|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: I think frustration is creeping in because you keep asserting that we must all come to some sort of subjective conclusion about "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives" despite everyone you are talking to emphatically telling you that they most definitely are not drawing these subjective conclusions. And the reason we are not subjectively deciding anything about Tom is because in the absolute absence of any objective evidence of "Tom" we can be certain that "Tom" is entirely a subjective invention no more worthy of sensible consideration than any other evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable concept one can imagine. Frankly that makes no sense. If you haven't decided anything about Tom then why are you on this forum arguing against him. You call it a subjective invention. The dictionary definition for invention that would be applicable in this case is that it is a "product of the imagination". Relativity was a product of Einstein's imagination and it proved to be true. I agree that Tom is different in the sense that he is (at least as far as we know at this point), unfalsifiable, but that doesn't make it untrue. Actually as I have also said numerous times that Tom connects with us through our hearts minds and imaginations, so I have no problem seeing Tom as an invention. Again, it tells us nothing about whether he actually exists or not.
Straggler writes: It's not about some subjective decision to be pro or anti "Tom". It is all about invoking unevidenced entities Vs not invoking unevidenced entities. Well, of course I see life itself with all of its facets as evidence but we aren't going to agree on that.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Out of curiosity what role does DNA play in promoting a higher moral standing in people as opposed to cultural memes?Dr Adequate writes: Well, this may be a false dichotomy. You would have a hard time transmitting these cultural memes to a lobster or a watermelon. The reason for this is clearly genetic. I hadn't really considered that either lobsters or watermelon had morality. They both taste great however. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
oni writes: Really
Really? onifre writes: You need evidence of this intelligence before you can say it has a plan and a hand in anything. You can't put the cart before the horse. All we have is evidence of natural processes. Anything else you care to imagine exists and might be at play is just your own personal belief. There is no evidence that I can point to that objectively tells us that Tom exists. My observations of the world, what I have read etc brings me to my subjective conclusion which I am quite happy to call my belief.
onifre writes: We don't have evidence for Tom. You can't put the cart before the horse. Before we are to consider Tom as the spark of our conscience we need evidence for Tom. We explained this in detail for you already. Before you consider Tom you should have objective evidence that Tom exists. I objectively know that I exist with my own unique personality and a sense of self. I subjectively form my conclusion of what that means on the basis of what I have cited in the last paragraph, and in more detail throughout this thread including the OP. I do not need objective evidence before considering Tom or the FSM. I come to my beliefs on other grounds.
onifre writes: None, I would say. However I'm no expert on how DNA functions. That is what I gathered from listening to the debate that is linked in my post to Straggler, however I see Ned has a study that might say otherwise but I’ll look at it later.
oni writes: That's all fine and good. But when you claim Tom has any involvement in reality, you must first have evidence for Tom. You can't put the cart before the horse. That is logically wrong. I started this thread arguing that we only have evidence for one thing, and that is that everything works naturally. It isn't that "we don't know what else might be at play." It's that there is no evidence for anything else at play so we don't draw any further conclusions for now. You reject what I see as evidence for Tom so this takes us nowhere. I agree that the evidence is not scientific nor is it conclusive. I see things like life itself, morality, intelligence etc as being suggestive that there is more at play than the simply mindless natural forces that we observe. OK, so you’ll call that an argument from incredulity but so what. Maybe it appears incredulous because it really is.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NosyNed writes: One study in particular that seemed to have a close connection to morality was one done by Professors Rhee and Waldman at Emory University. They conducted a meta-analysis of several studies and compared the data against antisocial behavior (aka Psychopaths). They were able to show that 42% of the antisocial behavior can be attributed to the genes that are inherited from one or both parents.They also reference a study of Swedish adoptees that showed criminality of the adoptees in the following percentages: Neither birth nor adoptive parents having a criminal history: 2.9% Criminal history in the adoptive parents only: 6.7% Criminal history in the biological family only: 12.1% Criminal history in both adoptive and biological families: 40% I got this from This Site which seems to refute that study.
quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Funny they don't mention the flaws. They might be referring to half century old twin studies which were so bad as to be fraudulent but maybe they have something to say. This doesn't say it though.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I disagree. I’ll try again. We see a rock rolling down a hill. We can see that it is just naturally rolling around by natural gravitational forces. The good Dr. A looks up and says see, it is all natural forces and there is nothing more at work here. What is being denied is that we have no idea evidence of whether or not someone at the top of the hill gave the rock a shove or if there was natural erosion that caused the rock to break free. But we would rightly prefer any of those explanations to saying that it was dislodged by a unicorn, because in our experience nothing is ever caused by unicorns.
When someone claims that things that we see happen naturally is evidence or even proof that there is nothing else is filling in science or materialism of a gap for which we have no knowledge. But we do have some knowedge -- we know what usually fills gaps. The god-of-the-gapsist is like someone who says: "You can't explain how that happened. If a unicorn dislodged the rock, that would explain it. Therefore, it was dislodged by a unicorn." That would be a unicorn-of-the-gaps argument. If I reply: "Since in our experience nothing is ever caused by unicorns, it was likely not a unicorn", then it would be misleading to call this a "non-unicorn of the gaps" argument, because we're not at all doing the same thing. The pro-unicorn argument is a fallacy, the anti-unicorn argument is empiricism.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: I think frustration is creeping in because you keep asserting that we must all come to some sort of subjective conclusion about "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives" despite everyone you are talking to emphatically telling you that they most definitely are not drawing these subjective conclusions. And the reason we are not subjectively deciding anything about Tom is because in the absolute absence of any objective evidence of "Tom" we can be certain that "Tom" is entirely a subjective invention no more worthy of sensible consideration than any other evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable concept one can imagine. GDR writes: Frankly that makes no sense. If you haven't decided anything about Tom then why are you on this forum arguing against him. Again, you create a false dichotomy. A dichotomy where one is either pro or anti "Tom" on the basis of some sort of subjective pondering of "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives". But I don't need to ponder any more about Tom than I do any other unevidenced entity to conclude that such an entirely subjective notion is (practically by definition) made-up. If I tell you that there is an undetectable ethereal crab living inside your underpants do you really need to go away and seriously contemplate that proposition, come to some subjective conclusion about it, before discarding it as made-up? If I told you that this ethereal crab will cause testicular cancer if you don't change your underpants in the next hour would you: A) Go and change your underpants because this is very likely to be true?B) Dismiss the whole idea as obviously made-up and not worry about it? C) Go and change your underpants because whilst you don't know whether it is true or not it is better to be safe than sorry. I choose B). And whist I get that you find it hard to accept that not everyone is giving Tom the same serious consideration you are I genuinely see Tom as the cause of morality as entirely comparable to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn as the cause of bumper crop harvests and ethereal crabs as the cause of testicular cancer. As soon as you tell me that "Tom" is an undetectable subjective creation I know that he is made-up and don't need to give it any more serious consideration before dismissing it.
GDR writes: Actually as I have also said numerous times that Tom connects with us through our hearts minds and imaginations, so I have no problem seeing Tom as an invention. Again, it tells us nothing about whether he actually exists or not. Whilst it is possible in some philosophical anything-is-possible sense that some undetectable unfalisifiable figment of one's imagination may actually exist "Tom" is in the same class as ethereal crabs in terms of how likely this is.
GDR writes: Well, of course I see life itself with all of its facets as evidence but we aren't going to agree on that. That is like seeing genuine cases of testicular cancer as evidence of ethereal crabs living in people's underpants. It's the cart before the horse mentality again. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: So do you now accept that risking one's life to save a puppy (as per your example) can be perfectly well accounted for by an entirely natural evolutionary account of morality without any need for "Tom" and his influence at all? GDR writes: What do you mean by a natural evolutionary account? I'm asking if saving puppies demands something other than natural processes or not. Do you now accept that risking one's life to save a puppy (as per your example) can be perfectly well accounted for by an entirely natural account of morality without any need for "Tom" and his influence at all? Or does saving puppies necessitate some un-evolved pre-existing intelligence that is not the product of natural processes (i.e. "Tom")
GDR writes: Do you mean genetics or language and culture? Yours is a false dichotomy. The reason we have language and culture is because genetics has provided us with the equipment to be linguistic and cultural (unlike lobsters and melons which is why you can't transmit cultural mems to them). Language and culture are naturally occurring.
