Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,579 Year: 2,836/9,624 Month: 681/1,588 Week: 87/229 Day: 59/28 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
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 replied
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:16 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:52 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 301 (282751)
01-31-2006 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
01-30-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Logic
Hi Faith,
The original thread spoke of logical consequences, and the title what we MUST accept. If you want your thread to be 'What evolution strongly implies', that would be different

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:26 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 70 of 301 (282755)
01-31-2006 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
01-30-2006 5:52 PM


Re: Logic
O Modulous Mod, you're such a nice guy,
Twould be terrif could we see eye to eye;
But this logic of yours is a pain in the neck,
Dealt I suspect from outside the deck,
So how much I'd rather ignore its demands.
(Couldn't help rhyming, it sometimes just happens).
Cute
I can't make head or tail out of your presentation of the logic involved and I've given up trying. The bit about the supernatural only enters into one small area of the problem I think, about the incorporeal mind question, and I'm not sure where that belongs in the OP scheme.
My principal goal was firing at the athiesm part. Gods are inherently supernatural things! Accepting God is not materialism. You have reformulated the OP to being 'any god but the Biblical God'. I would actually refine that to 'any god but a creator god' (where creator god is a god that specially creates life rather than evolves it), probably a fairer wording. It is possible to believe in a non-creator God and accept evolution without any logical problem, which you seem to have conceded. As such materialism is no longer a 'must accept'.
I'll work on nihilism and determinism later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:39 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 301 (282760)
01-31-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
01-31-2006 12:26 AM


Re: Logic
I believe that we MUST accept that the ToE is utterly incompatible with an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent good and loving God who made His creation good and life-enhancing, without suffering and death.
Yes, one must reject any god that specially created humans OR reject evolution. When I say evolution, I mean as I previously defined it. Naturally ToE does not have to be rejected by accepting aforementioned deity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:45 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 79 of 301 (282764)
01-31-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
01-30-2006 9:49 PM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
You said that it is impossible to believe in the Biblical GOD and accept the TOE.
Actually she didn't say this. She said
A good God is not compatible with the ToE because it treats death and suffering as natural. A good God would not have made a universe full of pain, and the Biblical God didn't, So the God of the Bible is not compatible with the ToE.
Which is different than its impossible to believe in Biblical God and accept ToE. Remebering that Faith generally doesn't mean ToE in the same way that scientists do. She generally uses it to mean common ancestry/evolution of life. She also takes the Biblical God to be the God of 'Creationism'. Any God that starts with a simple life and after much death develops man is not the God described in the Bible as far as Faith is concerned. Man came before death according to Faith.
When one applies a little understanding, it gets easier. It is perfectly possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time. It does not mean the two things are compatible and not contradictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 9:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 12:58 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:45 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 82 of 301 (282768)
01-31-2006 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
01-31-2006 12:39 AM


I was pretty much agreeing with you
But I am not addressing materialism,
Its in the OP.
only atheism, which is definitely the most logical conclusion from the ToE, and have for the sake of argument conceded that an evil god, weak god or lesser gods of all kinds are also compatible -- but this is a purely academic point as nobody believes in any of these Gods. Really only Atheism is the most logical inference.
Are you seriously suggesting that there are only two kinds of people in the world monothiests and athiests?
The point of all this is to show that the GOOD God of the Bible is NOT compatible with the bloody ToE and that those who think so are deluding themselves.
This HAS been shown.
Over and over again.
I'm not debating this point. I'm agreeing with you when the terms as described are how you interpret them to mean. I was adding merely saying that ANY creator god that specially creates man is contradictory to evolution, and that includes your own God.
Yes. That's fine. One can add all the lesser gods to ToE's ranks, no problem. But again this is a trivial academic point. The God everybody THINKS they believe in is in fact totally incompatible with the ToE which takes pain and death for granted. And this is why in reality the ToE promotes atheism.
Correction 'the God almost all Christians THINK they believe in...', or even better 'the God almost all monotheists THINK they believe in...'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:39 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 84 of 301 (282770)
01-31-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
01-31-2006 12:45 AM


Re: Logic
The only point about the ToE that is part of the argument here is its treating suffering and death as natural.
The theory doesn't really address suffering. It does address death. Death is natural in that it isn't supernatural.
Nothing has been said about the creation of human beings. This point alone, about bloody death-driven Nature, makes the case.
Not disputing it, I'm just saying why stop there? We can include ANY deities that specially create humans, not just your own God, in the collection of gods which are incompatible with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:45 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 301 (282773)
01-31-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
01-31-2006 12:58 AM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
No, she said any god except the Biblical God.
When she said that she was saying that athiesm = any god except the Biblical God. That is entirely irrelevant to what followed:
jar writes:
You said that it is impossible to believe in the Biblical GOD and accept the TOE.
Faith did not say this. She said the two were not compatible. One can believe contradictory things, but that does not make them compatible or non-contradictory.
Faith has some strange idea of the GOD of the Bible, it's just not one that's supported by the Book itself.
That's fine, not being Christian, I don't care too much. The point is that her definition of God is not compatible with evolution. If you want to try and argue that her defintion of God is wrong, or misguided etc, be my guest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 12:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 3:30 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 301 (282802)
01-31-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:24 PM


