RoR: Forum

Much of this is because many, if not most, have presumed that chaos is the norm, rather than recognising that intelligence is the ability to recognise the order in the universe, not the reverse of order implying intelligence...

Post 1

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:40am

Robby not Burns wrote: "Intelligence is the ability to recognise the order in the universe."

(Intelligence is also the ability to spot a Brit by his spelling -- no matter where he claims to live.)

As for Part 2, you know, I know so many people who were raised Catholic and who do not believe a single word of it. I know many more people who believe two words, maybe. There is no better indoctrination than Catholic education. The Catholics invented the word propaganda for literature that propagates the Faith among the faithless. It does not hold.

Nothing is more powerful than will. You can pavlovianly condition anyone to anything -- and once they realize what has happened, the behavior extinguishes. People stop using highly addictive drugs on a whim, basically. Giving up bad ideas is much easier.

Let the schools waste their time with Intelligent Design. Heck, they already teach so much nonsense another dollup will not be noticed. All that will happen is that kids will leave school and at some point they will realize that everything they know is false. From that point, true education begins.

Is it "science" when books show the electron as a little black circle with a white minus sign? Is it "science" when they learn that the planets "go around the sun." How about the germ theory of disease? It is pretty well entrenched -- and does not explain how an epidemic can kill thousands or millions and not kill everyone. You want to throw sand into the gears of a physics class? Ask the instructor why Earth has a magnetic field. You will get some tall tales!

Actions have consequences. Read any (auto)biography of any original thinker and you will discover a quest for intellectual self-liberation. I refer not just to societal nonsense like art and politics, but even in the sciences. Read Feynman or Mullis. Government schools teach falsehoods. This is demanded by the law of identity.

The solution is not to fight for control of the government schools, but to de-school.

... none of which contradicts the ready observation that Cresswell built a coffin for the ID zombie and nailed it shut.

Post 2

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:56am

The only information I needed to know about ID was what contingent was driving it (that didn't take long, and, wow! my guess was correct!), and what their motive was (that didn't take long, and, wow! my guess was correct!)

The most reprehensible thing about it is not the possibility of it being put in place. Even if it was, there has been so much stink about it now, even the kids are getting hipped up to it. It's going to roll in there looking pretty weird, except for the kids that are raised by Fundamentalists, who of course will be fine. This is barely even necessary in the Bible Belt.

The most reprehensible thing is that the Fundamentalists have delivered a very smooth con to parents, and it worked. They hijacked the minds of impressionable, but highly decent folks who don't have a detailed understanding of philosophy, or theology. I've seen these people interviewed over and over again, and you can tell that someone put some mojo on them.

I hate fucking con artists.

Post 3

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:18am

I hate fucking con artists.

Then just don't fuck them. :P

Post 4

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:06am

Oh, I will fuck them whenever I can.

Post 5

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:49am

Oh my - nothing like a sex drive for directing traffic...

Post 6

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:42am

I wasn't talking about sex. :)

Post 7

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:07am

We get it; you are an atheist. It�s about as edifying as someone announcing he is a Christian at a church picnic.

That existence exists is axiomatic, meaning that no explanation is actually needed to explain its presence.

While true this says nothing about how existence functions, what laws it obeys, the very raison d��tre of Scientific inquiry.

Because here's the thing: if we do see an 'order' in existence, if things look orderly to us, then we might reflect that the 'order' is what we ourselves bring to the judgement of existence; existence itself is neither ordered nor disordered, it is just what it is, and it could be no other way.

Nonsense. Whether or not a process is �orderly� is not subjective. Further it could be another way; silicon rather than carbon based life forms could just as easily have developed on this planet. Why one not the other?

�if anything were substantially different, if for instance the weight of the Hydrogen nucleus were something other than what it is, we would not be here to talk about it.

That does not follow. We would probably just look different.

Existence exists, and only existence exists: there is nowhere else to go.

The argument is not about whether existence exists or God does not; the question is how/why did the inanimate become animate.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:33am

Michael said:

The solution is not to fight for control of the government schools, but to de-school

I couldn't agree more. My conservative Christian parents are just as upset at their tax money going to teach evolution as I would be at my tax money going to teach intelligent design. Their concerns are every bit as legitimate as mine.

Privatize schools and both our problems are solved.

Post 9

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 2:27pm

Ryan:

Privatize schools and both our problems are solved.

Well, yeah. In the perfect model. Ever hear about vouchers?

Post 10

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 3:19pm

The sad thing is that no matter how well written the argument, or well reasoned, those who want to believe in ID will find a way. Reminds me of a joke I read, I think, in THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD by Carl Sagan. A woman is asked about how the world is supported, and she replies that it rests on the back of a turtle. The questioner says, but what is the turtle standing on? She retorts: "Oh, you're very clever, but you can't fool me. It's turtles all the way!".

One can proclaim their atheism loudly enough when confronted with such people.

Post 11

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 3:57pm

Re the Scopes Monkey Trial, follow Peter's link & read Mencken's eyewitness report. It's supreme, sublime, hilarious & full of buffooneries :-)

HL got it in one.

Re ID, fact is, the Creationists lost, not simply because of Darwin, et al, but because of the general scientific method, the spread of capitalism, & a widespread decrease in the levels of credulity & village idiots. ID is an attempt to get out of that little fix and use science itself to get themselves & their God back in the game.

Ross

Post 12

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 5:52pm

Rich:

As a libertarian, I refuse to compromise on any issue. Only full privatization will do.

