Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 121 of 262 (620057)
06-13-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Trae
06-13-2011 10:27 PM


What's a law? (probably off-topic)
Do you actually believe that Newton’s Law of Gravity does not explain the source of the event of an object falling?
I would believe such.
In the past they have been discussions of what a fact is, what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, and what a law is (one topic is Some basics: Theory and Law.
As I recall, a law was described as a mathematical description, not an explanation of why. Newton's law describes the attraction between two objects as a function of their masses and the distance between them. It does NOT explain why there is an attraction between the two objects.
Moose
ps: Despite having the exact topic titles (via my personal topic database), the forum search function couldn't find these topics. I had to use Google and search for at evcforum.net. Also, I believe that second link URL is some archaic form, but it works for me.

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Trae, posted 06-13-2011 10:27 PM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Trae, posted 06-15-2011 1:37 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 122 of 262 (620079)
06-14-2011 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by GDR
06-13-2011 11:28 PM


quote:
My only point is to ask the question of whether or not a law requires a law giver, and that is a philosophical or theological question that can only produce a subjective result.
I can answer this one. The whole idea of a law requiring a law givier is based on confusing human law with natural law. Just because the same word is used, it does not mean the same thing.
A human law is a decree about how humans should behave, decreed by whatever authority is accepted as a legitimate maker of laws and enforced by society.
A natural law is simply a regularity in nature - in the purest sense followed without exceptions (although many "natural laws" fail to meet this standard in the strictest sense, but that is because they represent simplifications of the real state of affairs). Obviously this is so different from human law that we cannot simply assume a law maker based on any such analogy, nor is it intuitively obvious that one is required.
Thus we do not even have a sound subjective case for the assertion that natural laws require a law giver.
Do we have a case against the assertion ? Yes, I believe that we do. Natural laws are simply regularities, If all regularities must be decreed by a law-giver, or derived from those regularities, then that law-giver itself may initially incorporate no regularities, nor use any regularities in moving from the decree of the first regularities to their actual implementation. But a law giver must be a highly ordered entity capable of formulating and understanding it's decrees, and must have a way of implementing them, so obviously it must incorporate regularities simply to function and to implement it's decrees. Thus certain basic regularities must exist prior to the decrees of any supposed "law giver".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by GDR, posted 06-13-2011 11:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 06-14-2011 3:59 AM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 123 of 262 (620090)
06-14-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
06-14-2011 2:14 AM


PaulK writes:
Do we have a case against the assertion ? Yes, I believe that we do. Natural laws are simply regularities, If all regularities must be decreed by a law-giver, or derived from those regularities, then that law-giver itself may initially incorporate no regularities, nor use any regularities in moving from the decree of the first regularities to their actual implementation. But a law giver must be a highly ordered entity capable of formulating and understanding it's decrees, and must have a way of implementing them, so obviously it must incorporate regularities simply to function and to implement it's decrees. Thus certain basic regularities must exist prior to the decrees of any supposed "law giver".
Boy is that a mouthful. Even if these regularities existed prior to the existance of our space/time universe they still had to be implemented in this one. If you like we can say that in lieu of a law giver we needed and implementer.
We are in the wrong thread for this and we're going to get a great big Do Not Reply sign on our posts. Sorry Percy.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2011 2:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2011 12:28 PM GDR has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 124 of 262 (620098)
06-14-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by GDR
06-13-2011 2:40 PM


