TPF : Science vs Religion Success

[Gnomon]

Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed


Maximum entropy (omega) is the terminus of all sequences. "Progress" is a parochial illusion like the apparent flatness of the Earth. — 180 Proof
The net entropy, you're right on the money, increases. Was there any order to begin with or was it always chaos and then more chaos? Gnomon. — Agent Smith

The topic of this thread seems to be based on a Category Error : assuming that materialistic Science and spiritualistic Religion are competing in the same game, on the same field. Even Aristotle, who was not known for promoting Religion, placed his scientific observations (Physics) into a different chapter from his philosophical commentary (Metaphysics). But conflation of categories is typical of 180's polarized polemics.

180 asserts his personal opinion (belief) on Progress (nada) as-if it was a statement of Fact. But that negative attitude toward history is just as much of an "illusion" (mental model) as the more positive assessments. Both Optimism & Pessimism are subjective judgments "of the heart" instead of value-neutral objective descriptions. Personally, I'm a Peptomist : the world in which I live has both good and bad effects on my evaluation of whether life is worth living.

Scientific Cosmology makes no good/evil evaluation of the beginning of the world. It merely notes that everything now existing was constructed & organized from a hypothetical dimensionless point-of-beginning (Singularity). But, Philosophical Ontology allows us to imagine what that POB was like, based on what we now know about the organization of the world. Plato & Aristotle proposed a scenario in which the infinite potential of Chaos was converted into the finite actuality of Cosmos. Do you have any better answer to the something-from-nothing conundrum?

The Illusion of Progress :
Progress is an illusion – a view of human life and history that answers to the needs of the heart, not reason. In his book The Future of an Illusion, published in 1927, Freud argued that religion is an illusion. Illusions need not be all false; they may contain grains of truth.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/illusion-future

What is progress in philosophy? :
Philosophical proponents of progress assert that the human condition has improved over the course of history and will continue to improve. Doctrines of progress first appeared in 18th-century Europe and epitomize the optimism of that time and place. Belief in progress flourished in the 19th century.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/

Pessimism :
(Philosophy) a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good. ___Oxford
Note -- 180's anti-religious belief in the dominance of destructive & disorganizing "Entropy" reveals a pessimistic assessment of the historical trend of the world. Yet it ignores the contribution of constructive Energy in the organization of the Cosmos. As for most religious faith, his personal belief is presented as-if it is absolute Truth. Do you believe that the world is "as bad as it could be"? Or do you agree with Shakespeare : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” The world is simply what it is, but your imaginary or illusory worldview may be seen through rose-colored or dark glasses.

[Gnomon]

interesting. I would say it's the other way around - materialistic religion (most instantiations of religion) and spiritualistic science (how science is generally understood) are in direct competition as explanations of life on earth, not to mention the compass by which we navigate values and meaning. The naturalistic fallacy isn't much of an impediment to most practical people, who look to science as an effective path to understand reality, while religion ( often a series of fallacies in search of purpose) diminishes in importance, except amongst the fanatics who view religion as a set of vulgar terrestrial commands. — Tom Storm

Ironically, The Hebrew religion was materialistic, morally pragmatic, and this-worldly (no afterlife), so their explanations for existence & evolution were mostly naturalistic, except for the creation of something from nothing. However, the Christian religion was spiritualized, not by Jesus (human messiah), but by Paul, who preached the divine Christ myth to the Gentiles. I suspect that most ancient religions were likewise materialistic, except for their invisible Nature gods, who performed the natural functions that we now assign to invisible Energy. But Christians look forward to salvation from the bonds of Materialism. Even mostly naturalistic Buddhism anticipates a sort of impersonal salvation in non-self Nirvana.

Again, ironically, Quantum Theory does sound a lot like "spiritualistic science", with angelic Virtual Particles existing in immaterial (mathematical) quantum fields of un-real Potential, until manifested to human observers. But I suspect that most modern scientists, including quantum theorists, would object to the idea that they are playing the same game as religion : to reveal the divine purpose of temporal existence in a material world. In Classical Science, meaningful Teleology, or Positive Progress, was a no-no. But some science-based theorists today look forward to a future species salvation in a Technological Singularity. That's not necessarily a Naturalistic Fallacy, but a Cultural Optimism envisioning collective purpose, to aim at the stars.

Quantum Spirituality :
Could the great challenges of the world, and our lives, be solved through the wisdom of the past merged with the best science of today?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Spiritua ... 9353479339

[Gnomon]

Jkes aside, I'd say there is order, but it's local and temporary; chaos, on the other hand, is both global and permanent and increasing, exponentially. Stars, our only hope, burn for billions of years, but they die eventually.
What chance does Enformy have against Entropy - it's a losin' battle and therein lies the rub, eh mi amigo? — Agent Smith

As far as I know, the special kind of order (Life & Mind) we humans experience on Earth is rare in the universe. But my personal concern is local, so I don't worry about the order, or lack thereof, in the un-inhabitable areas of the cosmos. Nevertheless, like the ancient Greeks and modern Einstein, I do marvel at the beautifully organized structure of the universe. Beautiful, compared to what? To mess, chaos, confusion, squalor, disorder, disarray, clutter, etc. To the effects of Entropy.

From a philosophical perspective though, my interest is universal & cosmic. And modern Cosmology has confirmed the intuition of the ancients, that the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy). For example, Evolution seems to function like a computer program, to begin with a loosely-defined goal and to seek-out intermediate solutions leading toward resolution of that cosmic equation : A + B + C . . . . = X.

Like Einstein, I'd like to break the code of that cosmic computer program. Unfortunately. lacking Albert's genius, all I can do is construct crude philosophical approximations of the enigmatic machine that is cranking-out bits of information (energy ; matter) from which to construct a complete cosmic "miracle".
Was Albert a pollyanna, looking only at the bright side of the world? Or a pragmatist, who understood that "all things are relative". Relativity is the reference frame (attitude ; perspective) through which you see one side or another of Reality. So, we only see the part of the universe that happens to be framed within our personal perspective. If you are looking for reasons to despair, aim your frame at Entropy. "Aye, there's the rub."


“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality."
― Albert Einstein

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of reference frames. A reference frame is simply "where a person (or other observer) happens to be standing".
https://science.howstuffworks.com/scien ... ivity5.htm

Teleology :
Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
2. Teilhard de Chardin postulated that God created the world to evolve toward perfection, eventually to become god-like. He called that end-state the Omega Point.
3. In Chris Langan's CTMU theory, the term "unbounded Telesis" refers to the infinite creative power of God for "planned progress".
4. <<By "spirit" Montesquieu meant "causes" from which one could derive "laws" that govern [physics & societies] . . . The necessary relations derived from the nature of things.>> Shermer, The Moral Arc
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

Teleonomy :
Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
   Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

[Gnomon]

I spent quite a few years in the company of theosophists, Buddhists, Gnostics, and assorted New Age devotees. What struck me was the complete lack of transformational power their beliefs had for them. They were as anxious, ambitious, jealous, substance dependent and vulgarly materialistic as any group of hedge fund managers. It's a rare person who can escape the need for metanarratives as a bulwark against fears of anonymity and meaninglessness. Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again. — Tom Storm

I am currently reading the 2012 book by historian James D. Tabor, Paul & Jesus : How the Apostle transformed Christianity. The author presents his interpretation of Christianity as the religion of Paul instead of Jesus. Many years ago, I came to the same conclusion. The inspiring story that Jesus preached was itself a metanarrative*1 of second temple Judaism, as interpreted by the apocalyptic monks we know as the Essenes. But Paul basically spiritualized their worldly anticipation of the Kingdom of God, by transferring it to a heavenly dominion, instead of a return to the golden age of Solomon's reign. For those living under the exploitative oppression of Rome, even a retro-action could be viewed as progressive*2.

Understandably, after the death of their Priest-King Messiah, Jesus' disciples were dispirited & despondent. So Paul saw a new direction for reviving those old this-worldly prophecies, in a way that would give them new hope. Unfortunately, those here & now disciples, expected Jesus to physically rise from the grave, to rule a restored Jerusalem, rid of Romans. But when the annointed king didn't come back to walk the Earth in physical form, Paul reinterpreted the prophecies to foretell that the Lord would instead sit on a heavenly throne in a spirit body to rule the whole world, both Jews & Gentiles. That is about as Meta (above & beyond) as it gets. His metanarrative*3 was intended to re-inspire the hopes & dreams of the Jews, and also to broaden its application to include the Gentiles.

The narratives of Science have also been transformed by new ways of looking at the world. Those "fact-based" meta-narratives are what we call Paradigms (generally accepted worldviews). For example, Gallileo changed our understanding of the stars, from circulating angels or gods to mere lumps of matter following paths prescribed by what later came to be known as abstract Gravity. From that first step, Classical Science began to take a modern materialistic form, in place of the ancient Greek interpretation of astrophysics, in which the agents of change (forces ; energy) were assumed to be intentional, but now viewed as accidental movements of mindless matter. More recently, Quantum Theory began to chip away the materialistic foundation of classical Science. So physicists are again in need of a new paradigm or metanarrative*4 to inspire hope for progress*5.

1. Metanarrative :
An overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.

*2. The brief rule of the 2nd century Maccabean kings after revolt against the Greek rulers, could have been interpreted as a "pay off" for their religious "science". Which probably gave the later revolutionaries hope that indomitably keeping the faith would again "pay off" against the Romans.

*3. What is the Biblical Metanarrative? :
The biblical metanarrative is the overall story-line ​by which we can understand the Bible as a whole.
https://www.postmodernpreaching.net/the ... ative.html

*4. Scientific Progress :
Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/

*5. Technological Progress :
The technological singularity—or simply the singularity—is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

IS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS REAL ?
quote-change-is-scientific-progress-is-ethical-change-is-indubitable-whereas-progress-is-a-bertrand-russell-56-0-056.jpg
https://mathscholar.org/2019/01/is-scie ... ress-real/

[Gnomon]

I’m not a theorist or system builder. You can find anything you want about the 'true' story of Islam or Christianity, etc, in a myriad of (often contradictory) books. These publishing phenomena are tendentious and mainly driven by commercial or ideological interests and for the most part don’t interest me. I have no need for the a god or messiah hypothesis however it is expressed. When it comes to the Jesus myth, it was clearly inflicted upon the world by the Roman Empire and enforced as an institutional truth by society for centuries. The specific details of the myth's development and its evolution don’t much matter. — Tom Storm

The book referenced is a history book, not a religious treatise. Do you feel that the details of history "don't much matter"? Maybe you missed the intended point of the post in the midst of indirect contextual commentary*1. What I was getting around to though, is a response to your implied parallel between religious & scientific belief in Progress*2. Since Science inspires hope for Physical progress in controlling Nature, it has something in common with religions that preach reasons for hoping that Ethical progress -- to control human nature -- will follow from socio-cultural change.

We evaluate scientific progress by the leverage it gives humanity over the impartial forces of Nature, turning them to our own advantage. But putting such power in the hands of ethically-challenged humans can easily turn pro-gress into re-gress. For example, the Manhattan Project scientists, who gave us the tools to exploit nuclear power, later began to regret their role in unleashing such fraught forces upon a world lacking the necessary moral code to control god-like power*3.

Since the Enlightenment era, progressive Science has been deemed to require an open-minded amoral (factual) stance ; leaving ethical considerations to feckless (non-progressive) philosophers. Yet Science gives us tools that, like a hammer, can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes. Although religions often control human behavior via top-down coercive methods, the philosophical underpinnings*4 of those religions are intended to give us tools for self-control. With that in mind, I was merely expanding on what you intuitively implied : that Science & Philosophy should work hand in hand to advance the interests of humanity in an otherwise indifferent world.


*1. Context that was meaningful to me -- due to my religious background -- if not to you.

*2. " Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again" ___Tom Storm

*3. Oppenheimer's Regret :
"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'"
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/anderson1/

*4. Including Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, New Age, etc . . .
https://www.josh.org/what-are-the-top-r ... losophies/

[Gnomon]

I thought I was clear - I am not much interested in people's pet theories about how this particular messiah myth was tweaked/distorted over time. — Tom Storm

I apologize for bothering you with my personal interest in the "details" of a myth that was the foundation of my worldview in my youth. Although I no longer believe the myth, I am not hostile to current believers, including my own family. Instead, I understand how compelling such a fundamental narrative can be to those faced with a puzzling and sometimes threatening world.

[Gnomon]

What draws people to religion? Is it just a verbal pledge of a safety net to catch a believer's fall? Religions tend to be factually barren and yet, people by the millions end up believing in one god or another and even diehard atheists sometimes admit to having doubts about their own beliefs or lack thereof. Scientists like Albert Einstein were deists; perhaps deism is nothing more than the dying embers of theism, the last gasp of breath one sucks in as one passes on. — Agent Smith

What "draws" people against religious philosophies, that have no power to enslave their holders in a particular authoritarian system? Since you have become the designated go-between for the ↪180 Proof
vs Gnomon controversy, I'll take this opportunity to respond to his latest polemical diatribe without actually engaging in dialog. You seem to think that the BothAnd philosophy requires such intercommunication, but I prefer not to get involved in political squabbles.

I do think Deism may be the skeletal remains of religious belief for some people. But, as a rational philosophical stance, it lacks the emotional vibe that "draws" people to religion. My position is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. But even that may be too close to religious belief for 180wooboo to abide. So, what "draws" people to Philosophy instead of religion? Certainly not the need for a "crutch" or "safety net". Perhaps instead, the "draw" is insatiable curiosity, as Einstein noted in his case.

In his counter-attack to my post above 180alcoholcontent, made a series of assertions -- not arguments -- supported by quotes from authoritative sources. My post observed that "the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy)". To that, he responded :

ENTROPY

"Contrary to the pseudo-"philosophical perspective" above: as the universe develops from minimum disorder to maximum[ disorder on a (non-constant) gradient, any 'order' is a temporary, dissipative phase-state of disorder. The asymmetric direction of cosmological development does not indicate a "purpose" any more than an avalanche down a mountainside indicates its "purpose". To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless". — Steven Weinberg

1. His reversed reference to "minimum disorder" at the Big Bang betrays his prejudice toward Entropy as the dominant dis-organizing principle of the universe. To the contrary, if the universe developed from a state of "minimum disorder" that means it was maximally organized. If so, the philosophical question, that Atheists avoid like the plague, is how did the initial Singularity get organized enough to create a world from scratch? As the link below says, we can distinguish between dissipative (entropy) "natural" and "cultural" (enformy) processes by noting the arrow of Entropy. Which points away from Order (max energy) toward Disorder (max Entropy). Likewise, we can discern Natural processes from Super-natural in the same manner. For example, how did the Singularity get organized into "minimum disorder / max order" prior to the BB? I don't know, but I can guess. 180 is entitled to a personal opinion that the world is a "hostile" place; but I respectfully disagree.
To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist :
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality". ___Einstein

Entropy: the disorder of the universe
On the other hand, entropy is also how humans distinguish between natural and man-made structures. If you saw a pile of logs neatly stacked up on the ground, you would probably think that a human—more specifically, a lumberjack—had done it. But why? Because nature tends to push things to become more disordered. A neat pile of logs is not disordered, but randomly strewn-out logs are. Our brains are able to make a distinction between what is and what isn’t natural based on how random it appears.
https://thestrand.ca/entropy-the-disord ... -universe/
(i.e. how Purposeful it appears)

A dissipative structure is a form of organization (order), which means that the entropy (disorder) of the system concerned is not maximum.
https://global4cast.org/2019/06/dissipa ... odynamics/

COMPREHENSIBILITY

2. Compare Weinberg's negative attitude to Einstein's more positive view. Which is more authoritative?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" ___Einstein

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. ___Einstein

TELEOLOGY

3. I had a brief dialog with Stenger many years ago, and he did indeed dismiss my musings about directionality of evolution. But then, he was a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist. So, the Darwinian Teleology was not apparent to him.

Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. Most traditional religions have always assumed a steady-state universe that either stays the same forever, or simply goes around in circles. But agnostic or godless scientists determined that the evidence from Biology, Geology, and Paleontology indicates that many small random changes add-up to progressive evolution toward increasing order and complexity -- at least in the corner of the cosmos we can study in detail.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

Why did evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane quip that "teleology is like a mistress to a biologist : he cannot live without her, but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."? Why is the notion of directional progression in evolution so repellant to mainstream scientists?
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

Even Darwin himself admitted, regarding “blind chance or necessity”, that “I am compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a theist”. Perhaps not a biblical Theist, but an enlightenment Deist. Even theistic botanist, Asa Grey, noted that, “Darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes”. And that is also the case for the Intelligent Evolution corollary to the thesis of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page14.html

Note : see my post above for application of the term "Teleonomy" (future + reason) in place of "Teleology" burdened by its historical connection to Theology.

FINE TUNING

180 quoted Stenger : "The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe." So, you can choose which theoretical physicist you find to be more authoritative.

4. In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” He made that assertion, despite knowing that “design” is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists. The authors mention several key assumptions, (see side-notes left), that also apply to the Enformationism thesis. Yet, Wheeler goes further out on a limb to contend that, “This amazing prediction looks like being some day testable and therefore would seem to count as ‘falsifiable’ in the sense of Karl Popper”. He may be best known for his provocative “It from Bit” hypothesis, that everything in the material world is created from the immaterial essence that we now know as “Information”. Which is the core concept of my own philosophical worldview.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

SUPERNATURAL ELEMENT

5. Although I didn't mention a supernatural God, he again quoted Stenger : "We have yet to encounter an observable astronomical phenomenon that requires a supernatural element to be added to a model in order to describe the event...Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God." Compare that Atheistic assertion to Einstein's Deistic attitude.

“We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations". ___Albert Einstein

"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." __Albert Einstein

END OF DUELING PHYSICISTS

[Gnomon]

This sounds a little passive aggressive - did you intend it this way? — Tom Storm

No. I typically apologize when my "exploring elaborate explanations " pushes someone's buttons, and they take offense. That's not "passive aggressive" but merely respectful politeness that is necessary to maintain calm rational dialog on a controversial forum.

What I do intend is to do what philosophers do : "inquiry into fundamental questions". Studying "settled" questions of science, may produce simple explanations, such as E=MC^2. But exploring unsettled, and unsettling, questions of philosophy, often requires "elaborate explanations". So, if you prefer simple or facile explanations, Classical Science can provide them : Isaac Newton -- His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. But many of the fundamental & existential questions of Classical Philosophy remain unsettled after 2500 years of exploration and elaboration.


What is the work of a philosopher? :
Philosophy encourages critical and systematic inquiry into fundamental questions of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, the meaning of life, and the nature of reality, knowledge and society.
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/where-can ... hy-take-me

Philosophical Questions :
Philosophy raises questions that address fundamental issues and beliefs and which require complex thinking rather than empirical research to answer. . . .
“Philosophy attempts to clarify and illuminate unsettled, controversial issues that are so generic that no scientific discipline is equipped to deal with them” (Lipman, 1988, p. 91).
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/ ... d-function

[Gnomon]

180 Proof, for my money, has one gripe against your theory viz. the fact that it seems impossible to retain design (Enformy, teleology, etc.) without a designer implicit. So thought you try valiantly to distance yourself from religion, it comes off as incoherent at best or deception at worst.

Another thing, please take this as constructive criticism, your theory relies on controversy (dueling physicists) rather than solid facts - its home is in the darkness of our ignorance rather than the light of our knowledge. Given your caliber, I'm expecting a first class response from you. — Agent Smith

I appreciate your "constructive criticism" by contrast with 180boo's dueling physicists. Although you have been influenced by the anti-design arguments, you remain open-minded to alternatives*1.

