Design

[tonyrey]

I went to a secular, public school within a deeply religious area and I was never taught that mental illness was caused by demons. Demons were actually never mentioned. And the area of my upbringing was most certainly not “progressive” by most standards. Quite the opposite, by reputation.

I can’t quite decide if this is more straw-man or red herring… Erroneous for certain. But which best describes your prose here…

…and there’s an ad hominem.

I see your rhetoric hasn’t improved despite me introducing you to Stanford’s philo page.

:tsktsk:

It’s such an irrelevant post it’s not worth taking seriously!

 

[Vonsalza]

I believe that if they created such ability of pain, predators and prey, diseases, hunger, fear, sickness are sadistic by nature and definitely not all loving or all powerful, I know I wouldn’t do it of I were a creator, that’s much of a sadist act or a mad scientist would create in his lab, creating it from the beginning is evil, let alone doing nothing to stop it.

I think the over-arching point is that the gods want humanity to work together to stop it as it exists as a result of the misdeeds of humanity.

They delight in you exercising your free moral agency toward the good. The second best way to do this is to help your neighbor. And best I can tell, your neighbor is pretty much everyone.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I went to a secular, public school within a deeply religious area and I was never taught that mental illness was caused by demons. Demons were actually never mentioned. And the area of my upbringing was most certainly not “progressive” by most standards. Quite the opposite, by reputation.

I can’t quite decide if this is more straw-man or red herring… Erroneous for certain. But which best describes your prose here…

I guess you don’t understand sarcasm. By the way, the church still has exorcists, and considers demonic possession “real”. So it is not an “outrageous” assumption that tony would like to include demonic possessions in the public curriculum in public schools. After all, he is upset that the poor children are deprived of subjects which are totally unsupported by evidence - for example: “design”.

I readily admit that I am guilty of being sarcastic. It is not forbidden, even though generally it is not encouraged. But sometimes the absolute disdain or contempt for some posters can only be expressed in a sarcastic form, since direct adjectives (like “dumb”, “stupid” or “idiotic” would be disallowed as uncharitable). There are quite a few Catholic posters for whom I have respect, even if I disagree with them. And there are a truckload of posters who deserve nothing but contempt. I am sad for the imbalance.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess you don’t understand sarcasm. By the way, the church still has exorcists, and considers demonic possession “real”. So it is not an “outrageous” assumption that tony would like to include demonic possessions in the public curriculum in public schools. After all, he is upset that the poor children are deprived of subjects which are totally unsupported by evidence - for example: “design”.

Where is the evidence that the power to design so many different devices ranging from aeroplanes to computers is produced by mindless molecules? I guarantee there will be never be a satisfactory reply to this question on this forum or anywhere else considering the atheists’ record of total failure to do so. Any fool can criticise but to create requires insight and inspiration which biological robots don’t possess…

 

[tonyrey]

I think the over-arching point is that the gods want humanity to work together to stop it as it exists as a result of the misdeeds of humanity.

They delight in you exercising your free moral agency toward the good. The second best way to do this is to help your neighbor. And best I can tell, your neighbor is pretty much everyone.

Free moral agency doesn’t exist as far as materialists are concerned. Biological organisms are neither free nor aware of good and evil…

 

[Vonsalza]

Free moral agency doesn’t exist as far as materialists are concerned. Biological organisms are neither free nor aware of good and evil…

Fair point.

I’m not sure how a strict materialist would define “suffering” though… It segues into the debate about the materiality of consciousness.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . to create requires insight and inspiration which biological robots don’t possess…

It requires insight to realize one has insight.

We are able to understand; we have a capacity to discern patterns or structures. This happens at the basic level of perception, which allows us to sense things, structures of what is “out there” emitting or reflecting light and vibrations in the air, that which to sensors on our tongue, in our olfactory bulbs and the skin react in their particular fashions. An immediate interpretation envelops the perceptual cues; close to the earth, it might be - animal, lunch or danger, accompanied by the adrenaline rush, which powers the decision to fight or flee. On a higher, intellectual level we can conceive of say, a dome that covers us, a dome which dissolves in Hubble images of space moving out and back in time.

We do all this as individual expressions of one humanity, who do not simply react like billiard balls, but rather reach out and connect. This mystery of our personal existence, while individual, is in the form a self-other - perceptually, emotionally, cognitively and behaviourally. We are relational to the core of our being, who we are. Some of us go to the ends of the world to find the guru to take us to where we are already - one with the universe. Within that unity, that sense of oneness may be shattered into fragments, marked by loneliness, fear and hostility, emptiness. In our spiritual brokenness, we may choose to seek wholeness through self-absorption, and the possessive incorporation of what is other into ourselves. This solution is not merely fruitless, but widens the experiential and ontological chasm between self and other. What is ultimately the abyss to those who seek power, is easily spanned through love, the willing of the good of the other, the giving of ourselves to that end.

This is a universal truth, understood differently and to varying degrees of validity by most people in the variety of cultures that inhabit the world. For example, what most people seem to take from eastern religions and meditative techniques such as yoga, is the development one’s consciousness, the seeking of enlightenment. There’s talk of levels of consciousness, evolved beings and such. Consciousness as a description of our relational nature, is Love in its highest form. In this game of transcendence, we can only go so far as our master, guru or teacher. As I see it, the Catholic Church’ strength rests on Christ and His presence in the Eucharist, the mass and the way it presents, through the Catechism, its shared inspired truth in manner that fits our particular times and their struggles. The one Truth, eternal, joyous, infinitely beautiful, the Source of all life is God; and He is Love.

There is so much more to reality than the material dimension in what can be portrayed as a three dimensional reality that also and necessarily includes the mind and the spirit. We can reduce a sphere to its projection as a line on the x-axis, but claiming that it offers any sort of comprehensive explanation as to what it is, is as nonsensical as one claiming our existence is merely physical. At that point, what next needs to be addressed is the nature of mind and of being, ultimately leading to the question a to who is the “Designer”/Creator, God?

 

[tonyrey]

:clapping:

It requires insight to realize one has insight.

We are able to understand; we have a capacity to discern patterns or structures. This happens at the basic level of perception, which allows us to sense things, structures of what is “out there” emitting or reflecting light and vibrations in the air, that which to sensors on our tongue, in our olfactory bulbs and the skin react in their particular fashions. An immediate interpretation envelops the perceptual cues; close to the earth, it might be - animal, lunch or danger, accompanied by the adrenaline rush, which powers the decision to fight or flee. On a higher, intellectual level we can conceive of say, a dome that covers us, a dome which dissolves in Hubble images of space moving out and back in time.

We do all this as individual expressions of one humanity, who do not simply react like billiard balls, but rather reach out and connect. This mystery of our personal existence, while individual, is in the form a self-other - perceptually, emotionally, cognitively and behaviourally. We are relational to the core of our being, who we are. Some of us go to the ends of the world to find the guru to take us to where we are already - one with the universe. Within that unity, that sense of oneness may be shattered into fragments, marked by loneliness, fear and hostility, emptiness. In our spiritual brokenness, we may choose to seek wholeness through self-absorption, and the possessive incorporation of what is other into ourselves. This solution is not merely fruitless, but widens the experiential and ontological chasm between self and other. What is ultimately the abyss to those who seek power, is easily spanned through love, the willing of the good of the other, the giving of ourselves to that end.

This is a universal truth, understood differently and to varying degrees of validity by most people in the variety of cultures that inhabit the world. For example, what most people seem to take from eastern religions and meditative techniques such as yoga, is the development one’s consciousness, the seeking of enlightenment. There’s talk of levels of consciousness, evolved beings and such. Consciousness as a description of our relational nature, is Love in its highest form. In this game of transcendence, we can only go so far as our master, guru or teacher. As I see it, the Catholic Church’ strength rests on Christ and His presence in the Eucharist, the mass and the way it presents, through the Catechism, its shared inspired truth in manner that fits our particular times and their struggles. The one Truth, eternal, joyous, infinitely beautiful, the Source of all life is God; and He is Love.

There is so much more to reality than the material dimension in what can be portrayed as a three dimensional reality that also and necessarily includes the mind and the spirit. We can reduce a sphere to its projection as a line on the x-axis, but claiming that it offers any sort of comprehensive explanation as to what it is, is as nonsensical as one claiming our existence is merely physical. At that point, what next needs to be addressed is the nature of mind and of being, ultimately leading to the question a to who is the “Designer”/Creator, God?

:clapping: A superb survey of our personal development which highlights the tragic superficiality of materialism which reduces us to animals without a soul or even a capacity for unselfish love. In fact there is no such thing as the self in the scientific scheme of things which is supposed to be capable in principle of explaining everything (including scientists!). The mind is regarded as the brain in action and nothing more - regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. There can hardly be a more destructive theory than an undesigned universe in which life is no more than a sheer accident. It is astonishing how some Christians can reconcile such a morbid ideology with belief in a loving God. Their watchword must be “Credo quia absurdum”…

 

[tonyrey]

Free moral agency doesn’t exist as far as materialists are concerned. Biological organisms are neither free nor aware of good and evil…

Fair point.

I’m not sure how a strict materialist would define “suffering” though… It segues into the debate about the materiality of consciousness.
I have no idea because it raises the insurmountable problem of intangible beliefs, thoughts, emotions and decisions. A mechanistic explanation of animals - let alone persons - is hopelessly inadequate. Even primitive man recognised the difference between mind and matter whereas modern materialists tack on the term “emergent” as if it’s a sufficient explanation! No doubt they attribute it to survival value even though simple cells have outlasted more complex organisms, some of whom are now a threat to their own survival and all life on this planet…

The real question is “How did the urge to survive originate?”

 

[ANV]

:clapping:
:clapping: A superb survey of our personal development which highlights the tragic superficiality of materialism which reduces us to animals without a soul or even a capacity for unselfish love. In fact there is no such thing as the self in the scientific scheme of things which is supposed to be capable in principle of explaining everything (including scientists!). The mind is regarded as the quia absurdum"…

Well yes, we are realistically, logically and scientifically animals and that’s not a bad thing on the contrary, a simple look to the mirror can give us a hint on our origins, our animalistic nature, and nothing is insulting in being animals for what humans do is a lot worse than what many animals do and history is a proof of human atrocities.
Humans are not some fallen mystical creatures from some far away place, the universe and the gods aren’t centred on us or on our needs, ambitions and anthropocentrism, we’re too egoist to think that, it’s too selfish and absurd to believe that we are more important than other beings around, the Earth was there before humans and there are billions of species, planets and galaxies in this universe, the disappearance of Earth itself will make no impact on the universe so how important and centred we actually are?
But does this make us less valuable? Not necessarily, because to us, our thoughts, feelings and experiences matter as sentiment beings, and this is unrelated to how big or small we are, naturalism doesn’t exclude feelings, compassion or experiences, on the contrary these qualities and more exist in many species.

 

[inocente]

It’s very easy to admire a slick Latin quotation learnt at School but to produce a rational argument which disproves Design is a rather more formidable challenge. How about refuting the following points to demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom?

Attack isn’t the best form of defence when you have nothing to defend and cannot present an adequate explanation of the origin of life and its development from monocellular organisms to rational beings who have insight into the nature of the universe and the power to change themselves and the world in which they live - accomplishments you obviously take for granted without being able or willing to grasp their significance.

The persecution of Christians and other religious sects in China and elsewhere is undeniable evidence that militant atheism is even now being used to justify atrocities in flagrant violation of human rights nor is this a unique occurrence in the history of mankind. The rejection of Design is not an abstract philosophical issue but a decision which has resulted in needless suffering and death for millions of people. This is not surprising when people believe we alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust - as if we are infallible. The Declaration of Human Rights isn’t based on human decisions but on Christ’s teaching that we all have one Father in heaven who knew what He was doing when He created the universe. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular don’t make sense if there is **no reason **why we exist. Being related solely due to an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. The blind Goddess (or Watchmaker according to Dawkins) is an illusion which does far more harm than any religion because it rejects the value, purpose and meaning of life. It destroys everything and leaves us with nothing whatsoever except regret and despair.

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum. No wonder that in our secular society there have been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides.

I feel very strongly about the way people are brainwashed by individuals like David Attenborough who use their TV programmes to promulgate atheism by dwelling on the harsher aspects of nature. Even on this thread his reference to worms burrowing into children’s eyes has been used as evidence against the existence of a loving God in stark contrast to the message of Jesus that Solomon in all his glory couldn’t rival the beauty of the lilies. Even educated individuals are taken in by facile arguments which overlook the immense complexity of the biosphere…

Atheists accuse religious people of being anthropomorphic but the notion of a blind Watchmaker is a distortion of the fact that the theist’s view of reality is ratiocentric whereas their theory is eccentric because it reduces reasoning to an insignificant mechanistic process. Their rejection of thought as a “little agitation of the brain” is self-destructive whereas Pascal’s belief that it reveals the greatness of man is far closer to the truth and explains the astonishing success of science and the philosophical principles on which science is based. We live in a rational universe and are miraculously capable of understanding how and why we exist, inspired by the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures even though their inevitable limitations lead to tragedies. The immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks to such an extent that no reasonable person believes we should never have existed on this planet.

There’s obviously passionate religious fervor in your post. I don’t agree with just about any of it, but can’t make out any rational arguments to refute, just rather divisive opinions.

You give me the impression you’ve been brooding for a long time and forgot to make reality checks. Used to see that in the management team, someone would go on vacation, lie on a beach cogitating, come back with what he thought was an amazing idea, and the rest of us would just sit open-mouthed at what to us was a rambling, confused scatter gun.

I mean lighten up bro. To see the world, things dangerous to come to, to see behind walls, draw closer, to find each other, and to feel. That is the purpose of life. (youtube.com/watch?v=_BFEbKHBn-Y)

 

[tonyrey]

There’s obviously passionate religious fervor in your post. I don’t agree with just about any of it, but can’t make out any rational arguments to refute, just rather divisive opinions.

You give me the impression you’ve been brooding for a long time and forgot to make reality checks. Used to see that in the management team, someone would go on vacation, lie on a beach cogitating, come back with what he thought was an amazing idea, and the rest of us would just sit open-mouthed at what to us was a rambling, confused scatter gun.

I mean lighten up bro. To see the world, things dangerous to come to, to see behind walls, draw closer, to find each other, and to feel. That is the purpose of life. (youtube.com/watch?v=_BFEbKHBn-Y)

Please give specific reasons for your rejection of my points:

1. How did life originate and develop from monocellular organisms to rational beings who have insight into the nature of the universe and the power to change themselves and the world in which they live?
2. Isn’t the persecution of Christians and other religious sects in China and elsewhere undeniable evidence that militant atheism is even now being used to justify atrocities in flagrant violation of human rights? If not why not?
3. Is the Declaration of Human Rights based on human decisions or on Christ’s teaching that we all have one Father in heaven who knew what He was doing when He created the universe?
4. Do the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular make sense if there is no reason why we exist?
5. Do you disagree that the “blind Goddess” (or Watchmaker according to Dawkins) is an illusion which does far more harm than any religion because it rejects the value, purpose and meaning of life, destroys everything and leaves us with nothing whatsoever except regret and despair? If so why?
6. Do you disagree that it is evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum? If so why?
7. Do you believe worms burrowing into children’s eyes is evidence against the existence of a loving God and reject the message of Jesus that Solomon in all his glory couldn’t rival the beauty of the lilies? If so why?
8. Do you disagree that the atheists’s rejection of thought as a “little agitation of the brain” is self-destructive whereas Pascal’s belief that it reveals the greatness of man is far closer to the truth and explains the astonishing success of science and the philosophical principles on which science is based? If so why?
9. Do you disagree that we live in a rational universe and are miraculously capable of understanding how and why we exist, inspired by the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures even though their inevitable limitations lead to tragedies? If so why?

10… Do you disagree that the immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks to such an extent that no reasonable person believes we should never have existed on this planet?
If so why?

 

[tonyrey]

A superb survey of our personal development which highlights the tragic superficiality of materialism which reduces us to animals without a soul or even a capacity for unselfish love. In fact there is no such thing as the self in the scientific scheme of things which is supposed to be capable in principle of explaining everything (including scientists!).

Do we have the power of self-control? If so how did it originate?

Do we have human rights? If so why do they exist?

Are all animals equally valuable? If not why not?

Do you accept the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? If so why are they valid?

 

[Aloysium]

Well yes, we are realistically, logically and scientifically animals and that’s not a bad thing on the contrary, a simple look to the mirror can give us a hint on our origins, our animalistic nature, and nothing is insulting in being animals for what humans do is a lot worse than what many animals do and history is a proof of human atrocities.
Humans are not some fallen mystical creatures from some far away place, the universe and the gods aren’t centred on us or on our needs, ambitions and anthropocentrism, we’re too egoist to think that, it’s too selfish and absurd to believe that we are more important than other beings around, the Earth was there before humans and there are billions of species, planets and galaxies in this universe, the disappearance of Earth itself will make no impact on the universe so how important and centred we actually are?
But does this make us less valuable? Not necessarily, because to us, our thoughts, feelings and experiences matter as sentiment beings, and this is unrelated to how big or small we are, naturalism doesn’t exclude feelings, compassion or experiences, on the contrary these qualities and more exist in many species.

Thank you for explaining your belief system.

I see things very differently.

Specifically, are not animals. Clearly, we are creatures as they are, and no doubt that is what you see in the mirror. Most of us may have dissected frogs in elementary school, perhaps fetal pigs in my kids’ generation, to learn what is inside the body that physically enables us to grow, move, survive and reproduce in this world. But, we are as different from the animal kingdom as a giant solitary redwood would be to the surrounding grasses.

This is what a subtopic on this thread was about, that such views are being taught in school and propagated in the secular media as fact rather than the belief it is. If you look at cultures that are the closest to nature, connecting to the world as it is in its sensory fulness, the relationship is mystical, very far from the intellectually sterile, disconnected environment of the lab. As our knowledge is gained, through the methods we employ, our understanding is skewed. The world-wide tragedy of abortion is a direct outcome of our approach to nature.

So for what it’s worth to you, we are not realistically animals. Logically, the view is consistent within itself only if significant, obvious aspects of human nature are denied. In their denial, our attitude to one another changes, and this is a source of much concern as voiced by Tony et al. We are not scientifically animals where science, as it will, moves beyond some of today’s simplistic understandings.

When we behave like animals, we do not become animals; we become demonic. Animals can’t do wrong, behaving as they do from instinct. While we have similar feelings such as sadness, fear, elation, pain and pleasure; and respond in a similar fashion - posturing, fighting, fleeing and engaging in sexual intercourse, we have a free will by virtue of our having a spiritual soul, in the image of God.

Everything is centred around God, who is the Source of all that exists, in this moment and in every moment. You may wish to consider the idea that you, everything that has to do with this very moment is object to His compassion. Nature is not the Ground of our being. And, it is not actually harsh at all, except for us who are eternal beings. We suffer when we damage our connection to the Eternal and lose ourselves to the world’s temporality. Life surrenders itself to life, resulting in the magnificent diversity that we see around us. Having a fallen physical nature which readily seeks fulfillment in the transient and illusory, everything that we may pursue that is of this world will be taken - pleasure, wealth, honour and power. What can never be taken is what is given away - love.

TLDNR - Thanks for the opportunity to organize and share some of my thoughts.

 

[Samwise21]

What are we to make of articles like this, where particular scientists claim that rather than being formed out of nothingness the universe was always there

csicop.org/sb/show/did_the_universe_come_from_nothing

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What are we to make of articles like this, where particular scientists claim that rather than being formed out of nothingness the universe was always there

csicop.org/sb/show/did_the_universe_come_from_nothing

Time is the property of the STEM (space-time-energy-matter). It is nonsensical to talk about time outside the universe. It is exactly as nonsensical as talking about the “other side” of the Mobius strip.