Ghazzali

Biology textbooks reflect the belief that "The world is purely physical/material in nature" by not even entertaining the possibility that there could be a super natural cause for anything. Any natural activity is assumed to have a physical/material cause. This is philosophy, so it may not be physically written out that way in the biology textbooks, but everything in the textbooks points to this major world assumption.

Same with the issue of free will. Any act by a species is seen in a way that needs to be explained in chemical/biological/mech... (read more)

My point is that you can argue rationally about whether there is design in the universe, but you cannot argue whether the design is good or bad. The later is incoherent. Maybe the Grand Designer does want to make things confusing? Maybe he has put evidence of design in the universe, but not absolute evidence for whatever reason He wants? You can make the point that the design is good or bad, but that point has no real consequence to the question about whether there is design in the first place. Thats my point.

Another interesting point;

Do you agree t... (read more)

Not quite what I am saying.

I do believe in the truth of empirically reproducible results. However, other than stating facts I do not see how these results force me to believe in anything. It is my belief system or personal philosophy that makes me conclude a interpretation of those facts.

For example:

Evolution is seen by many people through the lens of materialism/atheism. That means that while studying evolution these people ASSUME the world has no creator and and is purely physical and closed system, free from anything super-natural....and so on.

In... (read more)

Lets focus on the chance vs. design conversation here first.

For all 3 of those examples you gave you would have to pick a conclusion of chance or design. Can you explain how any of those 3 could be conceived of as both chance and design at the same time? The only third option is to simply say I dont know.

If all science must be in theory falsifiable, and evolution is good science, can you give me some parameters or predictions that if they were found to be true would hurt the theory of evolution?

What would scientists need to find in the future that would seriously do damage to the theory?

Our brain is physical, no doubt, but as you can imagine I am making a claim that mind (consciousness, spirit, whatever you want to call it) is not the same as brain. There is a connection between the two, but my argument using rational judgment is that consciousness does not seem to be physical because there is no way to understand it rationally. Your point against me is what I use against you. You say I am mistaken because I cannot even define what is consciousness, I say that is precisely the point! The only way you can reply is to hold out for the v... (read more)

I will make a point about the progress of science in this subject and then use that to step towards a more general argument for the innate mystery of consciousness with regards to reason.

Ever since the time of the enlightenment there has been a real movement in the west to view the world as purely mechanical/physical so that a conclusion of reason as a universal tool could be accepted. That meant the elimination from society of not just God but also the soul and other things.

Ironically it was a particular invention of science and reason that made ration... (read more)

Sorry for the allegorical language if it offended you.

There is a difference between not finding a solution for a problem, and not even understanding what a solution may look like even in the abstract form.

It is also not a good sign when the problem gets to be more of a mystery the more science we discover.

The concern here is that we have an irrational view that rationalism is a universal tool. The fact that we have unsolved scientific and intellectual problems is not a proof of that. The fact that there seem to be problems that in their very nature seem to be unsolvable by reason is.