At 06:05 AM 06/25/2000 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>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!
but ID is a transparent ploy to get creationism taught in public schools or
at least to get evolution suppressed.
>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".
as I said. I cannot. Must not.
>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.
they have human intelligence and artifacts to compare with and the natural
world to contrast with. You've already said we are to detect divine design
against a backdrop of divine 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.
yes I would. I would assume a *human* agent because I know and can verify
that there is human design--detectible against the backdrop of the natural
world.
>[...]
>
>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)?
Einstein was definitely a theist. But morality doesn't have anything to do
with religion. (Religion likes to get involved with morality, but it doesn't
go the other way.) His pacifism made a lot of religionists really mad, for
example.
>Why shouldn't an atheist, *on atheistic principles*, simply look after
>Number 1, as far as possible without provoking a counter reaction?
Atheists don't need someone up in the sky to make them be good. They do it
because it's logical and useful--and because it brings beauty and dignity to
life.. To answer your question: because I evolved as a social organism. As
humans, morality and compassion are our chief surival mechanisms.
>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?
I would criticize both on the same grounds. That Jim Bakker was a hypocrit
meant very little to me, because I had already detected his moralizing as
phony. He was a calculating criminal. He violated the basic human principle
of altruism. Humans have very broad behavioral flexibility--it's another of
our evolutionary advantages--we can *choose* to commit suicide. By his
criminal actions Bakker committed social suicide which for the animal called
(modestly) homo sapiens is almost as bad as the real thing.
>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!
Europeans generally couldn't figure out what the big deal was. Morality
really has little to do with sexuality and they know that.
>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?
we keep arguing!!! Nothing wrong or immoral about debate .Seriously,
morality in this context is not trying to suppress religion--in fact
allowing a free range of expression. It is about preventing a dominant
religion from oppressing everyone else--which would be immoral. Please do
pray as often as you would like and whereever you personally care to.
However, don't force me or my children to pray with you. That would be as
immoral as you or your children being forced so say Moslem prayers by some
arm of the government. Creationism, and it's new permutation ID, are
components of a single religion. In fact, they are an imbarrassment to many
adherents of that religion. The attempt to impose that bit of dogma on a
public school or on science in general is immoral.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 25 2000 - 22:56:47 EDT