|
On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill).
Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one.
|
[edit]After posting this I saw it might be a good idea to make clear that I am NOT an ID-supporter. It just seems to me that TL.net has given ID an unjustifiably bad rep, especially considering that very few here have bothered to accompany their extended anti-ID shenanigans with even one good bit of reason or justification. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but I just thought that perhaps my perspective could shed a bit of light on a subject that is apparently fairly poorly understood.[/edit]
Forget about any of ID's political or religious affiliations, and throw away the superficial stereotypes we've come to associate it with-- Those things are unnecessary and extraneous with respect to ID by definition. If we're really talking about ID, then we're referring to its aspects which distinguish it from all other things. The phrase "Intelligent Design" carries with it a huge amount of extra baggage; It's almost impossible to discuss it now because of the really bad rep its earned on account of the bad press we associate with it. But like I said, ultimately these associations have nothing to do with ID per se, but instead serve only to define the social and scientific contexts from which we approach it. At rock bottom, then, ID is just an idea about the way things might work, as much as is any other theoretical construction. So if we're really talking about ID, then we're really talking about two distinct concepts, both of which are very familiar to us, "Design" and "Intelligence", of which it is the stated goal of ID to unify into a single conceptual framework.
At its most basic conceptual foundation, ID tries to explore the relationship between information-rich systems (of all varieties, both concrete as well as abstract) and 'intelligence'-- a generalized notion which itself has no agreed-upon definition, whose terms and conditions are either largely unknown or not understood, and whose relationship to non-intelligent systems is so utterly and completely hidden beneath centuries-worth of sciences', mathematics', and philosophy's trillions of tangled threads, that it's long been agreed-on by virtually everyone that there exists no model (mathematical or otherwise) where the co-existence of physically-determined processes and self-directed intelligent processes can currently be reconciled in a consistent way.
There are, of course, other theories and approaches to these problems. But ID justifies its theoretical framework on the observation that all such other approaches are predicated on specific assumptions about the relation between information and intelligence, whose collective presence preclude objectivity by constricting the set of possible explanatory or theoretical models to just those which define 'self-directed intelligent processes' in terms of wholly determined physical processes. Such has been the trend of much of modern thought. But to ID'ers, such thinking is either misconceived or circular, since 'self-directed intelligent processes' have been arbitrarily redefined in terms of 'non-self-directed, non-intelligent processes'. Yes, such reductions are (and have been) commonplace in science, and that is most certainly not a bad thing in itself. In this case, however, the problem is that among theories seeking to explore the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems, assumptions are being made about precisely none other-than the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems. (In case you missed it, that's the definition of a circular or question-begging model). It should be noted that these assumptions really are very rarely accounted for by current models, the reason being that these assumptions are always philosophical in nature and are generally considered as being, to a large extent, either ambiguous or undecidable.
So the point of all this, then, is that ID does in fact have something to offer: Whereas so much of our contemporary theoretical approach to these issues has been constructed by way of a certain, deeply ingrained, "collective-philosophical-consciousness", whose basis is either unjustified or never empirically or methodically explored, ID differs in that it rests on a different set of philosophical and methodological considerations. Note that these considerations have nothing to do with religion or creationism, but instead only with those premises which are fundamentally related to ID's area of investigation-- namely, the nature of intelligence and self-direction, and their specific logical and ontological relations to informational systems of particular varieties.
|
To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened.
|
On January 20 2008 10:52 samso.. wrote:+ Show Spoiler +[edit]After posting this I saw it might be a good idea to make clear that I am NOT an ID-supporter. It just seems to me that TL.net has given ID an unjustifiably bad rep, especially considering that very few here have bothered to accompany their extended anti-ID shenanigans with even one good bit of reason or justification. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but I just thought that perhaps my perspective could shed a bit of light on a subject that is apparently fairly poorly understood.[/edit]
Forget about any of ID's political or religious affiliations, and throw away the superficial stereotypes we've come to associate it with-- Those things are unnecessary and extraneous with respect to ID by definition. If we're really talking about ID, then we're referring to its aspects which distinguish it from all other things. The phrase "Intelligent Design" carries with it a huge amount of extra baggage; It's almost impossible to discuss it now because of the really bad rep its earned on account of the bad press we associate with it. But like I said, ultimately these associations have nothing to do with ID per se, but instead serve only to define the social and scientific contexts from which we approach it. At rock bottom, then, ID is just an idea about the way things might work, as much as is any other theoretical construction. So if we're really talking about ID, then we're really talking about two distinct concepts, both of which are very familiar to us, "Design" and "Intelligence", of which it is the stated goal of ID to unify into a single conceptual framework.
