The world without God would be very interesting IMO. If we consider the watch analogy: Imagine one finds a watch and seeing its complexity concludes that there must be a watchmaker. Of course as a theist I find this conclusion reasonable. Conversely, If one finds a watch and somehow obtains proof that there was in fact no watchmaker, this is really amazing. How could the watch come together with all the moving parts to function with such precision without some intelligent design?

In many ways a world without a Creator would be inexplicable and mind blowing IMO. Sometimes I find as theists we can easily defer to, "well God did it" and move on, all the while missing the mystery and wonder (maybe its just me being jaded).

Having said all that I suppose the created is meant to direct us to the greatness of the Creator.

tell that to DaVinci

I thought hyperbole meant 'deliberate exaggeration'. I don't do it deliberately.

Plus, in the specific example you mention, I don't mean that all religion holds back all science, I just think that everyone is psychic and understands what I really mean.

Whilst finding it unreasonable that the maker required a maker? I thought the argument from design had been thoroughly defeated and is now replaced by Irreducible Complexity, which has also been defeated.

It depends on whether or not we think it happened by chance, which of course is not how Evolution works. A watch assembling itself through pure chance is not just amazing, it's almost impossibly unlikely.


It is mind blowing, for me, it's not inexplicable though. The explanations and their nature, such as the simplicity and elegance of the Theory of Evolution, are part of what makes it mind blowing.

I think theism requires "well God did it". It's not a choice.

It appears then, that this watch must have been the offspring of a long evolutionary strand of watches.

No, it was designed. Watches can't evolve fret, well, Casio didn't anyway.

I cun't sey thet I hefe-a un epprupreeete-a reepuste-a fur thet. Um de hur de hur de hur. I stund currected. Bork bork bork!

its maddening how you have such narrow views of everything. Including how you compartmentalize other people and classify the limits of how they can view the world.

For instance- there are people who...... may want to pull off a butterfly's wings and also admire its beauty. What a sheltered existence you appear to have had.

My goodness... you've never been to a museum and seen paintings by naturalists who studied nature like scientists and made beautiful paintings and drawings of all of the nature they discovered?

As mentioned above, DaVinci is known as a great artist and a great scientist.

Albert Einstein-- great scientist, yes? Artist?
FROM HERE

I don't know if you have a scientific mind or an artistic mind but you clearly don't have both. That being said, you should consider that just because you can't imagine having both sides and combining the two doesn't mean others suffer those same limitations.

I express myself cogently. It's the only way to express ideas. Marx didn't say "Some workers but not those who aren't exploited get together with other workers but not those who aren't exploited in the other countries where it makes sense to do so."

Sometimes I play Devil's Advocate to test the dodgy opinions of others. It gets to the bottom of things.

That's where you are wrong. That's how I know Feynmann hasn't got it. I just saw his paintings and drawings and they were amateurish.

Just to be clear my initial post was not intended to be a veiled plug for theism. My intention was to add my opinion to the discussion between Frito and Zumby re: whether or not a world without God is "boringer" than a world with God.

IMO arguments for intelligent design and fine tuning are strong. Maybe not scientifically or philosophically 100% cogent, I still personally find them compelling.

I am ok with the "Well God did it" approach as outlined in Christian doctrine. What I was lamenting was the lack of wonder that sometimes goes along with believing God carried out Creation.

I think your analysis of the artists mind is quite wrong. Many artists take extreme care in both planning, analyzing and preparing both technically and aesthetically for their pieces. Many are very much aware of what position they want to hold in the art world, and take great care in attaining it. Much art is also about tearing down and attacking more so than "admiring".

You are also obviously forgetting about the artists' professions that require high levels of education and technical insight, for example architecture.

I'll refrain from commenting in depth on the "science" side of things, even though you commit the same error in reverse there.

Lemon, you really should have a read over The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins if you think a world without a creator would be inexplicable and mind blowing. I honestly think you would find it mind blowing.

I had it checked out from the library a while ago but I never got around to reading it and then I had to return it (yeah I said the library!). I am not a huge Dawkins fan though in general.

It's basically just an explanation of evolution, rather than Dawkins giving his views on religion.

Sigh, So go on then, explain what point you were making.

Are you willing to consider that you find them compelling only because you want to believe in the christian god?

Then you perhaps can appreciate my view that one of the side effects that some religion views can have on some people (have to qualify this all over the place or be accused of hyperbole) is that it stifles wonder, and possibly from that, has a detrimental effect on our progress as a species. The extent to which that exists and is in effect is open to debate. That it exists, isn't IMO.

And of course there are religions that deliberately stifle the wrong kind of wonder by removing influences that might cause it. Brian Cox couldn't exist in cultures that exist on our planet right now, not 2000 years ago when such behaviour could be explained away as justified ignorance.

I would offer that one can appreciate and understand art without being good at it.

Matter of fact... (and this kind of touches on something Tame Deuces just posted)... there are many art forms that are so technical that the best people have to have a scientific mind. Take photography, for instance - the best photographers are going to have a very technical understanding of light and the characteristics of the medium they're using (be it film or a digital camera.)

There are people who do wonderful art on programs like photoshop which... to do the basics most can learn, but to really exploit that program and use it to its fullest requires a lot of technical knowledge.

Film makers are real artists who need to understand a lot of technical information to create their craft.

Video game designers - which many would argue is an incredibly sophisticated new artform combing graphic design (which nowadays involves creating architecture, characters, controlling lighting, animation), story, employing and distorting physics, etc. - really requires a blending of the scientific mind and the artistic mind.

I kind of wandered there as I was originally trying to point out that people can visualize art but not necessarily have the skills in mediums to pull it off.

But, as the above demonstrates, there are plenty of artists who regularly must have and use both their 'scientific mind' and their 'artistic mind.'

I think we can dismiss the notion you suggested earlier that one cannot hold both views.

Not to mention composition rules like the rule of thirds.

You are mixing a load of stuff up with the actual art. Knowing how to use a camera or how to photoshop or how to edit film isn't the actual art. You appear to concede as much towards the end of your post when you write (correctly) "people can visualize art but not necessarily have the skills in mediums to pull it off". A lot of modern artist get craftsmen to actually do the craft bit.

You have never been in a darkroom....there was/is art going on in photo finishing. Even if its done on a computer now. It still has artistic values in it.

based on his posts in the other thread and this one... I've come to the realization that he is very likely just arguing to argue. In the other thread its kind of funny because the stuff he's saying seems to be suprising people with how horrid it is. In this one,... its argumentative but kind of dull.

My advice to cwoc, if you're gonna troll, do it big. This is not his best work.

Aye. It is always embarrasing when you see people who try to contrast "real photography" with digital photography+photoshop, because they reveal that they a) have no experience with subject b) that doesn't stop them from criticising it. Post-processing is a very big part of working with traditional film.

If anything, it is modern day photography that allows the photographer to act in the way Cwococ defines a "true artist", because of the "technical superiority" of modern day equipment and optics. Before the demands for expertise and planning phase was greater.

The art is in the vision not in the craft which can be reproduced by millions of people.

Dodging, burning and cropping take skill. Ansel Adams would be sad with what he says.

Your protest has no bearing on anything in my post. Other than that, you have now imposed yet another limitation on what constitutes art.

Let's summarize so far:
1.) Art must be made instinctively.
2.) Art can not contain elements of technical analysis or reductionism
3.) An art piece has one correct interpretation, always determined by the author
4.) Art can only come in forms that can not be reproduced by others
5.) Art must be admiring something


Might I suggest that these instructions come with checklist and procedural approval before starting the instinctive process?