Yes, I have concluded that the apparent design*2 -- the "marvelous structure" (Einstein) -- of the universe logically implies a designer, planner, creator. That's why Einstein, and several of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory reached that same conclusion. So, since 180boo responds to my theories with dueling physicists, I'll be glad to let him argue with Einstein. What say you : does the "comprehensibility" of the universe imply a random accidental origin, or an intentional designer*3 of some kind? Even Atheists admit that the emergence of a self-organizing system of Causation (energy) & Regulation (laws) requires something more than shuffling cards for a long, long time.

I have indeed, distanced myself from all religions -- including the indoctrination of my childhood. And I have no inclination to worship the Enformer of my own thesis. It's just an idea. But it's an informed idea : a philosophical hypothesis, like Plato's Logos*4. Since there is no empirical proof for any of the postulated precedents of our universe, your guess is as valid as mine, but mine has a detailed thesis (philosophical argument) to support that logical conclusion.

Regarding "controversy" vs "solid facts", are you aware of any philosophical concept that is uncontroversial? It's the job of empirical science to provide "solid facts" to put an end to controversies, such as phlogiston. But, are you aware of any "solid facts" that terminate all Ontological questions? Are you afraid of controversial topics and the darkness of our Ignorance? If so, you should shy away from philosophical forums.


*1. I too, reject the magical implications of Intelligent Design proponents, but not necessarily the physical & philosophical evidence they present. As you well know, I don't depend on Biblical authority to support my ideas. Instead of the Instantaneous Design by Fiat of Genesis, I have adopted the Gradual Design by Evolution of Darwinian Teleology. I simply call it "Intelligent Evolution", guided by Laws, not by Chance.

*2. What is the basic definition of design? :
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

*3. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- I don't quote the Bible to support the Enformer hypothesis, but the opinions of professional scientists. So, the Enformer is not identical with any of the traditional creator gods, but merely a novel theoretical Principle derived from 21st century science. AFAIK, that hypothetical entity is worshiped by no religion, and has made no threats of eternal damnation. Hence, it's no more scary than the only viable alternative : an eternal regression of self-existent & self-organizing worlds (Multiverse).

*4. LOGOS :
With Plato the story gets a bit more complex, since he had a variety of ways he used this term. Maybe the most straightforward one would be the understanding of logos as opposed to mythos (μῦθος), where logos is perceived as the true, analytical account.
In Phaedo, Plato explained that the characteristic of the true knowledge is the ability to give account, logos, of what one knows. In Theatetus, Socrates described logos as the distinguishable characteristic of a thing.
With Aristotle, we approach the definition of logos that is close to Latin ratio, as well as the modern notion of logos. Aristotle understood logos as the reason and rationality, especially in the ethical sense.
He also used it in the meaning of a mathematical proportion, which we can see in the English word ratio, but this can probably be traced back to Pythagoras.
https://www.pbs.org/theogloss/logos-body.html

[Gnomon]

Stop the name calling. You are more than capable of criticism without insults. Or ignoring them. — fdrake

Don't worry. It's our little not-so-private running joke. This diabolical dialog has been going on for several years. 180 calls me by a slew of sarcastic names, and I indirectly return the favor with tongue-in-cheek, except that I'm not nearly as creative or prolific in my labels.

I tried to ignore 180's insults long ago, but he just can't let it go. So, now I don't respond directly, and address my answers to Agent Smith -- who is in on the joke -- because he serves as a middle man between two posters who have stopped talking (civilly) to each other. FWIW, 180 seems to be serious about his anti-metaphysical mission, but I'm just kidding. And, mommy, he hit me first!!!

Philosopher-on-Philosopher Insults :
But for truly epic bitchiness and egotism, you need look no further than that most storied and venerable of academic disciplines: philosophy! The history of Western thought is peppered with thinkers taking aim at their peers — sometimes in a genteelly intellectual manner, and sometimes… um, less so (yes, Friedrich Nietzsche, this means you)
https://www.flavorwire.com/469065/the-3 ... in-history