How do you intelligent people possibly choose "faith"?

[Críostóir]

I believe in God because;
1. Every day I wake up in amazement at our glorious planet.
2. I'm in total awe of the human body.
3. I feel the unconditional love of my boyfriend.
3. My boyfriend's incredibly cute dog.
4. I remember my devoted cat and marveling at the pads on his feet.

I have "faith" this couldn't have simply happened with a Big Bang.

I share (or have shared) all that, but I see no reason why it couldn't have happened with the Big Bang. The universe is wondrous indeed.

Natura sola sufficit.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, in the "real" version of intelligent design, and not other common versions, there's no selectiveness with evidence?

When I was connected with intelligent design, the biblical literalist creationists hadn't jumped on that notion yet. We were agnostics, Buddhists, Christians, whatever. The focus wasn't on details here and there, but on the grand scheme. It included information scientists, geologists, cosmologists, and more, not just folks unhappy with Darwin.

As for the sort of thing that video picks on, they're childish. Things bumping into each other in space is no more evidence of lack of design than is a football slipping and falling on the field evidence that there's no game plan. Attacking that sort of thing is evidence only of your own preconceptions.

 

[Kulindahr]

I share (or have shared) all that, but I see no reason why it couldn't have happened with the Big Bang. The universe is wondrous indeed.

Natura sola sufficit.

How does nature explain our concept of and appreciation of beauty?

 

[Críostóir]

How does nature explain our concept of and appreciation of beauty?

It's OUR nature. Some of it comes from natural selection, and some of it is cultural.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's OUR nature. Some of it comes from natural selection, and some of it is cultural.

So how is regarding a snow-capped mountain as beautiful come from natural selection?

Or the beauty of a sunset -- surely that should be a thing of terror, because for our ancestors the coming of a night meant fear.

 

[Críostóir]

So how is regarding a snow-capped mountain as beautiful come from natural selection?

Or the beauty of a sunset -- surely that should be a thing of terror, because for our ancestors the coming of a night meant fear.

Fear and beauty are often associated. Fresh blood is a beautiful color, but the sight of it is always alarming. I think that some beauty reactions are muted, devolved alarm reactions.

As for the snow-capped mountain...I don't know. That's something we still have to find out. Did you think I was claiming to know everything? I'd think you know me better than that.

The trouble with "God did it" is that you can use it to explain ANYTHING. That makes it non-useful for categorizing or explaining. And also, if you believe in evolution even as a mechanism of God's will, it's still not very useful to fast-forward that explanation with "God did it." What evolutionary mechanism did God USE to make us appreciate snow-capped mountains?

The mechanistic question, to me, is more interesting than the fundamental one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fear and beauty are often associated. Fresh blood is a beautiful color, but the sight of it is always alarming. I think that some beauty reactions are muted, devolved alarm reactions.

As for the snow-capped mountain...I don't know. That's something we still have to find out. Did you think I was claiming to know everything? I'd think you know me better than that.

The trouble with "God did it" is that you can use it to explain ANYTHING. That makes it non-useful for categorizing or explaining. And also, if you believe in evolution even as a mechanism of God's will, it's still not very useful to fast-forward that explanation with "God did it." What evolutionary mechanism did God USE to make us appreciate snow-capped mountains?

The mechanistic question, to me, is more interesting than the fundamental one.

I say that appreciation of beauty comes from having a soul, which is the mechanism for interfacing between person-ness and material-ness.

 

[Críostóir]

I say that appreciation of beauty comes from having a soul, which is the mechanism for interfacing between person-ness and material-ness.

What is a soul?

If you could really nail that down for me, I'd tell you whether I believe it or not.

 

[TX-Beau]

I say that appreciation of beauty comes from having a soul, which is the mechanism for interfacing between person-ness and material-ness.

Yeah, I gotta ask also, could you define that whole soul thing a little more clearly, plus exactly how having one necessarily leads to an appreciation of beauty.

While you're at it could your conclusively define that whole beauty thing.

I mean, maybe I don't have a soul, but I don't find snow capped mountains all that shivery and delicious.

 

[Kulindahr]

What is a soul?

