Smell and intelligent design

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

[QUOTE=andros]
And ignoring minor irritations is an important skill to learn in, yanno, life.
[/quote]
DOING something about them is more important. Especially for males, who have a tendency to “tough” themselves right into the hospital or a grave. Ignoring minor problems is a great way to turn them into major problems.

[QUOTE=andros]
I disagree. The idea that discomfort, pain, and hardship can teach important and valuable lessons is not a strange one, and should be something you’ve encountered before. Surely you should be able to understand the logic underlying the “suffering builds character” argument, even without agreeing with the assumptions involved.
[/quote]
I understand it, but it doesn’t apply. Plenty of people suffer enough that it ruins their life. They don’t learn much of anything or gain much “character”; they are too busy suffering. Or driven outright insane; what “valuable lesson” is someone learning when they’ve been destroyed as a person ?

[QUOTE=andros]
OTOH, if you truly believe allowing a child to put up with a scrape for a couple hours is an example of poor parenting, maybe I’m wrong about that.
[/QUOTE]
If you had Bactine or other medical supplies right there as you implies, then yes it’s a bad idea. I was always taught to immediately wash and sterilize wounds, including minor ones.

22

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Another far better analogy would be…
[/QUOTE]

Except for, well, no.

What I think you’re missing is that to the particular Xian perspective we’re talking about, it’s not any worse than a scraped knee. All the suffering in this world, all the pain, all the agony . . . none of it is more than a bump on the noggin compared to the Glory of God and His Kingdom[Sup]TM[/Sup].

Red Shirt can criticize my parenting all he wants (which I find absolutely adorable, btw), but the crux is simply this: in real life we have to deal with discomfort, pain, and irritation–and learning to deal with it in strength and dignity makes our lives richer and easier.

Now, if you disagree with this idea, then fine. I’ll be dazed and confused, and probably wonder what color the sky is on your world, but fine.

If, however, this seems a reasonable statement, then it should be easy enough to grok the reasoning behind the “Ineffable Plan” argument.

You’re welcome to disagree with its premises as well as its conclusions–I certainly do. But it should at least be understandable.

.

23

[QUOTE=andros]
Except for, well, no.

What I think you’re missing is that to the particular Xian perspective we’re talking about, it’s not any worse than a scraped knee. All the suffering in this world, all the pain, all the agony . . . none of it is more than a bump on the noggin compared to the Glory of God and His Kingdom[Sup]TM[/Sup].
[/quote]
I’m well aware of that argument; it’s simply a bad argument. Agony right now doesn’t hurt any less because of some hypothetical future reward. It doesn’t matter how large the reward is.

[QUOTE=andros]
the crux is simply this: in real life we have to deal with discomfort, pain, and irritation–and learning to deal with it in strength and dignity makes our lives richer and easier.
[/quote]
Yeah, right, and how is the life of someone driven to madness or despair by their suffering an example of “strength and dignity” ? Pain doesn’t make people better; it twists them, grinds them down.

[QUOTE=andros]
If, however, this seems a reasonable statement, then it should be easy enough to grok the reasoning behind the “Ineffable Plan” argument.
[/QUOTE]
It’s called “weaseling”.

And as I said, it doesn’t matter; we don’t need to know the reasons to judge the results.

[QUOTE=andros]
You’re welcome to disagree with its premises as well as its conclusions–I certainly do. But it should at least be understandable.
[/QUOTE]
It’s perfectly understandable. It’s also amoral, destructive, foolish, and generally contradicts the rest of what the people who push it believe.

Just because I understand it doesn’t mean I have to think it’s right, you know. People are perfectly capable of understanding a religious claim and thinking it to be wrong.

24

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Just because I understand it doesn’t mean I have to think it’s right, you know. People are perfectly capable of understanding a religious claim and thinking it to be wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I was thrown off when you said it “never made sense.” I see that it does makes sense to you, logically, and that you merely disagree with the premises. Carry on.

.

25

[QUOTE=andros]
Except for, well, no.

What I think you’re missing is that to the particular Xian perspective we’re talking about, it’s not any worse than a scraped knee. All the suffering in this world, all the pain, all the agony . . . none of it is more than a bump on the noggin compared to the Glory of God and His Kingdom[Sup]TM[/Sup].

Red Shirt can criticize my parenting all he wants (which I find absolutely adorable, btw), but the crux is simply this: in real life we have to deal with discomfort, pain, and irritation–and learning to deal with it in strength and dignity makes our lives richer and easier.

Now, if you disagree with this idea, then fine. I’ll be dazed and confused, and probably wonder what color the sky is on your world, but fine.

If, however, this seems a reasonable statement, then it should be easy enough to grok the reasoning behind the “Ineffable Plan” argument.

You’re welcome to disagree with its premises as well as its conclusions–I certainly do. But it should at least be understandable.

.
[/QUOTE]

You have to inject some modicum of logic into the argument or else it all hangs gauzily in space.

If all you can say for Intelligent Design is that whatever happens is the will of the Creator, then you can’t simultaneously argue that it is a science that should be taught in school.

If your argument is that the Creator designed humans so that some would die in circumstances in which others would live then you can’t argue for the physical perfection and beauty of the design.

If humans are designed to put up with “discomfort, pain, and irritation” - again, conditions totally distinct from actual death - then you have to account for a DNA change occurring after Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden, because their original design did not call for this.

The “Ineffable Plan” is fine for religious instruction, but ID is supposed to be scientific instruction, equal to Darwinian theory and capable of explaining every point that evolution does.

It’s certainly nice to be able to have it both ways, but that’s not what ID proponents claim. Their claim is that ID is science and so a rebuttal of an argument made against it that amounts to “just accept it” fails any rational test.

If you want to argue that none of it is rational, you’re free to do so. But that’s not what this thread is about so your arguments also fail here.

Do you see the distinction?

26

.
Um . . . ok?

Dunno what any of that has to do with my minor sidebar. But sure, ok.
.