What we must accept if we accept evolution

Well, some do manage to regard it as a mere interpretation so I'm not going to argue it, but I will quote this statement of it, which seems pretty unambiguous to me, but then I'm sure it can be made into something ambiguous if somebody has a mind to, which, again, I won't argue: This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 04:04 PM

It's a logical inference from the theory which has been effectively defended on this thread. To keep arguing this is just to keep the whole thing in confusion. You are simply insisting on your own definition and your own criteria and refusing to grasp what is being said here.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 04:47 PM

No, you are merely insisting on your own definition of "significance" and imposing YOUR assumptions on this conversation.

I don't know if I can make a syllogism out of this. Maybe you can after you read it.I would start with a definition: Significance = objective significance, not subjective. Value, importance, in the Great Scheme of Things, not just to ourselves or selected others in our lives.Usually includes the idea that human beings are something different from and superior to animals, morally and intellectually. Certainly places a high value on our moral abilities, and also on our capacities for feeling.Western Civilization in particular has developed a very high view of humanity, largely based on Christianity -- until the last couple of centuries.Since science became God as it were, we are told we are arrogant for thinking highly of humanity as such. We are to understand that as far as objective significance in the Great Scheme of Things, that we are of no more importance than snails and amoebas and skunks. {abe: I don't know if escargot tastes better than human flesh. I guess we could get really Objective and along with abortion and euthanasia on demand, start pushing for human "crops" for supplying the Gourmet Palaces of Gracious Living. Martha Stewart could do quite a series on it I'm sure. Evolution wouldn't care. Sorry, don't mind me, just got a little carried away there}.Evolution treats us as nothing special at all, just another animal, oh yes a highly specialized and perhaps interesting one from the point of view of some scientists (not that many it seems), but nothing different in kind, or superior except in the most accidental and unimportant ways.There is nothing about us that makes it either necessary or important that we exist at all. The universe could very well do without us, and as a matter of fact we hear it all the time that the universe would do a LOT better without us altogether (of course those who say that do tend to exempt themselves, being themselves paragons of care for the good of the planet and other life forms, etc, but that's another subject).According to Evolution, all our capacities for thought and feeling are nothing more than adaptations for the sake of improved survival. The highest value in the evolutionary scheme is survival. Love, for instance, from the point of view of evolution, is of value only in that it tends to enhance bonding, which enhances the survivability of the species. There is nothing of any intrinsic importance about love in the Great Scheme of Things. If hate did a better job of enhancing survival, then hate would be the defining characteristic wherever it confers that "benefit." Evolution doesn't care. Same with all our abilities, higher math for instance, their value is in their ability to keep the "species" moving along evolutionarily.So from the point of view of classical Western liberal humanism (which I claim developed out of the Christian worldview but that's neither here nor there at this point), there is something tragic about our condition, all this capacity for great things that developed for the most trivial of purposes.We're way overqualified for the job evolution assigned us.This is something we must accept by accepting evolution, to tie it into the title of the thread.I'm sure there are many ways this post can be misunderstood and garbled, but I hope you will make an effort to see where I'm coming from and how it is a different perspective from yours that you can't just answer by asserting yours.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 06:57 PM

Valuing humanity as such doesn't mean tolerating evil people who prey on innocents. Pray for them, sure, hoping they can be converted, but if not, it's also OK to pray that God protect others from them even by zapping them with a thunderbolt or however He wills. God if you will convert this evil man, terrif, otherwise please take him out.

Yes, well a Christian DOES know where poor Yorick has ended up unfortunately. We will all see each other there, some to be sent one direction, some the other.{abe: Seems to me that perhaps Roscoe's facility didn't have much in common with the uses of the tongue that inspire good emotions and thoughts in others who read their posts.}This message has been edited by Faith, 01-29-2006 10:38 PM

Thanks for the acknowledgment that this view of humanity really does follow from evolutionary biology and science in general. Sometimes it is hard to get anyone to agree that that is the case. And it has been hard on this thread to get anyone to acknowledge it though it has been said in many ways.Human "cropping," though a black whimsy, seems to me like a logical extension of the expendability of human life which is a logical extension of the idea that all we are is accidental flotsam thrown up by evolution, but whatever. Fatten up them chubby babies. A delicacy quite possibly. But onward to better thoughts perhaps? Or not. The terms are pretty much synonymous in my thinking. Objective value. You are expressing the prevailing view expressed by others here, the prejudice I'd say of the current younger generations who have been taught contrary to the older systems of thought. There is probably no way to answer this after all. Either a person understands objective value and significance or he doesn't. It was easier for previous generations I suppose. The world has undergone a philosophical sea change since then, so now people can't think in terms of value and significance except as subjectivities. I don't mean to short shrift you but I'm at a loss for anything to say except that you are a good relativist, a good evolutionist, a solid member of the Brave New World that thinks like this. I don't mean anything insulting by this, even though it depresses me no end. Well, I like your first sentence. Why indeed don't so many see the lack of specialness as a negative? But we know the answer. It's been given on this thread many times already. Everybody is committed to the idea that it's all subjective. The last few generations have been taught that values are relative, that we impute values according to our own subjective frame of reference, and this is quite in accord with evolutionary theory. This is essentially what you are saying above.On the second point, I really don't think that so many people are "uncomfortable with the lack of specialness" at all. I think everybody's pretty much adapted to the idea and hardly gives it a second thought, and like others here just go on imputing their own subjective values as they are moved.The idea comes up in formal contexts like this debate. Where it does come up it isn't a personal thing, it's a philosophical thing. Christians learn to value humanity as such, because of the image of God in us, our special place in GOD'S creation, so we recognize for instance that abortion is murder, and even euthanasia for merciful reasons is murder, and murder is a violation of one of the ten commandments. It's perfectly objective. It has nothing to do with sentiment or subjectivity. Wrong is wrong. Devaluing human life is understood from the Christian point of view to be the inevitable consequence of evolutionism and atheism. It isn't a personal or emotional or subjective judgment at all. Well, I suppose the term "assign" was a poetic liberty, but "the job evolution assigned us" is merely survival -- the job it "assigns" all life -- and that's what we're WAY overqualified for. I mean a lizard does just as well at THAT task. Maybe better.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 12:11 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 12:45 AM

