5 of 6
5
Intelligent Design
Posted: 29 March 2007 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  308
Joined  2006-10-18

[quote author=“andonstop”][quote author=“snapshot1”]So please just don’t tell me that I have faith or need faith without some kind of argument. Your analogy between sex and faith is fallacious (as in the logical fallacy of the false analogy) in my opinion because you didn’t show the correlation. You just blatantly stated your position with no support whatsoever. Please try to be more considerate of my feelings by using arguments instead of demands (that I listen to you when you tell me that I have faith whether I like it or not).

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend you. Was just trying to point out people cannot escape having to accept as true some things which they simply cannot know, whether or not they feel they want to or need to. I argue that is faith. I think Salt Creek gets it in post 3/28/07 8:56 a.m. and MdBeach in post 3/28/07 1:18 p.m.

When we accept that there are things we do not know, we don’t need faith. From my perspective, it’s only when we can’t accept that there are things that we don’t know and attempt to fill that knowledge gap that faith enters the picture.

I tried to point out the only faith one could possibly ever need, and that is the faith that reality is not as it seems. Existence is so confusing and odd that it would be just as likely that it is an illusion. Therefore, before one realizes the pessimism in this argument, one must have faith that we are not in an illusory world. Tell me, why would anyone need more faith than this? And also give me some examples of what I would call reason that you would call faith. From my point of view, it requires faith for some people to accept that certain facts of evolution come together to form a theory. I don’t consider this faith. Can you work with this and tell me how it’s faith? I need an example to make sure we aren’t just using different vocabularies, or if you aren’t using faith in different ways when you talk about God and when you talk about objective reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  2007-02-16

[quote author=“snapshot1”]When we accept that there are things we do not know, we don’t need faith. From my perspective, it’s only when we can’t accept that there are things that we don’t know and attempt to fill that knowledge gap that faith enters the picture.

I tried to point out the only faith one could possibly ever need, and that is the faith that reality is not as it seems. Existence is so confusing and odd that it would be just as likely that it is an illusion. Therefore, before one realizes the pessimism in this argument, one must have faith that we are not in an illusory world. Tell me, why would anyone need more faith than this? And also give me some examples of what I would call reason that you would call faith. From my point of view, it requires faith for some people to accept that certain facts of evolution come together to form a theory. I don’t consider this faith. Can you work with this and tell me how it’s faith? I need an example to make sure we aren’t just using different vocabularies, or if you aren’t using faith in different ways when you talk about God and when you talk about objective reality.

Organic evolution is a fact; progressive evolution is a truth—a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. To believe evolution is random reveals faith of a low level, to believe evolution is purposeful reveals religious faith.

Those of lesser faith will always question those of greater faith by saying “How do you know?” Those of greater faith can only answer “How do you know that I do not know?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 03:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  308
Joined  2006-10-18

[quote author=“andonstop”][quote author=“snapshot1”]When we accept that there are things we do not know, we don’t need faith. From my perspective, it’s only when we can’t accept that there are things that we don’t know and attempt to fill that knowledge gap that faith enters the picture.

I tried to point out the only faith one could possibly ever need, and that is the faith that reality is not as it seems. Existence is so confusing and odd that it would be just as likely that it is an illusion. Therefore, before one realizes the pessimism in this argument, one must have faith that we are not in an illusory world. Tell me, why would anyone need more faith than this? And also give me some examples of what I would call reason that you would call faith. From my point of view, it requires faith for some people to accept that certain facts of evolution come together to form a theory. I don’t consider this faith. Can you work with this and tell me how it’s faith? I need an example to make sure we aren’t just using different vocabularies, or if you aren’t using faith in different ways when you talk about God and when you talk about objective reality.

Organic evolution is a fact; progressive evolution is a truth—a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. To believe evolution is random reveals faith of a low level, to believe evolution is purposeful reveals religious faith.

Those of lesser faith will always question those of greater faith by saying “How do you know?” Those of greater faith can only answer “How do you know that I do not know?”

I’m going to add you to the list of people of millions of people who can’t define faith except through parable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 05:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Of course anyone who believes in “progressive evolution” (that life is evolving into “higher and “higher” forms on some kind of measurable scale) needs faith to believe that as “the truth.”  Just because complexity appears to increase with organic innovation it does not mean that there is some optimum goal to which the evolutionary process is “progressing” toward.  I don’t think there are any evolutionary biologists who believe there is a particular aim to evolution.  Fact is, environments change and creatures of certain complexity will need even more complications (genetically speaking) in order to have the means to adapt to the new conditions.  But none of this is foretold in the stars or written in a supernatural text, all of it is due to random chance, but a random chance that is obviously caused by the ways in which the past configurations of matter/energy inform the present conditions.

Those who believe in “progressive evolution” need the same kind of faith as those who believe in a “supernatural god.”  I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that to these people of faith, it is god who wrote the book of evolution.  Pure human arrogance.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

To believe evolution is random reveals faith of a low level, to believe evolution is purposeful reveals religious faith.

Bullshit alert!  Bullshit alert!

How in the world could evolution, which is defined as natural selection acting upon RANDOM mutations, possibly be purposeful?  Evolution is neither random nor purposeful, it is simply a fact.  Random mutations of DNA are selected or rejected naturally, depending solely upon their survival and reproductive value to the organism.

I’m sorry you can’t see the elegance of evolution, andonstop, as the workings of our natural universe is far more spiritual then anything you could imagine.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  734
Joined  2007-03-10

[quote author=“hampsteadpete”]

To believe evolution is random reveals faith of a low level, to believe evolution is purposeful reveals religious faith.

