Hi Tedd,
I will miss Mike Gene. His views were often unique. I appreciate Steve
Jones keeping me informed of science developments in the news, and am glad
he is still here. Other groups discussing this subject have deteriorated
into the most banal name-calling. We have our share of name-calling and
some of the posters are predictable. Nevertheless the instances of
independent thinking and sincere desire to exchange ideas have so far kept
this group worth reading. Your belief that morality is tied to intelligence
is novel, and I have enjoyed discussing it.
Ted:
> The point of my unicorn analogy is that we know of only one kind
> of intelligent design in nature and that is perfomed by an
> organism (humans), but we know absolutely nothing about any
> other entity capable of intelligent design. Therefore, it is
> more reasonable to expect that an intelligent designer would be
> an organism like human beings in the same way one would expect
> a horse to be the cause of hoof-shaped foot prints rather than
> a unicorn.
> Your use of the word "naive", however, suggests that you believe
> there is evidence for entities or non-organisms capable of
> intelligent design.
Bertvan:
The things you believe obviously "sound reasonable" to you. Personally, I
don't offer "sounds reasonable" as evidence. The universe appears the result
of rational design to me. It appears otherwise to you. Anyone who regards
the universe as designed is free to speculate, but while I doubt the
"designer" is an organism, I don't have any speculations for which I'm
prepared to offer evidence.
Tedd:
> I believe that everyone speculates but not everyone wants to
> speculate out loud. I find it rather hard to believe that the
> average ID'er doesn't have in mind a pretty good idea of what
> they suspect the designer to be. It just isn't human nature to
> draw a "blank" for something that important.
Bertvan:
First, I might not be an "average ID'er". Second, I fear you are formulating
some "laws of human nature" which might not be universal. Perhaps some
people have no tolerance for an "unknown", but I doubt that is a "law of
human nature".
Bertvan:
>> Actually, my personal belief is that much of the designing is
>> done by life itself -- not by "random mutation and natural
> > selection", but by the accumulation of choices exercised by all
> > life. Scientific evidence for such a process might be developed
> > - but anyone believing "random mutation and natural selection"
> > an adequate explanation would probably not bother looking for
> > it. Spetner is beginning to.
>Tedd:
> At first glance, I can't tell how this is greatly different from
> RM & NS other than in perspective. Are you suggesting that life
> can choose to mutate in a particular way that benefits an
> offspring?
Bertvan:
It is called directed mutation. It is the opposite of "random mutation and
natural selection". The mutations are not random and natural selection plays
no part in their creation. This is merely my personal "speculation". I am
not a scientist, and can offer no evidence, but I predict evidence of
directed mutations will eventually be found. So far most biologists have
been determined not to look for evidence for anything except "random mutation
and natural selection". That might change if ever their strange emotional
commitment to "random mutation and natural selection" is ever broken.
> > Bertvan:
>> Your belief that intelligence and morality are linked is probably
>> not shared by most people.
> > In any case, it is a philosophical conclusion.
Tedd:
> No, it's an argument with testable premises and conclusions.
> I think it has quite a lot of empirical support.
Bertvan:
I'm sure you are aware of the trouble psychologists have defining and
measuring human "intelligence". Most have decided it consists of many
abilities, including verbal intelligence, mathematical intelligence,
manipulation of symbols, memory, physical intelligence, etc., and even while
admitting it can't be precisely defined or measured, most agree that it
exists. The only way you will ever measure morals is to impose your
definition of "moral" upon everyone else. So good luck on your empirical
investigation. The problem of defining abstract "intelligence" is even
greater. I might define abstract intelligence as the opposite of random.
Anything showing plan, purpose, meaning or design could be the result of
intelligence; anything exhibiting random arrangement, lacking plan, purpose,
meaning or design might not necessarily be the result of intelligence. You
might believe abstract intelligence -- anything other than human intelligence
-- does not exist. Or you might define it differently. Unless you believe
the universe was designed for the specific enjoyment of homo sapiens, I can
think of no reason to believe the designer was motivated by human morals.
Tedd:
> A conflict can not occur unless one side believes the other's
> beliefs are rationally flawed. That's why we ask questions
> and probe other people's belief systems -- because at first
> glance they appear irrational.
Bertvan:
The only people who consider everyone else's opinions to be "rationally
flawed" are those who believe in absolute truths. Most of us have changed
our opinions often enough to be skeptical of such absolutes. (I can remember
a time in my youth when I would have declared Darwin's words to be the most
significant insights of the century.)
Bertvan:
> > I would regard a universe without pain or conflict as trivial
>> and meaningless. (I suspect the designer, whatever it is,
>>agrees. :-) )
Tedd:
> I would be very careful of this line of thought. The atrocities
> that occur in nature would make Hitler look like Mother Theresa.
> Can you seriously condone the kinds of suffering, torture, genocide
> that goes on regularly in nature?
Bertvan:
You disapprove of the way the universe was designed, so you have decided
Nature is immoral. I have to tell you, Tedd, the Christians have designed a
universe of which you might approve. They call it Heaven. Personally, I
would find it boring, and like Adam and Eve, I would try to escape. I much
prefer the real world.
I don't have to "condone suffering", to recognize it as an essential piece of
reality. Without evil, what would be the point of making moral choices?
Indeed, no one would have a choice, and I regard a life without choices
intolerable. Without suffering, what would be meaning of joy? Without
challenge and the possibility of failure, what would be the satisfaction of
achievement? Without death, would life have value? Without the ugly, what
would be the definition of beauty? Could heroism exist in the absence of
real danger? Man's most cherished experiences have been efforts to "improve"
the world. Could growth occur in a universe that was already perfect? Can
something incapable of growth be considered alive? Personally, I would find
a life without any uncertainties tedious. Whatever designed the universe did
a better job than I could have done.
Tedd:
.> However, before a teleological process can be
> recognized, it seems that a designer capable of doing the task
> must be identified first
Bertvan:
That would apparently be your priority. You can't dictate other people's
priorities.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 09:51:41 EDT