| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Don H" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2005 01:28:05 PM |
| Object: |
Laws of Nature |
Nature functions according to "laws", hence there must be a law-maker? This
is essentially the argument of the Creationists, or nowadays, those pushing
Intelligent Design.
Fair enough? Take any conceivable Universe; it would have to operate
according to some type of coherent set of rules or laws. These "rules",
minimally, must be functional, they don't have to be directional or
purposeful.
What is the Universe as revealed by Science? It is more of an Indifferent
Determiner, than result of an Intelligent Designer.
While even an atheistic scientist can marvel at the power and products of
"Nature", this doesn't mean any kind of worship - merely respect. We must
obey the "laws of nature", as we have no choice. Indeed, we can alter the
formula, as "global warming" indicates. "Nature" doesn't care, but will
exterminate us with the same casual indifference as it created us.
=============
Power of The ID
=============
I am the Great Designer,
And I've got my eye on you;
Nothing more amuses me -
Than the Humans in my zoo.
I produced the lovely birdies,
Which twitter in the trees;
I also made the cancer cell,
And colds (which make you sneeze).
Likewise, I made the killer shark,
Whose teeth do gleam so bright;
If he don't bite big chunks from you,
He'll make you die of fright.
Sorry that it took so long,
From Eons 'til Today;
But endless Trial-and-Error,
Is this Creator's way.
You are the Crowning Glory,
Of my Material Arts;
A too-cerebral Anthropoid,
With lots-o' Vestigial parts.
But here's the strangest twist of all,
It has to do with Me;
Unless you can prove that I exist,
I'll remain Non-entity.
There is a PostScript to this tale,
Rise, then Fall, of Human Race:
What is the Purpose of it all -
If you vanish without trace?
=======================
.
|
|
| User: "Don H" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Nature - and Science of God |
04 Nov 2005 12:51:25 PM |
|
|
"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9xtaf.7912$Hj2.3758@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nature functions according to "laws", hence there must be a law-maker?
This
is essentially the argument of the Creationists, or nowadays, those
pushing
Intelligent Design.
Fair enough? Take any conceivable Universe; it would have to operate
according to some type of coherent set of rules or laws. These "rules",
minimally, must be functional, they don't have to be directional or
purposeful.
What is the Universe as revealed by Science? It is more of an
Indifferent
Determiner, than result of an Intelligent Designer.
While even an atheistic scientist can marvel at the power and products
of
"Nature", this doesn't mean any kind of worship - merely respect. We must
obey the "laws of nature", as we have no choice. Indeed, we can alter the
formula, as "global warming" indicates. "Nature" doesn't care, but will
exterminate us with the same casual indifference as it created us.
=============
Power of The ID
=============
I am the Great Designer,
And I've got my eye on you;
Nothing more amuses me -
Than the Humans in my zoo.
I produced the lovely birdies,
Which twitter in the trees;
I also made the cancer cell,
And colds (which make you sneeze).
Likewise, I made the killer shark,
Whose teeth do gleam so bright;
If he don't bite big chunks from you,
He'll make you die of fright.
Sorry that it took so long,
From Eons 'til Today;
But endless Trial-and-Error,
Is this Creator's way.
You are the Crowning Glory,
Of my Material Arts;
A too-cerebral Anthropoid,
With lots-o' Vestigial parts.
But here's the strangest twist of all,
It has to do with Me;
Unless you can prove that I exist,
I'll remain Non-entity.
There is a PostScript to this tale,
Rise, then Fall, of Human Race:
What is the Purpose of it all -
If you vanish without trace?
=======================
# "The Science of God" (theology?) would, or should, follow normal practice
and start with data collection - collating all gods, goddesses of history,
cataloguing them according to country of origin, characteristics,
evolutionary descent, etc. Religious terminology associated with deities
would also be relevant.
For example, "spirit" relates to respire, expire, and concerns breathing,
one of the most obvious signs of life; whence the idea of a person
"breathing their last", and the spirit/soul leaving the body.
How "God" became so: a cosmic projection, enlarged and attenuated; a
generalisation from the various tribal deities; and what is left after the
jealous tribal deity of the Israelites had eliminated all rivals. "The
Evolution of the idea of God" would seem to be in five stages: Naturism,
Animism, Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism.