This is absolutely irrelevant to the point being made. The implications of science don't require science's agreement to them, or science's intention to create them, or science's addressing of them or anything. The implications follow nevertheless, just as there may be many unintended implications of any thought process or worldview or philosophy. This is naive, nwr. Science has enormous influence in society. It can't help but influence how people think about human beings to believe that we were evolved from lower life forms. Yes, scientists retain a moral perspective having been raised in a Christian culture, or any culture at all perhaps, but this misses the point that evolution itself prescribes the demoting and devaluing of humanity that I'm talking about. And it should count for something at that least one scientifically minded person here, Quetzal, thought my description of the scientific stance to be quite apt. No, what I'm talking about logically follows from the THEORY. This is not about methods of study. What scientists think isn't what I'm talking about. We're talking about what follows logically from the ToE, no matter how many people get it or practice it or believe it etc. This is completely irrelevant to the point, nwr. His views are logically consistent with the ToE, in a way that theism isn't. Yes they do, and they do so by managing to compartmentalize the completely different worldviews they are dealing with, which are incompatible with one another if clearly recognized.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 01:05 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 01:57 AM

It isn't belief, nwr, it's logic. But at this point it's only going to be a tis-not-tis-too and there's really nothing more to say.

Curious. How much of a nihilist, or what kind of nihilist, whichever applies, are you really? There seem to be different brands. I suppose Shakespearean is one. Then there's Nietzschean and Dostoevskyan and Sartrean. I used to feel a peculiar affinity with Notes from Underground but I never thought of myself as a nihilist. Maybe I was and didn't know the name for it.Nihilism | Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyNihilism - WikipediaThe domain name counterorder.com is for saleIt does seem that if God is dead -- and that event occurred in the collective western psyche with the publication of the Origin of Species, then Nietzsche was right, there is no true reasonable logical ground for morality or any of the social conventions.It all started with Darwin. Yes it did. Darwin was the great watershed. Though so many here deny this, historically it was THE philosophical problem of the times and it changed things radically. People who deny it now haven't solved it, they merely ignore it, don't recognize it. They manage not to notice the contradiction between the logical implications of the ToE and their attachment to religion or conventional morality, which they enthusiastically affirm. That may be all to the good as far as the health of society goes, but all that means is that the particularly perspicacious recognize the true implications and everybody else is in a fog of self-contradiction.Nihilism may be the most intelligent and honest position if God is dead. However, the fact is that God is very much alive, and there is therefore no justification for nihilism.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 03:00 AM

Robin made the point many times over. I made it particularly in Message 280. I'm sorry if it went over your head.

No, you misrepresent what has been said. This is not being assumed. This is a fact that, as I pointed out, was at the center of philosophical thinking from the beginning. You, like others here, merely refuse to recognize the logical implications of the idea that we were descended from lower life forms. Denial I believe is the word for it. Again you can't seem to represent the argument properly. In fact I have no idea what you mean. "Only thing that matters?" It's beyond me to figure out what your difficulty is. Nothing is being taken for granted. You simply have not followed the argument which is usually the case with you. Blah blah blah. Oh sorry, I mean, huh? Oops, no, I guess I mean, hey, at least Quetzal recognized the point.Hey, if you're ignoring Robin would you do me the favor of ignoring me too? Thanks.This thread is over anyway.

Sorry, Parasomnium, it was just too complicated a post to get to at the time, and then I forgot about it. Now we're at the end of the thread. Do you want to start another thread?

Who said it wasn't based on human origins? You just make up stuff. You never quote anything, you just rant. Have you any idea what has been said here? Read Message 280 again. The implications of the ToE are all laid out, and they really are very much what evos here say themselves. Denying it sure seems untenable to me. You really want me to go find everywhere the evos at EvC have called Christians arrogant for suggesting that human beings are superior to animals? You think that has nothing to do with their belief in evolution? Are you arguing with Nietzsche that Darwinism brought about the Death of God and the whole existentialist/nihilist attempt to cope with that? You don't seem to care about any of it, even enough to bother to make sense. Sorry, I can't take you seriously.

Why do you think people here have so much trouble understanding this? Or why they don't understand this either?This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 08:55 AM