some thoughts on creationism

[PureX]

That still leaves goddidit which is still an issue in light it's not anywhere in the real world except in people's minds and imagination

The vast majority of humans are fine with "God did it" as an unconfirmed possibility, because that's what it is. It's only the zealots that can't let that stand as it is, and so try to insist that we all accept their view: either total creationism or a totally godless, pointless existence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The vast majority of humans are fine with "God did it" as an unconfirmed possibility, because that's what it is. It's only the zealots that can't let that stand as it is, and so try to insist that we all accept their view: either total creationism or a totally godless, pointless existence.

It's not even a possibility. There is absolutely nothing possible about it.

Unless of course you are able to point out to people where that possibility is exactly , so it can be properly investigated using science.

 

[PureX]

It's not even a possibility. There is absolutely nothing possible about it.

You're not paying attention. Read more carefully.

Unless of course you are able to point out to people where that possibility is exactly , so it can be properly investigated using science.

Science does not define what is possible and what is not. You're confusing it with 'scientism'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You're not paying attention. Read more carefully.

Science does not define what is possible and what is not. You're confusing it with 'scientism'.

Oh it definitely does. Science and the scientific method defines what is approachable and what is not in terms of levying and establishing fact and ultimately the truth of the matter givin enough time to go through the complexities.

If the claim affects the material world in any way shape or form, than science should be able to approach it.

Things that are unfalsifiable are pretty much products of people's imagination and conjecture and do not affect the material world, aside from the effects of people making such unfalsifiable claims and convincing others its possible when it's not.

 

[PureX]

Oh it definitely does. Science and the scientific method defines what is approachable and what is not in terms of levying and establishing fact and ultimately the truth of the matter givin enough time to go through the complexities.

If the claim affects the material world in any way shape or form, than science should be able to approach it.

Things that are unfalsifiable are pretty much products of people's imagination and conjecture and do not affect the material world, aside from the effects of people making such unfalsifiable claims and convincing others its possible when it's not.

That's all the dogma of "scientism". It's not science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's all the dogma of "scientism". It's not science.

Nope. That's how science works.

 

[osgart]

I for one accept evolution as having occured. However I don't consider the functions of living animals to be arbitrary nor some result of blind natural processes. The evidence is saying that purposed functions exist in the life forms. Now for me that creates a mystery that leads to philosophical and religious questioning. God concepts are too extreme yet here we are a creation of existence. So I accept this as a great mystery, and have no reason to accept supernatural explanations.

Add on top of that the intrinsic qualities and attributes of what consciousness reveals and nature must be far deeper than mere tangible evidence. Anything beyond the physical is going to also be the product of natural occurrences.

So in a way I accept evolution, and in another way I see a deliberate planning of life in nature. People don't like the implications of this planning because it takes things into philosophy, and beyond what mere evidence would otherwise indicate.

 

[Dimi95]

People aren’t born with language or reasoning skills.

This is vague
People are born with the ability to learn all that what you mentioned.
That is very different from your explenation

Language is acquired through social experiences and what comes with language is abstractions. These abstractions are relative to the culture. That’s why children born in India don’t learn about Jesus as savior, but the many gods that are part of the Hindu tradition.

Yes ofc , and the Bible does not deny that.

John 1
"children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

I can also note that you don't have a problem with Hindu , but with Jesus.

From what I have observed those who are creationists lack critical thinking skills AND have been exposed to the beliefs if literal interpretations of the Bible.

Can you prove that we should interprete the Bible in one specific way?

From what i have observed , Atheists don't find themself comfortable outside of the domain of science.

Dawkins was exposed to that when he said in one debate in Oxford University.

He said : "Maybe i alluded to the possibility that some Historians think that Jesus never existed , but i take that back,Jesus existed"

The question is : Can we rely ourselfs on Historical Testament?

They become committed to these ideas snd can’t understand why the ideas are false.

So do you

Brain scans show that this sort of non-rational thinking bypasses the frontal cortex and actually activates the reward system in the brain.
This causes small amounts of hormones to be injected into the blood and the person experiences a bit of euphoria, a physical experience. This is similar to Pavlov’s Dog where behavior is driven by the expected response.

Are the brains of atheists different to those of religious people? Scientists are trying to find out

Atheists may think more analytically than religious people, but it is far from proven.

theconversation.com

One brain imaging study conducted at Oxford University compared an image of the Virgin Mary with that of a regular woman, both painted in the same period. Researchers found that when Roman Catholics concentrated on the Virgin Mary while being subjected to electric shocks, this alleviated their perception of pain compared to looking at the other woman. This decrease in pain was associated with an engagement of the right ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex, a region known to drive pain inhibitory circuits.

No similar effect was found for the unbelievers, although they rated the secular image as more pleasant than the religious one. But what if the unbelievers being tested were members of the Positivist Temple and were instead shown an image of their goddess of humanity — would this have alleviated pain in a similar way to that experienced by the religious individuals?

The future cognitive science of atheism will have to think hard about how to move forward. It needs to develop models that account for cultural variations as well as consider the implications of atheists engaging with rituals that celebrate humanity.

Oddly many counter the criticism of a Adam and Eve fall from paradise as their fault for not being obedient. God could have created them adequately obedient, and the pushback is that God didn’t create robots. Ironically creationists are much like robots in that they behave automatically via learned scripts, and can’t think past what they have already decided is true.

Yes ofc , what kind of God is he if he does not see the serpent?

He did not stop the serpent , instead he gave them the right to choose,and they made their choice.

It is always someone else when we make the wrong choice.

But at the end , we have to live with the choices we make.

Or you will also deny that?

 

[sun rise]

One brain imaging study conducted at Oxford University

That's an interesting study.

