Jatopian
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1842
Registered: 07-31-2005
IP: Logged

Every part with its task? Appendices, anyone?

____________________________
DROD has some really great music.
Make your pressure plates 3.0 style!
DROD architecture idea generator

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3408
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

To be sure, it's often a useful metaphor to say that something is "designed" or "intended" to do X, just to aid our thinking about it, just as one can say that putting the trachea in front of the esophagus is poor "design". But that's largely a figure of speech referring to optimization by iterative mutation. When the metaphor gets in the way of the interpretation, as it most clearly does when massive piles of evidence get twisted, mangled, and outright falsified to make the universe fit into a time frame and static model easily comprehensible to humans, it's time to give it the boot, and the "perspective" is no longer valuable as more than a highly oversimplified pedagogical tool.

The Enlightenment scientists, as far as I know, tended towards the watchmaker god, and for those who are into that sort of thing, Galileo's idea of the "Book of Nature" still works perfectly well for reconciling science with faith for a great many people (since, after all, if a god created the world, why wouldn't the world itself be an excellent way to understand it better?). That's ultimately the only effective "creationist" perspective if one wants to describe the world accurately: accept the facts given you as evidence of how whatever creator one chooses to believe in (or not) executed its plan. Requiring the facts to be run through a separate filter first just leads to trouble; one doesn't really hear about Soviet biologists because Lysenko did exactly that and wrecked their entire field (and much of their agriculture while he was at it). It's actually some really neat reading, whether or not you choose to take from it the lesson I'm pushing.

____________________________

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

Even the idea of the Watchmaker God has no real evidence supporting it, it has grown out of the need to think of the universe as something with innate purpose.

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

Rabscuttle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2460
Registered: 09-10-2004
IP: Logged

Someone Else wrote:
On the contrary, there is much evidence that science itself was given a huge kick-start from the fundamentally creationist Christian worldview, as it was the only religion that supported the idea that the world is fundamentally understandable. Disregarding that, (as I predict that most of you will concede that and say that while Christianity may have been fundamental to the creation of science, it is no longer important)

I disagree (at least) with the "only religion" part - I think a fascination with understanding the natural world is something that extends across religious boundaries.
The scientific revolution of the renaissance built upon the philosophical traditions of the ancient Greeks, and the science from the Islamic Golden Age

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Someone Else wrote:On the contrary, there is much evidence that science itself was given a huge kick-start from the fundamentally creationist Christian worldview, as it was the only religion that supported the idea that the world is fundamentally understandable. Disregarding that, (as I predict that most of you will concede that and say that while Christianity may have been fundamental to the creation of science, it is no longer important) the biological world gives the appearance of being designed, every part with its task, and would a creationist perspective not help there?

What I mean is, it doesn't help us learn anything else. For example, if a creationist is asked about the residual gills in humans, he goes 'god put them there'. End of story. If you ask a biologist why there a residual gills in humans, he'll go because we as a species once came out of the water. Which can also indicate X Y and Z. Which answer provides more information about our world, and which is a dead end?

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

If you ask a creationist biologist about the residual gills in humans, he'll go "Hmm... now why did God put them there?", not "God put them there and there is no reason to pursue this further." Both (that is, the responses that a creationist biologist and atheist biologist would give, not the responses an atheist idiot or creationist idiot would give) responses lead to further investigation.

PS: In fact, the opinion of many Christian scholars I have talked to (and myself) is that God wants us to explore this universe He made. Why? Because it's fun, both for us and most likely for Him. Basically, we believe that a lot of the Universe's complexity is there as a puzzle for us to solve.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

---

[Last edited by Sillyman at 08-05-2009 08:09 PM]

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Sillyman wrote:
If you ask a creationist biologist about the residual gills in humans, he'll go "Hmm... now why did God put them there?", not "God put them there and there is no reason to pursue this further." Both (that is, the responses that a creationist biologist and atheist biologist would give, not the responses an atheist idiot or creationist idiot would give) responses lead to further investigation.

I'll ignore the contradiction in terms. Any idea how one would answer that question? Because it seems like it'd be impossible to answer.

Some scholars might beleive that god wants them to explore the world, but the phrase 'god works in mysterious ways' also seems pretty popular.

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

How does one answer the question "Now why did the designer of this level put a mimic potion there?"? One searches for ways it might be beneficial somehow. Not necessarily to the organism directly, but perhaps something God did at some point in the past, present, or future was easier to do because of them being there.

IIRC, the Bible says nothing about God finding all tasks equally trivial, just that nothing is impossible for Him. Of course, the effect is the same from our perspective, due to God being outside of time, but it still might make a difference in how He handles certain things if they lead to the same result.

As for the fact that "God works in mysterious ways"... IMHO, that phrase should only be applied when God needs you to do something right now, that is to say, without sufficient time to at least partially understand why. Partially because I see the universe as somewhat of a puzzle, and partially because demons and/or fallen angels have this tendency of trying to impersonate the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, a lot of my perspective on things stems from being more of a mathematician than a scientist, so I'm reluctant to make assumptions except when they're necessary... for instance picking metaphysical axioms to rely upon as my core motivation for existing.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Ok, maybe that point is more directed at the intelligent design crowd that has a god of the gaps approach, but still, you don't have any framework to answer futher questions. You have no way of deciding why god would want X to be.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is supposed to refer to.

Yes, in emergencies, it's perfectly valid to refer to authority rather than to the reasoning behind what the authority says. But that's not where 'god works in mysterious ways' is used mostly. Mostly it's to explain ignorance about god, when you have all the time in the world to answer the question.

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

I wasn't saying how it was used, I was saying how it should be used.

My own opinion is "Hey, God made us enjoy exploration and discovery. It doesn't actually contradict anything He said. He gave us plenty of opportunity to do so. Hmm... maybe we should do some of that." This includes trying to know God better. The second paragraph of my last post was trying to understand His logic. Basically just thinking out loud.

Also, making assumptions about the history of something isn't the only way to find out more about it.

Look at it this way: Master craftsmen tend to have some technique which they love to use, or running quirk throughout their work, or something. If you know the artist well enough, chances are you'll know what to look for.

This provides a similar advantage in analysis to tracing patterns in technique through history while ignoring who is crafting the artwork: You know what to look for first, but there's no guarantees you're right until you actually investigate the current case.

Either way, there is a chance you'll get something wrong, and this can lead to further mistakes, controversy, disputes, etcetera.

The same mistakes might not even be made by two different people using the same technique... just look at all the scientific theories that proved to be incorrect and the wide variety of mutually-exclusive religions.

Neither are the two paths mutually exclusive, although some combinations of decisions reached following them can be. Anyone claiming that science and theology cannot coexist clearly does not understand either. Science is not the reigning untested theory. Theology is not one particular faith or denomination of a faith.

By following multiple theories at once, especially if they do not contradict each other, one can discover so much more about Life, the Universe, and Everything. And even, sometimes, Deity (including, of course, the existence or nonexistence thereof), the Multiverse, and Metaphysics.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Not sure quite what your replying to, but anyway.

Religion and science can coexist, but at that point, religion is so menial and inconsequential that it's insignificant and pointless, because it has no scientifically testable properties, statistically or otherwise.

Rabscuttle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2460
Registered: 09-10-2004
IP: Logged

Sillyman wrote:
Like I said, a lot of my perspective on things stems from being more of a mathematician than a scientist, so I'm reluctant to make assumptions except when they're necessary... for instance picking metaphysical axioms to rely upon as my core motivation for existing.

Wait, are we still talking about evolution? Because one advantage of evolution over creationism is that it doesn't require the assumption of a god or creator. (sorry if I'm misunderstanding your position, forum conversations get confusing)

How does one answer the question "Now why did the designer of this level put a mimic potion there?"? One searches for ways it might be beneficial somehow. Not necessarily to the organism directly, but perhaps something God did at some point in the past, present, or future was easier to do because of them being there.

But how do you search for this? If we're talking about a feature of an organism, and you say that it doesn't have to be necessarily beneficial to the organism directly, then how do you direct your search?

Do any creatures have features that are not directly beneficial to themselves? Actually, they do, some creatures have vestigal characteristics - for example wings on flightless birds. But in those cases the features either shrink to (practically) nothing, eg the kiwi, or they get coopted into some other purpose - eg ostrich wings are used for balance and for shading.
Why did the creator give little nubbins to the kiwi? Why do ostrich appendages look like wings?

Do any creatures have features that are not now, and were never directly beneficial to themselves? And by beneficial we ultimately mean helping to produce offspring that can reproduce.

(actually, I think there are examples of that too, but they are caused by parasites - I think I remember hearing of one parasite that somehow causes a snail to grow its shell thicker than normal - this helps to protect the snail (and the parasite) but diverts resources away from the snail's own reproduction - ie the extra protection isn't worth it for the snail in the long run

Nuntar
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 4590
Registered: 02-20-2007
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:
Religion and science can coexist, but at that point, religion is so menial and inconsequential that it's insignificant and pointless, because it has no scientifically testable properties, statistically or otherwise.

That makes no sense. On the one hand you're prepared to grant that religion and science can coexist, but on the other you demand that religion be a science. Why can't there be some things we believe that are not scientifically testable? Such as the fact that the entire external world exists and isn't just a figment of our imagination.

____________________________
50th Skywatcher

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Well it seems to make enough sense for you to respond to it...

I'm not demanding religion is a science. Religion demands that. Where does creationism in all it's forms (evolutionary, cosmos excreta) come from? What is religion trying to do when it promotes a dualistic model of the universe?

The fact that there is a world outside yourself is something you can determine, I suppose you could argue, scientifically, using your own senses. Of course, you can't know it for certain, but it's probable enough for you to actually work upon that. But this starts to get into waxing metaphysical, and I don't think any of us really know enough to be discussing it. Except maybe Snacko.

Ok, here's something not scientifically testable. Russell's Teapot. Do you believe in this?

12th Archivist
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 789
Registered: 12-07-2008
IP: Logged

I am not one for posting in this thread, but I've noticed something.

If someone tries to move their opinion farther against the opposite argument without a long list of proof (basically just putting the opinion out there), another person will automatically post either logical flaws in the post or just say the entire post is a flaw.

____________________________
It was going well until it exploded.
~Scott Manley

Check out the DROD Wikia project here!

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

And so they should. Anyone who just takes someones word for it over the internet deserves what they get.

Having said that, I've mentioned lots of things that nobody has demanded proof of, and so have others. It's just the important things that are called into question.

Nuntar
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 4590
Registered: 02-20-2007
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:
I'm not demanding religion is a science. Religion demands that. Where does creationism in all its forms (evolutionary, cosmos excreta) come from? What is religion trying to do when it promotes a dualistic model of the universe?

But you can't tar all religions with the same brush. Not all espouse a creationist, anti-scientific viewpoint. Personally I regard creationism as something that religion ought to be trying to move away from and leave behind, because the days when it was of value to humanity as a working hypothesis are over.

The fact that there is a world outside yourself is something you can determine, I suppose you could argue, scientifically, using your own senses. Of course, you can't know it for certain, but it's probable enough for you to actually work upon that. But this starts to get into waxing metaphysical, and I don't think any of us really know enough to be discussing it. Except maybe Snacko.

And why Snacko? Does he have an MA in philosophy?

Ok, here's something not scientifically testable. Russell's Teapot. Do you believe in this?

No, and why should I? Because I tried to argue that we can believe some things that are not scientifically testable, but in your eyes, any two truths that are not scientifically testable, simply by virtue of not being scientifically testable, are equivalent, so if you believe one you might as well believe all? Please tell me that's not your argument here.

____________________________
50th Skywatcher

---

[Last edited by Nuntar at 08-06-2009 10:41 PM]

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

Rabscuttle wrote:

Sillyman wrote:
Like I said, a lot of my perspective on things stems from being more of a mathematician than a scientist, so I'm reluctant to make assumptions except when they're necessary... for instance picking metaphysical axioms to rely upon as my core motivation for existing.

Wait, are we still talking about evolution? Because one advantage of evolution over creationism is that it doesn't require the assumption of a god or creator. (sorry if I'm misunderstanding your position, forum conversations get confusing)

Evolution and Creation aren't mutually exclusive. As an origin for the divergence of species, however, Evolution and Direct Creation are. But that's really not the axis upon which I'm trying to debate.

Atheism, however, does require assumptions. The assumption that there is nothing outside these four dimensions we are so familiar with is indeed an assumption. Hence there is an arbitrary decision to be made about what one believes. Because certain possibilities carry a benefit for those who believe in them if they are true, and for all of those that I know of, this decision must be made before one's death, deciding "to make no decision at this time" can impact one's reward or lack thereof. In addition, most of these possibilities for the state of metaphysics have a measure of forgiveness in them, so remaining undecided is unlikely to have any benefit.

Because there is a decision of belief to be made that is more or less arbitrary, and this decision should be made, it is tactically sound to believe in a faith that has eternal rewards.

I believe there is some formal name for the above argument (or a similar one), but I forgot it.

Edit: And as for Russel's Teapot, unless the Teapot is full of the most delicious tea ever, there is no such reason to believe in it. If there was amazingly good tea inside that teapot (or perhaps something completely unrelated to tea but greatly beneficial, say, perhaps, an unlimited source of energy, or eternal life), however, depending on just how good that tea was, it might be worth it to try to find it.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

---

[Last edited by Sillyman at 08-06-2009 11:56 PM]

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3408
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

The formal name is Pascal's Wager, and it fails formally on account of presenting only the options of no god and a god that rewards belief, whereas since lack of proof is hardly an obstacle here, one needs to consider the possibility that a god exists that punishes belief.

As for its more practical failure, I give you my personal guarantee that you will burn in hellfire for all eternity if you don't buy me a complete set of SmSes. The tactically sound choice is obvious.

____________________________

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

As for buying you a complete set of SmSes: Sure, I'll consider that belief among the thousands of other belief systems that offer punishment without ever saying anything about reward, and stick to my belief system that actually mentions a reward in Heaven.

As for a potential deity that punishes belief in that deity: Most potential deities punish belief in other deities equally with belief in the lack of a deity anyway. So when you consider the total pool, the most likely rewarding choice, all other things (such as proof) being equal, is to retain belief in a different deity.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3408
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

OK, fine, you'll go to Heaven if you buy me that set. Happy now? As for the hypothetical deity, we both know you're dodging the point. One could perfectly well posit a god that rewards atheists and punishes believers of any sort.

____________________________

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

Wouldn't believers just get in the way? I mean, wouldn't it be easier to work undercover, pulling the strings

Anyway, when blind faith is added to the argument, it loses its purpose. This isn't a criticism, simply an observation and a reason that this topic has run its course.

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

Rabscuttle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2460
Registered: 09-10-2004
IP: Logged

Sillyman wrote:

Rabscuttle wrote:

Sillyman wrote:
Like I said, a lot of my perspective on things stems from being more of a mathematician than a scientist, so I'm reluctant to make assumptions except when they're necessary... for instance picking metaphysical axioms to rely upon as my core motivation for existing.

Wait, are we still talking about evolution? Because one advantage of evolution over creationism is that it doesn't require the assumption of a god or creator. (sorry if I'm misunderstanding your position, forum conversations get confusing)

Evolution and Creation aren't mutually exclusive. As an origin for the divergence of species, however, Evolution and Direct Creation are. But that's really not the axis upon which I'm trying to debate.

Someone remind me if the conversation tends back that way, because I find that more interesting. re divergence of species, I can expand on ring species. Also ligers and tigons and mules (oh my!)

Edit: And as for Russel's Teapot, unless the Teapot is full of the most delicious tea ever, there is no such reason to believe in it. If there was amazingly good tea inside that teapot (or perhaps something completely unrelated to tea but greatly beneficial, say, perhaps, an unlimited source of energy, or eternal life), however, depending on just how good that tea was, it might be worth it to try to find it.

Do you really mean this? I don't think the goodness/greatness of something is correlated to how likely it is to be true. Is a fountain of youth more likely than a fountain of aging? It seems an attitude like that will be easy prey to swindlers and snake oil salesmen. (although when I create a Patented Elixir, I think I'm going to call it Russell's Tea )

zex20913
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1721
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Sillyman wrote:
As for buying you a complete set of SmSes: Sure, I'll consider that belief among the thousands of other belief systems that offer punishment without ever saying anything about reward, and stick to my belief system that actually mentions a reward in Heaven.

As for a potential deity that punishes belief in that deity: Most potential deities punish belief in other deities equally with belief in the lack of a deity anyway. So when you consider the total pool, the most likely rewarding choice, all other things (such as proof) being equal, is to retain belief in a different deity.

What's so awesome about Heaven? One thing I've heard about it is that "you get to be near God all of the time" (which seems to discount his assumed omnipresence here--though I'd guess the response to this would be that you'd be closer to God). To somebody who doesn't believe in God, this is an empty reason, though.

The other reason I primarily hear is that Heaven is not Hell. If there's a dichotomy, sure, heaven is the better choice. But if the choice is between Heaven and eternal sleep, why should I choose Heaven?

____________________________

NoahT
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1133
Registered: 06-17-2003
IP: Logged

Sillyman wrote:
Atheism, however, does require assumptions. The assumption that there is nothing outside these four dimensions we are so familiar with is indeed an assumption.

Actually that is not entirely true. String theory suggests that there are eleven dimensions.

-Noah

____________________________
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

My stuff:

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

Atheism absolutely requires assumptions, though only the requisite ones for believing anything.

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

NoahT wrote:

Sillyman wrote:
Atheism, however, does require assumptions. The assumption that there is nothing outside these four dimensions we are so familiar with is indeed an assumption.

Actually that is not entirely true. String theory suggests that there are eleven dimensions.

-Noah

or 26, depending on the calculation. I wish the LHC would hurry up and find the higgs boson, or not find it.

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Snacko wrote:
Atheism absolutely requires assumptions, though only the requisite ones for believing anything.

Well, you can argue it does, but then that means that you have infinite beliefs. And since our brain is finite, that seems absurd.

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

Not really. I believe that there are infinite beliefs, but not that we believe every one of them. In fact, I'd say a lot of our beliefs are to prevent this from happening, like the belief that the universe is real, objective and logical.

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

Rabscuttle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2460
Registered: 09-10-2004
IP: Logged

I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I believe that children are our future
I believe in miracles (since you came along)