, well we shouldn't really care about the Holocaust or the genocides in Africa because they really didn't happen, did they? They are all part of this grand illusion thrust upon us by a capricious and unknowable God. Please tell me you don't really believe this or even entertain the possibility outside the philosophical sandbox.

*laugh* I have encountered this bafflement before. I apologize for finding it amusing. Let me try to explain, although I suspect (from past experience) that I won't be terribly successful.

As I said, I consider it most likely that the evidence our senses and science presents (a world far older than 6000 years) is true -- at least as long as it doesn't contradict the Torah. Since there are many views that are compatible with this notion, all well and good.

But one of the interesting things about traditional Judaism is the importance of examining even deeply held notions from every side. Sometimes even admitting that we do not know which of two mutually-conflicting bits of Truth are literally true (and cannot know until Moshiach (the Messiah) comes). So, I am fairly comfortable with holding two mutually-exclusive facts to both be true. (Presumably only one literally, but no way to know which. Thus accepting both meanwhile.) Certainly doesn't apply to apply to very basic beliefs (I do not for instance both believe God is and is not); but when it comes to things like the age of the universe and the literal method of creation, sure.

Because I don't actually consider those very important. He could have done it any way He wanted to. If the Genesis story is merely allegorical (and I tend to believe there is more to it than that, but I'm not sure exactly how much is literal and how much is not), the lessons are still all there. And still all presented to us for good cause.

We say in the daily prayers that God (re-)creates the entire world every day, every moment. The entire universe is within (whatever that means in a non-physical plane) and of Him, and He re-creates every person, every blade of grass, every molecule and atom, each moment. And then recreates everything again.

As far that negating our responsibilities to the world we see, nonsense! Our job is not to decode the mysteries of creation (nothing wrong with doing so, but it's not our primary task). It is to deal with the universe we see and know, to play the hands we have been dealt (both collectively and individually) as best we can, following the guidelines He has given us. No matter how the world sprang into existence, it IS all temporary and illusory. The World to Come is the World of Truth.

But we were placed in this world, and our task is to make this world (and ourselves) the best we can. If indeed He placed us into a chess problem already half-solved (and I reiterate that I consider this possible but unlikely) it is not because He is capricious but because in His infinite wisdom and kindness that is what He determined to be best for us. And we still have to play out the remainder of the game.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
rivka:
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. Your ideas are very foreign to me, but not having studied Judaism, or even known many practicing Jewish people, that's not too surprising. (I know many Jewish people, but only a few who practice the religion. Of those, none of them really talk about it in the common circles in which we move.)

I understand the issue with two conflicting "truths" (I think), but my mental processes can't really hold on to two mutually-exclusive "facts" as both being "true". To me, either one is true, or the other is true or they are both false. I can deal with not knowing which of the two is true, but until I do, I don't tend to call them "truths" or even "facts".

When God "re-creates" the world daily, is it assumed that today's world (or this moment's world) is basically the same as the world that preceeded it? If so, what is the value of this idea that wouldn't also be expressed in the idea that "God holds the universe together", or "God is everywhere and all things come through him" (incidentally, both ideas that hold little value to me beyond their poetic nature--I'll admit the possibility that there is value there that I just don't see [Smile] ).

I can see where as a person of faith, it might not matter what method God uses if you believe the end result is beneficial. But does this not conflict with you as a person of science? If you truly give equal weight to the liklihood of a world where your science gives you answers and one where your science is an illusion, what motivates you toward scientific study at all?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you truly give equal weight to the liklihood of a world where your science gives you answers and one where your science is an illusion, what motivates you toward scientific study at all?
Two reasons I see for this - it's based onmy own beliefs, which are similar but not identical to those expressed by rivka here:

1.) Because science is empirically useful. Even if we're wrong about the origins, we can make predictions in this manner.

2.) Because if God did make the world 6000 years ago, he did it in such a way that our God-given reason would eventually stumble on the seemingly contradictory evidence. Learning more about this can teach us more about Him.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
*nod* Yes, what Dags said. Also, I didn't say I gave equal weight to both possibilities. You'll note that this started with my statement that I considered God-guided evolution the most likely scenario.

quote:
When God "re-creates" the world daily, is it assumed that today's world (or this moment's world) is basically the same as the world that preceded it?
Probably. [Smile] (That was a serious answer, not a flippant one.)

quote:
If so, what is the value of this idea that wouldn't also be expressed in the idea that "God holds the universe together", or "God is everywhere and all things come through him" (incidentally, both ideas that hold little value to me beyond their poetic nature--I'll admit the possibility that there is value there that I just don't see [Smile] ).
I don't think I can explain this one using only English words. Suffice it to say that the distinction is fairly subtle.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Does it involve the difference between passivity and activity? Certainly Karl's second alternative is different on that score, as it does not contain the concept that our ongoing existence is owed to an ongoing act of God. Even the first alternative ("God holding the universe together) seems more of a passive act. I would love to learn more about this if you ever feel up to explaining, Rivka.

By the way, thank you both, Karl and Rivka - I'm loving this conversation.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Does it involve the difference between passivity and activity?

Definitely. That would be an important aspect of the difference. (Although I don't know what that difference means when referring to God. I believe everything that happens in this universe happens through His action -- never His inaction.)

