Nontheist

[Windwalker]

Evolution and species go hand in hand. I don't know how you expect to discuss evolution and not include specie development.

Am I giving you the impression I am not?

I'm just pointing out that life often doesn't find a way. So a few species managed adapt.

I think you are failing to see my point. I'm not talking about specific species. I'm talking in a more abstracted sense of "Life Itself". How I am meaning this is in terms like this. Technically, there is only one Life, and all the animal and plant life forms are all expressions and actions of that singular Life.

A close analogy to this would be the scientific realization that technically all animal life forms on this planet descended from a single animal lifeform. From my knowledge of this, all animals have shared DNA code which may all come back to "Eve" as they symbolically call her, which is an ancient sea sponge. From there, it begins to branch out into something like 6 basic body plans, and then to all the diversity which are all variations upon this. We are technically, only one original animal.

That's what I am talking about. It is Life itself that find a way: survives as this species, that one didn't work out, try another, and on and on and on and on. It's not "species-centric", but Life-centric. That animating 'force" that energy, or whatever metaphor you can think of to try to describe it, that drives the whole thing. That is "what finds a way". That is what evolution is doing. "Finding a way".

My point is people like ID folks, or those who argue against it, are all making this mistaken premise that is is about the species itself, or in our case, a "human-centric" creation. "If an intelligent designer were real, then we humans should be better designed than this!!". That's is the flaw of logic right there. It's not about the individual species. The "intelligence" of evolution, is about Life, not your species. "Life finds a way".

They've already calculated when the earth will no longer sustain life even if everything goes right. So no life does not always find a way.

I would contend that the earth dying does not mean the end of Life at all. I'm deeply confident that Life exists naturally throughout the cosmos. And just as one species may live and breathe and walk for a time, the whole ecosystem itself of the planet earth as a collective organism, will eventually die too.

But Life will always find a way. It will arise when it can, where it can, and evolve and adapt and become.

Is this philosophical in nature? Absolutely. It is more than likely based upon what we understand about the nature of nature herself through our developing sciences. Is their proof yet? Not at the hard level, but its seems more that probably it is true.

There are simply too many known facts to falsify that statement. It was a statement used to develop a plot in a fictional movie and now folks got it stuck in their head.

It was a line written by an author who was extrapolating philosophical views based upon the sciences, Michael Crichton, which became a great meme that resonates with us, because in no small way we can intuit its very truth.

It's a wonderful, quick and easy way to talk about it as an complex concept. That's the nature of metaphors, which you find science using all the time itself.

Obviously since I don't have an idea of a designer in my head.

This is the typical blindspot I've encountered. You disagree with the idea of a designer, and then you claim you don't have an idea of what it is you disagree with? The term for this is a performative contradiction.

You do but you are using statements made by fictional characters in a fictional film to support it.

You do know that a human author was drawing from science and philosophical that wrote that? You do understand that science fiction authors draw from science facts?

So that would be my basic criticism is there is nothing scientific to support that statement.

That would be wrong.

 

[lukethethird]

It's actually not an anthropomorphism. I'm not saying a plant has human emotions or the like, such as saying God is jealous. When I speak of intention, that is something present in all life forms. Call it an "instinct" if you wish, or "part of the cycles of nature", but that cycle of nature is with the specific intention, or instinct, or impulse, or drive, or pull, or 'desire' even, to survive.

All of those words are saying the same thing, and those are not anthropomorphisms, anymore than any other use of language to describe our observations or nature is. The survival instinct, is an intention towards staying alive, or becoming. It doesn't matter what level of cognitive thought that occurs. I thought I was being very clear in my words to you about this.


The natural order is exactly what I said. Science uses metaphors like this all the time. They are used to take complex, abstract concepts to put it into terms that are easily relatable and accessible. Read my meaning, not nitpicking. I find this line of argument from you a simple distraction from my actual point.

"Cycles of nature" is also a human concept, so I could accuse you of anthropomorphizing too. Let's move past your distraction here.

No it's not. You are making it one. I'm not talking about the Genesis myth here. A rainstorm creates are river. A dry spell creates a drought. Evolution creates diversity of lifeforms. The diversity life is the creation of the process of evolution. What exactly is your issue with use of the word creation here?

I'd suggest trying to think outside of the anthropomorphic mythical God concept. That's what I've trying to direct your towards doing, but it seems like you keep snapping back to it like a rubberband.

No it's not. I see this as a failure of imagination to see beyond the mythic-literal meaning of words you your end. It's not my usage that is the failing here.

I take all of this as trying to fool yourself that I am talking as a literalistic, bible-believing Christian fundamentalist, trying to force fit an anthropomorphized mythic-literal view of God into evolution. You would be completely wrong about this. I would think by now you should know this already.

Of course it's philosophical!! But it does not exclude factual data either! It's not one or the other. It's a philosophical view of ultimate reality, taking into account supportable, evidential data. Being philosophical does not mean pulling your ideas out of your ***, for God's sake.

