Religonists and the Intelligent Design Arguement

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I have read about intelligent Design in various websites and have at least one friend that falls for this travesty of real science. He’s engineer, by education and we’re close friends, he’s positive practical engineer with tremendous analytic skills, but he and fell in love with one of these zealousbeliever women, and well you know what sex and love can do to a man. Anyway, I argue with him regularly about this subject. he presents books to me to read about how Jesus (yeah he’s one of those new Jesus freaks) really did raise that Lazarus from the dead and how it was documented. He says things like: if there was not flood was were small found on high mountain tops. I roll my eyes and shake my head and think, ohh man who is really deceived? I have muslim friends that will swear on the Hejira of Muhammad. I won’t go into Hashi’s prove of the spiritual essence of the Qu’ran, it’s worst than my engineer friend’s.

By the way, I’m a 2nd gen Somali, that rejects Islam as all other monotheistic religions. My parents are dead but my Dad had long ago, realized the fallacy of religion. My mom never accepted it, she joined the communist party in the early 60’s. A move unheard of by emigrate Africans to America, well maybe not New York…anyway…I’m getting too personal but to the topic

The argument, at least the modern ones (see it goes back to St. Thomas Aquinas), goes like this:

If we look at the improbability of life developing on this planet, compared to the probability of it not developing, we must conclude that it can’t be formed by random processes.

I have condensed it in that nutshell, there many many other claims, for instance taking, physics and the fine constant of matter being so infinitesmally small and how that must be within this or that range. But lets grant them those observations. If we know that the chance of in the universe or intelligent life evolving on this planet is against the ‘odds’ then does this prove an intelligent being doing the whole thing? No No and emphatic no and no again. I am a mathematician, though not a statistician, but I know enough about the subject of probability to see they are misusing the subject. As mathematical logician I can see the EXTREME fallacy of this line of reasoning. But like demogogical preachers they are taken in to their ever-living guts.

See, probablistic arguments can’t make for logical implications that are deductive in form. If the chance of things working out as they have in this universe were 1:K (some number without a name) it wouldn’t PROVE anything. It would only show the exreme of the probablistic equation. But, these modern charlatans would have you believe that. they are like 21st century snake-oil salemen. And the uninitiated point to them as authorities. It makes me wanna puke or blow their nasty deceiving head off. That use the verisimilitude of truth to misguide those not in the know!!! Oh non-existent God help me!

What is even more jaw-tightening is this: if this God character made the world within strict probablistic parameters, then why the hell ( no pun intended) did he have to do it that way? The old biblical story about Gensis or the Krishna dream in Hinduism of the world existing and dying as Krishna dreams seems better than that. I mean God sits down one day or non-day and says: lemme see I’m gonna create a pt of density and makes the gases such that if they’re to hot or too cool well no hydro develops and no helium, no but wait lets make it like this and make sure they converge in gaseous clouds…I mean come on…I guess He said, them suckers ain’t never gonna figure this one out…but now we did?
I could plug my article on my website but won’t the non-existent God wouldn’t like that.
If they just stick to blind faith, then I can dig it. I dig as wrong, but at least the don’t smear the name of rationalism with this pseudo-science proof.
Robleh a committed existentialist.

2

It sounds like you’re objecting to a lot more than the Intelligent Design argument. If you think the whole concept of theism is in the first place foolish, then you certainly aren’t going to be convinced that God had a hand in creation of man. It seems pretty clear to me that you are used to dealing with theists as though they are fools, or at least, you like to talk and about them as though they are. Fools, then, are all you are likely to find.
Rationalism exists because theists invented it.

3

I guess this mild attack deserves some comment.

