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

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

@luc
The people in my group 2 were meant to be people who actually (happen to) get it right, not people who think they got it right or people who think they're smart. So the "enlightened" you mention are not at all the people I was talking about.

The usefulness of the distinction is mostly just the philosophical point that in an absolute sense, it's not always necessary to be spiritual to get morality right. I suppose the only practical concern is that if you generalise, you may get disagreement from some of the people who happen to belong in the small group 2 and actually have managed to figure out what's moral without any sort of religion.

In general and broadly speaking, though, I think you're right. And I think this is sort of the difference between Peterson and Harris. Peterson talks more about the general and practical sense, applying it to humanity as a whole, and Harris more about the absolute sense, taking a more abstract view on whether morality without god is possible.

(Note: Didn't see Laura's comment when posting, but yeah, making the same point there.)

 

[Joe]

In other words, it's possible to be a moral atheist, but there has to be a certain level of intellect and a certain amount of contemplation to compensate for the lack of spiritual beliefs

I think some kind of spiritual belief is necessary for that kind of person, but maybe that's what you mean by "intellect and a certain amount of contemplation".

 

[Joe]

I think there's a kind of target audience of people who could get it if it's explained to them the right way, maybe in the right order, and so on, even if they don't posses a particularly strong drive for knowledge. On one hand, the facts are fairly clear, but on the other, the programming is deep, so I feel like the approach might matter quite a bit.

Just wanted to touch on this question again that you brought up a while back MI. After writing your article, I wonder if your view of the best way to inform people about these kinds of topics has changed?

 

[genero81]

Two forms of unrecognized elements of consciousness.

First the average decent person who doesn't go too deep in their thinking but implicitly recognizes the legitimacy of moral code through religious teachings.

Second, the 'intellectual' atheist ( for arguments sake, although I'm really fairly unimpressed) who has really thought rather keenly about how a non-believer can still be moral without recognizing that that moral structure doesn't just spring out of thin air. It's inherent in the structure of the ordering principle within consciousness; man, nature, cosmos. Although probably it's unconsciously borrowed from their judeo christian upbringing. OSIT

 

[luc]

The usefulness of the distinction is mostly just the philosophical point that in an absolute sense, it's not always necessary to be spiritual to get morality right. I suppose the only practical concern is that if you generalise, you may get disagreement from some of the people who happen to belong in the small group 2 and actually have managed to figure out what's moral without any sort of religion.

Thanks for clarifying. The devil is in the details I guess, and how we define words like religious, enlightened etc. Philosophically speaking, and without resorting to religion-bashing à la Sam Harris, I think Collingwood was making a similar point in "Speculum Mentis" as you, and if I understood correctly, Laura is thinking in a similar direction: Religious types can get things right implicitly, but people who engage in deep contemplation/critical thinking can make these things explicit, and transcend religious feelings in a sense. It's a new stage in development necessary for a deeper and more refined understanding of morality. Perhaps the difference between the "intellectually arrogant playing God" and the one who "transcends religion" is that the latter integrates religious thought/feeling to get to a more explicit and refined understanding - he can throw away the "crutch" so to speak. The former, on the other hand, rebels against the cosmos and instead of making explicit the "natural law", seeks to replace it with his own, hyper-rational whims, which leads to a pathological, one-sided view of the world. Don't know if that makes sense.

 

[Laura]

Thanks for clarifying. The devil is in the details I guess, and how we define words like religious, enlightened etc. Philosophically speaking, and without resorting to religion-bashing à la Sam Harris, I think Collingwood was making a similar point in "Speculum Mentis" as you, and if I understood correctly, Laura is thinking in a similar direction: Religious types can get things right implicitly, but people who engage in deep contemplation/critical thinking can make these things explicit, and transcend religious feelings in a sense. It's a new stage in development necessary for a deeper and more refined understanding of morality. Perhaps the difference between the "intellectually arrogant playing God" and the one who "transcends religion" is that the latter integrates religious thought/feeling to get to a more explicit and refined understanding - he can throw away the "crutch" so to speak. The former, on the other hand, rebels against the cosmos and instead of making explicit the "natural law", seeks to replace it with his own, hyper-rational whims, which leads to a pathological, one-sided view of the world. Don't know if that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, and yes, Collingwood's writings help to clarify it.

