Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

[heretic888]

You expressed your views on humanity and God with your usual long-winded clarity. I fail, however, to see an account on your perspective concerning randomness v. design (or whatever other explanations are involved).

May I suggest you spend more time reading the thread histories of a discussion before committing anything in writing??

If you bother to go back over the last two to three pages, you will see I made three or so rather lengthy posts about Baldwinian evolution and 'organic selection' --- especially in regards to phenomena like the Flynn Effect. I went into how there may indeed be 'design' in evolutionary history, but it ain't necessarily form an omnipotent Other.

In summation, my point was that popular neo-Darwinian paradigms are inadequate to explain the full diversity and complexity of evolution as a whole. In addition, many such paradigms are riddled with a very archaic genetic determinism.

That's my take, anyway.

In short, what's all this human psyche and God discussion have to do with how the world came about?

See Technopunk's above post.

Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Do not post unless you've read all the preceeding pages. Got it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania. The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"

Please vote in the above poll and tell us why you believe this or why don't you believe this.

It's John Wisdom's "Unseen Gardener" argument.

"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find among the weeds a few of the old plants surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these plants'. Upon inquiry, they find that no neighbor has ever seen anyone at work in their garden. The first man says to the other 'He must have worked while people slept'. The other says 'No, someone would have heard him and besides, anybody who cared bout the plants would have kept down these weeds'. The first man says 'Look at the way these are arranged. There is purpose and a feeling for beauty here. I believe that someone comes, someone invisible to mortal eyes. I believe that the more carefully we look the more we shall find confirmation of this'."

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/HEYJ0018-1196~42~4~175/175.pdf

The problem with the philosophical question is it has only one variable with only one frame of reference. We have no way of knowing what a universe WITHOUT a creator looks like as opposed to one WITH. So we have no way of saying "Yes, the evidence is there." We have no way of interpreting the evidence scientifically.

This isn't to say that there isn't a "God"...But it certainly isn't scientifically verifiable.

 

[heretic888]

This isn't to say that there isn't a "God"...But it certainly isn't scientifically verifiable.

Not through biology, anyway.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not through biology, anyway.

Laterz.

Not unless he just shows up one day and takes credit for it.

 

[arnisador]

Not unless he just shows up one day and takes credit for it.

OK, that might convince me!

 

[heretic888]

Okay, now, in all seriousness, guys....

If you're actually going with how the Divine is described universally in the world's various wisdom traditions, then we're talking about something that is both transcendent (beyond all conceptualization and categorization) and immanent (within everywhere and everything). You're not going to find "proof" or "evidence" of something to that effect in biology or geology. Ever.

In fact, the very idea of the Divine as a sort of individual Watchmaker or personable Intelligent Designer is, at best, nothing but an allegory or metaphor (I would suggest Joseph Campbell's Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor for an elaboration of this concept). At worst, its a manifestation of a sort of naive wish-fulfillment in which we collectively project some kind of cosmic Santa Claus onto the universe. Any example of "intelligent design" in nature is far more parsimoniously explained by the Baldwin Effect than by throwbacks to mythical creator father-figures.

If one were to attempt to "scientifically"* support the existence of the Divine, your best shot would be with the mystical and contemplative traditions within the various world religions. These traditions have in-depth works concerning specific injunctions or paradigms to engage in, the nature of the data, and a communal peer review to critically examine the data. That is far more than you can ask for than by looking at geological and biological records and claiming to see "intelligent design" there.

*Note: By "science", I am specifically referring to the definitions worked out and explained by philosophers Thomas Kuhn and Sir Karl Popper.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

In fact, the very idea of the Divine as a sort of individual Watchmaker or personable Intelligent Designer is, at best, nothing but an allegory or metaphor (I would suggest Joseph Campbell's Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor for an elaboration of this concept). At worst, its a manifestation of a sort of naive wish-fulfillment in which we collectively project some kind of cosmic Santa Claus onto the universe. Any example of "intelligent design" in nature is far more parsimoniously explained by the Baldwin Effect than by throwbacks to mythical creator father-figures.

