Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 318 (280488)
01-21-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 6:33 AM


I agree with Funkaloyd. One can accept evolutionary theory without accepting any of the items on the list.
The Catholic Church accepts evolutionary theory but still holds that the human soul originated with God. That is just one way in which a dualistic belief can come to terms with evolution.a

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 6:33 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 9:31 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 01-21-2006 9:37 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 10 of 318 (280499)
01-21-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 9:31 AM


You might as well say that evolution puts the cruelty that exists in nature to constructive use. I don't see that OEC views can have any great advantage of the mainstream Catholic line in that respect. Even YECs have a similar example of cruelty in the Flood story - and that is directly attributed to God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 9:31 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 9:13 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 67 of 318 (280675)
01-22-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 9:13 AM


YEC's can only attribute the deaths of humans to justice. The suffering and death of the many, many animals that were killed cannot be attributed to justice.c

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 9:13 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:03 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 77 of 318 (280688)
01-22-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 10:03 AM


You've forgotten where the point came from. You asserted that the Catholic position had a problem. I pointed out that actual Creationist views had similar problems - and therefore rejecting evolution does not solve the problem.t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:03 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:55 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 89 of 318 (280708)
01-22-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 10:55 AM


On the contrary it is relevant that the same problem applies to positions that reject evolution. Because it shows that evolution itself is not the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:55 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 11:25 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 93 of 318 (280714)
01-22-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 11:14 AM


If your beleif that there is a logical contradiction is absed on "faith, whim or sentiment" then that - and not logic - is the true basis of your position. And until you can actually show that there is a logical contradiction your position is not truly based on logic.r

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 11:14 AM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 105 of 318 (280736)
01-22-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 1:22 PM


Re: one more baby step.
quote:
Men don't have minds; they just have brains (thus saith evolution).
Evolution says no such thing. O

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 1:22 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 1:34 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 108 of 318 (280741)
01-22-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 1:34 PM


Re: one more baby step.
That assertion is one of the others under dispute in this thread - and one you have yet to make a case for.
I would say that evolution undermines some arguments against materialism which is a different thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 1:34 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:03 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 124 of 318 (280868)
01-23-2006 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 10:03 PM


Re: one more baby step.
The claim that it is impossible for physicality to evolve into mentality assumes one of two alternatives within the philosphy of mind. On one hand substance dualism, on the other eliminative materialism. Why do you reject other views (such as property dualism) out of hand ?
Even if mentality is different from the basic operations of simple physical entities it cannot be safely concluded that mental operations are not a higher-order behaviour of complex organisations of matter.
Worse for your case, even if you proved this side of the argument only one alternative - eliminative materialism - could support your case. If we accept the existence of mental substance we cannot say that it could not evolve, coevolve with matter or simply associate itself with physical brains as they evolved. Thus evolution does not even provide strong support for materialism, let alone logically entail eliminative materialism as you claimed.n

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by robinrohan, posted 01-23-2006 8:18 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 127 of 318 (280896)
01-23-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by robinrohan
01-23-2006 8:18 AM


Re: one more baby step.
Either you misunderstood my point or you are begging the question.
You argue that mind is impossible within a materialistic explanation - but I point out that your argument is badly incomplete because it does not consider all the explanatory possibilities within a materialistic framework. And naturally those possiiblities must themselves be materialistic.
To respond that they are materialistic is either trivial and irrelevant - or if you understood the point and intended the answer as a refutation it begs the question.
To say that "mentality" makes no sense apart from our private experience is to assume that no toher account is possible. Aside from the fact that such a posiiton is still compatible with property dualism it assumes that no other account is possible which is further than I would be willing to go at this stage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by robinrohan, posted 01-23-2006 8:18 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by robinrohan, posted 01-23-2006 10:37 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 135 of 318 (280963)
01-23-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by robinrohan
01-23-2006 10:37 AM


Re: one more baby step.
It's a term from the philosophy of mind. To put it simply property dualism is the view that mental/physical duality is a duality in properties, not substance. Thus it is a materialistic view (since it rejects the idea of mind as a "substance").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by robinrohan, posted 01-23-2006 10:37 AM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 139 of 318 (280999)
01-23-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by joshua221
01-23-2006 3:54 PM


You aren't being clear. Are you saying that belief in evolution promotes materialism or that the actual process of evolution has made us materialistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by joshua221, posted 01-23-2006 3:54 PM joshua221 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 149 of 318 (281135)
01-24-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by robinrohan
01-23-2006 7:13 PM


Re: A magical story (a SUPERnatural history of life)
YOur arguments still rely on falsely attributing ideas to the ToE that are not part of the ToE. The ToE can only explain the "origin" of the mind to the point where we understand the origin of mind. Where there is serious doubt the ToE is agnostic. The ToE is compatible with substance dualism and is not a reason for rejecting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by robinrohan, posted 01-23-2006 7:13 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Brad McFall, posted 01-24-2006 4:23 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 154 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 5:37 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 156 of 318 (281430)
01-25-2006 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by robinrohan
01-25-2006 5:37 AM


Re: A magical story (a SUPERnatural history of life)
I know who Ernst Mayr was. But the simple fact that Mayr beleives something does not make it part of the theory of evolution - even if there is strong evidential support. At most it is a minor part and one that could easily be dropped if the evidence were otherwise - and not something that must be accepted if evolution in general is to be accepted. He very title of this thread rules peripheral ideas such as this almost entirely irrelevant to the main topic.
Moreover as I have already pointed out there is no need to assume that hypothetical supernatural entities are incapable of evolving and thus one could fully accept Mayr's statements while still accepting a form of substance dualism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 5:37 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 6:02 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 297 of 318 (282463)
01-30-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
01-30-2006 2:56 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Like Robin you assert contradictions - and even congratulate yourself on "seeing" contradictions. But that would be premature unless you can actually demonstrate that there are logical contradictions - as Robin failed to do.
A claim of logical contradiction is a very strong claim. It demands logical proof.
So since you claim that it there are logical contradictions between religion and what you call "conventional morality" I suggest that you actually back up your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:10 AM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024