addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartexportfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Realism and Anti-realism in Religion

The meetup on Intelligent Design and science made me wonder whether ID is religion---whether or not it is science. Philosophy of religion has long had its own demarcation problem: what is and isn't religion? The ID discussion seemed to waver between whether to see ID as science (or at least proto-science) or as religion. The arguments for why it might not be science were well rehearsed. But suppose it is not religion?

Taken at its word, ID theory seems closer to science than to religion. It doesn't appear to be defending anything remotely like the religion of the average person on the street. Little about ID theory strictly implicates traditional notions of God. Perhaps it is necessary that if there is a god of the traditional variety, the design of the universe is "intelligent" in some sense but if this were the case it would be hardly sufficient to support the common view of God. And according to some traditions, the intelligibility of any aspect of nature has nothing whatsoever to do with real religion.

Needless to say, not just science but religion, too, has an identity problem. (Big time! There has been blood over this one. No wars yet over the internal science demarcation problem.) Is religious talk talk about facts that have empirical truth value or is religion a way of being in the world? You would think from our previous discussion on ID that science and religion play on the same field, but do they? Not everyone takes that for granted.


Suppose the atheist's nightmare is realized, that one day science turns up incontrovertible evidence that a God of the traditional all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful, Judeo-Islamic-Christian kind exists. (Don't ask how!... maybe a Mars rover spots a plaque: "Made by God.") So? What would that have to do with meaningful religion? If I was a doubter before, am I supposed to quake in my boots now? I mean if this God really was all-this and all-the-other, including all-merciful and all-understanding, I am quite sure I would be all-forgiven for exercising my God-given critical thinking abilities. After all, in her or his infinite wisdom, the divine would have known that I would be an all-doubter.

And if there remains something not "all" about her or him, if, for example, he or she retained an element of unseemly, all-too-human, jealousy and grudge, then I would certainly have been justified in withholding my conviction that this God is worthy of worship until all the evidence is in--if not after as well. It would be the epistemically responsible thing to do. And no divine being worth its salt will have us be epistemically irresponsible. Still, hastiness in judgment might be excused in mortals. But with all eternity on hand, God can hardly be so pinched for time. In making us mortal, we were given the perfect excuse for doubt. It says so in many places in scripture we should be careful what we believe. Idols are designed to be easy to believe in. They are expert at trotting out evidence in their favor. God? Not so much.

But if God doesn't have any recognizable human traits, if the language we use that inspires awe in us (the "all" language) makes God more than a little paradoxical, even as a concept, let alone a natural reality, we are left where we started: with mystery. God is no answer to any fully intelligible question we might ask. God may well exist (in some sense), may well have been designer (somehow), may well etc...but God remains profoundly inscrutable.

The alternative, adopted by the design theorists (and assumed by some of their critics), is that God is scrutable: that the very idea of God is conceivable to us by extending some ordinary ideas we have to their limits. We all know what knowledge, power, and goodness are, right? Now just imagine gads of them concentrated in some place with natural coordinates. Call it "God." I say "natural coordinates" because they are assumed within the purview of science. I am not aware of any "supernatural coordinates," but if there are, I can't imagine what science would have anything sensible to say about them...

But a mere intelligent designer is a far cry from an object of worship. (Wonder might be appropriate---as we might have for extraterrestrial intelligence, or fear, maybe, like for an oncoming asteroid. But not worship.) Suppose evidence pointed to one of those---a mere intelligent designer. "Wow!" I might say, then, "now what?" If that's all we ever get from our researches into the micro- and macro-cosmos---traces of order improbably explained in any other way but through crafty design---then I admit I would be impressed. For a short time. Until all the old questions about what kind of designer entity this might be and why I should care catch up with me.

And if before the incontrovertible evidence was uncovered I was a believer, I am not sure what role the evidence is supposed to play. Shore up my belief? I do mean belief in the thoroughly tricked out conception of God, the one with the three super---the "all"---traits. That God apparently has no particular need for our belief. How are we to make such a need or desire sensible without anthropomorphizing? People like to look good in the eyes of their peers, but God? I know as a normal human being I wouldn't be too impressed with someone's "faith" in me if they wanted to see incontrovertible evidence of my authenticity before dealing with me. Are you saying that God with far less cause for self-esteem issues than me would? Fortunately, we don't ask that people have faith in us too often. In God only we trust---precisely because we know nothing about God. God help us if we did. We might start asking uncomfortable questions precisely because we know ourselves (or ought to) too well.