I agree my tone in this unproof-checked posting was harsh. I make no apologies. Just as I would not apologize or give understanding to murderers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. What religionists of all faiths have done to harm the biosphere is similar to those miscreants. Conquests, slavery, near genocide in the name of so-called great religions and that’s just what they did to people, not to mention the myriad number of animal sacrifices. I inveigh against any theism. Having numerous Gods is as bad as having one. All-though you misunderstood me if you think I treat them as fools. Far from it, I treat them as deceiving crafty thinkers out to hustle the unwary believer. After all, the latest defenders of the faith are real scientists remember—you don’t easily call them dopes, now do you? No, perish the thought----insincere intellectuals that for some reason, I know not why (certainly ain’t true belief!) wanna sell us (the public at large) on this God argument. That was the intent of what I wrote. As for your last comment rationalist subsumed in theism, well well…lets not start that polemic. I do admit the tone was sardonic, poking fun at them, they deserve this ridicule if you see that I think they’re doing the same to any that will listen to them.

4

You know what? I am no theist. I believe religions have done tremendous harm and some good. Yet, what you are describing is not a problem with theism, it is a problem with man. Theism will only be as good as the men who belong to it. The Nazis and the Stalinists were, in general, not theists.

5

The religion of atheism, in no uncertain terms…

6

Yeah, really. If in its creation atheism becomes theism we will have achieved nothing. It’s sad, what Dawkins has done. The Romans worshiped many gods, the Christians worshiped one, and now atheists begin to worship none.

7
8

Thought this was an accurate quote from another user on another forum. :laughing:

9

Robleh

I wasn’t asking for an apology. If you feel that ‘religionists’ are as bad as all that, the preach your Good Word, brother. Just don’t expect anybody who disagrees to consider you any more than a shrill drama-queen- I sure don’t. You can go on preaching to your choir of people who will say “Right on,” and “Ditto,” and never come around to understanding a thing. It’s not ‘them’. It’s us. Me. You aren’t talking about some third party you can slander and carry-on about without the benefit of them being here to defend themselves.

10

To condemn religion because of religious wars and persecutions is logically fallacious.

People have used knives to kill other people. Does that make knives bad?

People have used governments to commit mass murder. Does that make governments bad?

People have used national identity as a justification for hatred and evil. Does that make national identity bad?

People have used religion to justify evil things. Does that make religion bad?

To show that religion is bad because of evil things done in the name of religion, you have to show that there is something bad in the religions that caused the evil which would have otherwise not happened. To condemn religion because of evil things done in its name is the ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy.

11

There is nothing wrong with Religion, its with the people who created it.
Religion by itself is harmless just like a Knife… but at our hands its dangerous. The argument about the existence of God, theism, atheism are futile attempts.

We are wasting tremendous energy in being violent in a way that we keep arguing, fighting without understanding about that which we are dealing with.

We need to be attentive and receptive … we should analyse every possibility withou rejecting anything outright.

We search for psychological security in religions, societies, national sentiments, friends,race… its like we are searching for colored glass houses and when we find one we hide in them and then if we look at the world from inside, everything looks red or green or yello but the truth is otherwise.

The first step toward enlightenment is not to get attached…

12

An attack?

Isn’t that sort of “me. vs. you” mindset the exact attitude that perpetuates the “Conquests, slavery, near genocide in the name of so-called great religions and that’s just what they did to people, not to mention the myriad number of animal sacrifices…” that you cite below?

What exactly are you doing to help the current tensions between religious (and non-religious) people? Posting inflammatory comments on public forums is not the rational, peaceful, harmonious solution I would expect from a concerned “existentialist” such as yourself.

Oh, I’m sorry. This must seem like another attack.

13

It is certain that ones’ beliefs influence their actions. If one believes that it will rain, one might grab an umbrella before heading out the door. If one believes that God exists, they might go to church on Sundays. If one believes abortion is murder, they might kill one doctor to save hundreds, or thousands of lives.

Religious convictions are just as strong in one’s mind as the sun rising tomorrow. If one’s religious convictions are they will be richly rewarded for killing others, or that one group of people is more deserving than another group based on their faith-based beliefs, then one can see the dilemma: especially if their religious texts are overflowing with violence, hatred, etc.

Beliefs influence behaviors, emotions, and actions. Religious beliefs that are handed down that include messages of violence, hatred, and discrimination, will have an effect on one’s interpretation of reality, their emotions, and their actions. How is it not evident, that amongst other things, religion can be an ideal conduit for violence?

