Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 16 of 124 (438619)
12-05-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by JB1740
12-05-2007 2:08 PM


you shouldn't have said that. Now that ray has someone who disagrees with him, he knows he's right.
Of course, he thought that well before anyone could agree or disagree with him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 2:08 PM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 2:13 PM kuresu has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 17 of 124 (438621)
12-05-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by kuresu
12-05-2007 2:10 PM


you shouldn't have said that. Now that ray has someone who disagrees with him, he knows he's right.
I know...I know. I shouldn't have fed the troll...but damn...sometimes the ignorance burns so hot it grabs you and pulls you toward the keyboard before you can stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kuresu, posted 12-05-2007 2:10 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 18 of 124 (438628)
12-05-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by FliesOnly
12-05-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Morality and bicamerality
FO writes:
So evolutionary theory has no bearing on morality. On this we agree?
Yes.
I would regard you as amoral.
Thank you.
Well, actually science doesn't necessarily lead to the elimination God.
Probably not the total elimination, but close to it. Have you seen any surveys of scientists who claim to believe in God? One was published recently in America Scientist (I've have to go find it but I'm too lazy right now) showed that <5% of scientists surveyed claimed to believed in God.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2007 1:24 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 2:39 PM Fosdick has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 19 of 124 (438629)
12-05-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fosdick
12-05-2007 2:36 PM


Re: Morality and bicamerality
Have you seen any surveys of scientists who claim to believe in God? One was published recently in America Scientist (I've have to go find it but I'm too lazy right now) showed that <5% of scientists surveyed claimed to believed in God.
I have a hard time believing those data are accurate. I have a lot of colleagues who claim a belief in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 2:36 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 3:30 PM JB1740 has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 20 of 124 (438632)
12-05-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object
12-05-2007 1:57 PM


CFO writes:
Evolution presupposes Materialism to be true and Creationism-Design to be false.
Oh, for gods sake, no it does not. Things can be created and then evolve encompasing both 'presuppositions'.
You position is flawed. Again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2007 1:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2007 5:35 PM Larni has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 21 of 124 (438635)
12-05-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by JB1740
12-05-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Morality and bicamerality
JB writes:
I have a hard time believing those data are accurate. I have a lot of colleagues who claim a belief in God.
I couldn't find the article, so I'll back off on my statement. Googleing the topic will produce a variety of survey results. The atheists claim low believership among scientists and the faithful claim otherwise.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 2:39 PM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 3:34 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 22 of 124 (438636)
12-05-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fosdick
12-05-2007 3:30 PM


Re: Morality and bicamerality
I couldn't find the article, so I'll back off on my statement. Googleing the topic will produce a variety of survey results. The atheists claim low believership among scientists and the faithful claim otherwise. ”HM
I'll dig around and see if I can find it. You could well be right, it just seems low compared to the number of fellow scientists I personally know who identify themselves as Christian. Although thinking about it since you wrote that, I'm thinking perhaps 15% isn't too far off the mark. Whether or not my dataset is representative across science though...*shrug*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 3:30 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 4:31 PM JB1740 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 124 (438645)
12-05-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Beretta
12-05-2007 9:38 AM


Re: Are there consequences?
Hi, Berreta.
For once, I may be on topic -I really hope so.
No, it appears that most of your post isn't really the topic that I intended. I guess that it could be confusing for someone new to the evolution/creationism discussion -- creationists seem to think there are a lot of connections where there aren't any. I guess it's because of the "lit crit" style in which they read their scriptures -- since they think every event in the Old Testament is a symbol of the coming of the Christ, I can see where there is going to be the sense of connections where there really aren't any.
-
First, the intent of this thread isn't to discuss whether or not the theory of evolution is a correct description of reality or of the history of life on earth. The intent is to examine what the theory of evolution actually is, and to determine whether it, by itself, implies any given code of morality or any philosophy.
Second, the intent of this thread isn't to discuss whether atheism implies any morality (or lack thereof) or philosophy. That is worth its own thread: you can start your own, if you want, although there may still be a few open if someone wants to search for one.
-
This thread is to discuss what conclusions one can reach about morality or philosophy based on the theory of evolution. This thread started by your comments on another thread that evolution was inherently racist. You can discuss that if you wish.
This comment you made in this thread is kind of on topic:
There is no version of currently accepted evolutionary theory which involves God as a causative process in any way.
I'll just say that no version of accepted meteorology involves God as a causative process in any way. Does modern meteorology imply any moral or philosophical conclusions? Furthermore, there are people who will point to various hurricanes as part of God's will or God's plan. People will even believe that God directly caused a particular hurricane to form or to travel along a certain path. Does modern meteorology have any moral or philosophical implications?
If the description of the formation and path of hurricanes can be made strictly in naturalistic terms without having any philosophical implications, then why can't the origin and evolution of species? If God does and can intervene in the development and course of hurricanes while it looks completely naturalistic, why not the development and course of the history of the species?
As far as I know, the evolution of species has no more implications for the activities of God or there lack than does the thermodynamic theories of hurricanes, or the medical theories of illness, or the geophysical theories of earthquakes. Each of these has been accepted with very little complaint. And, despite that every single earthquake, every single hurricane, and every illness can be studied in terms of naturalistic laws of nature, some people continue to see the hand of God in their manifestations. Why would the evolution of species be different?