Again, yes this is philosophical, but then so is your supposed view that everything is nothing more that physicalist, reductionist reality. Materialism is a philosophical interpretation of the sciences. It's not science itself. Are you not aware of this? I also embrace the sciences as they present themselves as well, but I'm not a philosophical materialist. I'm a philosophical Integralist. (something I haven't had the bandwidth to explain).

So, yes we are both talking philsophophy here. The only difference is you think you alone are respecting the science. I on the other hand recognize your view of science is much more akin to someone thinking that they alone are actually following the Bible in their particular faith denomination.

I see them as all perceptions of the data, and philosophical interpretations of what the data means. That's what I'm doing. And that's what you're doing. But I think you imagine a philosophical conclusion different from you own must mean I don't understand the science, just like those sects who think everyone else but themselves isn't following what the Bible says. That, is the very definition of Scientism.

I'm sorry if I sound a little terse here, but I would expect by this point you give me more credit that what I'm hearing in these last two posts.

My views are hardly narrow and limited. Why are you insulting me this way?

What I just highlighted in bold is the truth. My posts are very specific, detailed, and contentful. They do require unpacking. It's not that they are not clear. They are clear. They are not just like light and fluffy. They require work, some focus.

And I generally only post long posts like this to those I sense are intelligent enough, and care enough to try to understand. I views these as meaningful discussions. I always hope to meet someone I can talk with at this level. I was enjoying our discussions lately.

The natural order is exactly what I said. Science uses metaphors like this all the time. They are used to take complex, abstract concepts to put it into terms that are easily relatable and accessible. Read my meaning, not nitpicking. I find this line of argument from you a simple distraction from my actual point.

Provide an example of a scientific term that is a metaphor. I know you can't because metaphors are open to interpretation while science sets out to provide natural explanations in a precise and concise manner to avoid such confusion and misunderstanding, which BTW, is not your MO.

 

[Windwalker]

[Windwalker said]: The natural order is exactly what I said. Science uses metaphors like this all the time. They are used to take complex, abstract concepts to put it into terms that are easily relatable and accessible. Read my meaning, not nitpicking. I find this line of argument from you a simple distraction from my actual point.

Provide an example of a scientific term that is a metaphor. I know you can't because metaphors are open to interpretation while science sets out to provide natural explanations in a precise and concise manner to avoid such confusion and misunderstanding, which BTW, is not your MO.

You know I can't, huh? https://mindthegraph.com/blog/metaphors-in-science/#:~:text=Metaphors are widely used in,ideas more simple to understand.

Metaphors are widely used in science as a way to explain complex concepts in terms that are more accessible and familiar to a large audience. They are particularly useful in helping to bridge the gap between scientific terminology and everyday language, making scientific ideas more simple to understand.​

​

Metaphors in science can help to illustrate abstract concepts by drawing parallels to tangible objects or processes that people are already familiar with. By doing so, metaphors can create a mental image that provides a frame of reference for the scientific concept being explained. They can also help scientists communicate their ideas to each other. For instance, scientists often use the metaphor of “fishing for genes” to describe the process of searching for genes that are associated with a particular trait or disease.​

​

The article goes on to give a few examples of many that are commonly used in science.

Let's continue. On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication.

Metaphors in biology and ecology are so ubiquitous that we have to some extent become blind to their existence. We are inundated with metaphorical language, such as genetic “blueprints,” ecological “footprints,” “invasive” species, “agents” of infectious disease, “superbugs,” “food chains,” “missing links,” and so on.​

​

​

Let's toss of few more metaphors that are commonly used in science, "Immune cells have preferences"; "Microbes are challenging antibiotics"; ""Some strains of bacteria prefer to live in tumours rather than normal tissue."; Black holes can be creative. ""Beethoven wasn't the only one with dramatic flair 200 years ago–Sagittarius A*, the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, may have also composed an intense flare as it consumed nearby material."

Let's keep going. And these are all quotes from scientist in published material, BTW, ""The environment decides how long that D.N.A. survives and is stable."; ""To minimize surface tension, the jet tries to become a cylinder…"; "

"If you are a bubble of methane, and you are trying to get up to the surface, the easiest route might be the bore hole, rather than going through layers and layers of rock"

And so on and so forth.

So my use of metaphors is hardly anything strange or unheard of. And my use of "intention" to describe the movement of evolution is completely consistent with this. It has really meaning, using metaphor to convey that meaning.

So, are you going to do the right thing here, and retract your bold assertion that you "know you can't because metaphors are open to interpretation while science sets out to provide natural explanations in a precise and concise manner to avoid such confusion and misunderstanding"?

You should, because you are flatly wrong.

A quick suggestion. You may wish to research if I might be telling the truth next time when I say science uses metaphors all the time. It's a simple Google search. Try doing one using these words: "Does science use metaphors?".

 

[Nakosis]

A quick suggestion. You may wish to research if I might be telling the truth next time when I say science uses metaphors all the time. It's a simple Google search. Try doing one using these words: "Does science use metaphors?".

