Promissory materialism isn't even plausible, is it contradicted by historical facts.

[Ian Thompson]

Well the God of the Bible is supposed to be the ultimate in goodness and compassion - which doesn't fit with a lot of what goes on in nature.

David

Are you saying that those parasites are never useful under any circumstances?

 

[Saiko]

which doesn't fit with a lot of what goes on in nature.

Perhaps. Or maybe it's more that it doesn't fit with your thoughts and opinions of what goes on in nature. NTM, the biologists don't really know all of what is occurring so their characterization of things is wanting.

 

[Larry]

When we talk about science etc, we naturally think those that explain more are 'superior to others'. Einstein is superior to Newton. Why cannot religions have content that explains more than others?

I was not talking about churches. They have their own problems!

Investigating the 'form the intelligence took' is what ID is about. I'm glad to see you are on board.

That of course never happens at Skeptiko, does it!

(Actually, everyone has their own dogma. Larry's, for example, is that "the universe is a single conscious being")

Ian

its actually more of a hypothosis:)

 

[Ian Thompson]

its actually more of a hypothosis:)

What principles do you rely on in your life, then?

 

[David Bailey]

When we talk about science etc, we naturally think those that explain more are 'superior to others'. Einstein is superior to Newton. Why cannot religions have content that explains more than others?

Show me the religion analogous to Newton!

I was not talking about churches. They have their own problems!

Well that is not so different from what I said. It means that your understanding of Christianity differs from that of the next person - just as a peaceful Muslim's view of Islam differers from that of ISIS (to use an extreme example).

Investigating the 'form the intelligence took' is what ID is about. I'm glad to see you are on board.

I heavily lean that way, because conventional science doesn't seem to have good answers to the obvious fact that there are many areas where NS can't operate and therefore the combinatorial explosion arguments take full force.

That of course never happens at Skeptiko, does it!

(Actually, everyone has their own dogma. Larry's, for example, is that "the universe is a single conscious being")

I honestly try not to. I think the truth is extremely murky - almost certainly not standard materialism, but that leaves a lot of alternatives. If I am conscious when I come to die, I will obviously be scared, but also extremely curious.

David

 

[Typoz]

If I am conscious when I come to die, I will obviously be scared, but also extremely curious.

Why do you think this is obvious? I understand that you speak for yourself, but when others try to place themselves in your shoes, they might not share your fear. Just a couple of days ago I saw a documentary with interviews of survivors of the 2004 tsunami. Several of the interviewees were certain that they would die, but they didn't describe fear, rather there was a calmness.

(as an aside I'm also surprised or puzzled by a common expectation that we should be afraid of ghosts. I guess for me curiosity is the stronger factor).

 

[Larry]

What principles do you rely on in your life, then?

cant explain very well from my iphone
im kind of a jungian buddhist
one can derive an operating principal from a hypothosis without dogmatic certainty

 

[Ian Thompson]

Show me the religion analogous to Newton!

Christianity is a candidate for something that worked well in its initial limited range.

I honestly try not to. I think the truth is extremely murky - almost certainly not standard materialism, but that leaves a lot of alternatives. If I am conscious when I come to die, I will obviously be scared, but also extremely curious.
David

It does help, when living your life, if there is something you can rely on. What do you use?

 

[Jim_Smith]

If I am conscious when I come to die, I will obviously be scared, but also extremely curious.

David

It is not necessarily scary. You should have a look at some examples of death bed visions. They suggest people are prepared for passing and met by loved ones even before passing.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/library/barrett/dbv/contents.htm


http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/library/barrett/dbv/chapter3.htm

"At last the supreme day arrived. It was evening and I was with him. He was lying quietly in his bed when suddenly he sat up, stretched forth his arms with a yearning gesture, while an ecstatic smile broke over his face. It was not simply a smile of pleasure, but something far beyond it. The veil was lifted, and no one who was looking on could fail to realize that it was a glorious vision that met his gaze. He then lay back in his bed, looked at me with a smile, and passed away. He had been calm and collected during the day, there was no delirium; it was an unclouded glimpse of that higher life into which he was just entering.

