Jazzns' History of Belief

I think you meant message 70. In that chapter he lays out the case for God with headings, in sequence; The Ultimate Reality of Science, The Atheist Strikes Back, and the The Believer Replies. He lies out rational arguments for both positions. He calls himself agnostic. In the chapter of Logos he again looks at the idea of higher purpose. He even vindicates Paley around page 402 where he says:

quote:

---

Well, the entire process of life on Earth, the entire evolving ecosystem — from the birth of bacteria through the advent of cultural evolution, through the human history driven by evolution — is a physical system. So in principle we could ask the same question about it that we asked about organisms; it could turn out that there is strong evidence of imbued purpose as Paley and Dennet agree there is in organisms. In other words, maybe natural selection is an algorithm that is in some sense designed to get designed to get life to a point where it can do something — fulfill its goal, its purpose.

---

In my own thinking I can’t see a world that is entropic, a world that we know will end at some point as having purpose. I know you can argue that purpose doesn’t necessarily mean an ultimate purpose but I don’t see it that way. If all there is our material world and when it comes to an end all life as we know it on this planet ceases then it seems to me that all short term purposes are meaningless. You can also make the argument that there doesn’t have to be purpose but Wright clearly comes down on the side that it appears that there is. I’ll try and deal with them all together if that’s ok. I agree that it appears that we have socially evolved psychological predispositions. I’m doubtful that there is a genetic component but maybe there is. I would say yes to the idea that we behave instinctively to be selfish or altruistic but IMHO there is a bit of a difference. I think that we have a basic pre-disposition to instinctively act selfishly but that we also have an aspect of our nature that we usually call a conscience. If we listen to that conscience and act on that, and do it consistently then over time it will become instinctive to act altruistically. The same thing can be said for food or sexual urges.I believe that we are all the product of an intelligent and moral prime mover that I call God which makes Him responsible for all of them. There are two aspects of that though that I would like to repeat. The first is that we have choices. If we cannot choose that which is wrong then we also are unable to choose that which is good and we are nothing more than robots. Secondly I believe that we only see the part of the picture that is our entropic world and that there is a bigger picture that will in the end result in perfect love and justice.Edited by GDR, : Error that I noticed when quoted.

Lets say there is no purpose. You ARE here, right now, right? You know as well as you can that you are alive, right? I mean, I don't take you for a solopsist, so I feel safe arguing this. Since we absolutely are here right now, we have this life (the only one we can be 100% certain of): isn't that enough? Do you not see the value in making this one life you know you have as good as you can? Why does there need to be purpose in order for you to live a good life? Think of all the people who never got the chance to live. Think of all the possible lives that end up crusty in a sock in a 14 year old kids basement or on Jenna Haze's chin.The purpose for life is whatever you make of it. This is the one life you can know beyond a shadow of a doubt, the one that doesn't take faith or belief, that you've got: live it like it means something to you.

I agree that's a reasonable POV even if it isn't one that I agree with.Straggler and I were discussing Wright's views and Wright does say that there is at least the indication of purpose in nature. I'll requote this bit:

quote:

---

So you can point to these patterns that are suggestive of a larger purpose, but you just can't say for sure. My only point is that a scientific worldview gives you more evidence of some larger purpose at work than most scientists concede. And you can argue about what the purpose is, and you can argue about what the nature of the designer would be. It could be that some intelligence set evolution in motion and then went to another universe or something. But I think there is more evidence of purpose than most people concede.

---

But his use of "purpose" again simply seems to be referring to directionality that is the result of non-zero-sum logic. If that qualifies as "purpose" then I am not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of "purpose" myself. But the fact that Wright invokes Dan Dennett (of all people!!!) to his cause rather emphatically tells me that what he means by "purpose" and what you mean are not the same thing here. At the very least there is some serious conflation going on. To invoke Paley and Dennet as advocates of "purpose" in the same sentance is frankly intellectually unjustifiable.But whilst people like Dennett are unequivocal in their use of such language I can certainly see why you see Wright as essentially theistic. He conflates and equivocates and implies a great deal. Terms such as "purpose" and "designer" and "transcendental" and "divine" (and even "god") are used in ways that can easily be construed to be very theistic indeed. But if you actually look at the concepts he is applying these terms to they are not at all recognisably godly. More like Platonic logical entities vaguely mathematical in nature. All of it derived from non-zero-sum logic. So it's all cultural/social as far as you are concerned?They call prostitution "the oldest profession". It has existed in every society and culture ever known to man. Do you think this is simple coincidence? Or does it tell us something rather fundamental about human psychology?I put it to you that if a particular behaviour is humanly universal throughout history then it is not coincidence at all. Rather it is the product of common human psychology. Ultimately a product of evolutionary "design".So - If we are going to give some sort of conscious intelligent designer credit for things like altruism - We should also blame them for things like the the obesity epidemic and the promiscuous nature of our species. Sure we do. So why is it you want to eat that cheesecake when you know you should be eating that broccoli? Why is it that advertisers fill their advertisements with sexually attractive young women when their target market is married middle aged men? We have choices. But we are indisputably "designed" to find some choices more tempting than others.Who or what designed us that way?

This is evolution at its finest! In my opinion, God uses certain traits found in evolution to apply finishing touches on His creation. It would be too easy to simply create us perfect, with no teachable moments at evolving.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

So is god equally responsible for selfishness, promiscuity and a fetish for cheesecake and Big Macs as he is altruism, love and other such positive things?

in my opinion, God is only responsible for the initial act of creation. He is no more responsible than the parent of an adult is. (assuming our status is adults and not children! )

As a parent I cannot help but pass on my own genetic proclivities. By definition.But surely God, as the creator of the evolutionary process, can decide which proclivities aid gene propagation and which don't?Is the sexual attractiveness of females in their fertility prime really just an act of personal choice as GDR suggests?Or did evolution build us that way?And - If so - Who or what designed evolution to give us such psychological tendencies?

These are questions without answers...however we can speculate...and since we are in the Faith & Belief Forum, we don't have to be logical at all times.

Well then I'd speculate that either god wants us to be horny perpetrators of infidelity, or that he is a bit of a bastard by making us want what he also tells us we shouldn't want or that he doesn't actually exist and that such conflicts are better explained in evolutionary terms that require no reference to godly plans.Take your pick

If God exists and did design us, He obviously gave us hormones and sex drives.As to whether He is a bit of a bastard, I can only say that my old man was also a bit of a bastard yet he loved me so far as I know and was a bastard only to better me.If God doesn't exist, He doesn't exist.

It seems that you, like me, have concluded that if God does exist he is either a rather dodgy voyeur or a bit of a bastard. Yeah yeah. God moves in mysterious ways. Etc. The difference being that you are the genetic product of your Dad so he is A) Programmed to love you and B) Likely to be the genetic source of many of your flaws anyway.A being that designed the entire evolutionary process doesn't have those excuses. If he wanted non-promiscuous (for example) humans he shouldn't have made promiscuity evolutionary advantageous should he? Etc. As profound as that superficially sounds you could exchange the term "god" for "Immaterial Unicorn" or even "Yogi Bear" and it would have just as much truth content.

I’ll requote the passage from Wright you are referring to:

quote:

---

Well, the entire process of life on Earth, the entire evolving ecosystem — from the birth of bacteria through the advent of cultural evolution, through the human history driven by evolution — is a physical system. So in principle we could ask the same question about it that we asked about organisms; it could turn out that there is strong evidence of imbued purpose as Paley and Dennet agree there is in organisms. In other words, maybe natural selection is an algorithm that is in some sense designed to get designed to get life to a point where it can do something — fulfill its goal, its purpose.

---

I have to laugh when you complain about putting Paley and Dennet together. You sound like a fundamentalist. He is only saying about Dennet that he like Paley see imbued purpose in organisms. I have a hunch they diverge from that point on though. I think that I am thinking about purpose in the same sense as Wright except that from Wright’s POV he is saying that there appears to be purpose whereas I as a Christian believes that there is purpose. I think that we would even agree that the purpose is that we become more moral, (in broad terms), over time as individuals and as a worldwide society. In a sense that is the theme of the whole book.As it says on the book jacket:

quote:

---

Wright shows that, however mistaken our traditional ideas about God or gods, their evolution points to a transcendent prospect: that the religious quest is valid, and that a modern, scientific worldview leaves room for something that can meaningfully be called divine.

---

I was joking about Wright being theistic. I do think he sounds deistic though, but as we know he calls himself agnostic. I would agree that when he uses those terms that he isn’t using them in a particularly godly way but I think that he is using them in the sense that there is an indication of some form of intelligence that as provided a sense of direction or purpose for us, which is pretty much Platonic as you said. At some point we became aware of right and wrong. Wright talks about non-zero-sum-logic and I think that he is correct in that, but I also don’t think it’s the whole story either, which he agrees is reasonable. I also think that we have evolved physically, but that we also evolved socially. If I understand him correctly, Dawkins agrees with that, and even suggested a mechanism for that called a meme. Sex and eating are good things and are essential to our continuing as a species. On the other hand both of these good things can be misused, and I am just saying that I believe that we have been given something that, as I say, we usually call a conscience that we can use to guide us to control these basic urges so that they aren’t misused.So yes, I do give God credit for giving us good things such as sex and food. I also agree that he has given us the choice of choosing to selfishly misuse and abuse these good things, as well as the capability of using them with wisdom and unselfishness. Well we know my answer, what is yours. Certainly some choices are more attractive than others but we have even been given the facility to change what becomes more appealing to us. For example, I’ve been married a long time. Yes a find young women attractive but the idea of being unfaithful to my wife, or of using some young woman for my own sexual gratification is repugnant to me.

Regarding Wright and terminology etc. I will simply re-quote what I said in Message 71As for human proclivities.... Have we?Or do we possess the ability to comprehend that what might be instinctively desirable is not always intellectually the best thing to do? I don't think we can master what appeals as such. But we can arguably confront that such instincts do not lead to the best longer term outcomes.We can deny our desires - But that isn't the same as not having them. Why do you think you find young women attractive? Is this an evolved trait? Is God responsible for it?

Certainly that is a big part of it, but I also contend that we can do or not do things because we have come to the conclusion that it is simply right or wrong and we’ll adhere to that even if it has negative consequences for us. Yes, but, (there is always a but isn’t there ), by consciously denying ourselves over time we find that our desires gradually change. You’ve used food a lot as an example. People who change their eating habits in order to be healthier find it very difficult at first but easier as time passes. Eventually, so I’m told, their desire for the healthier food becomes stronger than their desire for the unhealthy food they’d given up. In other words, with practice our desires can change. I would say both but if you frame this a little differently and ask about the desire for sex it is a really interesting question. With no desire for sex the species would have died off long ago. How do you see the desire for sex evolving? It’s a bit of a chicken or egg question isn’t it.