Re: Critique of Pure Reason.....
Hi GDR -- looks to me like things are on track here topicwise (but there's a chance that I'm not judging this the way Straggler would...)
GDR writes:
I don't agree that the scientific method will ever answer the underlying "why" we can be altruistic, or perceive something as beautiful etc. Science can only answer how it happened or how it might have happened...
I agree that at one level it would say why altruism happens but there is a deeper level of why involved. For example why is gene propagation a good thing? Why does it matter at all? Why does it matter that we continue to exist? Even though we might be able to discern it happening we can't know why it is true...
It strikes me that your "deeper level of why" is the very thing that Straggler was asking about in the OP of this thread. Like him, I'm inclined to wonder what it means, exactly.
Actually, I'm more inclined to view it as a kind of unwitting sophistry, based on an unfounded assumption that life and the universe exist to serve some purpose or goal that somehow stands beyond or outside of life and the universe. This sort of assumption is nothing more or less than a natural extension of the normal human cognitive habit of perceiving or attributing purposes and reasons for the things we observe, which in turn extends our normal social habit of asserting that we (people) have purposes and reasons for doing the things we (people) do.
You want to ask why gene propagation is a good thing. I'd counter by asking: what would lead anyone to say it's a good thing? Obviously, it's good from the perspective of a sentient species whose existence is impossible in the absence of gene propagation -- that is, to the extent the given species considers its own existence to be "good", then the factors that make it possible are, in that perspective, also "good".
And here's the kicker: so far as we know, there is no basis for such a perspective other than the existence of sentient life. In the absence of a life form with sufficient awareness to form value judgments and label things as "good", there can't be any way to even pose a question about it.
As I understand it, theists want to assert that the transience and tenuousness and implausibility of life (both life in general and our individual personal lives) are somehow too frightening to be taken at face value, and that some unobservable external entity must be responsible for it all because otherwise it "makes no sense".
This, it seems to me, is the foundation for your "deeper level of why": mere existence simply does not explain itself, and you sense a need for something else that somehow stands beyond existence in order to explain it. Atheists don't share this sensation, and so you might be inclined to say that their world view is "limited", because they lack this notion of having or wanting an "external explanation" for existence.
But I would turn it around: having no evidential basis for assuming the presence of an unobservable external purpose, atheists instead look at what is actually going on with observable existence. We notice and carefully examine the transience and tenuousness and implausibility of life; we look for the things that impede it and promote it, we weigh the relative impact and outcomes of one set of behaviors vs. another, and can try to judge, albeit imperfectly, which ones will be the most beneficial in the broadest possible sense.
We recognize that sentient creatures have to make such judgments, have to form hypotheses that make testable predictions, have to improve the accuracy and reliability of predictions, have to develop a suitably expanded notion of what constitutes "good" outcomes so that our sense of "goodness" is truly sustainable. As sentient components in a complex network of living things, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to life in general to maintain a sustainable sense of goodness and actively implement it. (This is what my user name and signature is all about.) We must pursue this -- our own intrinsic purpose that exists solely because we exist -- without imposing artificial limits on ourselves.
(Important caveat: respect for other living beings is not an artificial limit -- it's a logical necessity. And the broader the range of "others" we are able to respect, the better. Absolute pacifism may never be possible, "extreme Jainism" may never become our common lifestyle, but wanton violence and abuse are never sustainable.)
Frankly, religious belief -- the notion that there is an externally defined purpose to which we must submit on faith alone -- is an artificially imposed limit (one which all too often violates the principle of respect for others). In effect, it is the theistic view that is "philosophically limited", i.e. limited by the very nature of its "philosophical" foundations.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 06-13-2011 2:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 125 of 262 (620104)
06-14-2011 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by GDR
06-13-2011 2:40 PM


