Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 318 (282406)
01-29-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Quetzal
01-29-2006 9:36 PM


Re: Humanity's Place in the Cosmos
Nice to hear from you, Quetzal. You been a long time gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Quetzal, posted 01-29-2006 9:36 PM Quetzal has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 318 (282410)
01-29-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by robinrohan
01-29-2006 8:19 PM


Re: Just a little theory
How does this affect how you interact with your fellow man?
quote:
I don't know. You would have to ask a religious person. Maybe it makes one value humans more. Everyone you talk to--terrorist or not--is an immortal soul, in their eyes.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 8:19 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-29-2006 10:41 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 288 of 318 (282414)
01-29-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by robinrohan
01-29-2006 8:45 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 8:45 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 10:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 291 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-29-2006 10:43 PM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 318 (282417)
01-29-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
01-29-2006 10:21 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Yes, well a Christian DOES know where poor Yorick has ended up unfortunately
I always identified with Yorick. Nice guy. Shakespeare was a nihilist, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 10:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 2:56 AM robinrohan has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 290 of 318 (282426)
01-29-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
01-29-2006 10:11 PM


Re: Just a little theory
Valuing humanity as such doesn't mean tolerating evil people who prey on innocents.
you mean like televangelists?
however, jesus' order to turn the other cheek does mean tolerating evil people. funny thing that jesus guy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 10:11 PM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 291 of 318 (282427)
01-29-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
01-29-2006 10:21 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Yes, well a Christian DOES know where poor Yorick has ended up unfortunately.
and again you pronounce the eternal fate of someone you do not know. really. stop it. it's rude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 01-29-2006 10:21 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 318 (282441)
01-29-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Quetzal
01-29-2006 9:36 PM


Re: Humanity's Place in the Cosmos
Faith: It’s been awhile since I’ve been tempted to post on the board. I just wanted to say that I thought your post was really quite good with reference to how science in general and evolutionary biology in particular view humanity’s place in the universe. Well, the hyperbole about human food cropping aside, that is.
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.
I would like to comment on a couple of areas, however:
quote:
Significance = objective significance, not subjective. Value, importance, in the Great Scheme of Things, not just to ourselves or selected others in our lives.
As I read this, I’m struck by an apparent contradiction. It appears (and I may simply be misunderstanding your meaning), that you are conflating two vastly distinct concepts. You seem to be advocating that there can be assigned an intrinsic, inherent “objective significance” to an object - or at least to humans. However, you then equate this “objective”, intrinsic concept with the wholly extrinsic, subjective concept of “value”.
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 find this apparent contradiction somewhat confusing. Think of it this way: what is the “value” of a rock lying on a forested hillside? And yes, I’m aware that you are probably restricting the “significance” argument to humans alone, but bear with me. It may be possible to determine that that rock in that location has “value”. However, the specific definition of value in the case of our chunk of granite is entirely dependent on subjective assignment of significance based on wholly external perspectives. For instance, from one perspective, the rock may be providing shelter to numerous organisms from beetles to grubs to soil nematodes who would be completely unable to survive if the rock weren’t there at that precise location. It may also (and simultaneously) be providing a substrate for various lichens and mosses, which again would be unable to survive in that place in the rock’s absence. From the perspective of living systems, therefore, the rock has “value” as either shelter or substrate. From a completely abiotic standpoint, the rock may be said to have “value” for its interactions with the rest of the environment (for instance, because of its location it may be implicated in soil retention, retardation of rainwater runoff, slope stabilization, etc.) From a human perspective, the rock may have “significance” because of the uses to which we can put it. For example, it may be the exact right shape to be useful in grinding grain, cracking a coconut, or bashing in the head of an opponent.
In short, an object only has that significance which is imputed to it by external actors or systems. Although the significance of humans - and the “values” imputed to an individual or the species as a whole - is orders of magnitude more complex than that of a rock, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. The significance of a human is dependent solely on the individual’s myriad interactions with others - and hence the “value” of a human is dependent on the rest of the system, and the significance others impute to him/her. It is, in my opinion, rather difficult to determine any “objectivity” in this type of valuation. Please elaborate on your meaning if I have misunderstood.
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.
As to the remainder of your post, with one minor quibble (see below) and a couple of unimportant details, I think you have basically hit the nail on the head in terms of how evolutionary biology views humanity’s “place” in the cosmos. We are, in essence, merely one of a myriad of exquisitely adapted species on this planet. We are not inherently special by any reasonable definition of the term. I think you have struck to the heart of the difficulty many have in accepting the observations and conclusions of evolutionary science. Your post might serve as an excellent framework for exploring the “why” of this difficulty (although we don’t have much room remaining in this thread, unfortunately).
To wit: why don’t so many biologists and others see the lack of “special-ness” in humans (or at least the concept that we have the same level of “special-ness” as any other of the wondrous and intricately evolved organisms on this amazing planet) as a negative? Why is that many people - and in some cases the majority of people in a given place or country - are very uncomfortable with the lack of “special-ness”, to the point that they reject one of the fundamental principles linking all of life? Does this sound like a reasonable framework for discussion?
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.
As to my qubble:
We're way overqualified for the job evolution assigned us.
If this is merely rhetoric, then I have no argument. In fact, I think it’s kind of a neat way of phrasing it. However, I just wanted to be sure you understood - really understood - that evolution doesn’t “assign” a place to any organism. There is no progress inherent in evolution, merely survival and reproduction. What makes evolutionary theory so absolutely absorbing to me is the unbelievable complexity of both the interactions between organisms and between organisms and their environment - in short, how evolution actually plays out in time and space.
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 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 12:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Quetzal, posted 01-29-2006 9:36 PM Quetzal has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 293 of 318 (282458)
01-30-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by nwr
01-29-2006 9:39 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
I don't know if I can make a syllogism out of this. Maybe you can after you read it.
quote:
I'm sure neither of us can.
The starting point is your definition of significance:
Value, importance, in the Great Scheme of Things, not just to ourselves or selected others in our lives.
quote:
That's not anything that science addresses at all. No science has anything to say about significance.
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.
Since science became God as it were, we are told we are arrogant for thinking highly of humanity as such.
quote:
You are misunderstanding that (and some scientists also misunderstand it). When studying homo sapiens, science takes a value-neutral stance toward them, as it does for anything else it studies. But this is just a stance. It carries no weight on how society should value humans.
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.
Scientists also follow pretty strict ethical rules, when using people as experimental subjects. That should at least hint that the value-neutrality is merely a stance, and not how people are really viewed.
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.
Evolution treats us as nothing special at all, just another animal, ...
quote:
But this is not just evolution. Biology treats us as a collection of cells. Astronomy treats earth as an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star. Again, this is a stance scientists take, so that there method of study will be uniform and consistent.
No, what I'm talking about logically follows from the THEORY. This is not about methods of study.
If scientists didn't consider us significant, they wouldn't be so diligent about doing their science.
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 something we must accept by accepting evolution, to tie it into the title of the thread.
quote:
But we only have to accept it as a stance scientists adopt while carrying out their scientific study.
Most physicians will not handle medical problems for their family (other than trivial ones). And it is for the same reason. In order to do the best medicine, one must take a neutral stance toward patients, which is very hard to do if the patient is family.
This is completely irrelevant to the point, nwr.
Sure, Dawkins treats the stance as if it is the reality. But that comes from his atheism, not from his being an evolutionist.
His views are logically consistent with the ToE, in a way that theism isn't.
We don't have to follow Dawkins in that respect. It is entirely possible to maintain one's Christian values with respect to the significance of humans in the great scheme of things, and still be an evolutionist. Many people indeed do that.
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 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 01:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 9:39 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 1:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 310 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 7:27 AM Faith has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 294 of 318 (282459)
01-30-2006 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
01-30-2006 1:03 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
That's not anything that science addresses at all. No science has anything to say about significance.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the point being made.
On the contrary, it is very relevant.
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 logical implications of science can only have to do with what is addressed by science. That's the way logic works. You start with certain premises, and then use deduction. If none of the premises mention significance, then none of the conclusions can mention significance.
No, what I'm talking about logically follows from the THEORY.
You may believe that there is a logical implication, but belief does not make it so.
You might have some sort of argument in mind. But it won't be a logical argument. Reasoning is not all logic. A lot of our reasoning makes use of common sense. And common sense has not been shown equivalent to logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 1:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 1:50 AM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 295 of 318 (282460)
01-30-2006 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by nwr
01-30-2006 1:47 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 1:47 AM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 296 of 318 (282462)
01-30-2006 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by robinrohan
01-29-2006 10:36 PM


Re: A challenge to Faith
I always identified with Yorick. Nice guy. Shakespeare was a nihilist, of course.
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 Philosophy
Nihilism - Wikipedia
The domain name counterorder.com is for sale
It 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2006 10:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:05 AM Faith has replied
 Message 308 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 309 by Parasomnium, posted 01-30-2006 7:01 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 297 of 318 (282463)
01-30-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
01-30-2006 2:56 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Like Robin you assert contradictions - and even congratulate yourself on "seeing" contradictions. But that would be premature unless you can actually demonstrate that there are logical contradictions - as Robin failed to do.
A claim of logical contradiction is a very strong claim. It demands logical proof.
So since you claim that it there are logical contradictions between religion and what you call "conventional morality" I suggest that you actually back up your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:10 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 298 of 318 (282464)
01-30-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by PaulK
01-30-2006 3:05 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Robin made the point many times over. I made it particularly in Message 280. I'm sorry if it went over your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 299 of 318 (282465)
01-30-2006 3:12 AM


Mind Body Problems revisited?
Faith, if you have time and are still interested, could you address my Message 211? I'm especially interested in your views on Libet.

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:31 AM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 300 of 318 (282466)
01-30-2006 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Faith
01-30-2006 3:10 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Contrary to your boasts you naive argument did not go "over my head".
Firstly it commits a genetic fallacy in that it assumes that value is judged by the origin of our species. To simply hold that our position in evolutionary history is the only thing that matters is a strong assertion that demands justification. It cannot and should not be taken for granted as you do. Equally it is not part of evolutionary theory that the only value that should be placed on our capabilities is the evolutionary benefit each offers - nor is it at all obvious that that should be our measure of value.
Secondly our current position on the planet and the universe can be judged without appealing to evolution at all. The most you can argue here is that evolution rules out alternative views - but if you cannot argue for those views directly it cannot be said that evolution is anything more thna a minor issue compared with, say, the immensity of our universe.
Thirdly it completely ignores the possibility of theistic evolution. A calim of logical contradiction does not permit you to ignore possible alternatives - even if Robin frequently relies on doing so in this thread (the reason why I have given up responding to him).
v

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:30 AM PaulK 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