Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow.. Talk about attacking the messenger and not the message. The video is from a Thomas Aquinas website. I know that means absolutely nothing to some of you, but that's an important point to know. For many, there's no way to separate the spiritual from the physical world. Aquinas was one of those who worked in both the physical AND spiritual worlds and was able to tied them together. He is one of those beings I highly respect and am looking forward to watching more of the Aquinas videos. But I have a keen interest in how the Mystics of the various spiritual traditions "experience" their reality in life and what they have to say. I learn from them. 2PhiloVoid shared a window by way of a video that hints into his spiritual perspective of Life. That's good insight to know about him. From what I've seen, he has a healthy spiritual outlook on life around him. It's true and I fully agree that the video after a certain point is not empirical evidenced science as is the want in this sub-forum. But for myself anyway, I honor those who are able to find a place where they find compatibility between science and their religion. And 2PhiloVoid, from what I've seen, is one of those who is able to do that and even shared that about himself. That's pretty rare here in this forum, on both sides of the aisle.

It's good to know at least someone out there gets what I was attempting to say to these guys. I'll remember this going into the future, dlamberth, and your words here help me to understand more where you're coming from as well. Thanks for sharing your understanding!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what exactly did you learn from Oberg's video?

.. and yet we frequently see criticisms of @2PhiloVoid's postings in the Physical and Life Sciences forum, (I'll admit I'm one such critic).
The reasons given in those criticisms, usually have sound scientific bases.

The thing is, Philosophy and Science do intersect. Some philosophical thinking when teased out however, very quickly runs into conflict with science's objectively tested evidence (which constitutes science's Objective reality).. so at that point, one has to resolve that in some way. The easiest way I've found is to isolate the philosophically posited truth(s) which invariably are never required by science, because science does not rely on posited truths in its models under test. Other people go in the opposite direction and blindly move forward astounded that scientific thinking actually tosses out those preciously held, posited truths. When they are tossed out, what remains in some argument formed on them which simply crumbles apart .. enter the comedy of pseudoscience .. like Walt Brown's Hydroplating or the Electric Universe, etc. etc.

Compatibility is some kind of idealistic, utopic vision which plays no role in science's purpose of returning practical value.
Its a very tenuous, fence-sitting position ..

This is a misrepresentation of my sentiments. If anything, my own view is informed by lots and lots of material, reflected in the following Stanford article, and I've always tended to take the "independence model" of Stephen J. Gould.

It just so happens, though, that like Karin Oberg, I think "God did it" indirectly through evolution, which should make sense being that my own interests harbor mainly on the historical development of science in the world and the historical development of the Christian faith, each in their own domains.

Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[SelfSim]

I know your position. But that's not necessarily shared by others and diffidently not my me. I know that, for example, in my life being aware of the spiritual within life has added to the window that science has opened into this universe. I'm in no way alone in that. I'm not understanding the comment about the "fence-sitting position" part of finding a place where science and ones religions are compatible. That makes no sense to me. Because I experience it as a holistic perspective on life, there's no fence-sitting about it. Is that "utopic"? I don't think so. I see it simply as an aspect of being a Human Being.

Re: your comment about being an aspect of being a human being:
Fair enough .. but some human beings can make choices other than simply automatically adopting yet another belief, without even bothering to distinguish that as being yet another belief.

The 'fence-sitting' observation refers to what I experience whenever I'm exposed to where compatiblitists believe that what they have is a coherent model that they think matches observation and introspection .. but what they're clearly doing there, is just defining things to have those characteristics. They don't start with the concept and make discoveries about it, they just morph their definition until they can make what they believe, is progress. That's a perfectly appropriate way to proceed .. until it is mistaken as a reason to dismiss things that do not fit the narrow definition being used as the 'only one worth having'. I call that a classic cop out from a fence-sitter position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I meant that I held it as a reference for .... myself. It doesn't mean I had yet presented it to anyone.

Ahh, maybe I'm not as oblivious to the contents of what you post after all.

Probably not.

Very funny.

Hans is a very funny fellow... Right!

As I explained earlier, Oberg wasn't citing anything FOR her own subfield. The specific video I presented was a Catholic video, and instead of becoming informed by it, you read into it things I wasn't intending.

Oh, no, you weren't intending it. I'm not sure she was intending it. But that bit about divine clumping of dust in disks around stars was *NOT* a good look for her.

I should have given you my Carl Sagan video instead;

My favorite starts "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be."

maybe you would have gotten the gist of what I was attempting to communicate but for which it appears my earlier effort was a complete dud.

But oh well.

