Posted on 10/17/2006 9:47:15 AM PDT by Heartlander
No I didn't. My post was meant for wideawake. I accidently pinged you to it. Sorry.
This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.
However, it fails to address the question of why we should bother to create a world that affirms life instead of destroys it. What's to be gained? Chemistry is chemistry, whether it's conscious or not. You can't just strike your intellect against the ground and declare that your existence has meaning simply because you say so. That makes you conscious chemistry with hubris.
That's one of the most excellent points I've seen made on the subject under discussion.
Attacking a scientific theory because it does not provide a "moral framework" is stupid and dishonest, and any conservative should be ashamed and apalled to be associated with such a ridiculous effort.
I hope you noticed that I specifically rejected the "utilitarian" argument altogether. To argue that G-d doesn't really exist but we must pretend He does so for utilitarian social reasons is no different from the argument that we should dispense with belief in G-d because we don't "need" him to for society to function smoothly.
So far as I know, the other theories you cite are theories about how the world works in the present. Evolution is retrojected into the distant past in order to explain how everything came into existence. That's a little different.
I'm still waiting to hear how the "big bang" could be a purely natural phenomenon when "nature" was not in existence until afterwards. Are you really saying that it was caused by its result? How is this logical?
But I could ask you: Why should we bother to try to please God?You can only posit that question because you think of God as an intellectual construct, equivalent to the intellectual construct of meaning in a naturalistic universe.
If you actually thought of God as being real, rather than theoretical, the question would answer itself.
No, by that logic only atheists are capable of sinning. Which means that Adam & Eve & Lucifer, to name just three people who definitely were believers, did not sin. Since we all have free will, believers certainly can make the decision to go against God or not, knowing full well what the religious dogma says will happen to us if we do it.
And sure, not everybody wants what's in their long-term best interest, and not everybody cares about people other than themselves or their immediate loved ones or their countrymen. The best situation is if everyone feels empathy towards everyone who's capable of experiencing the same. The best situation is also where everyone is capable of thinking things through to see the long-term effects of possible actions.
But luckily for us, this innate sense of morality is pervasive enough that we've learned to build up governmental institutions that enforce the basic rules of conduct that keep us all in a positive-sum game of cooperation that keeps civilization possible. (What the article dismisses as "decent materialism".)
That's one of the most excellent points I've seen made on the subject under discussion.
Then let me as you the same question I asked Oberon: Why should you, a believer, bother to work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it? Ultimately you want to live a long & happy life just as much as I do - you just think that there's an infinitely long, infinitely happy life awaiting you in some supernatural realm if only you can keep obeying certain commandments in this life. Right?
There is a commnad that you love your neighbor.
Ultimately you want to live a long & happy life
If you belive that all there is is here then you are not going to live a very long life compared to time that has past.
As far as happiness goes, what is the point as to why we are here? To survive until procreation?
Don’t patronize me…
We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.
Why do we have this ‘world’? Is it truly your ‘belief’ that it is all ultimately a result of mindless happenstance? If this were true, all moral constructs become merely imaginary.
Let me now try to summarize Darwin’s contributions to the thinking of modern men. He was responsible for the replacement of a world view based on Christian dogma by a strictly secular world view. Fur thermore, his writings led to the rejection of several previously dominant world views such as essentialism, finalism, determinism, and of Newtonian laws for the explanation of evolution. He replaced these refuted concepts with a number of new ones of wide- reaching importance, also outside of biology, such as biopopulation, natural selection, the importance of chance and contingency, the explan atory importance of the time factor (historical narratives), and the importance of the social group for the origin of ethics. Almost every component in modern man’s belief system is somehow affected by one or another of Darwin’s conceptual contributions. His opus as a whole is the foundation of a rapidly developing new philosophy of biology. There can be no doubt that the thinking of every modern Western man has been profoundly affected by Darwin’s philosophical thought.
- Mayr
I quote Mayr only to show the crux of the problem as admittedly, I see it… To put it bluntly, if Darwinism is now assumed as the new paradigm for science it must account for intelligence and morality which is a new stomping ground for science. Hard science has always been a study of nature but now it is assumed that nature accounts for intelligence, morality, and hard science without teleology. This is what causes the conflict between Darwinism as opposed to other scientific theories in regard to theism or telic thought. This, in my opinion, is the heart of the problem. But if you wish to continue stating purely natural laws account for the basis for mankind’s morality, go ahead.
Seth Cooper (& presumably the book he's reviewing) assumes that the only way there can be a secure basis for morality is if we're all marionettes. The only alternative they can think of is absolute moral chaos: nihilism.
But two facts explain the third option: We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.
Please don't fear the world of adulthood. We have to figure out how to live to ensure the long-term flourishing of ourselves & everyone else in this world who we value, instead of blindly following some uber-parent in the sky. And yet, our free will gives us the ability to do exactly that. We are up to the challenge. There's no need to pine for the artificial surety of childhood!
John Smith murders 4 innocent people, so he's hanged. But if John Smith hadn't murdered those people, then we wouldn't have hanged him. So therefore, our concept of crime & punishment is relative! We need an "objective" morality that would order us to hang John Smith even if he hadn't murdered anybody.
Do you begin to see, people, how utterly misguided is this quest for an arbitrary morality that's unconnected to its effect on people's actual lives here in the real world?
Obviously we both instinctively respond to our respective questions: Because I want to live long & be happy!
Our desire to live long & happy lives is part of our nature as living beings. Our desire to see other people also live long & happy lives is part of our human nature. These are givens, and are axiomatic. All moral questions dissolve into absurdity if we don't assume that our fundamental goal is to live long & prosper & to see our loved ones do the same.
I can appreciate a certain amount of honesty in the posts of you two that not all evolutionists possess. You seem to be saying that G-d is silly and unnecessary and He should be dispensed with. While I disagree with this, I see the logic in it (except that, as a Theonomic positivist, I reject all non-Theistic moralities or "reasons for living"). What I don't understand are your numerous brethren who loudly and constantly proclaim that one may be an evolutionist, of even the Darwinian type (as opposed to the ID Theistic evolutionist, who claims that G-d's guidance of the evolutionary process is scientifically observable), and still retain one's beliefs in such things as the miracles of the Exodus, or (lehavdil), the chr*stian incarnation or resurrection or transubstantiation. Why do such otherwise honest and consistent types not argue with this never-ending chorus? Patrick Henry even invokes the late Pope John Paul II, who (whatever his views on origins) most certainly did not believe that the universe is a self-contained system of causes and effects with which G-d never interfered. So far the anti-creation, anti-ID side seems to be one big happy family, even though different sectors of the community are preaching diametrically opposed things (religion may be retained intact once Genesis is dispensed with; religion is silly and we would all be much better without it).
But I wish to point out something else which I find of interest. The traditional argument against G-d was that He has too many rules; once we get rid of Him we will be "free." Now conservative evolutionists are arguing that one need not fear rejecting G-d because all the rules are still there and still valid. So which is it? Will rejecting G-d set us free from all those stuffy old morals or will we be left with them? It is as if you are saying that it is not the rules but the mere existence of G-d that you find so constricting. If we're still going to hang John Smith for murdering, how does the non-existence of G-d set John Smith free? Does he die happy knowing that he is merely part of a self-contained unit of causes and effects?
Which brings me to another interesting point, jennyp. If I recall correctly, you quote my remark about the Mashiach and his blade on your home page to prove how constricting and tyrannical G-d is. Yet, as you just pointed out, you have no objections to using the "blade" yourself. In fact, there is nothing that can be justified by G-d that cannot be justified by "reason" as well, if "reason" is made the basis of morality. Your unfortunate Mr. Smith is but one example. Alan Dershowitz' defense of torture of Guantanamo detainees for the perfectly "rational" reason that this may save countless innocent lives is another.
The simple fact that is that both the Theist and non-Theist "free-thinker" believe that acknowledgement of reality as such is obligatory. The atheist no more believes that one should be free to dissent from "reality" than the Theist. Both believe that "error has no rights." So how is the atheist any freer than the Theist? Each is bound to think correctly, to acknowledge "the truth." Once again it seems that the very non-existence of G-d is held to be inherently liberating, in spite of the fact that the rules are still there, that people are still going to be hanged (or caged like animals while other inmates rape them), and that we are still obligated to eschew falsehood and cleave to the truth. How can the mere existence of G-d in this world (in which moral obligations exist and "error has no rights" regardless) be such a burden that His abolition alone sets everyone "free?"
Actually, your argument about morality and life itself being based on surface concerns rather than Ultimate Things is the very stuff of Hellenism. The ancient Greeks were obsessed with the physical, with the surface, and relegated religion to philosophical speculation which was quite independent of the purely rational surface concerns that governed everyday life. And contrary to what most people think, the Greeks were a very low civilization. It is stated that Greek civilization was nothing other than the return to the primordial darkness that existed before G-d said "Yehi 'or!" ("Let there be light!"). Which is one reason that, as one rabbi stated, the Jews are still here while nothing remains of the Greeks but their books.
A final point to be made against the dismissal of religion is that, if there has indeed been an objective supernatural Revelation by G-d (including information about the creation of the world), then this objective, historical information must be taken into consideration right along with the cosmogony that is based on naturalism and on the uniformitarian assumption. In fact, this is the point that many Theistic evolutionists (including those who join you in condemning people like me even as they ignore your pleas for consistency and continue to believe that the G-d Who created the universe without directly interfering with it immediately began to do so once the creation was complete) completely miss, probably because they are chr*stians. The natural world (and, if it is objectively true, supernatural Revelation) both give us knowledge about the world. So what happens when the information in one seems to contradict the information in the other? Non-literalists say that the Torah must be interpreted allegorically otherwise G-d is a liar. But they don't seem to see that doing this merely makes G-d a liar in the Torah, G-d forbid. And what chr*stians don't realize is that there is a principal of interpretation that solves this problem. Halakhically, it is forbidden to interrupt one's Torah study in order to say "what a beautiful tree that is!" or "what a beautiful field that is!" for the simple reason that the natural world gives us only an indirect knowledge of G-d, whereas the Torah gives us a direct knowledge of G-d. How could anything be any more straightforward?
Of course I am aware that you dismiss all claims of supernatural revelation as utter nonsense (probably without ever having evaluated any of them), so that saves you the trouble of having to evaluate claims. But this is intellectual laziness, not sophistication.
BTW, Ayn Rand was wrong . . . you do need a warrant for your existence. And you need a warrant to hang "John Smith" as well, however many people he has killed.
Why should you, a believer, bother to work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it?Boy, I sincerely hope that's not the only reason why you work to create a better world. What a joyless obligation that must feel like. Day after day, doing the right thing only because some Authority Figure commanded you to do it, when you'd rather be doing bad things to people. I'd be filled with resentment against this Authority Figure and against all those other people whose welfare I've been commanded to worry about. Grimly telling myself: "Just a few more years, and I'll be in Heaven & this'll all be over... grrrrr... stay... the... course... be... nice... to... these... losers..."There is a commnad that you love your neighbor.
Ultimately you want to live a long & happy lifeSo? Are you really saying that all I have to do to live a long life is to believe I will live a long life?If you belive that all there is is here then you are not going to live a very long life compared to time that has past.
As far as happiness goes, what is the point as to why we are here? To survive until procreation?Being humans, we generally have more forward-thinking life goals than simply procreating. My adult life has been full of joy, terror, fulfillment, boredom, and everything in between. I want it to last as long as possible, hopefully with more fulfillment & joy and less terror & boredom.
(Sure, I'd prefer live forever. But since all evidence points to that not being an option, the proper comparison is to never having been born in the first place, IMO.)
So you're a "Theistic evolutionist" then? This must mean you believe in "Intelligent Design!" After all, "ID" merely says that G-d guided evolution, which is apparently what you yourself believe.
No. I'm a theist, as a believer. I also accept evolution and modern science (what's an "evolutionist"?). But I am not a "theistic evolutionist." The Darwinian model is still the best.
orionblamblam is unable to answer you as he/she is banned or suspended.
Why do you as a disbeliever work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it? I mean that makes you a pretty unusual disbeliever. Most of the disbelievers I know are pro-abortion and quite self-centered materialist -- looking out for number 1 and all that.
Grimly telling myself: "Just a few more years, and I'll be in Heaven & this'll all be over... grrrrr... stay... the... course... be... nice... to... these... losers..."
You've had some pretty unusal experiences with religion.
Are you really saying that all I have to do to live a long life is to believe I will live a long life?
No.
Being humans, we generally have more forward-thinking life goals than simply procreating.
Why?
The theory of evolution (which in fact is little more than a philosophy of history) touches upon how mankind thinks of itself. Einstein, Galileo, et al were neither so bold nor so disingenuous as to pass off interpretations of evidence over the whole of history as if they were science. Their theories are more confined, refined, and defined, though not devoid of moral ramifications.
That being said, you need do define what you mean by the word "validity." Who can possibly verify the historic connection between apes a humans? Just because they have common characteristics does not mean they are common ancestors. Since such assertions cannot be verified, the validity of the theory suffers scientifically in the first place. How much more when folks like Dawkins use the theory to become "intellectually fulfilled" atheists, all the while proclaiming themselves as proponents of pure science?
If the philosophy of history known as evolution (in the wide sense) existed in a vacuum you might be justified in suggesting its moral ramifications in no way effect its validity. As it stands, however, evolution is not only invalid as pure science but also results in a disservice the public at large insofar as it undermines moral absolutes.
Free will is incompatible with a causal deterministic view of life Jenny. Taken to its logical conclusion, neo Darwinism leaves you right where the likes of Dennet and Pinker say it does, you have no free will, you never had free will and you will never have free will.
You can thank God they're wrong! :-}
Evolution happens. RM/NS/heritability is one mechanism that changes allele frequencies. Intelligent design is another mechanism that changes allele frequencies. These are facts, observable and repeatable.
It is also a fact that I am a Catholic who believes exactly what Genesis 1:1 states.
I prefer being called a creationist for that reason but I suppose "theistic evolutionist" might well describe my views if one does not conflate theism with deism.
Let us say that you decide that you no longer want to believe in something that is common to your everyday experience...say for example your mother.
After a few weeks go by and the phone starts ringing because you haven't been in touch, will you sincerely wonder who it is who keeps calling you? No. You will, deep down, know that it's your mother, trying to get in touch with you.
It's the same with God. God is real to me, as your mother is real to you. I cannot stop believing in God simply because I decide to. I believe in God, whether I like it or not.
That being the case, I have to come to terms with the God I believe in. I have done so, just as you have.
Thanks...but the idea certainly isn't original with me. =]
So you're believe in G-d but don't believe that He used evolution to create the world? Then you're saying G-d didn't create the world, since He neither created it as related in Berei'shit nor used evolution to create it?
The universe is eternal and uncreated perhaps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.