If you could really nail that down for me, I'd tell you whether I believe it or not.

I consider a soul to be a self-contained energy packet with internal waveforms that interact with neurons, providing sentience to an otherwise random biological mechanism.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well that's what you consider, but that doesn't get us any closer to any kind of actual definition.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well that's what you consider, but that doesn't get us any closer to any kind of actual definition.

If I consider ice to be a crystalline material that can be skated on when found as a flat surface, and turns to water when melted, does that not get closer to a definition of ice than nothing at all?

 

[Críostóir]

I consider a soul to be a self-contained energy packet with internal waveforms that interact with neurons, providing sentience to an otherwise random biological mechanism.

I believe that the mind is an emergent phenomenon of the brain (both neurons and glial cells). What makes you think the biological mechanism is random? That doesn't jibe with what I know about the brain (and I'm not a neuroscientist).

Your description of the soul sounds fairly scientific, but what holds the energy packet together? What generates the internal waveforms?

See, I think the soul is part of the mind, and that the answer to my two questions above is: the brain. And when the brain perishes...so does the soul.

 

[TX-Beau]

If I consider ice to be a crystalline material that can be skated on when found as a flat surface, and turns to water when melted, does that not get closer to a definition of ice than nothing at all?

The problem of course is -as it is always when I disagree with you, that there are plenty of people who can define ice in exactly the same way, ice can be seen, can be tested, can be defined.

YOUR definition of a soul and how it relates to anything at all is only and simply faith.

And while I realize that you believe your faith to be fact. It isn't. Even among people of faith your definition of soul isn't agreed upon. It's your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

So no, what you consider isn't authoritative, or universal, and can't be used as any kind of definitive answer for anything at all.

False analogy. Ice is neither intangible, or faith based, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that somehow possession of ice allows one to appreciate beauty.

You have given us your opinion of what "soul" is, but you haven't given us a definitive definition, or explained what that has to do with beauty, nor explained what beauty is in the first place, or why one must necessary posses a soul to understand it.

 

[zoltanspawn]

When I was connected with intelligent design, the biblical literalist creationists hadn't jumped on that notion yet. We were agnostics, Buddhists, Christians, whatever. The focus wasn't on details here and there, but on the grand scheme. It included information scientists, geologists, cosmologists, and more, not just folks unhappy with Darwin.

As for the sort of thing that video picks on, they're childish. Things bumping into each other in space is no more evidence of lack of design than is a football slipping and falling on the field evidence that there's no game plan. Attacking that sort of thing is evidence only of your own preconceptions.

The sorts of thing the video picks on are only as childish as the sorts of thing to which they are a reply. Personally I find these marvels and horrors provocative. Though they don't seem like convincing evidence for either purpose or its lack, they are at least suggestive of purpose and its lack.

Even though you prefer grand scheme information as the evidence for design, I wonder if it, just like the specific examples in the video, doesn't have to meet similar criteria to demonstrate that there is a purposive intelligence. Of course it's easy to show that something functions excellently in achieving an end, but has anyone been able to demonstrate a link between its excellent function and a purposeful intelligence?

 

[AsianDream]

Though by definition "Faith" means belief in Unfounded and unproven assertionions.

That itself is a straw man -- to a Christian, that's not what it means at all.
Using that as the definition for the thread's question, I'd have to say "We don't".

In terms of religious "Faith" - surely this does mean to accept God without demanding evidence?

An "All powerful" God would presumably be able to provide incontrovertible physical evidence of his/her existance if he/she chose to do so?

The reason given by many religions for God not providing definite proof is that this is because he/she wants people to have "Faith".

I think the flaw in this argument is that there seems to be a dark part of human nature that makes it possible for us to have "Faith" in almost any idea.

In terms of damage done I'd hasten to add that secular "Faiths" such as Nazism and Communism have probably caused considerably more harm than any "Religious Faith".

To me it seems to be that "Creationist/Inteligent Design" advocates are trying to reconcile their own "Faith" in an idea with the fact that there is no evidence to support this.

I see no paradox in intelligent people choosing "faith". Intelligence just determines how well they are able to argue in favour of their "Faith" - not wether this is true or not.