We live in a demon haunted world after all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Re: your comment about being an aspect of being a human being:
Fair enough .. but some human beings can make choices other than simply automatically adopting yet another belief, without even bothering to distinguish that as being yet another belief.

Some of us don't define "belief" like you do. And you know what? We don't have to make the same linguistic and philosophical choices that you do.

The 'fence-sitting' observation refers to what I experience whenever I'm exposed to where compatiblitists believe that what they have is a coherent model that they think matches observation and introspection .. but what they're clearly doing there, is just defining things to have those characteristics. They don't start with the concept and make discoveries about it, they just morph their definition until they can make what they believe, is progress. That's a perfectly appropriate way to proceed .. until it is mistaken as a reason to dismiss things that do not fit the narrow definition being used as the 'only one worth having'. I call that a classic cop out from a fence-sitter position.

If this is a reference to me, it tells me you're high on your horse and not really paying attention.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahh, maybe I'm not as oblivious to the contents of what you post after all.

Hans is a very funny fellow... Right!

Oh, no, you weren't intending it. I'm not sure she was intending it. But that bit about divine clumping of dust in disks around stars was *NOT* a good look for her.

My favorite starts "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be."

We live in a demon haunted world after all.

Now, on to another favorite voice of mine in science whom I've referenced and learned from since---oh---about 2002: Massimo Pigliucci.

But don't worry, you don't have to like him.

 

[SelfSim]

This is a misrepresentation of my sentiments.

How did I misrepresent your sentiments?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How did I misrepresent your sentiments?

I'm not a compatibilist. I just explained that to you above.

 

[SelfSim]

Some of us don't define "belief" like you do. And you know what? We don't have to make the same linguistic and philosophical choices that you do.

Its an objectively testable definition

If this is a reference to me, it tells me you're high on your horse and not really paying attention.

Did I make any reference to you? Show me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its an objectively testable definition

There you go with your double-speak again.

Did I make any reference to you? Show me.

Were you intending to refer to earlier participants in this thread and not the most immediate ones? If so, then............my apologies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Now, on to another favorite voice of mine in science whom I've referenced and learned from since---oh---about 2002: Massimo Pigliucci.

I am vaguely aware of the name.

But don't worry, you don't have to like him.

I have no feelings about him either way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, no, you weren't intending it. I'm not sure she was intending it. But that bit about divine clumping of dust in disks around stars was *NOT* a good look for her.

If you're a scientist, I would think you'd verify what it is she actually teaches, where she teaches and the extent to which she engages her scientific work on a daily basis without reference to God...............until she shows up to shoot the next video for her specifically Catholic constituents.

My favorite starts "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be."

It's that very quote that set me off on a long, existential trek in life............................................... way back in 1980.

We live in a demon haunted world after all.

Poor old Carl. He was great, but he didn't know there are some things Occam's Razor just isn't sharp enough to cut through.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am vaguely aware of the name.

I have no feelings about him either way.

I love all my references for the rational, intelligent people that they are. Even the atheistic ones like Massimo.

 

[dlamberth]

Re: your comment about being an aspect of being a human being:
Fair enough .. but some human beings can make choices other than simply automatically adopting yet another belief, without even bothering to distinguish that as being yet another belief.

What gets me are those who say we HAVE to believe one thing or another. Human Beings, being human had different capabilities. For yourself, the spiritual is something that doesn't fly for you. No big deal.

There is a world though where the spiritual "experience" is way more than simply adapting a belief. Please note the quotes around the word "experience" because that's what it is for some of us. Yes, I agree that many do go and blindly believe, but that's not the kind of spiritual trajectory that I'm pointing towards.

The 'fence-sitting' observation refers to what I experience whenever I'm exposed to where compatiblitists believe that what they have is a coherent model that they think matches observation and introspection .. but what they're clearly doing there, is just defining things to have those characteristics. They don't start with the concept and make discoveries about it, they just morph their definition until they can make what they believe, is progress. That's a perfectly appropriate way to proceed .. until it is mistaken as a reason to dismiss things that do not fit the narrow definition being used as the 'only one worth having'. I call that a classic cop out from a fence-sitter position.

What your describing does not in any form relate to me, nor to anyone in my spiritual family. We just don't think that way. Maybe that's why I wasn't understanding the fence-setting comment. Thanks for explaining. I'm fully on board with scientific observations. That's why I go to what the Earth is showing us when the 6 day creation people pop into this sub-forum.

 

[SelfSim]

Ahh, maybe I'm not as oblivious to the contents of what you post after all.

Hans is a very funny fellow... Right!

Oh, no, you weren't intending it. I'm not sure she was intending it. But that bit about divine clumping of dust in disks around stars was *NOT* a good look for her.