Yes a quick search turns up the following:
The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific reasoning, contribute to public misunderstandings, and, at times, inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and messages that undermine the goals of inclusive science.

On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication

The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So yes used by science which unfortunately can end up confusing the public in ways detrimental to scientific understanding.

 

[lukethethird]

You know I can't, huh? https://mindthegraph.com/blog/metaphors-in-science/#:~:text=Metaphors are widely used in,ideas more simple to understand.

Metaphors are widely used in science as a way to explain complex concepts in terms that are more accessible and familiar to a large audience. They are particularly useful in helping to bridge the gap between scientific terminology and everyday language, making scientific ideas more simple to understand.​

​

Metaphors in science can help to illustrate abstract concepts by drawing parallels to tangible objects or processes that people are already familiar with. By doing so, metaphors can create a mental image that provides a frame of reference for the scientific concept being explained. They can also help scientists communicate their ideas to each other. For instance, scientists often use the metaphor of “fishing for genes” to describe the process of searching for genes that are associated with a particular trait or disease.​

​

The article goes on to give a few examples of many that are commonly used in science.

Let's continue. On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication.

Metaphors in biology and ecology are so ubiquitous that we have to some extent become blind to their existence. We are inundated with metaphorical language, such as genetic “blueprints,” ecological “footprints,” “invasive” species, “agents” of infectious disease, “superbugs,” “food chains,” “missing links,” and so on.​

​

​

Let's toss of few more metaphors that are commonly used in science, "Immune cells have preferences"; "Microbes are challenging antibiotics"; ""Some strains of bacteria prefer to live in tumours rather than normal tissue."; Black holes can be creative. ""Beethoven wasn't the only one with dramatic flair 200 years ago–Sagittarius A*, the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, may have also composed an intense flare as it consumed nearby material."

Let's keep going. And these are all quotes from scientist in published material, BTW, ""The environment decides how long that D.N.A. survives and is stable."; ""To minimize surface tension, the jet tries to become a cylinder…"; "

"If you are a bubble of methane, and you are trying to get up to the surface, the easiest route might be the bore hole, rather than going through layers and layers of rock"

And so on and so forth.

So my use of metaphors is hardly anything strange or unheard of. And my use of "intention" to describe the movement of evolution is completely consistent with this. It has really meaning, using metaphor to convey that meaning.

So, are you going to do the right thing here, and retract your bold assertion that you "know you can't because metaphors are open to interpretation while science sets out to provide natural explanations in a precise and concise manner to avoid such confusion and misunderstanding"?

You should, because you are flatly wrong.

A quick suggestion. You may wish to research if I might be telling the truth next time when I say science uses metaphors all the time. It's a simple Google search. Try doing one using these words: "Does science use metaphors?".

I stand corrected, however metaphors come with a caveat due to the risks of misunderstanding with thanks to Nakosis thought provoking link.

 

[F1fan]

It's actually not an anthropomorphism. I'm not saying a plant has human emotions or the like, such as saying God is jealous. When I speak of intention, that is something present in all life forms. Call it an "instinct" if you wish, or "part of the cycles of nature", but that cycle of nature is with the specific intention, or instinct, or impulse, or drive, or pull, or 'desire' even, to survive.

All of those words are saying the same thing, and those are not anthropomorphisms, anymore than any other use of language to describe our observations or nature is. The survival instinct, is an intention towards staying alive, or becoming. It doesn't matter what level of cognitive thought that occurs. I thought I was being very clear in my words to you about this.

I don't see any definition from what I looked up that applies to your usage of the word 'intention' in this context. Can you find one?

In my understanding of science your wording is confusing and inaccurate no matter how you try to massage it into coherency.

The natural order is exactly what I said. Science uses metaphors like this all the time. They are used to take complex, abstract concepts to put it into terms that are easily relatable and accessible. Read my meaning, not nitpicking. I find this line of argument from you a simple distraction from my actual point.

I haven't read formal science using any metaphors. I have seen them used in informal explanations, but not inaccurate or confusing ways. Your use of 'intention' doesn't apply given definitions I read, that being deliberate and planned outcomes. It doesn't work for nature doing its thing behaving according to the laws of physics. Metaphors need to work.

"Cycles of nature" is also a human concept, so I could accuse you of anthropomorphizing too. Let's move past your distraction here.

Not really. We observe cycles of nature. The four seasons are also human concepts, but they describe what is observed nature doing its thing.

No it's not. You are making it one. I'm not talking about the Genesis myth here. A rainstorm creates are river. A dry spell creates a drought. Evolution creates diversity of lifeforms. The diversity life is the creation of the process of evolution. What exactly is your issue with use of the word creation here?

I have no problem when there is no other word use in dispute that implies (let's be honest) God behind all things. If you weren't using the word 'inteion' incorrectly I wouldn't be overly wary of other wording that suggests (let's be honest again) God. There are better, more objective words that eliminate any misunderstanding of religious ideas.

I'd suggest trying to think outside of the anthropomorphic mythical God concept. That's what I've trying to direct your towards doing, but it seems like you keep snapping back to it like a rubberband.

