A Meaningful World: Intelligent Design As A Response To Secular Nihilism

David E wrote:

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).


That a would be a fundamentally religious approach, no ?

On 16 Nov 2006 10:53:31 -0800, "David E" wrote:

Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many
times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a
naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my
childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that
helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist
christianity in which I was raised.

As to the main claim of the origin quote:

that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).

Most of us here are neither philosophical naturalists nor nihilists.
Any naturalism is incidental, consequential and minor.

Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything is natural.

Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing.

A nihilist could not hold the beliefs required of a naturalist.

wrote:
On 16 Nov 2006 10:53:31 -0800, "David E" wrote:

Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many
times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a
naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my
childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that
helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist
christianity in which I was raised.

As to the main claim of the origin quote:

that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).

Most of us here are neither philosophical naturalists nor nihilists.
Any naturalism is incidental, consequential and minor.

Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything is natural.

Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing.

A nihilist could not hold the beliefs required of a naturalist.

The most common meaning of nihilism is a lack of belief
in absolute or objective values. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm

One big flaw in "Intelligent Design" is that the human body is itself
by no means an intelligent design. A birth canal that passes through a
bony ring is just plain bad engineering. And there are many more
serious flaws in the design of the human body. Somehow all the
ID/Creationists sedulously ignore these design flaws, when a few
minutes serious thought will allow you to identify at least a dozen of
them. ID? Yeah, right!
Walt BJ

WaltBJ wrote:

One big flaw in "Intelligent Design" is that the human body is itself
by no means an intelligent design. A birth canal that passes through a
bony ring is just plain bad engineering. And there are many more
serious flaws in the design of the human body. Somehow all the
ID/Creationists sedulously ignore these design flaws, when a few
minutes serious thought will allow you to identify at least a dozen of
them. ID? Yeah, right!
Walt BJ


And how about the three brains we have?


Francis A. Miniter

WaltBJ wrote:

One big flaw in "Intelligent Design" is that the human body is itself
by no means an intelligent design. A birth canal that passes through a
bony ring is just plain bad engineering. And there are many more
serious flaws in the design of the human body. Somehow all the
ID/Creationists sedulously ignore these design flaws, when a few
minutes serious thought will allow you to identify at least a dozen of
them. ID? Yeah, right!

I remember a comedian years ago doing a bit on improvements
he'd like to see in the human body. The only two I remember a

Your ears should be under your arms so you could keep them warm.

Your mouth should be on top of your head so you could put
a sandwich under your hat and eat it on the way to work.

In article ,
"Mike Schilling" wrote:

"johac" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/...ful-world.html


Thursday, October 26, 2006

Review: A Meaningful World


A Meaningful World by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt (IVP Academic,
2006) is the best ID book I have read. It deserves a special place in
this overcrowded genre, in part because it takes the preferred
approach. Recent books have championed ID with a kind of ice-cold
sterility, presumably to support the proposition that ID is a bona fide
science. Often the result is a sleep-inducing rehash of familiar
arguments written in impenetrable, impersonal, and unnecessary
technical language.

Not to mention that it's utter nonsense.

That's implied, I think. If ID were worth serious discussion, you'd want
the sort of analysis that bores whomever SoT is stealing from. Once you
embrace its utter nonsensicality, you can make it a fun read.

obSF: Anything by Van Vogt.

I'm sure it would. I wish SoT and his buddies would at least steal some
new material. the same old same old is what's getting really boring.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire

Contact - Throw a .net over the .com

In article ,
Bill Snyder wrote:

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:19:24 -0800, johac
wrote:

In article . com,
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/...ful-world.html


Thursday, October 26, 2006

Review: A Meaningful World


A Meaningful World by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt (IVP Academic,
2006) is the best ID book I have read. It deserves a special place in
this overcrowded genre, in part because it takes the preferred
approach. Recent books have championed ID with a kind of ice-cold
sterility, presumably to support the proposition that ID is a bona fide
science. Often the result is a sleep-inducing rehash of familiar
arguments written in impenetrable, impersonal, and unnecessary
technical language.

Not to mention that it's utter nonsense.

Well, of course he wouldn't mention that. When nonsense is all you
have to offer, you don't want to point out what it is.

True. Perhaps they believe that if they repeat the same nonsense often
enough, someone else will believe it too.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire

Contact - Throw a .net over the .com

David E wrote:
Interesting, this thread supports a hypothesis that I've proposed many
times befo that science fiction readers tend far more to a
naturalistic worldview than others. I have little doubt that my
childhood (and continuing) love of SF was one of the factors that
helped ease me out of the indoctrination into fundamentalist
christianity in which I was raised.

As to the main claim of the origin quote:

that naturalism is an essentially nihilistic worldview

is there anyone here who agrees or would care to present an argument
for this claim (I notice that the quote simply takes it as a give
rather than presenting a case for the claim's truth).

I don't in the slightest degree agree with the assertion, but I
understand the basic logic of it.

Suppose we take it as granted that ethical behavior is exactly that
behavior which is in consonance with (by definition) the most perfectly
ethical being possible - God. It follows that the denial of the
existence of such a being is equivalent to stating "there is no
foundation for ethical behavior". I.e., it asserts that ethics is
essentially nihilistic.

The concept that an individual chooses what they believe is ethical or
not "by their own lights" is regarded as the evil of "moral
relativism". What stops a person from claiming that killing and eating
his/her neighbor's children is "morally correct"?

This argument of course ignores the basic aesthetic logic given in the
book review. We can choose what is ethical because "it is beautiful to
do so"; regardless of the fact that certain aspects of what we consider
"beautiful" doubtless have roots in our evolutionary history.

Cheers - Chas

"Francis A. Miniter" wrote in message
news:455d3ee6@kcnews01...
WaltBJ wrote:

One big flaw in "Intelligent Design" is that the human body is itself
by no means an intelligent design. A birth canal that passes through a
bony ring is just plain bad engineering. And there are many more
serious flaws in the design of the human body. Somehow all the
ID/Creationists sedulously ignore these design flaws, when a few
minutes serious thought will allow you to identify at least a dozen of
them. ID? Yeah, right!
Walt BJ


And how about the three brains we have?

ID believers do not suffer from that.