Straggler writes: Not really, no. If we are to claim something more than baseless belief we need to do so on the basis of some method of knowledge acquisition that has a demonstrable record of success. GDR writes: What do you mean by success? Being correct more often than one would be by blind random chance is a good starting point. Whatever method of knowing you are applying to conclude Tom - Apply it to something less ethereal and more testable. Does it ever give a demonstrably correct answer? Does it have a success rate greater than that of merely guessing? For example - If you say that you can 'subjectively feel' that Tom is there then try subjectively feeling what number a dice will land on to see if this 'subjectively feeling' approach actually has any merit. If it doesn't (or if you are unable to apply this method of knowing to anything testable) then why would anyone treat your conclusions as any more reliable or accurate than randomly guessing as to what may or may not exist?
GDR writes: The argument for the origin of life is a different discussion. Ah - Gaps. I'll let others deal with that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: But we would rightly prefer any of those explanations to saying that it was dislodged by a unicorn, because in our experience nothing is ever caused by unicorns. No. The analogy works. It isn’t the point that it was a man that pushed it, it was the point that it was done intentionally. We see a rock rolling down the hill and we don’t know whether there was intent involved or if it was from non-intentional causes such as erosion. We have considerable experience of things that are caused intentionally. So now, as far as the rock is concerned we have to make the choice as to whether or not the rock was pushed intentionally without any objective evidence. We have observed evolution and life rolling along and we come to our own conclusions without objective evidence, as to whether or not it was all caused intentionally or not.
Dr Adequate writes: But we do have some knowedge -- we know what usually fills gaps.The god-of-the-gapsist is like someone who says: "You can't explain how that happened. If a unicorn dislodged the rock, that would explain it. Therefore, it was dislodged by a unicorn." That would be a unicorn-of-the-gaps argument. If I reply: "Since in our experience nothing is ever caused by unicorns, it was likely not a unicorn", then it would be misleading to call this a "non-unicorn of the gaps" argument, because we're not at all doing the same thing. The pro-unicorn argument is a fallacy, the anti-unicorn argument is empiricism. But you aren’t filling it with a non-Tom of the gaps argument, you are filling it with a natural causes as yet undiscovered gap argument. If there is no Tom then you are filling the gap with something else. For that matter this isn’t even a gap in the first place. For it to be a gap you require something on both sides. In this case it’s about a first cause for life. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Again, you create a false dichotomy. A dichotomy where one is either pro or anti "Tom" on the basis of some sort of subjective pondering of "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives".But I don't need to ponder any more about Tom than I do any other unevidenced entity to conclude that such an entirely subjective notion is (practically by definition) made-up. It isn’t a case of being pro or anti Tom, anymore than it is a case of being pro or anti mindless natural forces being responsible for life. There is a reason that we exist and we don’t have any objective evidence that answers that question. The fact that we have found natural causes for the route that got us from the beginning to where we are now tells us nothing about how life first originated.
Straggler writes: That is like seeing genuine cases of testicular cancer as evidence of ethereal crabs living in people's underpants. It's the cart before the horse mentality again. In that case we all do that as there is no objective evidence that provides an answer for the reason that life exists.
Straggler writes: I'm asking if saving puppies demands something other than natural processes or not.Do you now accept that risking one's life to save a puppy (as per your example) can be perfectly well accounted for by an entirely natural account of morality without any need for "Tom" and his influence at all? Or does saving puppies necessitate some un-evolved pre-existing intelligence that is not the product of natural processes (i.e. "Tom") My subjective answer is that yes it does, and that whatever natural processes that produced the morality that causes us to save puppies is a result of that un-evolved pre-existing intelligence.
