Re: What kind of relationship is there between creation andscience ?


"Leto2" <x@xxx> wrote in message
news:pdIXe.24623$Wo4.243748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Jo Schaper" <joschapern4ospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió en el mensaje
> news:11ipg4c75l7tnf9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> don findlay wrote:
>>
>>> Jo Schaper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>They believe there are, and look to find the patterns in
>>>>the universe. The difference between intelligence and ordered
>>>>patterning
>>>>can be very slim indeed, depending upon one's perspective. It's just
>>>>that human created religious theology doesn't have to be the basis of
>>>>this ordering.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it homocentrically hubristic to assume that what we consider
>>> 'intelligence' is the same as that of Nature? (Or is Nature not in HIS
>>> image?) And isn't it homocentrically hubristic to assume that **HE** is
>>> intelligent? If HE was intelligent he would never have created dummies
>>> like us/'george', surely. What's the big deal about intelligence? We
>>> don't see much evidence of it around here.
>>>
>> I agree that we can only recognize intelligence as humans see it. That's
>> part of the relativistic problem, though. We cannot get out of our frame
>> of reference.
>
> Yes, I agree, and would restate it as follows. The scientific point of
> view implies that the universe has no intelligence as a whole, but that
> most living beings have some intelligence on each of their many owns. And
> the scientific point of view also implies acknowledging that this is only
> the human being scientific point of view, and that we know scientifically
> no other point of view on the universe.
>
>>
>> I don't know who this HE and HIS you are referring to is. Sorry. I
>> merely was drawing the comparison between ordered patterns and
>> intelligence. If universal intelligence is based on chaos, that's beyond
>> my capability of understanding, and the realm of science to investigate,
>> for the most part.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Generally, people believing in an intelligent design of the universe
>>>>>also
>>>>>believe in an immortal human soul. That's because they believe in an
>>>>>ultimate intelligent goal in the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>> (The homocentric question above)
>
> I think the right term is humanist, and I agree not all philosophers do
> share this point of view.
>
>>
>> This statement wasn't mine, Don.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A scientist does not think there
>>>>>is an intelligent goal in the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>> Scientists don't think at all - they believe ..they believe that their
>>> 'tools of enquiry' work, ..when 'tain't necessarily so.
>>>
>> Again, not my statement you are reacting to.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Whatever is, is right." --Alexander Pope, 17th Century English poet.
>>>>What is the difference between something living and something dead?
>>>>Energy. And most scientists think energy is a pretty cool thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. It's called "LIFE", and there's more to life than just energy.
>>
>> Not that I can tell, and I watched both my parents die. Animation of
>> living creatures is organized energy. No more, no less. One minute
>> organized energy was present, the next it was gone. I don't know any
>> more than that.
>>
>>> There's energy in this computer in front of me, but you couldn't call
>>> it living.
>> Ok, so life is energy in a biological system, not a mechanical nor
>> electronic one. But non-technological people mistook steam locomotives
>> for living creatures. We're socialized to think that computers aren't
>> living. However, remember, 'any sufficiently advanced technology is
>> indistinguishable from magic.'--Arthur C. Clarke. Astonishingly enough,
>> some of the computer pet programs which show behavior feedback-based
>> modification, "intelligent" spam blockers, and even those stupid
>> Microsoft 'Assistants' show many characteristics of actual biological
>> creatures. People are going to have to deal with what is 'living' and
>> what is not sooner or later. I recommend the book or move "Bicentennial
>> Man" by Isaac Asimov to see how we will have to grapple with this very
>> issue.
>>
>>> The secret of Life? I think we're still looking. Y/N?
>
> I would say that one main characterictic of life, beside energy, would be
> reproduction. This just takes us back to where we started from :
> creation.
> When one sees his/her parents die, apart from the energy loss - which I
> feel one can also perceive in its own self on this occasion - I suspect
> the scene is still also that of a child looking at his/her creators
> disappearing. But one's own creation and death are mostly blind spots for
> the human mind, scientific or not. And religions always tried to patch
> this blind spot. Humankind is just recently trying to have a more
> rational point of view on the subject. Part of this rationalisation
> process expresses itself in medical science, which is known up to now to
> have helped humankind to foster. Other sciences share this position. This
> is the kind of decisive advantage science has on religions, up to now.
> Another one strong point for science being that sciences generally do not
> oppose each others, rather the contrary, whereas religions mostly do.
> Another very good reason to keep the world out of their ruling and
> interpretation.
>
>>
>> Maybe there is no secret, which was the point I was making by quoting A.
>> Pope. Maybe life is just an arbitrary state on an energy continuum, from
>> low energy states, to states so high we as humans cannot grasp them.
>>
>> This is all personal speculation, of course--there is no "science" in
>> it.
>

I had a similar conversation with someone else on another newsgroup
recently. To me, it boils down to meaning. What is the "meaning of life"
(to quote Monty Python)? Life is in the doing. Someone once said that it
is the voyage, not the destination, that is important.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... "spark of life" which separates living from non-living things. ... It's only a blurred line to scientists who keep changing the ... board perhaps, wish to define life, or science for that matter, in ...
    (talk.origins)
  • =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=22The_bottom_line:_science_at_NASA_is_disappearin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g
    ... investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe ... bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and exploring for life ... wellsprings of new science and new scientists. ... BUCKETS of money at Nasa. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Did Obama forget Grannys funeral ?
    ... Well, er, I happen to believe in reincarnantion. ... It's the only concept of another life that makes any sense to me. ... It is energy, passing from this state to that. ... foot of space and think how many living beings there are in that tiny space. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Challenge - can anyone start life without an energy source?
    ... >I agree with Gareth - life as we use the term needs energy. ... They want "science" textbooks for children to include the fact that a great ... Even many the canons of formal religions themselves recommend AGAINST ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Abiogenisis
    ... >>>Both science and the Bible agree that the inanimate Universe was ... >>the purpose of housing conscious living beings. ... >>Abiogenesis is the idea that life emerged from non-living chemicals, ...
    (talk.origins)