(2020-09-03, 06:59 PM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]I would be more comfortable with "they mean a conscious Ground of All Being" which is open and non specific as opposed to what I see as a whack a mole jesus that lurks in the DI ID agenda.
Yeah I think both that and as Typoz notes those more fundamentalist in their atheist/materialist faith have aggrandized ID into something more than necessary, the contest of God's existence. ID has aspects that are incredibly interesting but not for the reasons either side desires/fears.
One thing I am not sure of it whether ID could simply be aliens of a "nuts & bolts", extraterrestrial variety? I've doubted this but when I reflect on it not sure why that couldn't be the case...
(2020-09-03, 07:45 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I think both that and as Typoz notes those more fundamentalist in their atheist/materialist faith have aggrandized ID into something more than necessary, the contest of God's existence. ID has aspects that are incredibly interesting but not for the reasons either side desires/fears.
One thing I am not sure of it whether ID could simply be aliens of a "nuts & bolts", extraterrestrial variety? I've doubted this but when I reflect on it not sure why that couldn't be the case...
Then there is always kick the can into the cosmos with panspermia raining in from the heavens as an option.
I think the Christian fundamentalists (at the discovery institute)
"faith have also aggrandized ID into something more than necessary" as well. It seems impossible to keep ones tribal social political religious leanings from influencing ones perception.
(2020-09-03, 08:43 PM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]Then there is always kick the can into the cosmos with panspermia raining in from the heavens as an option.
I think the Christian fundamentalists (at the discovery institute)
"faith have also aggrandized ID into something more than necessary" as well. It seems impossible to keep ones tribal social political religious leanings from influencing ones perception.
"We see things not as they are, but as we are.
Because it is the 'I' behind the 'eye' that does the seeing.'"
-Ainas Nin
p.s. As an aside,
juxtapose this with the Nagel quote upthread and I think you get an idea of what NDEs are...maybe the paranormal including ID as a whole...
(2020-09-03, 08:43 PM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]Then there is always kick the can into the cosmos with panspermia raining in from the heavens as an option.
I think the Christian fundamentalists (at the discovery institute)
"faith have also aggrandized ID into something more than necessary" as well. It seems impossible to keep ones tribal social political religious leanings from influencing ones perception.
Dislike or hatred of Christianity can also cloud the mind to the point of not rationally and objectively evaluating the scientific arguments and evidence for ID presented by DI, the focus of that organization. As has been pointed out so many times, the validity of someone's (scientific) argument has nothing to do with his theological or other beliefs - it has everything to do with the evidence and the logical conclusions derived from it. It's an old and invalid debating tactic.
I would be more interested in reasoned rebuttals of the ID conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence, in areas such as Dr. Behe's recent book Darwin Devolves for instance.
And by the way, there are a number of advocates of ID professional and otherwise who are not Christian.
Discovery Institute is a think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, predominantly mainline Protestant, but also Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and even agnostic. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. Of course, militant materialist atheists oppose even the existence of such organizations and dismiss anything produced by them as tainted by supernaturalism.
From
https://www.discovery.org/a/7501/:
Quote:"ID has scientific merit because it is does not try to address religious questions about the supernatural and limits its claims to what can be scientifically inferred from the empirical domain; this makes ID distinct from creationism and shows that ID respects the scientific method and methodological naturalism’s requirements that scientific claims be repeatable and reliable.
Intelligent design (ID) as a scientific theory limits its scientific claims to what can be learned from the empirical data and does not attempt to address religious questions about the identity or metaphysical nature of the designer. This makes ID distinct from creationism and shows that ID respects the limits of scientific inquiry.
Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
I've listened to probably hundreds of hours of lectures and debates on ID. I read Darwins doubt and am familiar with Behe's work. I support their basic premise although in looking into the DI site it's plain to see that they support right wing conservative socio economic policies. Also they are not open or friendly toward psi research and their affiliation with conservative Christian schools I find problematic. You might notice that people like sheldrake and radin are not jumping on board with these folks. I do support and argue in favor of their basic hypothosis I just can't get completely on board because of what I see as their conservative right wing Christian fundamentalist agenda which you don't have to look very deep into there publications and videos to notice. I am aware that they make an attempt to separate themselves from the creationists (although they are pretty friendly with them). At any rate, i just don't have much patience for fundamentalism whether theistic, scientistic or otherwise.
(2020-09-03, 01:57 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]There is also a corollary, in that the mainstream scientific lines of thought tend to lead to an extreme in not really having an openness towards acknowledging some role for a conscious creative force, even within ourselves. It seems an unfortunate consequence of taking that path is an aloofness towards such things as the warmth of human affection, discarding big-g God has led to rejecting the obvious. It's a kind of fragmented, broken pattern of thought which reduces the ability to think clearly. Which is ironic really.
I wanted to explain a little of my point of view. This is opinion of course.
In my previous post I made a leap between the concepts of "conscious creative force" and "warmth of human affection". Perhaps these things don't seem quite so interrelated to anyone else. However, I have this idea of a benevolence and generosity in the processes of creativity - and in the context of this thread, of 'design'. I realise this may not sit easily with others, however it is my feeling that across all scales from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the astronomically huge and inter-galactic scales, this benevolent creativity is permeating. I don't see it as a 'central control' which is sometimes how old-fashioned ideas are portrayed, but as distributed.
(2020-09-04, 08:19 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I wanted to explain a little of my point of view. This is opinion of course.
In my previous post I made a leap between the concepts of "conscious creative force" and "warmth of human affection". Perhaps these things don't seem quite so interrelated to anyone else. However, I have this idea of a benevolence and generosity in the processes of creativity - and in the context of this thread, of 'design'. I realize this may not sit easily with others, however it is my feeling that across all scales from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the astronomically huge and inter-galactic scales, this benevolent creativity is permeating. I don't see it as a 'central control' which is sometimes how old-fashioned ideas are portrayed, but as distributed.
I strongly agree with the connection of the "creative" process with the warmth of empathy. Empathy being mental unity with another agent. The relationship is at the top-level activity of mind. The fundamental
affordance of life is to see situational opportunity to love and help one another and to be warmed by help and affection from others.
These ideas are outside of a strictly physical or informational analysis and are active at different level of observation. (hence, why my thinking is not Dualistic).
Bringing it back to Bio-Evolution - and the natural level - altruism is a common behavior, especially in relation to off-spring and community. Likewise it is a huge outlier in the "random mutation" conjecture, as it is not to the advantage to the individual. Claiming it works at the species level (or interspecies level) is problematic to explain.
On the other hand - the model for mind needs to be expounded and its role in evolution restored to Darwinism. Minds do not exhibit forces (F=MA). Force is a metaphor for mental activity. The "force" of mind is the intention that leads to physical and informational action.
(2020-09-04, 05:47 AM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]I've listened to probably hundreds of hours of lectures and debates on ID. I read Darwins doubt and am familiar with Behe's work. I support their basic premise although in looking into the DI site it's plain to see that they support right wing conservative socio economic policies. Also they are not open or friendly toward psi research and their affiliation with conservative Christian schools I find problematic. You might notice that people like sheldrake and radin are not jumping on board with these folks. I do support and argue in favor of their basic hypothosis I just can't get completely on board because of what I see as their conservative right wing Christian fundamentalist agenda which you don't have to look very deep into there publications and videos to notice. I am aware that they make an attempt to separate themselves from the creationists (although they are pretty friendly with them). At any rate, i just don't have much patience for fundamentalism whether theistic, scientistic or otherwise.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 New International Version
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
If the conservative christians have an agenda within science, they are wasting their time. You cannot find the christian God using science and logic.
I don't think that it is scientific to simply say, "Ah there's a designer draw your own conclusions as to who you think it is".
What would be the reason for not speculating besides leaving the door open for interpretation based on one's preconceived desires?
Those making an argument for ID should offer speculation on a designer or designers. Perhaps the foremost question is does the evidence somehow negate [nuts & bolts] aliens? Does it have to be entities we'd usually class as "spirits" or at least "immaterial"?