Dunno, ask me on a day when I'm not meant to be packing to move . . . *shifty eyes*

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think I can explain this one using only English words. Suffice it to say that the distinction is fairly subtle.
I know enough about languages that I can accept that answer. However, your exchange with Dag sheds some light on it for me. I think I can understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what you can, especially since you're supposed to be doing something else.

Given your "probably", would it be more or less correct to re-phrase the idea as follows: God re-creates the universe moment-to-moment, each one being a reasonable proximation of the previous, the differences being those differences we call the passage of time? Or am I way off base here?

Dag:
quote:
2.) Because if God did make the world 6000 years ago, he did it in such a way that our God-given reason would eventually stumble on the seemingly contradictory evidence. Learning more about this can teach us more about Him.
Were I already a believer, I'd have faith in this, too, though in no way would my belief in God be contingent on a 6000 year old Earth. (This is not to imply yours or rivka's is either.) However, I don't see this as an idea that should prompt anyone toward belief. Now, the discovery that the world is only 6000 years old might, depending on the evidence. (Again, I'm not implying you were suggesting it should.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I know enough about languages that I can accept that answer. However, your exchange with Dag sheds some light on it for me. I think I can understand where you are coming from, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what you can, especially since you're supposed to be doing something else.
*whistles innocently*
quote:
Given your "probably", would it be more or less correct to re-phrase the idea as follows: God re-creates the universe moment-to-moment, each one being a reasonable proximation of the previous, the differences being those differences we call the passage of time? Or am I way off base here?
I don't know. My "probably" mostly had to do with the fact that I don't know what the differences are, if any.

quote:
Now, the discovery that the world is only 6000 years old might, depending on the evidence. (Again, I'm not implying you were suggesting it should.)
Actually, this is (IMO) a big part of why there cannot ever be definitive proof of a young earth -- it would destroy free will.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, that just opens a-whole-nother can o' worms. [Wink] I have a big problem with the whole "sure knowledge destroys free will" bit. According to many Christians, Lucifer rebelled against God. Surely he had the free will to do so. Surely he knew against what he was rebelling. Mormons, specifically, believe that we all chose to side with God's plan at that point. Surely we had free will to do so even though we were with God at the time.

(Of course, if you don't believe either of those things, then there's probably less of a conflict here. I just know too many humans to believe that people can't exercise their free will in the face of strong evidence.)

But "free will" is probably a discussion best moved to another thread if anyone is interested in it.

More to the point:
quote:
I don't know. My "probably" mostly had to do with the fact that I don't know what the differences are, if any.
OK. I'm not asking you so much what you know as what you believe, or what may or may not be deduced from the idea you have introduced me to. If it is something like what I tried to express above, then I see the idea as a way to describe how God fits the universe we perceive rather than some new insite into the universe itself. As a descriptor alone, I can categorize it with the two similar ideas "God holds the universe together", and "God is everywhere and all things come through him."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Treso,

quote:
I believe the contents of our immediate consciousness are known for certain. If I think I am in pain, for instance, I am definitely in pain
Well, since my lower back problem has led to somepinched nerves down there, I (fairly) constantly feel pain in my ankles and feet, even though there's nothing there causing the pain. The "pain" sensation is a response to the nerves being pinched as they pass by my L4 & L5 vertebrae.

So you can't even rely on "pain" as an absolute. What do you have left? Brain in a vat?

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
You are feeling pain, even if there's nothing there causing it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, there is something causing it. It's the pinched nerve. However, I think the point is that ssywak is feeling pain in his/her feet and ankles, and that is not the source of the pain. Therefore, her concious experience of pain in her feet is unreliable.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
His. [Smile]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
You are clearly not packing. [No No]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres' point wasn't that pain is somehow mystically always accurate as to location, but that you can be absolutely sure you're feeling pain -- the proof is the experience, and nothing more.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
You are clearly not packing. [No No]

I plead the fifth. However, I would like the court to note that thus far three loads of laundry have entered the washing machine. I need to go buy more detergent . . . am currently looking up local prices on Tide.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
. . . except that five minutes after that, I got a call from SBC and had to zip over to the apartment. But I'll pack when I get back to the house, really I will!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
But that's all it is--it's the experience of pain. It's source cannot be accurately determined. If you bring the discussion to its logical conclusion (this is "solipsism," right?), then how do you know that anything outside your own mind exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Bomb, please come back inside the ship..."

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
KarlEd,

Rivka's right.

I'm packing.

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheHumanTarget
Member
Member # 7129

 - posted      Profile for TheHumanTarget           Edit/Delete Post 
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

link

This makes almost as much sense...

Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ssywak:
KarlEd,

Rivka's right.

I'm packing.

Someone should be. I could use a little help . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ssywak:
KarlEd,

Rivka's right.

I'm packing.

I'm not entirely sure why that was addressed to me, specifically, unless that's supposed to be a turn-on. [Wink]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, KarlEd, I didn't mean to turn you on. It was more addressed to both you (who dared to doubt my sexuality) and Twinky, who I thought was commenting on the ease with which I might be mis-sexed due to the possibility that I might not be "packing."

Oh, nevermind!

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly, I thought at first that twinky was implying the same thing, and that brought a chuckle. I was about to post something along those lines in reply, but then I realized that he was chastizing rivka for not packing and his comment really didn't apply to you at all.

(unless, of course, my first impression was right and he was making a joke at your expense.)

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2