Does The Supernatural Exist?

[Robert F. Smith]

Please read the links I provide before you ask obtuse questions.

 

What is Intelligent Design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

Intelligent Design is Conservative Christianity.

The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

 

The Discovery Institute is a political not a scientific organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

Intelligent Design is Creationism

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

Based on this sort of reductionist thinking and warfare, one would be forced to conclude that Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe must be defined as conservative christians (which they are not), and to automatically disallow any factual analysis of the notion of ID simply on the basis of hatred of conservative christianity, and a desire to eliminate the issue through sheer contempt and derision, rather than logical and scientific discourse.

 

In other words, if a yokel believes something then everyone who believes anything remotely like that thing is a yokel.  Guilt by diaphanous and distant association.

 

ID must perforce be creationism, even though the intelligent designer of a watch need not be a right-wing, conservative christian who absurdly maintains that the universe, Earth, humans and everything else were created in six 24-hour days (which is not what Genesis says).  Those concerned with "wedge issue" politics are not interested in science and never have been.  They are  out to lambaste their enemies rather than throw light on reality.

 

Since this board does not cater to very many conservative christians, nor is involved in the wedge issue politics which seem to concern you, I am amazed that you think your above citations are in any way relevant to the discussion here.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

I fail to see where Joseph said the earth/world was 2.5 billion years old.  I was under the impression he was saying that the length of an eternity was 2.5 billion years (aka "from eternity to eternity").  Some have interpeted this to mean the length of "a creation" while other more creative minds have interpreted to to be the length of time it takes Kolob to complete one orbit of whatever it orbits, and yet others have said it is the length of time it takes the galaxy to rotate....

 

All strange but interesting ideas, but I think the 2.5 billion years quote refers to eternity, not to the earth.

 

Eternity is a very long time. Think of the largest number you can and that is less than a drop in the proverbial ocean when compared to eternity.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, that is the point. Rob said it was a scientific theory, and as Mark acknowledges, it's not testable, and thus cannot be considered scientific. Is ID "true" in some sense? I have no idea and don't much care. But I object when people claim it's a scientific theory.

Some scientists have argued for both intelligent design and for panspermia, on a scientific basis:  Chandra Wickramasinghe, A Journey with Fred Hoyle: The Search for Cosmic Life (World Scientific Publishing, 2005).

[Robert F. Smith]

See Wedge Document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

Other statements of Johnson's acknowledge that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy. 

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools".

Which is to say that they admit that they are merely using ID as a method to get religion in the guise of science into the public schools, which is illegal under the U.S. Constitution.  They do not understand the notion of ID, which is not a religious concept at all, but is a logical and scientific hypothesis about how the universe came to be.  Your knee-jerk emotional response to such a concept is noted, but ID is not the enemy.

[thesometimesaint]

Based on this sort of reductionist thinking and warfare, one would be forced to conclude that Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe must be defined as conservative christians (which they are not), and to automatically disallow any factual analysis of the notion of ID simply on the basis of hatred of conservative christianity, and a desire to eliminate the issue through sheer contempt and derision, rather than logical and scientific discourse.

 

In other words, if a yokel believes something then everyone who believes anything remotely like that thing is a yokel.  Guilt by diaphanous and distant association.

 

ID must perforce be creationism, even though the intelligent designer of a watch need not be a right-wing, conservative christian who absurdly maintains that the universe, Earth, humans and everything else were created in six 24-hour days (which is not what Genesis says).  Those concerned with "wedge issue" politics are not interested in science and never have been.  They are  out to lambaste their enemies rather than throw light on reality.

 

Since this board does not cater to very many conservative christians, nor is involved in the wedge issue politics which seem to concern you, I am amazed that you think your above citations are in any way relevant to the discussion here.

 

25 cent words to convey penny ideas.

 

As defined by the Discovery Institute itself it is a religio-political effort to reframe the debate about evolution into a argument about politics and religion. 

 

The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation:

Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.

 

Conservative Christians need not be Conservative in the political sense of the word. Ours is a fairly conservative Christianity based religion. We are a top down organization with set doctrines and stable practices. While open to change we do so incrementally and slowly. Politically we run the gamit.

 

ID is Creationism as shown by "Creation Biology" and  "Of Pandas and People"

 

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

 

It has been claimed that ID is science. It is not. My intellectual honesty and my religious views have been called into question. I don't take kindly to that type of assault. I will not kneel down for you or any other mortal. 

[thesometimesaint]

Which is to say that they admit that they are merely using ID as a method to get religion in the guise of science into the public schools, which is illegal under the U.S. Constitution.  They do not understand the notion of ID, which is not a religious concept at all, but is a logical and scientific hypothesis about how the universe came to be.  Your knee-jerk emotional response to such a concept is noted, but ID is not the enemy.

 

ID is the enemy of science. I have no problem with the religious idea that God started and directs it all. What I can't do is posit that belief into science. So called Intelligent Design is based on the debunked idea of Irreducible Complexity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert

Mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is de facto godlless.  Why?  Because they posit a god which cannot exist.  They may revel in exotic and ineffable blather about such a "god," but they are rapidly losing their congregations -- who correctly wonder whether such an odd, inaccessible, and irrational "god" is worthy of their worship.  Philosophers know that such a "god" is dead, and has been dead for over a century now.

 

Rory

I observe that you were making a point to a fellow Mormon, and not considering the effect this might have on someone from "mainstream Judeo-Christian theology". Could you give an example of what you consider to be "revelling in exotic and ineffable blather"? I think you don't despise us, but this makes it hard to believe that you don't consider us stupid. And be assured, it DOES make your fellows who agree with you think we are stupid and have no respect for us intellectually. Is there any chance you would like to revise what you have said given those considerations?

Sorry I'm late getting back to this debate, and I apologize profusely for my poor choice of words -- "blather" was not nice at all, and does not reflect my deep respect for the careful work of scholastic theologians (who were much smarter than I can be), and whom I refer to in more careful writings with great hope that an LDS theology could ever be so well and consistently described.  Indeed, I believe that Thomist theology is admirably self-consistent.  So much so that most philosophers are in awe of it, and its conclusions, even if they disagree with its premises.  In 2012 I even delivered a formal paper on LDS theology in which I compared the Thomist Q&A technique to a similar LDS Q&A catechism. I would never have been so reckless there, and should not have been so here.

 

The subsequent discussion here rightly takes me to task for this failure in word choice in what I had intended to be merely a description of what many modern philosophers, theologians, and commentators consider some important reasons for the decline in interest in religion in the West.

 

Of course, Joseph Smith's First Vision testimony will always be taken as offensive in some sense, but he also made clear his belief that Mormons do not have all truth, and that they should accept truth from other religions.  I share that view, even if I at times speak like a certifiable idiot.

[Robert F. Smith]

IMO, your inability to understand Christian concepts of God does not mean the Christian God is an impossibility. Just saying. And you and Robert do no credit to the church by bad-mouthing other people's beliefs.

"blather" was a bad choice of words, jk.  Quite right.

[thesometimesaint]

You are not an idiot. We all make poor choices in words from time to time.

[Robert F. Smith]

Considering the equivalent blather I have heard from LDS here I think this is a glass house situation.

Yes, and I'll take the blame.  No reason to expand the mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

If, as the LDS posters here seem to be saying, God is an advanced homo sapien with a spatial location, in theory a spaceship can be built and a course plotted to God's location, like in Star Trek 5 . This seems to make the LDS theory testable.

Sounds like spam to me.  Of course back in the 1950s we all used to like spam.  

[Robert F. Smith]

Indeed.  3DOP's reasonable request that such things be retracted has gone unanswered, except for Ahab's continued offensiveness.

 

I like how 3DOP asks you ("you" does not mean jk, but those who speak with such condescension of Catholic dogmas) to think of Christian doctrine: as a successful mistake.  When Mormons dismiss it as blather, nonsense, absurdity, impossibility, etc, you are basically saying that the greatest religious thinkers in the past were incredibly dumb.  That is arrogant and prideful.  Can you write a book like Summa Theologica?  I seriously doubt it.  You may disagree with it, you may disagree with its conclusions, but if you do not respect Catholic Theology as a serious intellectual pursuit with serious intellectual people pursuing it, then it appears to me that you are showing your own ignorance.

 

I disagree with Mormonism yet I do not think it is stupid.  Something can be wrong and quite intelligent at the same time (take Newton's physics, for example, or Euclid's geometry).

 

Please don't tell us our doctrines about God are stupid and non-sensical.  It is much more respectful (and intellectually honest) to call them successful mistakes.  They have, after all, nourished millions and millions of souls for nearly two thousand years. (there's some pragmatism for ya)

 

Thank you.

 

ETA:  It occurs to me that the Book of Mormon falls into the same category for me.  I don't agree with it, I don't believe it is historical nor inspired (obviously, or I would be a Mormon), but I don't think it is stupid.  It is a complex text with many intellectually stimulating ideas.  For me it is a successful mistake.

Thank you for such a reasonable response to my unsuccessful mistake, and an Irish one at that ("blather").  I hope that my retraction and groveling request for forgiveness meet the expectations of some on this board, especially that of you and Rory.  You both bring a great deal of class and high tone to this board.

 

Without saying the Latin phrase (which might be mistaken for mockery), I will simply admit culpability for the decline in the level of discourse in this thread.  Please forgive my intemperance.

[mfbukowski]

Forgive me if I can't quite picture you saying..."Absolutely", in reference to LDS "blather". The next time I see it will be the first. Since verbal communication is virtually meaningless according to your here today, gone tomorrow gurus, it wouldn't hurt the appearance of your integrity to say so once in a while with regard to the "blather" of a few more of your own more often.

 

Frankly, its okay. You and your friends can't help it. You think we are beknightedly ridiculous and it comes out when you are unguarded. Aquinas was brilliant you say...a thousand years ago. Thanks for the "compIiment". Its nice, but the sting is still there. I can't make myself think LDS thought is stupid, but since it seems that a prerequisite to being LDS is to think Catholicism is outdated nonsense, I am forever disqualified from considering the Book of Mormon, or your faith. If I doubted every article of the Apostles Creed I could not believe what you guys believe, in your ignorant inexperience, about my faith.

I think you misunderstood my intent.  My point was not that Catholicism was "blather all the way down" my point was that ALL human speech can be seen as "blather" when it is not understood in the context in which it is intended, and that includes LDS theology as much as Catholic.

 

Wittgenstein's entire life's work was dedicated to fixing all philosophical "problems", all of which he believed were caused by semantic misunderstanding or, my characterization, "blather".   I can see that if you did not understand that, it could be misunderstood, which was my fault entirely.

 

It was never my intent to offend you or Catholicism.

[mfbukowski]

Asking for a little respect for others' beliefs isn't a trap. If you can't see that making derogatory statements about other people's faith is wrong, there's not much I can say to you.

 

I'll stop being a board nanny, but I hope you haven't done too much damage to the church's reputation with non-LDS posters here, though it's probably too late.

Give me a break John, oh defender of Mormonism.  We are adults here.  You know that was not what I intended.

[mfbukowski]

Invoking Wittgenstein to justify derogatory statements about other people's beliefs just makes you look arrogant and foolish. I hope you'll reconsider what you're doing to good people like 3DOP.

You have turned a very capable defender of Catholicism into a victim.

 

He is quite capable of defending himself and he certainly does not need your help.  Your nannying is totally inappropriate and unnecessary.

[mfbukowski]

Asking for a little respect for others' beliefs isn't a trap. If you can't see that making derogatory statements about other people's faith is wrong, there's not much I can say to you.

 

I'll stop being a board nanny, but I hope you haven't done too much damage to the church's reputation with non-LDS posters here, though it's probably too late.

Nice attempt at manipulation there but it won't fly.

 

The attempted trap was to have me condemn Robert's use of the word "blather", which I understood in a Wittgenstian context as already mentioned, and which context is the one Robert also intended, I believe, from off line discussions we have had. 

 

A better word would not have been as inflammatory, and we both have apologized for using it.

 

But you were trying to push me into condemning Robert's central point, not the word he used, and I won't do that because I still think that sectarian theology is based on semantic confusions.  I have said that many times here and will continue to do so.  The choice of the word "blather" for "semantic confusion " was unfortunate.

 

And indeed I see a.lot of blather here about LDS theology as well.  I did not mean to offend anyone by stating so, either.

 

99% of what is on this board is based on semantic confusion.

[jkwilliams]

Give me a break John, oh defender of Mormonism.  We are adults here.  You know that was not what I intended.

 

Then why did you say that my call for civility was a trap?

[jkwilliams]

Nice attempt at manipulation there but it won't fly.

 

The attempted trap was to have me condemn Robert's use of the word "blather", which I understood in a Wittgenstian context as already mentioned, and which context is the one Robert also intended, I believe, from off line discussions we have had. 

 

A better word would not have been as inflammatory, and we both have apologized for using it.

 

But you were trying to push me into condemning Robert's central point, not the word he used, and I won't do that because I still think that sectarian theology is based on semantic confusions.  I have said that many times here and will continue to do so.  The choice of the word "blather" for "semantic confusion " was unfortunate.

 

And indeed I see a.lot of blather here about LDS theology as well.  I did not mean to offend anyone by stating so, either.

 

99% of what is on this board is based on semantic confusion.

 

There was no trap, and no attempt to get you to condemn anything. I asked for civility, as I felt, and still do, that calling someone else's beliefs spiritually dead blather is uncalled for. In response, I was told that Christian beliefs are nonsense. You really think I am wrong for objecting to that? Unbelievable.

[3DOP]

Hi Robert.

 

The things that we say in unguarded moments are revealing. I cannot hope for more than an apology, and appreciation of your regrets for how you described what you no doubt believe. Its okay. You are good with me personally. Thank you. I am glad that you like the Thomistic method. 

 

Misere Nobis,

 

I am delighted to see that you are with me about "successful error".

 

I need to go to work...More later if time permits for jkwilliams and mfbukowski.

[jkwilliams]

"blather" was a bad choice of words, jk.  Quite right.

 

Thank you for that, Robert. I did not intend to single you out or condemn you in any way. It was just dismaying that we went from a bad choice of words to Ahab saying that Christian beliefs are nonsense not deserving of our respect. We can do better than that.

 

It's probably time for me to take a break from this place, as I am too quick to be a "board nanny" and whenever I do, it is seen as a manipulative attack on the LDS church. There's nothing I can do about that other than stop contributing to the acrimony.

 

Take care.

Edited February 28, 2014 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

Please don't leave the board. I think you make valuable contributions. Even if we sometimes disagree.

[MiserereNobis]

It's all blather all the way down. All we have are sentences which are always blather to someone.

 

I think everyone needs to read and understand Wittgenstein.  All language is pretty limited.

So much for your trap.

 

Ok, if we use the word blather to describe everything, then I ain't got no quarrel with it.  All this Mormon stuff is just blather!

 

Besides, I enjoy your blather, mfb

Edited February 28, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Forgive me if I can't quite picture you saying..."Absolutely", in reference to LDS "blather". The next time I see it will be the first. Since verbal communication is virtually meaningless according to your here today, gone tomorrow gurus, it wouldn't hurt the appearance of your integrity to say so once in a while with regard to the "blather" of a few more of your own more often.

 

Indeed.  Post-modernism almost always falls into inherent self-contradictions.  For example, the statement "all language is blather" is, by its own definition, blather, so why believe it?  "There are no absolutes" is a statement trying to take an absolute stance.  Etc, etc.

[Calm]

. For example, the statement "all language is blather" is, by its own definition, blather, so why believe it? .

Because at this point in my life it is rare that I feel that I have been able to communicate everything that I mean to attach to my choice of words even if I use an epic to try and provide all the needed context and intent?

Ps: in terms of making sense, I find Catholicism and Orthodox (though know that less well) as logically consistent and thoughtful as I find LDS doctrine...in fact once the LDS faith moves out of revelation and moves into reasoning and then opinion, I think we run into a lot of problems which the leaders are still/always in the process of having to deal with as even when successful in removing one impurity to the faith that has been added by man's hand, often another is left behind. I came across an analogy last night that I love...was it here? I will have to look for it.

The Gospel is like a beautiful copper pot with a shining exterior, but over time it acquires by man's hands and use smears, decolorations, blemishes to the point it may lose a great deal of beauty. These are caused by impurities that have been added to the beautiful copper structure. If we try to polish it up just using hard work and determination it will be greatly improved in most cases but still never that glowing clarity of a new pot. However revelation and the Spirit that encourages to stick to God's words is like taking a high grade cleanser to the copper and by diligence, inspiration and self honesty we can cleanse and polish the copper, removing all the buildup of man's impurities and leaving behind a high qualitypot that looks like the day it was given you, pristine and new and if cared for properly everlasting.

Edited February 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

Because at this point in my life it is rare that I feel that I have been able to communicate everything that I mean to attach to my choice of words even if I use an epic to try and provide all the needed context and intent?

 

I think I understand your blather here   I used to be much more impassioned about getting my point across and persuading others.  As I ripen, it seems to be slowly diminishing in importance.

 

Not to say that I don't like a good rant every now and then (like derailing this thread, for example...)