ZenFred

MigL, Sorry for the delayed response. You make a very good point about who designed the designer. An anthromorphic diety would require human like experiences to at lease some degree in order to be human like. Something closer to the Greek pantheon of gods that were born, experienced time linearly, and were finite in understanding and moral character. Otherwise, a "God" that is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, ect would be nothing like us at all. We being made in his image would be taken only in the vauguest of senses not in everyday similarity. So the western view of a God designing the universe as a clockmaker or an artist might falls apart. It is also not supported by present reality. I don't think this means there is no transcendent reality, but traditional views are poor descriptions.

Gee, That is a good story/example with the con artist. The human mind has an amazing ability of self deception. I would disagree that religion and science are separate spheres of study and that science taken broadly isn't concerned with emotion or ethics. Religion is interested in or at least shouldbe in how the universe works. Richard Dawkins makes this point, it's not orginal. Religion and science are seeking answers to the same questions. In zen thought this is even more so. There isn't a direction between truth of "mundane" reality that can be observed in a lab and Truth with a capitol "T". Truth is truth. So what is this truth? Emptiness.

Thanks, I suppose all of this helps. The idea that my body and evolutionary history as a whole and the biological world are just vechiles for who we truly are as humans is so ingrained in culture. That the world is designed so we can be who we are. But I think that perhaps there is no driver in the driver seat and what we think is our choices and individuality is the product of our biological programming. At very least our thoughts and feelings do not arise out of thin air and we are deeply conditioned and predisposed. Wolfhnd, You cannot disprove faith based arguments I agree. I am just pondering what seems the most plausible given the available, directly experienced evidence.

Phi, Hmmm... Emergent properties does make more than sense than things at first glance. Imagining the vast scale of billions of years and immense number of particles (6.02 x 10^23 per mole immense) is impossible and it does make it possible and in a way inevitable that patterns and interdependencies would arise. The buddhist teaching of dependent origination makes a lot of sense in this context. And thank you, I don't mean what the creationist do by the term intelligent design. Yet, the term "God" is very loaded as well.

I am hoping for some help thinking through the arguments for and against intelligent design. In my own thinking on the topic I'm stuck not being able to see how either premise could be true. This is where I'm stuck. Take the example of the water cycle. If there is no designer then how could this system necessary for life (along with 100s of equally interdependent systems) arise independently? Especially inorganic systems which can not use natural selection. On the other hand if there is intelligent design using the same example, why is that the same system needed for life so often goes amiss with tragic consequences with draughts and floods? A compassionate designer would certainty fix it. If not floods than at least childhood cancer wouldn't exist. Thoughts? -Fred

Hope you all can help me properly understand natural selection. I suspect it is frequently used out of context. It is the method by which the organisms that are most likely to survive and reproduce pass on their traits while those with traits less likely to reproduce are, over time, not passed on. Right? So evolutionary psychology, sociology, ect all say that the desire to successfully pass on genetic traits is the driving force behind behavior. But is this a function of natural selection? That desiring or behavior conducive to passing on genetic offspring is itself formed by natural selection? Because if you don't care about reproducing as your main goal you won't be as successful at it? Thanks, Fred