Addressing conflict between religion and science

[Ranklyfrank]

Tony,

Evolution by Design is one of those ideas which, like the Social Security Ponzi scheme and waterbeds, seemed like a good idea at the time. I see several obvious egregious faults:

1. 
   *]It is much more difficult to implement than it sounds, because of the enormous number of unknown environmental variables which must be programmed for in advance. Plus, the additional unknowns which appear as new predators evolve and old prey go extinct.
   
   *]It fails to deal with abiogenesis.
   
   *]Taken together with the Biblical claims in Genesis, it is dreadfully confusing.
   
   *]It totally fails to address the horrid odds against gene construction by random chance, 1.4 x 10exp-542 for a single small 900 base-pair human gene.
   
   Abiogenesis is really a huge issue— the TRex in the outhouse. That’s why evolutionists generally ignore it completely. I’ve never understood why Creationists make such a fuss over Darwinism, which is so easy to obfuscate around, when abiogenesis is such an obvious candidate for Creation Theory.

1. 
   I agree, except that “TRex” is too small. I’d go with carnivore X or brontosaurus. Or whatever is WAY bigger.

 

[tonyrey]

*A false dilemma! How about evolution by Design? *

                                                              OK then! How about evolution by Discovery or by Desire or by Art?                                 You are just playing with words - which does nothing to further the discussion... Actually not. Any one of those make far more sense than ID. ID is playing with words.

Development due to rational Design is intelligible whereas development solely through Discovery or by Desire or by Art are not - unless you postulate Intelligence! Which amounts to accepting Development by Design…

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Development due to rational Design is intelligible whereas development solely through Discovery or by Desire or by Art are not - unless you postulate Intelligence! Which amounts to accepting Development by Design…

So discovery, desire, and art are devoid of intelligence? It’s been nice chatting with you, Tonyrey.

 

[greylorn]

Development due to rational Design is intelligible whereas development solely through Discovery or by Desire or by Art are not - unless you postulate Intelligence! Which amounts to accepting Development by Design…

Tonyrey,
Perhaps inserting the word “solely” into the discussion was inappropriate. I know that I dislike it when someone warps my words, because they often do so to improve their own argument.

Humans build and invent things for a variety of motivations which, it seems to me include Discovery (the telescope), Desire (to make money to impress chicks), and Art (the Ferrari, to impress chicks). I lump the entire process into Engineering, to which all possible motivations and methods apply.

I use the term Engineering rather than Creation or Design to apply to the assembly of our universe and ourselves for specific reasons:

• It implies a process of experimenting and figuring things out, tweaking design elements until they all work right, as opposed to instantaneously bringing something into existence via a magical act of will.
• Engineering involves a variety of engineers and motivations, including love and sheer whim.
• Engineering requires intelligence of many different styles, but can occasionally be accomplished via luck or happy accident.
• Engineers often make mistakes, and sometimes resort to kludges to make their projects work.
• The processes of engineering, and the results, accurately reflect the inner workings of those aspects of biological design that we are able to examine in detail.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I like the word “engineering” better than “Intelligent Design” What rankles me about the whole creation by a personal God thing is this sense it carries for me of “God and His Train Set” where He, being careful not to catch His beard on tracks or in the Cosmic Wheels, is rubbing His hands together thinking “Let’s see; what will I invent next??” The idea of a God discreet from Creation is repugnant to me, as it just doesn’t fit anything really well.

And speaking of religion and science, there’s a thread now about the alleged microbes from outer space some NASA scientist found in a CI2 meteorite!

 

[tonyrey]

I like the word “engineering” better than “Intelligent Design” What rankles me about the whole creation by a personal God thing is this sense it carries for me of “God and His Train Set” where He, being careful not to catch His beard on tracks or in the Cosmic Wheels, is rubbing His hands together thinking “Let’s see; what will I invent next??” The idea of a God discreet from Creation is repugnant to me, as it just doesn’t fit anything really well.

You obviously prefer an impersonal God who is unaware of what is happening, has no control over events, provides no rational basis for morality and leaves us entirely to our own devices, thereby giving you an absolute carte blanche and total independence!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

You obviously prefer an impersonal God who is unaware of what is happening, has no control over events, provides no rational basis for morality and leaves us entirely to our own devices, thereby giving you an absolute carte blanche and total independence!