What problems do my views have regarding God concepts? I

No it's not. I see this as a failure of imagination to see beyond the mythic-literal meaning of words you your end. It's not my usage that is the failing here.

You are responsible for being comprehensible in what you write. Blaming others for not comprehending metaphors and misused words is not honorable.

I take all of this as trying to fool yourself that I am talking as a literalistic, bible-believing Christian fundamentalist, trying to force fit an anthropomorphized mythic-literal view of God into evolution. You would be completely wrong about this. I would think by now you should know this already.

You aren't being comprehensible in what you write. You seem defensive instead of clarifying what you mean.

Of course it's philosophical!! But it does not exclude factual data either! It's not one or the other. It's a philosophical view of ultimate reality, taking into account supportable, evidential data. Being philosophical does not mean pulling your ideas out of your ***, for God's sake.

Your use of 'intention' is inaccurate, so how would you explain that as an act?

All I am asking is to use English properly. We know philosophy has the advantage of not having to make sense, but this doesn't appeal to everyone.

Again, yes this is philosophical, but then so is your supposed view that everything is nothing more that physicalist, reductionist reality. Materialism is a philosophical interpretation of the sciences. It's not science itself. Are you not aware of this? I also embrace the sciences as they present themselves as well, but I'm not a philosophical materialist. I'm a philosophical Integralist. (something I haven't had the bandwidth to explain).

Materialism is consistent with science.

So, yes we are both talking philsophophy here. The only difference is you think you alone are respecting the science. I on the other hand recognize your view of science is much more akin to someone thinking that they alone are actually following the Bible in their particular faith denomination.

You are using the word 'intention' in regards to what natural functions do, and I don't see that respects science. It's inaccurate given the definitions.

I see them as all perceptions of the data, and philosophical interpretations of what the data means. That's what I'm doing. And that's what you're doing. But I think you imagine a philosophical conclusion different from you own must mean I don't understand the science, just like those sects who think everyone else but themselves isn't following what the Bible says. That, is the very definition of Scientism.

You seem to be adding something in your interpretation that isn't in the data or facts. I prefer not to.

I'm sorry if I sound a little terse here, but I would expect by this point you give me more credit that what I'm hearing in these last two posts.

Well you aren't clarifying or justifying your prior posts, mostly accusing me of errors.

What I just highlighted in bold is the truth. My posts are very specific, detailed, and contentful. They do require unpacking. It's not that they are not clear. They are clear. They are not just like light and fluffy. They require work, some focus.

Yet you have plenty of murkiness with suspicious word use. You get a lot of bits right and then go off the rails. What botanist would say seeds intend to grow?

And I generally only post long posts like this to those I sense are intelligent enough, and care enough to try to understand. I views these as meaningful discussions. I always hope to meet someone I can talk with at this level. I was enjoying our discussions lately.

Thanks. Your's are good too. I can be blunt but mean no harm.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes a quick search turns up the following:
The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific reasoning, contribute to public misunderstandings, and, at times, inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and messages that undermine the goals of inclusive science.

On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication

The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So yes used by science which unfortunately can end up confusing the public in ways detrimental to scientific understanding.

Yes, that was one of the sites I linked to. But the problem of people being confused by metaphors, I believe, is a problem with the people.

Think of how many Christians read the book of Genesis as if it were literal science? People seem unable to think symbolically at all any more, as is evident here as well.

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.​

​

--​

​

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.​

​

This is a great essay. I highly recommend trying to understand it in this context: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online

 

[Nakosis]

Am I giving you the impression I am not?

I think you are failing to see my point. I'm not talking about specific species. I'm talking in a more abstracted sense of "Life Itself". How I am meaning this is in terms like this. Technically, there is only one Life, and all the animal and plant life forms are all expressions and actions of that singular Life.

A close analogy to this would be the scientific realization that technically all animal life forms on this planet descended from a single animal lifeform. From my knowledge of this, all animals have shared DNA code which may all come back to "Eve" as they symbolically call her, which is an ancient sea sponge. From there, it begins to branch out into something like 6 basic body plans, and then to all the diversity which are all variations upon this. We are technically, only one original animal.

That's what I am talking about. It is Life itself that find a way: survives as this species, that one didn't work out, try another, and on and on and on and on. It's not "species-centric", but Life-centric. That animating 'force" that energy, or whatever metaphor you can think of to try to describe it, that drives the whole thing. That is "what finds a way". That is what evolution is doing. "Finding a way".

My point is people like ID folks, or those who argue against it, are all making this mistaken premise that is is about the species itself, or in our case, a "human-centric" creation. "If an intelligent designer were real, then we humans should be better designed than this!!". That's is the flaw of logic right there. It's not about the individual species. The "intelligence" of evolution, is about Life, not your species. "Life finds a way".

I would contend that the earth dying does not mean the end of Life at all. I'm deeply confident that Life exists naturally throughout the cosmos. And just as one species may live and breathe and walk for a time, the whole ecosystem itself of the planet earth as a collective organism, will eventually die too.

But Life will always find a way. It will arise when it can, where it can, and evolve and adapt and become.

Ok, to shorten it. Your argument is that since life continues to adapt and survive into whatever form it may take there must be intelligent design?
It is not really a necessary conclusion if that is the entirety of the argument.
For example, I could also say that since life continues to adapt and survive into whatever form it may take no intelligent design is necessary.

Ok, so next would be how you get from the premise to the conclusion?

Is this philosophical in nature? Absolutely. It is more than likely based upon what we understand about the nature of nature herself through our developing sciences. Is their proof yet? Not at the hard level, but its seems more that probably it is true.

Don't know why your statement would be anymore probably than mine.

It was a line written by an author who was extrapolating philosophical views based upon the sciences, Michael Crichton, which became a great meme that resonates with us, because in no small way we can intuit its very truth.

It's a wonderful, quick and easy way to talk about it as an complex concept. That's the nature of metaphors, which you find science using all the time itself.

As I pointed out in the other post, these metaphors, yes, used by science, can do as much harm as good in understanding the models/theories of science.

This is the typical blindspot I've encountered. You disagree with the idea of a designer, and then you claim you don't have an idea of what it is you disagree with? The term for this is a performative contradiction.

No, because you are providing the concept, not me. I'm not providing anything thereby also not performing anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfo...performativer,presupposes the actor is alive.

You do know that a human author was drawing from science and philosophical that wrote that? You do understand that science fiction authors draw from science facts?

No, I don't know that. I look for some verification that this was what the author was doing but couldn't find it. I could however assume it or I could as well assume that this was simply stated as a character device to establish the role as anti-science. This was the role of the character played by Goldblum to criticize the position of the scientists in the film which he constantly did throughout the film.

Perhaps you missed the other thread criticizing how the creators of science fiction stories have cause to misunderstand the concept of a multiverse.

That would be wrong.

Based on what? I see a lot of folks repeating on the internet but none justifying it.
You can say it's wrong, and maybe it is but I've yet to see anyone able to justify it as right.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, that was one of the sites I linked to. But the problem of people being confused by metaphors, I believe, is a problem with the people.

Think of how many Christians read the book of Genesis as if it were literal science? People seem unable to think symbolically at all any more, as is evident here as well.

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.​

​

--​

​

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.​

​

This is a great essay. I highly recommend trying to understand it in this context: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online

Ok, sure but you have yet to justify the case that you are not simply among the confused.

And I'm not insisting that you are but until the statement has been justified we can't really get from there to any conclusions you would derive from it.

That's is only the first step. Then lets accept that the phrase "life finds a way" is scientifically sound. How does it follow from there that ID is the necessary conclusion.

 

[F1fan]

No, it's actually the many different ways that we humans perceive/conceive of the phenomena being labeled by a word. Which is why we need to put the words we use into an elaborate context to communicate to others more clearly and precisely what we are thinking.

We have words and definitions of common usages. This is where the responsibility of the speaker/writer comes into play and use the rules of any given language in a way that is comprehensible to others.

Of course. But they aren't that incompatible if you're willing to look for how they align. Which you aren't. Because you're posing the foolish argument that if they are not compatible then their perceptions of God must be "wrong".

How is Zeus and Vishnu compatible? And are believers really perceiving a god? Which one? Why don't believers show a consistency of what they think god is? Could it be most believers just learn to believe in whatever religious tradtion they are exposed to? Why don't Muslims take the Eucharist or believe in Jesus? Why don't Catholics speak in tongues? Why is it ok for most religions to allow blood transfusions except JW's? Tell me how all these religions are correct and the others aren't? Don't blame atheists for seeing religions are wrong when all theists will think thier own religion true and others as wrong.

And the reason I say it's a foolish argument is because those same 100 peole could look at a mountain from different compass points and all describe a somewhat different mountain.

Mountains actually exist, and aren't relating to people like one supposed God supposedly does.

And if all you pay attention to are the discrepancies in their descriptions, you'll conclude that they are either confused, lying, or they never actually saw the mountain. But of course if you look for the alignment in their descriptions, you could come to the conclusion that they did all see the same mountain, just from a different, individual perspective. And then they described it using their own personal language preferences.

Why wouldn't critical thinkers consider the discrepancies of those who are making fantastic claims? It's not like they have facts to point to, so all we have is the claims. Of course you want to ignore the problems with your own beliefs, that is bias.

Every human perception, conception, and description of an experience will be both unique and universal at the same time. The 'objective world' is a 'subjective world', to us.

You prefer the uncertain, the fuzzy, the confused, the mystery, the subjectives, because that is the only mental framework that allows religious assumptions and belief. That's fine as your personal choice, it's just not a winable position against thinkers.

To what degree? Everyone comprehends the phenomenon somewhat differently, and yet experiences it similarly.

If a believer wants others to understand what they think God is and what it is they should be able to articulate this accurately and with precision. If they can't then how is their effort worth anything? Could it be they aren't actually experiencing a God and instead mimicking and manufacturing the experiences others have claimed to have, as true believers? If evryone around you is telling you about their close and personal relationship with Jesus would you want to be the only one who isn't?

God is our common language label for the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

Symbolisms have the advantage of not having to be real.

We're discussing a great mystery.

Invented by mortals, for some reason. Can you explain the reason and why it's necessary?

Yet for some reason you expect that theists should be able to articulate that mystery universally and to your satisfaction. That's just silly. Especially when atheists can't/won't even understand what atheism is when it's explained logically and clearly to them many, many times.

You brag about being confused. You use the "mystery" to hide behind to avoid explaining anything, and think critical thinkers so foolish as not to see this ploy. You don't ariculate anything, nor explain anything factual or coherent to critical minds. If your "mystery" confounds you so much how can you know if atheists are wrong? How can anyone play a "mystery" card so much but still have the arrogance to believe he's right?

People live in realities of their own making. Not just some theists, but everyone does it. Then they get all defensive when someone else dares to present them with a different view of reality. How silly is that?

Why make a reality that doesn't align with facts? Very silly indeed.

 

[AppieB]

No, I don't think you are right or wrong, just because I think that.

Edit: I don't believe in right and wrong like that. Either we agree or we disagree. That is all.

I'm sorry, I don't know what is your point. But probably we'd disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, I don't know what is your point. But probably we'd disagree.

Yeah, we disagree, and that is the point. We act differently and thus we do right and wrong diffently.
The joke is that you have no objective evidence for the fact that another human is wrong. But that doesn't make you wrong. It just means that we act differently and thus disagree.

 

[AppieB]

Fair enough; I think we are speaking the same language, we only use the term skeptic slightly differently. But it's all good though.

Sure, that's ok.
Still, I want to explain my view a little bit better.
I call myself a skeptic. That's doesn't mean I don't believe (anything). It means that I view claims and knowledge with a 'healthy' dosis of doubt. It's questioning whether an answer or claim is true or not. It's work in progress. It's more than not believing something: it's suspending judgement/believe and taking the next step to figure out if something is true or not. After I might me convinced ... or not.
It's a way to view the world. An attitude towards claims and knowledge. For me that is.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, we disagree, and that is the point. We act differently and thus we do right and wrong diffently.
The joke is that you have no objective evidence for the fact that another human is wrong. But that doesn't make you wrong. It just means that we act differently and thus disagree.

I don't think it's a joke. And I don't think we have the same definition of "objective". That makes a conversation difficult with you, as it was in the past. No hard feelings though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think it's a joke. And I don't think we have the same definition of "objective". That makes a conversation difficult with you, as it was in the past. No hard feelings though.

Well, here is my short dirty understanding of objective as relevent:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers Definition of OBJECTIVE

So if it is objective in that sense for another human being wrong, I would like to know how you do that.
Now if you use another understanding of objective, then please explain.

But if your claim is that in the end objective as independent of individual thought and subjective as dependent of individual thought are the same, then don't bother. Then we just disagree.

 

[AppieB]

Well, here is my short dirty understanding of objective as relevent:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers Definition of OBJECTIVE

So if it is objective in that sense for another human being wrong, I would like to know how you do that.
Now if you use another understanding of objective, then please explain.

But if your claim is that in the end objective as independent of individual thought and subjective as dependent of individual thought are the same, then don't bother. Then we just disagree.

Then I won't bother.

 

[PureX]

I cannot sympathize with you and your lashing out at atheism and science because you have perceptions of God and the great mystery and purpose that are all in your head.

I'm not lashing out at atheism nor science. Only at the stupidity of scientism and at self-proclaimed atheists that have no idea what theism and atheism even are. And ten refuse to learn.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't see any definition from what I looked up that applies to your usage of the word 'intention' in this context. Can you find one?

That's surprising. The definition of the word intention itself conveys my meaning fairly well. "1. A thing intended; an aim or plan". That's sufficient for my meaning. I also gave other examples of my intended meaning in use that word as a metaphor to describe my thoughts: "Call it an "instinct" if you wish, or "part of the cycles of nature", but that cycle of nature is with the specific intention, or instinct, or impulse, or drive, or pull, or 'desire' even, to survive."

I don't see how there can be any confusion here.

In my understanding of science your wording is confusing and inaccurate no matter how you try to massage it into coherency.

It's a metaphor. Science uses metaphors all the time. I explained this already. Didn't that help?

I haven't read formal science using any metaphors.

Do you believe I am talking formal science here? I'm giving you my impression of what I believe philosophically it is all about, using metaphors - just like science itself uses metaphors to describe complex matters. It's not that complex really to get my meaning, if you just take the word intention, hold it as a metaphor, an "as if" statement, let your eyes defocus a tad bit, and use it to hopefully let an image appear.

Gosh, you could think of the use of metaphors like a type of Buddhist meditation known as vipassana, where you don't latch your focus and thoughts fixed on teasing out understanding, but rather you pull back and let your vision take a larger perspective, allowing the thoughts to pass by you and let the meaning arise out of your own deeper subconscious mind into higher states of awareness. Heck, even Zen koans have that same effect.

