|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Truth About Evolution and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Care to give the definition then?
The human soul is not a poorly defined concept at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
And your evidence for all these blind assertions is what exactly?
Metaphysics is the study of being as being (being in the abstract). Metaphysics doesn't address all questions (What is knowledge? What is free will?). It explains why beings change, why beings are finite, and why beings are members of a class or category of being. When a being changes in time, there is a contradiction. It is the same and is yet different. How can this be made intelligible? Ans.: A being is a metaphysical composition of substance and accidence. Likewise, a finite being is composed of essence and existence. A being that is a member of a class is composed of form and matter. For humans, the form is called the soul and the matter is called the body.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Then why would we even consider it?
There is no evidence, as you say. Evidence is the basis of scientific knowledge.
I'd say of all knowledge really. For if you "know" something that cannot be demonstrated to be true, what good is that knowledge?
There is no evidence that we dream when we sleep.
Actually there is.
We know we dream because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. This is called transcendence.
No, that is called memory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Then why bring up souls and metaphysics? That has nothing to do with evolution.
I am interested in explaining biology, especially evolutionary biology. To understand biology, you need to understand metaphysics and understand why biology only studies the bodies of humans.
No you don't. Biology studies the natural world. If the soul is not part of that, then biology does not study it. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it.
Most American biologists don't understand the biology of humans because if you ask them about the human soul they will give an irrational and misinformed answer.
They don;t understand bbiology because they can't answer a question about something that has absolutely nothing to do with biology? What a weird position to take. Do plumbers not know anything about pipes because they can't answer questions about brain surgery?
American biologists speak of dualism, monism, determinism, and materialism without knowing what they are talking about.
If tehy do talk about those things, then they talk about them on a personal note, and not as biologists (well, apart perhaps from materialism). Since none of those hhave anything to do with biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Probably 3. As a teacher I'd never tell them number 2 (which is my position, but as a teacher you can't say that to your students). Number 4 is nonsensical and number 1 is not helping them very much. The one to ask about free will is the philosophy teacher, since he is the one that specializes in those kind of things.
If you were a biology teacher and a student asked you if animals had free will, what would you say? This is a multiple choice question:1) I don't know. 2) Free will is an illusion. 3) Ask your philosophy teacher. 4) Biology only studies the bodies of humans, not their souls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
I'd say with just the past. I'd love to know if you have a method for remembering the future.
Memory has to do with past and future. But the past and future are mental beings. Past and future only exist when a real being is thinking about the past and future.
Nonsense. They exist regardless of a "real being" (Whatever that is) thinking about them. For example, if nobody thinks about WWII, it will suddenly not have happened?
What are mental beings? Do mental beings have mass? Do mental beings take up space?
Mental beings are something you made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
I said I'd choose 3. My personal choice would be 2. 4 I wouldn't even consider, since that is not an answer to the question. I t makes no sense as an answer to the question.
I agree that the choice is between 2) and 4). Your remarks are similar to Stephen Jay Gould's. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Gould spoke about his "private ideas" and you distinguish between what you say to children and what you think.
Of course. I am a teacher (in your example). Would they ask me for my personal oppinion, I would give it to them. But as their teacher it is not my place to tell them what they shoudl think. This is not talking from both sides of my mouth, this is taking my job seriously.
I have no such conflict. I say what I think.
As do I. But in your example I am a teacher, and so I have a certain professionalism I have to take into account. If you would teach only your personal oppinions to students, you would be a lousy teacher.
People who say free will is an illusion live their lives as if they have free will.
Evidence?
They apologize when they hurt someone, they feel guilty, and they promise not to do it again.
That's called taking responsibility, not free will. Free will doesn't exist., free choice on the other hand, does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Now that I think about it a bit more, you're probably right. Anyway, it's not really relevant to this thread anyway, which should be about evolution and religion, rather than about if free will exists or not.
I should say that that is a distinction without a difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
It doesn't. Were they there as teachers, or were they there as a panel that discussed their opinions? If the former, shame on them. But I suspect it was the latter, in which case, what the hell are you whining about, if that's their opinion and they're there to discuss it, what could possibly be wrong about giving that opinion?
By not answering my statement that evolution does not apply to the human soul they created the impression in many children listening that the idea of the soul is so irrational that my point does not merit a reply. Terrance Deacon's response left the impression that natural selection did indeed explain common descent.
He probably thought you meant the entire ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I've been reading through this thread a little, and you continue to use the term "natural selection" or "the theory of natural selection". You use these terms in a way that seems a bit wrong to me. Would you mind telling me what you think "natural selection" means, or what the "theory of natural selection" says?
Please, just the definition of those terms, nothing else is required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
First you leave random mutations out of evolution by solely talking about natural selection, now you leave out natural selection by talking solely about random mutations.
Why do you do such weird things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
No it doesn't. Evolution includes random mutations.
Natural selection includes random mutations. You should check out my YouTube video. There I explain evolutionary biology by quoting from mainstream sources.
If you say things like the quote above, I think you're explaining it wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Great minds think alike, eh?
Again, we've posted the same truth at the same time. One of us is clearly superfluous.
But they have cooties!
One of us could point out the bleedin' obvious, and the other ... well, did you know that there's pictures of naked women on the Internet? Really, no kidding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Of course not. Evolution explains that.
My point is that Krischner and Gerhardt don't even try to do the calculation for a larger sequence because they are not trying to show that Darwinism explains complexity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
No. He is saying EVOLUTION explains the complexity of life. How many times do we have to tell you this?
Are you saying that natural selection explains the complexity of life? My understanding is that along with a greater understanding of molecular biology has come a greater understanding of the complexity of life. For example, the complex molecular machinery that ID advocates talk about and developmental biology.
Yes. So?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024