3 ms·
I believe you’re conflating purpose with function. It seems we both agree that any attempt at assigning purpose to material objects or phenomenon is dubious at
by aodonnell2536 3y ago
I believe you’re conflating purpose with function. It seems we both agree that any attempt at assigning purpose to material objects or phenomenon is dubious at best.
I think your reason for this belief is a complete rejection of the idea of Intelligent Design. As for my view, in the case that we do live in an Intelligently Designed world by some Creator, the relative gap between our respective intelligences would be too large to even comprehend. There would be no point in assigning purpose based on our observations, we can really only describe what things are and how we best understand them to function.
As for intent, I agree there is no intent that can be supposed for something as one dimensional as a hydrogen atom, but perhaps intent emerges at a larger scale (e.g. life and the universe)
Not trying to get too into the weeds of a religious discussion as I’m mostly agnostic, but I was surprised to see such a rejection of Intelligent Design
- vibrio 3y agoI wouldn’t say outfight rejection of intelligent design. If one studies viruses, much time has to be spent considering evolutionary aspects, just due to their numbers, variability, and life cycle. The involvement of an Intelligent Creator and their intents is not something I know how to test or control for. I believe there has to be a mental boundary there until that component is objectively available.
- aodonnell2536 3y ago> The involvement of an Intelligent Creator and their intents is not something I know how to test or control for. Well said, I’d be hard pressed to disagree with you. > I believe there has to be a mental boundary there until that component is objectively available. You raise a good point here. I’m not sure yet sure if I agree, but I can see a lot of merit in this approach in terms of reducing speculation and increasing rigor for scientific research.