Straggler writes: Yours is a false dichotomy. The reason we have language and culture is because genetics has provided us with the equipment to be linguistic and cultural (unlike lobsters and melons which is why you can't transmit cultural mems to them). Language and culture are naturally occurring. We keep going on like this. Yes there are natural processes. It is my belief that the natural processes are part of the plan.
Straggler writes:
Well obviously the chances of getting a roll of the dice right is a matter of odds. The chances of being right about Tom is in my view far better than being right about us being the result of blind random chance , however I can’t know it absolutely or even calculate the odds. Being correct more often than one would be by blind random chance is a good starting point. Whatever method of knowing you are applying to conclude Tom - Apply it to something less ethereal and more testable. Does it ever give a demonstrably correct answer? Does it have a success rate greater than that of merely guessing?For example - If you say that you can 'subjectively feel' that Tom is there then try subjectively feeling what number a dice will land on to see if this 'subjectively feeling' approach actually has any merit. If it doesn't (or if you are unable to apply this method of knowing to anything testable) then why would anyone treat your conclusions as any more reliable or accurate than randomly guessing as to what may or may not exist? He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No. The analogy works. It isn’t the point that it was a man that pushed it, it was the point that it was done intentionally. We see a rock rolling down the hill and we don’t know whether there was intent involved or if it was from non-intentional causes such as erosion. We have considerable experience of things that are caused intentionally. So now, as far as the rock is concerned we have to make the choice as to whether or not the rock was pushed intentionally without any objective evidence. We have observed evolution and life rolling along and we come to our own conclusions without objective evidence, as to whether or not it was all caused intentionally or not. But we do have evidence as to whether it happened naturally.
But you aren’t filling it with a non-Tom of the gaps argument, you are filling it with a natural causes as yet undiscovered gap argument. I don't see what distinction you're trying to draw here.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: But we do have evidence as to whether it happened naturally. No we don't. We can observe natural selection at work in the evolutionary process just as we can observe a stone naturally rolling down a hill. We do not have any evidence as to whether or not evolution or the movement of the stone began with or without intent by an intelligent agent. Even if science can reproduce the chemical causes that began life it still does not resolve the issue.
Dr Adequate writes: You are assuming a non-intelligent cause for the natural processes that we can observe. I don't see what distinction you're trying to draw here.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi GDR, I don't have much time, but I have to just ask one question.
If we see an apple lying under an apple tree, can we safely assumed that it dropped on its own, or ought we wonder if God came down from heaven and plucked it? Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No we don't. Do do do. Nyah.
We can observe natural selection at work in the evolutionary process just as we can observe a stone naturally rolling down a hill. We do not have any evidence as to whether or not evolution or the movement of the stone began with or without intent by an intelligent agent. I didn't discuss whether it was intelligent, but whether it was natural.
Even if science can reproduce the chemical causes that began life it still does not resolve the issue. It would be suggestive though, would it not? "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
You accept that your beliefs are subjective, non-scientific and not backed by any tangible evidence.
Every argument you present is of the 'you can't prove it doesn't' type 'You can't prove that Tom doesn't exist''You can't prove that Tom didn't create human concsiousness' 'You can't prove that Tom didn't create morality' 'You can't prove that Tom isn't intervening in our lives to make them better' And when presented with natural processes that give explanations of how morality evolves, or how human social structures such as democracy, education and economics you tell us that we can't prove it wasn't all part of god's plan. When science hasn't yet got an answer for a isssue, such as how life started or how the universe came into existence, you place Tom in the gap. When a new scientific idea emerges, you immediately try to jemmy God into it. So Tom lives in another dimension somehow using quantum entanglement to influence us - all without a shred of evidence. When confronted by the facts that the book that is the reason for your particular strain of belief contains errors and contradictions and that science has proven the major claims of the creation plain wrong, you adapt your beliefs to suit. Surely you must accept that this is an extremely weak logical position to hold? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024