Choosing a faith

"I contend that tiny angels pushing things together is a far more reasonable conclusion than gravity, although not 100%."Feel free to continue with your contention.
The evidence shows otherwise for gravity, and equally so for human development without any external influence. It's the same evidence.
Life exists at all because life developed as shown by the physical evidence.
Just like rocks roll down hills at all because gravity developed as shown by the physical evidence. "Why do our perceptions of gravity exist at all, as opposed to how all the evidence explains gravity in that way?"
Our perceptions of gravity exist at all because of all the evidence we have to explain gravity in that way.Our perceptions of the world and our lives exist at all because of all the evidence that life and the world evolved the way it has.You're dismissing the answer the evidence points to for no reason and insist that something else must be at play... without any evidence.We've looked - it's quite possible that we did find evidence that our perceptions of the world and our lives exist due to external influences beyond our current ability to identify. This would be things like massive gaps in our knowledge that don't make any sense according to our current paradigms. That is - all the vast amounts of evidence we have would seem useless for any attempts to explain such gaps. This situation did exist 100 or 200 years ago.But - this situation doesn't exist anymore.
After looking more and more and more... we do see gaps in our knowledge - but they are very small, and easily theorized to be a part of the same natural processes we have vast amounts for. There's nothing that looks like it can't fit in. There could have been (as there was hundreds of years ago) - there just isn't anymore.100 years ago - your claims had some merit. There was lots we didn't know.
But now - it's over. Your claims have been checked, and they're just wrong.

Sure, that works for something that we can have information on. There is the question of why is there something instead of nothing. What information do you have for that.

simply disagree on what we believe the truth to be. Yes that is your belief. I would add that co-operation and altruism are not synonymous. Our beliefs are simply about what the truth actually is. We disagree. We can both find sources for our beliefs.

Sure, and you contend that evolutionary forces account for altruistic behaviour can be accounted for simply through the evolutionary process which is all about the strengthening of an individual species like Darwin's finches. Sure we have learned cultural behaviours but why do we instinctively know that there some learned behaviours that are good and some behaviours that are instinctively bad. I guess you can say that God created both as He gave us the free will to choose good or bad, right or wrong etc. However He also gave us the ability to distinguish between the two, and the instinctive understanding of which one we should choose aided by His "still small voice".

quote:

---

simply disagree on what we believe the truth to be.

---

Unless you are a radical relativist who has his own truth that is not the case. What evolutionary theory claims - and the reasoning behind it is fact. The evolutionary definition of fitness is fact, as is the meaning of “selfish genes”. If you disagree about those then you are simply wrong.

quote:

---

Yes that is your belief. I would add that co-operation and altruism are not synonymous.

---

It is a fact that your idea of evolution is simplistic and wrong. At worst I am far closer to the truth than you - because you choose to be ignorant and have done so for over a decade.

quote:

---

Our beliefs are simply about what the truth actually is. We disagree. We can both find sources for our beliefs.

---

So you think that your uninformed opinions - wilfully uninformed at that - are on the same level as the facts. That is egotism, not a concern for the truth.

Because for hundreds of thousands of years we've learned that some behaviours are more beneficial than others. It's not a matter of good or bad, it's what works for us and what doesn't. Eventually those behaviours become hardwired.Much later we developed consciousness and began to have some control over our primitive emotions; we can act against our hardwired instincts but 'normal' people can't avoid them. See someone harmed and we feel it ourselves. See someone laugh and we laugh, see someone cry for a lost child and we cry. It's inbuilt like a dog wagging it's tail and a pigeon homing.

Wash, rinse, repeat

...and that is your contention. Even considering the law of gravity. Sure we can see it acting naturally but there is the oft repeated phrase that a law requires a law giver. You keep muddying the waters. I'm not questioning the science but you contend that science exists on its own without any intelligence responsible for those scientific facts in the first place. You also contend that there is a scientific basis for conscious beings with intelligence that doesn't require a per-existing intelligence. You too are free to continue with your contentions. All the evidence points to a car being the way it is because that's the way a robotic assembly line made it that way. No intelligence requires. Sure, but why has the world evolved the way it has? Your argument is based on a materialistic world view which is a belief. Science examines and often explains a materialistic world, but it doesn't explain why the materialistic world we perceive is there at all.It's not really germane but there are huge gaps in our knowledge beginning with abiogenesis and for that matter we don't really know what other gaps there might be in our knowledge. Newton had no idea that the science of QM even existed.

Darwin wrote that "I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious views of anyone.”, and of course it shouldn't as his theory only concerned of how physical life as we know it came to be.From this site Nature-The Selfish Gene I got the following quote.

quote:

---

Dawkins wrote that “from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves there is no paradox. The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite.”

---

Beyond DNA Dawkins coined the term "meme' to designate a cultural replicator or the passage of ideas or thoughts. We can only surmise where or how these ideas or thoughts originated.In other words evolution is a strictly physical process, and if anyone wants to make the point that empathy and altruism evolved it requires a completely different process.In either case it is my contention that an intelligent root cause for either process is much more likely to be intelligent than not. OK, so educate me. Where am I being ignorant. I have taken care to outline my beliefs as beliefs and not as fact. Frankly it is you that egotistically presents your views as facts.
​

quote:

---

Darwin wrote that "I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious views of anyone.”, and of course it shouldn't as his theory only concerned of how physical life as we know it came to be.
​

---

“How physical life came to be” would be abiogenesis, not evolution.
Note also that this has nothing to do with your misrepresentations.

quote:

---

From this site Nature-The Selfish Gene I got the following quote.

​

quote:

---

Dawkins wrote that “from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves there is no paradox. The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite.”

---

---

Note that this only addresses a part of the concept - and a part utterly unrelated to your idea that “the selfish gene” was the same as “original sin”.

quote:

---

Beyond DNA Dawkins coined the term "meme' to designate a cultural replicator or the passage of ideas or thoughts. We can only surmise where or how these ideas or thoughts originated.

---

Which is also completely unrelated to your misrepresentation of evolution.

quote:

---

In other words evolution is a strictly physical process, and if anyone wants to make the point that empathy and altruism evolved it requires a completely different process.

---

Since behaviour does evolve and since our brains are the product of evolution this is is simply wrong.

quote:

---

In either case it is my contention that an intelligent root cause for either process is much more likely to be intelligent than not

---

As written that is an empty tautology. An “intelligent cause” is necessarily intelligent. Even correcting that it is clear that you have been misrepresenting evolution - and intentionally remaining ignorant of evolution to maintain your misrepresentation- in order to buttress your contention. That is not the behaviour of someone who seeks the truth.

quote:

---

OK, so educate me. Where am I being ignorant.

---

If you had been paying attention you would know that already. I’ve said it often enough.

quote:

---

I have taken care to outline my beliefs as beliefs and not as fact.

---

You certainly have not. Where did you admit that your ideas about evolution were uninformed opinions? What makes you think that it makes any sense to base an argument on uninformed opinions?

quote:

---

Frankly it is you that egotistically presents your views as facts.

---

Oh we’re back to that nonsense. Again unless you are appealing to radical relativism the facts are facts. Evolutionary theory does not predict a war of all against all. The evolution of cooperation and apparent altruism is well-studied. The selfish gene is about the evolution of altruistic behaviour, not selfish behaviour as you would have it. Those are not simply my opinions, they are facts - and they are facts you choose to ignore because they get in the way of your arguments.

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.

quote:

---

… according to the Pew Research Center, 62 percent of adults in the United States accept human evolution while 34 percent of adults believe that humans have always existed in their present form.

---

Of course evolution is a strictly physical process, animals and plants are strictly physical! Absolutely nothing non-physical exists in our bodies, everything is physical. Even our thoughts and emotions like love, hate, anger, jealousy and yes, empathy are physical states. We know this because we can see the parts of the brain that are working when those emotions are active.Quit trying to find the supernatural in stuff that is purely natural, it makes you look silly. Believe in your god by all means but don't impose your own personal fantasies on him. He doesn't work the way you want him to work.

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.

I don't know.
But it has.
And it didn't need any external intelligence.From here, we know the truth could be:Maybe there's a reason and we'll learn it one day.
Maybe there's a reason and we'll never learn it.
Maybe we already know the reason and some people say we don't just because they don't like it.
Maybe the reason is the same as what the evidence shows us it is. There are 3000 blades of grass in one square foot of my lawn, and 3001 in the next square foot - that is: "this is the way things are due to the natural processes that occur that no intelligence controls."
Maybe the reason is "a cosmic pool game is being played and we're the result"
Maybe the reason is "Odin did it"
Maybe the reason is "God did it"We know that if we want to prioritize identifying the truth - we should follow the evidence.
We know that any imaginary-only (not linked to reality in any way) idea is just as good as any other - highly likely to be wrong.

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.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.

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? 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. However, we are able to overcome the selfishness and have empathy and even behave altruistically, 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). as I said in my previous reply to him.I have no problem with the it being passed along along culturally with fits with Dawkins proposal of memes. How am I misrepresenting evolution. I don't deny that it evolves but that does not make it part of the ToE. You really think that with all the time and study that I have put into this subject that I'm not seeking the truth. I readily acknowledge that what I contend is the truth can't be proven but I do contend that it is rational.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.