But "God" in the modern science classroom should not be automatically
accepted as given, but be defined, subjected to testing (in laboratory, or
field) for empirical evidence of current cosmic existence, and a conclusion
reached.
The "God of the Gaps" (in scientific knowledge): is this merely a causal
conclusion for which no evidence exists? If no evidence is found, then the
God Hypothesis should be rejected.
And if assumed true, then where did God come from? And why did he create
the universe? To relieve boredom?
Note: traditional "evidence" of God's existence are, eg. revelation,
spiritual experience, visitation, transubstantiation, miracles,
answers-to-prayer, smiting of enemies, etc. These, while they do involve
empiricism to some extent, seem to have fallen into disfavour, even among
the clergy, who like to climb aboard the scientific bandwagon nowadays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Nature - and Science of God |
04 Nov 2005 05:32:33 PM |
|
|
"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:N4Oaf.8721$Hj2.1655@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9xtaf.7912$Hj2.3758@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nature functions according to "laws", hence there must be a law-maker?
This
is essentially the argument of the Creationists, or nowadays, those
pushing
Intelligent Design.
Fair enough? Take any conceivable Universe; it would have to operate
according to some type of coherent set of rules or laws. These "rules",
minimally, must be functional, they don't have to be directional or
purposeful.
What is the Universe as revealed by Science? It is more of an
Indifferent
Determiner, than result of an Intelligent Designer.
While even an atheistic scientist can marvel at the power and products
of
"Nature", this doesn't mean any kind of worship - merely respect. We
must
obey the "laws of nature", as we have no choice. Indeed, we can alter
the
formula, as "global warming" indicates. "Nature" doesn't care, but will
exterminate us with the same casual indifference as it created us.
=============
Power of The ID
=============
I am the Great Designer,
And I've got my eye on you;
Nothing more amuses me -
Than the Humans in my zoo.
I produced the lovely birdies,
Which twitter in the trees;
I also made the cancer cell,
And colds (which make you sneeze).
Likewise, I made the killer shark,
Whose teeth do gleam so bright;
If he don't bite big chunks from you,
He'll make you die of fright.
Sorry that it took so long,
From Eons 'til Today;
But endless Trial-and-Error,
Is this Creator's way.
You are the Crowning Glory,
Of my Material Arts;
A too-cerebral Anthropoid,
With lots-o' Vestigial parts.
But here's the strangest twist of all,
It has to do with Me;
Unless you can prove that I exist,
I'll remain Non-entity.
There is a PostScript to this tale,
Rise, then Fall, of Human Race:
What is the Purpose of it all -
If you vanish without trace?
=======================
# "The Science of God" (theology?) would, or should, follow normal
practice
and start with data collection - collating all gods, goddesses of history,
cataloguing them according to country of origin, characteristics,
evolutionary descent, etc. Religious terminology associated with deities
would also be relevant.
For example, "spirit" relates to respire, expire, and concerns breathing,
one of the most obvious signs of life; whence the idea of a person
"breathing their last", and the spirit/soul leaving the body.
How "God" became so: a cosmic projection, enlarged and attenuated; a
generalisation from the various tribal deities; and what is left after the
jealous tribal deity of the Israelites had eliminated all rivals. "The
Evolution of the idea of God" would seem to be in five stages: Naturism,
Animism, Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism.
But "God" in the modern science classroom should not be automatically
accepted as given, but be defined, subjected to testing (in laboratory, or
field) for empirical evidence of current cosmic existence, and a
conclusion
reached.
The "God of the Gaps" (in scientific knowledge): is this merely a causal
conclusion for which no evidence exists? If no evidence is found, then
the
God Hypothesis should be rejected.
And if assumed true, then where did God come from? And why did he
create
the universe? To relieve boredom?
Note: traditional "evidence" of God's existence are, eg. revelation,
spiritual experience, visitation, transubstantiation, miracles,
answers-to-prayer, smiting of enemies, etc. These, while they do involve
empiricism to some extent, seem to have fallen into disfavour, even among
the clergy, who like to climb aboard the scientific bandwagon nowadays.
The road to enlightenment is an individual journey.
All of your points are relevant, but the attempt to create a "group
breakthrough" never happens.
Sure, like the calculus example, the gap keeps narrowing, into infinity.
