Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 2:48 PM
31 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (5 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,879 Year: 4,916/19,786 Month: 1,038/873 Week: 394/376 Day: 25/46 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Faith
Member
Posts: 30906
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 301 (282560)
01-30-2006 12:10 PM


I think there are enough loose ends on the thread, What we must accept if we accept evolution, to justify a continuation thread. One post went unanswered and an answer was requested at the end, Mind Body Problems by Parasomnium, and various posters were insisting that it hadn't been shown that certain things have to be accepted if evolution is accepted, that is, that certain philosophical positions logically follow from the idea of evolution.

The list given in the original OP of what has to be accepted was
Materialism
Determinism
Atheism
Nihilism

abe: Realized I'd like to make this more specific but I won't get back to it for a bit, so please hold until then.

===============
Later edits:

Materialism

Determinism -- versus free will, which requires an incorporeal mind, which can't be shown to evolve from exclusively biological processes.

Consciousness evolved. If it evolved, it had to evolve from the physical--that's all there was to evolve from. So consciousness is physical too. -- Message 29 and Message 31

Atheism OR an evil or weak God as the ToE treats suffering and death as natural. Now add from Message 33 and Message 34 a new formulation, Atheism and Any God but the Biblical God. RR sums up his original version of the argument in Message 168.

Nihilism -- the reasonable response to the ToE's explanation of humanity as biologically and purposelessly selected on the basis of survival value alone. I like my own characterization of science's demotion of humanity in post #280 of the first thread. But RR's Message 175 is very funny.

This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 09:24 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 1:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 1:58 PM Faith has responded
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 2:10 PM Faith has responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 301 (282573)
01-30-2006 12:47 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Modulous
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 301 (282595)
01-30-2006 1:28 PM


Logic
I know you want to add more Faith, so I won't discuss the logic for your position at this time. I will put forward what I consider to be the counter logic:

Definitions:
Theory: in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. Douglas J. Futuyma

Evolution, or 'common descent': organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors Douglas J. Futuyma

ToE: The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution. Douglas J. Futuyma

Here is some logic



P1: The ToE only explains natural phenomena using natural explanations.
Corolloray to P1: The ToE cannot explain supernatural phenomena nor can it use supernatural explanations.

P2: Phenomena X is supernatural

Conclusion from P1 and P2, ToE cannot be employed to explain Phenomena X.


P1: The ToE explains only that which is natural
P2: Naturalism believes that only that which is natural exists
P3: Supernaturalism believes that things which are not natural exists.
P4: It is possible and logically consistent to believe in some supernatural things and some natural things.
P5: It is possible and logically consistent to believe in some supernatural explanations and some natural explanations.
P6: The 'phantom pusher' keeps us stuck to the ground.
P7: P6 is a supernatural explanation for a natural event

Conclusion, It is logically consistent to believe that the ToE explains evolution, and to accept evolution and to accept common descent, but also believe that 'the phantom pusher' keeps us on earth.


As such, athiesm and materialism do not have to be accepted. Determinism and Nihilism can wait for now :)


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 01-30-2006 1:34 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:16 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:52 PM Modulous has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14802
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 4 of 301 (282598)
01-30-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
01-30-2006 12:10 PM


Try some simple points:

1) If evolution entails atheism then it must deny Deism. How is evolution inconsistent with the view that a Deity created the Universe and left it to develop on its own.

2) If evolution entails determinism then it must deny Quantum randomness. How does evolution do that ?

I think that this is sufficient to refute both points.l


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 12:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 4:02 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:33 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 5 of 301 (282601)
01-30-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
01-30-2006 1:28 PM


All or nothing??
Mod, may I paraphrase what you are saying.

There are two ways of explaining what we see:
1) supernatural influence
2) natural affects

You are saying that one view an individual could hold is a "split" view; that some things are explained by the supernatual and some by natural.

It might be useful to see if there are any who fall into the "only one" camp. That is I am a only 2 camp. I don't think that anything can be explained by the supernatural.

Are there any who believe that NOTHING can be explained by natural effects that it is ALL directly supernatural?

