Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Why is it VERSUS?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 76 of 103 (603373)
02-04-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Trae
02-04-2011 1:42 AM


Re: Revised proposal edit
Trae writes:
Well so much for mathematics, physics, chaos theory, blood-splatter analysis and so on.
Not at all. They are the study of how things are and the processesthat made them that way.
A good example is Francis Collins who calls DNA the "Language of God". He is a committed Christian who is completely convinced of the truth of the evolutionary theory.
Trae writes:
It seems as if he’s saying one accident invalidates all which follows, but wouldn’t the alternative be predestination which would mean that God is a tyrant.
No. We bring kids into the world and try and point them in what we believe to be the right direction, but in the end they make their own choices. It's my belief that we have been created, probably through an evolutionary process, and that we have the freedom to choose our own path.
Frankly, I can't see why you would come to that conclusion.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Trae, posted 02-04-2011 1:42 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Trae, posted 02-09-2011 12:27 AM GDR has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 77 of 103 (603374)
02-04-2011 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by dwise1
02-04-2011 1:51 AM


Re: I am what I am
A footnote to this is a public presentation by Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NNCSE) that I had personally witnessed. At the time she described, she taught a human anthropology class. At the university she taught at, the biology department didn't usually teach evolution, but her physical anthropology classes most certainly did. In order to fulfill their General Education graduation requirements several biology majors would enroll in her Physical Anthropology class for an "easy A" (those poor fools!) Hey, students, as you're sitting in your classes, your professors are observing you! Dr. Scott would give her lectures and, over the semestre, she would see that "Ah Ha!!!" light turn on in her biology majors -- "Ah hah!!! So that's why .... !!!!!"
Those lights turned on for me in my comparative vertebrate anatomy class. In the 100 level zoology class it was just too much information. It was like drinking from a fire hose moving between cnideria to mollusca to whatever taxonomic class. When I got to sit down and really study vertebrates, from urochordates on through, it all clicked. I could actually follow the evolutionary history of arteries, bones, muscles, nerves, digestive systems, gonads, kidneys, etc. Dobzhansky hit it on the head. Without the theory of evolution picking through those smelly corpses would make no sense. With the theory of evolution it all comes together in a very amazing way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 02-04-2011 1:51 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 78 of 103 (603920)
02-09-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by GDR
02-04-2011 2:30 AM


Predestination.
My point is that It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. doesn’t hold the same water now that it did when he wrote those words. From the accidental splash we can know far more than Lewis could have ever imagined.
I just don’t get the quote you posted, the science and logic behind it just seem pure crap to me. Big red flag is the use of ‘why’ as opposed to ‘how’, and insertion of the word ‘mere’.
I come to the conclusion based on what you quoted. His point seems to be that if there was an accident then the rest of any chain must also accidents This seems a highly questionable claim, but let’s run with it. He’s clearly saying that we can’t be here because of accidents, so we must be here because of the actions of his particular ‘god’. Now, if he actually believes that any accident in a chain makes all that follows an accident then God always has to act on everything. This would seem that God had to control everything least an accident creep in. If there are no accidents, that sounds like predestination to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 02-04-2011 2:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 12:48 AM Trae has replied

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


Message 79 of 103 (603924)
02-09-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Trae
02-09-2011 12:27 AM


Re: Predestination.
Actually I posted the quote to indicate that Lewis was not opposed to the theory of evolution.
I see him as saying that if everything from atoms, to molecules, to cells, to complex life forms and consciousness just occurred by chance or by accident, then we have no reason to be able to trust the reason that was produced by that process.
Although Lewis obviously followed a particular god I don't see him as making a case for that in this instance. Here, I only see him making a case for theism in genera,l or arguably even deism. I don't agree that it follows that if we are created beings living in a created universe that God manipulates everything. Men make cars that run, but they don't have to be there causing every individual spark that keeps the engine running.
I think that it is pretty clear that we have the ability, as do other life forms, to make choices. The choices that we make have consequences that aren't predestined, but that do have consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Trae, posted 02-09-2011 12:27 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 6:21 AM GDR has replied
 Message 91 by Trae, posted 02-09-2011 11:42 PM GDR has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 103 (603948)
02-09-2011 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
02-09-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Predestination.
I see him as saying that if everything from atoms, to molecules, to cells, to complex life forms and consciousness just occurred by chance or by accident, then we have no reason to be able to trust the reason that was produced by that process.
Well, let's leave aside the "chance or accident" misrepresentation for now.
What is dumb about this argument is that the supposed reductio ad absurdum that he wishes to derive from the atheist viewpoint is in fact true and known to be true. Of course our reason is not trustworthy. We know this. We make mistakes, we forget things, some of us are insane, some of us are retarded. Over 90 of us will fail the "Four Card Test". If we lived in a world where no-one made a mistake and in which (in particular) scientists were always right, then his critique might have some value. But we live in a world where we stumble from error to error and where our science is an inadequate thing that continually needs fixing.
We have "no reason to be able to trust reason" not as a consequence of atheistic or materialistic or Darwinian premises, but simply because we know for certain that our reason is not trustworthy.
If it is the case that the existence of God would imply that our reason was trustworthy, then that would constitute a disproof of the existence of God, because it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 12:48 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 10:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 81 of 103 (603971)
02-09-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2011 6:21 AM


Re: Predestination.
My understanding of his point is that if there is no coherent plan behind the formation of the universe, the world or even evolution for that matter, then scientists that look back in time in an attempt to comprehend our origins would have no reason to trust their findings.
For example when we look at evolution and the complex process of natural selection, it appears to me that it has been planned, and as a result biologists are able to work back and gain understanding of the process. If evolutionary processes didn't have coherence then Lewis is suggesting that we would not be able to have confidence in our ability to have faith in our conclusions.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 6:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 11:25 AM GDR has replied
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 9:05 PM GDR has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 82 of 103 (603972)
02-09-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by GDR
02-09-2011 10:49 AM


Re: Predestination.
My understanding of his point is that if there is no coherent plan behind the formation of the universe, the world or even evolution for that matter, then scientists that look back in time in an attempt to comprehend our origins would have no reason to trust their findings.
This assumes that an unplanned universe would be irrational. I don't see how these two features are related. In order for us to figure out our origins all we need is a rational universe, one that is consistent in how it behaves. In a rational universe we can trust our findings because what we see today is the same as it was yesterday and all the days before that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 10:49 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 83 of 103 (603976)
02-09-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
02-09-2011 11:25 AM


Re: Predestination.
Taq writes:
This assumes that an unplanned universe would be irrational.
From my Webster's unabridged:
quote:
1/ of, based on, or derived from reasoning: as, rational powers
2/ able to reason; reasoning; as an infant is not yet rational
3/ showing reason; not foolish or silly; sensible; as a rational argument
From this definition then a rational universe would be one based on reason whereas an unplanned universe wouldn't be, which by definition makes the unplanned universe irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 11:25 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Woodsy, posted 02-09-2011 12:15 PM GDR has replied
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:41 PM GDR has replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 84 of 103 (603980)
02-09-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by GDR
02-09-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Predestination.
What is meant is that the universe has consistent properties, such as gravity. Once one has that, apparent design follows naturally, with no need for gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 1:38 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 85 of 103 (603982)
02-09-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by GDR
02-09-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Predestination.
From this definition then a rational universe would be one based on reason whereas an unplanned universe wouldn't be, which by definition makes the unplanned universe irrational.
A rational universe would be one that can be understood through reason. Planned and rational are not synonyms. If you want to claim that an unplanned universe would be irrational (i.e. incapable of being understood through reason) then you must show why this would be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 1:46 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 86 of 103 (603991)
02-09-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Woodsy
02-09-2011 12:15 PM


Re: Predestination.
woodsy writes:
What is meant is that the universe has consistent properties, such as gravity. Once one has that, apparent design follows naturally, with no need for gods.
I guess the question is why does the universe have consistent properties in the first place. Even if you are correct and that there is no need for gods, then it doesn't mean that god or gods don't exist.
Actually, it seems to me that your post would point towards deism in that the "consistent' properties were put in place and then left to run on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Woodsy, posted 02-09-2011 12:15 PM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Trae, posted 02-09-2011 11:50 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 87 of 103 (603992)
02-09-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Taq
02-09-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Predestination.
Taq writes:
A rational universe would be one that can be understood through reason. Planned and rational are not synonyms. If you want to claim that an unplanned universe would be irrational (i.e. incapable of being understood through reason) then you must show why this would be the case.
I am not saying that planned and rational are synonyms. I am suggesting that a rational universe is indicative of a planned universe.
It isn't a case of presenting evidence. We seem to agree that the universe is rational. I am of the belief that it is rational, because there is an intelligence that causes it to be that way whereas you, if I understand you correctly, believe that the rationality came about naturally without without any external intelligence.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 3:38 PM GDR has replied
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 8:48 PM GDR has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 88 of 103 (604013)
02-09-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
02-09-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Predestination.
I am suggesting that a rational universe is indicative of a planned universe.
Based on what reasoning?
whereas you, if I understand you correctly, believe that the rationality came about naturally without without any external intelligence.
That's not entirely it, but I have never really spelled it out so you aren't to blame for getting it wrong.
For all we know there could be irrational universes out there, universes where laws are not stable and change in both time and space. I would argue that such a universe could not produce life, much less intelligent life. You first need a rational universe in order to have intelligent life. Therefore, if there are a plethora of universes then the rational ones are candidates for producing life, and even intelligent life.
In my opinion, your argument suffers from a confirmation bias. Of course we find intelligent life in a rational universe, it can't be any other way (according to my argument above). However, a rational universe is but one of many outcomes from an unplanned (i.e. unintelligent) process that creates universes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 1:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 02-10-2011 12:00 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 89 of 103 (604047)
02-09-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
02-09-2011 1:46 PM


we live in a rational universe...are you sure?
I am suggesting that a rational universe is indicative of a planned universe.
This universe only appears rational. That is to say, within the scope of our evolved environment it is natural that the world would appear rational (something that 'makes sense') since our sense making tools were evolved to make sense of the low energy macro universe in which we are competing.
But when you look closely - it transpires that the universe isn't reasonable, rational, sensical, or even particularly understandable. It is marginally describable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 1:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 02-10-2011 12:05 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 103 (604052)
02-09-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by GDR
02-09-2011 10:49 AM


Re: Predestination.
If evolutionary processes didn't have coherence then Lewis is suggesting that we would not be able to have confidence in our ability to have faith in our conclusions.
And my point would be that we are not, in fact, able to enjoy such confidence. What he means as a reductio ad absurdum of the atheist point of view is in fact completely true. We do the best that we can to be right, but we have no ultimate grounds for "confidence" or "faith" that our best is good enough. Let us once doubt our reason, and we cannot reason ourselves out of this doubt. And once the doubt has been admitted, it cannot be expelled by appeal to belief in God, since that might be one more of our mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 10:49 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 02-10-2011 12:11 AM Dr Adequate 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