Above, genero wrote: "Second, the 'intellectual' atheist ( for arguments sake, although I'm really fairly unimpressed) who has really thought rather keenly about how a non-believer can still be moral without recognizing that that moral structure doesn't just spring out of thin air. It's inherent in the structure of the ordering principle within consciousness; man, nature, cosmos. Although probably it's unconsciously borrowed from their judeo christian upbringing. OSIT"

I think this is probably a big part of the answer. People just don't realize how strongly shaped by their environment they are. It's something we always have to factor in to any understanding. And that is more or less what Joe said:

"I think some kind of spiritual belief is necessary for that kind of person, but maybe that's what you mean by "intellect and a certain amount of contemplation"."

In their contemplation with their intellect, they can't help but be influenced by values that are "in the environment" in which they grew up.

On these points, it is useful to read Altemeyer's book "Amazing Conversions".

And another thing: There are a lot of people being raised as atheists nowadays who are NOT exposed to the Christian values ethic in their environment and I think we are seeing the consequences of that in our world.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thanks for clarifying. The devil is in the details I guess, and how we define words like religious, enlightened etc. Philosophically speaking, and without resorting to religion-bashing à la Sam Harris, I think Collingwood was making a similar point in "Speculum Mentis" as you, and if I understood correctly, Laura is thinking in a similar direction: Religious types can get things right implicitly, but people who engage in deep contemplation/critical thinking can make these things explicit, and transcend religious feelings in a sense. It's a new stage in development necessary for a deeper and more refined understanding of morality. Perhaps the difference between the "intellectually arrogant playing God" and the one who "transcends religion" is that the latter integrates religious thought/feeling to get to a more explicit and refined understanding - he can throw away the "crutch" so to speak. The former, on the other hand, rebels against the cosmos and instead of making explicit the "natural law", seeks to replace it with his own, hyper-rational whims, which leads to a pathological, one-sided view of the world. Don't know if that makes sense.

I immediately thought of Collingwood too. Ignoring art and history for the moment, you can look at it in terms of religion, science, and philosophy. There will always be a lot of people who will never progress past the stage of religion. And even within a congregation you will see different levels of understanding. I remember something Jonathan Pageau said in one of his YouTube videos. He was talking about symbolic religious meanings and going to church, and he pointed out that there will always be the old grannies (among others) for whom God will always be an old bearded man in the sky. There's nothing you can do to change that. You might have a more advanced view of God, but for granny, that's as far as she can go. And it's no use berating her or trying to change her mind. In fact, you should learn to live with it and speak to her on her own level.

And that reminded me of the section in Speculum Mentis where Collingwood describes how children learn of God using that very image: the old bearded man or cosmic father figure. Because as children, that's what works. They can't possibly understand the more refined, 'adult' realities or philosophical/theological abstractions. They need a symbol, and they need to perceive that symbol as real. Some will grow out of that stage - they may even smash the limits of religion, like St. Paul did. And some won't, like 'granny'. Those are the people who probably need the religious dogma as a guide for their life. They don't have the intellect or the moral endoskeleton to sustain a moral structure without the dogma.

