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:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 318 (280506)
01-21-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
01-21-2006 10:01 AM


Re: ONLY scientific results as "true"
You can study evolution without believing science is the avenue, or the only avenue, to truth.
I'm not talking about just science. I'm talking about logic.
My view would be that evolution logically excludes the supernatural, or at any rate it excludes the idea of God in the conventional sense.
This doesn't make sense to me. Nihilism is a subjective opinion
There's nothing subjective about nihilism, unless you want to say that all thoughts are subjective. Nihilism is the view that life has no objective meaning or purpose. Nihilism, as I am using the term, is not a negative comment. It is neither negative nor positive. If evolution is true, then it follows that life has no objective meaning or purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 01-21-2006 10:01 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Ben!, posted 01-21-2006 10:48 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 01-21-2006 10:50 AM robinrohan has replied

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


Message 17 of 318 (280508)
01-21-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 6:33 AM


Disagreed
If you accept TOE, you must also accept the following:
1. materialism
2. determinism
3. atheism
4. and lastly, of course, nihilism.
Disagreed. Lets see...
Materialism: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical.
A: Why has population x changed over time?
B: Because of variations in heriditable features (occuring at the genetic level) with a selection process such as natural selection leads to said changes.
A: So you don't accept that your house has a Domovoi?
B: Erm, sorry, how can you reach that conclusion?
Non sequitur.
determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
A: Why has population x changed over time?
B: Because of variations in heriditable features (occuring at the genetic level) with a selection process such as natural selection leads to said changes.
A: So you don't accept quantum indeterminacy?
B: Erm, sorry, how can you reach that conclusion?
Non sequitur.
atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
A: Why has population x changed over time?
B: Because of variations in heriditable features (occuring at the genetic level) with a selection process such as natural selection leads to said changes.
A: So you don't accept that Eos has rosy fingers?
B: Erm, sorry, how can you reach that conclusion?
Non sequitur.
nihilism: Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
A: Why has population x changed over time?
B: Because of variations in heriditable features (occuring at the genetic level) with a selection process such as natural selection leads to said changes.
A: So you don't think that there is value in existence, and that morality is thus meaningless?
B: Erm, sorry, how can you reach that conclusion?
Non sequitur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 6:33 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:44 AM Modulous has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 318 (280511)
01-21-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by iano
01-21-2006 9:56 AM


The Fall....
evolution and the Fall (which includes the Fall of nature) would seem to be irreconcilable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 9:56 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 12:20 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 318 (280512)
01-21-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
01-21-2006 10:06 AM


Re: which ISM??
In which case we should all go home.
We could do that, but it's more interesting to keep arguing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 01-21-2006 10:06 AM iano has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 20 of 318 (280515)
01-21-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 6:33 AM


What is robin on about?
Robin asserts that an evolutionist must also accept materialism, determinism, atheism and nihilism.
I am trying to make sense of this claim. I am not succeeding.
I am not a determinist. Many physicists, particularly quantum physicists, are not determinists. In what way should that cause a problem for me (as an evolutionist).
On materialism, robinrohan says "One cannot, I think, be a dualist and accept TOE." I'm not certain that's correct. But it seems to me that materialism is not the same as the denial of dualism. Surely one could believe in a supernatural world without necessarily believing in an immaterial soul.
As for nihilism - I never did understand what robin sees in that. Perhaps I still don't understand what nihilism is.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 6:33 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:48 AM nwr has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 318 (280516)
01-21-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 6:33 AM


So you belive that if one excepts the TOE one must also be an atheist. Are you willing to examine the evidence that seems to indicate that your assumption is wrong?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 6:33 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:46 AM jar has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 318 (280517)
01-21-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
01-21-2006 10:25 AM


Re: Disagreed
So you don't accept that your house has a Domovoi?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
A: So you don't accept quantum indeterminacy?
If you are saying that quantum events are uncaused, I disagree. We just don't know what the cause is.
A: So you don't accept that Eos has rosy fingers?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
A: So you don't think that there is value in existence, and that morality is thus meaningless?
In an objective sense, no I don't think that there is value in existence, and in an objective sense, I do think that morality is meaningless. Morals are, as Holmes has said, a matter of personal taste, like preferring one color to another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 10:25 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 10:50 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 318 (280518)
01-21-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
01-21-2006 10:43 AM


Are you willing to examine the evidence that seems to indicate that your assumption is wrong?
Sure, I'm willing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 01-21-2006 10:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 01-21-2006 10:49 AM robinrohan has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 24 of 318 (280519)
01-21-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:15 AM


Re: ONLY scientific results as "true"
My view would be that evolution logically excludes the supernatural, or at any rate it excludes the idea of God in the conventional sense.
My view was that science, when taken as the only avenue of truth, excludes the idea of God. Evolution is part of science, so it too, if taken as the complete truth, excludes the idea of God. or those who accept evolution and only science for finding truth, exclude the idea of God.
So evolution itself does not logically exclude God. There are more premises than just "evolution" necessary for that.
If evolution is true, then it follows that life has no objective meaning or purpose.
I'm not sure what to do except to reiterate my argument. The argument is that meaning is created by mind. It cannot be objective or subjective, except as created so by a mind.
Then meaning has no place in this discussion. Rationality and logic does not necessitate that meaning be objective (applying to everything / all people) or subjective (applying to only one person). Meaning is created by a person. If you are that person, the meaning is objective. And there is no way to objectively see that it is not objective. If you are not that person, then that person's meaning looks subjective.
In other words, the "objectivity" of meaning is observer-dependent. There are observers who have objective meaning. Just because you view it as subjective doesn't make it subjective. Just because it is only one person holding that meaning doesn't make it subjective.
In other words, there's nothing that can make meaning "objectively subjective". Everybody judging meaning is an observer, and has meaning attached with their viewpoint. There is no observer-dependent position on meaning. Meaning is only subjective insofar as the observer sees it that way.
There is no abstract, observer-independent view on meaning. Nihilism, inasfar as it is true, is only true because that is what you have chosen, and insofar as you are the observer. There is no logical necessity beyond that bare point. Because meaning is created, and you can't ... BE without it.
Just ask Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:15 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 11:11 AM Ben! has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 318 (280521)
01-21-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
01-21-2006 10:41 AM


Re: What is robin on about?
Surely one could believe in a supernatural world without necessarily believing in an immaterial soul.
"Supernatural" means incorporeal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 01-21-2006 10:41 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by lfen, posted 01-21-2006 6:14 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 01-21-2006 6:20 PM robinrohan has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 318 (280522)
01-21-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:46 AM


Okay, then let's start with th fact that I am a Christian and yet also find the TOE to be the best explanation available for the life we see about us and that which came before.
Is that sufficient eveidence to falsify your asserton?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:46 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:56 AM jar has replied

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


Message 27 of 318 (280523)
01-21-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:44 AM


Re: Disagreed
So you don't accept that your house has a Domovoi?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Domovoi are not material entities...I provided a link for you to help.
A: So you don't accept quantum indeterminacy?
If you are saying that quantum events are uncaused, I disagree. We just don't know what the cause is.
No, I am saying that someone can conceivably accept both ToE and quantum indeterminacy.
A: So you don't accept that Eos has rosy fingers?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I provided a link for you. Eos is a goddess.
A: So you don't think that there is value in existence, and that morality is thus meaningless?
In an objective sense, no I don't think that there is value in existence, and in an objective sense, I do think that morality is meaningless. Morals are, as Holmes has said, a matter of personal taste, like preferring one color to another.
Thanks for your opinion, but that wasn't the point I was making. Simply accepting ToE does not mean one accepts nihilism...none of your conclusions logically follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:44 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:59 AM Modulous has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 318 (280524)
01-21-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:15 AM


Re: ONLY scientific results as "true"
Nihilism is the view that life has no objective meaning or purpose.
In that case, nihilism is trivially true and uninteresting. Both "meaning" and "purpose" are inherently subjective. Of course life has no objective meaning or purpose.
This has nothing to do with belief in evolution.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:15 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 9:21 AM nwr has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 318 (280525)
01-21-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
01-21-2006 10:49 AM


Okay, then let's start with th fact that I am a Christian and yet also find the TOE to be the best explanation available for the life we see about us and that which came before.
Is that sufficient eveidence to falsify your asserton?
No, it just means that you are trying to reconcile two beliefs which cannot logically be reconciled.
I'm not saying that somebody can't believe that both Christianity and evolution are both true. People believe all sorts of things. But it's not a logical belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 01-21-2006 10:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-21-2006 10:59 AM robinrohan has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 318 (280526)
01-21-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
01-21-2006 10:56 AM


Well, in that case, the fact that I can provide thousands and thousands of names of Christians who believe both Christianity and also that the TOE is a valid explanation of life as we can see it will not be accepted as evidence falsifying your assertion?
Is that a reasonable summary of your position?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 10:56 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2006 11:05 AM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024