As for ID folks, what they are doing is exactly the kind of argument given by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century:

1. Some things in nature which lack intelligence act for an end (Thomas cites “natural” or celestial bodies). That is to say, they act in such a way as to achieve some good result.
2. Since they lack intelligence, these things must be acting in this manner by design and/or direction.
3. Design and/or direction implies a designer and/or director.
4. Therefore these things are designed and/or directed by an ultimate designer and/or director whom we call “God.”

Yes, it is, exactly- but, as it happens, science has progressed somewhat since the 13th Century.

To elaborate on what I said earlier, you have to look at how music/art/literature (and morality, which is how this started) in their earliest forms might have had survival value in small groups of hunter-gatherers on the savannahs of East Africa- that's one question, the question of origins.

Why do we appreciate them now? Because this big sack of gray jelly on top of our spinal cord has evolved to become an incredibly flexible mechanism (by biological standards) to help us succeed in both the physical and social encounters we face.

I'm still not convinced of how my appreciation for the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams has survival value. I simply enjoy it.

It doesn't. Which I pointed out. Directly above

This theory just seems a bit absurd---what if humans, instead, have a basic aesthetic sense.

Because to say humans enjoy art because they have a basic aesthetic sense has as much meaning as to say that opium causes sleep because it has a dormitive power.

A ridiculous story about how stimulae activate certain parts of the brain does nothing to explain why I find a particular piece of music or art beautiful---it simply indicates some connection between mind and body. The trouble is that equating the mind with the brain in this way transgresses the bounds of sense (to use Wittgenstein's terminology). Seriously, do we speak of "mind surgery"?

You mean chopping, slashing, and electro-prodding the brain doesn't affect the mind?

How about "cranial imagery." When you say "great minds think alike" don't you really mean "great brains think alike"?

Ummm, yes.

Try, for a moment, to replace every piece of mental terminology with a piece of neuroscientific terminology and you'll see just how ridiculous it is to equate the mind with the brain. When neuroscientists do this, they're talking nonsense.

Why would anyone want to do this? Anymore than one would replace a discussion of where one wants to go with a discussion on kinesiology. Movement is what our body does; mind is what our brain does. No body, no movement; no brain, no mind.

The trouble is that we as humans just can't think in accordance with a consistently naturalistic paradigm. Our language is loaded with terms that naturalism can't explain without being ridiculous and talking nonsense.
TBG

There's a lot we humans can't think in accordance with- odds, for one- see Tversky, Amos.

Not to mention the Universe, famously described as " not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

No surprises here. Our language is loaded with terms that are very suitable for dealing with the social ramifications of, and the pragmatic ways of, dealing with, our immediate surroundings (circa 200,000 B.C.)- that's what it evolved for.

Except that you believe in Jesus not because He has given you any special revelation but simply because your parents and the people you grew up around believed in Jesus.

That wasn't the case with me. I believed before anyone ever even told me about Christianity. I just knew: even though I had never heard about it from anyone. I guess that could be considered a Divine revelation, in a way. And most of the people I grew up around did not believe in Jesus.

~Riella

People watch Christians far more than they watch Muslims, Hindus, and you name it. They want to know what makes us different. They want to know how we do it. You don't see those kinds of questions being asked of other groups or religions.

Really, nothing makes Christians different. I've had quite a bit of experience with them, and as I have said earlier, they're not different than other people. Some are, yes - some passionate people who are a blessing to know no matter what you believe. But they would be the same if they were part of any other religion, or not. Some just have passion for life in their personalities. Saying that other religions don't get torn apart is a bit absurd. Let's think about this; you live in a country where Christianity is the main religious influence. I think something like 80% of adults profess the faith. And nobody really wants to believe it, especially anymore. Of course there are always those who do:

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

Now, obviously 80% of people don't try to follow Christianity or any other faith, but I've strayed a bit onto a rabbit trail. The point I'm making is that, yes Christianity receives more scrutiny in America, but that's because it receives more or everything else too: members, followers, money, real estate, etcetera.

That wasn't the case with me. I believed before anyone ever even told me about Christianity. I just knew: even though I had never heard about it from anyone.

Rationalists would love you - innate knowledge, eh? I can't really accept that you believed in Jesus before ever hearing his name, but since it's such a prolific topic in America I also find it borderline impossible to believe that you made it out of the hospital you were born in without hearing his name, only to have your subconscious store the information for later.