I'd put Sam Harris in the "scientist" stage. He doesn't need religion, but he still makes thinking errors. He's no philosopher, in the Collingwood sense of the term. I'd put him in the "intellectually arrogant playing God" category. I think Peterson is more in the philosopher camp. Peterson is interested in understanding the the 'hows' and 'whys' as precisely as he possibly can. He's not content just being moral, but also with understanding what it means to be moral, and what kind of place the universe must be at its most basic level in order for such a thing to be possible. A philosopher is concerned both with the concrete events that make up life (e.g., the personal suffering that nurtures conscience), and the wider conceptual description of reality in order to make those concrete experiences intelligible (e.g., the ontology and epistemology that make sense of experience). And just as some will never get past the religious stage, some will never get past the science stage. They don't see the value in asking those precise hows and whys. They may be able to think, but they can't think about their thinking.

It's also interesting to me that the philosophy section of Collingwood's book struck me as the most 'religious' in terms of language. Like Luc said above: "the one who "transcends religion" ... integrates religious thought/feeling to get to a more explicit and refined understanding."

Laura referenced Altemeyer. I'll always remember the point he made about how the religious value for truth is what leads a lot of people away from religion. I think people like Peterson and Collingwood are examples of those who have benefitted greatly from the 'religious dogmas' of their youth. Peterson rejected organized Christianity early in life, but even today he tries to acknowledge how much his thinking and behavior are influenced by 'Christian values'. And you can see the same thing in Collingwood.

So, I don't know for sure, but I think that perhaps it is important for all children to be instilled with some religion. It nurtures something inside them that will wither without it. Those who can grow out of it will, given favorable conditions. But for those who don't, at least they'll have a foundation that would be otherwise lacking. Like L just wrote: "There are a lot of people being raised as athiests nowadays who are NOT exposed to the Christian values ethic in their environment and I think we are seeing the consequences of that in our world."

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

I think some kind of spiritual belief is necessary for that kind of person, but maybe that's what you mean by "intellect and a certain amount of contemplation".

Yeah, I think as we're homing in on the crux of the matter, we're predictably finding that words aren't precise enough to describe all ideas accurately. Using words like religion and spirituality brings up different meanings in different people. So maybe we just need to put the specific words aside and describe things in a way that most people can understand the same way, if that's possible. Maybe by giving specific examples and so on. So instead of saying 'people need religion', we should think about what we mean exactly by 'religion', explain that, and say that that's what people need. Something along those lines.

Just wanted to touch on this question again that you brought up a while back MI. After writing your article, I wonder if your view of the best way to inform people about these kinds of topics has changed?

I'm not sure what specifically you're asking about, but I think not much has changed in general. Luc's article mainly upset people with the push towards ID. I tried not to push anyone anywhere in particular and be open about the conclusions people can make, and I think this has paid off. I haven't seen any strong opposition (not counting Brakar's incoherent rambling). I shared the article with a friend who didn't have a particularly strong feeling either way, which would fit the 'target audience' you quoted me saying. She said she found several ideas really convincing, things she hadn't thought about before, so that was some feedback indicating things worked out well.
I definitely went overboard with the length (as I underestimated how wide the problems of Darwinism are), but I think I otherwise managed to do things as intended, and I'm pretty happy with the result.
But I feel like maybe I'm missing what exactly you're getting at, so I'm not sure if I answered your question.

So, I don't know for sure, but I think that perhaps it is important for all children to be instilled with some religion. It nurtures something inside them that will wither without it.

I don't think so. I grew up believing there was no god and that religion was nonsense. Only when I started reading and educating myself in my teens did this change, though I was never 'religious' and never subscribed to anything in particular.

Also I live in a country that's prevalently atheist, so I think most children here grow up without being 'instilled with some religion', and I don't think they end up being any worse than people elsewhere. In fact, what I'm seeing is that they get less upset by all kinds of things that religious people get upset by. Things seem 'calmer' than in strongly religious populations. In terms of morality, I don't think there's much difference, if any, between here and other countries, especially in the age of the Internet when everything is so connected that moral standards are kind of global.