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Beretta, posted 12-05-2007 9:38 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 4:50 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 124 (438649)
12-05-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JB1740
12-05-2007 3:34 PM


atheism and education
I'll dig around and see if I can find it. You could well be right, it just seems low compared to the number of fellow scientists I personally know who identify themselves as Christian. Although thinking about it since you wrote that, I'm thinking perhaps 15% isn't too far off the mark.
There are a lot of studies, and not all of them are really reputable or really distinguish between different shades of belief -- are people who never goes to church, never read the bible, never pray, etcetera, but call themselves christian really a christian? Or are they making the culturally easy answer, and never really think about it?
Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia
quote:
It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in certain regions. Despite these problems, most studies indicate that the non-religious make up about 12-15% of the world's population.
A study has shown atheism to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.[9] (See also The relationship between religion and science.)
A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 10%.[5] A 2005 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 5% of the US population believed that a god didn't exist.[15] The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.[16]
Certainly we can say that there are on average fewer declared atheists in america than in the rest of the world, particularly compared to the other developed countries. There is also more prejudice against atheists, which is pretty blatant: can a person get elected if they are not a "good christian"? It's not just a matter of being an atheist but whether your religion is the right kind. We have elected women, blacks and gays ... there has been no atheist president, and not likely to be any time soon (judging by the campaigns now underway).
The other question is whether the question is being asked and counted the right way. If a poll was made about which religions you don't believe in the results would be a lot different, and the only difference between an atheist and a fundamentalist is the number of religions not believed in differ by one (1) out of literally hundreds.
The vast majority of people are atheistic regarding 99% of the world religions.
Certainly the data also shows more atheists in the scientific community, but there is another issue involved here - and that is education. Education, particularly in scientific fields can be subject to two different factors:
  • people of faith find that ignorant beliefs that are contradicted by fact are in fact false, and this can lead to a "loss" in faith, and
  • people who are already atheistic are more likely to pursue a life in science, so they would be "pre-selected" to be more atheistic.
The higher the level of education pursued the more both of these factors contribute.
This of course is the reason that creationism wants to ruin education: it's hard to convince educated people with falsehoods.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : The vast majority of people are mostly atheistic regarding most religions.
Edited by RAZD, : make that 99% of the world religions.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 3:34 PM JB1740 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 124 (438659)
12-05-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Chiroptera
12-05-2007 4:14 PM


evolution and racism (again)
The intent is to examine what the theory of evolution actually is, and to determine whether it, by itself, implies any given code of morality or any philosophy.
This thread is to discuss what conclusions one can reach about morality or philosophy based on the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is that the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is sufficient to explain the natural history of life on earth.
If we can conclude any "code of morality or any philosophy" from this, then it would apply to all life and not just human life. The things we can conclude from the theory of evolution are:
  • change happens
  • accumulated change over time can result in increased diversity
  • increased diversity can improve the chance for life to survive catastrophic events
  • therefore change and increased diversity are good.
As such it would be impossible to be racist, by definition.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : inserted 3rd conclusion