I completely agreed with your last post except this one point. You stating that this idea is nothing but an allegory or metaphor is great, but hold the same weight as me stating the idea is nonrepresentative or even someone saying that the idea is tangible. Without proof or possibility of proof, we are all simply offering our beliefs, opinions, and at best educated guesses.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

I completely agreed with your last post except this one point. You stating that this idea is nothing but an allegory or metaphor is great, but hold the same weight as me stating the idea is nonrepresentative or even someone saying that the idea is tangible. Without proof or possibility of proof, we are all simply offering our beliefs, opinions, and at best educated guesses.

7sm

I offer as "proof" the collective experiences of the world's mystical traditions. They don't resort to fanciful explanations of "Intelligent Designers" or "Watchmakers".

In fact, upon receiving a mystical illumination himself, St. Aquinas summarily stopped his writing about "God" and proclaimed all of his previous work (including his rational "proofs" such as Argument From Design) to be "so much dung compared to what I have now been shown".

Please review some of the links I posted in my last post on "The Truth About Islam" thread.

Furthermore, I always find it interesting that this personable father-figure deity always reflects the qualities and ideals of the person doing the believing. I guess its just magical coincidence "God" sounds a helluva lot like the person describing him.

Sorry, ain't buyin' it.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

I offer as "proof" the collective experiences of the world's mystical traditions. They don't resort to fanciful explanations of "Intelligent Designers" or "Watchmakers".

I wouldn't consider "collective experiences" as proof of much, let alone "collective experiences" that differ so dramatically. Lumping them together doesn't hide their differences.

Furthermore, I always find it interesting that this personable father-figure deity always reflects the qualities and ideals of the person doing the believing. I guess its just magical coincidence "God" sounds a helluva lot like the person describing him.

Maybe your just askin the wrong people. I certainly wouldn't describe this or any diety in any way close to me....hmmm

7sm

 

[heretic888]

I wouldn't consider "collective experiences" as proof of much, let alone "collective experiences" that differ so dramatically. Lumping them together doesn't hide their differences.

I'm not denying the individual or cultural differences among the world's various mystics and contemplatives, but this is within the backdrop of a very broad range of general commonality and agreement. Again, please reference the links I posted in the "The Truth About Islam" thread that pertain to the West's various mystical traditions.

Also please note my particular use of "collective experiences" here. I am not referring to mere anecdotal accounts. Rather, these are the recorded experiences of individuals following particular meditative injunctions which are summarily confirmed or rejected by a community of peers (meaning, others that also participate in the previously mentioned injunctions).

This is "science" in the broad sense, as understood by philosophers such as Peirce, Popper, and Kuhn. This "broad science" is to be distinguished from the "narrow science" or "scientism" (which generally only sees the natural or "hard" sciences as being valid forms of knowledge) that we see bandied about so much in popular culture. For elaboration of this theme, please see Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion.

Furthermore, this evidence is also corroborated by recent research in the field of neurotheology, which has documented distinctive brainwave patterns that correspond to particular meditative practices across cultures (comparing, for example, a Catholic monastic and a Tibetan Buddhist monk). It is shocking when contemplatives from different traditions originating from different continents show identical brainwave patterns while engaging in their respective practices.

Maybe your just askin the wrong people.

Not likely. This type of projectionism usually follows a very general form.

Fire n' brimstone types believe in a wrathful God of Vengeance. Law n' order types believe in a God of Justice. Non-violent pacifists believe in a merciful, all-compassionate God of Love. Rational deists believe in a detached God of Reason. Modern spiritualists believe in an intimate God (or Goddess) of Nature.

In each case, the individual's view or depiction of their deity becomes a sort of "vessel" or "cup" for the projected contents of their superego, conscience, or highest ideals and mores. The god becomes a cosmologized embodiment of what the individual psyche believes "perfection" to be, based by their own individual standards. As such, the actual content or characteristics of the deity-figure vary in small ways from person to person and in larger ways from community to community and in even larger ways from culture to culture.