14

What ISN’T a potential conduit for violence, d0rky?

And given that one can be religous without killing Jews or blowing up abortion clinics (I am religious, yet I haven’t been on any crusades) how on Earth is this supposed to critique my position?

15

Beliefs that don’t involve discriminating against other people. Unconditional love for other people is not a conduit for violence. The desire to resolve any problem using communication as opposed to violence doesn’t seem a conduit for violence.

Thought patterns that don’t involve: “You have to believe what I believe, even though there’s no evidence for what either of us believe, otherwise you are destined to hell, torment, earthly or otherwise, etc.”

Sam Harris does a great job explaining how so many have gotten further and further away from religious fundamentalism…people don’t believe what the Bible says as strongly anymore, or at least focus more, and place more importance, on the kind parts of the Bible, more than they used to. Religion (at least Christianity) is playing catch-up with morality, not the other way around. Islam really isn’t playing catch up with anything.

16

dorkyd00d, the ‘playing catch up with morality’ part really needs to be re-thought, and I hope that’s not a gem from Sam Harris. Christianity has been the leader in world morality and rationality since it was invented, you only have to read history, or look at Christian vs. otherwise countries to see this. It’s only been in the past few decades that a new morality with cultural and moral relativism at it’s core (yes, that is a contradiction, but a contradiction in the world) has risen to prominence, and Christianity hasn’t gotten on board because that new morality is wrong.
Good People weren’t invented in your generation. Doesn’t it make you worry that the way morals are talked about today demands us to think of everybody who lived before like 1960 or so as an evil bastard?
The “you have to believe what I believe…” is you playing pretend. There 's plenty of evidence of the truth of Christianity, and again, before just a dozen decades ago or so, everybody who was intelligent in the west saw this.
Last but not least, how can you fail to notice that Sam Harris is, and strives to turn other people into, the same kind of hate filled sons of bitches you imagine yourself to be complaining against here? He’s an arrogant prat, whom if he knew anything about philosophy, would be struck mute with humility in the face of whom he criticizes. Now, let me be the first to say that being an arrogant prat is ok, I suppose, but let me just suggest that if the overall thrust of the point is to rally against discrimination, and rally towards unconditional love, Sam Harris is a bad person to bring up in that context.
As far as people not believing the Bible as strongly anymore, that I believe, and it’s a shame.

17

Getting back to intelligent design, it’s not science, pure and simple. The entire argument about whether to teach it in schools or not is ridiculous. What it’s basically saying is “don’t bother trying to figure out how the universe started or how it took shape, it’s beyond the realm of science, just take it on faith.” I’m pretty sure that’s not what science is all about.

18

I think intelligent design should be taught in schools, because I think philosophy should be taught in schools, and that’s where things like a potentially divine origin of man should belong. I agree that it’s not science, or at least, not good science.

19

02.19.07.1939

While I agree with you about not barring it from schools, let’s not get carried away with the idea…

It is perfectly acceptable to secure a theological elective in high schools, colleges, and universities. I say theological, because the Creationist Concept or Intelligent Design Concept is not purely exclusive to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic spectrum. Such a class would be pressured to evaluate Native American concepts about the creation of the world… the Mayans especially (they have an amazing culture worth studying). Personally, if you are going to have such a class, I feel that it MUST go over ALL creation mythologies… Jewish, Mayan, Shinto, etc. ALL OF THEM… there should and must not be any exclusivity, for the sake of respecting all religious beliefs. Otherwise, we condemn the class as a military boot camp for religious intellectual warriors, and that’s scary.

Also… such classes shouldn’t exist in elementary or preschool systems. Teachers in any school system shouldn’t be allowed to even touch the subject unless they’re in the designated classroom for it. While I agree that it should be allowed in a school curriculum, it should not relate to any other academic field.

By the way, I wouldn’t even call it “not good science”, being as it’s not even science to begin with.

20

The Anthropic principle is pretty well grounded in Science and promotes the idea of a designed or finely tuned universe for life to be possible.

All ideas are somewhat flawed when they try to get specific, even the Origin of Species has its logical fallacies.