"Why"......
GDR writes:
This is probably the crux of our issue. I don't agree that the scientific method will ever answer the underlying "why" we can be altruistic, or perceive something as beautiful etc. Science can only answer how it happened or how it might have happened.
Science can answer "why" in the sense of explaining why observable phenomenon are as they are in terms of cause and effect.
GDR writes:
I agree that at one level it would say why altruism happens but there is a deeper level of why involved. For example why is gene propagation a good thing? Why does it matter at all? Why does it matter that we continue to exist?
Can I ask why it is that you think these things matter?
GDR writes:
IF we are simply a more or less accidental product of matter and energy then why does anything like altruism matter?
If there is a God that simply finds himself to exist then why does anything like existence or altruism matter? Because he has decided it does?
GDR writes:
IF we are simply a more or less accidental product of matter and energy then why does anything like altruism matter?
From a purely personal or human perspective it matters a great deal. It matters a great deal for no greater "why" than because we have decided that such things are important.
GDR writes:
Could this be an instance where an atheist might be philosophically limited in that he wouldn’t be able to consider why things are the way they are because he thinks he has already answered the question, and doesn’t consider that there is any question left to be answered?
I would argue the exact opposite. I would argue that it is because we don't have any ready made "Goddidit" reason for anything that we have to philosophically wrestle with our own answers to questions and take responsibility for the consequences those answers result in.
GDR writes:
Sure there are material causes but that doesn't rule out other possible causes.
"Rule out" in the sense of disprove? No. But the relentless overturning of human claims of immaterial causes does rather suggest that we should be deeply deeply skeptical of further such claims. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And the mind-body problem remains a significant stumbling block for such reasoning.
GDR writes:
I do think that God has revealed himself both non-materially through our minds but also materially through Jesus.
I would argue that this is a result of the sort of flawed reasoning discussed previously in Message 113
GDR writes:
However everyone lives with that bias and we form a world view based on it. Hopefully we remain open to having our bias adjusted as we gain information.
It is a common to simply dismiss all differences of opinion as differences in equally valid world views. But some world views have a more secure evidential foundation than others. And some world views embrace subjective bias more than others. Some world views are based on demonstrably successful methods of investigation and some are based on methods of "knowing" that are demonstrably flawed. Ultimately not all world views are going to result in equally correct conclusions.
GDR writes:
The interesting thing is that I believe that I have a very sound basis for my bias and I know that you feel the same about yours. It keeps the world interesting doesn't it?
It certainly does. God forbid that everyone should think like me!! I wouldn't know what to do with myself anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 06-13-2011 2:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 126 of 262 (620109)
06-14-2011 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by GDR
06-13-2011 2:40 PM


morality is maths.
I don't agree that the scientific method will ever answer the underlying "why" we can be altruistic
Game theory predicts that strategies which appear altrusitic can be evolutionarily stable.
For example why is gene propagation a good thing?
It isn't a good thing. Genes that don't propagate don't propagate. Those that do, do. If a gene propagates better because one of its possessor's performs an 'altruistic' act then it will increase in frequency. It's not 'good' it's just maths.
Why does it matter at all?
It matters because we're interested in it.
Could this be an instance where an atheist might be philosophically limited in that he wouldn’t be able to consider why things are the way they are because he thinks he has already answered the question, and doesn’t consider that there is any question left to be answered?
Not at all. Being able to answer a question doesn't make one limited, does it? I am perfectly willing to listen to alternative ideas, and to criticise them as appropriate. It would be limited if we simply stopped testing ideas, which some theists could be said to be doing when they assert that altruism must be 'insert theistic explanation' and that material causes cannot explain it in principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 06-13-2011 2:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 127 of 262 (620153)
06-14-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by GDR
06-14-2011 3:59 AM


quote:
Boy is that a mouthful. Even if these regularities existed prior to the existance of our space/time universe they still had to be implemented in this one. If you like we can say that in lieu of a law giver we needed and implementer.
There's no problem with regularities giving rise to other regularities. Once you accept that regularities can be basic, and in fact must be more basic than a "law giver" or an intelligent "implementor" there is no longer any valid inference from regularity to an intelligent cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 06-14-2011 3:59 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 128 of 262 (620185)
06-14-2011 5:08 PM


