| | [W]hat a surprise when biology – especially given the findings of biochemistry and molecular biology – began to be explainable only by reference to ideas in computer science and engineering: the cell is a fantastically complex, organized, factory-like structure, that runs according to a program exactly like a computer program; i.e., information – not chemical X or Y – is the “secret ingredient” that makes cells function. And what do we know about computer programs? They are designed structures by an intelligence with goals and purposes. First of all, a "designed structure" makes sense only in contrast to a naturally occurring one from which it is intended to be distinguished. We know that some things like machines and computers are intelligently designed only because they differ in certain key respects from things in nature, like fauna and flora. It is therefore a non-sequitur to infer that things in nature that resemble designed objects are themselves a product of design. We do not, for example, infer that since airplanes, which have wings and fly, were designed by human engineers, birds, which have wings and fly, must also have been designed by human engineers. We recognize that birds are a product of nature in contrast to airplanes, which are a product of human design. Why then should we assume that because cellular structures exhibit a certain similarity to designed structures, they must therefore have been designed -- and by an incorporeal, supernatural being, of all things?!
Secondly, the only evidence we have for creative intelligence in the universe are human beings (i.e., rational organisms) who depend for their existence on pre-existing cellular structures. Since it makes no sense to infer that such intelligence created itself, it makes no sense to infer that these cellular structures are a product of intelligent design. Thus, it’s actually more in accord with the facts of reality to assert something like “Krishna created mankind . . .” Based on what? The idea that a pure, disembodied intelligence created cellular life makes even less sense than the idea that it was created by a biological intelligence. You refer to an intelligence with goals and purposes. But a disembodied intelligence could have no goals or purposes, because it would have nothing to gain or lose by its actions; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals, because there would be no biological basis for them. It could not experience pleasure or pain, joy or suffering, happiness or sadness, which are emotions that exist only because they have a survival function -- the preservation of the organism's life. Only a living entity can have goals or originate them. A disembodied mind -- if such were possible -- could not.
Furthermore, such a disembodied mind would be entirely passive; it would have no power to originate anything, let alone create an entire universe out of nothing. The whole idea is so preposterous, it is hard to believe that anyone -- especially someone as scholarly and intelligent as Claude Shannon -- could take it seriously. Thus, it’s actually more in accord with the facts of reality to assert something like “Krishna created mankind” than to assert than to assert “lighting struck some clay, which formed a matrix, which forced some organic gunk to take a certain shape, then it somehow became self-replicating, then somehow DNA was formed, then somehow the DNA and the proto-cell met and the proto-cell invited the DNA to come inside and instruct it what to do, and somehow all the left-hand molecules decided they wanted nothing more to do with the cell (only the right-handed ones wanted the job), but the left-handed molecules still wanted everything to do with the nucleotides in DNA, for they surely are lefty – it’s just everything else in the cell that’s righty." You are using purposive language to describe processes that are non-purposive in nature. Proto-cells don't "invite" the DNA to come inside or "instruct" it what to do. The terms "invite" and "instruct" are terms that refer to human intelligence and purpose. You are anthropomorphizing these processes. You seem to believe that in order for any natural event to occur, it has to reflect a purpose. But purposes pertain only to the higher organisms; they don't exist at the level you're describing. The reason the latter is not very scientific when it comes to biology is that the essence of living things is information, and not one material god listed above can generate information; nothing random can generate information, and nothing determined can generate information. Again, "information" is a term that pertains to intelligence. To use it in reference to non-intelligent processes is to employ it metaphorically. You can certainly use it in that sense if you want to, but you can't then switch from the metaphorical meaning to the strict meaning and argue that nothing random or determined can generation "information." You are trading on the fallacy of equivocation. Also, nothing in nature is random, if by "random" you mean acausal. Everything acts according to its nature, and cannot act otherwise. In that respect, there are no "random" events in the universe. Therefore, scenarios like the above are simply the materialist’s creation myth, no different in structure from the believer’s assertion that it all sprang from the creative mind of Lord Krishna. The main difference is that at least the essence of life – information – can be explained when traced back to an intelligent agent. Again, you are equivocating on the meaning of "information." The agent of creation need not be a deity, by the way. One of your atheist heroes, Richard Dawkins, conceded that human life could have been designed by space aliens. He denies, however, that those aliens could have been created by a deity. They, in turn, were either created by other space aliens, or they evolved along Darwinian lines. Interesting that Dawkins is quite willing to accept “Intelligent Design” as long as it is rooted in materialism. He's willing to accept intelligent design as long as the intelligence is rooted in biology, which is the only context in which it is known to exist. It makes at least some sense to think that human life might have been created by another form of biological intelligence; it makes no sense to think that it might have been created by an intelligence with no physical form whatsoever -- with no body, brain or sense organs. As for the uninformed statement about “faith-based belief,” the middle ages – the Age of Belief – were a high point for reason and logic, more so than the Renaissance, that so-called “Rebirth of Reason.” As stated earlier, the Renaissance was no such thing. The middle ages were a period of fervent systemization; typical products of the time being the cathedral, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, and the Divine Comedy of Dante. We have to distinguish between Augustine, who more accurately represented the unreason of the Middle Ages, and Aquinas, who introduced Aristotle into medieval culture and a return to reason, which Augustine had rejected. In this respect, Aquinas was the death-knell of the Middle-Ages and the bridge to the Renaissance, which featured a revival of classical learning and of rationality in art through the works of such masters as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. The idea that believers are, en masse, unhappier than non-believers (especially Objectivists, who are always on the couch of Edith Packer or Allan Blumenthal, and are all recovering from their third divorce) is also a myth. I wouldn't say that believers (as a group) are unhappier than atheists (as a group). In fact, as the study you cited suggests, they may be happier. One of the reasons that believers may be happier is that they have a definite code of values to guide them -- a definite philosophy of life. Not all atheists do. Atheism is simply a belief that God does not exist. It is not, by itself, a positive guide to life. The kind of religious belief can also make a difference. Believers who uphold the sack-cloth-and-ashes view of religion are not likely to be happier.
The fact that Objectivists may seek psychotherapy more often than non-Objectivists does not necessarily mean that they are less happy; they may simply be more attentive to their psychological needs, and in benefiting from the psychotherapy, lead better, more fulfilling lives. Nor does the fact that people have been divorced more than once mean that, on balance, they are less happy than someone who hasn't been divorced. A couple who stays together only because their religion forbids them to divorce is not necessarily happier than if they had separated and found a more compatible. partner.For more proof, look at the horrible personal lives of leading Objectivists: Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor; Nathanial Branden, Barbara Branden, Patrecia Branden, and Devers Branden; Leonard Peikoff and wives 1, 2, and 3). Ayn Rand had a horrible personal life? On what basis do you make that assessment? Yes, there was a point in her life when she was betrayed by Nathaniel Branden and suffered accordingly, but that is not something she had any control over. Moreover, nobody here is defending Branden's dishonesty. Rand's personal disappointment with him was not the result of her philosophy. Also, I think it is highly presumptuous of you to claim that all of the people you cited had "horrible personal lives." How do you know that? Were you involved with them personally?
Finally, do you think that the attitude you've exhibited on this list along with your inflammatory posts make you a good ambassador for the values of religion? Your sole purpose here seems to be to vent your rage on Objectivists and Objectivism. How happy a person are you?
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/10, 7:59am)
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/10, 8:08am)
|
|
