'Death Anxiety' Prompts People to Believe in Intelligent Design

[Sherry]

I think you are scared shitless of having faith in anyone or anything....it makes me wonder if you've experienced some sort of trauma and your mind copes by demanding "proof" of every little thing, and are incapable of enjoying the wonders of life's mysteries. It's an obsessive and sad way to exist.

What makes you think people without delusional occult beliefs have no faith?

Asking the question "why" and looking for "proof" are the first steps in "learning things".

I wasn't referring to people....just you. You don't demonstrate an inquisitive nature and wonder about the unexplained, but rather come off as quite close-minded, as well as arrogant and demeaning to those with differing perspectives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is this surprising since fear is one of the main reasons people believe in gods in the first place?

 

[Triton]

evolution is a great indicator of a divine creator

How divine ?

When dealing with matters of faith it simply comes down to what the individual believes.


I accept scientific principles and scientific understandings of the universe. In my personal faith, sprituality and science do no conflict with each other.


I can conceptualize a divine creator who set in motion a universe where matter can organize into ever changing and numerous organisms. This way the creator would not have to constantly intervene with creation as "God" has set into motion all the material and laws for life to achieve many possible forms. To me, evolution is divine.

But again, in matters of faith, its always going to come down to what you, as an individual believe

 

[Sherry]

Why is this surprising since fear is one of the main reasons people believe in gods in the first place?

It's a factor, but a negative one. There are also positive reasons such as hope, humility, gratitude, etc.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What the study really reveals is the failure of most to consciously grasp the actual nature of the distinction between the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of evolutionary theory and intelligent design.

However, the research team saw reversed effects during the fourth study which had a new condition. Along with writings by Behe and Dawkins, there was an additional passage by Carl Sagan. A cosmologist and science writer, Sagan argues that naturalism -- the scientific approach that underlies evolution, but not intelligent design -- can also provide a sense of meaning. In response, these participants showed reduced belief in intelligent design after being reminded of their own mortality.​

The view that naturalism underlies evolution, but not intelligent design is a false dichotomy. Naturalism underlies both.

The putatively "scientific consensus that intelligent design theory is inherently unscientific" is actually a metaphysical consensus. Most scientists, being atheists, presuppose a metaphysical (or philosophical) naturalism (more at a Darwinian naturalism) as opposed to the methodological or mechanistic naturalism of those who are skeptical of evolutionary theory. The former is the apriority of Darwinians and begs the question; the latter, as defined in this instance, refers to the traditional apriority for scientific inquiry.

But of course not all Darwinists are materialists, i.e., hold to the idea that matter is the only thing that exists, but most all of them do presuppose a purely naturalistic approach to science; that is to say, science should be conducted as if nothing existed beyond nature or as if the temporal plain has always been inextricably bound to natural causality.

As I have written elsewhere, on this board and on my blog, those of us who hold to a more traditional methodological naturalism are not impressed. We regard the unqualified naturalist view to be dogmatically and presumptuously unscientific. Rather, science is to be conducted as if the temporal plain is ordinarily bound to natural causality while keeping an eye out for evidence that evinces other potentialities. This is the stuff of physicalism proper. The latter merely limits itself to the investigation of the temporal plain or refers to the comprehensive essence of the temporal plain without presupposing the non-existence of immateriality, whatever that might entail or mean, or the non-existence of a supernatural plain. The idea here is to safeguard the integrity of scientific discovery, lest it veer off course into the land of the humanities: the telling of tales about events and certain ontological potentialities beyond the scope of its methodology.

 

[rdean]

I think you are scared shitless of having faith in anyone or anything....it makes me wonder if you've experienced some sort of trauma and your mind copes by demanding "proof" of every little thing, and are incapable of enjoying the wonders of life's mysteries. It's an obsessive and sad way to exist.

What makes you think people without delusional occult beliefs have no faith?

Asking the question "why" and looking for "proof" are the first steps in "learning things".

I wasn't referring to people....just you. You don't demonstrate an inquisitive nature and wonder about the unexplained, but rather come off as quite close-minded, as well as arrogant and demeaning to those with differing perspectives.

Because I have no "occult" beliefs I'm "close minded"? Ok.

 

[daveman]

What makes you think people without delusional occult beliefs have no faith?

Asking the question "why" and looking for "proof" are the first steps in "learning things".

I wasn't referring to people....just you. You don't demonstrate an inquisitive nature and wonder about the unexplained, but rather come off as quite close-minded, as well as arrogant and demeaning to those with differing perspectives.

Because I have no "occult" beliefs I'm "close minded"? Ok.

No, you're closed-minded because you refuse to consider any idea that isn't perfectly congruent with your narrow preconceived views.

You're as closed-minded as any fundamentalist, dean. Don't pretend you aren't.

 

[Greenbeard]

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. ■

 

[Sherry]

What makes you think people without delusional occult beliefs have no faith?

Asking the question "why" and looking for "proof" are the first steps in "learning things".

I wasn't referring to people....just you. You don't demonstrate an inquisitive nature and wonder about the unexplained, but rather come off as quite close-minded, as well as arrogant and demeaning to those with differing perspectives.

Because I have no "occult" beliefs I'm "close minded"? Ok.

You'd make a horrible scientist to draw such a conclusion. Daveman gets it though.

 

[daveman]

I wasn't referring to people....just you. You don't demonstrate an inquisitive nature and wonder about the unexplained, but rather come off as quite close-minded, as well as arrogant and demeaning to those with differing perspectives.

Because I have no "occult" beliefs I'm "close minded"? Ok.

You'd make a horrible scientist to draw such a conclusion. Daveman gets it though.

Dean, aren't you embarrassed than an "anti-intellectual" like me gets an idea that you can't?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Y'all do know that my thread about *What Is Death To An Atheist* has in fact had these reverberations.
2. Its just what *I do*.
3. I have that affect on the world.
4. Y'all thought I was wrong to project fear into the atheist mind, but my tactic worked, and it hit the mark in the center!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[rdean]

Because I have no "occult" beliefs I'm "close minded"? Ok.

You'd make a horrible scientist to draw such a conclusion. Daveman gets it though.

Dean, aren't you embarrassed than an "anti-intellectual" like me gets an idea that you can't?

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

 

[Sherry]

You'd make a horrible scientist to draw such a conclusion. Daveman gets it though.

Dean, aren't you embarrassed than an "anti-intellectual" like me gets an idea that you can't?

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

If the only "intellectuals" you converse with in your limited sphere of influence are those who have no beliefs in a higher power, then you live a small and sheltered life.

 

[rdean]

Dean, aren't you embarrassed than an "anti-intellectual" like me gets an idea that you can't?

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

If the only "intellectuals" you converse with in your limited sphere of influence are those who have no beliefs in a higher power, then you live a small and sheltered life.

According to PEW, a measly 2% of scientists believe in "magical creation". That leaves out the majority of both the 6% of scientists the are Republican and the majority of the 9% of scientists that are conservative. The margin of error is 3 or 4%. That means it could be zero.

Believe what you want, but don't expect intelligent people to EVER believe in the occult.

 

[daveman]

You'd make a horrible scientist to draw such a conclusion. Daveman gets it though.

Dean, aren't you embarrassed than an "anti-intellectual" like me gets an idea that you can't?

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

I'm curious: What is it, exactly, that leads you to conclude that you're intelligent?

 

[daveman]

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

If the only "intellectuals" you converse with in your limited sphere of influence are those who have no beliefs in a higher power, then you live a small and sheltered life.

According to PEW, a measly 2% of scientists believe in "magical creation". That leaves out the majority of both the 6% of scientists the are Republican and the majority of the 9% of scientists that are conservative. The margin of error is 3 or 4%. That means it could be zero.

Believe what you want, but don't expect intelligent people to EVER believe in the occult.

You believe in AGW, but in your defense, you're not intelligent.

 

[rdean]

Dean, aren't you embarrassed than an "anti-intellectual" like me gets an idea that you can't?

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

I'm curious: What is it, exactly, that leads you to conclude that you're intelligent?

Why would you think "occult" beliefs are a sign of "intelligence"?

 

[Sherry]

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

If the only "intellectuals" you converse with in your limited sphere of influence are those who have no beliefs in a higher power, then you live a small and sheltered life.

According to PEW, a measly 2% of scientists believe in "magical creation". That leaves out the majority of both the 6% of scientists the are Republican and the majority of the 9% of scientists that are conservative. The margin of error is 3 or 4%. That means it could be zero.

Believe what you want, but don't expect intelligent people to EVER believe in the occult.

You don't have a clue what I believe in....I'm just happy not to close myself off from intelligent people from all walks of life.

 

[daveman]

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

I'm curious: What is it, exactly, that leads you to conclude that you're intelligent?

Why would you think "occult" beliefs are a sign of "intelligence"?

Why would you think they're not?

Oh, yeah. That's what you were programmed to parrot.

So, you can't think of an answer to my question, huh? Yeah. That pretty much answers it anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Intellectuals believe in "mysticism". Got it. Must be "Republican" intellectuals.

If the only "intellectuals" you converse with in your limited sphere of influence are those who have no beliefs in a higher power, then you live a small and sheltered life.

According to PEW, a measly 2% of scientists believe in "magical creation". That leaves out the majority of both the 6% of scientists the are Republican and the majority of the 9% of scientists that are conservative. The margin of error is 3 or 4%. That means it could be zero.

Believe what you want, but don't expect intelligent people to EVER believe in the occult.

One day you are going to start learning not to walk into walls.

Today is not that day.

Christopher Langdon has an IQ that has been measured at somewhere above the genius range. His personal history shows just how bad it can be for a person who is literally the smartest person in the room.

Christopher Langan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whenever I need to remind myself just how little I know I read something he wrote. He not only believes in intelligent design and has developed a theory to explain the existence of the universe through intelligent design.

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

He is far from the only intellectual to believe in intelligent design.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932236317/megafoundation?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1]Amazon.com: Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (9781932236316): William A. Dembski: Books[/ame]

Yet you, in your infinite wisdom, only know people who don't believe either one, and you think people who believe in God are small minded.