I practical terms, there are too many "crossovers", or assumptions within
the group, which block the path.
One particular referred to above is a good example, being the "soul leaving
the body".
This doesn't happen.
Of course the empiricists shout "where's the proof".
But that's "they" for you ;-)
Nice to see another fish from the Bigpond btw....
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Nature |
03 Nov 2005 06:42:15 PM |
|
|
"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9xtaf.7912$Hj2.3758@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nature functions according to "laws", hence there must be a law-maker?
This
is essentially the argument of the Creationists, or nowadays, those
pushing
Intelligent Design.
Fair enough? Take any conceivable Universe; it would have to operate
according to some type of coherent set of rules or laws. These "rules",
minimally, must be functional, they don't have to be directional or
purposeful.
What is the Universe as revealed by Science? It is more of an
Indifferent
Determiner, than result of an Intelligent Designer.
While even an atheistic scientist can marvel at the power and products of
"Nature", this doesn't mean any kind of worship - merely respect. We must
obey the "laws of nature", as we have no choice. Indeed, we can alter the
formula, as "global warming" indicates. "Nature" doesn't care, but will
exterminate us with the same casual indifference as it created us.
The more understanding, the more respect.
When the realisation (as opposed to speculation) that we are watching the
universe; "it ain't watching us", a sense of self respect (self
understanding) emerges.
There's more than meets the eye in the "philosophical meat" ditty.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Nature |
03 Nov 2005 02:09:00 PM |
|
|
Don H wrote:
Nature functions according to "laws", hence there must be a law-maker?
Nature appears to function with regularity and we call these
regularities, laws, therefore humans are the lawmakers when they
literate their observations.
This
is essentially the argument of the Creationists, or nowadays, those pushi=
ng
Intelligent Design.
Your use of "pushing" makes it sound like drug dealers selling drugs to
school children.
Fair enough? Take any conceivable Universe; it would have to operate
according to some type of coherent set of rules or laws. These "rules",
minimally, must be functional, they don't have to be directional or
purposeful.
Discovering philosophy / Thomas I. White. --Brief ed.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0135080037/
(william paley)
"In crossing a hearth, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,
that for any thing I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever-nor
would it, perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be
inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly
think of the answer which I had before given, that for any thing I knew
the watch might have always been there, yet why should not this answer
serve for the watch as well as for the stone; why is it not as
admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for
no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive
what we could not discover in the stone- that its several parts are
framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed
and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to
point out the hour of the day, that if the different parts had been
differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner
or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no
motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which
would have answered the use that is now served by it. ..."
"This mechanism being observed . . . and understood, the inference we
think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there
must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an
artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which, we find it
actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its
use."
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which
existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the
difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that
in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean, that the
contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the
complexity, subtlety, and curiosity, of the mechanism; and still more,
if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet, in a
multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less
evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end,
or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of
human ingenuity. ..."
"Every observation which was made concerning the watch, may be repeated
with strict propriety concerning the eye, concerning animals,
concerning plants, concerning, indeed, all the organized parts of the
works of nature. . . ."
"Were there no example in the world of contrivance, except that of the
eye, it would be alone sufficient to support the conclusion which we
draw from it, as to the necessity of an intelligent Creator. It could
never be got rid of, because it could not be accounted for by any other
supposition which did not contradict all the principles we possess of
knowledge-the principles according to which things do, as often they
can be brought to the test of experience, turn out to be true or false.
..=2E."
-Natural Theology
This lengthy passage contains a simple argument. Watches are not
natural objects-they do not grow on trees but are made by skillful
craftspeople. So watches imply watchmakers. The world is infinitely
more complex than a watch. How did it get made? There must be a
supreme, infinitely skilled creator-God.
- Does the Argument Work?
This analogy has an obvious appeal. Paley claims that the world's
design shows such a high degree of sophistication that only God could
conceive of and execute it. The comparison with a watch is particularly
apt. A watch is both complicated and precise. So is the world, with its
cycles of the sun, the moon, the seasons, and the cycles of the birth,
growth, and death of plants and animals. Everything moves in a way that
contributes to order and balance. The wonderful patterns and
intricacies of the universe really do seem miraculous. It is natural,
then, to think of it as the handiwork of a divine craftsman.