 

[David Bailey]

I understand that the ID folks make an effort to separate their own theistic pretensions from what they consider their scientific theory. The problem I have is that their main audience and their funding come from a far more dogmatic type of Christianity. I’ve always wondered why Meyers and company don’t take a stronger stance at separating themselves from the creationists in the debates.

I think Meyers is a Christian of some sort

They tend to allow their opponents – Marshall, Ward, Shermer. . . to wax on and on about how they are just creationists in disguise. I read Darwin’s doubt, which wasn’t easy without a science background. I think Meyers does an amazing job at exposing just how weak the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection is at accounting for the appearance of new animal forms. I was very open and excited about how this could possibly lead to a more open approach to science.

Yes, his book is almost free of Christianity.

Where the whole project started to go south for me was in reading evolution news and views. I noticed that socially politically and philosophically that these folk had a very conservative view and agenda – economically in the form of capitalism they advocate and their emphasis on human exceptionalism in relation to animals and the environment as well as a pejorative attitude toward the quote “new age” which include much of what we are interested in on this form. I listened to Meyers lecture at Christian schools and got the feeling of a hidden agenda to bring a more conservative form of Christianity into secular society. I’ve heard him refer to a dialogue between ID folks and creationist as an intramural dialogue. I’m happy to be disabused of my misperception and erroneous notions but I’ve got to call it as I see it.

I think it is important to separate out the science from the religious dogma. As I was trying to say to Ian, it has never seemed to me that the kind of intelligence involved in ID really suits the Christian God anyway - too geeky!

If materialism seemed sound in other ways (which I don't think it is), it could be that ID simply meant we were created by an earlier race of galactic beings (maybe with a different type of bodies). The daft thing is, science completely shuts itself off to even that possibility.

David

 

[malf]

If materialism seemed sound in other ways (which I don't think it is), it could be that ID simply meant we were created by an earlier race of galactic beings (maybe with a different type of bodies). The daft thing is, science completely shuts itself off to even that possibility.

I don't think it does.

 

[LoneShaman]

I understand that the ID folks make an effort to separate their own theistic pretensions from what they consider their scientific theory. The problem I have is that their main audience and their funding come from a far more dogmatic type of Christianity. I’ve always wondered why Meyers and company don’t take a stronger stance at separating themselves from the creationists in the debates. They tend to allow their opponents – Marshall, Ward, Shermer. . . to wax on and on about how they are just creationists in disguise. I read Darwin’s doubt, which wasn’t easy without a science background. I think Meyers does an amazing job at exposing just how weak the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection is at accounting for the appearance of new animal forms. I was very open and excited about how this could possibly lead to a more open approach to science. Where the whole project started to go south for me was in reading evolution news and views. I noticed that socially politically and philosophically that these folk had a very conservative view and agenda – economically in the form of capitalism they advocate and their emphasis on human exceptionalism in relation to animals and the environment as well as a pejorative attitude toward the quote “new age” which include much of what we are interested in on this form. I listened to Meyers lecture at Christian schools and got the feeling of a hidden agenda to bring a more conservative form of Christianity into secular society. I’ve heard him refer to a dialogue between ID folks and creationist as an intramural dialogue. I’m happy to be disabused of my misperception and erroneous notions but I’ve got to call it as I see it.

Why the type of main audience matters I have no idea. In fact they often tend to upset creationists and evolutionary theist. And how do you even now what they main audience is? And does funding really matter? What agenda?

They do separate themselves from creationists. Listen to the debate between Meyer, Sternberg/ Potheroe, Shermer. That accusation is nonsense.

Capitalism? Really? Human exceptionalism? Well humans are exceptional animals. And there is a particular denegration of human exceptionalism in culture. I can't say I disagree with that. There is no doubt many of them are Christian and some are not. Who cares?

As someone who is studying biological sciences, I don't give a crap about political or religious views. That is not part of ID. This is just short sighted nonsense as far as I am concerned, it is not science and verges on conspiracy theory.