Absolutely not. Clearly you have no clue of what is entailed in in the understanding of non dualism. None. Zero. You might therefore wonder why, to its proponents, one of its names is the Path of Absolute Responsibility. Do you have any idea of what the Root of the Great Commandment IS? Or the Golden Rule? Or the Law of Reciprocity? Or the dictum to Know Thyself? If you did your Church would be as clear glass, and you might remain a Catholic as many of us are, but you might be a little less contentious (I am speaking here with great restraint and with tact) about my statements. In fact you would joyously be adding your own experiential observations.

 

[greylorn]

You obviously prefer an impersonal God who is unaware of what is happening, has no control over events, provides no rational basis for morality and leaves us entirely to our own devices, thereby giving you an absolute carte blanche and total independence!

I cannot imagine what drove you to those conclusions. You might want to re-examine them.

Back when I was a Catholic, I’d go to confession often, because I committed many sins. I was always genuinely sorry for them and always received absolution. It turned out to be the equivalent of giving a career criminal a sentence of two minutes probation.

Years later after I gave up my faith in the Church, but not in God, I experimented a bit and did some more wrong things, but found that I could no longer get instant absolution for them. The only cure for a wrong had become a right. I spent one summer visiting stores I’d shoplifted from and paying my debt, double; connecting with people I’d hurt whenever possible and asking their forgiveness. That all proved to be a lot tougher than a few Our Fathers and Hail Marys, but it worked. Should have been my penance from the get go— would have saved a lot of work.

Ultimately, my view of the universe includes the possibility of continuity of consciousness, so I behave accordingly— not without lapses, being human. I do not expect to encounter the Creator, much less be judged by him, but that is not important, for it does not mean that I won’t be judged— only that if so, I don’t know by whom or according to what standards.

From this perspective, religious standards are like training wheels.

For what its worth, I raised three offspring without teaching them a single arbitrary moral standard, but insuring that they saw the effects upon my life of my own choices. Taking responsibility for their own choices worked out very well for all of them. They are good people, and two are both financially and personally successful.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

@Greylorn:

Hmmmm…You continue to become a very interesting person who displays a very practical sanity. Had I children of school age and had to choose who I would send them to for education, between you and someone else on here, you’d win hands down with no points scored by your, uh, “competitor” would be too strong…And I actually believe that he wouldn’t understand why I would make such a decision.

 

[Pieman333272]

I cannot imagine what drove you to those conclusions. You might want to re-examine them.

Back when I was a Catholic, I’d go to confession often, because I committed many sins. I was always genuinely sorry for them and always received absolution. It turned out to be the equivalent of giving a career criminal a sentence of two minutes probation.

Years later after I gave up my faith in the Church, but not in God, I experimented a bit and did some more wrong things, but found that I could no longer get instant absolution for them. The only cure for a wrong had become a right. I spent one summer visiting stores I’d shoplifted from and paying my debt, double; connecting with people I’d hurt whenever possible and asking their forgiveness. That all proved to be a lot tougher than a few Our Fathers and Hail Marys, but it worked. Should have been my penance from the get go— would have saved a lot of work.

Ultimately, my view of the universe includes the possibility of continuity of consciousness, so I behave accordingly— not without lapses, being human. I do not expect to encounter the Creator, much less be judged by him, but that is not important, for it does not mean that I won’t be judged— only that if so, I don’t know by whom or according to what standards.

From this perspective, religious standards are like training wheels.

For what its worth, I raised three offspring without teaching them a single arbitrary moral standard, but insuring that they saw the effects upon my life of my own choices. Taking responsibility for their own choices worked out very well for all of them. They are good people, and two are both financially and personally successful.

Greylorn:

This is a very interesting idea you have for morals. But what I must ask is:

Does the Catholic method of forgiveness really exclude this?

I mean, I think one who is truly sorry will also try to materialistically make up the sin. That is to say, while they will receive forgiveness from God for abstaining from the Eucharist for some time or praying a few Hail Marys or better yet, Rosaries, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also go to jail for murder or destroy your porn CD’s. You should strive for forgiveness from not only God and Jesus but also the your wife, the manager whose store you robbed, or the family of the man you… removed.

I don’t think that Catholicism excludes your moral ideas nor discourages them. Confession is the bare minimum, and there are eve some priests who, as Penance, ask you to do a kind act to repay it, or something along those lines.