This is not a negative structure in and of itself, mind you, as sometimes the god-figure embodies very highly advanced morals and ideals. However, I feel it is little more than a carryover from the mythical belief structure of childhood and should be distinguished from genuine experiences of deity mysticism.

The main difference between the fantasy-god and deity mysticism is simple: the fantasy-god reinforces or confirms the psyche's sense of self, it basically tell you that everything you believe is right; the deity-form of mysticism, in juxtaposition, shatters or transforms the psyche's sense of self, forcing a genuine self-transformation that takes you beyond any sense of 'right'-ness or epistemological confidence you may have had beforehand.

The quotations from the contemplative St. John of the Cross that I cited on the "God Says Invade Iraq?" thread are a perfect example of deity mysticism.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

Furthermore, this evidence is also corroborated by recent research in the field of neurotheology, which has documented distinctive brainwave patterns that correspond to particular meditative practices across cultures (comparing, for example, a Catholic monastic and a Tibetan Buddhist monk). It is shocking when contemplatives from different traditions originating from different continents show identical brainwave patterns while engaging in their respective practices.

What does that prove or show? Your speaking of patterns which do not show specific thought process or especially belief.

Fire n' brimstone types believe in a wrathful God of Vengeance. Law n' order types believe in a God of Justice. Non-violent pacifists believe in a merciful, all-compassionate God of Love. Rational deists believe in a detached God of Reason. Modern spiritualists believe in an intimate God (or Goddess) of Nature.

Rightly so, but your point is based on the assumption that "fire n' brimstone" types believe solely in a "wrathful God of Vengeance". Everyone identifies with characteristics of things that are similar, that just shows our differences. However, the truth is that most of these "types" do not believe solely in this one type of "god" but just simply identify heavily with this characteristic of "god". Asking a "fire n' bromstone type" about their "god" and getting the "wrathful" answer is great, but without delving further into their belief of "god" you may never hear their entire belief of their "god".

7sm

 

[heretic888]

What does that prove or show?

Well, it proves these guys aren't just daydreaming or making this stuff up out of thin air. Mystical experiences have been shown to evoke very specific, concrete changes and patterns in the brain. This simply cannot be denied.

Also, it demonstrates that we are talking about a shared experience here, not something that is the special product of a given culture or belief system. Many of the critics that guffaw at the findings of neurotheology are often those that like to believe their particular religious tradition is something especially special that no other religious tradition can begin to approximate --- ergo, the very idea of shared or universal experiences is something abhorrent to them.

This rejection, of course, is based on self-confirming bias and an Appeal To Belief.

Your speaking of patterns which do not show specific thought process or especially belief.

"Belief" is pretty irrelevant here, as both the Catholic contemplative and the Tibetan Buddhist monk would tell you that what they are experiencing or identifyng with during this state is ultimately transcendental and ineffable in nature.

Rightly so, but your point is based on the assumption that "fire n' brimstone" types believe solely in a "wrathful God of Vengeance". Everyone identifies with characteristics of things that are similar, that just shows our differences. However, the truth is that most of these "types" do not believe solely in this one type of "god" but just simply identify heavily with this characteristic of "god". Asking a "fire n' bromstone type" about their "god" and getting the "wrathful" answer is great, but without delving further into their belief of "god" you may never hear their entire belief of their "god".

Those aspects or characteristics you're describing won't be a part of that person's conception of "god" if they don't hold said characteristics to be qualities of "perfection". Their deity is the embodiment of "perfection", a projection of the idealized contents of one's conscience or superego. If the rational deist doesn't hold vengeance and holy wrath to be their ideals of "perfection", then it won't be a quality of their "god". Likewise, if the fire 'n brimstone evangelical thinks logic is just a stupid human excuse for denying the Word, then he won't subscribe to a God of Reason.