Once again I can't keep up with all of the responses. I don't even think I have anything to add to what I've already said.
I'll just try and encapsulate my views in a simple, (the only way I know), straight-forward way. My views are subjective, and cannot be verified.
1/The way things are balanced in the universe in a way that permits life here and possibly elsewhere gives the appearance of design.
2/A single living cell is an incredibly complex combination of atoms and molecules which is in turn formed by a complex combination of particles. They have the appearance of design.
3/DNA and the genetic code have the appearance of design to the point that Francis Collins calls it "The Language of God".
4/The way that all life works in such a way that it is able to develop and reproduce itself has the appearance of design.
5/Natural selection and the evolutionary process has the appearance of design.
6/Consciousness and mind, (I realize that none of you accept this), seem to point to something other than the physical, with in the case at least of human consciousness seems to me to point to a morality that comes from something other than a material world which would again point to design.
I have come to conclusion that we are the product of an intelligent designer, which should not be confused with the anti-evolutionary political movement in the US. I think that my conclusion is reasonable and rational. I also realize that other reasonable and rational people have come to very different conclusions. So be it. It helps make the world go round.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2011 5:53 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 129 of 262 (620195)
06-14-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by GDR
06-14-2011 5:08 PM


quote:
1/The way things are balanced in the universe in a way that permits life here and possibly elsewhere gives the appearance of design.
This is a philosophically flawed view. If the proposed designer qualifies as being alive, then life doesn't require fine tuning (or you get an infinite regress), if it doesn't then why would it choose to fine tune for our sort of life rather than things like it ?
quote:
2/A single living cell is an incredibly complex combination of atoms and molecules which is in turn formed by a complex combination of particles. They have the appearance of design.
3/DNA and the genetic code have the appearance of design to the point that Francis Collins calls it "The Language of God".
4/The way that all life works in such a way that it is able to develop and reproduce itself has the appearance of design.
5/Natural selection and the evolutionary process has the appearance of design.
These really belong together. Natural selection is pretty much inevitable if you have anything much like life. So that doesn't really qualify. Evolution is good at producing the appearance of design (which includes single cells and DNA). So really I think you are left with the origins of life, and even that is something of an argument from ignorance.
quote:
6/Consciousness and mind, (I realize that none of you accept this), seem to point to something other than the physical, with in the case at least of human consciousness seems to me to point to a morality that comes from something other than a material world which would again point to design.
THis one seems to be just wrong. At present physicalism looks like the best option for consciousness since it explains some facts very well (the relationship between mind and brain) and no alternative really comes close.
The moral argument is extremely dubious. To me morality seems to be a cultural construct built on a base provided by evolution as a social species. If there is a good argument for any alternative, I haven't seen it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 06-14-2011 5:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 06-14-2011 6:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 130 of 262 (620196)
06-14-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by PaulK
06-14-2011 5:53 PM


PaulK writes:
This is a philosophically flawed view. If the proposed designer qualifies as being alive, then life doesn't require fine tuning (or you get an infinite regress), if it doesn't then why would it choose to fine tune for our sort of life rather than things like it ?
I don't accept this argument. (I know, turtles all the way down. ) My sense of things is that we are locked in our 4 dimensional world which we perceive with our 5 senses. Science itself even conjectures about other universes and dimensions. Can't I have the same latitude? Certainly I am coming at it from a different perspective, and science hopes to be able to construct physical evidence for their theories, but just the same I don't see my approach as being unreasonable. Maybe change, can be measured differently in another time dimension. Maybe in another universe we can move around in time the way we move around in space in this one. Who knows?
Paulk writes:
These really belong together. Natural selection is pretty much inevitable if you have anything much like life. So that doesn't really qualify. Evolution is good at producing the appearance of design (which includes single cells and DNA). So really I think you are left with the origins of life, and even that is something of an argument from ignorance.
Once we go past what we know it's always an argument from ignorance.
PaulK writes:
THis one seems to be just wrong. At present physicalism looks like the best option for consciousness since it explains some facts very well (the relationship between mind and brain) and no alternative really comes close.
The moral argument is extremely dubious. To me morality seems to be a cultural construct built on a base provided by evolution as a social species. If there is a good argument for any alternative, I haven't seen it.
You talk about the relationship between mind and brain. I know where the brain is, but where is the mind? Even so I think that you are confusing the study of mechanism and confusing that with the reason for the mechanism.
It still appears to me that we have an innate sense of morality that is just naturally a part of us, that can be heavily influenced by socialization but is not formed from it. I admit that my position can't be proven but for that matter it can't be disproven.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2011 5:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2011 1:38 AM GDR has replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 131 of 262 (620261)
06-15-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Minnemooseus
06-13-2011 11:47 PM


Re: What's a law? (probably off-topic)
I think there’s a bit of equivocation in terms here (science vs Lewis). The discussion is if CS Lewis’ argument is correct and it seemed easier to demonstrate that Lewis’ claim is wrong on the face of what he’s the arguing, rather than get into Lewis’ misconceptions of science.
Lewis writes:
This may be put in the form that the laws of Nature explain everything except the source of events. But this is rather a formidable exception.
Trae writes:
Did you even read this? Do you actually believe that Newton’s Law of Gravity does not explain the source of the event of an object falling?
It appears to me that Lewis doesn’t mean scientific laws in the same sense science does, but more in the, well look at how GDR replied:
GDR writes:
I understand that science can produce objective answers that philosophy and theology can't. I get that. I have no idea how you got the idea that I think C S Lewis has anything to say about science. I understand that the Law of Gravity is scientific. My only point is to ask the question of whether or not a law requires a law giver, and that is a philosophical or theological question that can only produce a subjective result.
MSG:120. EvC Forum: Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?
I suspect that GDR is correct and I assumed that was sort of what CS Lewis was claiming some philosophical argument which is little more than psudo science.
So I do believe that in the sense that Lewis seemed to be asking, that some ‘natural’ laws have enough explanatory power for the type of question Lewis is asking. Even if ‘natural’ laws never give the same explanatory power as ‘some guy with a pool cue didit’, Lewis has presented nothing more than a straw man, because certainly Scientific Theories combined with laws do have explanatory power.
Anyway, I was trying to get GDR to see that Lewis’ comments shouldn’t hold up to even casual scrutiny, let alone scientific scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-13-2011 11:47 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 132 of 262 (620262)
06-15-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by GDR
06-14-2011 6:26 PM


quote:
I don't accept this argument. (I know, turtles all the way down. ) My sense of things is that we are locked in our 4 dimensional world which we perceive with our 5 senses. Science itself even conjectures about other universes and dimensions. Can't I have the same latitude?
I am not aware that there is any rule protecting scientific arguments from criticism. To the contrary, it is expected that criticisms will be made. And any scientific arguemnt with the flaws that you have (even if you are simply proposing an infinite regress without adequate reasons) would meet with heavy criticism. So I cannot see what "latitude" you are asking for.
quote:
Certainly I am coming at it from a different perspective, and science hopes to be able to construct physical evidence for their theories, but just the same I don't see my approach as being unreasonable. Maybe change, can be measured differently in another time dimension. Maybe in another universe we can move around in time the way we move around in space in this one. Who knows?
That doesn't save your argument from philosophical criticisms. If all you can do is speculate that the conclusion of your argument MIGHT be true if we make certain ad hoc speculations, you don't have a viable argument.
quote:
Once we go past what we know it's always an argument from ignorance.
Not if we extrapolate what we do know, rather than setting it aside. At the moment abiogenesis is something of an open question, but the evidence favours a natural origin, and work continues to progress.
quote:
You talk about the relationship between mind and brain. I know where the brain is, but where is the mind? Even so I think that you are confusing the study of mechanism and confusing that with the reason for the mechanism.
I would say that the mind is a process instantiated in the brain. The key issue is how changes to the brain affect the mind. The effect of the so-called "split-brain" operation is especially striking. Indeed the whole question of why a brain is needed for a mind is unanswered by dualism.
quote:
It still appears to me that we have an innate sense of morality that is just naturally a part of us, that can be heavily influenced by socialization but is not formed from it. I admit that my position can't be proven but for that matter it can't be disproven.
But that is consistent with my view. Evolved instincts would make up an innate core, while the rest would be a social construct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 06-14-2011 6:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 06-15-2011 2:09 AM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 133 of 262 (620266)
06-15-2011 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by PaulK
06-15-2011 1:38 AM