 

[Pieman333272]

@Greylorn:

Hmmmm…You continue to become a very interesting person who displays a very practical sanity. Had I children of school age and had to choose who I would send them to for education, between you and someone else on here, you’d win hands down with no points scored by your, uh, “competitor” would be too strong…And I actually believe that he wouldn’t understand why I would make such a decision.

Provided I am one of those “competitors”, I would understand why you made the decision but at least in part disagree with it.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Greylorn:
Does the Catholic method of forgiveness really exclude this? (etc.)

being in somewhat similar shoes, I will say for myself tht no, it doesn’t, it’s just way more cumbersome, indirect, and ultimately, well, imo, bifurcationg.

Sorry, Pieman, you’re close to, but not on that menu.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

This is a very interesting idea you have for morals. But what I must ask is:

Does the Catholic method of forgiveness really exclude this?

I mean, I think one who is truly sorry will also try to materialistically make up the sin. That is to say, while they will receive forgiveness from God for abstaining from the Eucharist for some time or praying a few Hail Marys or better yet, Rosaries, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also go to jail for murder or destroy your porn CD’s. You should strive for forgiveness from not only God and Jesus but also the your wife, the manager whose store you robbed, or the family of the man you… removed.

I don’t think that Catholicism excludes your moral ideas nor discourages them. Confession is the bare minimum, and there are eve some priests who, as Penance, ask you to do a kind act to repay it, or something along those lines.

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic method of forgiveness does not exclude taking direct personal responsibility for one’s wrongs, but neither does it, as an institution, encourage doing so. In that sense, it failed me. I’ve no doubt that it works well for others, but I can speak reliably only for myself. Those priests who give dynamic penances are on the right track, IMO.

Personal sorrow for my sins was not the cause of my choice to make my best amends. That came from a long personal-repair seminar called the est Six-Day Training held up in the Sierras. Through it I saw how my transgressions had affected my own sense of worth and hence my life. I cleaned up my affairs solely for selfish reasons, to be at peace with myself. It didn’t help, but I’ve no regrets on that account.

The store managers to whom I returned money seemed more annoyed at the accounting problem it created for them than grateful, and may have pocketed the cash for all I know.

Incidentally, we seem to have jumped this thread’s rails. Mea culpa.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Good and important story, nonetheless.

But OK, then: how is it that two such radically different approaches to explaining the world co-exist on the same planet in minds built in the same schema? And how can they co-exist in the same mind? And why are they taken by so many as adversarial? Are the people who do that still in the inherited mind set that globed everything in Nature together without teasing out whats properly internal and what’s properly external and relating the tow in a unified scheme? There are such correlate and even several types of charts and diagrams. Has no one on here seen those and if so thought about them? And OK, so there is belief, but there needs to be an anchor or correspondence for that in the actual world that is communicable enough that we could get past all the religious bickering to a Universal model that would allow us to get past our parochial addictions, no?

 

[greylorn]

RF
That’s quite a brainfull of questions. My short attention span requires that I address them one at a time.

But OK, then: how is it that two such radically different approaches to explaining the world co-exist on the same planet in minds built in the same schema?

When faced with any seeming contradiction, the solution is the same as for a paradox. Examine the core hypotheses and extricate their faults.

It this case, the clear conclusion is that minds are not built in the same schema. I propose that one component of the mind is not “built” at all, at least not by an external builder.

And how can they co-exist in the same mind?

Consider reconsidering your objections to Cartesian dualism.

I realize that Descartes’ original concept had logical and experimental flaws, but I have refined it considerably and integrated the notion with several aspects of science— experimental neurological data, hypnosis research, psychology, and fundamental cosmology. The revised version also produces several alternative explanations for creation, and eradicates a large set of atheistic arguments against creation.

In the context of your question, consider dualism in these simplified terms:

• There exists an entity, the nature of which is poorly understood, which religious people name the “soul.”
• The soul is capable of independent sentience, thus allowing it to operate externally to the brain-body system (under some circumstances).
• The human brain is a powerful information processing machine.
• The soul is integrated with the brain so intimately that under normal circumstances, the two operate as one. When doing so we regard the composite mechanism as mind.
• Brain is programmed by childhood teachings and societal pressures. Controlled might be a better word. “Soul” can be independent of this programming.
• Thus, soul and brain can be conflicted within the mind which, together, they comprise.

