What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2

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.

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 positions1) 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.

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.

quote:

---

my definition of nihilism makes perfect sense to me if in fact we were created by natural processes.

---

i.e. your definition is crafted to fit your argument, rather than to give an accurate impression of nihilism as it exists. That you should find the need to do that indicates that you don't have much of a case if you should choose a more accurate definition (and BTW it is bad form to assume that everyone follows every thread - if you use an idiosyncratic definition you should really say so, certainly when it is a major point).

quote:

---

It's not about liking or not liking. In fact, a weak God that's doing the best He can is very attractive to me. But it's not a reasonable
description of the Creator.

---

In what way is it unreasonable ? Triggering a Big Bang event in such a way as to get a universe that would probably produce life is not obviously more difficult to a potential creator than micromanaging the appearance and development of life on many planets.Moreover, the sort of creator which Faith calls "evil" simply because it is above considering the petty goings on of biologcal life is hardly unreasonable. Life on Earth has existed only a fraction of the current age of the universe in a very tiny part of it. Why should something that makes universes be interested ? e

The ToE dismisses the argument that species must have been created. However that only rebuts an argument for a God, it does not constitute a direct case against the existence of a God.However, as I have stated,with regard to death and suffering, at most it projects the curent situation into the past and in fact even when the ToE was proposed by Darwin and Wallace there was strong supporting evidence for that idea.Simply recognising that (some) fossils represented the remains of pre-human life and that some of them were predators is adequate to make a strong case that death and suffering preceded human existence. Thus that portion of the argument was already established, before Darwin and Wallace formulated their theories. And according to you that already made belief in God untenable - to people who knew nothing of evolution.
t

If your definitio of nihilism was not crafted to support this sort of argument, why did you praise it for suitability for that task and seem so uninterested in whether it accurately captures the usage of the word ?f

No, your definition is much more limited. For a start it only refers to the species, although individuals can be "made" for a purpose. It says nothing about morality or even meaning. So your definition is really very narrow, and avoids the major features of nihilism.(I, for one, regard morality as culturally shaped intersubjective values built on a biological basis - and although some aspects may be arbitrary, much of morality is not. Thus in that respect I cannot be a nihilist even though I do not beleive that humanity as a species has a formal purpse).n

quote:

---

All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.

---

In an obligatory nod to the topic I point out (again) that evolution does not require that nothing exists but the physical.As for the quoted statement, it is a clear non-sequitur. There is no basis for the unstated assumption that a physical entity cannot embody reliable belief-formation mechanisms. j

quote:

---

All this nitpicking about definitions, about what precisely the ToE may be properly scientifically considered to refer to is just a smoke screen to confuse things. Darwinism's influence on 20th century intellectuals was tremendous and it was all about destroying the meaning of life. Nietzsche's brand of nihilism was a direct response to Darwinism. So were Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, all the Existentialists. But the "scientists" just go on denying it.

---

Let me remind you that the topic is about what we MUST accept if we accept evolution. It is not about the historical influence that evolution may have had. That is a separate topic.To accuse others of setting up a "smokescreen" simply for addrsssing the actual topic is, I have to say bizarre and unjustified.