Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 16 of 104 (517637)
08-01-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
08-01-2009 10:25 PM


Re: Is Evolution is the only option in a Naturalistic point of view? At present, yes
That may be because naturalists rely on evidence, and leave religious beliefs and pseudoscience to the philosophers, eh?
Of course, but this does not mean that observing of nature is the only way to determine what is true.
Starting with this axiom: that real truth can only be found through nature, is in itself a philosophical belief called Naturalism. We don't have to fool ourselves on this, all the greatest and brightest scientists up to the modern times were also all very philosophical. You jsut have to look at all the great philosophical quotes that people have in their signature that come from scientists in the vast majority. Its is my belief that true scientists have an equally great understanding of philosophy. Which doesn't seem to be your case considering how you denigrate the Philo-Sophia, or love of wisdom
Static "kinds" have no basis in science. If it were not for the bible we would never hear of this option, nor even consider it for a moment. It is pure religious apologetics.
I would disagree. Of course, the word 'kind' comes from the Bible, but this conceptt that their was a rigidity in animal species is there from as soon as man started to observe nature methodotically (Aristotle).
Transmutationism was also proposed in ancient Greece, but it was buried behind the much more popular views of Aristotle. It did not surface back until Darwin because until then, there was no evidence in nature that this could be possible.
The theist has both options to the extent that they reject the naturalist option (that is, the one with evidence) for religious reasons. There is no scientific evidence for deities pushing genes or mutations around at will.
A theist doesn't have to believe a deity is pushing the genes; Anotny Flew believes in a God that never interacts in any way with nature.
Believe what you want, but please don't try to inflict your particular religious belief upon either science or our schools
Being Canadian, I don't think I can vote in the US, so don't worry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 10:25 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 104 (517641)
08-02-2009 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
08-01-2009 11:36 PM


Do you think it is possible that the universe does not have a beginning, and thus allowing the first option from a naturalists point of view ?
Well, this conflates two questions.
Given the evidence, I think it vanishingly unlikely that there is a static universe which has always had static species.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible for a hypothetical person constrained only by the philosophy of naturalism, and not by my understanding of the evidence, to come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
I think I'll see if I can find out who those Greek philosophers were who advocated that view.
My OP might have been a bit misleading on all this. Naturalism doesn't prohibit by itself the belief in static kinds. Naturalism+a none infinite universe (in the past, at least) does this.
I think there is an alternative, which is to disbelieve in evolution but to believe in the spontaneous generation of higher species, such as aardvarks. Again, you have to add constraints of scientific knowledge to the beliefs of your philosophical naturalist which he could not derive simply from his philosophy.
---
It is worth noting that in fact the theory of evolution was not derived from a naturalistic philosophy plus such scientific knowledge as you mentioned in your OP. Darwin and Wallace were not philosophical naturalists, nor, of course, did they know about the Big Bang, and the 2LoT was published (IIRC) six years after the Origin of Species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 11:36 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 104 (517645)
08-02-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
08-01-2009 11:36 PM


Re: Senseless Post
One of the possible ways to answer the question in the title which says: Is Evolution is the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ? Is to say 'No, there is a third option'
This is not a debate in any form, as I want it to be a discussion. In that regard, I encourage you to participate more actively

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 08-01-2009 11:36 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 104 (517648)
08-02-2009 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
08-01-2009 11:36 PM


Re: Senseless Post
I should say that I too don't see what Jon's post is getting at. Apparently he has an opinion, but figuring out what it is is left as an exercise for the reader.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 08-01-2009 11:36 PM Jon has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 104 (517650)
08-02-2009 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
08-01-2009 11:33 PM


slevesque responds to me:
quote:
I do remember saying, at the end of my OP, that A Theist can rightfully believe in Evolution.
Then please explain your equivocation of "naturalist" and "atheist." It would seem you have contradicted yourself.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 11:33 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 1:47 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2009 1:55 AM Rrhain has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 104 (517654)
08-02-2009 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
08-02-2009 1:12 AM


A Naturalist is someone who beliefs that matter and energy is all there is. Therefore, nothing supernatural can exist.
This is very similar to atheism. There might be nuances between the two, but they are very small and probably not related to the topic at hand.
I can't really explain more then that, I'm maybe not being clear enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 1:12 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 1:55 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 104 (517655)
08-02-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
08-02-2009 1:12 AM


Then please explain your equivocation of "naturalist" and "atheist." It would seem you have contradicted yourself.
You took "naturalist" to mean "one who accepts evolution", to the extent of categorizing the Catholic Church as naturalists.
But this is not what it means. A philosophical naturalist would be someone who rejects the supernatural a priori, which the Catholic Church does not.
Any ambiguity of terms here is much more your fault than his.
Moreover, your post was irrelevant. Slevesque argues (incorrectly) that a naturalist must accept evolution. One can counter this by instancing naturalists who don't or didn't, but not by instancing theists who do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 1:12 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 104 (517656)
08-02-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
08-02-2009 1:47 AM


slevesque responds to me.
quote:
A Naturalist is someone who beliefs that matter and energy is all there is.
I would disagree with that. Instead, a naturalist is one who thinks that natural things have natural causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 1:47 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2009 2:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 104 (517657)
08-02-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rrhain
08-02-2009 1:55 AM


