HUMA 1160 Lecture Notes - Omnipotence, Audianism, Cartesian Doubt

34 views5 pages

jadelizard385

19 Oct 2012

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Science is actually seeking knowledge of things you cannot perceive like gravity energy, electricity. In the case of the world we cannot tel if it was created or not created, there is no reliance on religious text. Although we cannot decide whether the world was created or not, there is ample evidence that it was designed and if it was designed, there must be a designer. Cleantes-discuss god as a designer rather than a creator to gain knowledge of god. Intelligence; plan, organize, how to bring something about, purposive (has a purpose) If we believe if god designed the world, then it should be possible by examining the design of the world to learn the character of god. God"s intelligence, it is important because intelligence is the basis of human prayer. So when people pray to god, they pray with the understanding that god can make sense of what you are saying.

Related Questions

The ethos of scientism and postmodernism has exacerbated the perceived philosophical and cultural tension between science and religion. What is your perception of this tension? Use the lecture and the topic readings to support your response.

indigokangaroo793

Video Worksheet for Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

1. What was the 2005 Dover court case about?

2. What is intelligent design (ID), and how does it differ from Darwinâs theory of evolution by means of natural selection?

3. Why is ID considered not to be science by the scientific community?

4. Is there a difference between ID and creationism?

5. Why are scientists opposed to âequal timeâ for creationism/ID in science classes?

6. What evidence is put forward during the trial to support evolution and counter ID?

7. What evidence is put forward in support of ID? Does it hold up to scientific scrutiny?

8. What is IDâs notion of âirreducible complexityâ and how is it refuted by evolutionary biologists?

9. Do you agree or disagree with the Judgeâs decision in this case? Why?

First of all I am not endorsing Intelligent Design (Wikipedialink); I'm asking this because I (someone who does not have abackground in biology, organic chemistry, or philosophy) got into aconversation with someone who does endorse it, and I'm trying tosee his point of view as far as rationality can allow. Second ofall, I apologize for any vagueness; Intelligent Design isn't wellenough defined as a theory for me to help that. I also apologize ifthis is rehashing content already plentiful on the Internet, butfor my purposes I can't simply depend on the likes of Wikipedia orTalk Origins, so what I'm looking for here instead is to take theopposite approach and see, based on your informed minds, if therecould possibly be any reasonable likelihood of an ideal ID theorybeing adopted.

I'm looking for the most favorable consideration for what IDmight be if it were best developed as a viable hypothesis or theoryto get an idea of how far such a discussion is worth taking. Anunbiased, informed Devil's advocate, if you will.

My cursory investigation of what Stephen Meyers (video link) andMichael Behe (video link) say (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to bethat either the first cell was likely designed intelligentlyjudging by the complex code of DNA and that evolution took coursefrom there, or that the first cells were made and many instances ofevolution were from some kind of intelligently guided mutations aswas needed to make "irreducibly complex" cells or body functions(whether the guidance stops after the Cambrian or continued even tothe point of making different types of new bacteria and differenttypes of apes/humans or whether every single mutation and adaptiveability is being guided, I'm not sure if they're at any consensus,and that's why I don't know if I should stop my question atabiogenesis or include evolution). The person I spoke with alsobrought up some specific claims (everything looks designed, DNA hasordered, complex information, blood clotting is irreduciblycomplex, ID can and has make predictions like decades ago that"Junk DNA" wasn't junk) that I don't need you to debunk (I haveGoogle).

But if there could be any possible support or truth to any ofthe above, I would appreciate knowing about that. (Again, Devil'sadvocate so I can be informed and understand where the points comefrom.) Reading an ID book alone, it would be in places hard to knowwhere they differ from actual scientific conclusions. After all,when someone who seems to know what they're talking about and canexplain something in technical detail says that something isimpossible or extremely unlikely, it's hard for me to know why theywould be wrong (are they ignoring other possibilities?misrepresenting facts? are they really right and just getting thecold shoulder from an atheistic scientific community because itimplies a deity?). So I focus on mainstream sources, even if theydon't bother entertaining ID and leave me ignorant of its possiblevirtues. And thus I'm hoping someone from this informed communitymight enlighten me to what those possible virtues might be.

HUMA 1160 Lecture Notes - Omnipotence, Audianism, Cartesian Doubt

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

HUMA 1160 Study Guide - Final Guide: Perfect Power, Great Machine, Caloric Theory

HUMA 1160 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Theism, Direct And Indirect Realism

HUMA 1160 Chapter : Feb 6, 2013 ~ TUT 15.docx

Related Questions