At its most basic conceptual foundation, ID tries to explore the relationship between information-rich systems (of all varieties, both concrete as well as abstract) and 'intelligence'-- a generalized notion which itself has no agreed-upon definition, whose terms and conditions are either largely unknown or not understood, and whose relationship to non-intelligent systems is so utterly and completely hidden beneath centuries-worth of sciences', mathematics', and philosophy's trillions of tangled threads, that it's long been agreed-on by virtually everyone that there exists no model (mathematical or otherwise) where the co-existence of physically-determined processes and self-directed intelligent processes can currently be reconciled in a consistent way.
There are, of course, other theories and approaches to these problems. But ID justifies its theoretical framework on the observation that all such other approaches are predicated on specific assumptions about the relation between information and intelligence, whose collective presence preclude objectivity by constricting the set of possible explanatory or theoretical models to just those which define 'self-directed intelligent processes' in terms of wholly determined physical processes. Such has been the trend of much of modern thought. But to ID'ers, such thinking is either misconceived or circular, since 'self-directed intelligent processes' have been arbitrarily redefined in terms of 'non-self-directed, non-intelligent processes'. Yes, such reductions are (and have been) commonplace in science, and that is most certainly not a bad thing in itself. In this case, however, the problem is that among theories seeking to explore the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems, assumptions are being made about precisely none other-than the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems. (In case you missed it, that's the definition of a circular or question-begging model). It should be noted that these assumptions really are very rarely accounted for by current models, the reason being that these assumptions are always philosophical in nature and are generally considered as being, to a large extent, either ambiguous or undecidable.
So the point of all this, then, is that ID does in fact have something to offer: Whereas so much of our contemporary theoretical approach to these issues has been constructed by way of a certain, deeply ingrained, "collective-philosophical-consciousness", whose basis is either unjustified or never empirically or methodically explored, ID differs in that it rests on a different set of philosophical and methodological considerations. Note that these considerations have nothing to do with religion or creationism, but instead only with those premises which are fundamentally related to ID's area of investigation-- namely, the nature of intelligence and self-direction, and their specific logical and ontological relations to informational systems of particular varieties.
What a load of garbage.
|
On January 20 2008 10:52 samso.. wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Forget about any of ID's political or religious affiliations, and throw away the superficial stereotypes we've come to associate it with-- Those things are unnecessary and extraneous with respect to ID by definition. If we're really talking about ID, then we're referring to its aspects which distinguish it from all other things. The phrase "Intelligent Design" carries with it a huge amount of extra baggage; It's almost impossible to discuss it now because of the really bad rep its earned on account of the bad press we associate with it. But like I said, ultimately these associations have nothing to do with ID per se, but instead serve only to define the social and scientific contexts from which we approach it. At rock bottom, then, ID is just an idea about the way things might work, as much as is any other theoretical construction. So if we're really talking about ID, then we're really talking about two distinct concepts, both of which are very familiar to us, "Design" and "Intelligence", of which it is the stated goal of ID to unify into a single conceptual framework.
Translated: Please forget what the words "Intelligent" and "Design" mean.
+ Show Spoiler + At its most basic conceptual foundation, ID tries to explore the relationship between information-rich systems (of all varieties, both concrete as well as abstract) and 'intelligence'-- a generalized notion which itself has no agreed-upon definition, whose terms and conditions are either largely unknown or not understood, and whose relationship to non-intelligent systems is so utterly and completely hidden beneath centuries-worth of sciences', mathematics', and philosophy's trillions of tangled threads, that it's long been agreed-on by virtually everyone that there exists no model (mathematical or otherwise) where the co-existence of physically-determined processes and self-directed intelligent processes can currently be reconciled in a consistent way.
Translated: You know what "intelligence" means? Everybody agrees that nobody does!