ABE
I don't think it is useful to say you are in camp 1 only if you, like Jar, believe that God created everything but that it unfolds, predominantly, by natural laws now. Let's call this an indirect camp 1. I'm more interested to see if there are any who have God much, much closer to minute by minute things. That is he is the "pusher" as well as the one who influences (was it mark24 or Rrhains) the fall of dice. Let's call this the Direct Camp 2.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-30-2006 01:37 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 1:28 PM Modulous has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 6 of 301 (282611)
01-30-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
01-30-2006 12:10 PM


That's not true. Electricity is generated by physical means. Without the physical, there is no electricity.

more specifically, electricity is a current of electrons. it is entirely physical. just really small.

your brain does something, and then tells itself about it.

some of us are aware of that.

The mind doesn't generate anything. It is itself generated, by the brain. Those ideas and illusions? They are your mind. The starting point is the brain, not some ethereal, independent 'I in there'. The Cartesian Theatre is empty. Or better, there is no Cartesian Theatre.

once you realize that your brain is in charge, you can begin to use it more. it's a far more useful tool when you let it do what it wants. cause your brain is capable of anything. your 'mind' is restricted by memory. i can do math because i let my brain do it, it don't try to think my way through it. i just get the answer. it works so much better. same thing when i'm writing a paper. i just flow. if i had to think about it i couldn't do what i do. my brain is my muse <3

This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-30-2006 01:59 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 12:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:54 PM macaroniandcheese has responded
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:12 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 301 (282616)
01-30-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
01-30-2006 12:10 PM


At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
and that was that if you believe in Evolution you must accept atheism.

If you want I will be happy to walk through that tedious proof one more time for you step by step.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 12:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 9:15 PM jar has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30906
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 8 of 301 (282647)
01-30-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 1:58 PM


You are not quoting me but somebody else. Please correct the reference to identify the person who wrote what you are answering.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 04:04 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 1:58 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 8:48 PM Faith has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 301 (282650)
01-30-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
01-30-2006 1:31 PM


1) If evolution entails atheism then it must deny Deism. How is evolution inconsistent with the view that a Deity created the Universe and left it to develop on its own.

That would not be a good God. That would be a cruel God.

2) If evolution entails determinism then it must deny Quantum randomness. How does evolution do that ?

The opposite of "determined" is not "random" but "willed." Physical events aren't willed.

"Random" just means the causes are unknown or too complicated to tabulate--like a roulette wheel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 1:31 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:15 PM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30906
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 10 of 301 (282652)
01-30-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 1:58 PM


Sorry, this was supposed to be addressed to Modulous.

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 04:13 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 1:58 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14802
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 11 of 301 (282653)
01-30-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 4:02 PM


A cruel God is still a God. If you wish to claim otherwise you are the one advocating logical contradiction. So - even if you could justify your point - it is irrelevant. If a God exists - cruel or not - than atheism is false.

Chance is the opposite of determinism. The relationship between will and determinism has not been decisvely settled but I agree with the position that will is not incompatible with determinism (and I would go further and say that will must be deterministic).

Moreover Quantum randoness may well be genuinely random - it is not the case that it must be pseudo-random or chaotic like a roulette wheel. But if your claim to the contrary were true then you would be asserting determinism. Thus your point cannot possibly help your argument.n


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 4:02 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:29 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:07 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30906
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 12 of 301 (282654)
01-30-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
01-30-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Logic
I know you want to add more Faith, so I won't discuss the logic for your position at this time.

Since it was promoted before I had time to think about it I don't mind. We'll just play it as it lays.

I will put forward what I consider to be the counter logic:
Definitions:
Theory: in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. Douglas J. Futuyma

Evolution, or 'common descent': organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors Douglas J. Futuyma

ToE: The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution. Douglas J. Futuyma

Just have to comment that there's no need for such a formal approach to this topic. It was presented in layman's terms and to answer in formal terms just confuses things. Formal logic not only isn't required it falsifies the topic. Use the good logic of the ordinary intelligent honest human being. Same with a formal definition of "theory." Stick to how the ordinary intelligent person thinks.

I'll try to make sense of your "logic" section later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 1:28 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 12:20 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14802
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 13 of 301 (282655)
01-30-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
01-30-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Logic
If you want to claim a logical contradiction then you do need to deal with formal logic. If you can't show a contradiction that way then you don't have a logical contradiction.'
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:24 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30906
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 14 of 301 (282656)
01-30-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
01-30-2006 4:18 PM


Re: Logic
The OP doesn't say anything about a logical contradiction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14802
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 15 of 301 (282657)
01-30-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
01-30-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Logic
The OP didn't. But you did claim logical contradictions in the original thread. Am I to take it that you retract this assertion ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019