Reflectorites
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:08:30 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>>>SJ>ID does not even have "a deity" at all. Todd Moody is "an agnostic".
>>
>>CL>An intelligent entity capable of creating life, manipulating it etc,
>>>seems pretty deistic to me.
>SJ>The point is that one can be "agnostic" about the Designer. One could
>>believe the Designer to be "deistic", theistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, or
>>just leave the identity of the Designer unresolved "agnostic". Fred Hoyle's
>>"intelligent universe" (and maybe Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis) would
>>probably be acceptable under ID.
>>
>>At its most basic, ID claims that there is empirically detectable evidence of
>>design in nature. There is no need for it to speculate on the Designer.
SB>In fact, it is *required* that no speculation be done on who did the
>designing. That would automatically cause ID to fail the Lemon test.
As I said before, "the Lemon test" is about legislative *statutes*.
ID is not about to enact any statutes!
SB>That's
>why it is vital for the ID movement to sanitize their product of any
>whisper about who the designer might be.
Not really. The ID movement *inherently* makes no claims "about who
the designer might be".
SB>------
>The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman,
>1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment
>religion clauses.
>
>1. A law must have a secular purpose.
>2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits
>religion.
>3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
>------
Was this originally my quote from Johnson? Whatever, it makes the
point that the "Lemon test" was about "A law". It is therefore *irrelevant*
to ID.
>>CL>I guess I just have a built-in prejudice
>>>in favor of naturalistic explanation.
>SJ>... The question Cliff might ask himself is, how could his position ever be
>>falsified? That is, if design was real, how would Cliff ever know it?
SB>design cannot be detected. It can only be apparent.
This is just a dogmatic naturalistic statement which is simply false.
Archaeologists detect *real* design, as opposed to only "apparent"
design, as the key element of their science.
SETI researchers have even programmed it into their computers to detect
the difference between *real* design, as opposed to only "apparent"
design.
SB>"It looks designed to
>me" is irrefutable. Yep, sure does! (look designed to you) in much the
>same way that a cloud can look like a horsie or a duckie. There's no way to
>tell if the cloud was molded into the shape of a horse/duck by a guiding
>intelligence or if it formed that way by natural forces.
That might be true for a "cloud". But it's not true for more complex
phenomena, like archaeological artifacts or SETI messages. In fact it is not
even true of clouds. If Susan saw a cloud spelling out: "Drink Coca Cola"
she would unhesitatingly assume that it was put there by a sign-writing
plane, even if she never saw it.
[...]
SB>The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
>actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
>morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
>--Albert Einstein
[...]
This sounds nice but *on atheistic principles*, why should it be true
(Einstein was a theist in the Spinoza mould)?
Why shouldn't an atheist, *on atheistic principles*, simply look after
Number 1, as far as possible without provoking a counter reaction?
This is not to deny many atheists (especially those from Christian
homes) are personally highly moral. My question is about *why* they
should be so, *on atheistic principles*.
For example, if a Christian lied, stole or committed adultery, an
atheist like Susan would rightly criticise him/her as a hypocrite. But if
a fellow atheist did the same things, on what grounds would Susan
cricise him/her?
Remember when the professed Christian Bill Clinton seduced his young
office staffer Monica Lewinsky, to almost universal criticism by both
Christians and the general public, the leading atheist Dawkins expressed
support!
And how does this ideal of "striving for morality in our actions" work out
in the *real* world for atheists when they are confronted with those they
profoundly disagree with, like creationists?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is
difficult to express this "something" in words. It was an intense revulsion,
and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm
with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life
might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I
found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust, and
well-nigh impossible to mention it to friends without apology. To admit to
fellow scientists that I was interested in the problem felt like admitting to
some shameful personal inadequacy. Nor has this reaction faded over the
years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this
book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other
scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference
accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what
appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism. It was not for
some time that I was able to place my finger on the source of my
discomfort. It arises, I understand now, because the contention that we
owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences strikes a
responsive chord. That contention is far too close for comfort to notions
such as: We are the center of the universe. God loves mankind more than
all other creatures. The cosmos is watching over us. The universe has a
plan; we are essential to that plan." (Greenstein G., "The Symbiotic
Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos", William Morrow & Co: New
York NY, 1988, pp.25-26)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 24 2000 - 20:40:06 EDT