The way things are here, if I say "the Christian lady" at work, everyone knows who I'm talking about because there's only one. Religious people are the odd ones out. But what exists here is not so much atheism the way you're probably used to seeing it, but rather a lack of religious indoctrination. So people are not atheist in the sense that they would argue for it. They just kind of don't really care. (Almost) Nobody argues about religion here. The non-believers let the Christians have their beliefs, and the Christians don't try to convert anyone (though Jehovah's Witnesses do that and most people just laugh at them), and there's no visible tension in this regard.

I think the people who grow up here without any religious beliefs just acquire whatever views they're suited for later. If the person has it in them, they'll lean towards certain beliefs later when they read about things. So it's not like no belief in childhood sets the stage for a lifetime of atheism or emptiness or whatever. In fact, I would say that these people have a better chance to choose something reasonable on their own later in life than the people who are brought up religious and thus to a large extent brainwashed. For these, choosing something else is difficult because it was beaten into them that they must believe in Jesus or whatever. Most people here didn't have any beliefs beaten into them, so they're free to choose whatever they want when they grow up. I was never under any pressure to believe anything specific, so I was able to make my own choices. And even though I'm not an atheist, I'm actually glad to be surrounded by these people rather than by the religious bunch. To an extent, my feeling is that what you get from the religious bunch compared to the non-religious is more moralising than actual morals.

I guess this is why I have a different view than you or luc. I've actually lived among non-religious people all my life and haven't seen any moral problems that don't also exist in religious populations.

 

[Konstantin]

And one friend sent me this video about the intelegent design

I haven't watched the entire video but as I looked through the material I noticed that at some places he goes toward creationism
It is on Serbian Language so this will come pretty good for people from Balkan peninsula that don't understand English very well.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

So people are not atheist in the sense that they would argue for it. They just kind of don't really care. (Almost) Nobody argues about religion here.

You could be right. I don't know. But I can't help but wonder: maybe they should care? One way or the other.

For these, choosing something else is difficult because it was beaten into them that they must believe in Jesus or whatever. Most people here didn't have any beliefs beaten into them, so they're free to choose whatever they want when they grow up.

You brought up yourself as an example. But you may be exceptional - one of the few we were referring to who don't 'need' religion in the ways others seem to, and who have the inner stuff to create something for themselves at the right age. So my question is: what if many people don't have it within them to "choose when they grow up"? What if instead there is some sort of 'imprinting window', without which you are left just 'not caring' for the rest of your life? There may be certain advantages to that, as you pointed out. But what are the hidden costs, if any?

 

[Joe]

I'm not sure what specifically you're asking about, but I think not much has changed in general. Luc's article mainly upset people with the push towards ID. I tried not to push anyone anywhere in particular and be open about the conclusions people can make, and I think this has paid off. I haven't seen any strong opposition (not counting Brakar's incoherent rambling). I shared the article with a friend who didn't have a particularly strong feeling either way, which would fit the 'target audience' you quoted me saying. She said she found several ideas really convincing, things she hadn't thought about before, so that was some feedback indicating things worked out well.
I definitely went overboard with the length (as I underestimated how wide the problems of Darwinism are), but I think I otherwise managed to do things as intended, and I'm pretty happy with the result.
But I feel like maybe I'm missing what exactly you're getting at, so I'm not sure if I answered your question.

I was thinking mainly about your previous comments about the length of a text and in general about how to at least reach (if not convince) a lot of people. I think the length in this case (and most cases really) is an impediment to many people actually reading it all. People have short attention spans and not a lot of time. On the other side, a shorter article doesn't allow for the an in-depth presentation of the argument, which then allows people to misunderstand and nitpick.

I suppose I was wondering if you had acquired a more nuanced understanding of just how problematic it is to 'reach' anyone let alone convince them, and whether or not we can do that depends a LOT on the nature of individual reader. It's the idea that we have more or less settled on a long time ago, that we put the information out there to the best of our ability in whatever format we think necessary, and then leave it up to the individual to decide. Free will and all that. Basically, I don't think there is a 'perfect' or even ideal way to structure information for public consumption that would theoretically maximize the reach and uptake, apart from due diligence in presenting an as accurate and articulate as possible piece of text.

