Posts
“If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
The regularity in nature discovered by science, therefore, demonstrates the existence of an intelligence behind it. This, indeed, was what science is for, according to its founders: “to discover the footprints of God in nature.”
It could be objected that there is no control here: if we see design in culture, that is, the works of man, and design in nature, that is, in that not made by man, what is left that does not show design? And, if there is nothing we perceive that does not show design, how can we know that the design is in the object of perception, rather than in our minds; that is, the design of our minds being projected on all that we see?
But if it is just from our minds, it does not matter—for we know we did not make our own minds. A design intrinsic to our minds equally shows the presence of an intelligent creator.
It could be objected that, if everything shows design, we cannot really distinguish design at all. For things are defined largely by their opposite, and we then have no true examples of chaos or randomness with which to compare.
And yet we do have relative examples: we can, as human artificers, do better or worse. We can see that some of our attempted designs are inferior, and some superior. And we can see when we lack all intention to design that we can come up, literally, with garbage.
And with this we can indeed fairly compare what we find in nature. Does it look like a pile of garbage, an upturned bucket of ink, like our artificial randomness? Or does it look more like an elaborate structure following regular principles?
Science’s success suggests the latter.
17 comments:
Then, yes, you consent to being a fool.
Like a child who argues the existence of Santa Clause, you can go on forever finding sense in the nonsense of myth as fact.
Uncanny, but what does the latest issue of Philosopy Now magazine end with, but a series of poems, including one on Aquina's five proofs. For Od's enjoyment:
O Come All Ye St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (sung to the toon of "Come All Ye Faithfull.")
O Please read St Thomas, Thomas Aquinas'
Summa Theologica, with 5 proofs of God
Prove him from causes, and proove him form motions,
From necessary being,
From grades of perfection,
From order in the universe,
Five proofs of God!
Ha,ha,ha,ha!
Now for the groaning retort from yours truly:
WHEN DEBUNKING AQUINA
By Jeff Harmsen
When debunking Aquina
Where do I begin'a?
Motions make God Reality!
What about simple gravity?
Perfection is certainly a proof!
But reality has no such roof.
God is in the effect and Cause!
Same can be said for Santa Clause,
Or Batman, or the Wizzard of Oz.
Order makes God a big deal!
Ever-changing matter is what's real
God is necessary for being!
Not if seeing is believing.
The secret to the evolution of your Catholic cult, or any religious sect for that matter, is to renounce the supernatural and convert to a form of philosophy.
Think about it. If you hallucinated that God told you to kill your wife, she'd be perfectly safe because without the madness of superstition, you would be grounded in your humanity.
At the same time, no baby would be thrown out with that biblical bath water, because you'd still be free to "do onto others," "turn the other cheek," and so on, but from a rational philosophical perspective, rather than from the maddening delusional perspectives that have always been a necessary condition for war and terrorism.
Peace brother, peace!
Jeff, it's "Aquinas," not "Aquina."
I couldn't resist Aqina and begin'a. You know, as humor. In any event, his arguments are a joke.
You certainly have gone quiet here on the reality I have presented.
Take the myth out of religion and tyrans like Bin Ladin and George W Bush don't have a leg to stand on.
The President's theologeon, John Hagee thinks the apocalypse will happen any second (certainly in his life time). It would be so easy for the delusional President to convince himself God wants him to drop a nuclear bomb in the Middle East, a sort of last hurrah of his presidency.
Afterwards, he could go to trial and explain how, through Hagee, God told him to do it.
On the other hand, if humanity evolved beyond the delusions of religion, understood it as a philosophy, we would all be safe from such madness.
After Pope JP2 admitted there is no such literal place as heaven and hell, I believe the Catholics will be the first Christians to advance to rational philosophy beyond murderous myth. This would make your institution a world leader over all other religions. For one thing, all other cults would be forced to follow suite to avoid looking ridiculous.
Quite a compliment I just paid you, eh Steve?
What part about "unrestrained by law" do you not understand? Or what do you not understand about exercising absolute power or brutality? Both Bush and Bin Laden were not restrained in their acts of brutality.
Again, religion is the historally accepted impetous to over 90% of wars. The more religious a nation, the more terrorism there seems to be. Look at Isreal, for crying out loud: it's a perpetual hornet's nest.
Atheists tyrants are the exception not the rule. Moreover, and here's the checkmate: there's not one example of a HUMANISTIC atheist who is a tyrant.
I am not going to the trouble of making a list like you did, not going to waste my time. If anyone out there is interested, look it up and you will find I am correct.
