|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
thank you for proving my (our?) point that prior ideology is the cause behind people finding something in the ToE that is moral, social, or philosophical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CFO writes: "Created" always means species did not evolve. "Evolution" always means species were not created. Is your God not intelligent enough to create a universe with the intent and design that biological evolution would happen in it? If so, couldn't this be an example of a man making up a God in his own image, rather than the other way around?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Chiroptera writes: But the theory of evolution doesn't promote any particular ethics or philosophy. While I agree with you that the theory of evolution, like other scientific theories, does not tell us how to behave morally or promote a particular philosophy, the fact of evolution and other factual knowledge about biology might influence philosophy (and some moral and social behaviour).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
spider lover, have you actually read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? Or are you using other peoples' opinions of Jaynes? Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like his theory. They all have their own theories to peddle. Nobody really knows for sure what human consciousness really is. For me, Jaynes' model of human consciousness is the only one that actually works. That's because he uses metaphorical and analogical aspects of symbolic language to show how consciousness grew out of a bicameral state of mind”when hallucinations and hysteria gave way to self-referential decisionmaking. But I'm way OT. Bye.
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So substitute "Philosophical Positions" for "Morality" and the question remains?
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: spider lover, have you actually read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? I can't answer for Arachnophilia, but I have read this book and must agree, it is Bullshit, not only for the reasons which were pointed out in Message 26 but for several reasons from history and literary criticism. In fact I left it out of the bookcase once and one of my cats felt so insulted by Jaynes' insinuation that it had a non-functional corpus callosum, she took a dump on it.
But I'm way OT. I agree and I am as well. Start a thread. You have my personal guarantee that I will contribute. Edited by anglagard, : gramar Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
anglagard, maybe you're the one who can talk me out of Julian Jaynes. I've read his book three times and I can't find any good reason to dispute the whole of his theory, even though parts of it are weak. Should I make a proposal the admin gods?
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Please go ahead.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
I'll bump you over to Message 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think it's fair to say that your position (yet again) declares you a moron.
I'm happy to follow you with occluded insults, Ray; but if you could keep it civil it would be nice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Larni originally writes: Oh, for gods sake, no it does not. Things can be created and then evolve encompasing both 'presuppositions'. Ray in response writes: 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. Larni in response writes: I think it's fair to say that your position (yet again) declares you a moron. I'm happy to follow you with occluded insults, Ray; but if you could keep it civil it would be nice. Your last response criticizes me for insulting you despite the fact that I did no such thing. Then, hypocritically, you insult me in the same breath. You also misrepresent by saying I was not civil when no such characterization applies. Logically, we can only conclude that the hypocrisy and misrepresentations were triggered by the inability to engage and/or refute. Again, it is not a matter of opinion: modern evolutionary theory has objective claims and the most basic 101 claim is that species were never the product of vertical or Divine causation. Evading this fact reveals your ignorance and refusal to learn, OR it reveals deliberate distortion of the issue via changing the subject to First Cause. Again, the official objective position of modern evolutionary theory says although First Cause is unknown it nonetheless had to be material in origin since the same produced everything else thereafter. Assuming you knew this, changing the subject to First Cause was an attempt to draw attention away from the brutal fact that evolution says causation is always linear or material. Insinuating that a Divine First Cause satisfies the needs of a Christian is a subjective and sourceless claim. Neither the Bible or Evolution allow your man-made scenario. Now we can see why you angrily misrepresented my original comments. My guess is that you will dig in your heels and corroborate my observation - again. Atheists, and the degree to which they support evolutionary theory, should tell any objective minded person that evolution has not a thing in the world to do with supporting any role for God - but just the opposite. This makes Christian evolutionists the biggest buffoons and fools on Earth. Of course you understand all this. That is why you replied the way you did, attempting evade the ugly truth through cheap equivocation. Since you are an evolutionist, we are not surprised, what else is new? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The implied insult is easy to see:
CFO writes: Your view says you are a victim of more smarter and pernicious evolutionists So I'm a patsy to 'more smarter'(sic) people because I disagree with you? So either everyone who disagrees with you is a simliar patsy or I'm being singled out for specific treatment. What's it going to be? I think you will find that 'evolution' makes no claims about where life came from, just how it changes. Take a nice long look at the OP and the 8 initial points; I think you will be pleasently suprised. It's been pointed out upthread be people 'more smarter' than I that only funfies hold your view of mutual exclusivity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
So I'm a patsy to 'more smarter'(sic) people because I disagree with you? Yeah. I'm one of those smarter evolutionists, and I'm totally manipulating you. (CFO will probably recommend a tin foil hat to help you.) If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I think you will find that 'evolution' makes no claims about where life came from, just how it changes. Then why did you say evolution can accomodate both 'presuppositions'? Do I need to post the link? You are intentionally evading and misrepresenting (= inability to refute or admit mistake). Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CFO writes: Then why did you say evolution can accomodate both 'presuppositions'? Lol, because it make no claims about such issues and contradicts neither. Think harder, Ray. Edited by Larni, : Documentory commentary.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024