*Filed along with the 'Flying Sphagetti Monster' Theory*
I liked the Stuhring theory. Clearly, ID has a lot of holes. Holes that are conveniently filled by non-falsifiable notions.
Just one thought though - If you consider all the work, time and effort that mankind has put into documenting religion today - hundreds of thousands of pages of manuscripts, stories, sacred texts, institutions, its mind numbing. Why does it seem to be that 98% of mankind is in some form of grand delusion? Could there possibly be something in there that does not quite fit the scientific framework? It's like looking for life in outer space that fits our definition of intelligence. Why should it fit our definition of life? If the only tool you have is a hammer, all the problems start resembling nails.
I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.
But what do I know? My biggest problem right now is figuring out what to do for Lunch.
I will selectively and conveniently pick one statement from your comment to focus on. More discussion of the other points in your comment will follow.
You said: I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.
I want to clarify if you are referring to the same ID that Michael Behe holds a brief for. I want to clarify because I think there is a big difference. Or at least, there ought to be.
Balajee, I am philosophically and culturally a Hindu. As far as I can tell, you are too. For any Hindu to back Behe's version of I.D. would be like putting up all his money on a blackjack bet when he is holding a bust card and the dealer is showing an ace.
I will bet my last dollar that Behe's version of I.D. is quite different from yours. What Behe is championing is thinly disguised evangelism masquerading rather unconvincingly as science.
Behe seems to be saying, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer." I will throw in my last remaining cents on the wager that if pressed, he would go on to say, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer, and Jesus is his Son."
If unopposed, he would add, "You devil-worshipping Hindus and godless atheists are going to Hell anyway, unless you repent. Yea, verily. You can, however, draw comfort from the fact that it will be an intelligently designed Hell."
Behe is an insult to science, not to mention the fact that he is also an insult to the larger section of average fair-minded Christians. In my personal opinion, he and his sort are giving Christians a bad name. I only hope that Lehigh University does not make the mistake of removing him from his teaching duties. What we do not need is another martyr like Judge Roy Moore. Did you know that Roy Moore is running for governor of Alabama?
The scientific community is doing a stellar job of showing up Behe's non-scientific, logically untenable mumbo-jumbo for what it is. But that is because they can still get to him since he is still part of the scientific community. Once out of his teaching job, I think we'll only see him on Evangelical cable channels, safely out of reach of scientific peer review and doing far greater damage as a result.
People like you and I do not fit into Behe's worldview. It would be a serious error thinking that he is doing this for science, or for theists around the world, or for the larger section of humanity, or whathaveyou. His list of beneficiaries is not that long.
I don't claim to know your mind, but I am aware of the general worldview of a Hindu theist. I would be a fair bet that when you--as opposed to a Behe--talk about an Intelligent Designer, you are talking about a Greater Force, an Unit Law that does not discriminate against a particular section of humanity because they read the wrong book.
And the presence of this one Greater Force seems conceivable to me. It sounds like a fair conjecture. As a matter of fact, it may also be a cooperative effort by several Greater Forces that makes things so. Why only one?
But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.
I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.
But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.
I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.
5 comments:
Don't really care for Michael Behe. I'm refering more to the sprit of ID, which I guess both of us agree is conceivable. As far as I am concerned, Michael Behe can do whatever he wants to with his "irreducibly complex" brain.
As long as it does not get into the classroom..
Sougata, just curious. Do you really associate yourself to being an Athiest? Or are you just plain agnostic?
You said, "But an atheist's position is this: He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists -- he has no evidence for non-existence either -- but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you."
This sounds like an agnostic position to me. Most of the Athiests I know have a more condesending attitude towards the rest of humanity.. afterall, they seem to know for sure that there is no basis for the existence of God or the Unit Force. Most Athiests, according to me, know that there is no God and do not afford the possibility even that a probability exists, however remote that may be.
Again, I am using the word God in a more semantical fashion. It could mean different things to different people, and it clearly does.
I think the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is an artifical one.
The word is "atheist" which connotes neutrality, not "anti-theist" which connotes opposition. Like "amoral" vs "immoral".
An agnostic is also neutral. I think the difference between the two terms is rather contrived.
I'll get to some other points in the next post, to be written tonight, hopefully (Time is a bitch, Balajee; how do people make time?? Gimme some time management tips if you have any. I'm struggling.)
I have also often wondered about this distinction between agnostic and atheist. To complicate matters, there are "weak atheists" and "strong atheists" :). My views are similar to those expressed by Sougata. At this point in time, I have no reason to believe that God or a Greater Force exists. Would I change my opinion if clinching evidence is ever found? Surely. Will clinching evidence ever be found? I am not sure. I think the atheist would perhaps answer "no". That may be the fundamental difference.
Post a Comment