Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
To the contrary, I assert that the natural is part of what you would consider "supernatural" and indeed, the natural declares that God exists. For instance, that there was a beginning, that the universe is intelligible at all, the unreasonable effectiveness of math, the existence of information in the universe, that order has arisen out of chaos (the void), willfulness, autonomy, semiosis and so on.
What you are speaking to is causation. Where you have looked you have found physical causation. Science depends on physical causation to understand nature, so that is not surprising.
If you search on "Herod" you can peruse the various points in the manuscript where the translator interpreted the "prophesy" and thus dated it after the beginning of the reign of King Herod the Great. A more thorough discussion is around page 59.
In sum, chapters 89 and 90 of Enoch are a review or preview (prophesy) of Jewish history - at about 90:9, the 'great horn' is described which is interpreted to mean Judas Maccabi (first few years of the reign of King Herod the Great 37 B.C.)
I don't think morality and virtue are inventions, although their codification in law and manners is.
I will answer for myself. I am perhaps excessively empathic. I didnt ask to be this way or work toward it; I just happen to be personally distressed by seeing others in pain or discomfort. I am personally made happy by the sight of others being made happy.
When I look around at the world I see people who vary in this tendency. Some I would say are amost pathalogically empathic, and some seem to be entirely lacking in empathy. I assume this is a trait like height or skin color that varies among individuals. To my way of thinking, laws are a kind of prosthetic for people lacking in empathy. They are also a shorthand way of making decisions without having to ponder the consequenses of every little thing we do.
Speak for yourself.
Certainly.
I don't find it shocking or dismaying. I actually do understand that morality and virtue are concepts created and defined by humans.
Plus, being a good Cartesian, I'll entertain a criticism of that view, namely, how do we know that this is the right concept?
Possible answers to his have already been given in the history of our books. All of them seen to follow something that Aristotle says about virtue. He says that ethics is living in accordance with a principle. He points out that this is more than simply material behavior since it involves choice. If we deny choice, that changes the rules and we have to start over and ask again, what is your understanding of virtue.
Whatever the wording, the statement puts forth a cause. Yours doesn't.
The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to the ongoing activity of an almighty, omnipresent, intelligent agent
Leaving off the editorial piece, that's the statement I was looking for. You have now put forth a cause rather than just making a general obvious statement. Your nascent theory now has a point to it.
Now set up non-rediculous criteria for falsifiability, have your theory make some predictions, set up some hypotheses within that theory (like a specific instance of Behe's irreducible complexity), reproducibly test those hypotheses and publish. Then we'll talk.
But given the thrashing that Behe's gotten, you might not want to go down that road.
Atheistic science by definition does not investigate such things, yet it seems to do fairly well. You make the mistake of protracting your preferred definition of science into a universal definition of science. It is well within reason to assume science is simply the exploration of everything supernatural while it merely assigns the words "natural" to those things for which it has an explanation. One thing for sure: there is no lack of organized matter behaving under predictable laws. That is what intelligent design is all about.
Maybe your definition of "scientists" extends only as far as those who wear lab coats and propose detailed hypotheses for specific phenomena. Mine is wide enough to accomodate any intelligent observer who is free to accept or reject any positive statement about the universe based on the evidence at hand. Since the universe is replete with organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws it is hardly unscientific for an observer to deduce that an almighty, intelligent agent is present and operative.
Presume to speak only for yourself, not for me or others.
The interesting question comes about in how we define morality and evil? What standard is used? My standard is God.
That's the same answer a Muslim would give -- ponder on the reasons why their standards of "morality and evil" differ so much from your own.
What is the standard for one who does not believe in God?
Pragmatism, empathy, culture, rationality, and conscience.
I have no interest in playing dictionary. I know two things that I take to be relevant. One is that people differ in their degree of empathy. The second is that we do not have perfect knowledge of the future, and even if we are perfectly motivated toward a cause, we cannot be certain of the consequenses of our actions.
Once upon a time "science" referred to the entire body of knowledge, episteme - philosophy - spiritual and natural - all of it. Hence I Timothy 6:20-21 in the King James translation says:
aR: Find some and get back to us. Come up with a specifically-stated hypothesis, set up a reproducible test, have it be successful and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If it survives, you have a decent hypothesis. Then you can work on building a general theory to explain it.
Nobody will take you seriously until that's done, because that's how the science game is played. But then you've already come up with the vague, ill-defined "theory," so you'll have to backpedal a bit to overcome that initial loss of credibility.
I think you're being unfair to Fester and his rather elegant theory, "Stuff exists."
And, as I look around ... I see STUFF! Intelligently designed stuff, at that! Hey! Fester may be onto something! "Stuff exists" explains so much. It explains everything, in fact ... uh-oh ...
And any principle will do, in a pinch? It seems not, so then the next question is, which principles, and why those? We can certainly imagine an ethical system constructed around the principle that all you peons do and say should be for my personal benefit, but somehow I suspect that some will object.
Perhaps, instead, we should find a set of principles for which there is some broad agreement. But if we do that, what is the need for a third party to dictate said principles to us?
On the first. It's a fact. Who can deny it? So I also think it should be considered.
On the second. I think you hit on something very important and difficult. This is what makes our life tragic or comic.
Your own editorializing aside, one criteria is that the organized matter will retain its organization from moment to moment, age to age. That is to say, the elements will continue to function in a predictable fashion, much as it is when man designs a machine it is intended to function consistently according to the purpose for which it was designed. The criteria that would falsify intelligent design entails matter that changes unpredictably from one form to another, or laws that act arbitrarily. Again, little evidence of that has been forthcoming since the beginning of science.
You are, of course, free to enumerate those instances where science can take place without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two; or those instances where either can exist without an intelligent agent. Be sure to set up testable hypotheses to make your point, or it won't be science.
I guess if we talk long enough we can find something to agree on.
Supernatural Of or pertaining to existence outside the natural world; not attributable to natural forces.
None of what you list above is a phenomenon.
What you are speaking to is causation. Where you have looked you have found physical causation. Science depends on physical causation to understand nature, so that is not surprising.
Forget science. I know of no phenomenon that cannot be attributed to causation by elements of the natural world. The natural world is a closed system, in as far as I can detect.
In sum, chapters 89 and 90 of Enoch are a review or preview (prophesy) of Jewish history - at about 90:9, the 'great horn' is described which is interpreted to mean Judas Maccabi (first few years of the reign of King Herod the Great 37 B.C.)
Judas Maccabeus died in 161 B.C.E.. If the 'prophesy' refers to him, it's consistent with the carbon dating of the m/s, and is hardly a prophesy.
As long as there is knowledge, there is always the "possibility" of a dualism. That is why Plotinus long ago decided that knowledge was excluded from the One. Your statements suggest some affinity to monistic views.
To say that matter is organized and acts according to predictable laws is to say more than "stuff exists." The ubiquity of intelligent design is such that, like the air you breathe, it goes unnoticed. It is considered natural only because you were born into it and have become accustomed to it.
At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.