 

[Heyo]

The future cognitive science of atheism will have to think hard about how to move forward. It needs to develop models that account for cultural variations as well as consider the implications of atheists engaging with rituals that celebrate humanity.

I suggest that the scientist look for "natural born unbelievers". Humans are through evolution hardwired to be superstitious but I suspect that there are mutants among us who are innately less gullible than the average person. I also suspect that I am such a mutant. The mutation might even be visible in the structure of the brains of highly sceptical people.

 

[Valjean]

The 'intelligence of design' is what science studies in nature. That a few religious zealots use the term for their own agenda doesn't change that, or mean they own the term. Nor does the fact that as a zealous atheist, you can't tolerate any relation to religion.

Science studies the mechanisms behind the complexity and coördination of nature. There is the appearance of design, but when the mechanisms are understood, there is neither evidence of design nor need for a designer.

As stated above, once we remove the claims of divine magic, no one but a small faction of zealots, both religious and atheists, care anymore. Everyone else can move on, and can abide the idea of intelligent design being expressed within physical reality.

The claims of divine magic seem pretty pervasive to me.

 

[Valjean]

No, intelligent design was an unsuccessful rejigging of creation science intended to pass legal challenges against it being taught in American public schools.

And creation science was an unsuccessful rejigging of Christian Creationism intended to pass legal challenges against it being taught in American public schools.

This was made famous in the creationist biology textbook Of Pandas and People.
The first drafts featured "creation, creation science" and "creationism," but after the supreme court's Edwards vs Aguillard decision barred teaching "creation science" in public schools, it was edited to change these to "intelligent design."

Intelligent design is creationism.

 

[Valjean]

The vast majority of humans are fine with "God did it" as an unconfirmed possibility, because that's what it is. It's only the zealots that can't let that stand as it is, and so try to insist that we all accept their view: either total creationism or a totally godless, pointless existence.

What zealots are advocating a "totally godless, pointless existence?"

 

[PureX]

Science studies the mechanisms behind the complexity and coördination of nature. There is the appearance of design, but when the mechanisms are understood, there is neither evidence of design nor need for a designer.

The "mechanisms" are physical parameters that when adhered to, generate a specific, complex result. THAT IS CALLED DESIGN.

We do not know the origin of these physical parameters, so we can make no determination as to the "designer". Some sort of "designer" is certainly being implied. But what sort, or even that such is valid, is unknown. Leaving us to invent whatever "designer" we choose, reject the idea all together, or to simply accept the mystery as it is.

The claims of divine magic seem pretty pervasive to me.

As is being discussed, most of these supposed "claims" are not being imposed on anyone but the claimant. If you don't or won't understand this, then your assessment of it will be very skewed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "mechanisms" are physical parameters that when adhered to, generate a specific, complex result. THAT IS CALLED DESIGN.

You're begging the question and trying to pass it off as semantics.

 

[PureX]

You're begging the question and trying to pass it off as semantics.

No, you're trying to insist that if we use the term "design", we MUST be proclaiming a "designer". And since you don't want there to be ANY implication of a designer, you're trying to reject the term "design". But that simply is not so. The presence of design does not absolutely necessitate an "intelligent designer". And at present, we have no way of determining this either way, as we have no way of determining the origin of existential design.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you're trying to insist that if we use the term "design", we MUST be proclaiming a "designer".

Design is an intentional act, so yes: the term "design" implies a designer.

And since you don't want there to be ANY implication of a designer, you're trying to reject the term "design".

I'll reject it until you show reason for it to apply.

But that simply is not so. The presence of design does not absolutely necessitate an "intelligent designer". And at present, we have no way of determining this either way.

So then we have no way of determining whether it is a design.

 

[F1fan]

The "mechanisms" are physical parameters that when adhered to, generate a specific, complex result. THAT IS CALLED DESIGN.

So table salt is a design?

In reality table salt is just how nature works, there's no option when mixing the two elements. The two components of table salt are poisonous to humans. Why design poisons at all?

We do not know the origin of these physical parameters, so we can make no determination as to the "designer". Some sort of "designer" is certainly being implied. But what sort, or even that such is valid, is unknown. Leaving us to invent whatever "designer" we choose, reject the idea all together, or to simply accept the mystery as it is.

We don't know of any designers, either, so there is no basis to imagine them. How matter behaves is 100% energy following the rules. There is no case of matter behaving in a way that doesn't have prior behaviors (like elements being forged in stars into heavier elements) coming first. Humans could not exist unless there were forms of evolved hominids, and before them more primitive forms of primates. So this "design" is more of a trial and error process, and not so deliberate at any stage of change.

Ironically the many ideas of gods did not exist in early humans, and these gods were designed by human creativity some 10,000 years ago. And the frontal lobes evolved more capacity, so the gods became more complex. As we see the designed gods evolve, too.

 

[PureX]

Design is an intentional act, so yes: the term "design" implies a designer.

The only evidence we have that design is an intentional course of action is that it results is a specific outcome. But that is tautological thinking. Unless we can identify the origin of the design, we really have no idea what intention might or might not be behind it.

So then we have no way of determining whether it is a design.

We know it's design, that is self-evident. What we don't know is it's origin, and therefor if it expresses any intent beyond the immediate results.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only evidence we have that design is an intentional course of action is that it results is a specific outcome. But that is tautological thinking. Unless we can identify the origin of the design, we really have no idea what intention might or might not be behind it.

We know it's design, that is self-evident. What we don't know is it's origin, and therefor if it expresses any intent beyond the immediate results.

It would be less frustrating to talk to you if you were open about it when you just make up your own definitions of words.

When you act as if the definition you just made up is what the word means to everyone, the thread just derails into correcting your use of language instead of the actual topic.

I'm not doing it again.