This argument from design also seems to have the virtue of being
strictly empirical. Paley does not base his "proof" on religious
beliefs-he reflects on the observable, physical workings of nature.
Then he draws what seems like a reasonable conclusion, which he
illustrates by the "watch : watchmaker :: world : God" analogy. Many
sensible religious people are fond of this argument. As the workings of
nature are a sign of God's great design, so the world is a signpost to
God.
The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whom you met in an earlier
chapter, pays the argument from design the highest compliment, even
though he ultimately rejects it. Calling it a "physico-theological
proof," Kant writes in his Critique of Pure Reason,
"This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the
oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the common reason of
mankind. It enlivens the study of nature, just as it itself derives its
existence and gains ever new vigour from that source. It suggests ends
and purposes, where our observation would not have detected them by
itself, and extends our knowledge of nature by means of the
guiding-concept of a special unity, the principle of which is outside
nature. This knowledge again reacts on its cause, namely, upon the idea
which has led to it, and so strengthens the belief in a supreme Author
[of nature] that the belief acquires the force of an irresistible
conviction."
But an argument that strengthens religious faith does not necessarily
prove a point philosophically. Does the argument by design prove what
it claims to?
- False Analogy?
The argument from design has a series of problems. Let's begin with the
most serious.
Paley says that after appreciating the design of the world, we cannot
account for it in any other way than by assuming that God did the
designing and, therefore, exists. Paley even makes it sound as though
any other cause is logically impossible. But don't the theories of
contemporary science contradict this claim? Don't arguments for the
"big bang" and natural evolution at least show that other explanations
for what we find in the world are possible? Surely, it is not illogical
to say that over billions of years, natural processes could produce the
kind of world we have. Why must the order and purpose in nature come
from a supernatural source?
The problem with Paley's argument crops up when we take his watch
analogy too literally. Paley's reasoning works for a mechanical device
like a watch. Machines are not alive; they have no inner force that
gives them shape and drives their behavior. Plants and animals are
quite different. They gr=C2=B0w and adapt to their environment on their
own. They become ill and heal. They respond and change. They reproduce
according to their own unique genetic code in a way that a watch does
not. That's what being alive is all about. Some biologists even
speculate that the whole planet can be understood as a single
organism.* If that were the case, the entire material universe would
have properties that would distinguish it from any artifact ever made.
*Lewis Thomas writes, "Except for us, the life of the planet conducts
itself as though it were an immense, coherent body of connected life,
an intricate system, even, as I see it, an organism. . . . We are not
separate beings. We are a living part of the earth's life, owned and
operated by the earth, probably specialized for functions on its behalf
that we have not yet glimpsed. Conceivably, and this is the best
thought I have about us, we might turn out to be a sort of sense-organ
for the whole creature, a set of eyes, even a storage place for
thought." "Man's Role on Earth," New York Times Magazine, April 1,
1984, p. 36.
This is essentially the criticism offered by the British philosopher
David Hume, whose thoughts about knowledge you encountered in Chapter
9=2E As you saw there, Hume is so rigorous and skeptical that he doubts
such seemngly self-evident ideas as the "self" and "causality." You can
just imagine how he attacks the question of God's existence. In his
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume specifically rejects the
argument from design:
"If we see a house, . . .we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that
it had an architect or builder- because this is precisely that species
of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of
cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a
resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a
similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The
dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to
is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause."
If Paley's argument is indeed based on a false analogy, it proves
nothing. What do you think? Can you defend the argument from design, or
must we discount it as an interesting but in the end useless cause?
- What Kind of "Watchmaker"? Kind of "Watch"?
Even if we go along with Paley and concede that the design of the world
does imply a maker of some sort, does that prove that the
Judeo-Christian God is that maker? Maybe some great being did in fact
design and create the world, what makes us think that this being was
more than simply "one terrific world-maker"? The Judeo-Christian God
has a vast array of attributes. Does the ability to design a world
necessarily mean that someone is perfect and omnipotent in all
respects? Don't you do some things well and some badly? Maybe you're a
great auto mechanic who cannot cook, or a great cook who Cannot play
the piano. It is certainly not necessary that the creator of the should
also be just, fair, loving, merciful, and so on.
Next, think of the following different watches: a watch that must be
wound every day; a "self-winding" watch whose spring is wound by the
movement of your wrist; a battery-powered watch that runs for two years
before the battery needs changing; a watch with a special computer chip
that lets it repair itself; a self-repairing watch whose battery runs
for billions of years. Which of these is best? The last one, of course.
And wouldn't it take a better watchmaker to make it than one who makes
only spring-run watches that must be wound, cleaned, oiled, and
repaired? One would think so.
Applying the same logic to worlds, we should expect the greatest
possible worldmaker to create a self-regulating world that does not
need any tending. Yet Paley's God continues to exist and tinker with
the workings of the universe on a daily basis. If you were a perfect
being designing a universe, surely you would make a self-contained,
self-powered, and self-regulating universe. Doesn't it insult God's
power to say that God created a world that needs a divine being's
constant attention? On the other hand, if the universe does not need
God's oversight, it is at least possible that the world was designed
and made by some worldmaker who subsequently went away or died.
- World-Architect, not Worldmaker
Despite Kant's initial praise for the argument by design, he ultimately
rejects Paley's proof. According to Kant, we simply do not have good
grounds for inferring a worldmaker. How do we know that the being who
designed the world also created the raw material from which the world
is made? We don't know that at all, and nothing in the operation of our
"world/watch" suggests this. The most we see is a universe of order and
purpose. All we can conclude from this is that maybe there was a "world
architect." Nothing here implies a "worldmaker." As Kant says, "The
utmost, therefore, that the argument can prove is an architect of the
world who is always very much hampered by the adaptability of the
material in which he works, not a creator of the world to whose idea
everything is subject."
But perhaps Hume and Kant take Paley's world/watch analogy too
strictly. Perhaps the way the world works suggests to you that it was
not only created at some point in the past but is watched over day to
day by some all-powerful intelligence. If so, you are in good company,
for this is precisely the argument made by one of the greatest
philosophers of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas.
B) The Argument from "Governance of the World": St. Thomas Aquinas
[argument from the governance of the world] The argument from the
governance of the world claims that the order and intelligence of the
activities of nature implies the existence of a being directing them.
St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 to a family of the Italian
nobility. Destined for the monastery from an early age, Thomas was sent
to the abbey of Monte Cassino when he was only five. Monte Cassino was
the main monastery of the Benedictines, a famous and highly influential
order of monks, and Thomas's family probably had political intentions
in placing the boy there. At fourteen, Thomas began studying at the
University of Naples, where he became interested in and joined a new
religious order-the Dominicans- that took both learning and poverty
quite seriously. Thomas's family was so upset that they kidnapped him
for a year in an attempt to change his mind. After his release he
studied at the University of Paris with St. Albert the Great, a teacher
who introduced Aquinas to the thought of Aristotle. Thomas taught
theology at Paris, was assigned to the Papal Court, and, most
unusually, was allowed a second term in Paris teaching theology.
Aquinas was a controversial thinker and prolific writer who constructed
a vast and intricate theological system that attempted to explain
Christian belief in terms of Aristotelian philosophy. However, on
December 6, 1273, he stopped writing, claiming that such things had
been revealed to him that everything he had written now seemed like
straw. He died in 1274 on his way to a Church council and was canonized
in 1323, a remarkably short time after his death to receive such
recognition. In 1879, his system of thought was made the official
doctrine of the Roman Catholic church.
Canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic church shortly after his
death Thomas Aquinas built a philosophical system that is often likened
in structure and in feeling to a Gothic cathedral. His system is not
only intricate, but is inspired by religious faith. Out of the
synthesis of philosophy and theology, Aquinas built a towering
intellectual edifice.
Aquinas was a Christian thinker, of course, so it is not surprising
that he sets out to prove the existence of God. Actually he offers five
different arguments. One of them is based on a concept Aquinas calls
the governance of the world. It is essentially the same as Paley's
argument from design, but it makes a stronger claim. Aquinas writes,
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies,
act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly
always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is
plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end.
Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it
be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence;, as
the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent
being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and
this being we call God."
-Summa Theologiae
When Aquinas surveys the workings of nature, he sees signs of
intelligence, an intelligence absent in the forces of nature itself.
This, he thinks, suggests the existence of an intelligent creator just
as a flying arrow implies the existence of an archer. Arrows do not
just shoot themselves at their targets Nature does not organize itself
to accomplish any purposes. Therefore, God must direct nature's
activities.
