Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 12:23 PM
446 online now:
ICANT, jar, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, vimesey (6 members, 440 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,009 Year: 6,615/21,208 Month: 2,376/2,634 Week: 39/525 Day: 14/25 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Germany before, China now; Darwinism on the rampage
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2942 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


(1)
Message 1 of 6 (393959)
04-08-2007 6:33 PM


Just like I said some time ago, more evidence is coming in that China is indeed undergoing an identitycrisis caused by Darwinism right now.

http://cio.ceu.hu/courses/CIO/modules/Module08Dikoetter/print.html
http://cio.ceu.hu/extreading/CIO/Dikoetter_social_ev_theories.html

The background of this story is that on the occasion of Origin of Species, both communism and nazism spread to China. Communism got the upper-hand, but social-darwinist ideas still had it's own stronghold in Taiwan. Now in the ideological void left by the crumbling communism, a sciencecraze is developing in which the old social-darwinism is gaining the upper-hand.

Of course, people are people, so all these trends are accompanied with a lot of humanity of the personalities involved, so they don't come in a pure stark form.

In contrast to such softening factors, social-darwinism has it's own self-radicalizing element which is hard to contain. It is that peculiar attitude of scientific certitude which radicalizes people enormously when the certitude is inappropiately applied to moral questions.

The historian I referenced above got it wrong though how Darwinism contributes to such an identitycrisis. So below I'll argue against this historians idea of how Darwinism causes the current racism identity-crisis in China.

I will argue that:

- it is neither Herbert Spencer, Ernst Heackel, Francis Galton or Konrad Lorenz versions of natural selection theory, which have all been mentioned by various historians as changing Darwin's theories to unfortunate ends, but that the problems mainly arises out of Darwin's standard natural selection theory itself

- that these problems inherent to natural selection theory are:

1 making, or tending to make, moral statements about what is good and bad as objective fact
2 manipulating, or otherwise neglecting knowledge about freedom over knowledge about laws of nature

The problem with Dikotter's ideas is that he doesn't have a big enough smoking gun to point to on which to blame the racism identitycrisis. He is nitpicking about groups vs individuals, and Lamarckism vs Darwinism, as if that would make a big difference. I propose in stead to consider indeterminism vs determinism, or freedom vs the laws of nature as the underlying issue. We use knowledge about freedom all the time in our daily lives, that knowledge is completely fundamental. Now if somebody were to undermine that basic knowledge, we could reasonably expect to see the kind of massive identitycrisis that appears to be happening in all countries where Darwinism is introduced, including China.

Contrary to what Dikotter says, both Lamarckism and grouptheory are in their conceptual essence inherent to natural selection theory.

The essence of Lamarckism is that from the "will" of the organism (inheritance through habit), we get the modified descendent. Although Darwinism goes about it in a more roundabout way, natural selection theory is also based on a concept of organisms that "want" to live, and "want" to reproduce, and perhaps even "want" to do these things more then a competing other. So on a fundamental level these theories are conceptually equal; starting from the "will" of the organism we end up with the modified descendant.

Natural selection doesn't happen to an individual, it only occurs to a population, and a population is last I heared a group. So for Dikotter to say that Darwinism emphasizes the individual is false, we can only see individuals in natural selection theory in terms of members of a population. It is impossible for instance to see natural selection occurring on an individual organism. Of course I appreciate the difference Dikotter makes between Spencers groupbased thinking, and Darwin's individual-selection, that Spencers version of evoluton is even more groupbased, but then still Darwin's version of natural selection is also fundamentally groupbased. For natural selection to occur you need at least 2 organisms, which are different. Whatsmore Dikotter is also wrong because Darwin used a groupbased model when he applied natural selection to mankind, as shown by taking some quotes from Darwin.

The formulation of natural selection in Origin of species:

"Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

The forumulation of natural selection applied to mankind in the opening pages of "Descent of Man":

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."(C. Darwin, Descent of Man)

From this formulation of natural selection as a principle of encroachment untill extinction we find later in the book how in the history of mankind natural selection "chiefly" operated:

"Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct." (C. Darwin, Descent of Man)

That sure seems a lot groupbased to me, altough you can get a lot more nuance in the rest of the book. But like I said, this is much irrellevant in my opinion. The problem here is with knowledge about freedom vs knowledge about the laws of nature. So to say, it is not so much wrong to teach about genetic and/or cultural predetermination of the Han, it is only very wrong if you don't balance out that teaching of predetermination by the laws of nature with copious amounts of knowledge about how people behave freely.

Darwinism problemizes this teaching about freedom no end, because it appropiates the "will" of organisms into it's theory, as if this will is some kind of mechanical law of nature. If Newton would have talked about gravity theory in terms of stones and apples wanting to fall the furthest in the struggle for depth, we would immediately recognize that this was just pseudoscience. But for some reason people don't recognize the struggle for reproductive success as pseudoscientific. When people consequently identify themselves as being part of the natural selection process it becomes; "I want to survive", "I want to reproduce" and I want to do it more then the other. Here science is telling people what they want, leaving little room for themselves, or religion or secular culture to tell them what they really want deepest in their heart.

Actually natural selection theory does not work with organisms that want to survive. For instance if organism A is more fit then organism B, but organism B wants to survive more and struggles harder for it, then thereby it is organism B that wins out, survival of the least fit.

Our common knowledge about freedom is generally of the form of having alternatives, and then a decision is made on them, realizing the one alternative, discarding the other. These alternatives are said to inhabit the future in respect to the moment of decision. So commonly when we say "I want to survive", we mean that we have the alternatives of survival and death in the future, and we decide on survival. But in Darwinism this get's all weird because this will to survive of people is part of some mechanical law of nature which forces us to a result, and does not allow for alternatives to be decided on.

Consider also the following colorful description of natural selection by Darwin:

"And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

To translate this morality into the factual language of science would give something like:

"And as natural selection works solely by and for the reproduction of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to change towards contributing to reproduction."

As you can see Darwin posits goodness at the point where he posits the will of the organism to survive and reproduce. That is another thing in our common knowledge about "will". The way in which the one alternative get's to be decided for over the other is essentially spiritual. According to common knowledge what decides between alternatives are things like goodness and badness, love and hate, it is entirely a subjective issue, an issue we can only approach by our own decisionmaking, and not by measuring. So that explains why Darwin posits "the good" there, he unwittingly borrows that principle of "the good" from the common logic of deciding from alternatives, which he derived from the organisms' "will" to survive and reproduce. Thereby Darwin's confusion of the laws of nature with the powers of freedom is completed, and in the context of science, it is the knowledge about freedom that is the loser.

You can't really make a history about the influence of Darwinism on intellectual climate of opinion in China without the context of how this infuence went in other countries. As argued, the common denominator of the influence of Darwinism is the destruction of knowledge about freedom, and consequently the pretense of scientists, and sciencefans alike to have authority to speak about what is good and bad by natural selection theory. Knowledge about any kind of free behaviour is consistently oppressed by Darwinists because freedom requires that spiritual aspect making the decision from the alternatives. Knowledge about the laws of the universe gets awarded a very high level of awareness, while knowledge about freedom get's awarded a very low level of intellectual awareness. Eventhough everybody, Darwinist scientists included, uses the logic of freedom in everyday life.

That influence of Darwinism to destroy knowledge about freedom also of course explains the creationist movement as a reaction to Darwinism, that we creationists want the free act of creation acknowledged, over the laws of nature.

A similar sort of thing is argued in Klaus Fischer's book, Nazi Germany - A new history. In the beginning of that book he implores the reader that we should learn to view the holocaust not just as a product of age-old preceding causes, but also as the product of contingencies, and of course personal decisonmaking. He argues that the predeterminative nature of both nazi and communist ideology is their most lethal aspect.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2007 2:51 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 5 by mick, posted 07-08-2007 5:52 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 2 of 6 (409306)
07-08-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
04-08-2007 6:33 PM


I will argue that:

- it is neither Herbert Spencer, Ernst Heackel, Francis Galton or Konrad Lorenz versions of natural selection theory, which have all been mentioned by various historians as changing Darwin's theories to unfortunate ends, but that the problems mainly arises out of Darwin's standard natural selection theory itself

- that these problems inherent to natural selection theory are:

1 making, or tending to make, moral statements about what is good and bad as objective fact
2 manipulating, or otherwise neglecting knowledge about freedom over knowledge about laws of nature

The problem, as I see it, is that it is extremely difficult to subject morality to naturalistic causes. Are we to think that chance + time is going to produce the arts? Music? Morals? Mathematics?

The mind reaches for something far more laudable an explanation than some mindless chance mutation far in the distant past, having no conceivable relevance that would have caused it to begin with.

The same question could be applied to the religious affinities of humans. Naturalists will often scoff at the notion of religion, passing it off as superstitious hokum. But they can't get around the fact that it plays a central role in who we are.

So how is it that a strict naturalist seeks to undermine the very thing that nature has produced?

The problem with Dikotter's ideas is that he doesn't have a big enough smoking gun to point to on which to blame the racism identity crisis.

Is not racism an extension of Darwinism, with its details about survival of the fittest, predator versus prey? Is that not the natural consequence of Darwinism? If there is no moral law, then racism, and all the ugly things such as this-- isn't this the natural thing to come? And if so, why then do we look down upon it from a sociological point of view?

Although Darwinism goes about it in a more roundabout way, natural selection theory is also based on a concept of organisms that "want" to live, and "want" to reproduce, and perhaps even "want" to do these things more then a competing other.

Exactly my point. So why usurp that which nature has naturally doled out?

Darwinism problemizes this teaching about freedom no end, because it appropiates the "will" of organisms into it's theory, as if this will is some kind of mechanical law of nature.

Isn't it though, if naturalistic explanations are all we have? How can we reconcile the two?

If Newton would have talked about gravity theory in terms of stones and apples wanting to fall the furthest in the struggle for depth, we would immediately recognize that this was just pseudoscience. But for some reason people don't recognize the struggle for reproductive success as pseudoscientific. When people consequently identify themselves as being part of the natural selection process it becomes; "I want to survive", "I want to reproduce" and I want to do it more then the other.

And as we clearly know, that isn't in any sense true when we see Gerbils eating their young, people aborting their children, people using various forms of contraceptives in order to do everything in their power NOT to procreate, etc. What is pseudoscientific is to hope, by the conjecture of faith, the same kind of faith that is scoffed at, that we live such droll lives-- that we drift aimlessly on a sea of meaninglessness, in an ocean of happenstance.

Here science is telling people what they want, leaving little room for themselves, or religion or secular culture to tell them what they really want deepest in their heart.

I agree.

"And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

Perfection? What is perfection in an arbitrary universe, in a relative world with no lines of demarcation? Must not someone have a general idea of what perfection is in order to aspire to such a lofty goal?

But supposing it was the case, then there really is a general direction in evolution, as nature itself aspires to achieve greater. If so, then the objection made by many neo-darwinists, that evolution has no direction, is rendered moot.

As you can see Darwin posits goodness at the point where he posits the will of the organism to survive and reproduce.

Then murder, rape, and pillaging are in the quintessence of goodness in a naturalistic view. In which case, if I'm here by accident, then I can remove you by incident and not think twice about any moral repercussions.

As argued, the common denominator of the influence of Darwinism is the destruction of knowledge about freedom, and consequently the pretense of scientists, and sciencefans alike to have authority to speak about what is good and bad by natural selection theory. Knowledge about any kind of free behaviour is consistently oppressed by Darwinists because freedom requires that spiritual aspect making the decision from the alternatives. Knowledge about the laws of the universe gets awarded a very high level of awareness, while knowledge about freedom get's awarded a very low level of intellectual awareness.

That's a great argument, and you've made it so succinctly. This is what I've been saying since I arrived at EvC.


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 04-08-2007 6:33 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 4:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 6 (409310)
07-08-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2007 2:51 PM


Your whole post is based on the assumption that what is "natural" is good and what is "unnatural" is bad.

Remove this assumption and I am not sure that you have any point at all.

The naturalistic fallacy I am sure you are aware of but here it is anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

As an example - I would consider rape to be natural and in many ways an inevitable penomenon in a large society but still completely morally reprehensible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2007 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2007 4:27 PM Straggler has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 4 of 6 (409312)
07-08-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Straggler
07-08-2007 4:06 PM


Your whole post is based on the assumption that what is "natural" is good and what is "unnatural" is bad.

I think you've misunderstood my premise. It is not I that believes in this. If I were to point out a tree out the window, and asked you, "What is wrong with that tree," or in contrast, "What is right about that tree," what would you say as a response?

I was addressing how drab existentialism is for strict naturalists. Good and bad are meaningless terms to that which has not been bestowed any moral governance.

The OP was commenting on Darwin's ideas about good and bad from a naturalistic point of reference. I was arguing Darwin's argumentation.

As an example - I would consider rape to be natural and in many ways an inevitable penomenon in a large society but still completely morally reprehensible.

Exactly my point. If a bull runs up on a grazing cow and copulates with her, whether she seems to be annoyed by it largely seems inconsequential to us. Its just bovine doing what bovine do. But when a man sexual plunders a woman, we are horrified. Why is that?

If we live as the animals do, and in fact are just animals, why or how are we imparted this knowledge that it is morally reprehensible to sexually plunder people against their will when it is perfectly natural for bovine to do it?

Naturalism has no good explanations for this. Only unsubstantiated conjecture on why they think their explanation has some sort of explanatory power.


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 4:06 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 7:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 2338 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 5 of 6 (409327)
07-08-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
04-08-2007 6:33 PM


Syamsu writes:

It is that peculiar attitude of scientific certitude which radicalizes people enormously when the certitude is inappropiately applied to moral questions.

One might say the same thing about religious certitude.

Syamsu writes:

The problem here is with knowledge about freedom vs knowledge about the laws of nature. So to say, it is not so much wrong to teach about genetic and/or cultural predetermination of the Han, it is only very wrong if you don't balance out that teaching of predetermination by the laws of nature with copious amounts of knowledge about how people behave freely.

What reason do you have to suppose that freedom should be considered in contradistinction to the laws of nature?

Syamsu writes:

Darwinism problemizes this teaching about freedom no end, because it appropiates the "will" of organisms into it's theory, as if this will is some kind of mechanical law of nature. If Newton would have talked about gravity theory in terms of stones and apples wanting to fall the furthest in the struggle for depth, we would immediately recognize that this was just pseudoscience. But for some reason people don't recognize the struggle for reproductive success as pseudoscientific.

Natural selection applies to any imperfectly reproducing entity whether it "wills" to reproduce or not. That's why stones are not subject to natural selection, yet apples are. It is you who has made the claim that "will" is inherent in Darwinism but you have failed to convince me, so I do not accept the charge that Darwinism is pseudoscientific. Rather, you characterization of Darwinism is incorrect. Evolutionary principles apply to human beings whether they will to reproduce, or do not will to reproduce.

When people consequently identify themselves as being part of the natural selection process it becomes; "I want to survive", "I want to reproduce" and I want to do it more then the other. Here science is telling people what they want, leaving little room for themselves, or religion or secular culture to tell them what they really want deepest in their heart.

If people choose to identify themselves as being part of an evolutionary process, why should that have any effect on their wants, and why would it constitute science "telling them" what they want? Furthermore, why do you think that religion or secular cultural leaders "telling people what they want" is any better?

Actually natural selection theory does not work with organisms that want to survive. For instance if organism A is more fit then organism B, but organism B wants to survive more and struggles harder for it, then thereby it is organism B that wins out, survival of the least fit....in Darwinism this get's all weird because this will to survive of people is part of some mechanical law of nature which forces us to a result, and does not allow for alternatives to be decided on.

More mischaracterization and misunderstanding of the theory. Fitness is simply a description of the outcome of natural selection. If organism A survives (and reproduces) less well than organism B, then you can't say that organism A is more fit, can you?

Syamsu writes:

"And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

To translate this morality into the factual language of science...

There are uses of the word "good" that do not imply morality. If I say that I have a good bicycle it is not necessarily a judgement on the moral nature of my bike. Much of your post seems to be a confusion with biological "goodness" (i.e. an ability to reproduce succesfully) and a moral goodness. But they do not equate and your argument is a non sequitur.

Syamsu writes:

You can't really make a history about the influence of Darwinism on intellectual climate of opinion in China without the context of how this infuence went in other countries.

Well that might be an interesting and educational exercise for you. In your third paragraph and elsewhere you seem to be arguing that acceptance of evolutionary theories is associated with an abandonment of the concept of freedom and a consequent collapse into political structures such as communism and nazism. If you care to take a look at the historical record, you will find that the correlation does not hold. Darwin's ideas were first accepted widely in Britain, yet Britain has enjoyed formal parliamentary democracy ever since, with no apparent collapse of personal freedom. In Scandinavian countries the theory is supported by up to 80% of the populations, yet all of these countries are considered models of socially liberal and free societies.

Syamsu writes:

Knowledge about any kind of free behaviour is consistently oppressed by Darwinists

More fantasy. Recent research finds that flies have free will and this research is not quashed but rather published in a prominent journal. Now personally I am very sceptical of the claim but it's clear that the scientific establishment is open to such ideas. Similarly, the notion that human beings in rich western capitalist countries have exercised their free will in order to reduce their fecundity is not disputed by biologists, as far as I am aware.

Syamsu writes:

That influence of Darwinism to destroy knowledge about freedom also of course explains the creationist movement as a reaction to Darwinism, that we creationists want the free act of creation acknowledged, over the laws of nature.

Yet we find creationist movements that define their social aims almost solely in terms of opposition to freedom - opposition to the freedom to have abortions, the freedom to be gay, the freedom to believe in other religious viewpoints, the freedom to experiment on dead fetuses, the freedom to use condoms, etc. How strange that these religious people who know so much about freedom are dead set against it!

Syamsu writes:

A similar sort of thing is argued in Klaus Fischer's book, Nazi Germany - A new history. In the beginning of that book he implores the reader that we should learn to view the holocaust not just as a product of age-old preceding causes, but also as the product of contingencies, and of course personal decisonmaking. He argues that the predeterminative nature of both nazi and communist ideology is their most lethal aspect.

I fail to see the relevance to evolutionary theory, unless you think that it supplies a predeterminative conceptual framework which was adopted by the Nazis and Communists. In reality there is very little if any predetermination present in evolutionary theory. The theoretical core of evoluionary biology - population genetics - is almost wholly concerned with accounting for stochastic processes, those which are subject to random events occurring over time. For example, no new mutation occurring in a population, no matter how "good" it is, is predetermined to spread to fixation. Similarly, no individual or race is predetermined to dominate their neighbours. Rather, evolutionary biology in its neutralist form tends to emphasize the historical (environmental and random) contingencies in accordance with Fischer's advice. Now, many religious groups, on the other hand, seem deeply committed to predetermination - whether it is the salvation afforded to select Calvinists, the fact of being God's chosen people for the Jews, or the coming rapture of the born-agains. Just as Hitler cloaked his project in the language of social darwinism, he also cloaded it in religious regalia, the Volk being the chosen people and the swastika their crucifix.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Edited by mick, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 04-08-2007 6:33 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 6 (409334)
07-08-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2007 4:27 PM


Empathy
Exactly my point. If a bull runs up on a grazing cow and copulates with her, whether she seems to be annoyed by it largely seems inconsequential to us. Its just bovine doing what bovine do. But when a man sexual plunders a woman, we are horrified. Why is that?

You are still suffering badly from the naturalistic fallacy.

Why should a bull copulating be in any way morally equivelent to human rape except in the context of the naturalistic fallacy???

If we live as the animals do, and in fact are just animals, why or how are we imparted this knowledge that it is morally reprehensible to sexually plunder people against their will when it is perfectly natural for bovine to do it?

We have empathy. We know what suffering we impart on others through our actions. We have a sense of right and wrong. We have evolved intelligence, empathy and morality.

Naturalism has no good explanations for this. Only unsubstantiated conjecture on why they think their explanation has some sort of explanatory power.

If you can conceive of the social conditions in which the ability to empathise can evolve then there is no real problem for the theory in the sense of it having been falsified.

Conjecture - Yes up to a point. Psychology is a new and frankly relatively weak science. Very few would argue that psychology has the sort of established foundations that the physicla sciences have.

It does however offer the best and most tested explanations to date.

But what alternatives do you propose for mans universal bestial nature combined with the socially cohesive morality that restricts it?
Naturalistic answers are more honed and tested than any other.

What alternatives do you propose? What tests have been done on these alternatives? Are there any prediction that have been verified or refuted based on these non-naturalistic alternatives?

If the answer is no to all the above why should we take these alternatives as anything other than inferior theories not worth persevering with?

Until you stop equating naturalism as necessarily equating with human moral bankruptcy you are missing the point entirely.

Many natural things are undesirable/bad (rape, disease, famine, pestilance). Many unnatural things are desirable/good (medicine, agriculture, computers etc.)

Why does whether or not something is natural have any bearing on whether it is right or wrong?

Stop equating cows with people on a moral level. You may as well ask a cow what it's favorite film is!!

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2007 4:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017