This would still not include the Catholic Church (who would tell you that the Universe is a natural thing with a supernatural cause).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 1:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 10:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 25 of 104 (517658)
08-02-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
08-01-2009 11:31 PM


Re: Evidence
Good morning slevesque
Maybe it's a problem of language, but I fail to see where our statements differ. If the supernatural were evidenced in nature it would be natural. If it were natural, naturalist would accept it as such. It's more tautological than circular I'd imagine.
AbE: Or maybe not:
Dr. Adequate writes:
A philosophical naturalist would be someone who rejects the supernatural a priori .
By "a priori" do you claim philosophical naturalist reject the supernatural without examination, but merely on philosophical grounds? I ask because I see "a priori" used loosely, meaning: they've stopped bothering to look, more often then not. But I can't see you being that sloppy with the language. If that is your claim, it's darned interesting.
As to the pronoun problem, I was complaining that I had no neutral, third person pronouns, not that you weren't using them. English has a few neutral pronouns but they're all plural except for one, "one". And where one can use "one" to refer to a generic person, or oneself, one gets just as tired of writing it as one does of reading it.
I'm going fishing off Nonamesset Island this morning.
Edited by lyx2no, : Didn't see this till after I posted.
Edited by lyx2no, : Add third person.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling, got to go.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 11:31 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 3:49 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-02-2009 3:57 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 104 (517662)
08-02-2009 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by lyx2no
08-02-2009 2:54 AM


Re: Evidence
I always liked this quote by GK Chesterton, and I find it appropriate in this discussion:
The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.
The 'doctrine' would be a proconceived philosophy, such as naturalism or materialism. (Maybe I chose the wrong wording in my OP, since after checking the difference between these two I feel I was thinking more about materialism when writing it down.)
If something happened that would contradict a known law of nature, and that it was a genuine experience (not some magic trick), I would define this as a miracle.
Now you say that ''if the supernatural were evidenced in nature it would be natural''. But I disagree. The evidence of the supernatural in nature would be through a miracle, and by the definition I gave, a miracle is a genuine experience that contradicts a known law of nature. As of such, it could not be natural and would be discarded by a naturalist as being untrue.
I can give a personnal example of a miracle:
There is a lady I know very well that was diagnosed with a cancer by her doctor, who used x-rays etc. to identify it. Despite that she had the x-ray right in front of here, she refused to believe it and so went to another city to see another doctor so that he would examine her if she had a cancer. (Health care is free here in quebec, so she was paying herself a little 'luxury' haha) Same tests, same results with the same cancer at the same place. She still didn't accept it, and drove 2 hours to another hospital in another city, and was rechecked if she had cancer. Again, exactly the same results. Now seeing these three independant confirmations that she had a cancer, she finally accepted it. After scheduling here operation to have it removed, she said to the doctor: ''God didn't say his last word on all this!'' and left. Fast forward a month or two later, at the day scheduled for here operation. She was in the hospital elevator with the doctor, all set to go down to the operation room when a nurse came running to announce that the pre-operation tests had revealed that there were no more cancer. The new x-rays were totally different from the three previous ones, and the cancer had in fatc disappeared. When the lady turned to the doctor and asked: 'What happened ?' the doctor simply replied: 'It happenned exactly what you told me.' This was revealing because that doctor was not a christian at all, and yet didn't even try to explain what had happened. He had recognized a miracle when he saw one.
Wow that was longer than I thought, I hope you liked it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lyx2no, posted 08-02-2009 2:54 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2009 4:27 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 39 by lyx2no, posted 08-02-2009 5:32 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 5:54 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 81 by Stile, posted 08-06-2009 9:43 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 27 of 104 (517665)
08-02-2009 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by lyx2no
08-02-2009 2:54 AM


Philosophical Naturalism vs Materialistic Naturalism
Philosophical naturalism -There is/are no god(s) or anything else supernatural.
Materialistic Naturalism - Agnostic - Don't know and don't care if there is/are god(s) or anything else supernatural. Anything supernatural is irrelevant to their considerations. They study nature.
Moose
Added by edit much later: I thing I should have used the term "methodological naturalism" rather than "materialist naturalism".
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID's.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : The "Added by edit"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lyx2no, posted 08-02-2009 2:54 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 4:06 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 104 (517667)
08-02-2009 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Minnemooseus
08-02-2009 3:57 AM


Re: Philosophical Naturalism vs Materialistic Naturalism
Ok thanks, It is philosophical naturalism that I am talkign about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-02-2009 3:57 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 104 (517675)
08-02-2009 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
08-02-2009 3:49 AM


Re: Evidence
I always liked this quote by GK Chesterton, and I find it appropriate in this discussion:
The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.
What Chesterton neglects to mention is that this "doctrine" is the best-evidenced statement in the Universe.
I can give a personnal example of a miracle:
Nope. It doesn't contradict the known laws of nature, and so by your own definition is not a miracle.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 3:49 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 104 (517681)
08-02-2009 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2009 4:27 AM


Re: Evidence
What Chesterton neglects to mention is that this "doctrine" is the best-evidenced statement in the Universe
I would be curious to know what that statement is ? Is it: matter and energy are all there is ?
Nope. It doesn't contradict the known laws of nature, and so by your own definition is not a miracle
I consider something that if something truly disappears, it would violate the law of conservation of energy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2009 4:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2009 5:13 AM slevesque 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