Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 1:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 2:10 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 301 (282658)
01-30-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
01-30-2006 4:15 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.
This is fine. I would concede this myself. The list in the OP could maybe use some refining. I think the better statement may be that EITHER atheism OR an evil God follow from Evolution. Perhaps the logical conclusions from evolution as listed in the OP should be reworded as follows:
Materialism
Determinism
Atheism or an evil creator
Nihilism
Do you have an answer to that formulation of the statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:02 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 301 (282659)
01-30-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
01-30-2006 1:31 PM


Atheism / evil god / Determinism
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.
I personally would modify the list to say that either Atheism OR an Evil Creator logically follows from the ToE.
As for Determinism I haven't figured out what I think about this yet.
Materialism and Nihilism both seem to me to be logical conclusions from the ToE however.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 04:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 1:31 PM PaulK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 301 (282666)
01-30-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
01-30-2006 4:38 PM


Your point about the apparent cruelties is exactly what makes an evil God the only kind of God that could exist if the ToE is true. The YEC belief in the Fall explains the cruelties as the fault of human sin, sin against a good God, as Robin pointed out on the other thread, but the Fall is not compatible with the ToE because the Fall caused death, whereas in the ToE death is considered to be natural. The point remains that the ToE promotes either no God or an evil God.
(There was no mention of determinism in that post by the way. Maybe I was unclear that I was referring only to the statement about atheism)
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 05:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 5:15 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 301 (282671)
01-30-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
01-30-2006 5:15 PM


But then you are arguing that OEC proposes a "cruel God".
Yes, I believe that does turn out to be the case as I don't see how they can fit the Fall into their system. I have to assume they haven't worked through the logical consequences of their view.
In short it is not just evolution you have to reject but the fact that the fossil evidence shows a long history of death and predation, going back hundreds of millions of years before humanity existed.
Well, surely you know I have no problem with rejecting all that by now. But that's not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand IS that it logically follows from the ToE that either there is no God or God is evil because He created a world full of death and destruction, which you have just affirmed by your example of the fossil record -- which is regarded as major evidence for the ToE after all.
Thus, even if YEC did have a good answer (which I certainly do not accept) evolution is not the real issue here.
Well, but it is. Robin made a list of philosophical positions he believes must inevitably follow from the ToE. For the most part it holds up. I just showed you how atheism or an evil God holds up. This is a logical inference from the ToE.
Please concede the point instead of waffling further. Thank you.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 05:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 5:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:35 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 301 (282676)
01-30-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
01-30-2006 1:28 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).
ANYWAY,
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. Do you? Maybe you can clarify or if I get an inspiration I'll try it again later.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 12:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 94 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 8:17 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 301 (282682)
01-30-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
01-30-2006 6:01 PM


No, you haven't shown that atheism or an evil God follow from evolution.
Certainly have.
As I have pointed out the conclusion of an evil God depend on other issues that apply even if evolution is rejected.
That would be outside the boundaries of this discussion. We aren't talking about rejecting evolution. We are talking about what logically follows from accepting it.
Moreover you have not even considered other possibilities, such as the idea that a God so far above us as to be capable of creating this universe might be indifferent to what happens to life on this planet.
But that is not another possibility; it is included in the idea of an evil God. He doesn't care about all the suffering and bloodshed he created.
Or that there might be some justiifcation for the apparent evil (unlikely in my view but unfortunately it is a valid objection if you are claiming a logical proof)..
I see no problem here. Evil has been defined as creating living things that suffer and die. The point is logically consistent.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 06:13 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 09:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2006 2:21 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 301 (282684)
01-30-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:02 PM


Oh, sure. I just dismissed that alternative.
I know, but they'll strangle you with your loose ends if you leave any dangling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:02 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 301 (282708)
01-30-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Omnivorous
01-30-2006 8:35 PM


atheism / any God but Biblical God
Hi, Faith. Sorry I couldn't return to the discussion sooner. At some future point I'd like to continue discussing brain/mind issues, but for now I'd like to go with the flow in this 2nd part thread.
The issue at hand IS that it logically follows from the ToE that either there is no God or God is evil because He created a world full of death and destruction, which you have just affirmed by your example of the fossil record -- which is regarded as major evidence for the ToE after all.
Those are not the only two possibilities. Another possibility is a Creator who is not omnipotent--a God who can create the universe but not dictate every detail of its unfolding. An omniscient God might see that the game is worth the candle but be unable to prevent the burns along the way.
OK, I'll accept that. It's just a matter of modifying the OP list again. So what logically follows from the ToE is 1) No God 2) An evil God, or 3) a weak or unconcerned God. Or maybe it should be summed up:
Either no God or any God but the omniscient omnipotent God of Love of the Bible.
Is it bad form to link to my own messages?
Probably, but I do it. If you've knocked yourself out getting something said, why not make sure everyone sees it?
Oh well. Here's what I said to mike the wiz on the subject earlier today.
Indeed, many early religions distinguished between the creating god/gods and the "operating" gods.
Again, either NO God or any God except the Biblical God. How about that?
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 10:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:35 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 8:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 48 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 10:15 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 301 (282713)
01-30-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 8:48 PM


It's too hard to follow. Setting it up like that looks like you are debating the quotes and that the quotes are mine because I'm the one you are responding to. If you are agreeing with them against me, that has to be made clear, and it would help if you identified the person being quoted. AND I have no idea what the quotes were responding TO in what I might have said, so quoting that -- what I had said --- is also necessary.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 08:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 8:48 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 8:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-30-2006 8:57 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 301 (282716)
01-30-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
01-30-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Missed Opportunity
Seemed to me to be on topic there, so why not here, but I admit I've already forgotten the post, so I guess I can take your word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-30-2006 8:57 PM Quetzal 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