And why are they taken by so many as adversarial?

The brain is a powerful machine, far more so than soul (in the physics sense of power). It is designed to regard its contents as always true and correct. Only soul can question these contents, and it rarely does so.

Are the people who do that still in the inherited mind set that globed everything in Nature together without teasing out whats properly internal and what’s properly external and relating the two in a unified scheme?

That seems an obvious yes, does it not? But you knew that.

Even those who attempt the teasing have trouble with it, for their ideas are invariably met with overwhelming rejection by those whose brains are the sole ruler of mind.

There are such correlate and even several types of charts and diagrams. Has no one on here seen those and if so thought about them?

Maybe not, except for yourself. Speaking for the only one here I fairly can, I’ve not, since I’m not a “charts and diagrams” kind of thinker.

And OK, so there is belief, but there needs to be an anchor or correspondence for that in the actual world that is communicable enough that we could get past all the religious bickering to a Universal model that would allow us to get past our parochial addictions, no?

Yes! You nailed that. Chapter XVI of my book addresses that exact issue. The same book also provides an excellent “universal model.” Naturally I am alone in that exalted opinion of its worth. You’ll get to judge for yourself before long.

 

[tonyrey]

You obviously prefer an impersonal God who is unaware of what is happening, has no control over events, provides no rational basis for morality and leaves us entirely to our own devices, thereby giving you an absolute carte blanche and total independence!

My interlocutors on this forum do that for me! It’s good to see you’re back in action here.

Back when I was a Catholic, I’d go to confession often, because I committed many sins. I was always genuinely sorry for them and always received absolution. It turned out to be the equivalent of giving a career criminal a sentence of two minutes probation.

Years later after I gave up my faith in the Church, but not in God, I experimented a bit and did some more wrong things, but found that I could no longer get instant absolution for them. The only cure for a wrong had become a right. I spent one summer visiting stores I’d shoplifted from and paying my debt, double; connecting with people I’d hurt whenever possible and asking their forgiveness. That all proved to be a lot tougher than a few Our Fathers and Hail Marys, but it worked. Should have been my penance from the get go— would have saved a lot of work.

Many priests were - and are - more enlightened than your confessors…

Ultimately, my view of the universe includes the possibility of continuity of consciousness, so I behave accordingly— not without lapses, being human. I do not expect to encounter the Creator, much less be judged by him, but that is not important, for it does not mean that I won’t be judged— only that if so, I don’t know by whom or according to what standards.

We are all judged, no matter what we believe and whether we like it or not, by the consequences of what we do and don’t do.

From this perspective, religious standards are like training wheels.

We all need training…

For what its worth, I raised three offspring without teaching them a single arbitrary moral standard, but insuring that they saw the effects upon my life of my own choices. Taking responsibility for their own choices worked out very well for all of them. They are good people, and two are both financially and personally successful.

What about the third? Perhaps more morally and spiritually successful, and perhaps in spite of apparent failure in the eyes of the world.

 

[tonyrey]

You obviously prefer an impersonal God who is unaware of what is happening, has no control over events, provides no rational basis for morality and leaves us entirely to our own devices, thereby giving you an absolute carte blanche and total independence!

I am simply taking at face value your caricature of a personal God:

What rankles me about the whole creation by a personal God thing is this sense it carries for me of “God and His Train Set” where He, being careful not to catch His beard on tracks or in the Cosmic Wheels, is rubbing His hands together thinking “Let’s see; what will I invent next??” The idea of a God discreet from Creation is repugnant to me, as it just doesn’t fit anything really well.

 

[Pieman333272]

being in somewhat similar shoes, I will say for myself tht no, it doesn’t, it’s just way more cumbersome, indirect, and ultimately, well, imo, bifurcationg.

Sorry, Pieman, you’re close to, but not on that menu.

What “menu”? Greylorn’s “competitors”? Or something about the confession question? That was the one part I didn’t get, sorry.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Just drop it, Pieman, it isn’t about you.

 

[grannymh]

If this is off topic, please ignore it.

Have started reading an article which uses the word “reason” as a means to reach truth. At least that is my first impression…

Does the use of reason to reach truth apply to religion and does it apply to science? Either one or the other? Both? Neither? This is way different than the cliché “truth cannot contradict truth” because I am referring to a means not the end product.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert