I’d agree with that, but how is it due God? Can you, in this dualistic language of English, state that?
God gave man the power to achieve greatness.
A warm welcome to the forum!
To me that is a statement void of meaning, despite my lack of atheism. Can you clarfy that any?God gave man the power to achieve greatness.
Gaber;9251649:
I think that in common English, given the general ignorance of what is beyond the mystical stage of “spiritual” life, that may be the best that can be said until there are greater grounds for knowing better. It will suffice for now to say that “God” “created” “man.” From another perspective that would be durned near impossible to say with any degree of accuracy. English is a very dualistic language, not true to fact in many or most of its gramatical assumptions, which are mostly linear and mechanical, reflecting, as does most religion, the age in which it came to ascendency, as useful as they are at the moment.
As an example, only the present tense, singular, of the verb “to be” in English is true to fact. The rest of the conjugation is relative. But that sort of distinction is not yet made in the language, and neither the need for that distinction nor its reason has entered the considerations of any but a comparative handful of speakers, native or otherwise. Consequently, it is very difficult to say or even point to certain kinds of subtlties in our language. But that will change.
It is kind of like the man in a remote village who, until he learned more of the outside world and a greater vocabulary, had no idea that he was homosexual. He had no word for it, and there was not cultural acknowledgement of that orientation in his village. Expanding his language, as any expanding of language does, resulted in the expanding of his awareness comprehension of existence.
Similarly, the refusal to change language can limit expereience, as well as reveal some of the assumptions behind limitations. A very good example of that is one I heard about a lady who refused to learn a foreign language because “God writ the Bible in English, an’ that’s good enough for me!”
So we see that words are important, and like Music, we can have various tonal sytems and modalities, and acording to them we can be expressive of many things, or not. English, for all its glory, is yet getting on its feet. Just imagine what might be to come!
tonyrey;9252525:
It is true that words cannot possibly do justice to the reality of God but I’m sure you’ll agree that “God creates man” is closer to the truth than “God doesn’t create man”. (I use the present tense because Creation is continuous rather than an isolated event.)I think that in common English, given the general ignorance of what is beyond the mystical stage of “spiritual” life, that may be the best that can be said until there are greater grounds for knowing better. It will suffice for now to say that “God” “created” “man.” From another perspective that would be durned near impossible to say with any degree of accuracy. English is a very dualistic language, not true to fact in many or most of its gramatical assumptions, which are mostly linear and mechanical, reflecting, as does most religion, the age in which it came to ascendency, as useful as they are at the moment.
As an example, only the present tense, singular, of the verb “to be” in English is true to fact. The rest of the conjugation is relative. But that sort of distinction is not yet made in the language, and neither the need for that distinction nor its reason has entered the considerations of any but a comparative handful of speakers, native or otherwise. Consequently, it is very difficult to say or even point to certain kinds of subtlties in our language. But that will change.
It is kind of like the man in a remote village who, until he learned more of the outside world and a greater vocabulary, had no idea that he was homosexual. He had no word for it, and there was not cultural acknowledgement of that orientation in his village. Expanding his language, as any expanding of language does, resulted in the expanding of his awareness comprehension of existence.
Similarly, the refusal to change language can limit expereience, as well as reveal some of the assumptions behind limitations. A very good example of that is one I heard about a lady who refused to learn a foreign language because “God writ the Bible in English, an’ that’s good enough for me!”
So we see that words are important, and like Music, we can have various tonal sytems and modalities, and acording to them we can be expressive of many things, or not. English, for all its glory, is yet getting on its feet. Just imagine what might be to come!
“The Branding of a Heretic” in the Wall Street Journal summed up the situation perfectly:
online.wsj.com/article/0,SB110687499948738917,00.html
It’s really pretty much how things are. And while I’m quoting atheists, which I’m not, in this case regarding “design,” their statements apply with great accuracy. As has been stated repeatedly, “design” as applied to Creation is an anthropomorphization easily overcome by inquiry into the nature of your own mind, the very “tool” used to come up with so many ideas that fall short of Reality. Don’t believe me or agrgue–go find out for yourself. In the mean time, substituting a hypothesis such as “design” is demeaning to the God way most of the piuos, imo and experience, ignorantly worship.
This is very good. It’s amazing how we begin to think when listening to the media and the world. We being to think that science is the end all. Science is to the atheists as the bible is to the fundamentalists. They try to shoehorn everything into it. If it’s not a part of science, they say, it doesn’t exist. Decartes, if I’m reading him correctly, sort of personalized truth with the scientific method. In other words, truth began to be considered an individual belief rather than something outside of oneself that all would agree with.A completely new dimension of reality is opened up by the view that the universe is the product of Design. It implies that purpose is not a rare phenomenon but fundamental and widespread. Even inanimate objects are valuable and significant because without them life would be impossible. This is where science is entirely uninformative and insignificant because it tells us nothing about the reasons for our existence. To leave people with the impression that science explains everything is to leave them with no authentic purpose at all. It doesn’t tell us how we should behave towards others or even towards ourselves. It doesn’t distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. In other words it leads to a dead end…
One of the saddest features of contemporary society is its loss of moral values and the pursuit of pleasure rather than perfection. A typical secular interpretation of life is given by Clarence Darrow:
Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of **purpose **which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don’t believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live **as if **we don’t exist by Chance.
- A Modern Introduction to Philosophy - edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, p. 453.
Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.
As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how **useful **we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:
“He also serves who only stands and waits…”
The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy.
“By their fruits you shall know them…”
It is the fertility of Design that makes it far superior to its rival.
Design is not concerned with gaps, It is a** comprehensive** explanation of reality.
“some entity” is a grossly inadequate description of the Supreme Being.
"all the things in the physical world " is inaccurate and misleading because Design also applies to non-scientific aspects of reality like persons, truth, beauty,freedom, justice and love.
It’s not a hypothesis but an explanation which is far more cogent and fertile than materialism.
We don’t!
It is absurd to expect Utopian perfection in a finite, physical world.
The only comedian around here is the ignorant philistine to fails to appreciate the grace and beauty of the human body which have inspired so many great artists to produce masterpieces which will endure long after Mr Tyson is forgotten. No doubt he would prefer the genitals and anus to be non-existent or situated at opposite extremities!
Stupidity is revealed in the hubris of a person who imagines he has the insight and knowledge to design a superior universe.
They are certainly far more positive than the prophets of doom and gloom who criticise but cannot create and continue to cling inconsistently to a life they supposedly condemn and detest as ill-designed…
The only depressant around here is the author of this gratuitous nonsense!
Only a deluded person thinks science can explain everything.
The natural world is not the sum total of reality.
What makes you think that?
Where do you think your mind comes from? The dust beneath your feet?
It is certainly demeaning to regard God as a Creator who has no idea of what He is doing, has no particular purpose for His creatures and produces the Big Bang without taking any further interest in the proceedings! To believe in an unDesigned universe is tantamount to atheism.
Thank you, James.
I’m not sure that Descartes discarded objective truth but your analysis of scientism is certainly true - and it accurately describes the view expressed by John Maisey in the post which precedes yours.
Toneyrey, it is a stopgap itself in that “purpose” suposes that you can become what you aways already are. And that you can claim that there is a purpose, other than o BE. menas that you do not comprehend part of the sstatement you yourself put forth as “proof” of “purpose!”:
is exactly the defeat of the idea of anthropomorphizing and objectifying God. If you doon’t see that, you have not read those authors, and neither has anyone who claims them as evidence for purpose. I will tell you ahead of time that the Catholic contemplative who stated that “As long as you think you are a person you will have a personal God” pretty much sums it up for all of the as refered to in your post quoted above. If you think I am mistaken, please go find one of them and ask “in person.”
It isn’t meant to be a description; it is a reference to an anthropomorphizing which is clung to in ignorance by religionists and denied by non=religionists. They are equal in standing.
Yes, it is equally inadequate as is the idea of a “spiritual” world" As FJ said, “This is always already the ‘other’ world!”
I certainly agree with Heinlein that “materialism is the least likely hypothesis.” But just because you think yours is better “organized” has no bearing on it being accurate. Valid in self reference doesn’t mean universally true.
Here I think you misread Tyson. He doesn’t deny the wonders he can’t or doesn’t understand, only their anthropomorphized attribution of source. And he says that to shift gears from looking at the unesplainable and beautiful to contrast it to things that are pliainly not well designed, if that is the premise of explanaiton. He is simply starting the quesiton of “If “god” is so smart, why do these patently absurd things exist if they are eamples of superintelligence?” And that is a valid quesiton for a scientist to ask. We might ask that as well.
This is a straw man. Perfection underlies reality despite any human overlay of any human interpretaion from a personal standpoint. You may be living in a Utopia and not see it because of your mimnd set. In fact, that is the case. There’s another question for you to ask of the mystic I hope you find. Just remember, that if Jesus sat dowm next t you in a bus, you might not recognize Him. Even His own Apostles hardly did. What are your chances?
Yes, he is a comedian. Many atheist are superb comics in this area, and if it didn’t offend people, I’d share some of that on here. but a philistine? Or ignorant? Uh… get real. His business is the explication of wonder and beauty as far as he can understand it. In his atheism he has been far mor inspirational to me with his accomplishment in presenting the mysteries of the Universe than your unnecessary attempts at description. He has denied nothing that you attribute to non=materialism, only can’t accept your brand of explanation of how it is. Relative to God, you two are in the same boat. Except he is far more efficacious in evoking Wonder.
Please. He makes no such claim while you are full of that! Really???!
Who might these “prophets” be? You are reading condemnation into something devoid of it. Emotionalism at best.
Well, people plead in their extremity to the anthropomorphic God they make in their own image and likeness and remain depressed, so I guess he is wrong here. But then, there are those millions who take comfort in their daily prayers, are there not? And it is on’y “gratuitous nonesense” from the perspective of not considering beyond your own paradigm. Are you so entrenched in your own opiniion that you can’t see the validity of someone else’s equally incomplete paradigm, the only difference being that theirs can inspire to wonder? He concentrates on the mystery of it and the necessity of asking questions. You are rigidly incorporated in an explanation that I feel no Wonder emanating from your presentation, quite contrary to his.
I agree. I’m suer Mr. tyson does, as well. He only claims that “design” isn’t an cannot be science. And I agree. It is especially not divine science.
.No? What isn’t the “natural world?” Hey, another question for the mystic! God is Nature,and religion is thoughts about that, ie speculation. I guess that maybe then Maisey isn completely right.
Scientists and religionists both deal in descriptions of surfaces and respectively, dofferent sorts od “depth.” Neither deals, except in rear cases, with That wihch allows those dealiings. In his assesment of “design,” Tyson is accurate. It is a stopgap until something more accurate enters the minds of those who believe it as a paradigm, or until they, and scientists, overcome the mind as such.
The Bible would have me think so, right?
But if I know where my mind “comes from,” it would be irrelevant to your experience, save perhaps as a pointer. The big thing is, find out where your own mind comes from, and then we might have a more amicable and far mor deep, subtle, and fascinating conversation! That may be demeaning to *your concept *of a God, but not to Reality. As you can see from your sentence, by which you sentence yourself, you are personifying, or anthropomorphizing the God whom you ignorantly worship. This is why the actual Way of things is unpalatable both to the religionist and the scientist and can only be known by the contemplative who has gone beyond mysticism. Perhaps reading those sages repeatedly repeaatedly repeatedly might reveal some chinks in your paradigm that you can use to escape from it!