I'm just using this an example of how metaphors are intended to work. To me this is super basic, but I am becoming painfully aware how much of a challenge this is for some. I can't get it, because to not be able to understand the use of these seems impossible for me at this point.

Your use of 'intention' doesn't apply given definitions I read, that being deliberate and planned outcomes.

How many times have I said that I am not talking about specific planned outcomes in regards to nature, such as nature intended to create humans exactly as they are, even before land animals arose?

The "intention" I mean in using that word as a metaphor, is that of seeking to 'find a way' to quote the poet. Like a plant seeking the sun, it's intention is to seek nutrients. Like a worm fleeing to saturated ground, it's intention is to not die. Simple things really. But it is all operating at an "instinct", which instinct is the intention to survive. How hard is this?

It doesn't work for nature doing its thing behaving according to the laws of physics. Metaphors need to work.

We are not talking about the laws of physics here. We are talking about biological life, not planetary bodies, rocks hurtling through space. We're talking about mind. We are talking about desire, and any other human word we can possibly use that conveys a vision of nature, not as a wind up machine, but a living, evolving, organic system.

I'm not looking at single rocks. I'm looking at the Whole as the Whole (or at least trying to). This is philosophical/spiritual perspective, not "doing science". And lest that bother you, that is what you are doing too, but are overlooking that fact. Materialism - Wikipedia

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. Materialism directly contrasts with idealism, according to which consciousness is the fundamental substance of nature.​

Not really. We observe cycles of nature. The four seasons are also human concepts, but they describe what is observed nature doing its thing.

Exactly what I mean by using intention. It "describes what is observed observed nature doing its thing".

So you will accept metaphors as above when you can understanding them, but then complain about using them, when you don't see the picture being painted by me because it conflicts with how you see things. That's what I see really is the issue here. We are looking at the same things, and understanding them differently. That's what this is all about.

I have no problem when there is no other word use in dispute that implies (let's be honest) God behind all things. If you weren't using the word 'inteion' incorrectly I wouldn't be overly wary of other wording that suggests (let's be honest again) God. There are better, more objective words that eliminate any misunderstanding of religious ideas.

To be perfectly honest, science at its highest forms finds itself almost walking hand in hand with religious perspectives of the Absolute, or Ultimate Reality. So, frankly I have no problem using that language at that point. I don't use God to speak about how photosynthesis works at the process level. But I may use God as a religious metaphor to describe the Mystery of all of these things in this grand Universe we know as our reality.

What I just said here can be found expressed in what Einstein himself was saying so well here:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”​

​

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Now I know a great many Materialist readers of science were uncomfortable with Einstein's invoking of religious language too (I'm in good company it seems). But when you look at it from beyond that "which our dull faculties can comprehend only in theri most privative forms", you have nowhere to go but using poetry, and metaphors. It's not just rocks, but the Divine. To the Materialist, it's just rocks. To the poet, its Divine.

Each see the science. Each walks away with a different perspective. And it's not the science that accounts for that difference.

What problems do my views have regarding God concepts?

If you were to explain what you see God to be when someone uses that word, that would be your answer. I can more than well predict how you see it, and that would explain why when you hear others use it, you see it being used in their minds, the way you see it in yours, rather than understanding that word has many legitimate ways it can be understood.

Typically, to the typical atheist, they see the God that is seen by Christian fundamentalists, the deity form as a person outside of creation who creates everything through magic and violates the rules of science, idea of God. Super-Santa, in many ways.

You are responsible for being comprehensible in what you write. Blaming others for not comprehending metaphors and misused words is not honorable.

I've spelled it out in great detail. So do you believe when someone is taking a test on material they don't understand clearly, even it if is written clearly and other students reading it comprehend it and get passing grades on the test, whereas others may get have the questions right, that blaming the material presented is honorable? There is nothing wrong with my posts. Especially when I go to pains to explain it, and have to come back to it over and over again. Blaming me, is what is not honorable.

You aren't being comprehensible in what you write. You seem defensive instead of clarifying what you mean.

What I am writing is quite comprehensible, to those who understand the premises, which I have been going to great length to explain to help you. What you hear as defensiveness, is actually just frustration.

Materialism is consistent with science.

And so is what I am seeing. Point being, the Christian fundamentalist will also claim in like voice, "Fundamentalism is consistent with the Bible. It's what the Bible teaches!" And yet, you have others who use the exact same source material and have a much different type of Christianity based upon the Bible.

Claims that your philosophy is the "true teachings of science", is purely religious in nature. It goes beyond philosophy at the point, into a religious faith.

You are using the word 'intention' in regards to what natural functions do, and I don't see that respects science. It's inaccurate given the definitions.

It's accurate enough. But you're saying "I don't see that respects science", is the real problem here. You cannot fit it into how you interpret the meaning of the science. It's like the Christian who sees that their sects views of the Bible are what defines Christianity, and they say to other Christians who see something else, "I don't see that respects the Bible! You're not following the Bible! You're not a true Christian".

