This is all Darwinian evolution really says in the end.
In the topic of morality, Allan, Neil, Lizzie and others use the same old con of claiming that morality is not accidents, its….and then they just trail off into a non-answer. I find this a very frustrating and telling habit of the materialist.
There is no “other” thing there. Unless you want to include an intelligence, or a destiny into the theory (which destroys the theory of materialism) you aren’t left with another aspect to why things are. You have accidents, that somehow formed a durable combination. Its such a dishonest aspect of materialism that when its not convenient they don’t want to admit this part. But in not admitting it, they struggle with saying anything to counter it. They can use words like emergence, or nature did it, but that’s meaningless. The materialist theory is that it is simply accidents that breed well.
Every time a materialist tries to claim there is more to it than that, when they need to have a stronger arguing basis, don’t be fooled by the dodge. That is all they have. Accidents. Sorry, to force them to accept their own reality.
Elizabeth,
Yes, I think people should be free to not study theology.
I also think people who write, and blog and preach, and form discussion groups and hold conventions dedicated to their desire to not study the subject, and spend their time convincing others to also not study what they don’t study, to be rather odd.
You’re doing great. You can hardly expect complex biological computers put together and coded by accident to properly process a logical argument.
Yet if your position is true, we’re not that at all. So you have to find a different reason for phoodoo’s losing streak.
And what “logical arguments” have been presented? All I’ve seen is an expectation that phoodoo’s position is accepted unquestioningly.
And that if I can’t explain the origin of physical laws the default is “my particular god did it”.
Hardly a “logical argument”. But I guess that’s what passes for logic in WJM world.
phoodoo,
A curious question [the oven’s on, game chips in the pan]. I have already stated that I do not regard any specific proscription as genetic in origin. It is the capacity to learn and prefer local norms that is genetic IMO.
But let’s see how you do. Do the people who think it immoral to eat duck, do so because they sense that God doesn’t like ducks being eaten? Why don’t duck-eaters sense His outrage? Are they reading the wrong books?
Actually, William does, I think, believe that only a subset of humans are actually autonomous free agents. The rest of us are automatons.
If I’ve got that wrong, I’m sure William will correct me.
phoodoo,
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you … Uncommon Descent! Brrrr-bish!
It’s telling that your understanding of the position is “by accident”. You see what evidence you have (“let there be light”) and you assume the other guy’s position is as simplistic and empty. So “by accident” covers it for you. Reduce what you don’t understand down to a strawman of a phrase and dismiss it.
If you were created by god for a purpose, that purpose seems to be to spread the word that faith healers cure cancer! Some purpose….
Oh, you are quite right. I’m one of the people that William has labelled to not have free will.
Hence my questions regarding what color badges we should wear to show that we are considered as less-then-human by WJM and his cohort.
OMagain said:
My position doesn’t preclude the existence of biological automatons. In fact, as I’ve stated here before (a long time ago), I think it is likely that most “people” are, in fact, biological automatons.
Neither does it preclude curing cancer with the power of the mind, alien abduction, PSI powers and all sorts of other nonsense.
As such your “position” is not really relevant to the reality based community.
It’s an interesting take on “Why did my book flop” I suppose. Original, at least.
Given that your outlook is “what is of most benefit to me?” it no doubt helps that you can think of the people you tread on as robots or sub-human.
William J. Murray,
Did they evolve, or were they created as such?
You know that this is a clear symptom of a dissociative disorder, right? Get help.
Strange bedfellows. Other than that any form of theism is preferable to atheism, I don’t see theists agreeing on anything much at all.
Yeah, funny how phoodoo won’t comment of fmm’s idea about species and god, wjm won’t jump in either except to offer support in the most generic way. No specifics.
They all carefully dance around the fact they also think each other is wrong. But not as wrong as those atheists, eh lads?
They don’t even seem to agree on that.
Sharia Law is often singled out for express abhorrence (and rightly so, although not all spects are as evil as others).
OK let’s ask:
Which form of government would the theists here prefer:
Iran’s
France’s.
OMagain said;
Actually, it helps me to be kinder, more forgiving and more tolerant towards people who display those qualities. It’s a lot less frustrating. Also, there’s no way to be certain which is which, so I have to extend my good behavior to all, just in case, and biological automatons, after all, would still be aspects of god.
What qualities? The quality of not agreeing with WJM perhaps?
Or you could be specific.
EL said:
As if, under proxy-atheism, there’s some objective way to objectively evaluate the relative “evilness” of one thing to another.
Heresy, apostacy. All good reasons for lashing, stoning, or death.
Does it harm another?
Next!
So, William, which form of government would be preferable for you: France or Iran?
I’m not getting much traction on that thread.
They want to proclaim, not discuss.
Since I don’t assert my views as true, why would I argue that either of their views are “wrong”? I don’t even argue that proxy-atheist views are wrong. I generally only argue whether or not something is logical, but I don’t even argue that an irrational position is wrong.
You might think that, but of course you hold the views you have to be true or you’d not hold them. Basic logic.
Is fmm’s position that species are held in a 4-D grid in the mind of god irrational then?
Elizabeth,
I could answer you this way: Until you define what you mean by “prefer”, and “form of government”, I can’t possibly know what you mean.
Or I could just answer.
France.
OMagain said:
You are really bad at logic. I hold them because they are useful to me, not because I consider them true. I’m a pragmatist.
I haven’t been following that discussion. I’ve been pretty busy.
What beliefs do you hold because they are useful which you also don’t consider to be true?
It’s not a discussion. Fmm claims that a “species” is a platonic form held in the mind of god. All species are so represented.
Logical/illogical?
OK, good. So I take it that you, at least, do not think that theism of any sort is better than secularism.
It has to be the right theism.
I prefer France’s form of government because it based on democratic principles. Iran’s is not. You can have totalitarian governments that are secular.
Does god want a democracy? All the evidence suggests otherwise. Power flows from the top down.
Why are you going against gods will in this regard?
What you have stated is a premise (whether or not it accurately represents FMM’s views). The only way a premise can be irrational is if it is self-contradictory or somehow innately nonsensical (like,let’s premise a 4-sided triangle).
I don’t see anything irrational in that premise.
All of them, other than “I exist” and “I experience”. I don’t consider the truth-value of any other beliefs, although I don’t hold beliefs if they directly contradict my personal experience. By ‘belief”, I mean “to act as if true”.
I think that “contingency” is a more precise concept than “accident” for part of what we’re talking about.
On my preferred version of radical agnosticism, it is impossible for us to make any measurement the parameters of which are not constrained by the history of the universe. For that reason it is impossible for us to verify any assertion about the origin of the universe. Hence it is impossible for us to verify whether the universe as a whole is contingent, necessary, or designed. Atheism and theism are equally speculative.
In addition, I would say (on different grounds) that a priori reasoning is also powerless to decide between theism and atheism, and also (more controversially) that metaphysics should be constrained by science as much as possible. So my commitment to radical agnosticism follows from my commitment to scientific metaphysics. By contrast, I see both atheism and theism as requiring extra-scientific speculation that goes beyond ‘where the evidence leads’.
Since it is inscrutable whether the universe is contingent or necessary, the most we can say is that the universe is such that there are dispositions or tendencies towards increased complexity under specific conditions. Complexity theory can describe those dispositions with sophisticated models, but it cannot tell us why the universe has the dispositions that it has, or even whether or not those dispositions are brute facts.
Oh goody. Another thread by a non-scientist demonstrating his complete lack of understanding on evolutionary biology.
Sal had his turn, then Mung, then phoodoo. I guess Joe “tunie” Gallien is up next.
What KN said: “I think that “contingency” is a more precise concept than “accident” for part of what we’re talking about.”
What I hear: “I think that “contingency” is a less troubling concept than “accident” for part of what we’re talking about.”
Not only a lack of understanding, but an inability to understand. It’s not as if evolutionary theory hasn’t been explained countless times; it’s that they are unable to understand it, no matter how many times it is explained. Loud, opinionated, ignorant, and ineducable — welcome to the Internet Age.
Well, take the ear plugs out then.
Well, I’m not responsible for what you project onto me.
Besides which, if you read carefully through my entire post, you would have seen that my considered view is this: the assertion that laws of physics are themselves contingent is a speculative claim that cannot be verified. But I do think that one ought to restrict one’s claims to what can be verified (at least in principle).
Any assertion about whether the laws of physics that describe the universe as a whole — assuming that there any such laws in the first place — are themselves contingent brute facts, or entailed by some deeper set of multiverse-level laws, or intentionally selected by some intelligent being, is a speculative claim that has no place in empirical science or in scientific metaphysics.
You can. My point was simply that theocratic governments can be more damaging than secular ones. That the reverse is also true in no way negates my point.
“There is no “other” thing there. Unless you want to include an intelligence,…”
Of course there is an intelligence. Humans.
No, your side cannot explain why “nature exists”
Maybe you think your side can. Maybe you truly believe it.
But “Let there be light” is NOT an explanation.
.
.
.
.
.
ETA: should have read the thread before pounding my keyboard. Where’s my blushing emoji?
Ninja’d by, well, everyone, especially OMagain [blush]
No it can’t. Yours can just use a vacuous phrase with zero explanatory power. “God made it”. That’s not an explanation. Where is the explaining part? I’ve been lead to believe that explanations are meant to convey understanding.
For example, in the Lab I might ask a colleague about how this assay we do is supposed to show the efficiency of some cellular process, I would say “I don’t understand that, can you explain?” And then an explanation would follow (This protein attaches here, which is then transported there, where where it will interact such and such, and what we measure is the absorbance of bla bla bla).
“X did it” is not an explanation, whether you mindlessly replace X with God or Nature.
EL said:
Then I don’t understand what the point of your point was.
KN said:
Are we debating empirical science or scientific metaphysics?
But, this is a pretty common method applied by proxy-atheists; change the terminology or change the definition when the terminology or definition generates cognitive dissonance or puts you in an unacceptable position. If black is a problem, redefine and call the thing white, then insist the other guys don’t have a right to impose “their” definition or oppressive terminology on others.
Are you proposing more rule changes?
Theocratic governments can be more damaging than secular ones to what, Elizabeth? The environment? The price of oil?