As much as I'd love to go down in history as the one who has finally slayed God, I was a bit enlightened by a conversation I had this week. I posed the question "If we found aliens (meaning from other planets), would it disprove the Bible?" Someone answered, "Nothing's ever going to disprove the Bible, it'll just keep on being reinterpreted to fit whatever reality people want it to." Wise words, I suppose. Time will tell if people ever give up on the idea, I suppose. Granted, it will also tell if atheism is given up on or disproved. We've all got our eggs in our baskets, I suppose. The real problem is this: most people in America have simply "lucked" into Christianity. If they'd been born in Saudi Arabia, they would have lucked into Islam. If they'd been born in India, they'd have lucked into Hinduism. I would be willing to testify to this simply because I'm the only person my age I've met who knew why they believed what they believe, and questioned what they were raised to believe. I know there has to be others out there, but not many, statistically speaking.

That wasn't the case with me. I believed before anyone ever even told me about Christianity. I just knew: even though I had never heard about it from anyone.

Rationalists would love you - innate knowledge, eh? I can't really accept that you believed in Jesus before ever hearing his name, but since it's such a prolific topic in America I also find it borderline impossible to believe that you made it out of the hospital you were born in without hearing his name, only to have your subconscious store the information for later.

Whether you believe I did or not, it's true nonetheless. And from what I read in Romans 1:20, it doesn't sound very fantastic from a Biblical standpoint.

As for what babies hear in hospitals, I doubt that would make them automatically believe whatever they hear. But I wonder (assuming, for argument's sake, it's the case, which I don't believe it is) why would I choose Christianity, when I must have heard other things in the hospital as well? Especially when grown-ups are prone to talk to little children, babies, and toddlers about fairies and elves and the tooth fairy. Yet I never believed in those.

There's also the fact that most of the people around me as I was growing up did not believe in Christ. Yet I did.

~Riella

Nevermind the so called Dark Ages are only seen as a backward period by the world. It was a time that intelligent Christian discussion and faith really flourished. The Enlightenment period on the otherhand was seen as a step forward for the world and many steps backward for Christians, Jews etc. Great idea, lets take God out of the picture and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket. Remove the belief that there is any Absolute Truth and Moral Truth and you become your own god and live by your own rules. Who determines right and wrong then? You do. I hope I'm not the only one who has issues with this.

*Steps out of the comfy corner where she has been lurking on the thread*

most people saved "as of now" are white. Blacks make up a small but growing minority: Yellow people and brown people make up tiny scatterings.

minority/tiny scattering... AND PROUD OF IT!

*Goes back to lurking*

Did you really go there Graymouser? There are growing numbers of Christians in Asian and African countries. I don't think white Christians are the majority now, at least not when it comes to a biblically-based faith.

I'd be interested to know how true Christianity (True Christianity meaning the Christianity based on the Bible, and not other "religious" sources) hinders Science. Or how it hindered in the Dark Ages.

I'm not a History buff, so I don't know all that went on in the Dark Ages. What Warrior4Jesus said a few posts back makes it sound like is that some other important things happen during that time. Which is a good point if he's right. There are other things besides Science that are important. There are other things besides theology that are important. There are a whole range of subjects that are important, so just because Science isn't at it's height during a certain time, it doesn't mean that time is a total waste. Not if it's filled with other important things.

~Riella

Except that you believe in Jesus not because He has given you any special revelation but simply because your parents and the people you grew up around believed in Jesus.

Like 97% of the people in the world. If you had grown up Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, that's what you'd believe- to more than 19 ourt of 20 chances.

Have any of the believers here grown up in any other tradition?- how amazing, that the very thing that you are taught at your mother's knee happens to be true- and how sad that all those children brought up the same way are condemned to falsehood, for the crime of being born in the wrong neighborhood

If you (unlike Lewis) truly believe that God has chosen certain people based on their acceptance of the name "Jesus Christ", then you believe Heaven is mostly white people, and those lucky enough to be enslaved or conquered by white people.

First, why couldn't God use parents to bring people to faith? I think you also forget that historically this very issue is why Christianity has been the most proselytizing religion in the world.

As for Heaven being populated by white people, you clearly don't know what's what in terms of Christianity. The largest Christian populations in the world today are in Korea, African nations such as Uganda and Rwanda, and China. The number of believers in any one of these places outnumbers the Christian population in Western Europe. And the greatest growth in these areas has been in the last fifty years---since the end of imperialism. So much for "white" Christianity. The future of Christianity lies in Asia and Africa.

Do you accept the miracles attested to by the Catholic Church, BTW? And if not (philosophically, of course, not just "not my denomination") why not?

For starters, there's the long history of charlatanism practiced in that Church.

On Occam, theism, and the possibility of investigation of multiverses

He avoids the real issue: both multiverse theory and string theory are hypotheses that are unfalsifiable empirically. Further, they are not necessary preconditions for the possibility of science, and therefore they are metaphysical in nature.

I don't treat God as a hypothesis like this, but I do think that the absence of God leaves an awful hole. The question of why there is something rather than nothing still remains.

On a side note, I don't think that multiverse theory actually affects the existence of God. My thoughts on it are very similar to the ones expressed by William Lane Craig in this interview.