Explain how this is not the same thing as that?

You seem to be adding something in your interpretation that isn't in the data or facts. I prefer not to.

But you actually are. You are adding your perception of what it means to the data and fact, same as me. The difference is, I recognize it in myself and in you, and you only see it in me and not yourself.

Thanks. Your's are good too. I can be blunt but mean no harm.

Let's see if my being more blunt myself might break through some of this. I don't mean to truly offend you.

 

[Windwalker]

That's is only the first step. Then lets accept that the phrase "life finds a way" is scientifically sound.

Doesn't the fact of survival through adaptation fit the poetic expression "life finds a way"? Isn't adaptation "finding a way" to survive?

How does it follow from there that ID is the necessary conclusion.

I think it would be a good idea for you to tell me what your idea of ID means. And then after you explain that to me, answer if you believe what I am saying fits that explanation.

 

[Windwalker]

Ok, to shorten it. Your argument is that since life continues to adapt and survive into whatever form it may take there must be intelligent design?

If by intelligent design you mean a preplanned outcome though an intentional guided evolution towards a specific form, i.e, human beings, then no. That is not my vision of this at all.

All I am saying, is that there is an inherent intelligence in nature that 'figures stuff out'. It's not exactly the same thing as rain falling hits weak ground and passively forms a river. There is a 'drive' towards life that 'finds a way' upward. You could say there is an active agent involved, not outside of it, in the sense of a god pushing it uphill with his fingers or something like that, but from within it, like the urge of the seed to push through cement to reach the light. It finds a way, "life finds a way" to use a metaphor.



A picture paints a thousand words.

It is not really a necessary conclusion if that is the entirety of the argument.
For example, I could also say that since life continues to adapt and survive into whatever form it may take no intelligent design is necessary.

I think "intelligent design" is misleading as that seems to suggest intended outcomes. I say inherent intelligence, making it up, or 'designing' solutions on the fly. The other metaphor for that is "adaptation". But it's intelligent adaptation.

And to get ahead of this notion of intelligence as thinking up solutions and acting up them, it happens far more at an instinct level than that, as opposed to higher order conscious thought and decision making processes. (I'm trying to very clear and specific in my words here). If you distill down even our higher order creative processes, it too follows a process of trial and error and elimination until it finds a solution.

Then once that solution if found, we repeat it habitually because it was found to work. OUr higher order processes are actually just building upon these deeper innate instinctive processes that drives the creativity of evolution towards the solution of survival. This what we see in nature. Once a solution has been found through a creative trial and error process, it gets communicated and passed down, though whatever medium that may be, genes, mimicry, something else, etc.

We are not outside of nature, but nature is in us. We can look at ourselves and understand nature, because we are nature. (there's a lot of cautionary notes I could add to that however)

Ok, so next would be how you get from the premise to the conclusion?

I've sort of explained that a little here, but I'm sure I could do better perhaps.

Don't know why your statement would be anymore probably than mine.

When it comes to stuff like this, I see something like a philosophical materialism interpretation of nature to not go far enough. It has to exclude entire domains of human reality to make things fit into that philosophy. I feel my views encompass a larger view which is compatible with the bigger picture. I feel materialism falls far short of that.

As I pointed out in the other post, these metaphors, yes, used by science, can do as much harm as good in understanding the models/theories of science.

Well, I tend to see that more an issue of the student than I do the teachers. Sometimes, metaphors have to be used as their is no technical language that can carry the meaning sufficiently.

"Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself."​

Science can be poetry as well, when it uses metaphors. Otherwise, it's just nothing but a calculated discussions which carries no deeper meaning or bigger picture which cannot be defined in words.

No, because you are providing the concept, not me. I'm not providing anything thereby also not performing anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction#:~:text=A performative contradiction (German: performativer,presupposes the actor is alive.

No, I was clear that it was likely you providing the concept of an ID. Your responses appear to be speaking to that concept, and not the one I might be meaning. This is why I have now asked in the post right before this one today for you to define your idea of an ID.

No, I don't know that. I look for some verification that this was what the author was doing but couldn't find it. I could however assume it or I could as well assume that this was simply stated as a character device to establish the role as anti-science. This was the role of the character played by Goldblum to criticize the position of the scientists in the film which he constantly did throughout the film.

The author is Michael Crichton. But I am not citing him as an authority on science, even though he had a career in science and medicine before becoming an author. It's just a great metaphor is all. One that happens to really fit what we can see in nature, stated poetically.

It wouldn't matter who said it actually. It could have been my grandmother sharing her wisdom over a glass of iced tea. It's still true.

Perhaps you missed the other thread criticizing how the creators of science fiction stories have cause to misunderstand the concept of a multiverse.

I'm not using the movie Jurassic Park to teach me science, for god's sake! Is that what you really believe?? Do you think I'm that simple minded? "Yeah, they can actually make dinosaurs from mosquito DNA found in amber! I saw it in a movie, dude! It's for real! I'm like all, whoa, and stuff!"