All this by way of saying that whatever is discovered about God in any remotely scientific way is unqualified to inspire faith. I didn't invent this line of thought, of course. It's been around since ancient times---since at least St. Augustine, Pascal, Kierkegaard, et al.

"What the...?!!" "Haven't we evolved past that, Major Tom?"


Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the greatest (possibly, the most significant) philosopher of the last century, has given it modern expression: silence. Religion is best understood, not through noises we may make with our mouths, but as a way of living. Talk about God he considered "gassing," the same in semantic content no matter which end of the digestive system was involved, not to be mistaken for truth claims in the same class with truth claims we make about more mundane matters. God talk can't very well be false for the same reason. (Some have interpreted this conclusion to suggest the talk is "meaningless." But to the extent being meaningful is meant approvingly, normatively, that doesn't make sense either. Religious experience, if you have it, is simply not part of the world in which semantics and truth---or their opposites---are criteria.)

This has been called anti-realism in religion. Some among the religious say it comes too close for comfort to atheism. Some among atheists think it is pure irrationality or mysticism. But it is the view that religion is a cultural form of deep importance to our humanity but absolutely none to our intellect---except by way of humiliating it. The intellect should do its best to hold its own as best it can. It has an imperative to spend itself wisely. That means also "knowing its limitations," to paraphrase both Albert Camus and Clint Eastwood. For all our touted rational capability, we don't actually spend much time practicing it.


Some related questions:

What is the proper role of religion? Is it in the business of competing with science? Is science in the business of competing with religion?

Is religion, as some have claimed, an aging cultural artifact that will and should one day die out as it gets replaced by something else? What could that something else possibly be? Nothing?

If by another belief system founded on non-rational principles---i.e., positive atheism, what will have changed?

Will it be a safe but cowardly agnosticism? Too afraid to stick its neck out?

Will it be a culture of indifference to ultimate questions, ignorant of its own history, somehow in love with the idea that we are on the verge of transcending it and about to move into a brave new age? (I'm thinking Steven Pinker here, to mention just one such view.)

Is curiosity dying out because we know so much compared to those in the past? Is evolution slowing down? Beginning to reverse?

But maybe no part of the science vs religion row has anything to do with either real science or real religion, but with competing power blocks? With politics? What could be less scientific or less religious than that?

Addendum 5/5/14

Some of us are outright atheists out of respect for science and its accomplishments. Some are atheist out of indifference. Some of us will reject anything that militates against our inherited or communal beliefs, including science.

Most ordinary people, however, are religious in some sense.  But most ordinary people in our culture partake of the benefits of science. Most know their smart phones, medical care, modes of transportation, etc., their whole material way of life are the direct result of science. Most know that science and religion do not rigorously inform each other in practice or theory. They hardly communicate with each other at all.

What do these "most people" make of this? Are they irrational? Do they compartmentalize? Opportunists? Take their comfort where they can get it? In religion when they have doubts that no amount of creature comforts are sufficient to allay? In science the rest of the time or when it's handy? Do they make an effort to make science and religion intellectually compatible?

If they use their rational capabilities to try to make them compatible (I'm not suggesting most do), the options are:

1. They do something like what the ID theorists are trying to do: devise a picture in which somehow it all makes sense together. Science and religion do not have to be seen as opposed and may offer mutual guidance.

2. Or they retreat to a minimalist belief strategy: interpret both religion and science skeptically, demand of each only what it can give with integrity, and not an ounce more. And leave the questions that neither of them can be rigorous about answering open. Such minimalists are only brought to a belief of any sort kicking and screaming.

The second is the anti-realist position in religion. It isn't and probably will never be the more popular strategy because it throws us back on our own individual resources---which are neither as meager or as rich as some would have us believe.

To Jon's good question in the discussion below, who takes an anti-realist position on religion?---the answer is few. It is in many ways an elitist position. But you could also say it is the only one that pays more than lip service to the popular phrase "critical thinking."

...

Let the flames begin!


"Man is not a rational animal." - Maurice Merleau-Ponty (as Katherine Morris, one of our club members, reminds us in her emails).

"I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent. [Pause.]" - Samuel Beckett, Endgame.


...

A primer on philosophy of religion:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Join or login to comment.

  • A former member
    A former member

    A gentle but provocative essay from 1966 by Charles Townes, Nobel Prize winner (who died on Tuesday) on "The Convergence of Science and Religion" http://www.templetonprize.org/pdfs/THINK.pdf

    January 29, 2015

  • Robert L.

    I think that while there is no vagueness in nature, there is much vagueness about nature. Literally billions of thoughts, ideas and statements have come into being about everything from triangles to triangle makers since the first homo sapiens started sensing and thinking about the environments they inhabit and a significant percentage of those images, ideas and so on were vague. Vagueness is a feature of the ideas, images, and so on but not a property of their objects; unless those objects are ideas, images, thoughts and so on No 'generic' triangles exist in nature. All actual triangles must have sides that either all of equal length, two of the same length or none of the same length. Still, all sorts of images of and ideas of generic triangles exist in nature. The critical question here is how could these ideas exist in nature when their objects cannot exist in nature. I am willing talk about this topic after I finished writing my book and after returning from L.A. in April.

    January 27, 2015

    • Gene L

      Another possibility is to talk about the content of your book about consciousness - is it a scientific book, or a philosophical book? Do you have a publisher lined up?

      January 27, 2015

  • Gene L

    Victor, I can't make this one. but I'd wonder if the venue can accommodate the current attendance. Unfortunately It is often hard to gauge the true turnout as many people do not show up and do not change their RSVP to "No", but how many people can the venue actually accommodate?

    January 18, 2015

    • Jason

      there was some (informal) discussion of vagueness, but nothing too specific

      1 · January 26, 2015

    • Victor M.

      Gene, I'm working on two topics: one probably for Feburary on the (purported) moral difference between lying and reticence---a problem that comes up especially in Kantian ethics (it has a Valentine's Day angle!); the other topic for later will be on normativity and the problems it poses for naturalism. I hope to get writeups posted shortly... Further down the road, I am planning one on Wittgentein's philosophy of language. Of course, if any one else wants to present, there are no fixed dates yet for my topics.

      January 26, 2015

  • Robert L.

    So the discussion about vagueness was vague. Suppose that a high school geometer teacher presented to her/his students a proof that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is two right angles. Suppose further that the teacher makes no assumptions about the sizes of the sides of the triangle. Is that teacher's presentation vague? I ask if anyone here has a clear and distinct idea about what a reasonable answer to this question might be.

    January 26, 2015

    • Victor M.

      We did touch a little on the vagueness and its relations to god-talk. See http://www.meetup.com...­]

      January 26, 2015

    • Pat D.

      I would be interested in such a presentation.

      January 26, 2015

  • BlueSky

    God
    /ɡäd/ noun
    (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker sci·ence
    /ˈsīəns/ noun
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    in·tel·li·gent de·sign
    noun
    the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

    January 22, 2015

  • Ballard G.

    Still searching for a Nature/Nurture read in this subject feeling it is philosophically respectable. Christianity provides a strange, persistent ontology that thrives against contemporary secular views shaped by the Enlightenment and modern science. Ordinary Christians and Christian scientists are wedded to an idea that God is in everything and everywhere. The position seems to preclude the idea that creationist explanations of nature are not more than a non-religious kind of science that excludes a remarkable ever-presence and everywhere reality of the Christian God. Our nature is sinful and only God's grace can make us free to truly enjoy his creation. The veil of secularism of a methodological naturalism are probably felt by most Christian Scientists to be deficient in what it sees or takes as the fundamental nature of reality. Quoting Wittgenstein: “What is good is also divine. Queer as it sounds, that sums up my ethics. Only something supernatural can express the supernatural.”

    January 22, 2015

  • A former member
    A former member

    Fascinating, Victor. Additional Wittgenstein quotes:

    "It is a dogma of the Roman Church that the existence of God can be proved by natural reason. Now this dogma would make it impossible for me to be a Roman Catholic. If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him."

    “The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does what problem this really solves.” “If you and I are to live religious lives, it mustn't be that we talk a lot about religion, but that our manner of life is different. It is my belief that only if you try to be helpful to other people will you in the end find your way to God.”

    1 · January 17, 2015

    • Victor M.

      Thanks for the quotes, Jennifer. Wittgenstein and a taste of his philosophy are on the agenda later this year...

      January 18, 2015

  • Ballard G.

    The best to you too Victor, but I can’t follow you philosophically here. Let me point out you gave two opposing philo views on Nature/Nurture last meeting. You came on with this philo can’t do anything with N/N at first, but later you claimed an odd counter suggesting N/N was to be left to empirical testing in some way. And as your crowd’s loud, deep preoccupation with N/N, I have to say it seemed natural. It reminded me not of the crowd’s embracing non-philo questions but eminently philo questions. The crowd’s focus on N/N strikes me as in line with both a very common-sense intuition about something that philo must deal with but also a great ordinary-language grasp of what just truly makes sense. N/N seems a profoundly human idea. The idea that philo can’t handle it seems truly suspect. That philo can’t go to new places reminds one of the ideas of maybe the continental movement that pronounced history, philosophy, art and many great ideas as dead and vacant . N/N hits a human chord.

    January 9, 2015

  • Ballard G.

    Victor, so you summarized the meeting under Philosophical Topic Review, and Gene wondered what it might have been like but you mentioned nothing about the group’s obsession with the problem of Nature/Nurture. Surely there was a discussion of art but Nature/Nurture kept coming up. Is there a philosophy of Nature/Nurture? Your expansive discursion on Realism and Anti-realism in Religion seems to raise this fundamental troubled posture of the philosophical human. Pat Dolan often raises fundamental questions about the rational claims of major intellectual/scientific postures but the everyday human is confronted with things like the separation of their skin and other perceptual apparatus from the universe of reality and the apparent mythologies of science or other sources of explanations to make clear what is. There is a fight going on in this thread as to where to lie down and take comfort in what helps us to know. This could be a very interesting discussion.

    January 6, 2015

    • Victor M.

      Hi Gary. There is certainly a debate in popular culture and science about nature versus nature, but in philosophy the distinction is usually thought too vague to sink one's philosophical teeth into. The distinction between nature and nurture is conceptually problematic and philosophers among themselves are not even clear as to what is "nature" and what is "nurture," let alone which, if either or both, is calling the shots. The free will/determinism issue is a more precise point of disagreement, for example, and for that reason gets more attention. We've had it as a topic (and will again probably). But the nature/nurture thing is something we could tackle in the future...

      January 6, 2015

    • Victor M.

      The realism/anti-realism debate, whether in science or religion, you are right to notice, is another manifestation of nature/nurture, but again in somewhat more concrete and precise terms than is typical in nature v. nature arguments.

      January 7, 2015

  • Robert L.

    Victor,
    It is not only philosophers who can't cross the street but according to an explanation of quantum physics that Tyson provides, photons also can't cross the street. That means that you, me and even Tyson can't see whether the signal on the other side of the street is green, red or orange and so none of us can safely at least cross the street and if Tyson's crossing of the street implies or entails that photons must also do so, then even Tyson can't cross the street. Ah, well sic transit gloria mundi ! Robert Livermore

    May 10, 2014

    • Ronaldo

      Very nice. Perhaps philosophers need to realize the benefit of first crossing the street, because the other side offers a different perspective. Of course in the space of philosophy, actions aren't as simple as crossing streets, but more emphasis should be placed on some type of "action" instead of always asking why. It is my opinion that philosophy needs more action.

      1 · May 14, 2014

    • Victor M.

      But philosophy has never been about "action." It has been more about why act. And, if so, why one way rather than another? We don't need to be rational merely to act. As we know, chickens do it.

      May 14, 2014

  • Victor M.

    For those interested in followup on the Tyson affair, here's Massimo Pigliucci and reactions (admittedly, way off topic here):

    http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/

    May 12, 2014

  • Robert L.

    Photons are light particles- they are so to speak the atoms of light. The problem here is that nothing including the hands of a clock can as move change in any way as fast as light. So how can the event of something, e.g. a photon moving from one place to another happen at all? If indeed a photon moves at the velocity of light then that photon can't be changing in any ways - including moving from one position to another. Nor for that matter could anyone, say Albert who "is moving along with the photon" do or perceive anything including the tick of a clock. Robert Livermore

    May 10, 2014

  • Victor M.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson does have a point when he describes a philosopher as someone who "can't cross the street." I was once asked by the organizer of another philosophy club if I believed in God. The best I could do was something like this: "I'm a philosopher. Philosophers are not allowed to have beliefs. I have trouble with my own existence. Don't ask me about God's. That's way over my head!"

    May 7, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      I propose that there are three reasons:
      1. There are no streets or philosophers;
      2. Even if there were streets and philosophers, we couldn't know about them;
      3. Even if we could know about them, we couldn't communicate intelligible thoughts about one crossing the other.

      May 9, 2014

    • Jon C.

      4. Even if we could communicate with philosophers about crossing, we couldn't get consent from the roads to be crossed.

      May 9, 2014

  • Robert L.

    Victor,
    It sounds like you were debauched by Descartes and denied de Grasse Tyson who also denied Pluto planetary status. I have one question for Tyson. What is like to race or ride with a photon - what is like to be something whose time being is zero. How can photons cross the street? Robert Livermore

    May 8, 2014

    • Jon C.

      I was going to say it was a great example, but you need to know the reference. See eg http://www.pitt.edu/~...­ There are other examples such as the impact of logical positivism on Bohr. On the other hand, I think reductionism has big negative influence on physics now and results in physicists saying things like deGrasse Tyson did and more generally claiming that things they can't explain don't exist, and as the video I posted in the discussion section, saying that things that appear in theories do exist when they might not actually (ie. reification).

      May 8, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    To answer the first and second question, I think religion is a primitive form of science. We now demarcate the two because religion is so primitive! Religion certainly came into picture to answer questions about life, universe and everything. Just like we have evolution of living organisms, we have had evolution of science as well and now religion is an age-old form of science.

    May 7, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      Atleast the religions involving a holy book certainly try to explain the world in its terms.

      May 7, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      That seems so though those are quite late. There's probably an oral tradition behind them, including narratives explaining why this happens or how that originated. I think a problem here with a comparison with philosophy or science might be that this way of explaining things seems to avoid issues of method and methodology, whereas philosophy and science usually put method foremost and are not shy of methodology. Some might even argue both are more about the methods than the narrative itself.

      May 7, 2014

  • Victor M.

    Are scientists immune from uncritical religious zeal for their subject? As much as I used to be a fan of the late Carl Sagan and still like Neil deGrasse Tyson, stories like this remind us that enthusiasm is not scientific: http://theweek.com/article/index/261042/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-is-a-philistine

    May 7, 2014

    • Pat D.

      Good point Victor. Who was it that said "It is our passions that always inform our reasoning. Even the most hardcore logician is motivated by his/her passion for reason"

      May 7, 2014

    • Ronaldo

      While I disagree with Tyson, I do understand the basis for his statements. From a physics perspective, I can say that the goal of physicists is to be able to say something meaningful about nature. A result is grounded in experiment or mathematical certainty, and such certainty is absent in philosophical enterprises. There isn't a rigorous methodology to uncover the truthfulness of statements, there isn't any developed machinery to weed out things that are just wrong. Thus, a physicists sees philosophy as a subject which anyone can say whatever they want largely with impunity. Feynman was notoriously critical of philosophy for these reasons, though he was far more "philosophical"­ than your average physicist. I do believe we need more philosophically minded physicists, because even more fundamental to being able to say something meaningful is to question things. I like to say that the mathematics keeps the physics honest, and so the physics keeps the philosophy honest.

      May 7, 2014

  • Jon C.

    Are there actually people who are religious who consider themselves anti-realists as used in this context, or is that just a label that atheist philosophers use to describe people who believe in God because it makes them feel better. While that is why a lot of people come to believe, I don't think they actually think of themselves going through some meaningless ritual to a god that does not really exist, just for the sake of feeling better. I think they use their own sense of well-being as evidence of an real God to worship.