Aquinas's argument may seem for the moment a bit stronger than Paley's.
Unfortunately, both thinkers still have a big problem to overcome.
- How Good Is the "Watch"?
Think about it this way. The basic assumption on which the arguments
from design and governance are built is that something about the nature
of the creator can be inferred from the nature of the world that has
been created. This assumption by its very nature, however, produces
major problems for the arguments that rest upon it.
Look very carefully at the world around you. Paley and Aquinas say that
this world is so wondrous that clearly its existence proves the
existence not only of a God, but also of a good God. But is this
"world/watch" of ours really so wonderful? The order and design of
nature are sometimes breathtaking. At other times, however, things do
not work out so well. There are earthquakes, droughts, floods,
hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunami, all of which are uncontrollable and
devastating expressions of nature's destructive power. Many animals
survive by preying on one another. Is this the best way to design a
world?
Then consider Homo sapiens, the creature supposedly fashioned in the
creator's "image and likeness." We treat other animals and the planet
itself badly. We feed off of other creatures, and kill them for sport,
when we would be better off doing neither. We regard everything on this
planet as ours to use or abuse as we see fit. We hunt species to
extinction, strip mine, pollute the oceans, and destroy ecological
systems with our toxic wastes. Is this really the best a wise creator
could do?
Look at how we treat each other. We have war-tribal, religious,
political; we have discrimination-racial, sexual, religious. We have
poverty, slavery, greed, murder, rape, child abuse. It seems
incomprehensible that a creature that is even vaguely fashioned after a
God of goodness could so regularly savage the brothers and sisters of
its own species. On top of this, we have use our intellect to invent
devices with which we can destroy all life on this planet, and we have
put them under the control of military and political organizations
which consider it rational to use them. As a species, we do not even
follow what one would assume is the most basic instinct-survival for
ourselves and our children. It's almost as though our genes command us
to somehow destroy ourselves. How can this be a sign of a competent
worldmaker?
Even an ordinary electrician designs systems that work better. An
overheated electrical line will cause a fire. To guard against that,
the electrician installs mechanisms that prevent disaster, either
circuit breakers or fuses. Why are there no similar mechanisms in human
beings? The absence of "circuit breakers" that at least limit the harm
we can do should give us pause. It might also make us question whether
the apparent natural order of things is as good as we sometimes think.
For all the glory of creation, an objective assessment shows that the
world, and especially Homo sapiens, leaves much to be desired.
What does this imply about the being who designed a world that includes
so many natural disasters and so much calculated evil? At least that he
was not very capable, and possibly that he was sadistic. When we push
the fundamental premise of Paley's and Aquinas's arguments to their
logical conclusion, about the best we can do is to say that our
world-architect still needs more practice.
Discovering philosophy / Thomas I. White. --Brief ed.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0135080037/
What is the Universe as revealed by Science? It is more of an Indiffer=
ent
Determiner, than result of an Intelligent Designer.
Could be either or, with the available evidence, please explain why you
chose the one you did.
While even an atheistic scientist can marvel at the power and products =
of
"Nature", this doesn't mean any kind of worship - merely respect. We must
obey the "laws of nature", as we have no choice. Indeed, we can alter the
formula, as "global warming" indicates. "Nature" doesn't care, but will
exterminate us with the same casual indifference as it created us.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Power of The ID
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I am the Great Designer,
And I've got my eye on you;
Nothing more amuses me -
Than the Humans in my zoo.
I produced the lovely birdies,
Which twitter in the trees;
I also made the cancer cell,
And colds (which make you sneeze).
Likewise, I made the killer shark,
Whose teeth do gleam so bright;
If he don't bite big chunks from you,
He'll make you die of fright.
Sorry that it took so long,
From Eons 'til Today;
But endless Trial-and-Error,
Is this Creator's way.
You are the Crowning Glory,
Of my Material Arts;
A too-cerebral Anthropoid,
With lots-o' Vestigial parts.
But here's the strangest twist of all,
It has to do with Me;
Unless you can prove that I exist,
I'll remain Non-entity.
There is a PostScript to this tale,
Rise, then Fall, of Human Race:
What is the Purpose of it all -
If you vanish without trace?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