Suffice it to say your man Aquinas has been utterly smitten and defeated.
EJ:
What part about "unrestrained by law" do you not understand?
SR:
The part where you ignore the US constitution and the checks and balances in the US system. Not to mention the niggling fact that Bin Laden is not even in power.
EJ:
Again, religion is the historally accepted impetous to over 90% of wars.
SR:
This claim is pure fantasy, something you have wisely not even attempted to substantiate. Yet you even have a figure!
Look again at that list of generally accepted tyrants. Look again at that listing of terrorist incidents. The empirical evidence suggests rather that atheism is the chief cause of both war and terrorism. If we had more religion in the world, and especially if we had more Christianity, we would have far less violence.
EJ:
The more religious a nation, the more terrorism there seems to be. Look at Isreal, for crying out loud: it's a perpetual hornet's nest.
SR:
Israel is not really a religious nation; it is secular, according to its constitution. And it is also not much of a source of terrorism, as far as I can see. It is a common _victim_ of terrorism.
EJ:
Atheists tyrants are the exception not the rule. Moreover, and here's the checkmate: there's not one example of a HUMANISTIC atheist who is a tyrant.
SR:
As noted previously, by the dictionary definition, “a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters,” virtually all the great tyrants of modern history have been humanists.
If you insist, instead, on limiting it to those who would subscribe to the “Humanist Manifesto” of 1933--no difference. Again, you would have to include most of the great tyrants of modern history. Certainly the Communist ones, and probably also the Nazis and Fascists.
well said Steve, I had not lumped those tyrants all together in one list before but may i use the list on my travels thru this computerized universe we call the blogosphere?
Unfortunately You may need to add another name to the list such as Jiang Jemin and label him as an evil toad. The past has shown and the future will reveal that both Mao and Jiang out do all other tyrants on the list for their evilness committed on humanity
Ms. J, why does it not surprise me that you would ignore the thousands of years of religious warring to focus on Steve's list?
Indeed you may, J.
Wow, I just realized a facinating irony re Ms. J and Steve's current, religious love in.
Here Ms. J is using religion to stand up to "evil toads" the way Steve's cult began by standing up to the brutal Romans.
Now, what happened after the Christianity became the dominant religion in Rome? Jesus "the king of peace" went on to be the motivation for burning people alive (i.e intelligent women who threatened the patriarch, labled as witches), for cannibalism (not Steve's kind, but the actual eating of heretics' flesh when they ran out of food duing the crusades), for millions of unspeakable crimes against humanity, including the current unjust war in Irqaq.
Thus, even when religious cults begin as peaceful, if they acheive power, they themselves become oppressive and brutal.
Why? It has to do with the superiority delusion of believing in "Almighty" entities.
Thus, if your cult, Ms. J, succeeds in overcoming the oppression of communist China, the most likely scenario would be that the Falun Gong will become oppressive and brutal.
Only when humanism becomes the accepted ideology of the masses will we acheive world peace. Unlike atheist tyrants who see themselves as gods, humanist leaders will maintain empathy and compassion as the prime directive.
Thank you Steve,
and EJ you have said that before so i must remind you again that all things cycle thru formation status degeneration and destruction you would call it nature right?
So when the peaceable son of one God Jesus was here the followers were peaceable and they turned the other cheek not only once but also offered their other cheek. After a couple of centuries of the teachings staying true even thru persecution the Romans saw that they would never get rid of those who practice Jesus teachings right?
So they took over the teachings institutionalized them and changed them for ever according to their needs to control and stay stay in power.
My point being Jesus the son of one God in the universes was not corrupt or a war monger and never call him that please.
So you have to begin to separate the Romanized Christians from Jesus and his father. If you can do that you will see the nature of the universe and cycle of life taking its place as i mentioned above. Do not blame the Gods or enlightened beings who come to earth to offer salvation to humankind for the violent acts that are done in their names by puny humans.
Buddhas Daos and Gods are not responsible for what humans do. They can only advise people to be good and follow the principles of their realms so that they can cultivate and ascend to their dimension/ heaven.
Unenlightened beings who use enlightened beings teachings to further their own agenda are the worst life forms on the planet. They are considered by the Gods as demons who interfere and do great damage to many people who wish to return to their origin thru cultivation.
I have told you before that in orthodox religions today very few people do not cultivate themselves. They follow the rituals of cultivation without actually cultivating themselves right?