 

[Keit]

I don't think so. I grew up believing there was no god and that religion was nonsense. Only when I started reading and educating myself in my teens did this change, though I was never 'religious' and never subscribed to anything in particular.

What about other beliefs? Like, did you believe in Santa? Or maybe others did around you? Maybe a tooth fairy? Some other mythical creature? I think the point for children is not so much religious (i.e. christian/jewish/muslim) beliefs, as beliefs that utilize imagination and hint that there is a reality beyond the physical one.

For example, ages of Communist atheist thinking weren't able to uproot (and they weren't really trying) people's belief in Soviet Union in all kind of clearly pagan or religious figures. Children grue up on fairy tales and myths that taught them moral and other principles.

 

[goyacobol]

I don't want to butt in or be irrelevant. Just think about this if you think it may apply. It is a question about the soul which is not quite an easy thing to define. I think many sides of how different people come to find their life values have already been mentioned and maybe it is not that any one life experience applies to all.

Session 4 April 2015:

Q: (L) Okay. Well, that's enough of that. I have another question here. The other question that people were a little curious about on the forum that I noticed was: they wanted to know at what age or stage of development does the soul of an individual enter into the body of a baby that's about to be born?

A: It cannot be set in stone; remember that about half of all babies never house individualized souls. In some cases it can be very early, and others, as late as early adulthood.

Q: (Pierre) Wow.

(Galatea) So I guess they're waiting around the body's frequency to change.

(L) So, is that true? A soul can be hanging around, and there's, say for example, a body that's close to the frequency they need, but not quite, and they have to wait until something happens or changes?

A: Yes

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

So my question is: what if many people don't have it within them to "choose when they grow up"? What if instead there is some sort of 'imprinting window', without which you are left just 'not caring' for the rest of your life? There may be certain advantages to that, as you pointed out. But what are the hidden costs, if any?

Yeah, I think that's a valid point too. Basically, as usual, we arrive at a sort of double-edged sword and the notion that everyone's different. Some people may need a religious imprint, as you suggest; for others it may be a hindrance in finding something 'better' later. Some people growing up 'godless' may find what they need later, and others may not and suffer for it. But that just reinforces my notion that there's no set rule valid for everyone. Things are always more complicated in real life, so you just have to take measures according to the individual situation. It's hard to say whether bringing children up with a religious belief is on average better or worse in general. Sometimes it will work out, other times it won't. I clearly have a different default inclination than you, but ultimately neither one is strictly 'correct', imo. In the end, all there is is lessons.

I think the length in this case (and most cases really) is an impediment to many people actually reading it all. People have short attention spans and not a lot of time. On the other side, a shorter article doesn't allow for the an in-depth presentation of the argument, which then allows people to misunderstand and nitpick.

Yeah, I argued against too much length because many people would just go 'TL;DR', which I totally failed to follow with the article because things just kept piling up. But I ended up with a decent 'in-depth presentation', I think, so at least it worked well for some audiences and didn't bring much controversy. (Actually, based on the comments, I'm kind of surprised how many people did read it.) But this now gives me the opportunity to write shorter articles and point to this one for a more detailed explanation for those who might be interested, so that's kind of a bonus.

I suppose I was wondering if you had acquired a more nuanced understanding of just how problematic it is to 'reach' anyone let alone convince them, and whether or not we can do that depends a LOT on the nature of individual reader.

Yeah, I totally get that, and I think I understood it in the first place. I think I was just putting more emphasis on the side that I felt was under-represented at the time, but I was aware of the merits of the opposite approach and understood luc's points. The thing that kinda set me off was the negative reactions to his article from some people, which I didn't expect. I felt like they missed the point and was thinking about how to do it so that they wouldn't. Obviously that's not easy, and there always has to be some kind of compromise. So yeah, I get what you mean now, and I see it in more detail and more clearly.