True enough- but that means if miracles are possible, their effects should be evident.

So which Biblical miracle has you confused here?

Yes, it is, exactly- but, as it happens, science has progressed somewhat since the 13th Century- called the leeches in lately?

And I can see that philosophy has regressed since the 13th century.

You mean chopping, slashing, and electro-prodding the brain doesn't affect the mind?

No, just that the mind and the brain aren't the same thing. "Mind-brain" language violates the bounds of sense.

No body, no movement; no brain, no mind.

No brain, no mind seems to me to be unfalsifiable here---it's a scientistic presupposition.

Our language is loaded with terms that are very suitable for dealing with the social ramifications of dealing with our fellows, and the pragmatic ways of dealing with our immediate surroundings

So why not assume that this is the way things actually are? That the terms aren't simply a way of speaking? That practice is a good measure of reality? That when we talk about the good, the true, the beautiful, that we aren't just talking about social constructs?

Andrew, I have to say that I found your chart of the history of civilization rather amusing. Of course you do know that the dark ages were caused by economic collapse and social unrest in the Roman Empire, and even then they were localized to a couple of places (such as Britain) where civilization was overwhelmed.

And then, of course, the Irish and the Greeks saved many manuscripts, the Arabs forced Nestorian Christians to do the same, etc. When things stabilized, the Vikings became Christians, and the like, communication rebooted, new inventions produced more prosperity for the average western European than had been the norm under the Empire, and unrest in the Middle East caused more manuscripts to flood Europe.

Of course all this would have been for nothing had a German goldsmith who wanted to make money off indulgences not invented a thing called the printing press that suddenly made knowledge affordable and available to anyone who could pay.

And, naturally, the scientific revolution was spearheaded by Christians and their assumption that an orderly God would create an orderly universe. The so-called Enlightenment? It produced the French Revolution. So much for Christianity getting in the way of science.

TBG

There's also the fact that most of the people around me as I was growing up did not believe in Christ. Yet I did.

Well, I don't know that anybody I was raised around didn't believe in Christianity, yet I don't. I've never even really been involved with other non-Christians until the last year and a half of my life. I'm not saying that that proves or disproves anything, I'm saying how you're raised has no effect on the truth, just how you perceive it.

There are growing numbers of Christians in Asian and African countries. I don't think white Christians are the majority now, at least not when it comes to a biblically-based faith.

This is just a fun fact, but I'm pretty sure Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world right now. Not that this proves Islam anymore than the last point proved anything, it's only more evidence that people will believe whatever's thrown at them.

So much for "white" Christianity. The future of Christianity lies in Asia and Africa.

The future of religion lies with the uneducated and the impoverished, this is nothing new.

Edit: I'm not saying that Africans or Asians are all uneducated and poverty stricken by any means, just that nearly all the stories and video I've seen from missionaries who's presentations I've been to involve tribes of witch doctor following folk who think the wind is a curse from a rival tribe, and are on the verge of starvation.

And, naturally, the scientific revolution was spearheaded by Christians and their assumption that an orderly God would create an orderly universe. The so-called Enlightenment? It produced the French Revolution. So much for Christianity getting in the way of science.

If you look at it out of context, sure. Humanism was far more theistic then than it is now, but look at their point in history - the Catholic church had been telling people when they were allowed to use the restroom for the last century - now they were allowed to think?! That small step toward human understanding may seem like nothing now, but it was the first step away from God. It was their equivalent of atheism, just as Thomas Jefferson's deism was the time period equivalent of atheism today.

I just recently saw a list of some statistics. 47% of people do NOT believe man and apes share a common ancestor, and 82% of people DO believe miracles happen. When you've got that percentage of people willing to say science is a lie, but theres some all powerful invisible man in the clouds with rules he wants you to live by...well, that's probably the reason we're not exploring the galaxy by now.

The future of religion lies with the uneducated and the impoverished, this is nothing new.

Edit: I'm not saying that Africans or Asians are all uneducated and poverty stricken by any means, just that nearly all the stories and video I've seen from missionaries who's presentations I've been to involve tribes of witch doctor following folk who think the wind is a curse from a rival tribe, and are on the verge of starvation.

Incidentally, the future of world economics lies with these folks too---seriously, it's two-thirds of the world's population.

Is it just possible that you, with all your privilege and position in the world might be missing something? Is it possible that, in the end, the meek do inherit the earth?

EDIT: Don't know much about the folks your missionaries were with. I'm mostly referring to sub-saharan post-colonial African nations like Rwanda and Uganda where society seems to be stabilizing after years of post-colonial conflict (in Rwanda, the Church has done amazing work in reconciling people who were enemies during the genocide).

well, that's probably the reason we're not exploring the galaxy by now.