EJ if you don't believe in Gods thats fine but dont blame them for what mortals do in their ignorance or their desire. You have said that you have respect for Jesus and Buddha and some great leaders like Gandhi for their peaceable natures .
Not all can cultivate their natures to return to being good, its very hard path especially with all the distractions for mortal life. But it can be done.
100 million Falun Gong practitioners grew from 1992 - 1997 no money no hierarchy just spread heart to heart to 70 countries all around the world.
The Founder Teacher Li has come to offer salvation to all sentient beings to those who cultivate to those who can place themselves on the righteous side of this battle between Good and evil of Falun Gong and the communist regime who are murdering the very best of humanity -those who believe in truth compassion and forbearance.
EJ Which side are you ?
I am on rational humanity's side.
Ms. J, I'm afraid you are taking the bible literally. However, the stories found there are embellished, twisted and, at times, outright fantasy.
One story about Jesus, omitted from the Bible, is about him as a teenager killing another boy, just because the boy made fun of him.
The historical Jesus was a failed prophet. His main task as a leader was to deliver the Zealot Jews from the barbaric Romans. When an official asked him about taxes, Jesus said (and I paraphrase) "money is man's thing, we are only interested in the spiritual."
Now, this might sound heroic, but think about it. Suppose you are being taxed so badly, your children are literally starving to death. Women in your tribe are being raped by the Romans on a regular basis. Your leader says something to the effect, "Don't worry, be happy, it's your spirit that counts."
This is what led to his crucifixion: he did not lead a strong enough rebellion against the Romans. (Incidentally, Jesus' real name was Joshuah. He was named after a successful Jewish warrior from the Old Testament. He became know as Jesus through Greek translation.)
Over the next couple of centuries, stories and rumors about Jesus flourished. Thus, what you have in the New Testament is a slue of embellishments, omissions and outright lies. No serious historian takes the bible literally.
On top of all this, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the most peaceful of uprisings tend to turn barbaric over time, when one group conquers another.
It is arrogant of you to assume people need the delusion of a god to cultivate themselves, especially considering that delusions are a clog to enlightenment.
I respectfully ask you Ms. J to stay on point if your wish to respond. You have a tendency to get way off point, assume there's a god, and start preaching nebulous dogma related to your subjective experience.
EJ:
US constitution? You mean the thing Curious George circumvented to persue his unjust war (i.e act of tyrany)?
SR:
Pure fantasy again, Jeff. The US Congress expressly authorized Bush to go in to Iraq, by a joint resolution of October 2, 2002. I quote the most relevant sections:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
…
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Authority to go to war doesn’t come any clearer than that.
EJ:
By definition, a humanist can not be a tyrant because fellow human beings are the first priority, regarless of race color or creed
SR:
Similarly, by definition, a Marxist cannot be a tyrant, because fellow human beings are the first priority.
Yet we have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, the two Kims, Milosevic…
EJ:
(Creed will naturally solidify when rational thought replaces the delusion and superstious behavior of religion. This will happen for the simple reason people do not like to look stupid. Thus, when enough of the masses see religion for what it is, they will accept reality peacefully.)
SR:
“The masses”? And the deluded masses at that? That too sounds like contempt. You are casually assuming you are more intelligent than the vast majority of humanity.
Secular humanists tend to.
The next step, of course, is to assume you have the right to tell others what to do. For their own good, of course.
And this is how tyranny happens.
The easy assumption of superiority even, potentially, implies the right to eliminate lesser beings if this seems useful. For the good of the rest, of course.
So we have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, the two Kims, Milosevic…
EJ:
The Nazis, although somewhat of a grey area, were certainly not devoid of religious propaganda (therefore religious impetus). First, the Jews were depicted as devils, point blank
SR:
That is false, point blank. In proper scientific fashion, the Jews were usually depicted as vermin, or parasites, that had to be exterminated for the “health” of the race.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LIED to circumvent the constitution. I realize the president has the authority to go to war. He does not have the authority to lie about why he is doing it.
Marxism does not make humanity it's prime directive.
That the masses are deluded is not a matter of intelligence, but brainwashing (as previously defined). A child can have a high IQ yet be tricked into believing in things that are not real. Millions of intelligent children, for example, believe in Santa Clause, right Steve?
In a democratic society, I have a right to speak the truth, (not simply what I believe, but what I can back with valid arguments).
As for my beliefs, I believe in equality, not superiority.
Now this is going way back, but in high school I did a project on Hitler and remember posters of Jews with horns and goatees, depicted as devils point blank.
