Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Omkara]

One thing I do not understand is this. We look at creation. It is beautiful and complex. Therefore, we make the inference that there must be "a" creator. I mean, how else?

But this is entirely out of keeping with our theories of intelligence. Anyone, who is well educated about intelligence, can tell you that there are many kinds of intelligences. Our educational theory reflects this, as is appropriate, given the scientific discoveries about intelligence.

Now, in all of my investigations into the complex wonders of nature, and my subsequent positing of the proposition that there is clear evidence of intelligence in creation, I cannot see one bit of evidence by which I can conclude that there is one creator.

I propose therefore that we introduce a newer, hipper theory, which I call "Intelligences Designed."

This theory integrates the fundamental and more thoroughgoingly democratic elements of specialized interest gods, who are specialized creators.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the same creator who created rocks created also trees. I mean, what idiot would pick up a watch and thereby conjecture that since it is most clearly a designed object that the same designer who designed the Golden Gate Bridge also designed the watch.

That would clearly be absurd. It is obvious that there are many creators, as there are many intelligences. So, we should teach the children the truth so that they will grow to be better scientists, free of their mono-theistic prejudices, assumptions and conjectures.

Lets look at the facts as they appear. Things are, after all, as they appear.

The only question is, Which are the designers? The Orphics? Muslims? Jews? Christians? Mormons? Pagans? Shintoes? Taoists? Vedics? Jainists? Hindus? Scientologists? Railiens? Potato Heads? The Corn-Pone Opiners?

Mark Twain may give us some insight here: http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

[Underwaterbob]

The problem lies in your initial inference that there must be a designer or designers. There's still no way to effectively test this. Proponents of intelligent design haven't managed to come up with anything workable yet, and if anything the idea of multiple creators will just make their job even more difficult.

Pantheism opens up a boatload of new questions that are also pretty much unanswerable. Are we all the pawns of some pantheon of gods' games? Do these gods get along or do they duke it out with our fate hanging somewhere in the balance? Have all or some of them elected to give us free will or do they meddle? Is there some kind of hierarchy?

All good avenues of research open up more questions, but personally I say these are questions we can all do without. You can take your pantheism and shove it.

[Omkara]

Not a pantheist, unless Pan be one of the creators.

Aside from that, I can't see how the universe could have created itself, even if it were God.

I believe in a self-made man; but a self-made universe? There is no evidence supporting this hypothesis.

I support my claim by analogy, and that is one window by which we may gaze upon truth. If the analogy holds true, then we have good evidence for multiple-intelligences.

Later, we can make more rigorously designed tests. But that we do not have such tests now does not mean we cannot begin to teach this theory in the classroom. We must train the scientists of the future; who, properly trained, will find the appropriate way to further substantiate what is, in all common-sense likelihood, true.

We cannot waste time in all this bickering. It is only democratic that we give all children equal access to the best and most compelling theories, so that we leave no child behind.

For, any child left behind is possibly that child which will bring us the knowledge and understanding that will forward humankind.

[Underwaterbob]

[RACETRAITOR]

[michaelambling]

[michaelambling]

[Omkara]

Another added benefit of the multiple intelligences theory is that since there are in fact so many religious beliefs, everyone can just get along.

In the monotheisms, there are some people whose psychological and emotional needs cannot be addressed in a cosmology of one-god-fits all. In this theory, every one can have their needs met.

It just makes more sense to me. I can't imagine that the universe could have been build but by teamwork.

But, I think, there is good reason to assert a hierarchy. I mean, that everything fits together so well in nature--the river in the riverbed, the bird in the air--, there MUST be a leader among them. I mean, have we ever seen a complex product, such as the iPod, make it successfully off the production line without a CEO?

Therefore, we must include in our scientific theory room for a high supreme leader.