Religonists and the Intelligent Design Arguement

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

I don’t see why there aren’t theology classes (as electives) in high school.

I think that would make a lot of sense. And not just ‘theology’ but specific theology electives (Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan . . . whatever). They did that in Germany, and it seemed to work fine. Granted, fringe groups are less likely to sue there, but I think something similar could be implimented in America.

Keeping religion out of science is important. Keeping religion out of school? I don’t see why it’s such a big deal as long as it is elective. I wouldn’t have felt maligned in any way had such classes been offered. I could see how in some small communities it could possibly have some potential for abuse . . . but I don’t see how people having to take theology is any more offensive than me having to sit through English classes taught by radical feminists. There is always a certain amount of bullshit one has to slog through. As long as they don’t make people swear the creed or anything, who cares?

Exposure is always a good thing. My girlfriend wishes that she had been forced to read the Bible at some point – so much of English literature demands knowledge of it.

22

The idea of a singularity or God is not specific to religion, so what’s wrong with science and God without religion, or do you reject any idea of an intelligent source?

If science is the search for truth (yea, that’s funny), and if God is the source of Truth like all agree (if they do believe in a God) then the two must intersect at some time if God exists.

Yes or no?

23

The idea of a singular God is highly specific to a group of religions and is incredibly exclusive. Additionally, the notion of God varies greatly even within religious traditions, so trying to present any vision of God in class is, again, bound to be highly exclusive.

So, no, that would be a terrible idea.

Likewise, using God as an answer in science is useless. Since God can’t be assayed for at present, there is no scientific merit to the question.

So, again, it would be a terrible idea.

24

Then science isn’t reality or God isn’t reality, Pick one, or change the rules of logic according to the previous conditions I stated to be true. Please explain my mistake, and why.

25

So, first, the idea of God is specific to religion, especially the idea of a singular god. That was my first objection, here:

Next, the definition that you presented of God is certainly specific to Ahambric religions so, again, it suffers from the same problem that I addressed above.

Now, if God is real, then at some point we will be able to test for God and the two will intersect, hence:

Meaning that if goes does exist, then at some point the two will intersect, but that time isn’t now.

Think of it like aether. Repeated experiments had shown that light behaved like a wave, so it was clear that light had to be waving on something, so they postulated the existence of aether. This quickly proved problematic, because aether would have to be fluid, massless, and have no viscosity.
It soon became apparent that this was an unworkable idea (which would thankfully be resolved by Einstein). But, in the dying days of the theory (when it was clear that it wasn’t true, but before Einstein), scientists would still use the concept of aether in their calculations because it worked. So, it was convieniant for calculations, and it was even used, even though the scientists knew it wasn’t true.

If you like, you can think of ‘No God’ in science as being like aether – it isn’t true, but remains far more useful for calculations than the existence of God. Now, eventually this inconsistency may be resolved, if God is real. If God isn’t real, it will maintain the same ambiguous position that it still has to this day, an unprovable entity that is unnecessary for science, but is useful for religious self-cultivation.

Edited for eliminate a redundant concept.

26

Robleh,

First, I consider Intelligent Design to be a philosophical position, not a revealed/religious position.

Second, some existentialists are religious.

Third, your argument mentioned does not remind me of any of Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence. You have the internet at your fingertips, why don’t you look up the quote to present your position.

Fourth, how dare you accuse religion of formenting wars. Atheistic Communism has killed more people in the twentieth century than were ever killed in the name of religion – ever.

mrn

27

Which came first, religion, or the idea of God? See no need for religion to have a God.

No it isn’t, most all religions believe in a singularity as God. I put no personality on this God other then Intelligent, that should suffice for all monotheistic religions, which make up the majority.

Sure he can, in the same way scientist believe that there is evidence of Gravity from its observed effect. Are you implying that God has no observable effect or that we can only know what we physically see?

28

  1. Personally, I think religion pre-dates God, as per my Durkheim-leanings (as well as being a member of an atheistic tradition).

  2. a) Is majority sufficient for totality?
    b) Majority how?
    c) Majority where?

  3. I am not implying that God has no observable effects, I am rather bluntly stating it.

29

If a religion has a God, how can the religion predate the idea of the God?

No observable effects of order and design?
are you on crack?

30

Not all religion has a god. Now, we could argue which came first, the notion of God, or the notion of religion, but given the scant evidence either of us would have in that discussion, I do not think any meaningful conclusions could be reached. Shall we say that we each have distinct notions of history and leave it at that?

As for your notion of God the designer, you have explained it in other threads, and myself and others have given reasons that I feel are valid to reject such a notion. Indeed, given your views presented here as well as members of your own faith routinely rejecting your positions, I can fairly easily reach a conclusion about the state of your own Christianity, at least from a normative standpoint.

Which provides all the more reason for views akin to your own not being taught in schools, because if the position of a minority (of one, I believe) can force its way into the classroom, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster version of how ID ought be taught in schools crosses over from satire to rather a deadly possibility.

31

Bowloforanges.

Existentialists don’t concern themselves with issues like whether their views promote human harmony. We recognize the absurdity of being in the human condition.

Though, it, the philosophy that is, doesn’t prevent one from feeling compassion and love for others of the human race. It simply teaches that the conscious mind is all that is experiencing this external world. IT decides and chooses. IT interprets and makes sense, though it may be utimately without eternal sense and meaning. But, we are mere beings engaged in that ‘sheer activity of thinking…and going toward nothingness’ as I paraphrase Satre, in describing the desultory actions of our thinking minds.

Am I fomenting tension and hostility by exposing these demagogues? If so good! If you don’t agree with the exposition, say so. But don’t morally assail me. If I had attacked a pawnbroker, drug-dealers, child-molesters, or satan-worshippers would you not have lodged the same ironic comment that I’m encouraging just what I seek to undo?

When you see people deceiving others with an authoritative stance and keep silent, you are accepting it. Besides this is the forum to express your objections, albeit respectfully. I did just that.

Maybe you’re projecting intolerance upon me?

32

I said IF religion has a God as to seperate those who dont, I wrote this on purpose so my statment wasnt entroching on the wrong territory and yet you still made mention of it.

Why, am I not clear?

I only scratched the surface in that thread before I was attacked and veered away, try asking some specific questions or make some specific assertions with examples and I will do the same. I promise I can back up my views logically and at the same time tear down anything you put forth to support no design. If you can do the same then I guess it’s a tie, but if you cant and I can, then you must concede.