I’m sorry you can’t see the elegance of evolution, andonstop, as the workings of our natural universe is far more spiritual then anything you could imagine.

Sure you don’t just place your blind small faith in science?  You should be saying that it is wrong to associate the unknown with a deity.

Just trying to help you see the other point of view.  Not meant as a flame.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“MDBeach”]Sure you don’t just place your blind small faith in science?  You should be saying that it is wrong to associate the unknown with a deity.

Just trying to help you see the other point of view.  Not meant as a flame.

Damn straight it’s a flame. You’re just being all meek and mild about it, sh!tbird.

I think it is notable that you use the term “faith” here when it is bound to be misconstrued.

Do you maintain that confidence in science is without justification? Or is it just evolution that you have a problem with? I have a thing about people like you who seem to think all ways of understanding are equivalent.

Science works. It actually accomplishes something, moron.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  734
Joined  2007-03-10

I wasn’t trying to flame you, I was trying to help you, but you have shown everyone who the real moron is.  Your quick wit far surpasses your intellect.

[ Edited: 01 April 2007 04:06 AM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

The most recent work in evolutionary biology goes beyond simple mutation and selection.  Apparently there are lots of effects that come into play.  E.g., Nature 445, Jan 25, 2007 page 369: “The emerging picture of microbes as gene-swapping collectives demands a revision of such concepts as organism, species and evolution itself.” 

Bracketing that, there are mechanisms that favor a progressive direction to evolution toward the emergence of self-consciousness, having to do with the capacity to respond to random fluctuations in the environment; so it is possible to say that, given a sufficiently energy rich environment and the appropriate conditions for life, it’s highly likely that intelligent life will evolve.  One way to think of this is in terms of a future state being attractive with respect to the present state.  No need to assume it is programmed by God.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  308
Joined  2006-10-18

[quote author=“burt”]The most recent work in evolutionary biology goes beyond simple mutation and selection.  Apparently there are lots of effects that come into play.  E.g., Nature 445, Jan 25, 2007 page 369: “The emerging picture of microbes as gene-swapping collectives demands a revision of such concepts as organism, species and evolution itself.” 

Bracketing that, there are mechanisms that favor a progressive direction to evolution toward the emergence of self-consciousness, having to do with the capacity to respond to random fluctuations in the environment; so it is possible to say that, given a sufficiently energy rich environment and the appropriate conditions for life, it’s highly likely that intelligent life will evolve.  One way to think of this is in terms of a future state being attractive with respect to the present state.  No need to assume it is programmed by God.

God—science is fucking cool. How can anyone not dig this shit?

And how can anyone not love Star Trek for that matter. Fuck Star Wars. Fucking God-force and shit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  775
Joined  2006-12-04

burt,

Thanks for that comment. It is a scientific view of what philosophers have always known.

Everything strives for its maximum potential. Inert substances sought to become active. Active agents sought to expand their limits.

I suspect that what we consider to be life is actively seeking to move beyond that limit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  2007-02-16

Atheists on this site say there is no need for religion, that one can be moral and charitable without it.

This last series of posts by hampsteadpete, Salt Creek, and snapshot1 are verifiable proof that is not so. It takes a Godlike level of understanding and restraint to disagree with someone in a dignified manner. Those who resort to profanity and personal attacks reveal indefensibly weak arguments and an even weaker character. I am reminded of Islamic extremists who say, “Islam is not a violent religion, and if you don’t stop saying it is, I will kill you!”

CanZen, I respect your superior restraint. But I notice you avoided replying to my question about the reality of poetry. I can only assume that was because you know that, although it is not scientifically measurable or provable, poetry is very real, just like religious faith.

I see no further point in discussing issues with those unwilling to be civil or face facts. May you find understanding and nobility in your lives.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2007 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Hey andonstop.  It’s not that I avoided answering your question, I never read that post at all. But to answer I’d say that I do consider myself to be a poet and I still do write when the spirit takes me, however the question, “Do you consider poetry reality?” is strange.  There are so many varieties of what’s called poetry that it’s difficult to even comment.  I’m an old school person, Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Keats, and Wordsworth wrote what I call poems.  So even for me to say that their poems are reality would be just a subjective opinion.

I think a better question (or an answerable one) might be “Do you think that there are certain gifted people who can find poetry where others just see reality?”  I’d have to say that this seems to be true.  But it’s got very little to do with the nature of reality (out there) and much more to do with some emotive or cognitive thing that goes on in here (in the brain).  For those who read poetry and appreciate it obviously the poet has made reality poetic - and that’s an intriguing and enjoyable accomplishment.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2007 03:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  308
Joined  2006-10-18

AOS…read your PM.

It’s taking a God like restraint not to make fun of you for backing out of an argument because of what I said about Star Wars.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2007 03:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“Joad”]burt,

Thanks for that comment. It is a scientific view of what philosophers have always known.

Everything strives for its maximum potential. Inert substances sought to become active. Active agents sought to expand their limits.

I suspect that what we consider to be life is actively seeking to move beyond that limit.

Gad, Joad, I didn’t intend to be that Aristotelian.  I wouldn’t say that “everything strives for its maximum potential,” only that the entire environment provides the future attractions that result in evolutionary development.  For example, an ecosystem is a field of dynamic interactions and these interactions result in the appearance of niches that, in a sense, “attract” the species that come to fill them.  In other words, species don’t “strive” to realize their potential (that is a sort of survival of the fittest view) but rather what is possible for them in any given context is drawn out as they coevolve with that context.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed