Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

Then others read the books, and try to truncate even further into articles. Then there are those who won't even read an article, and would ask you to just sum it up in a few words, etc. There's a point where it gets to wanting something for nothing. And if you're willing to sacrifice exactly nothing for a thing, not even a bit of time, do you really want it?

So that's why conveying things in person is so difficult and usually pointless - you're most likely talking to someone who doesn't really want it anyway, to them it's just idle conversation. There are exceptions, you'd just have to read the situation right.

All day at work I listen to people have conversations that parrot the msm talking points on all subjects, and I know none of them care about the truth or want to think for themselves. But they're all very self satisfied with their intelligence, to the point of smugness.

What you say here reminds me of this, from 'Meetings with Remarkable Men:'

"Father Giovanni! I cannot understand how you can calmly stay here instead of returning to Europe, at least to your own country Italy, to give people there if only a thousandth part of this all penetrating faith which you are now inspiring me.

Eh! my dear professor, replied Father Giovanni, it is evident that you do not understand man's psyche as well as you understand archaeology.

Faith cannot be given to man. Faith arises in a man and increases in it's action in him not as the result of automatic learning, that is, not from any automatic ascertainment of height, breadth, thickness, form or weight, or from perception of anything by sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste, but from understanding.

Understanding is the essence obtained from information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.

For example, if my beloved brother were to come to me here at this moment and urgently entreat me to give him merely a tenth part of my understanding, and if I myself wished with my whole being to do so, yet I could not, in spite of my most ardent desire, give him a thousandth part of this understanding, as he has neither the knowledge or the experience which I have quite accidentally acquired and lived through in my life."
 
What you say here reminds me of this, from 'Meetings with Remarkable Men:'

"Father Giovanni! I cannot understand how you can calmly stay here instead of returning to Europe, at least to your own country Italy, to give people there if only a thousandth part of this all penetrating faith which you are now inspiring me.

Eh! my dear professor, replied Father Giovanni, it is evident that you do not understand man's psyche as well as you understand archaeology.

Faith cannot be given to man. Faith arises in a man and increases in it's action in him not as the result of automatic learning, that is, not from any automatic ascertainment of height, breadth, thickness, form or weight, or from perception of anything by sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste, but from understanding.

Understanding is the essence obtained from information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.

For example, if my beloved brother were to come to me here at this moment and urgently entreat me to give him merely a tenth part of my understanding, and if I myself wished with my whole being to do so, yet I could not, in spite of my most ardent desire, give him a thousandth part of this understanding, as he has neither the knowledge or the experience which I have quite accidentally acquired and lived through in my life."

That is exactly it.

And yet, the lefties and all that ilk think you can legislate it. Or, conversely, that you can convince normal people that tomatoes when ripe are green. Oy.
 
So that's why conveying things in person is so difficult and usually pointless - you're most likely talking to someone who doesn't really want it anyway, to them it's just idle conversation. There are exceptions, you'd just have to read the situation right.

All day at work I listen to people have conversations that parrot the msm talking points on all subjects, and I know none of them care about the truth or want to think for themselves. But they're all very self satisfied with their intelligence, to the point of smugness.

But even then, it's the same to them as talking about the weather. No one comes away from a discussion thinking to themselves "I should research more about this" or anything like that, it's just idle chatter that is forgotten a second later as life goes on.

Too true, and the truth of what you write above has been conveyed to me in recent years via exchanges with 'ordinary people', where I engaged in the exchange under the naive belief that my interlocutor was at least sincere in his quest for the truth or a solution to the problem in question, only to realize by the end that it was really just idle banter for him, and while I was invested in it, he was not, and could walk away at the end as if it was all just a joke. Once bitten, twice shy.
 
Understanding is the essence obtained from information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.

This quote reminds me of something Eric Fromm wrote:

What is faith? Is faith necessarily a matter of belief in God, or in religious doctrines? Is faith by necessity in contrast to, or divorced from, reason and rational thinking? Even to begin to understand the problem of faith one must differentiate between rational and irrational faith. By irrational faith I understand the belief (in a person or an idea) which is based on one’s submission to irrational authority. In contrast, rational faith is a conviction which is rooted in one’s own experience of thought or feeling. Rational faith is not primarily belief in something, but the equality of certainty and firmness which our convictions have. Faith is a character trait pervading the whole personality, rather than a specific belief.

Rational faith is rooted in productive intellectual and emotional activity. In rational thinking, in which faith is supposed to have no place, rational faith is an important component. How does the scientist, for instance, arrive at a new discovery? Does he start with making experiment after experiment, gathering fact after fact, without having a vision of what he expects to find? Rarely has a truly important discovery in any field been made in this way. Nor have people arrived at important conclusions when they were merely chasing a fantasy. The process of creative thinking in any field of human endeavor often starts with what may be called a “rational vision,” itself a result of considerable previous study, reflective thinking, and observation. When the scientist succeeded in gathering enough data, or in working out a mathematical formulation to make his original vision highly plausible, he may be said to have arrived at a tentative hypothesis. A careful analysis of the hypothesis in order to discern its implications, and the amassing of data which support it, lead to a more adequate hypothesis and eventually perhaps to its inclusion in a wide-ranging theory.

The history of science is replete with instances of faith in reason and visions of truth. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton were all imbued with an unshakable faith in reason. For this Bruno was burned at the stake and Spinoza suffered excommunication. At every step from the conception of a rational vision to the formulation of a theory, faith is necessary: faith in the vision as a rationally valid aim to pursue, faith in the hypothesis as a likely and plausible proposition, and faith in the final theory, at least until a general consensus about its validity has been reached. This faith is rooted in one’s own experience, in the confidence in one’s power of thought, observation, and judgment. While irrational faith is the acceptance of something as true only BECAUSE an authority or the majority say so, rational faith is rooted in an independent conviction based upon one’s own productive observing and thinking, IN SPITE OF the majority’s opinion.
 
I was just thinking for the past couple of days as to why there's this whole bickering between science and religion, and why religion and science cannot be seen as attempts at arriving at knowledge, and there being something more fundemental underlying them, if we can see through our thinking errors, like Collingwood wrote. Obviously, with both science and religion, we are talking about activities that a MIND engages in, so that should be seen as a foundation.

And I think that it is probably commitment to truth that is missing. That is, an ideal that is placed above our own subjectivity, or a love for something higher. So with that you have an ideal towards which you are aiming, which can been seen as religious type of experience, and on the other it can also be seen as a lifelong scientific enterprise.

Dominant strands of science and religion do not focus on what is fundemental, on trying to understand, but on promoting a certain worldview. It's like their minds have been hijacked by certain assumptions that with time became so rooted in their identity that they are unwilling to let go of them. I understand that beliefs are hard to let go of, and it sometimes feels like dying, but is it really worth keeping illusions?

Both science and religion think that they have discovered something that is concrete about the world, and then build stories around that, everything that doesn't fit into their assumptions is discarded as illusions. For instance, materialistic reductionist science can't explain consciousness (not to mention a bunch of other things), so it's discarded because their theories can't account for it. Instead of throwing away the theory, they throw away the fact! With religion we have the idea of an omnipotent, benevolent God, which can't account for evil (along with a bunch of other stuff), and instead of letting go of the assumption about an omnipotent God that stands outside everything else, they throw away facts. We obviously can't arrive close to understanding if we keep discarding what is.
 
Last edited:
This quote reminds me of something Eric Fromm wrote:
This faith is rooted in one’s own experience, in the confidence in one’s power of thought, observation, and judgment. While irrational faith is the acceptance of something as true only BECAUSE an authority or the majority say so, rational faith is rooted in an independent conviction based upon one’s own productive observing and thinking, IN SPITE OF the majority’s opinion.
If I look at my own life, then as a child I started out with irrational faith. I went to church with my parents at Christmas, because that is what they did. In primary school I (eventually) did what the teachers told me to do. I accepted the history as they taught it and so on. Later I began to base more on my own observations and thoughts. That "more" could be developed still more.

At work I teach teenagers; there is a curriculum, this year in science. Many children adore their smart phone and the surface of life more than they appreciate an opportunity to learn anything. There is not too much I can do to change that. A few kids have an open door in their mind, they are in various ways curious about creation, life and existence. Perhaps the best I can hope for is to provide hints in their search for answers. These books we are reading gives me ideas about how to express these hints.
 
This whole discussion re Evolution v ID has been and is mind blowing. I have decided to re-read Behe's. Darwins Black box again to reformulate everything he says. Maybe what I am saying is not very clear. I realise if someone were to ask me to argue for ID I would be hard pushed to articulate what I know which makes me realise it's all a jumble in my head. Too much too fast methinks. I need to slow down and get it ordered and concise. Think with a hammer comes to mind.
 
Both science and religion think that they have discovered something that is concrete about the world, and then build stories around that, everything that doesn't fit into their assumptions is discarded as illusions. For instance, materialistic reductionist science can't explain consciousness (not to mention a bunch of other things), so it's discarded because their theories can't account for it. Instead of throwing away the theory, they throw away the fact! With religion we have the idea of an omnipotent, benevolent God, which can't account for evil (along with a bunch of other stuff), and instead of letting go of the assumption about an omnipotent God that stands outside everything else, they throw away facts. We obviously can't arrive close to understanding if we keep discarding what is.

Very true, and apply that at the level of the individual also and the way they selectively and subjectively deal with reality, and you've just summed up the core problem of humanity since...forever.
 
Too true, and the truth of what you write above has been conveyed to me in recent years via exchanges with 'ordinary people', where I engaged in the exchange under the naive belief that my interlocutor was at least sincere in his quest for the truth or a solution to the problem in question, only to realize by the end that it was really just idle banter for him, and while I was invested in it, he was not, and could walk away at the end as if it was all just a joke. Once bitten, twice shy.

Indeed. I also have learned to shut my mouth and keep my own counsel. It is so rare to find somebody who actually is interested and wants to know, rather than idly asking a question and often mocking or ridiculing the answer. Talk about casting pearls before swine. It's been hard learning to shut up, but it was a lesson well worth learning.
 
Last edited:
Both science and religion think that they have discovered something that is concrete about the world, and then build stories around that, everything that doesn't fit into their assumptions is discarded as illusions. For instance, materialistic reductionist science can't explain consciousness (not to mention a bunch of other things), so it's discarded because their theories can't account for it. Instead of throwing away the theory, they throw away the fact! With religion we have the idea of an omnipotent, benevolent God, which can't account for evil (along with a bunch of other stuff), and instead of letting go of the assumption about an omnipotent God that stands outside everything else, they throw away facts. We obviously can't arrive close to understanding if we keep discarding what is.

Well said! That's exactly what happens on either side!
 
This whole discussion re Evolution v ID has been and is mind blowing. I have decided to re-read Behe's. Darwins Black box again to reformulate everything he says

Well, I took the plunge and started 'Darwin Devolves.' I must admit I was a little gun shy as DBB was a lot like reading a technical textbook through parts for which I had no previous knowledge or experience. I was a little afraid this next book would be more of the same. But I'm really glad I decided to read it though I still have a long ways to go. I'm quite enjoying it so far...
 
Too true, and the truth of what you write above has been conveyed to me in recent years via exchanges with 'ordinary people', where I engaged in the exchange under the naive belief that my interlocutor was at least sincere in his quest for the truth or a solution to the problem in question, only to realize by the end that it was really just idle banter for him, and while I was invested in it, he was not, and could walk away at the end as if it was all just a joke. Once bitten, twice shy.

When you think about it, we are where we are now after years of research, years of studying what the C's have had to say, years of networking and we have been building a foundation brick by brick so that the whole structure rests on strong foundations that have been hard won. There are good reasons why we have arrived at the conclusions we have, and it is all based on those foundations. Trying to impart some of that hard won knowledge to a person with none of those foundations is a huge task and a step too far for them in almost every case.

Watching people's reactions on FB and Twitter highlights this point. Some people get one thing or maybe two things. They can clearly see how they are being lied to about America's imperialism for example, or about maybe even vaccination. But the second they see you post about smoking or climate change or Israel ( or any combination of these things), BAM, they are triggered and you end up abused and/or blocked. They cannot accept that even though they KNOW the government/scientists/MSM lied about one thing, that they are also lying about all these other things. Their sacred cows are too sacred and they can't kill them.
 
I was thinking recently about just how pernicious the materialist/darwinist world view that has been foisted on modern society really is. Materialism, by definition, implies that there is nothing more that physical existence, the physical universe, and that after death there is 'nothing'. I think it's highly likely that that idea - spread widely throughout the population - has a net negative effect on human beings, creating in them a pervasive, if mostly unconscious, (or all the more pernicious because it's unconscious) fear or anxiety about death.
But even then, it's the same to them as talking about the weather. No one comes away from a discussion thinking to themselves "I should research more about this" or anything like that, it's just idle chatter that is forgotten a second later as life goes on.

