Mindless Design

[Lestat]

I'm trying to understand why the words mindless and design (especially when put together), create such a problem. You only need one precept:

All that needs to have happened is for God to have created the first physical laws and to have put them in place. Everything after that becomes a moot point.

Evolution CAN be a mindless process which operates from these physical laws. Why does NotReady have such a problem with that? His God is still very much alive and good. No one is going to disprove God based on his belief that nothing could exist if it weren't for God creating the first set of rules which govern the universe and everything in it.

And what's all the fuss about the appearance of design? A hurricane forms. A beautifully designed spiral weather system has been created. Does this mean God hand makes every hurricane? Every snowflake? Every leaf, every eyeball, on every animal that ever lived? Maybe... But if God simply designed the first few physical laws and fine tuned them so as to produce all subsequent designs that we now observe, is that any less miraculous?!! Does that take anything away from God's work?

Christians and theists alike need to stop harping on such terms as mindless and design. They make fools of themselves disputing scientific facts like evolution. It truly belittles their own cause and widens the present gap with rational thinkers. Their gods are safe if they just keep them where they belong. Inside of their faith that nothing could exist if it weren't for their god. I for one, am willing to accept that and leave them to it, for it's nothing I nor anyone else will ever disprove.

[Phil153]

Theists want to be significant. That's the whole crux of it. The Jews tried to cope with their years of wandering the desert by inventing a vengeful, powerful God who could smite their enemies, and make them special and chosen. NotReady wants to believe in a personal God so he has someone looking out for him, and happy friendly place to go when dies. No one wants to be a tiny amoeba in God's giant cosmic experiment spanning infinite universes, the chance product of forces beyond his control. It's much more fun to special and be part of God's Grand Plan for your ego.

So while I applaud your post, the crux of the problem is theistic cowardice and comfort. And that's got nothing to do with being rational or reasonable or looking at the facts.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

To illustrate your point, notice how the notion that our recent ancestors were basically apes just drives them up the wall. "Not MY ancestors"--the very idea is insulting to them. Better to have been conceived in the uber-brain of some all-good creature than the latest product of a line of monkey-men spurted from a 14-billion-year-old accident.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate your point, notice how the notion that our recent ancestors were basically apes just drives them up the wall. "Not MY ancestors"--the very idea is insulting to them. Better to have been conceived in the uber-brain of some all-good creature than the latest product of a line of monkey-men spurted from a 14-billion-year-old accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is why this is (or will be), such an important subject for believers. Rational Christians are coming to accept our ancestrial heritage (i.e. we come from apes). By refusing to accept that mindless design is possible, they're in for lots of problems (I think).

[Archon_Wing]

Unpredictable things are scary, so people try to make sense out of it.
How many people think online poker is rigged? They think it is because their experience does not conform to what they think is "normal" So they point out what they think is going on, what irregularities that should be there (This card gets dealt more...) and pretty soon you have these evil conspiracy theories. Suddenly they think the card room is out to get them, but in reality it has very little to do with them. But in their mind, something HAS to be deciding what's happening.

Think about weird beliefs people have and how powerful they can be. You have lucky hats, shirts, and numbers or whatnot. I only find money on the ground if it's Wednesday and I'm wearing a green shirt, because that's how it was the last three times. Or perhaps there's something supernatural about it, since I can't explain it.

That being said, is something no longer elegant and beautiful if it wasn't deliberate?

[Lestat]

Very true. I think we have a need to make sense of things and when we can't, we're hardwired to make something up. This might date back to the ancestrial plains where humans were forced into a life or death decision and forming a belief and taking action (even if it was the wrong belief and action), was better than taking no action at all.

<font color="blue">That being said, is something no longer elegant and beautiful if it wasn't deliberate? </font>

Absolutely not!

[ZeeJustin]

The problem with this is that if you change the definition of God so many times, at what point are you no longer talking about God?

I call myself atheist, although technically I acknowledge the possible existence of two "powerful beings" which some might refer to as God or a God.

The first is basically the minimalist deist god that you describe. If you believe in this god you should basically live your life like an atheist. Furthermore, it would be better to describe this God as a force of physics (like gravity) rather than as a supernatural being.

The second is the creator of a simulation. See Simulated Realities and the Nick Bostrum Argument for more info. However, this "God" would be neither omnipotent or omniscient, although the argument could be made that it could theoretically be omnipotent and/or omniscient in regards to its sub-universe. It is extremely unlikely that this God would care if we worshiped it or not, so again, there is no reason to live life like a theist just because you accept this possibility. Sorry for the derail.

In any case, theists have been constantly changing their definition of God to fit science for thousands of years. This alone should be direct proof that the holy texts were not perfect and divinely inspired, although that much should already be obvious (the Bible with it's blatantly direct contradictions, not only with facts told, but also the morals preached, and the Qur'an with its numerous grammatical errors.)

While it is true that scientists are also changing their beliefs, this is done after the extensive use of research, logic, and experiment, rather than simply coming up with a convenient possible theory that is less directly in opposition with religion than the previous theory.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, is something no longer elegant and beautiful if it wasn't deliberate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists have been saying the world is elegant and beautiful from square one.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that scientists are also changing their beliefs, this is done after the extensive use of research, logic, and experiment, rather than simply coming up with a convenient possible theory that is less directly in opposition with religion than the previous theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. If most of modern science gets proven wrong, my world's not going to fall apart. I may have to relearn a lot of things though-- I would be a fool not to. Of course, some people might just be lazy.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The first is basically the minimalist deist god that you describe. If you believe in this god you should basically live your life like an atheist. Furthermore, it would be better to describe this God as a force of physics (like gravity) rather than as a supernatural being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. You could believe that God set all the physical laws in such a way that his message would be revealed to us. It would be consistent to believe in a God who doesn't meddle at every turn who nevertheless cares about humanity. I don't understand why more theists don't adopt this position.