+ Show Spoiler + There are, of course, other theories and approaches to these problems. But ID justifies its theoretical framework on the observation that all such other approaches are predicated on specific assumptions about the relation between information and intelligence, whose collective presence preclude objectivity by constricting the set of possible explanatory or theoretical models to just those which define 'self-directed intelligent processes' in terms of wholly determined physical processes. Such has been the trend of much of modern thought. But to ID'ers, such thinking is either misconceived or circular, since 'self-directed intelligent processes' have been arbitrarily redefined in terms of 'non-self-directed, non-intelligent processes'. Yes, such reductions are (and have been) commonplace in science, and that is most certainly not a bad thing in itself. In this case, however, the problem is that among theories seeking to explore the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems, assumptions are being made about precisely none other-than the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems. It should be noted that these assumptions really are very rarely accounted for by current models, the reason being that these assumptions are always philosophical in nature and are generally considered as being, to a large extent, either ambiguous or undecidable.
Translated: Your problem is that you think you know what "intelligence" means.
+ Show Spoiler + So the point of all this, then, is that ID does in fact have something to offer: Whereas so much of our contemporary theoretical approach to these issues has been constructed by way of a certain, deeply ingrained, "collective-philosophical-consciousness", whose basis is either unjustified or never empirically or methodically explored, ID differs in that it rests on a different set of philosophical and methodological considerations. Note that these considerations have nothing to do with religion or creationism, but instead only with those premises which are fundamentally related to ID's area of investigation-- namely, the nature of intelligence and self-direction, and their specific logical and ontological relations to informational systems of particular varieties.
Translated: We "designed" our own definition of "intelligence", and that's why we can call ourselves smart.
|
On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out
|
On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out Given the huge amount of circumstances in which life could hypothetically occur and flourish, I think that there are plenty of locations in the universe to satisfy those odds and make life fairly likely. This is what makes the fermi paradox so fascinating to me. (Then again, we may have also already missed thousands of lifeforms in our observations of the universe, because our instruments cannot pick them up.) Suggesting otherwise would be like saying that a royal flush is impossible in poker because of its low probability. But in any case, this is a moot point, because even if we did discover life on another planet, how do we know for certain whether it was intelligently designed or created by evolution?
|
On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out
Hi
Stop making shit up.
|
On January 20 2008 10:28 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one.
an atheistic religion . sounds hillariously interesting :D
|
On January 20 2008 12:24 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote:On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out Hi Stop making shit up. uh
|
On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out
1 in 1 trillion? you got any sources to back that up or...?
jesus, it seems that everybody today likes to think of themselves as experts in evolutionary biology and cosmology.
|
On January 20 2008 12:28 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 10:28 Mindcrime wrote:On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one. an atheistic religion . sounds hillariously interesting :D
theravada buddhism is a religion. Its just not a supernaturalist religion
|
On January 20 2008 12:31 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 12:28 Rev0lution wrote:On January 20 2008 10:28 Mindcrime wrote:On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one. an atheistic religion . sounds hillariously interesting :D theravada buddhism is a religion. Its just not a supernaturalist religion
all religions are supernatural, that is the difference between science and religion dude.
the bindings, fire, earth, wind and earth thing are all supernatural. Just not related to a god or divine being.
|
I would completly disagre that Theravada Buddhism is a religion, it is a belief system.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 20 2008 12:41 Eskii wrote: I would completly disagre that Theravada Buddhism is a religion, it is a belief system.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s).
Here's a nice article refuting ID's "irreducible complexity" argument. That's the main "attack" IDers use and like I said before it's unrelated to Christian creationism, but it's still wrong.
|
On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion.
This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism".
(And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.)
|
BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING
This guy is as smart as my cat and by that I mean my cat is as smart as 99.99% of the world but no one GIVES A FUCKING SHIT, including me.
|
On January 20 2008 13:20 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion. This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism". (And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.)
If you wanted to talk about theism rather than religion then that is what you should have done. The word exists for a reason.
|
On January 20 2008 13:24 boghat wrote: BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING
This guy is as smart as my cat and by that I mean my cat is as smart as 99.99% of the world but no one GIVES A FUCKING SHIT, including me. Agreed.
Go and do something with that high IQ or no one's going to give a shit.
|
On January 20 2008 13:26 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2008 13:20 Funchucks wrote:On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion. This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism". (And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.) If you wanted to talk about theism rather than religion then that is what you should have done. The word exists for a reason. And if you wanted to have a pointless semantic argument based on your faulty understanding of how language works, rather than a meaningful discussion in which people try to understand each others' intended meanings, you should have gone to a random internet forum rather than come to this bastion of enlightened discourse.
Oh, wait... Nevermind.
|
|
|
|