And, once again, their deity is also just a supernaturalistic way of condoning, reinforcing, or confirming their existing worldview. It is ultimately a way of solacing the self-system, giving one's ego a cosmic pat on the back. The deity mystic, by contrast, seeks to undermine or erradicate the self-system, to transcend a merely egoistic identity altogether.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to go with St. Gregory of Nyssa on this one: every concept of God becomes a false idol which cannot reveal God himself. So to speak.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

Those aspects or characteristics you're describing won't be a part of that person's conception of "god" if they don't hold said characteristics to be qualities of "perfection". Their deity is the embodiment of "perfection", a projection of the idealized contents of one's conscience or superego. If the rational deist doesn't hold vengeance and holy wrath to be their ideals of "perfection", then it won't be a quality of their "god". Likewise, if the fire 'n brimstone evangelical thinks logic is just a stupid human excuse for denying the Word, then he won't subscribe to a God of Reason.

Holding said characteristics as qualties of "perfection" is not the same as holding said characteristic as the sole quality of "perfection". Your explination of their belif system is merely speculation on your part now.

Their deity is the embodiment of "perfection", a projection of the idealized contents of one's conscience or superego. If the rational deist doesn't hold vengeance and holy wrath to be their ideals of "perfection", then it won't be a quality of their "god".

This is your explination of their belief, you cant assume such things of someone or a group of people.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

7starmantis,

Sorry if you misunderstood me. My argument is that, for most people, any given deity they believe in tends to serve as a vessel for the collective of traits or characteristics that they hold to be "perfect". It often is a projection for the contents of the individual's superego, with very little substantive reality of its own (i.e., dependent on the ideals, mores, and values of the person doing the "believing").

I can make these "assumptions" because very, very few people believe their god embodies characteristics they hold to be flawed, weak, or imperfect. How many people believe their god to be lazy? Deceitful? Malevolent? I certainly don't know of anyone that does. Such characteristics are usually projected into a counter-deity (the Devil in traditional Western consciousness), often with the "good" deity being higher or more powerful than the "bad".

Because of this, the actual nature of the deity and the counter-deity will vary widely from person to person. The deity embodies what the individual holds to be the very "highest" or most "perfect" ideals, the counter-deity the "lowest" or most "imperfect". And, since individual minds are heavily conditioned and influenced by the cultures they find themselves in, much of the nature of these deities is historically-contingent and culturally relative.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

I disagree, your using the fact that there is a connection between religions or "mystics" of the world and history to mean that its false, but that only a matter of opinion. In fact, the idea that people share these beliefs or "experiences" about "god" could vary easily be used to prove his existence.

This is however way off topic, so we should get back on topic of this thread.

7sm

 

[Loki]

I don't know what 10-page long debate ensued here, but I'm responding to the original post.

I won't go ahead and say I'm 100% certain, but I see no convincing reason to believe life couldn't have happened by itself. All arguments I've heard to date about the origins of life (this thread notwithstanding since I haven't read it) were either pseudoscientific or ignorant (i.e. arguing from ignorance).

One interesting argument is called irreducible complexity. It states that if a system were to have a single part in it removed or slightly altered, it wouldn't work. An engine, for example, has to have all it's parts in position and proportion with each other in order to work. If you removed the pistons, it would stop working.

The bombardier beetle is often used as an example of this. However, even if this argument were correct (it's not), this wouldn't automatically prove the existence of your friendly neighborhood creator. Would it poke a hole in natural selection? Yes, but not much more.

 

[arnisador]

Sounds like the Babel fish argument to me!

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

Good question.

My wife wants to paint in order to add expansiveness and color to the living room. I want to get rid of the old couch, but she thinks it would look good with an accessory rug and accent pillows.

We don't know WHAT to do with her father's paintings, and have disagreed with what curtains to put on the picture window overlooking the deck. She says burgundy, I want oyster shell and would like to ditch the corinthian curtain rods that came with the place when we bought it.


I'd say, yes. Life is so complex that it requires a designer.

Incidentally, Gay Christians have recently come out in favor of intelligent interior design.



Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

The sound of a 'smack down' was heard in the Federal Courtroom in Pennsylvania this morning.

The Judge basically said ...

We respect your beliefs. Keep them out of the science classroom.

I paraphrase this too ...

You can put lipstick on a pig, but I still ain't kissin' it.