|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Yes.
So evolutionary theory has no bearing on morality. On this we agree? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
JB writes:
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. I have a hard time believing those data are accurate. I have a lot of colleagues who claim a belief in God. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
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*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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:
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : inserted 3rd conclusion 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
"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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024