Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Choosing a faith
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2326 of 3694 (910251)
04-20-2023 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2325 by GDR
04-19-2023 7:14 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
So you are saying that evolution required abiogenesis as a starting point. Are you then saying that the first individual cells were instantly created without any need for an evolutionary process?
Certainly not. I can’t see why you’d imagine such a thing. For a start, the first life probably wasn’t cellular. Evolution is impossible without replicators, therefore however the first replicators came to be, it wasn’t evolution.
quote:
Firstly, I don't tend to use the term original sin as Dawkins says selfishness is something that is simply in our DNA and built into our human nature.
“I wouldn’t do what I did” is never convincing. You explicitly tried to draw a parallel between original sin and the selfish gene. Except you seriously misrepresented the concept of the selfish gene - and here you are repeating the misrepresentation as if all the corrections never happened. Here’s the thread - notice the title ? Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
quote:
However, we are able to overcome the selfishness and have empathy and even behave altruistically,
Dawkins is saying that altruism is built into our natures. If you had done even basic research on the idea you would know that. If you had paid attention to the responses you got you would know that. You used to boast about the research you did - but it seems that was nothing more than skimming books you expected to agree with you.
quote:
Tangle claims that we can do that doing what works and by it being passed along culturally. I disagree with the idea that it works, (again, benefits gained through working collectively is not the same as altruistic behaviour).
Even if the benefits don’t go to you? Why would that not be altruism?
quote:
How am I misrepresenting evolution.
I already answered that one. Message 2308
quote:
I don't deny that it evolves but that does not make it part of the ToE.
It does mean that the ToE should explain it, and there has been considerable work producing that explanation. Work that you completely ignore.
quote:
You really think that with all the time and study that I have put into this subject that I'm not seeking the truth
Since you have obviously put no study at all into this matter - even reading the Wikipedia page on the selfish gene would have set you right - this objection is a joke. Over a decade repeating misconceptions, ignoring corrections and doing no research at all.
You didn’t bother to research Jerome’s Gospel either - I was the one who discovered it was the Gospel of the Hebrews and not the Gospel we call Matthew, and it didn’t take long.
quote:
I readily acknowledge that what I contend is the truth can't be proven but I do contend that it is rational.
Your constant irrationality and stream of obvious falsehoods rather indicates that it is not at all rational. Rationalisation is not rationality.
quote:
Yes, I have no training in the field of biology but I have read what is written by those that do from Dawkins who is an atheist to Francis Collins who is a Christian.
Given your habit of misrepresentation I rather doubt that you have properly read any of them. You certainly haven’t read The Selfish Gene with any level of understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2325 by GDR, posted 04-19-2023 7:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2332 by GDR, posted 04-21-2023 5:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 2327 of 3694 (910256)
04-20-2023 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2324 by GDR
04-19-2023 6:22 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
That's fine, but there is a big difference between figuring out what works and what is morally right. Genocide can work. Look at how well slavery worked for years until people finally said this is wrong.
I was going to make the same argument. What we see as right and wrong changes over time. It's developmental. We are capable of both good and bad. Those that murder others know that what they do is wrong, they always have because it's hardwired into us like all our base emotions are. But we're conscious, thinking beings that are able to override those emotions if we see advantage in it and often do it anyway.
When we send funds into some foreign country to help those who are destitute we aren't doing it because it works. We keep hearing about the world being over-populated so we would be better off just to let them die off and reducing the competition for resources. That behaviour goes against evolution forces that involve personal well being and survival.
GDR, we are far more complicated machines than this. We have complex drives and emotional reactions to situations. We do irrational things all the time for seemingly rational reasons. Russians are killing Ukrainians now, not because they want to but because some power crazed lunatic - a Christian btw - is telling them they must. They know it's wrong but do it anyway.
Evolution does not power our actions, you are ascribing simplistic ideas to a complicated organism that has developed far beyond those primitive mechanisms. We have evolved a conscious brain and developed a sophisticated society and set of behaviours that allow us to operate beyond pure instinct.
But we still have those primitive instincts imbedded in us - we know instinctively what is right and wrong but society and its institutions promote or prohibit those instincts. Societies are developmental, it's not at all certain that our better instincts will overcome our worse ones and in some parts of the world we can see they aren't.
God is not involved in any of this, if the kind of god you believe in is involved, he's a pathetic one, unable to achieve whatever you think he is trying to do. I don't know how you can look at the world and believe what you believe.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2324 by GDR, posted 04-19-2023 6:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2336 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 4:36 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2328 of 3694 (910292)
04-20-2023 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2321 by Tangle
04-16-2023 3:48 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Tangle writes:
Whether the ToE should or shouldn't shock the religious views of people is rather moot as we know that it did and you can see here that it still does.

In fact, prior to Darwin, the common belief was that the species were immutable. They were put on earth by god exactly the way we see them today. You would have believed that and you would have fought against it just like you're fighting against the idea that empathy could have evolved. It shocked because a deep seated belief was overturned. The religious world - which was pretty much all of it pre-Darwin - was deeply shocked by the implications of Darwin's discovery.

And a large proportion of religious ignoramuses in the USA still refuse to accept facts.
I would suggest that the number of ignoramuses that can't accept the facts of evolution is shrinking rapidly. However there are still flat earthers.
Actually I'm not fighting against anything. I am simply going with what I believe to be true.
My theology is based on 3 things essentially; The Bible, All the books I've read and talks I've listened to and frankly my life and the world I live in.
As far as the Bible is concerned I read it as a a series of book that together provide a narrative of the progressive understanding of the nature of God by the Jewish people, with it climaxing in the Jewish Messiah namely Jesus. Within that narrative we find horrific things that are done in God's name that are totally inconsistent with the message of peace and love that Jesus lived and taught, and have to be rejected. I understand the OT through the lens of the NT. That in my understanding is the Israel story.
However since that time it is in my view the continuing progressive understanding of the the nature of God, or the narrative of the church. I guess I'm closest to identifying with Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and other proponents of the so-called Emerging Church.
So yes, I do believe that over time our understandings do grow, even though there are periods of regression.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2321 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2023 3:48 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2329 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2023 3:13 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 2329 of 3694 (910313)
04-21-2023 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2328 by GDR
04-20-2023 8:03 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
I would suggest that the number of ignoramuses that can't accept the facts of evolution is shrinking rapidly. However there are still flat earthers.
It would be more useful if you actually gave me some facts about these numbers instead of what you 'would suggest'. Then instead of just suggesting something that may not be true, we'd be having a conversation about what IS true.
I might get time to research historical information later, but I would expect the proportion of non-believers in the ToE to have been declining slowly over the last 100 years or so. But it may have slowed radically over the last 50 as conservative fundamentalists have been promoting their lies heavily. That's just my thoughts without knowing the facts. The USA is unique in the modern world in still believing in stupid religious-based ideas.
A 2019 Gallup creationism survey found that 40% of adults in the United States inclined to the belief that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their beliefs regarding the origin and development of human beings.
Actually I'm not fighting against anything. I am simply going with what I believe to be true.
You're not fighting anything, that's true; just like those creationists above you're just impervious to information that contradicts your beliefs. You do indeed 'simply go with what you believe to be true.' Which is what believers have done for centuries and have always been proven wrong.

You don't even think you're doing it. You smile at the ignoramuses that think people were put on the planet 10,000 years ago fully formed, but don't realise you do the same in your own way.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2328 by GDR, posted 04-20-2023 8:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2338 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 6:38 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2330 of 3694 (910364)
04-21-2023 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2322 by Stile
04-17-2023 9:52 AM


Why not how
Stile writes:
Same as you: None.

Which is why there's no sense in making up a God to "solve" the question.
It makes more sense to use the information we do have (that God does not exist) and extrapolate that into this unknown area.

If new information becomes known - then we look at it and see if the idea needs to change or not.

That's how people who prioritize truth proceed.

People who do not prioritize truth seem to think that having no information is a good place to create ideas from their imagination - even though this has been shown to be incorrect pretty much every time we eventually do learn additional information.

Neither of these methods is "right" or "wrong."
They are just different methods for dealing with situations where no information is available.

One aligns with prioritizing identifying the truth of reality.
The other aligns with prioritizing personal preference over identifying the truth of reality.
The problem though is you are trying to answer a different question with something that tells us how things are and how they came to be. The questions like why is there something instead of nothing and why does life exist at all is something that science can't answer. If iof science does ultimately answer the question of how it occurred it does not answer the question of why it occurred and why, not how, it evolved at all.
No matter how you look at it, it is belief.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2322 by Stile, posted 04-17-2023 9:52 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2331 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2023 5:19 PM GDR has replied
 Message 2334 by Stile, posted 04-25-2023 9:41 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2331 of 3694 (910368)
04-21-2023 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2330 by GDR
04-21-2023 5:10 PM


Re: Why not how
quote:
The questions like why is there something instead of nothing and why does life exist at all is something that science can't answer.
I disagree on the second, but I really want to talk about the first.
It seems obvious that “why is there something rather than nothing” is no help to you at all. You have no better answer than any of us.
Indeed, I put considerable thought into it on a thread here. Yet I haven’t seen you discuss it in a similar way. So I can’t even say that you have as good an answer as I do.
So why bring it up? Can you really offer an explanation of how it helps you - that doesn’t rely on a double standard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2330 by GDR, posted 04-21-2023 5:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2339 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 6:57 PM PaulK has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2332 of 3694 (910371)
04-21-2023 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2326 by PaulK
04-20-2023 12:32 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
PaulK writes:
Certainly not. I can’t see why you’d imagine such a thing. For a start, the first life probably wasn’t cellular. Evolution is impossible without replicators, therefore however the first replicators came to be, it wasn’t evolution.
What was it then?
PaulK writes:
Certainly not. I can’t see why you’d imagine such a thing. For a start, the first life probably wasn’t cellular. Evolution is impossible without replicators, therefore however the first replicators came to be, it wasn’t evolution.
OK. You provided a link to a post from over 10 years ago and what I wrote in that post I think deals with all the items in your post and I don't want to have to do the research all over again so I'll simply repeat that post you referred to.
quote:
In most Christian traditions our understanding of God is based on the three legged stool metaphor. The three legs are of course scripture, tradition and reason. The subject of the Idea of original sin has been dealt with before and most recently in the Bible Study Forum.
I’d like to suggest that we should look at original sin from the point of view of understanding the Biblical or scriptural view through human reasoning.
To start with I understand the Biblical creation story as inspired metaphor and most definitely not to be understood as anything more than that. Essentially it boils down to the fact that all things are created by God and that humans have been instilled with the ability to understand right and wrong. In addition humans are intended to choose what is right and use the correct choices to be good stewards of what has been created. (Not really doing all that well — are we? )
As a Christian, I believe that God has given us minds that reason and that He intends us to use that reason to form our understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. It is my contention that science falls firmly into the category of reason and as I have said in other threads I view science as natural theology. Ultimately then, theology and science are going to be congruent. As there is a great deal we don’t understand about in either field the congruency is not always obvious to us.
I want to attempt to explain where I see congruency through reason and scripture on the subject of original sin.
I think that we can safely assume that Richard Dawkins’ views are going to be based on reason and not scripture. He wrote a book The Selfish Gene and I think that he is on to something. Here is a brief quote from wiki on the subject of The Selfish Gene.
quote:
In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
Dawkins wrote that genes behave as if they are selfish but in his book The Selfish Gene he writes:
quote:
we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents. Blind natural selection, however, makes them behave rather is if they were purposeful, and it has been convenient as a shorthand, to refer to genes in the language of purpose.
Dawkins also claims that we as humans can overcome this natural selfishness that is inherent in our genes. He also writes this:
quote:
We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.
What Dawkins has done, based on reason, is to come up with a concept of original sin. He says from the quote above that we have the natural selfishness in our genes. He then goes on to say that we are cultured by what he has termed memes. He tells us that because of memes we can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators.
If we get away from the view held by some Christians that the Bible is to be read like a science text or newspaper then we can see many parallels with Dawkins’ ideas. The Bible tells us that we have knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose between them. The term original sin is not a Biblical term but comes from the Christian understanding that we are born with a basic nature of selfishness, which is consistent with Dawkins view that we are born with selfish genes.
I don’t think that anyone would disagree that as humans our tendencies towards selfishness or unselfishness evolve over time both as individuals and as societies. Dawkins’ view is that this is a result of memetics. The definition of a meme varies but this is the best I could find.
quote:
A meme is an information pattern which is capable of being copied to another individual’s memory, mostly by means of imitation (though other techniques are possible as well) and which is subject to a selection process.
The quote was from this site on memtics. As we can see from this, memes are not physical but are non-physical thoughts and ideas that can be passed from one person to another resulting in the change of thoughts and ideas of individuals and societies. Dawkins believes, as I understand him, that we are infected, either positively or negatively by these memes or social replicators.
The Christian view using the scriptures, and the reasoning of Dawkins together, form a consistent message. As humans we have the freedom to make choices and we understand the difference between good and evil or selfishness and unselfishness. We understand that we should choose unselfishness or goodness, but that there is something basic within us that we have to overcome in order to commit acts for the benefit of someone else at our own expense.
The point I’m trying to make is this:
Original sin has always been a difficult doctrine to understand. My contention is that if we combine scripture and reason it is no longer difficult. Dawkins came to his understanding of selfish genes that we are born with through reason, and if we overlay the Genesis story with his reasoning we gain, what is in my view, a clear concept of original sin, along with the realization that we should move beyond that in our lives.
Out of that point I also want to say that Christians should apply both reason and scripture to our understanding of God and that science is born out of reason and could just as easily be called natural theology.
Of course Dawkins would consider his memes as having a strictly natural origin whereas I would see memes as God working in us. However, IMHO we have come to agreement on the basic nature of the human condition, and from my perspective a clearer understanding of our existence and the nature of God.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2326 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2023 12:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2333 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2023 1:39 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2333 of 3694 (910391)
04-22-2023 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2332 by GDR
04-21-2023 5:26 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
What was it then?
That gets into how “life” is defined, but possibly an RNA strand capable of replicating in its environment. Possibly a complex of RNA strands rather than one. Or maybe not even RNA but something simpler.
quote:
OK. You provided a link to a post from over 10 years ago and what I wrote in that post I think deals with all the items in your post and I don't want to have to do the research all over again so I'll simply repeat that post you referred to.

In other words you are doing exactly what I said. Ignoring the criticisms in the thread - and all the criticisms made since - and repeating the misrepresentation.
The whole point of saying that:
In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
is to show that the “selfishness” serves the “interests” of the genes - not the people they reside in. Obviously that is different from the people being selfish - but you don’t see that and refuse to see it. Because you don’t care about the truth - as you’ve just demonstrated again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2332 by GDR, posted 04-21-2023 5:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2340 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 7:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(4)
Message 2334 of 3694 (910486)
04-25-2023 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2330 by GDR
04-21-2023 5:10 PM


Re: Why not how
GDR in Message 2330 writes:
No matter how you look at it, it is belief.
Only if you mangle the word to unrecognizability.
What we have is a bag (the answers to reality.)
And we're learning of the things in the bag.
Every time we don't know something, and we go into the bag and learn what it actually is - we find that it's a green circle (natural explanation of natural processes.)
Some people say that red squares (God is responsible) are in the bag, but no one's ever seen one, not in thousands of years of pulling green circles from the bag.
We have millions and millions and millions of green circles we've pulled from the bag.
Questions on evolution, morality, space, gravity, the water cycle, weather, diseases, viruses, measurements, material hardness, combustion engines, airplanes, computers, electronics, paintings, clay pots, modelling, accounting, finances, fashion, vision, smells, tastes... anything and everything we've ever encountered in reality.
Why questions (especially why questions,) where questions, how questions, when questions... all the questions possible.
Producing nothing but millions and millions and millions of green circles from the bag. Over and over and over again. Day in, day out.
Doesn't matter who goes looking (American, European, Asian, Indian, Inuit, Japanese, old, young, wise, foolish...) anyone who looks for an answer about reality, and is able to find one they can show to be true... always pulls a green circle.
We have one more question, just like all the others, where we don't have an answer (right now.)
It's another "why" question... just like the millions of other "why" questions that have been answered with green circles.
I think the answer is going to be another green circle.
Because all the answers have always been green circles. The evidence shows us that only green circles exist.
You think the answer is going to be a red square.
Because, to you, "it makes the most sense."
And you call the reasoning for both of our answers: "belief."
Yeah - nobody's buying that.
Again - this isn't a convince you or convince me thing... this is simply me telling you about reality. You can either look at the evidence yourself and see that I'm not lying about it... or ignore it. It doesn't change reality. It doesn't change the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2330 by GDR, posted 04-21-2023 5:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2335 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 4:08 PM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2335 of 3694 (910547)
04-26-2023 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2334 by Stile
04-25-2023 9:41 AM


Re: Why not how
GDR writes:
No matter how you look at it, it is belief.
Stile writes:
Only if you mangle the word to unrecognizability.

What we have is a bag (the answers to reality.)
And we're learning of the things in the bag.

Every time we don't know something, and we go into the bag and learn what it actually is - we find that it's a green circle (natural explanation of natural processes.)
Some people say that red squares (God is responsible) are in the bag, but no one's ever seen one, not in thousands of years of pulling green circles from the bag.

We have millions and millions and millions of green circles we've pulled from the bag.
Questions on evolution, morality, space, gravity, the water cycle, weather, diseases, viruses, measurements, material hardness, combustion engines, airplanes, computers, electronics, paintings, clay pots, modelling, accounting, finances, fashion, vision, smells, tastes... anything and everything we've ever encountered in reality.

Why questions (especially why questions,) where questions, how questions, when questions... all the questions possible.

Producing nothing but millions and millions and millions of green circles from the bag. Over and over and over again. Day in, day out.
Doesn't matter who goes looking (American, European, Asian, Indian, Inuit, Japanese, old, young, wise, foolish...) anyone who looks for an answer about reality, and is able to find one they can show to be true... always pulls a green circle.

We have one more question, just like all the others, where we don't have an answer (right now.)
It's another "why" question... just like the millions of other "why" questions that have been answered with green circles.

I think the answer is going to be another green circle.
Because all the answers have always been green circles. The evidence shows us that only green circles exist.

You think the answer is going to be a red square.
Because, to you, "it makes the most sense."

And you call the reasoning for both of our answers: "belief."

Yeah - nobody's buying that.

Again - this isn't a convince you or convince me thing... this is simply me telling you about reality. You can either look at the evidence yourself and see that I'm not lying about it... or ignore it. It doesn't change reality. It doesn't change the evidence.
Your reply is based simply on a materialistic view of the world and the only evidence available that is pertinent is scientific. Obviously as a theist I don't accept that. Certainly scientific evidence is more compelling but it answers different question. I'm repeating myself but we can look scientifically at evolutionary theory but that won't tell you why evolution exists in the first place even if science is able to solve the riddle of abiogenesis.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2334 by Stile, posted 04-25-2023 9:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2337 by Tangle, posted 04-26-2023 4:36 PM GDR has replied
 Message 2347 by Stile, posted 04-27-2023 9:17 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2336 of 3694 (910549)
04-26-2023 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2327 by Tangle
04-20-2023 2:20 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
That's fine, but there is a big difference between figuring out what works and what is morally right. Genocide can work. Look at how well slavery worked for years until people finally said this is wrong.
Tangle writes:
I was going to make the same argument. What we see as right and wrong changes over time. It's developmental. We are capable of both good and bad. Those that murder others know that what they do is wrong, they always have because it's hardwired into us like all our base emotions are. But we're conscious, thinking beings that are able to override those emotions if we see advantage in it and often do it anyway.
I agree that it is developmental except I don't see it as being hardwired into our system and I think we only have to look at human history to understand that as I read the Bible as a narrative of the progressive understanding of the nature of God and His desire for our sense of morality. I contend that as humans this progressive understanding continues, albeit irregular, and I agree that a big part of that is through social replication.
GDR writes:
When we send funds into some foreign country to help those who are destitute we aren't doing it because it works. We keep hearing about the world being over-populated so we would be better off just to let them die off and reducing the competition for resources. That behaviour goes against evolution forces that involve personal well being and survival.
Tangle writes:
GDR, we are far more complicated machines than this. We have complex drives and emotional reactions to situations. We do irrational things all the time for seemingly rational reasons. Russians are killing Ukrainians now, not because they want to but because some power crazed lunatic - a Christian btw - is telling them they must. They know it's wrong but do it anyway.

Evolution does not power our actions, you are ascribing simplistic ideas to a complicated organism that has developed far beyond those primitive mechanisms. We have evolved a conscious brain and developed a sophisticated society and set of behaviours that allow us to operate beyond pure instinct.

But we still have those primitive instincts imbedded in us - we know instinctively what is right and wrong but society and its institutions promote or prohibit those instincts. Societies are developmental, it's not at all certain that our better instincts will overcome our worse ones and in some parts of the world we can see they aren't.

God is not involved in any of this, if the kind of god you believe in is involved, he's a pathetic one, unable to achieve whatever you think he is trying to do. I don't know how you can look at the world and believe what you believe.
Firstly I have never seen anything Darwinian that goes beyond the idea of survival of the fittest. I see nothing in there that suggests an evolutionary process that would lead us to overcome our basic instincts for our own survival and well being. Certainly co-operation can fit into that but not empathy and more particularly altruism. That doesn't mean that it isn't evolving but no one has been able to convince me that there is any materialistic underpinnings behind it.
Secondly, I don't believe in a god who directly controls the world. Yes, I believe God influences human and quite possibly even all conscious thought, although easily ignored, but that is a very different thing.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2327 by Tangle, posted 04-20-2023 2:20 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2344 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2023 2:28 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2337 of 3694 (910550)
04-26-2023 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2335 by GDR
04-26-2023 4:08 PM


Re: Why not how
GDR writes:
I'm repeating myself but we can look scientifically at evolutionary theory but that won't tell you why evolution exists in the first place even if science is able to solve the riddle of abiogenesis.
Why do you think that there needs to be a why?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2335 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 4:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2341 by GDR, posted 04-26-2023 7:21 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2338 of 3694 (910556)
04-26-2023 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2329 by Tangle
04-21-2023 3:13 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Here is an article from USA Today done in 2017. Creationism support is at a new low
Tangle writes:
You don't even think you're doing it. You smile at the ignoramuses that think people were put on the planet 10,000 years ago fully formed, but don't realise you do the same in your own way.
..and as you believe that the best explanation is that everything evolved simply by mindless, fortuitous chance. As you have no hesitation to resort to ridicule, I guess it's ok for me to suggest that you are in the same camp except at the other end of the spectrum, in your own way.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2329 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2023 3:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2343 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2023 2:16 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2339 of 3694 (910557)
04-26-2023 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2331 by PaulK
04-21-2023 5:19 PM


Re: Why not how
GDR writes:
The questions like why is there something instead of nothing and why does life exist at all is something that science can't answer.
PaulK writes:
I disagree on the second, but I really want to talk about the first.
Firstly if science helps can you tell me "why", not "how" the universe exists.
PaulK writes:
It seems obvious that “why is there something rather than nothing” is no help to you at all. You have no better answer than any of us.

Indeed, I put considerable thought into it on a thread here. Yet I haven’t seen you discuss it in a similar way. So I can’t even say that you have as good an answer as I do.

So why bring it up? Can you really offer an explanation of how it helps you - that doesn’t rely on a double standard?
I don't necessarily thinks it helps me, but it is simply that it is unanswerable. Assuming BB theory is somewhat accurate then the question arises as to what it was that precipitated that, and further if it can be explained by some cosmic cataclysmic event, then we ask what it was that precipitated that.
My own unevidenced view is simply that it always existed in one form or another and now it is is simply the way we perceive it, which is not an argument for either of our positions, but simply a question that, at least so far, is far beyond our ability to come to any firm conclusion.
The reason behind the existence of life, from intelligence or mindlessness is a different question.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2331 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2023 5:19 PM PaulK has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2340 of 3694 (910558)
04-26-2023 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2333 by PaulK
04-22-2023 1:39 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
PaulK writes:
​That gets into how “life” is defined, but possibly an RNA strand capable of replicating in its environment. Possibly a complex of RNA strands rather than one. Or maybe not even RNA but something simpler.
That is as speculative as any answer. Even if you are right the question remains as to what precipitated that. Without knowing how it came about I contend it is more reasonable to conclude that there was a cosmic intelligence responsible than that it came about from blind mindless chance, and of course it doesn't even begin to answer the question of why there was any RNA at all.
PaulK writes:
is to show that the “selfishness” serves the “interests” of the genes - not the people they reside in. Obviously that is different from the people being selfish - but you don’t see that and refuse to see it. Because you don’t care about the truth - as you’ve just demonstrated again.
OK, then how does it explain how it is that helping people on the other side of the planet from a completely different gene pool serves the interest of the genes when my gene pool is better served by destroying or enslaving them and having access to their resources for my own gene pool. How does it serve my genes to put time and money into bettering the lives of animals, which I agree is kinda hypocritical as I eat them. (I do at least try and buy etheical meat> )

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2333 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2023 1:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2342 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2023 12:34 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024