Hi Gregory,
Nice to see ya again.
"Quite interesting, Mike - a type of bridge between TE and ID, you suggest?"
Well, I am both, warts and all.
"1) a police investigation - what is it, if it is neither science nor religion? Does it fit into 'any' category or categories or into none?"
I'm not sure it fits into any category. It's simply an attempt to uncover historical truth using both objective and subjective tools. It doesn't deliver certainty and ultimately ends up as a judgment call; it's neither science nor religion nor philosophy.
"2) if whether or not 'life is artificial' does not impact your metaphyics, then what does or would impact your metaphysics?"
People. If I encountered a group of people who were not Christians, yet displayed Christ-like behavior, this would impact my metaphysics. And I am not talking about an encounter that is academic or distant - I'm talking about real life interpersonal interaction.
"3) would you suggest that theistic evolution (TE) is neither science nor religion either, or perhaps is it both at once?"
I am a TE in the sense that I am both a theist and an evolutionist. I don't think of TE as science because I don't think science can process theism. I don't think of TE as religion because evolution plays no role in my religious life.
-Mike Gene
Quite interesting, Mike - a type of bridge between TE and ID, you suggest?
Three questions:
1) a police investigation - what is it, if it is neither science nor religion? Does it fit into 'any' category or categories or into none?
2) if whether or not 'life is artificial' does not impact your metaphyics, then what does or would impact your metaphysics?
3) would you suggest that theistic evolution (TE) is neither science nor religion either, or perhaps is it both at once?
Still wondering,
Gregory
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Subject: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 3:16 AM
I have always maintained that ID is not science. Yet there is a flip-side to this coin: I have also maintained that ID is not religion. Ironically, while many on the ID side are uncomfortable with the "ID is not science" position and comfortable with the "ID is not religion" position, there appears to be perfect symmetry when it comes to the critics, who are uncomfortable with the "ID is not religion" position and comfortable with the "ID is not science" position. Just another example of yin-yang.
I have previously fleshed out different aspects of my views/approach:
-It is more like a police investigation than either religion or science.
-As an investigation, it allows room for subjectivity and different levels of evidence.
-It begins with a question.
-It represents a Fifth Way of viewing things.
(links provided upon request)
To this, I'll now add the relationship between theology/religion and my views about ID.
I am a theist and my theism allows me many options when it comes to the immensely ambiguous topic of the origin of life on this planet.
1. God did not use natural causes but instead brought life into existence in a way that we cannot comprehend.
2. God used other intelligent agents to design life.
3. God used natural laws/chance by front-loading the appearance of life with the creation of the Universe.
4. God used natural law/chance by bringing this Universe into existence among an infinite set of possible Universes.
My ID views do not stem from a theological viewpoint (for the record, my theological leaning is for option #4) or any sophisticated philosophical analysis. They stem from my raw experience and awareness:
1. I experience reality as both objective and subjective. While my subjective reality is mostly hidden from objective reality, it is not hidden from me; it is as real.
2. I know there are things that exist in the objective world only because I brought them into existence. I conceived them and then used my hands to translate a mental reality into a physical reality. Aspects of my subjective reality become part of the objective reality of others.
3. The objective reality around me also contains things that exist only because other fellow humans conceived them and then brought them into existence. Their subjective reality has become part of my objective reality.
Either human beings are the only beings who could possibly do this or they are not. Since it would seem rather arrogant to think we are the only beings who could possibly exist that can conceive and create, I favor the latter.
Building on this, I simply notice that the more we learn about the molecular world of life, the more it reminds us of our own advanced technology. Thus one wonders if the reason for this similarity is because life and our own advanced technology have similar causes. Perhaps life, at its core, is artificial - a true example of carbon-based nanotechnology. A multitude of clues beckon me.
Can I ever know this? Probably not. But this is not important because I am not on a quest for certainty nor does the answer impact on my metaphysics.
-Mike Gene
(PS: If you are paying attention, I just informed ya how one can be both a TE and an ID proponent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1524 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:42 PM
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 30 21:48:50 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 21:48:50 EDT