The reason we aren't exploring the galaxy by now is because it's not profitable to do so. Historically, most advance comes when people find a practical reason to do it. America was discovered because the Spanish wanted to trade with China without going around Africa or through Asia. The light bulb was invented because Edison knew he'd make money from it. Most of the research of quantum took place in an effort to give the west military advantages over (among others) the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The printing press was invented because Gutenberg wanted to make a killing off of selling indulgences. It's idealistic to think that real technological innovation can come in the absence of a bottom line.

EDIT: Andrew, here's a question: why do you value "progress" anyway? I mean, the last statement of yours implies that somehow our not exploring distant planets indicates something wrong with humanity. I would suggest that you re-evaluate that notion of "progress" since the concept implies that certain technologies and forms of life are intrinsically preferable to others.

TBG

The future of Christianity lies with those who are humble and faithful in the darkest of circumstances, and to those who aren't distracted by wordly possessions (largely because they have little). I find the idea that poor people latch onto any old idea or belief, to be both ignorant and offensive. It's much more complex than that.

There's also the fact that most of the people around me as I was growing up did not believe in Christ. Yet I did.

Well, I don't know that anybody I was raised around didn't believe in Christianity, yet I don't. I've never even really been involved with other non-Christians until the last year and a half of my life. I'm not saying that that proves or disproves anything, I'm saying how you're raised has no effect on the truth, just how you perceive it.

Then that kind of proves the point I was trying to prove. I grew up around non-Christians, yet am a Christian. You grew up around Christians, and yet are not Christian yourself.

I was trying to point out that just because you grow up hearing something, or all the people around you believe something, that doesn't mean you automatically agree with them. And even if you do agree with them, it's not because you're just following their lead. It's because it truly is your belief. And not because you've been "programmed" that way. I was trying to disprove the belief that Christians only believe what they believe "because they were raised that way" or because "everyone around them believed it."

~Riella

Andrew, you can be raised as a Christian but there's a time in your life where you have to own your faith, not ride on the coattails of your parent's faith. There's a time you have to decide for yourself if you want to reject the faith or accept and grow in your understanding and beliefs with which you were raised. In many ways continuing to believe as you get older, is a more difficult decision because you don't have the security of your parents, because you're becoming your own person and because you will be faced by many people who will disagree with you and some of them, very loudly.

Is it just possible that you, with all your privilege and position in the world might be missing something? Is it possible that, in the end, the meek do inherit the earth?

Well sure, I mean it's possible that the core of the earth is made out of cheese. Forgive the facetiousness. Seriously though, everyone in history has sought what I - as a middle class American - have. You know, the rich man in the parable of Lazarus was absurdly rich for his time, his kind of wealth simply did not happen. But if you break down the parable, even lower class Americans' wealth exceeds his. The big problem is once you get here, nothing's there! People can have a great illusion of purpose if they're working for something. But now that we're here, and many of us born into here on some level, what do we have? Nothing. The people of Mexico are trying to get here, and we're funding them to do so by buying their marijuana and cocaine. Since we have nothing, we turn to things like drugs and other forms of hedonism. Their culture is profiting off our nihilism, our pseudo-hedonism, and will be where we're at soon. It's already happening in China. So yes, people who have something to work for have something I don't: fake purpose.

The reason we aren't exploring the galaxy by now is because it's not profitable to do so.

I'm only stating what I heard on Fox News, so I can't speak with certainty of this, but a spokesman for NASA said that their research is why we have cell phones, iPods, nanotechnology, and most of the recent technological breakthroughs. THAT's profit.

...why do you value "progress" anyway? I mean, the last statement of yours implies that somehow our not exploring distant planets indicates something wrong with humanity. I would suggest that you re-evaluate that notion of "progress" since the concept implies that certain technologies and forms of life are intrinsically preferable to others.

Progress is generally inevitable; it can be delayed by things like religion but to quote Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way." And look what progress has given us: the comforts I've talked about earlier in this post. This isn't some kind of moral imperative, it's just that enjoyable things are, well, enjoyable. And personally this bothers me because man could possible be immortal by now, or close to becoming so, but we're not.

Ithilwen, sounds like I may have misinterpreted your meaning. My apologies.

Warrior, oh absolutely. In fact because of my upbringing I've been hearing that for over a decade. However most people don't question their beliefs. It's uncomfortable to be sure. Some people on here have brought me out of my comfort zone, but I relish it. How else would I continue to develop? Stagnation is intellectual suicide, at least in the sense I'm talking. I'm not saying everyone should challenge their beliefs, but there will always be people willing to force them into it. I'm like that, so are some Christians posting on this thread.

TBG, are you familiar with Nietzsche's parable of the rope? I was thinking about it, and really it's pretty close to what I believe. The only glaring difference is how we view the Superman. He thought it meant absolute free will and whatnot, I only see it as conquering death.