    Regarding the role of science in the quest for evidence of God, science has not yet found evidence of our own consciousness, so I'm not surprised that it is not yet in the position to address the existence of God.

    1 · May 4, 2014

    • Victor M.

      Jon, see my addendum to the topic description above.

      May 5, 2014

  • Victor M.

    It is worth pointing out, that where one stands on intelligent design is connected to where one stands on other metaphysical issues such as the free will/determinism debate. Supposing determinism is true, that every event has a cause---and it is usually implied here "natural" cause---and it is an important part of science to isolate such causes, where does that leave design, divine or otherwise? "Intelligence" in design becomes just one pattern among others of no particular significance except locally, almost subjectively. If I choose to call my own plans intelligent, it may only be of interest to me and those like me who buy into the local myth that intelligence exists anywhere in any form. If determinism is true, there is very little cause to make the distinction between intelligent and dumb. Intelligence is only in the eye of the beholder and nowhere else.

    May 4, 2014

    • Victor M.

      Hume said that there were sequences of events in nature that we observe with degrees of regularity. We are so psychologically constituted that, like Pavlov's dog, we come to expect them in sequence. We label the first in time "cause" and the second "effect." That's the full extent of what we understand about causation: constant conjunction. Prior to Hume, some spoke of a "causal nexus" as though something mediated the earlier and later events. The feeling was that things have "powers" to make other things happen (as Locke, for instance, believed) the way a strong person may force a weaker one to do something. Hume essentially de-anthropomorphized causation. We never observe anything but one damn thing after another. Or sets of damn things, as the case may be. Our liability to conditioning does the rest. But we never observe anything ever "make" anything else happen except metaphorically.

      May 4, 2014

    • Victor M.

      This sets the stage for the study of probabilistic analyses of causation. It also leaves holes in determinism through which sometimes free will believers attempt to drive trucks. By itself, though, the demotion of causation to probability is of limited use to free will which requires much more than mere indeterminism.

      But what it does do is psychologize determinism in a way which has often been done to free will. Psychologically, we are prone to illusions.

      May 4, 2014

  • Ronaldo

    I think the ID proposition (If it is in any way to be construed as science, it is certainly not a theory!) has made significant attempts to eliminate religion from its set of assumptions. In this regard ID has succeeded. Also by construction, it has positioned itself in the crevices of what science has uncovered allowing it to escape scientific scrutiny. It proposes to be scientific based on the notion that it uses THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to pursue the validity of its proposition and in this way gain inclusion to scientific discussion. This is a curious position, because it is not particularly interested in contributing to science. What is my reason for this?

    May 2, 2014

    • Victor M.

      The merit in anti-realist religion is that it might be the most rational position to take, given human tendencies to believe things we don't actually have to. That is a philosophically attractive feature. If true.

      May 4, 2014

    • Victor M.

      Ronaldo, it would stand to reason that if you were an anti-realist about religion, you are probably bored or amused by the ID debate. Anti-realists in religion have little to be outspoken about. They are not creationists. But they are as likely to be skeptical about science as about established religion on these matters. You are right that the vocal religious are the ones who are most often heard on these matters, (and they may very well be the majority). On the other side, you have the militant anti-religious whose zeal makes them sometimes hard to distinguish.

      May 4, 2014

  • Gene L

    Victor,

    You have already been exposed as a member of the high conspiracy to establish religion through analytic philosophy. And now this? :)

    http://www.meetup.com/Seattle-Analytic-Philosophy-CLUB/photos/21249202/#[masked]

    May 2, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    It appears to me that ID is closer to science than it is to religion but only so long as its proponents admit that the farthest ID can take you is to the alien designer hypothesis. As the only examples of intelligent agents we have are those which are physically embodied, positing non-embodied agents in order to explain existing complexity is a leap of faith that I believe breaks the logic that ID proponents believe lead to their position in the first place. Before this is made explicit within ID I will see it as a misleading, but politically savvy, form of religion-promoting bad science.

    May 2, 2014

33 went

Our Sponsors

  • DesignYum.com

    Our group is being sponsored by this outstanding design blog.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy