Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 166 of 301 (283045)
02-01-2006 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
01-31-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Welcome to the chorus
Faith writes:
Please move to the back of the bus.
Why? He can be in the driver's seat, as far as I'm concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:38 PM Faith has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 167 of 301 (283046)
02-01-2006 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by iamaelephant
01-31-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Welcome
iamaelephant writes:
if I'm stepping on anyone's toes I do appreciate it when someone pulls me up on it.
I must warn you that some people's toes are so long that there's no avoiding stepping on them once in a while. (Faith, I'm not talking about you. I'm one of your groupies.)
Welcome to this strange club of minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by iamaelephant, posted 01-31-2006 9:38 PM iamaelephant has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 301 (283052)
02-01-2006 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
01-31-2006 5:47 PM


robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
Unsuported assertion. Also way OT
You don't seem to know what the topic is, Jar. Let me explain it to you.
The topic (part of it) is as follows: I am contending that if you believe in evolution, you cannot believe in God. By God I mean all-good, all-powerful God, which I believe is your standard Western version of God. When I say one cannot believe in God and evolution at the same time, I mean logically you can not. Of course, you can believe emotionally or irrationally anything you damned well please, and so can anyone else.
Now I will explain to you why you cannot logically believe in an all-powerful, all-good God and also believe in evolution. You cannot do so because the deviser of evolution must also be seen as either cruel or indifferent. He devised a system in which, in order to survive, life forms have to feed off other life forms. If creatures ate dirt and rocks, it would be morally nicer (I grant you the diet sounds insipid). He devised a system in which creatures go around killing each other for prey. This is cruel. The arbitrary cruelty of nature is apparent to anyone: to take just one example, birth defects. Now birth defects are, I suppose, caused by messed-up genes. Genes are all part of this evolutionary scheme of your cruel God that you and your other 10,000 bishops believe in.
And what do you say in response? You say "Many others believe as I do." What, is this a popularity contest, in which we decide the truth by how many people believe something? Your only answer is that evolution is "perfect." I really can't see the perfection of it. Do you call birth defects perfection? What about vestigial organs? Are they another example of perfection?
Now, let's turn to Paulk's idea. He seems to be arguing that because there are many other objections to the concept of God, then evolution doesn't count. The FAll doesn't make sense, he says--therefore evolution doesn't count as an argument against God. However, evolution is one of many arguments one can bring against the concept of God. I agree. But what is that to this thread? What the thread is arguing is that IF you accept evolution, you cannot accept a good all-powerful God. It is not saying, because of other reasons--plug in your own--you also cannot accept the concept of God.
For example, somebody might say, "Evolution makes no sense to me. I think all these life forms sprang up spontaneously at the same time. However, the cruelty of nature tells me there is no god." Such a view does NOT contradict what is being argued on this thread. It is being argued that IF you accept evolution, you cannot accept God in the traditional sense. It is not saying that there might not be some other reason why you also would not accept the existence of God.
However, my point has an advantage over other views that would reject evolution and yet still have other objections to God. There is evidence for evolution--there is a great deal of evidence. Moreover, this evidence is scientific--it is not merely a little philosophical argument.
You say my ideas are unsupported. You say I'm off-topic. What else are you going to say, Jar? If you think that you can wiggle out of this cruel God of yours, which you say you and 10,000 other people believe in, not to mention the millions of Catholics, give me some reason why this evolutionary God of yours is not cruel.
Don't tell me to start another topic. This is it.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2006 03:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 5:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2006 5:38 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 177 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2006 8:20 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 184 by jar, posted 02-01-2006 10:59 AM robinrohan has replied

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


Message 169 of 301 (283056)
02-01-2006 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 4:53 AM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
Ypu are considerably misrepresenting my position.
I am certinly not arguing about OTHER objections at all. I am arguing about the very same objections that you raise - the existence of death and suffering. You claim that the concept of the Fall is the only possible response that can preserve the idea of a good God. However if it does not do so you can either insist on beleiving anyway - which puts you in the position that you claim Jar is in, or accept that it is not evolution that rules out a solution to the problem because there is none.
Either way your argument fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 4:53 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 5:50 AM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 301 (283057)
02-01-2006 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by PaulK
02-01-2006 5:38 AM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
You claim that the concept of the Fall is the only possible response that can preserve the idea of a good God
Why should I care about the Fall? I'm no YEC. My position is nihilistic. What I am doing is explaining how illogical a Christian evolutionist is. The thread is about what we must accept if we accept evolution. It's not: the Fall explains the cruelty of nature.
I brought in the FAll to make the point that you can't believe in the Fall and evolution at the same time. Some people--namely YEC's--think the Fall explains the cruelty of Nature. But then some Christians might try to say that they believe in evolution anyway.
I do think, if we had to choose among Christian beliefs, the YEC view is more consistent--but that is not necessary for my argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2006 5:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2006 6:00 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 172 by Funkaloyd, posted 02-01-2006 6:25 AM robinrohan has replied

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


Message 171 of 301 (283058)
02-01-2006 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 5:50 AM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
You're the one who made his position dependant on the idea that the Fall was an adequate explanation for death and suffering. And that is why - for the purposes of this disucssion - you should care about it.
There are 3 possible positions
1) The existence of death and suffering can be reconciled with the existence of the sort of God you are discussing.
2) The existence of death and suffering cannot be reconciled with this sort of God.
3) The existence of death and suffering can only be reconciled with this sort of God only if evolution is rejected.
The first position refutes your claim.
The second position removes any significance from the issue of accepting or rejecting evolution.
Only the third position then can really support your case. The Fall is your only candidate for such an explanation. If it is inadequate then your argument fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 5:50 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 2:28 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 224 by robinrohan, posted 02-02-2006 5:14 PM PaulK has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 301 (283064)
02-01-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 5:50 AM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
robinrohan writes:
you can't believe in the Fall and evolution at the same time.
But you can believe in something very similar to the Fall, right? I.e. free will introducing suffering into the Universe, against the creator's wishes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 5:50 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 10:49 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 173 of 301 (283070)
02-01-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by iamaelephant
01-31-2006 9:11 PM


Apology
Your right. It wasn't an attack on Faith herself. I was a little annoyed at someone stepping in with such brashness when they hadn't actually taken part and appeared to make their first contribution to the discussion in the form of a sniper attack. But if the kettle is black then so it the pot. My apologies and welcome to EvC
ps: it wasn't really a snipers attack either - you did provide argument which is not the characteristic of a sniper
This message has been edited by iano, 01-Feb-2006 12:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by iamaelephant, posted 01-31-2006 9:11 PM iamaelephant has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 301 (283082)
02-01-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Funkaloyd
02-01-2006 2:50 AM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
As far as I can see, all you've showed is that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is incompatible with evolution. Not many would dispute that.
I'm content with that. That has been traditional Christianity, the religion of the West, until the last 150 years or so, when Liberal Christianity came along, which is what those 10000 on jar's list represent -- including Deism, which is basically an earlier form of Liberal Christianity. Until that recently there hasn't been any other concept of God and Creation to think about in the West. Darwinism was a major influence in the overall rejection of God in the West, the atheism that is so common now. It's really academic at best to include all these other conceptions of God in this discussion. The Deist or Liberal idea of God and Creation is the only real contender, and that conception denies the Fall {abe: and the creation of human beings} and is compatible with evolution. But the traditional "literal" belief isn't.
So it comes down to having to accept either atheism or the watered-down God of Liberal Theology if you accept evolution.
I couldn't follow your scenario in the linked message. It makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain better.
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 08:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Funkaloyd, posted 02-01-2006 2:50 AM Funkaloyd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Funkaloyd, posted 02-01-2006 9:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 185 by jar, posted 02-01-2006 11:03 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 301 (283083)
02-01-2006 8:15 AM


nihilism and evolution
Now I'm going to explain to you why, if you accept evolution, you must accept nihilism. I'm defining nihilism as the idea that human life has no "formal purpose." We are not made for any particular use or function. We just happen to be here, hanging about.
Because this concept of an evolutionary God makes no sense, in that he is bound to be either a cruel or weak God, we must reject the idea of God. We can also reject a Deistic God for the same reason. A God that made the world and then went away would be cruelly indifferent to the sufferings of his creatures.
Now the notion of a cruel god or weak god makes no sense as a Creator. A Pagan might believe in such a god. A pagan believes in natural Gods (or any rate, might do so). Natural gods are gods that spring up out of nature somehow, rather than creating nature. If you spring out of nature, then you are not the creator of nature.
So there is no God. Thus saith evolution, if logically carried to its conclusions. Thus saith other ideas too, but we are discussing evolution. Or at least I think so.
In my off-topic way, Jar, I have this delusion that evolution is relevant to this thread. So we were created by a natural, mindless process--via natural selection--note that word "natural"--and mutation (mainly). Nature had nothing in mind when it made us: nature has no mind, so it would be difficult for it have something in it.
We, as human beings, have no formal purpose. A formal purpose is an objective purpose. It is that purpose for which something is made by its creator. If I make a chair, its formal purpose is to be sat in by unsupporting, off-topic, pee-brained folk such as myself. I could also use this chair as a ladder, but that would not be its formal purpose. We could also use it as a subject of a poem, as follows:
In Memorium to my Beloved Chair, Recently Broken by my Fat Ass
To all of us sorrowfully gathered here
To mourn the death of my lovely chair,
Let this be a warning; let it be clear:
This is what comes of hotdogs and beer.
This is what comes of hotdogs and beer,
Of gluttony lust and midnight cheer.
Had I eaten fresh fish, we wouldn't be here.
This is what comes of hotdogs and beer.
This is what comes of pizza--cold,
After a night's carousing, gobbled with glee,
While you listen in awe to the message machine,
Wondering who on earth "Nancy" might be.
This is what comes of a lifetime of sin,
Of oysters and sweet rolls and peanuts and gin,
And that long passing glance at some sweet girl's skin
(The folksinger type, as they all were then):
Ah, that I could do it all over again!
There you have the chair being used for a personal rather than formal purpose. Now if the chair could devise its own purposes, those purposes would be subjective on the chair's part. But if the chair is always about its purpose--until, alas, it is broken in spirit--it is doing God's will, so to speak.
We are in the position of a chair devising its own purposes except that we were made by a natural process not by a being. We are, in a formal sense, totally useless. This is another way of saying that life is meaningless. This is nihilism.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2006 07:18 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2006 09:54 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2006 01:20 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2006 01:21 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Parasomnium, posted 02-01-2006 8:20 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 178 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2006 8:43 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2006 9:05 AM robinrohan has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 176 of 301 (283084)
02-01-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 8:15 AM


Re: nihilism and evolution
You're drunk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 8:15 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 10:39 AM Parasomnium has not replied

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


Message 177 of 301 (283085)
02-01-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 4:53 AM


What if evolution was for the greater good?
The topic (part of it) is as follows: I am contending that if you believe ain evolution, you cannot believe in God. By God I mean all-good, all-powerful God, which I believe is your standard Western version of God. When I say one cannot believe in God and evolution at the same time, I mean logically you can not. Of course, you can believe emotionally or irrationally anything you damned well please, and so can anyone else.
Well, I'm glad you have finally dropped your athiest position. Now it is merely non-Christian. Of course, there is massive debate over whether it is contradictory to the core concept of Christianity. So far, all that has been shown for sure is that evolution and creationism are contradictory. I don't think we've needed 500 posts to establish that.
If you could show how the Roman Catholic God is contradictory to evolution, you'd have a stronger position.
Now I will explain to you why you cannot logically believe in an all-powerful, all-good God and also believe in evolution. You cannot do so because the deviser of evolution must also be seen as either cruel or indifferent. He devised a system in which, in order to survive, life forms have to feed off other life forms. If creatures ate dirt and rocks, it would be morally nicer (I grant you the diet sounds insipid). He devised a system in which creatures go around killing each other for prey. This is cruel.
That's if God defines cruel in the same way you do. And its God's definition of cruel that counts, since he is the objective arbiter. Ever heard of the Greater Good? If we had a theological reason as to why God put us here, then we'd know if God is cruel or not. We don't know why, so the result is inconclusive.
You are first assuming that God cares about animals, I'm fairly sure a case could be devised for the opposite. You are second assuming that an animal killing another animal for food is cruel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 4:53 AM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 178 of 301 (283087)
02-01-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 8:15 AM


Re: nihilism and evolution
Because this concept of an evolutionary God makes no sense, in that he is bound to be either a cruel or weak God, we must reject the idea of God. We can also reject a Deistic God for the same reson. A God that made the world and then went away would be cruelly indifferent to the sufferings of his creatures.
So because the grand architect of the universe, the purpose of our existence, and objective morality, happens to be cruel by your definition. How does that mean that there isn't a purpose? It doesn't follow. For example:
a) You are wrong about God's motivation, and he turns out to not be cruel when you look at the big picture
b) God is exceedingly cruel. The purpose of life is to become as cruel as God so that you will be deiefied.
c) God is indifferent, the purpose of life is to get God to pay us some attention.
A pagan believes in natural Gods (or any rate, might do so). Natural gods are gods that spring up out of nature somehow, rather than creating nature. If you spring out of nature, then you are not the creator of nature.
Slavic Paganism creation story starts with
quote:
In the beginning, there were no earth and no people, only the primordial sea.
Indeed, slavic Paganism has both a Good creator God and and evil Creator God. Hinduism has a creator, a destroyer and a maintainer.
We, as human beings, have no formal purpose. A formal purpose is an objective purpose. It is that purpose for which something is made by its creator.
What you are saying is that if we weren't created for a purpose, we don't have a purpose. An interesting theological issue would be 'what is God's purpose?'. However, our purpose could be to suffer for the eyes of a cruel God. It could be that our purpose is to get back into the graces of a merciful God.

Your conclusions:
Creationism is the only logical theistic belief.
Any other form of Christianity is not logical
Creationism and evolution are contradictory
Theism is logically contradictory to evolution OR your belief is logically contradictory with itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 8:15 AM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 179 of 301 (283090)
02-01-2006 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 8:15 AM


Re: nihilism and evolution
THere are two objections to be raised.
Firstly the idea that Nihilism can be adequately described as the notion that the human species has no formal purpose seems dubious. At the least it is a rarefied definition and to use it without specifying in the OP that this was the definition to be used is not.
Secondly you cannot disprove the existence of anything simply by stating that you do not like the idea. Your dismissal of inconvenient God-concepts on this basis is thus not even a rational argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 8:15 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by robinrohan, posted 02-02-2006 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 301 (283094)
02-01-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
02-01-2006 8:05 AM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Faith writes:
I couldn't follow your scenario in the linked message. It makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain better.
Though I disagree with almost everything you write, I must admit, I admire your ability to get your points across so clearly. I struggle with doing that; you'd think that English wasn't my first language.
That scenario was designed to make the point that if The Fall can be an excuse for creationists, it can be an excuse for theistic evolutionists, too. Though in an evolutionary scenario humans couldn't have introduced suffering into the world through sin (they weren't around before suffering), a supernatural entity”let's say an angel”could have. The idea is, imho, silly and extremely unlikely, but it is also logical. It could have happened, and that Infinitesimal possibility is enough to refute the idea that a loving god and the ToE are incompatible.
I get the feeling that I'm not being any clearer. Sorry about that =)
Darwinism was a major influence in the overall rejection of God in the West, the atheism that is so common now. It's really academic at best to include all these other conceptions of God in this discussion.
I completely agree with both sentences, but I think that those other conceptions can demonstrate that evolution doesn't necessitate atheism or certain kinds of gods. Though, it does demand a rejection of what you call "traditional Christianity".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-01-2006 8:05 AM Faith 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