Yes .. at the 5:07 mark, she said:

'Scientifically, we know that God formed the Earth through the secondary causality of dust coagulation, and that he produced animals through the secondary causality of species evolving under natural selection'.

That has nothing to do with what we 'scientifically know' thesedays.

Its not clear whether they are her words or Aquinas' philosophical musings .. seems like an very poorly worded ambiguous dialogue at best .. not a good look at all is ambiguity like this, when one is tackling such tricky topics in a publically available, (Templeton funded), YT.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Description:

Scientists from around the world speak out about the convincing evidence of purpose and intelligent design they see in nature. Explore more at Intelligent Design

God bless!

Isaiah 48:13 NIV
"My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together."

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes .. at the 5:07 mark, she said:

'Scientifically, we know that God formed the Earth through the secondary causality of dust coagulation, and that he produced animals through the secondary causality of species evolving under natural selection'.

That has nothing to do with what we 'scientifically know' thesedays.

Its not clear whether they are her words or Aquinas' philosophical musings .. seems like an very poorly worded ambiguous dialogue at best .. not a good look at all is ambiguity like this, when one is tackling such tricky topics in a publically available, (Templeton funded), YT.

... it's Aquinas' philosophical ontology she's incorporating when speaking as a Catholic who works with the Thomistic Institute. This shouldn't be surprising since Thomas Aquinas is a reference for a good many Catholics.

And I really don't care if they are funded by the Templeton Foundation. Even if some people question the motives of the Templeton Foundation, I'm not going to just toss my copy of Barbara J. King's book, Evolving God, simply because, at the time she wrote that book, she was supported by the Templeton Foundation, from which she has since sworn off from. I'm not going to toss out Karin Oberg, either. It would be a stupid thing to do.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a new episode of Daredevil to watch with the family.

 

[SelfSim]

What gets me are those who say we HAVE to believe one thing or another. Human Beings, being human had different capabilities. For yourself, the spiritual is something that doesn't fly for you. No big deal.

I've partaken in some flying spirits in my time.

There is a world though where the spiritual "experience" is way more than simply adapting a belief. Please note the quotes around the word "experience" because that's what it is for some of us. Yes, I agree that many do go and blindly believe, but that's not the kind of spiritual trajectory that I'm pointing towards.

Ok so there's another human mind model: a spiritual experience mind model.
I can distinguish experience models differently from objective (scientific) models.

What your describing does not in any form relate to me, nor to anyone in my spiritual family. We just don't think that way. Maybe that's why I wasn't understanding the fence-setting comment. Thanks for explaining. I'm fully on board with scientific observations. That's why I go to what the Earth is showing us when the 6 day creation people pop into this sub-forum.

Sure .. I don't think I've ever had any major issues with things you've posted (that I've read). I think we're pretty closely aligned in quite a few aspects .. but our preferences diverge somewhat, I think, when it comes to how you position 'the Earth' in your thinking ..
(I hope you continue to keep the objective parts distinguished from your deep feelings there).

 

[SelfSim]

... it's Aquinas' philosophical ontology she's incorporating when speaking as a Catholic who works with the Thomistic Institute. This shouldn't be surprising since Thomas Aquinas is a reference for a good many Catholics.

Incorporating it into what, there? .. Her science, or just her own belief system?

And I really don't care if they are funded by the Templeton Foundation. Even if some people question the motives of the Templeton Foundation, I'm not going to just toss my copy of Barbara J. King's book, Evolving God, simply because, at the time she wrote that book, she was supported by the Templeton Foundation, from which she has since sworn off from. I'm not going to toss out Karin Oberg, either. It would be a stupid thing to do.

Hmm .. I'm still not clear about the Templeton foundation .. although the people they fund, (thus far in my limited exposure to them), appear to be fairly capable of demonstrating the value of objective thinking.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Incorporating it into what, there? .. Her science, or just her own belief system?

I imagine it's her belief system apart from her work in science at Harvard and wherever else.

How do you wonder I hypothesize this is the case about her? Maybe we should peruse her catalog of published work, looking for hints of "God-talk"? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that if we read everything she's published, we'll find little God-talk in her overall work.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Karin-I-Oberg-34593603

Hmm .. I'm still not clear about the Templeton foundation .. although the people they fund, (thus far in my limited exposure to them), appear to be fairly capable of demonstrating the value of objective thinking.

The concerns some have about the Templeton Foundation are expressed in the following article:

Bains, Sunny. "Questioning the integrity of the John Templeton Foundation." Evolutionary Psychology 9, no. 1 (2011): 92-115.