Quote:

 

Wow. What a powerful discussion.

The main idea, expressed much more eloquently than I possibly could have, is precisely the notion that caused me, then in a total state of atheism, in as strong a reactionary state of denial as we shall soon see, to begin my search for God, or more accurately, open myself up to God's invitation to me.

That idea was summarized as "chance can have no intent." If the universe, if life in general, if mankind in specific, all generated spontaneously, without any self-aware and intentful hand in the design, without even the pre-existence of this self-awareness and intent, then we all are lumps of chemicals, blindly following physical laws (where did THEY come from?), with only a false sense of awareness and of intent. Even more contradictory, we are not even having this conversation! We only think we are exercising intelligence. Every word is appearing on this computer as a result of a myriad of chemical and physical reactions that give the false impression that I am choosing to type them here.

We are left with two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities: One, the chance thesis above, which means that this very discuss is a result of chance, and is therefore meaningless. Or, two, that some willful intelligence pre-existed or universe, set up its laws, and built it. The second possibility is the only one in which this question can even be addressed in a meaningful way.

Of course, that only took me to the point of accepting God's existence. That was the tiniest of first steps in an infinitely long journey--but a necessary one, the one that opened up the possibility of faith.
________________________

Now, to change gears dramatically...

Intelligent Design should not be barred from schools. It doesn't need to be part of any mandatory curriculum, but to ban it is to close minds to a natural direction of inquiry. We cannot possibly study the "how" of science without ever touching on the "why" of philosophy (which often leads to spiritual answers).

The particular brand of science that I teach (Physics) does not often wander into this line of inquiry and I never direct it there, but if students go down this path, I explain to them the difference in scientific exploration, which seeks to explain the mechanics, the "how?" and philosophical exploration, which, trapped by logic, seeks to explain "why?" with the answer for many being, "God," and for others, "Chance." I explain why I choose to say, "God," and invite them to ponder more and make their own decision.

The underlying problem is that our Constitution has to be violated, no matter the course a teacher or a school follows. If a teacher dares discuss the possibility of God, they are accused of establishing a religion. (That is not actually true; the question of the _existence_ of God is a philosophical one, not a religious one.) However, if the schools forbid the mention of a willful and intelligent designer of the universe, then are they not also pushing a religion, atheism? Is is not also just as religious a belief that there is no God as that there is? Of course, some would say, just don't mention the possibility. You cannot, in a true atmosphere of curious inquiry, bar a topic. It will come up. We must have a plan for dealing with it.

That plan, of course, would be to discuss the possibility of God from a purely philosophical point of view. The teacher should be allowed a position on the question, as long as he is not perceived as telling his students that the question is settled. Each student must settle it in his own mind.

This could never happen in a public school. That dealing with this philosophical discussion could not occur in public schools is just one more reason that I believe that public conduct of education is a grand, but failed, experiment. We should continue public funding of education, but allow public conduct of education to fade away naturally. But, that is another discussion altogether.

ils

Mar 27 2008, 08:35 PM

I also don't understand why proponents of intelligent design aren't, to my knowledge, trying to change the curriculum of subjects such as astronomy and geology.

eye95

Mar 27 2008, 08:39 PM

Some are asking that it be a part of science curricula in general, but just to the extent that some questions can never be answered by science, but can be answered philosophically.

eye95

Mar 27 2008, 10:26 PM

That is exactly what it is.  That is just not what some think it is.