I already did. Consciousness evolved.
So basically your entire argument is based on the idea that Consciousness evolved. What if the physical brain to house consciousness evolved, but the 'self' was specially created by a creator deity in order to drive the physical brain and give it free will?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:24 PM robinrohan has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 301 (282853)
01-31-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
01-31-2006 9:45 AM


Why don't you all fight with Robin when he says it?
I don't fight with RR when (if) he says it, because I am agreeing with you!
I said that any God that that describes starting with a simple life and after A LOT of DEATH develops man is NOT the God of the Bible according to you.
You agree!
I said that man came before death according to you.
You agree!
I was defending your position Faith, is it really that hard to see? Reread Message 79 again with that in mind and I assure it should be clear. To help, see how I am agreeing with you see also Message 76 and Message 84 and to a lesser extent Message 70. The subtitle I used in 'Message 82' explicitly states that I am agreeing with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:05 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 301 (282857)
01-31-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
01-31-2006 10:05 AM


I'm sorry I thought it was clear I knew you were agreeing with me.
No worries, occasional unintentional ambiguity comes with the territory of the 'net unfortunately.
THANK YOU
You are most welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:12 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 114 of 301 (282924)
01-31-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
01-31-2006 3:30 PM


My Father is more loving than your Father
An individuals religious beliefs are very personal and should be respected unless they infringe on the life or rights of another.
Agreed. I respect Faith's religious beliefs and I respect yours. This is just a variant on the old Catholics v Protestant war. Which God is the Christian God? Whole threads have been put aside to discuss this very thing. Whilst an interesting topic in its own right, its besides the point here.
I think we can happily concede that belief in her god and evolution are not compatible. Perhaps you think think her god is not the Christian God and vice versa.
I think this is a victory. We have taken Faith from 'athiesm' to 'belief in any god but mine', where she believes her God is the Christian God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 3:30 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 4:03 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 301 (282935)
01-31-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
01-31-2006 4:18 PM


Traditional Christianity is...?
I believe in the Biblical God as TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY worships Him and accept the TOE.
What is Traditional Christianity? If we are going to go down this road I think it would be a good idea to clarify. Is traditional after St. Augustine or before. Here is what St Augustine (4th century?) said:
Augustine writes:
If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth?”5 Were heaven and earth made in the beginning of time, or first of all in creation, or in the Beginning who is the Word, the only-begotten Son of God?
When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”75 that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion. When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith. But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands. For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief. If both these difficulties are avoided, the reader gets full profit from his reading. Failing that, even though the writer’s intention is uncertain, one will find it useful to extract an interpretation in harmony with our faith.
Source
I take from this that Augustine believes that we do not need to interpret scripture literally where reliable evidence exists that proves some fact of physical science. I am under the impression that Augustine was fairly radical in this idea - though I could be wrong.
"In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."
Source
At the time though, he accepted that God used special creation, but not in 6 days, but possibly instantly. If Augustine had been exposed to the physical evidence of evolution, would he have denied it, or would he have decided to read Genesis special creation as non-literal? An interesting question.
Augustine's non-literalness was later employed to justify accepting evolution as a means of creation. I can only assume then, that Augustine's contempories and his predecessors took a strictly literal interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 4:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 01-31-2006 5:25 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 134 of 301 (282949)
01-31-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
01-31-2006 5:37 PM


Re: Traditional Christianity is...?
It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion whether this is the "traditional" or nontraditional Christian position.
Okay, to help keep this relevant to what does matter to the discussion it might be a good idea if you avoid saying things like:
The God of traditional Christianity made a universe of peace and comfort for His creatures. Suffering and death are alien to His character. They came with opposition to Him by His human creatures. Suffering and death are not natural. Evolution on the other hand REQUIRES suffering and death. It is a major way genetic selection occurs.
THEREFORE the Biblical God as TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY worships Him, is incompatible with evolution.
Message 115. After all, its only going to cause off topic irrelevant divergences and argumentation as other Christians, notably jar, want to call you out on your opinion of what traditional christianity actually is. Not trying to tell you what to do, just a friendly suggestion to help keep the thread focussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 5:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 5:56 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024