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 12-05-2007 4:14 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 124 (438663)
12-05-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Fosdick
12-05-2007 11:20 AM


bicamerality and bullshit
I also agree, so far as biological evolution goes. But if the evolution of human consciousness is at all biological we'd have to say that morality is an atavism of the primitive bicaremal state of mind (per Julian Jaynes). Simply put, science became the necessary tool for humans to evolve beyond bicamerality in order to gain our advanced form of consciousness.
no. julian jaynes is a crackpot. he is to psychology what alan feduccia is to paleontology and what michael behe is to biochemistry. highly controversial, against all the known science, and skipping the peer review process to sell books right to the public. not to mention pissing off literally everyone in his field.
there has not been a major biological change to the human brain of that order in the last 2,000 years. what he proposes is essentially is an evolutionary shift about as major as the difference between a reptile brain and a human brain, and that prior to say, jesus christ, all human beings were schizophrenic. this is just sheer lunacy, and completely unsupported by evolutionary biology.
his case rests on the supposition that corpus callosum, the structure that joins the bicameral brain, evolved very, very recently. this is completely obliterated by the fact that all eutherian mammals have one. that includes mice, cats, dogs, cows... pretty much everything but kangaroos, echnidas, koalas, and possums. monotremes and marsupials -- but they lack a few other commonly mammalian features too.
and just to be extra specific, yes, that list of animals that have a fully functioning corpus callosum includes chimpanzees and hominids. further, chimpanzees exhibit the same sorts of moral behaviour that humans do.
edit: in order for all these eutherian mammals to have a corpus callosum, and jayne's "theory" to be right, it would have to be convergent to such an absurd degree that it challenges the rationality of the person making such an argument. not only would humans have to have evolved it in the last 2,000 years, but every other eutherian mammal would have to have evolved IDENTICAL structures completely separately. further, it is never adequately explained why a truly bicameral mind with isolated hemispheres would exist in the first place, having evolved from a brain more like reptiles' with a single lobe
Edited by arachnophilia, : ...and another thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 11:20 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 7:12 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 124 (438668)
12-05-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
12-05-2007 2:10 PM


Re: What does any of that have to do with the topic?
What does that have to do with morality?
From the OP (which I pasted in my original answer to the OP; color emphasis added):
Chipotera writes:
None of the statements (1) through (8), either individually or together, imply any moral, social, or philosophical positions.
Jar: log off and take a nap.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 12-05-2007 2:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 12-05-2007 7:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 28 of 124 (438669)
12-05-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Larni
12-05-2007 3:01 PM


Oh, for gods sake, no it does not. Things can be created and then evolve encompasing both 'presuppositions'.
Subjective and sourceless TEist nonsense.
"Created" always means species did not evolve. "Evolution" always means species were not created.
Your view says you are a victim of more smarter and pernicious evolutionists attempting to make Atheist evolution appear friendly to Christians. The objective claims of modern evolution do not allow a hybrid position.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Larni, posted 12-05-2007 3:01 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 12-05-2007 6:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 12-05-2007 6:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 12-05-2007 6:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 40 by Larni, posted 12-06-2007 4:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 29 of 124 (438681)
12-05-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object
12-05-2007 5:35 PM


"Created" always means species did not evolve
well, that's the biggest piece of bullshit I've seen.
Evolution" always means species were not created.
That is, until I read this. Tell me, how did a species get here if it was never created? Becuase the ToE definitely doesn't assert that a species has always been in existence until it became extinct.
Of course, I shouldn't take this too seriously, since these definitions are merely your crackpot ideas and are not representative at all with respect to what the ideas actually mean. And yes, I'm fully aware that you'll say I'm just an atheist and therefore have a vested interested in lieing about what the ideas actually mean and that your definitions are actually the truth.
Tell me, are you ever wrong about anything you argue about? That is, do you accept that you are wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2007 5:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 30 of 124 (438682)
12-05-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object
12-05-2007 5:35 PM


The objective claims of modern {fundamentalist religion} do not allow a hybrid position.
replaced [evolution] with {fundamentalist religion}.
Is that what you mean to say, ray? You know, because it's religion that is always claiming that evolution can't be accepted, it's religion that says such a compromise is bunk, its religion that is attacking.
Yeah, I think you meant to say that it is modern fundamentalist religion that prevents a marriage with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2007 5:35 PM Cold Foreign Object 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