|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Evolution says no such thing. O
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024