Seriously though, I can see some potential benefits with a voucher system over the current system. It could make education more of an open market, increasing competition and resulting in a better product. It could put power back into the hands of the individual as the parent/student could choose which school the student attends.

It still doesn't solve the issue of handing my money out to others so they can learn ideas I oppose. As with any other government program, it would likely grow into a much larger program than first proposed.

Did you happen to see this news story:

IBM Encourages Transition to Teaching

I think this is a positive development. Maybe one day businesses will have a large role in education as they definitely have an interest in a well educated labor pool.

Sorry if this post should be on another thread somewhere as it's starting to get a little off topic.

Post 13

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:02pm

green spiders on Mars

This proves conclusively that there is a God.:-)

Excellent article, Peter.

Post 14

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:14pm

I post the above and then come across Luke Setzer's joke posted earlier today. So much for my being original. Oh, well, as my old friend Manny Gambogi used to say, "Win some, lose a lot."

Post 15

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:05pm

Thanks for the many intelligent and insightful comments on both Parts 1 and 2 everyone -- and for the cartoon proof of God, Bob.

As Joe says however, "The sad thing is that no matter how well written the argument, or well reasoned, those who want to believe in ID will find a way." Tibor reinforces the circularity: " Terrestrial or not, the issue is that intelligence and, thus, the designing done by it, requires some kind of biological base which, ID advocates claim, was designed by some supreme intelligence. But if that intelligence, too, required a biological base, all this is viciously circular and, so, nonsense. The reasoning is lost on the faithful, of course, and that's part of the problem with faith, isn't it. Reasoning is not what the faithful are after. The solution, as Michael and others identified, is to get the State the hell away from the classroom, and then the nonsense will at least be confined. (But not with vouchers -- vouchers suck.) :-)

I'm not sure what your problem is Robert D. Whatever one says or however much one writes on a subject, there is always something more that could be said -- much like the excavation of fossils really to find more 'missing links,' and no matter how many gaps in the evolutionary picture are filled, the faithful still refuse to see. Similarly with your comments it seems to me. For example, you quote me and comment:

That existence exists is axiomatic, meaning that no explanation is actually needed to explain its presence.

While true this says nothing about how existence functions, what laws it obeys, the very raison d��tre of Scientific inquiry.

If you want to write that article, then go right ahead. But that wasn't the focus of this one. Equally, you quote me and comment:

Existence exists, and only existence exists: there is nowhere else to go.

The argument is not about whether existence exists or God does not; the question is how/why did the inanimate become animate.

The specific argument is not 'about that,' but that 's where the argument must begin, and what the Creationists are opposed to: they consider the existence of God as certain, and the existence of existence to be contingent. Again, if you wish to write the other article, please be my guest, but that's not the subject in question here.

I'll let Ross have my last word: Regarding ID, the fact is that the Creationists lost -- not simply because of Darwin, et al -- but because of the general scientific method, the spread of capitalism, & a widespread decrease in the levels of credulity & village idiots. ID is an attempt to get out of that little fix and use science itself to get themselves & their God back in the game. And so it is.

Post 16

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:09pm

Ryan, you're correct about the vouchers.

I've advocated vouchers for some time. Of course, nothing less than full removal of the state will satisfy but vouchers are certainly a *palatable* way-point on the road to full private provision. You can never dismiss the obstacles of realpolitik & insisting on an immediate jump to the bogeyman of private provision is a sure-fired way to sustain the current mess.

What vouchers enable is for parents to vote with their feet & wallets. It's also a good way to get the populace at large comfortable with the idea of parental prerogative. The statists have been doing things incrementally & via the backdoor for a long while now & it's no shame for us to do it that way either. Just need to keep your eye on the ball, that's all.

Yes, issues like teaching ID, school prayer & the pledge of allegiance only arise in the commons.

Ross

NB: vouchers can be rendered effectively useless by zoning, strict state mandating of curricula & powerful teaching unions. They all have to be attacked at once.

Post 17

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:15pm

I enjoyed this beautifully written and perfectly reasoned two part article. I can't resist offering two or three simple ideas.

First, as Nathaniel Branden explained years ago in his tape "The Existence of God" (or some similar title), the notion of Creation is incoherent. Creation presupposes a beginning; a beginning is defined as a point in time. However, time is a measurement of motion, and motion requires some existing "thing" to move. Therefore, time presupposes existence and is contained within existence; existence is not contained within time. Clearly, then, the notion of a Beginning is muddled. Existence regresses infinitely.

Second, one reason many otherwise sensible and responsible people choose to believe in God is that anti-philosophers have persuaded nearly everyone that "reason" proves the universe is void of moral principles, exists as an unsympathetic and vaguely threatening realm, and is beyond understanding. But if "reason" leads to such discouraging conclusions, why not explicitly embrace faith? At least one can hold fast to comforting ideas by which one can try to live.

Finally, the extent to which one might be willing to struggle and fight for intellectual coherence is largely a reflection of one's self esteem. It seems to me that many people give up the struggle for making clear sense of the world without trying hard, perhaps because they feel incompetant to meet the challenge. Other factors, such as contemporary philosophical confusion, socialized schooling, and one's intellectual capabilities also bear on this issue. But self esteem is an often overlooked component of fidelity to reason.

Post 18

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:43pm

Sure, that all explains that there isn't a God - but how about Allah?

Post 19

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 7:16am