I am not a christian, I follow shamanic traditions. I mean, so what? Are you going to also ignore all the great christian scientists throughout history? Did they have an agenda? I think you confuse opinion and personal faith with some sort of sinister plot.

Your welcome to you perception of course, I just don't see how it affects anything at all actually or has any meaning except to nit pick, and throw stones because you have a personal opinion on what God is. Ironically you seem suffer from the same biases for the basis of your accusations that really amount to nothing.

I care about the scientific issues not any of this crap, and I appreciate them for bringing awareness to these issues.

 

[Jim_Smith]

If materialism seemed sound in other ways (which I don't think it is), it could be that ID simply meant we were created by an earlier race of galactic beings (maybe with a different type of bodies). The daft thing is, science completely shuts itself off to even that possibility.

David

Part of the problem is that there are already people saying this is what happened and they know it's true because the aliens told them so. And then there is the problem of the Nephilim in the bible. It is the same problem as with the study of consciousness: ordinary people and especially the bible cannot under any circumstances precede Science in the quest for Truth. The supremacy of Science must be defended at all costs. Atheists will never admit, never, under any circumstances, ever admit that the bible was right where science was wrong. The materialist creation myth survived existential threats from the facts of ancient catastrophic floods and the beginning of the universe at the big bang but it might not survive losing another round with the bible.

 

[Jim_Smith]

The materialist creation myth survived existential threats from the facts of ancient catistrophic floods and the beginning of the universe at the big bang but it might not survive losing another round with the bible.

Which reminds me, the evidence of ancient catastrophic floods that could support the flood myths found in many religious traditions, was never proved by science, despite attempts to silence the messenger, to be anything other than evidence of ancient catastrophic floods. Despite fierce resistance and unfair tactics, the progress of science did not find any other explanation for the evidence of ancient catastrophic floods, the progress of science supported the catastrohism in geology.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j43

J Harlen Bretz

Endured decades of scorn as the laughingstock of the geology world. His crime was to insist that enormous amounts of evidence showed that, in Eastern Washington state, the "scabland" desert landscape had endured an ancient catastrophy: a flood of staggering proportions. This was outright heresy, since the geology community of the time had dogmatic belief in a "uniformitarian" position, where all changes must take place slowly and incrementally over vast time scales. Bretz' ideas were entirely vindicated by the 1950s. Quote: "All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over."

http://blog.vixra.org/2010/07/17/“crackpots”-who-were-right-17-j-harlen-bretz/

Bretz was originally trained as a biologist and worked as a highschool teacher. Later he moved to geology in which he earned his PhD. When he first published his theory in 1923 he was pitting himself against the established works of geologists supported by the authority of respected Ivy-League professors. The idea was quickly labelled as outrageously wrong and his opponents set to work to discredit it.
...
Pardee was dissuaded from supporting Bretz. Under threats to his own livelihood from his employers he had no choice but to be quiet.
...
The most thought-provoking aspect of the case of J Harlen Bretz is the extent to which geologists ganged up against him and tried to publically humiliate him. They used heavy tactics to ensure that anyone who might have supported him was silenced. When we look back today we see this as shameful behaviour.

 

[Larry]

l

Why the type of main audience matters I have no idea. In fact they often tend to upset creationists and evolutionary theist. And how do you even now what they main audience is? And does funding really matter? What agenda?

They do separate themselves from creationists. Listen to the debate between Meyer, Sternberg/ Potheroe, Shermer. That accusation is nonsense.

Capitalism? Really? Human exceptionalism? Well humans are exceptional animals. And there is a particular denegration of human exceptionalism in culture. I can't say I disagree with that. There is no doubt many of them are Christian and some are not. Who cares?

As someone who is studying biological sciences, I don't give a crap about political or religious views. That is not part of ID. This is just short sighted nonsense as far as I am concerned, it is not science and verges on conspiracy theory.