Without a god, there is no devil. Without heaven, there is no hell. This is the whole point. By removing these mythical ideas from ideology, you remove extremism, because all that's left is people behaving well or badly.
People who do not believe in higher lives will also believe that they cannot be held accountable for their actions.No retribution for past harmful deeds?
For instance if they dont believe in karma a justice system of equalizing the good and the bad then people will behave badly and continue to get worse. Since science took over from religion I would say the world has become a worse live to live in peace and everyday people are behaving even more badly not better. Such is the damage science can wreck upon humanity. And yes I believe that all illnesses are demons created for us to pay back karma.
People all suffer the same on this planet but because we are all born from the mothers womb we dont realize we all suffering.
We fear cold hot hunger thirst and then we have illness and death to contend with too isn't this extreme suffering for humankind?
EJ
What appears off track to you and not on the point is just your one eyed way of looking at things. Im sorry to say so bluntly but my intention is good .
"If human beings can take a fresh look at themselves as well as the universe and change their rigid mentalities then humankind will make leap forward" Mr Li Hongzhi.
Keep stretching you horizon's my friend and it will lead to the ultimate truth as many true scientists are discovering today.
People who study the scriptures are merely studying theories . They regard them as a philosophical category for critical studies and so called research. If you are not cultivating as a true cultivator then you will never manage to understand any teachings of any practice because you regard them with the mindset of an everyday person and their knowledge will not be revealed to you as a disbeliever In my mind i do not see anything new in what you are saying.
Enlightenment is not easy (and is not easy for a reason )and knowledge will not be available to all who come along only those who truly wish to cultivate their most truest nature.
But i must admit I do find Steves posts very funny especially the breakdown of who between tyrants and religious followers are good people. Well done may I use this also? I hope to pass it on for some lightheartedness on this subject when thr going gets tough.
Ms. J, I've already covered this issue of morality. Empathy and love are HUMAN traits. Do you honestly think that when the masses accept the truth about the supernatural (that it is not real) every one will go on murderous rampages and have orgies in the street? Of course not.
I have already given you the example of my son, a bona fide atheist, showing empathy to his grandmother while his Catholic cousins fought over the pizza to fill their own faces.
Believing in a god is not what defines morals: what you do is what counts.
Science has not taken over for religion. About 90% of the general population still believes in a god.
If you believe science is evil, I guess you don't take your children to the doctor when they are ill, otherwise you'd be falling into that old religious mainstay of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, if you believe illness is a result of Karma and demons, you are placing unnecessary guilt on yourself and others when they are sick. This is like kicking someone when they are down. (In case you haven't heard, illnesses are caused by viruses and infection.)
Yes, I agree with you about humans taking a fresh look at themselves. Religion has been messing humanity up for centeries. Like a child who comes to terms with there being no Santa Clause, humanity needs to grow up and accept the truth about god and the supernatural.
You are right about enlightenment being hard to come by. This is because people are brainwashed to believe in the delusions of religion before they are old enough to make up their own minds.
EJ: I realize the president has the authority to go to war.
SR: Wrong again, Jeff. Only Congress has the authority to go to war.
EJ: Marxism does not make humanity it's prime directive.
SR: It does. So does Nazism: its goal was to "build a better humanity."
EJ: That the masses are deluded is not a matter of intelligence, but brainwashing (as previously defined). A child can have a high IQ yet be tricked into believing in things that are not real.
SR: You are speaking here of fellow adults as though they were mentally children. QED.
EJ: As for my beliefs, I believe in equality, not superiority.
SR: So do the Communists, emphatically.
EJ: Now this is going way back, but in high school I did a project on Hitler and remember posters of Jews with horns and goatees, depicted as devils point blank.
SR: I doubt such a Nazi poster ever existed. There are large collections of Nazi posters on the Internet; perhaps you should produce it.
J:
But i must admit I do find Steves posts very funny especially the breakdown of who between tyrants and religious followers are good people. Well done may I use this also?
SR:
Indeed you may, J.
Funny how you keep saying I'm "wrong again" when my arguments have been proven time and time again to hold more validity than yours. Is that what you mean by "Catholic grit" to keep saying black is white?
You've contradicted yourself. In section three of your own quote it explicitly says the President has the right to use armed forces as he sees fit.
We have covered this before, but, with a sigh, I'll go over it again. Nazism has nothing to do with humanism. I.e sending Jewish children off to concentration camps is about as far from humanism as you can get.
In Communism, the government gets everything, the people very little. Again this is blatantly anti-humanistic.
Post a Comment