A Question for the Theists who Believe in Evolution

Hey, I'm not here to judge your family tree. Your relatives are your business.

 

Why didn't you just come in here and call me a poophead? Certainly both are equally intellectually juvenile.

 

No I see this all the time. My cousin actually has attached her theism to memetics and the cognitive prevalence of the God concept and so all arguments are now spawned from that perspective. The only original theist is the one who starts with the premise that they are not possibly wrong but probably.

 

So if a person's relatives aren't primates then his relatives must be dirt or ribs (Genesis 2:7 & Genesis 2:22).

 

Yes. When dirt and ribs have sex, they make people. Don't they teach you anything in public school? Sheesh.

 

The Hebrew word which we have used "rib" for actually means a side of some entity,...

Like a side of man's psyche is the feminine side or Anima.



It makes sense that before Freud, people had no better assumption to make about what scripture meant.
The story was written so that it could make sense to them, in the paradigm of their own times.
But, if we read the story as a continuation of Gen 1, and understand that the "long sleep" was evolutionary in implication, and what was happening was the differentiation of the psyche was taking place, then that would explain why Adam thought he was created before the animals that came to mind in the story.

 

No, and they won't as long as they keep creationism out.

 

The state of science teaching in American public schools is already appalling, creoism is just the coup de to make it an international laughingstock.

 

Thing is: the claim that only evidential claims can bear truth is itself non-evidential. In fact it is a postulation of belief.

I haven’t any statistical data, but I consider myself rather unique, so I’d say the only person with the exact same ideas on God as mine is probably me. Faith is a rather individual enterprise. Having said that I don’t think my ideas are all that uncommon. In fact – to come back to one of the starting points of your OP: just like I do the majority of today’s Christians accepts theistic evolution (that is given that most Christians are Catholic and assuming that Catholics follow the official statements of the Catholic Church, which of course not all Catholics do). I don’t know a single person in my (German mainstream Protestant) parish who thinks scientific findings pose a problem to their Christian beliefs. Creationism is pretty much a non-issue over here.

I do indeed think that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge other than with God. Contrary to Socrates you may think you actually know something, I don’t really, and I tend to think that anybody who claims to do is probably a dickhead.

Actually I am dead serious, because I happen to find scientism a rather worrisome ideology. Some of its implications - such as the statement that we don’t have souls and are mere biological machines for example - may lead to consequences on how we treat each other that make the holy Inquisition come across as a bunch of harmless choir boys.

I still know that you don’t have enough evidence to scientifically prove that free will is an illusion. You may of course not take your own criteria for establishing truth seriously. However, your postulation that free will is an illusion is obviously informed by ideology rather than by strict science.

The belief in absolute truth is a distinctly religious trait. Atheists commonly (and not altogether wrongly) accuse theists of absolutism, while theists (also not altogether wrongly) tend to accuse atheists of relativism. I myself believe in absolute truth, I just don’t believe it is absolutely knowable to us. That’s why I’m neither cut out to be a Christian fundamentalist nor prone to scientism.

 

Creationism is pretty much a non issue in most places outside the US. As a Catholic I've never had any issues with any of the sciences and my faith. There are some science I wish we were not engaged in but still recognize there doesn't need to be any God element to make them work. If the existence of a trilobite challenges my faith to the core, my faith was probably not that strong to begin with

 

Id like to hear of even one person who can be successfully be accused of indulging in the vice of 'scientism'

 

Let me remind you of what you said:

See why I suspect you to be an insincere debater with no true interest in an honest and amicable exchange of ideas? Sad really.

Why bring in scientism? Because your remark that I highlighted suggests that you are prone to it. Obviously I don’t think I’m superior to science - that's why I felt addressed by the OP's question in the first place. In fact I fully and humbly accept what clever scientists tell me about the material world. It’s awesome and amazing. I just don’t think the material world is all there is. And while they are happy to limit their research on the material world quite a lot of scientists don’t believe that either. Science and religion aren't in conflict other than in the minds of some fundamentalist religious nutters and 'scientists'.

It just takes a bit of general knowledge to know that logic does not equal materialism. But never mind. I did indeed not employ an argument from logic, but an argument from personal experience. And my personal experience does not contradict logic in any way. If you need longer elaborations from somebody else on the argument from personal experience:

[video=youtube;hTxFrxmY9dg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTxFrxmY9dg[/video]

You may of course doubt my and other people’s experience. If you told me that you dreamt of a pink elephant last night I may doubt that, too. However , the fact that you cannot possibly prove to me that you dreamt of a pink elephant last night does not mean that it is not true that you dreamt of it. And it is logically possible that you did.

For quite a lot of people from all kinds of religious persuasions having a soul is an intensely felt reality. You are of course free to doubt this reality if you don’t feel it yourself and I would not think any less of you for that.
What makes me think less of you is the disdain you show for other people’s experience and your willingness to regard anybody who does not share your take on reality as akin to a child that sees monsters under the bed.