I am not a christian, I follow shamanic traditions. I mean, so what? Are you going to also ignore all the great christian scientists throughout history? Did they have an agenda? I think you confuse opinion and personal faith with some sort of sinister plot.

Your welcome to you perception of course, I just don't see how it affects anything at all actually or has any meaning except to nit pick, and throw stones because you have a personal opinion on what God is. Ironically you seem suffer from the same biases for the basis of your accusations that really amount to nothing.

I care about the scientific issues not any of this crap, and I appreciate them for bringing awareness to these issues.[/quote

lighten up dude
Im not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Im just pointing to some areas of concern

 

[David Bailey]

I don't think it does.

My point is that science does not know what it is ignoring by ruling out ID on idealogical grounds. It is poor science to decide what must have happened all those years ago, and then try to shoe horn the evidence into that assumption.

David

 

[Bucky]

The issue with "promissory materialism" is that it's unlikely on its way out.
It is so simple and somewhat "natural" to get fully immersed in the vast complexity of reductionism, especially if you're an "expert", be it a researcher, academic etc... Even cosmologists, who supposedly ask very deep and ultimate questions about reality and the world, are mostly entangled with it and don't even see the problem with "promissory notes". Similarly the vast majority of consciousness researchers fall in the same trap.

At least this is the perception of the public side of most of these people. It's difficult to say what they really believe behind closed doors. It is partly relieving to hear that a significant amount of experts are less conservative than what they would publicly admit. Time and time again reading people like Sheldrake, Braude, Schwartz, Greyson or physicists like Davies and Heisch I see mentioned how their colleagues praise their courage for escaping the taboos of the mainstream view.

Unfortunately I don't foresee any extra money being poured in NDE research or similar fields, when most of the (limited) funds goes to projects like this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015...ain-library-the-google-earth-of-neuroscience/

We're still slicing the brain like 2-300 years ago, sure much thinner slices... but still... :D

At the end of the day what drives this is sort of (legitimate, mind you) research are simply practical and pragmatic reasons that have little to do with learning about the nature of consciousness. The big fallacy lies in the fact that then we take these studies very seriously to argue about such deep questions which is misguided and ultimately silly.

 

[LoneShaman]

llighten up dude
Im not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Im just pointing to some areas of concern

Sorry bout that, that is exactly what I thought you were doing.

Just trying to get past the bad PR you know. Back to you original statement, that ID supposes a christian god is a complete misrepresentation dude.
it is seems your perceptionn is based on other things besides biology and evolution. I don't care if they are christian or whatever anyone likes to be really.I do actually sort of agree with some of your concepts Btw.

I just disagree is all, with how you are representing it. It seems superficial to the question it imposes on an apparent science that has rearranged peoples views of life and nature and materialism. As David mentioned it does not even rule out extra terrestrial intervention. It only pushes the question back though, The point is it is completely compatable with a mind based reality as well. The question of design is a separate one to the identity of the designers.

When it comes to promissory materialism what is more promissory than the origin of life?

The hard problem stretches back to here in the emergence of a semiotic digitaly coded replication system. The symbol matter problem. The severity of the problem should shake anyone, it is not compatable with the status quo view of a chemical soup or any of that nonsense. You literally want a form of language to emerge from the mud! And no! Evolution can not occur until a thing can encode itself via representations! Not by any law of physics, but formal controls, code, syntax and cellular machinery etc.. none of these are physical laws.

Personally I find these aspects to which there are many more, much more interesting than any consevative or religious opinions. Forgive my rant, really I am chill dude. Don't judge me by my bad writing skills. I guess Jim agrees with you as well.

In the end I end up pissing both sides off, but BS is BS no matter who flings it.

 

[Saiko]

In the end I end up pissing both sides off, but BS is BS no matter who flings it.

I agree. However, one person's BS is another's actuality. ;)

 

[LoneShaman]

I agree. However, one person's BS is another's actuality. ;)

Can't argue with that. Guess it depends on the definition of actuality, and all those worms. But this is not one of those questions.
I think it is meaningless. Actually.