PaulK writes:
I am not aware that there is any rule protecting scientific arguments from criticism. To the contrary, it is expected that criticisms will be made. And any scientific arguemnt with the flaws that you have (even if you are simply proposing an infinite regress without adequate reasons) would meet with heavy criticism. So I cannot see what "latitude" you are asking for.
I'm just saying that it seems to be ok for science to speculate about other universes and dimensions but when a Christian does it is called flawed reasoning.
PaulK writes:
That doesn't save your argument from philosophical criticisms. If all you can do is speculate that the conclusion of your argument MIGHT be true if we make certain ad hoc speculations, you don't have a viable argument.
Any philosophical argument will be open to criticism. So what?
PaulK writes:
Not if we extrapolate what we do know, rather than setting it aside. At the moment abiogenesis is something of an open question, but the evidence favours a natural origin, and work continues to progress.
Science may very well demonstrate how simple matter could come together to form the first living cell. (Personally I doubt it but I don't deny it's possible.) However, that still won't answer the question of why it happened at all. We can't tell scientifically whether or not it happened by pure chance or if it happened by intelligent intervention.
PaulK writes:
But that is consistent with my view. Evolved instincts would make up an innate core, while the rest would be a social construct.
Let's say you're right about evolved instincts, and personally I think that there is a pretty good chance that you are, the basic question still remains. Did those instincts evolve through some random happening or did they evolve by design?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2011 1:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2011 2:28 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 135 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2011 4:21 AM GDR has replied
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 06-15-2011 11:22 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 134 of 262 (620268)
06-15-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
06-15-2011 2:09 AM


quote:
I'm just saying that it seems to be ok for science to speculate about other universes and dimensions but when a Christian does it is called flawed reasoning.
By which you mean that you want your argument to be held to the standard for speculation, rather than the standard for an argument ?
That isn't asking for the same latitude as scientists get, that's asking people who disagree with you to be biased in favour of your arguments.
quote:
Any philosophical argument will be open to criticism. So what?
So maybe you shouldn't complain about criticism ? Or claim that it is somehow unfair that your arguments aren't given a special exemption from criticism ?
quote:
Science may very well demonstrate how simple matter could come together to form the first living cell. (Personally I doubt it but I don't deny it's possible.) However, that still won't answer the question of why it happened at all. We can't tell scientifically whether or not it happened by pure chance or if it happened by intelligent intervention.
In fact science might show that given the timescales and resources available it is QUITE LIKELY that the initial replicators (which would be much simpler than a cell) would come into existence and evolve from there. And that would leave no need for intelligent intervention.
quote:
Let's say you're right about evolved instincts, and personally I think that there is a pretty good chance that you are, the basic question still remains. Did those instincts evolve through some random happening or did they evolve by design?
Nether, of course. That is a false dilemma. They evolved primarily because they were advantageous to a social animal (granted that doesn't cover how the behaviour became innate, but that's something we can't expect to fully understand yet - the relationship between behaviour and genes is very subtle). Design, in this case, appears to be largely an ad hoc hypothesis anyway - why would a designer choose to give those particular instincts ? (And why distinguish between "moral" instincts and "immoral" ones ? Or do you believe instincts that lead to immoral behaviour were also designed ? Most people pushing your argument would not.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 06-15-2011 2:09 AM GDR has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 135 of 262 (620276)
06-15-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
06-15-2011 2:09 AM


I'm just saying that it seems to be ok for science to speculate about other universes and dimensions but when a Christian does it is called flawed reasoning.
When we talk about extra dimensions and "other universes" we are not doing so from pure speculation but from the constraints of theoretical research and its associated mathematics. When I say "extra dimension" I know precisley what I mean, and how this relates to current knowledge of space-time and the Universe. No-one outside the field has those contraints, and thus such speculation is erroneous from the start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 06-15-2011 2:09 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by GDR, posted 06-15-2011 10:43 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024