What about other beliefs? Like, did you believe in Santa? Or maybe others did around you? Maybe a tooth fairy? Some other mythical creature? I think the point for children is not so much religious (i.e. christian/jewish/muslim) beliefs, as beliefs that utilize imagination and hint that there is a reality beyond the physical one.

Sure, but I think that's a separate issue. We were talking about beliefs in relation to morality specifically. I don't think the tooth fairy has much to do with that. In the sense you explain it, I'm sure there's merit in that, though on the other hand, I'm not much of a fan of 'lying' to children, so I would focus more on waiting till they grow up a bit and explain the metaphysical stuff on a more adult level and let them do with it what they see fit.

Children grue up on fairy tales and myths that taught them moral and other principles.

To be honest, I can't say that I feel like I've learned any morals from fairy tales, though it may be difficult to judge in retrospect. And again, while I may agree that fairy tales may teach children some morals, I could also say that it's perfectly possible to teach them morals in other ways. All you really need is to explain properly real life situations that happen to you and the children. Teach them to see things from other people's perspective, and so on. But at the very least, I think fairy tales presented as fairy tales are less of a problem than fairy tales presented as fact, i.e. religions.

 

[fabric]

I think the point for children is not so much religious (i.e. christian/jewish/muslim) beliefs, as beliefs that utilize imagination and hint that there is a reality beyond the physical one.

Interesting that you say that. I think that is what may be more the case – it’s not the religion per se, but the stories that they encapsulate. Within those stories are the ‘moral codes’ for correct living. Good stories stimulate the mind and the realities unseen. Realities that are yet to happen but can guess out the outcome (good or bad) should certain things be done or not done.

This reminded me of one part of Peterson and Harris’ 2nd talk in Vancouver. In this segment they were discussing the utility of religious thinking and Harris gives an example of how any figure can be used to drive in religious attachment into children, in his example, Batgirl.

Peterson says that a bad tool is better than no tool at all, and that if batgirl is the closest thing that represents the divine, the sacred, it is better than not having anything at all. But then he says something that I thought was at the core of all this – if Batgirl didn’t take part in certain archetypical structures, no one would give a damn about her.

So perhaps we can say the same thing about Jesus, or Caesar or whoever. If we go back to a time before these religions then what was taking its place? There was something guiding moral beliefs and a correct way of living. This was passed on in the form of story first – religion second; but the beliefs that were born from those stories allowed us to operate in a manner that was conducive to some sort of progression. At least to a point and then everything seems to get reset again.

Although I don't think it absolutely necessary to have it encapsulated in religious form to work, it still seems like the best way to communicate those ideals due to its reach. Sure, myths and fairy tales can work but probably not as effectively. But in essence it is the archetypical story where real meaning lies, and religion is a nice package for it although not immune to corruption.

However, there is one aspect to religion though that adds another dimension which can’t be found in other stories. And that is the idea of the afterlife. This concept isn’t readily accepted by hardcore atheists yet many who were and have had a near death experience completely change their view and seemingly turn towards some kind of belief in something higher, or perhaps transcendental. This can take a religious tone but not necessarily always. Then there’s also degrees of ‘religiousity’ , spirituality an everything in between.

One thing throughout that talk that was also a good question was Peterson asking how Harris distinguishes a religious system from an a priori perceptual structure. He wanted to know what this ‘transcendental rational structure’ that Harris (he refers to that as the means which we can live morally / learn morality without using religion, I think) keeps talking about.

Harris doesn’t really have an answer to that question but I think that there does exist a transcendental rational structure. My guess is that it is what we come to understand it when we go to 5d, and each time around we bring some of that understanding back with us. As AI proposed, it is embedded in the structure of the universe, at higher levels, and manifested in various forms back in 3d.

(Starting at around 1:18:30)