| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Currently, the best explanation for the existence of life is design by an intelligent agent. It is this conclusion that should be the correct 'AE position', since it is based on the current state of knowledge. Of course, to propose the possibility of a future alternative explanation that does not require a designer is not unreasonable, but to dogmatically assert this belief as the only 'correct position', is. |
I strongly suspect life is an intelligent agent.
If so, it is because it is a child of the universe, another intelligent agent.
The presumption of "purpose" in the structure of the universe I believe will prove key to unlocking its secrets.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| it is a child of the universe |
Has Ishmael become a 1970s hippy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | Has Ishmael become a 1970s hippy? |
I think you will find that was Mick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Atheism is not an -ism. It is the mere decision not to believe in a particular fanciful theory. It is only said to be an -ism because of the importance of the previous antithetical belief (in God) and therefore atheism might briefly have become an -ism in sociological terms.. But not for aeons now.
Just in case it comes up, AE-ists are perfectly free to believe in 'God the anterior to the universe' and 'God the expression of the infinite' and stuff like that (although AE urges you not to waste your intellectual energies on stuff like that). It is 'God who impregnates Jewish women' etc that we decline to believe in.
PS 'God as intelligent designer' just about gets under the drawbridge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
But Richard Dawkins is busy trying to make it one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Atheism is not an -ism. It is the mere decision not to believe in a particular fanciful theory. |
I don't agree. Athiesm requires the positive assertion that there is no God. There aren't any drawbridges.
Whether God impregnates Jewish women is a question of theology and not a matter upon which God's existence depends.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Just in case it comes up, AE-ists are perfectly free to believe in 'God the anterior to the universe' and 'God the expression of the infinite' and stuff like that (although AE urges you not to waste your intellectual energies on stuff like that). It is 'God who impregnates Jewish women' etc that we decline to believe in. |
It is my conclusion that the forgetting of "stuff like that" is largely what has allowed science to go so very wrong. The word "purpose", for instance, can find its way into our scientific lexicon only by way of positing the notion of underlying intelligence within, beyond or behind the universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
But of course God's "intelligence" is itself both a scientific and theological question and not one upon which the principle of God depends.
The principle of God is indistinguishable from the principle of Good. No one who holds reason and logic to operate independent of subjective consciousness can be an Atheist in the truest sense. Proper Atheism is nihilism dressed in its Sunday best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| No one who holds reason and logic to operate independent of subjective consciousness can be an Atheist in the truest sense. Proper Atheism is nihilism dressed in its Sunday best. |
Very true. I always find it amusing when reading Dawkins that he's always going on about the beauty and wonder of various creatures, the Grand Canyon, the Barrier Reef blah blah blah. But if there is no God (or inherent reason and logic) then the beauty and wonder is meaningless. It is no more wonderful that the Grand Canyon is a mile across than if it is an inch. But Dawkins pretends to his readers that they can find some solace and meaning in atheism.
Any atheist who gets up on a soapbox and tries to convert people is trying to replace one belief with another. Darwin understood this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Thank God, er Someone, for Dawkins. He isn't a patch on his hero Darwin who scarcely needs defending in the scientific community but at least he's trying to oust religious bigotism from science lessons. Who knows, maybe one day an atheist will be allowed on the Today's 'Thought for the day' slot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Thank God, er Someone, for Dawkins. He isn't a patch on his hero Darwin who scarcely needs defending in the scientific community but at least he's trying to oust religious bigotism from science lessons. Who knows, maybe one day an atheist will be allowed on the Today's 'Thought for the day' slot.
|
hmmm... you mean he's trying to oust one form of bigotism so he can replace it with another.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | ...but at least he's trying to oust religious bigotism from science lessons. |
Your kidding right? The fundies are our only refuge from the bigots.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | But if there is no God (or inherent reason and logic) then the beauty and wonder is meaningless. |
Nonsense. The meaning is in the effect it has on the beholder... and this is not dependent upon the acceptance of "God (or inherent reason and logic)".
I am perfectly happy to accept that there are things in this universe that I am incapable of understanding, but I am simply not prepared to plug the gap in my knowledge by accepting the existence of a divine entity. This doesn't mean that I am incapable of taking meaning from the aesthetics of nature.
| It is no more wonderful that the Grand Canyon is a mile across than if it is an inch. |
To you maybe, but to me it's its very magnitude that inspires wonder... though I could still appreciate the beauty in a one inch scale model.
The attributes of beauty and wonderfulness are ascribed by the beholder... not imparted by "God (or inherent reason and logic)".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Your kidding right? The fundies are our only refuge from the bigots. |
You're spouting nonsense, I'm truly surprised at your stance. Dawkins saying there is no god is not the sign of a bigot. Unless you classify all rational scientists as bigots.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Dawkins saying there is no god is not the sign of a bigot. Unless you classify all rational scientists as bigots. |
Is the statement, "There is no god", the badge of rationality?
Dawkins is hardly the model of the dispassionate, objective analyst. I loath the man. And his fans are the most narcissistic, hate-filled and bigoted people I have ever personally encountered. To escape their loathsome company you may sit me in a sunday-meet'n of snake-handling pentecostals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
