Skip to main content

The Human Question

Hi Leo,

I just red the article of Dembski. I think that I understand the position. The idea of him is that it is posible to afirm as a scientific hypothesis that nature have signs of "intelligent design". So, he doen't afirm that God is the gap that we don't understand but that there are things in nature that where the hypothesis of someone who guide the process is reasonable. I found interesting the argument of complexity, basicly, it says that there are certain systems where it is difficult to see how it evolve step by step because if you remove part of the system it doesn't work at all. I thing that this kind of argument that challenge the simple evolution theory are very interesting. I agree with the fact that it is important to recognize that there are many thing that we don't understand of how living beings arrive to be like they are and that this leave the space for a direct action of God.
However, I think that it is not reasonable to say that this probe the action of God in nature. This is something that we don't know and before doing this affirmation it is necesary to see clearly the facts.

My perception is that Dembski is afraid of evolution because he think that it removes the posiblity of God action in the creation of human being. He think that kids lost their faith because the observation of reallity don't demostrate God existence. I disagree with that. God action could have been much more sublte. Why does he need to act in a particular way?. I agree with the fact that there is an educational problem.I also suffered it!. But the problem is to learn to use reason in a correct way and this means to don't impose our ideas but to recognize what is real. I really think that the point is to be amaze for the what is the human being. This is a fact of our experience, something that is clear and that the positivism make us forget. I think that this is the point of the battle.

I know a scientist that was struck for the fact that many , many conditions are requiere for the existence of life in the earth (constants that caracterize nuclear reactions in the starts, temperature of the universe, speed of the big bang, etc...). So, one can reasonable think that everything was put in order for us to appear. If one is amaze for what is man, one is open to a purpose of reallity, an ultimatly purpose should exist. However, I think that we can not put conditions, only to recognize facts.

Alfredo


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Daniel Dennett, disqualifying qualia, softening up the hard problem, fullness of vacuity, dysfunctional functionalism

Around track 2 of disc 9 of Intuition Pumps , Dennett offers what I would call an argument from vacuity.  He argues that David Chalmers unwittingly plays a magic trick on himself and others by placing a set of issues under the one umbrella called the "hard problem of consciousness." None of these issues is really , in Dennett's opinion, a hard problem.  But in naming them thus, Chalmers (says Dennett) is like a magician who seems to be playing the same card trick over and over again, but is really playing several different ones.  In this analogy, expert magicians watch what they think is the same trick played over and over again.  They find it unusually difficult to determine which trick he is playing because they take these performances as iterations of the same trick when each is  in fact different from the one that came before.  Furthermore, each of the tricks that he plays is actually an easy one, so it is precisely because they are looki...
Post a Comment
Read more

entropy, teleology

Perhaps the best way to understand entropy is to look at it as the tendency of things to arrive at equilibrium.  Many non-living processes head in that direction, but not all.  For an example of an exception, consider the movement of electrons around the nucleus: that movement itself doesn't seem to be heading toward any equilibrium… unless one considers the tendency of atoms to combine into molecules so as to fill the electron shells.  If reductionism is false, then isn't the fact that organisms continually create disequilibrium at one level, while seeking another equilibrium (for example a full stomach) quite relevant?   Of course, entropy as a law is about systems, not individuals…. right?
2 comments
Read more