 

Any truth that isn't supported by evidence is entirely subjective. I'm not rejecting the claim that you believe that God exists, I know you do, I'm rejecting the claim that he does. In fact this is where all the trouble begins with religion. If truth can be entirely subjective than as I said before everything is valid meaning nothing is valid. Religion is an ideology and ideologies have a problem with opposing ideologies. With no model of evidence there can be no standards and there is no way to move in that space without conflicting with other truths.

So it must be something in the air then? My father-in-law thinks the idea we came from earlier primates is an insult and yet he's not an unintelligent man. Try to argue to him that his truth isn't in fact true without using evidence to support your argument.

How do you square your last sentence with your first here? You're basically taking the position of the atheist here and saying there is no way to know; so then why claim you do?

Or it could do the exact opposite. But the idea of scientism is the true projection in the same way claims of atheism being a religion are. You must know that people who use science as a means to understand their world and who actually understand what science does would be in conflict with their scientific perspective to take any of it as an absolute. Regardless of what we learn from science the human condition will be to blame for what we do with it. It’s the same with religion the problem is with religion there is no way to prove that what someone does is immoral if it comes from a God who is beyond our moral understanding. How can you simply tell someone they are wrong when you believe truth needs no evidence to support it? Scientism is an absurdity because it throws out many other ideals such as philosophy, art and music. We “Scientism…ists” can love and accept that it is difficult to explain without attaching it to something else even harder to explain.

My point in bringing it up was to simply reiterate my claim that we have the illusion of free will so all the actions you use to prove you have it are actually born of this illusion. Now in order to move forward with this debate how do you propose we do it without using evidence to support our positions? It can be true to my youngest son that monsters are actually in his closet despite the evidence that there isn’t. Which of these perspectives will benefit him most in his life do you think?

As a proponent of science and philosophy I have a big problem with absolute truth especially when it’s tied to the view that even though one cannot know it they will still believe in it. It stifles the continual questioning that will help the human species progress. I have no problem with the possibility of something we don’t have any evidence to currently support but I do have a problem with people saying they already have the answer and then claim to have an open mind towards the probability that they are wrong. Most people don’t believe they are right they know they are and the world has suffered greatly for it in far more ways than the violence it has produced. You can include any ideology in that.

 

define souls...
that which continues on after this body dies is defined in many ways .
we use the word soul to direct our attention to an aspect of what is "left over and continues"
a created soul and an uncreated mind is an argument best left to those that understand the concepts in the first place.

 

How can I define an idea that obviously according to you changes from person to person? How about you answer my question based on your own definition like every other theist in this thread has so far?

 

actually i never implied it changes from person to person...
like i said it is well above the average person to understand...

i am asking for you to define soul...
just talking about "soul" with no definition of such is a little asinine.
if i had an idea of what you think soul or that which "might" continue to exist after death then i could actually discuss with you the subject.

 

The problem with your own ideology is that it makes you overlook that even truth that is supported by evidence is subjective. Two scientists given the same set of data may arrive at utterly different conclusions. I hate to be the one who breaks this to you, but when it comes down to it there is no truth that we can objectively know to be 100% true, and quite certainly we can’t objectively know whether it is true that God does or does not exist.
That all opinions on God (including the opinion that he does not exist) are subjective isn’t problematic at all for as long as people don’t try to impose their opinion on others. Because subjective truth is so valuable to those who hold it, religious freedom and religious tolerance are high goods. In Europe we learned this thanks to the Reformation. Alas, we had to learn it the hard way. It took them a while, but by now even the Catholic Church subscribes to this. But it seems that some modern fundamentalists – religious and atheist fundamentalists alike – have forgotten all about that.

You mean that creationism being a predominantly US-American problem must be something in the air? Well. I think it has to do with specific socio-cultural factors that are particularly pronounced in the US. A full discussion of these factors may make for an interesting new thread. As for your father in law: I’m afraid evidence will help you (*)(*)(*)(*) all to convince him. My suspicion is that he’s just as much of a materialist as you are and just as incapable of understanding what creation myths do and don’t tell us. Reading Genesis as a scientific textbook modern fundamentalists think science and the Bible collide, so they choose their interpretation of the Bible and deny all evidence to the contrary. Some atheists read Genesis in just the same way, think science and the Bible collide and then chose to deny all religious beliefs descibed in the Bible. Both approaches are rather daft, if you ask me, but of course that is just a rather subjective opinion of mine the evidence for which you may want to deny.

I don’t claim to know, I claim to believe. In all likelihood Socrates wasn’t an atheist by the way. According to Plato he even believed that we have immortal souls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo

Sorry, but I don’t quite get what you want to tell me here. Scientism is pretty clearly defined. Unlike plain science (that you and me both think is great) scientism is a meta-narrative in Lyotard’s sense. But of course it would take some self-criticism to see its tenets reverberating in your own posts.

Art and music? I don’t see why you don’t want to throw that out of the window. After all it’s entirely subjective whether a piece of art and music is beautiful or not. Even worse: a lot of people report that for them the appeal of art and music lies in its ability to make them feel transcendence of a greater truth.

As I said in our previous debate: I can prove my claim that there is free will just as little as you can prove your claim that – contrary to our common sense perceptions - there is no free will. Thus I tend to take a pragmatic approach to it, such as Kant did. Apart from the fact that you cannot compare the question of free will to the question of monsters under the bed, pragmatism can also help your son. My professional advice would be that it won’t help your son to tell him that there are no monsters under the bed. Instead empower him to tackle his fears that are indeed rather real to him. Sooner or later, the monsters will disappear all on their own:



http://www.chicaandjo.com/2011/03/07/monster-repellent-spray/

Which philosophy?

It must have slipped your notice that you are self contradictory here. You just claimed an absolute value yourself: to help the human species progress. But Why? Towards what? For all you know evidentially your son is just a soulless bundle of cells. There’s nothing special about him or any other member of our species. We’re insignificant farts of an accidental universe that will eventually collapse. Why should our progress as a species have value/ be something worth striving for?

Well, as it happens this is a value I share in a way. As to the question why: I think it is a moral obligation to strive for human flourishing, to broaden our understanding of the universe we live in, to better ourselves and our society, because this pleases God, who is value/goodness in Himself. While we need to develop towards greater goals, God is (according to the Christian philosopher Aquinas) "Actus Purus".

Now we may differ not only on why but also on how to best progress, just as I differ with some of my fellow-Christians on how to best love our neighbours. And it’s very much in the eye of the beholder whether a person is standing by admirable moral convictions or whether this person is being a stubborn ignorant ideologist, just as it is in the eye of the beholder whether a certain future is a utopia or a dystopia.

So feel free (haha) to regard my religious and philosophical conviction, that tells me that your son has a precious soul and that his flourishing to his full potential is willed by God, as dangerous. I don't see how it is, Instead I see it as dangerous to regard him or anybody else as a soulless lump of cells without inherent worth or free will.

 

Good post.
However, in your last paragraph you commit the same error that your adversary does. Either of you claiming a danger in believing in the soul or lack of same are suggesting that the ultimate result can be changed. You both see an unavoidable end game, so where is the danger?

 

Bit of a problem in the first, too, talking of how scientists come to conclusions about what is true.

One can notice too that the degree of subjectivity is of great importance. For example, Dr Kurt Wise and his famous statement about how if all the evidence in the universe seemed to speak against creationism, he still wont accept that its wrong,

Not all interpretations are equal.

A lot of the time a data set will be enigmatic, and scientists will offer different ideas about what it means. None of them will say that their interpretation is "truth'.

 

Absolutely true.
But Junobet also embraces this and has the intellectual honesty to admit these are simply her beliefs.
That is a breath of fresh air, don't you think?

 

Which unavoidable end game? That the universe/the human race will seize to exist? That would not be the end in my mind. And it's (in all likelihood) a long way to go until then. The danger I see in not believing in a soul/in something that exceeds our biological/material nature is that it may lead to us treating each other as mere objects on the way, objects whose value is judged by what use society can make of us. We've seen the consequences in 20th century euthanasia programs for example. These programs didn't make a difference to the fact that the universe will end, but they made a world of a difference to those who were found 'useless'.

 

Your end games differ, but both have a defined vision of an end game that won't be altered.
Both believers and non-believers have always treated people as a means to an end, as history decisively proves. The only difference has been the end that is strived for.

 

I actually asked who you meant by it. You chose not to answer, but I take it that you did indeed mean me. Because it is my post whose reasoning you obviously took offense with.

Come off it! Honest exchange is obviously not what you are interested in. The more you write here, the more I come to that conclusion. There's no jumping involved.

What’s outrageous about the idea that feelings may detect something outside the reach of science? So the only feelings permissible and true are those whose content is within the reach of science?
And you don’t even realize that your second paragraph defies the first? That would indeed be dumb to the core and show that you haven't even grasped what "Scientism" is!

If you feel insulted by being accused of scientism you shouldn't so blatantly indulge in it.

It was you who brought up logic – obviously without having thought twice about what logic is and is not.

I never claimed my feelings have powers superior to science or logic. In fact if they were contradicting science and logic, I'd certainly mistrust and doublecheck my feelings. They are not. That you seem to be under the misapprehension that they are whilst such an apprehension is utterly unwarranted by both science and logic, lead me to the suspicion that you suffer from scientism. If you perceive this as an insult again, see below.

Reality is that all our perceptions of reality are just that: perceptions. We have no means of ascertaining objective reality. As soon as you believe there is such a thing as objective reality, you are engaging in faith.

Let me give you some well-meant advice: If you are out for mutual high regard you should not enter threads with obvious insults. If you insult somebody, either stand by what you said or apologize. And if you yourself carelessly insult people you should not be too touchy yourself when it comes to feeling easily insulted. Otherwise you’ll come across as a school-ground bully who keeps beating up other kids but starts crying when being hit by a cotton-wool-ball.

 

Both believers and no-believers have treated people badly as a means to an end, yes. But always? And always because of their belief or disbelief? Homo homini lupus est. But who said we should not be our fellow-man's wolf? Why should we believe that a person has value in itself? Why should we believe that there's such a thing as value in the first place?

I don't believe in predestination by the way - and certainly not in material predestination (as guys who don't go for free will tend to do). Still not quite sure which end game you are on about.