Human designers vs. God-as-designer

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 12:57:39 EDT

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: The Wedge Project"

    To: Chris

    Chris
    >That's a good indication that what one finds believable is not a good
    >criterion for whether it's true or not. Sometimes truth is hard to believe.
    >That's why we need *rational* standards, rather than standards like, "I
    >can't imagine," or "I just can't believe it."

    >Put another way: It depends on *why* you believe or can't believe
    >something. Your arguments against pure naturalism always amount to a mere
    >assertion that you can't believe it or can't imagine it. If there is an
    >objective basis for the claim, fine. Then tell us what it is. Otherwise,
    >you are just telling us about your personal mental states, not about the
    >issues at hand.

    Bertvan:
    Hi Chris.
    When it comes to teleology vs. chance, materialism and determinism vs.
    intelligence, mental states is all there is - both for and against. As you
    have said, with a little math and enough words, anyone can "prove" anything.
    What you call "rational" might appear to others as word games. But it boils
    down to the fact that your belief in materialism is also mere assertion that
    "it can't be otherwise".

     A couple of centuries ago the teleologists were in power and were often able
    to intimidate people into professing a belief in teleology. Darwin was part
    of a rebellion against that intimidation. Once the materialists gained
    power, they began trying to intimidate society into acknowledging materialism
    as "scientific truth". Today another rebellion is starting. I don't
    continue to list, over and over, my reasons for believing in teleology and
    intelligence because it bores me to keep repeating the same arguments,
    arguments others have already made. In addition, I have no desire to
    convince you of anything. You have your reasons for your beliefs. I only
    want to ensure that everyone has the same choice - free from intimidation.
    Stop labeling everyone skeptical of "chance variation and natural selection"
    a religious fundamentalist, and I'll probably lose interest in the subject.

    Bertvan
    http://members.aol.com/bertvan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 12:57:57 EDT