So yeah I dunno, as Laura said once, some people really are just happy digging ditches. They got their family, house, TV, career, go to the game, and year after year the only thing that changes is that they get older, their kids get older, they've seen another superbowl, and they're perfectly content just riding out this framework til death takes them.

I’ve been thinking about this the last day or so since I read Joe’s same post in the ‘Afterlife’ thread.

Another aspect of the impact materialist/Darwinist world view and belief that there is nothing after this life that I’ve seen with a number of lifelong friends and longtime friends is that, since they don’t know or don't think that it is likely that there is anything after death or something ‘higher’ they should strive for, they have come to the conclusion that what they should strive for in life is to maximize the amount of enjoyment and fun in all its facets they can have. This doesn’t necessarily mean all out debauchery though. More like trying to travel as much as they can, enjoy sports, concerts, events, bing watch TV shows and enjoy stress free interactions with others. Like, since they don’t think or know that there is a creator/God/ or anything higher for which they can strive and that the materialist perspective might be correct, they are going to just have as much fun as possible and tune out for the most part what is happening in reality and not strive to learn about it. That having fun is the highest calling a person can have due to the unknown nature of life, existence and afterlife. During the times I’ve heard this I was pretty taken aback by it. I also have to say that these are people that I have and would trust to help me if I needed it and would say that these people do act morally toward others. And that they have acted for the most part better than I have in my life, but I have experienced more in life and hope I can say that I have learned more from it than they have.

This, I think, also leads these people to just tuning out for the most part the past and the events of the last 19 or so years except for a loose following along and any real interest in learning and questing for knowledge or truth. These people are in the US and that may play a role with it, since for the most part on the surface they haven’t had their ‘normal’ life impacted and can just ignore things. These are not dumb people and a couple of people who have a little more of a clue have told me that they can’t do anything about what is happening in the world and can't answer the larger questions of life, so they are going to just ignore it and try to enjoy life and if catastrophe of some kind happens then they will try to deal with it then. That there is no reason to worry about it now and also they hope that the worst doesn’t happen, so they can avoid experiencing it.
 
That having fun is the highest calling a person can have due to the unknown nature of life, existence and afterlife. During the times I’ve heard this I was pretty taken aback by it. I also have to say that these are people that I have and would trust to help me if I needed it and would say that these people do act morally toward others.

Yes, even intelligent and moral people have a lot of "wrong" ideas. The programming and indoctrination with false ideas like materialism, Darwinism, and many others runs deep.

These are not dumb people and a couple of people who have a little more of a clue have told me that they can’t do anything about what is happening in the world and can't answer the larger questions of life, so they are going to just ignore it

Authoritarianism! This is actually one of the worst things, imo. This learned helplessness and leaving the biggest problems to those "higer up", who just happen to be the least qualified to solve anything. The fact that even overall "good" people can have the basics wrong shows just how deep the manipulation runs. School gives you the wrong facts, the media tell you you'd be stupid and crazy if you questioned them, and most people spend their whole lives in this trap. It's pretty sad.
 
I was just thinking for the past couple of days as to why there's this whole bickering between science and religion, and why religion and science cannot be seen as attempts at arriving at knowledge, and there being something more fundemental underlying them, if we can see through our thinking errors, like Collingwood wrote. Obviously, with both science and religion, we are talking about activities that a MIND engages in, so that should be seen as a foundation.

And I think that it is probably commitment to truth that is missing. [etc.]

Yes, certain things are missing, and there's too much of certain other things, namely self-importance (as described by Castaneda). People have so much invested in their views, beliefs, and in what they do, from money to pride, that defending those views becomes more important than the truth.

If you look at east Asia, this is much less pronounced there. They're more cooperative; the West is more competitive. There is no "war" between Buddhism and science. But in the West, materialism has destroyed higher goals, and its children like capitalism have brought competition to the point of destroying everything in one's path, from people to information to the environment. And notions in Christianity, Judaism, etc., that "we have the only truth and everyone else is wrong" certainly don't help. Everyone has the "truth" even though nobody spent 5 minutes thinking about it, and everyone has to show others how wrong they are. Truth doesn't matter. "My truth" does. Mainly the "my" part.
 
Back
Top Bottom