I really don't get how one can learn and accept evolution as true, then NOT become an atheist. This is how evolution works:
You have 10 bacteria. Eight of them are resistant to cold weather, two of them are not. Winter comes along and the cold weather kills off the two bacteria that had genes coding for resistance to cold weather.
That's evolution, that's how it works. That exact same process, except substitute cold weather for different things, is what turned bacteria into rotifers. Rotifers into fish. Fish into acanthostega. Acanthostega into amphibians. Amphibians into reptiles. Reptiles into synapsids. Synapsids into Theria. Theria into placentalia. Placentalia into (going more specific here) monkey. Monkey into human. 3.8 billion years of the environment naturally selecting reproductively isolated groups of individuals until finally humans were produced.
It does not at all require any kind of mind or intelligence behind it. What does God actually even do in that short bacteria example I explained?
god created bacteria to create everything else? idunnolol
BACTERIA IS GOD!
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 01:43:47 AM
BACTERIA IS GOD!
All hail the holy bacteria! I have been touched by their holy flagella.
Quote from: yodachoda on January 17, 2012, 01:39:29 AM
I really don't get how one can learn and accept evolution as true, then NOT become an atheist. This is how evolution works:
You have 10 bacteria. Eight of them are resistant to cold weather, two of them are not. Winter comes along and the cold weather kills off the two bacteria that had genes coding for resistance to cold weather.
That's evolution, that's how it works. That exact same process, except substitute cold weather for different things, is what turned bacteria into rotifers. Rotifers into fish. Fish into acanthostega. Acanthostega into amphibians. Amphibians into reptiles. Reptiles into synapsids. Synapsids into Theria. Theria into placentalia. Placentalia into (going more specific here) monkey. Monkey into human. 3.8 billion years of the environment naturally selecting reproductively isolated groups of individuals until finally humans were produced.
It does not at all require any kind of mind or intelligence behind it. What does God actually even do in that short bacteria example I explained?
One cannot be a theist and accept the theory of evolution via natural selection. The two are irreconcilable. I suppose if one had to cite a metaphysical explanation for the biological phenomena we observe and interpret, it would have to be utterly deistic.
Id est, god created shit, and then went out for an eternal beer.
Look up deism, pantheism, and perhaps even animism and you'll have your answer.
Any of the above would say that their god, gods, or spirits had a hand in the process that started everything going.
I stand by my ongoing view that evolution doesn't negate the existence of a god...it has nothing to do with the topic.
Quote from: Whitney on January 17, 2012, 03:32:36 AM
I stand by my ongoing view that evolution doesn't negate the existence of a god...it has nothing to do with the topic.
This^
It just makes certain claims that theists make a little less likely.
I think that evolutionary theory is more incompatible with the belief that we're the goal rather than the result of the process. Goals require foresight whereas results don't.
Whitney already pointed it out, and I'll second it. Evolution and believing in a god in general have nothing to do with one another. However, if you're talking about a religion that specifically states that evolution cannot be true because their particular god is responsible for all creation and subsequent modification of all life forms of all kinds at all times....well, then you run into a problem. That would be a tiny fraction of all the religions out there in the world.
So it doesn't really make much sense to say that one has to be an atheist if one accepts evolution.
And you run into problems when people who don't know what they're talking about try and debate the topic, or try and shoehorn their god into the topic when that god doesn't need to be shoehorned in. Like creationism in parts of christianity.
Evolution does not disprove god. It plays a very large role is disproving creationist mythology and thus discrediting "religions", particularly those that rely on creation myths as a foundation of their religious teachings. However, god itself can always be pushed into remote recesses of space time and exist there as the initial instigator of everything. He who flipped the switch that started time. No one can argue that a critical component to evolution is time...and lots of it. Therefore god concepts can exist in light of evolution.
Quote from: Twentythree on January 17, 2012, 05:11:21 PM
Evolution does not disprove god. It plays a very large role is disproving creationist mythology and thus discrediting "religions", particularly those that rely on creation myths as a foundation of their religious teachings. However, god itself can always be pushed into remote recesses of space time and exist there as the initial instigator of everything. He who flipped the switch that started time. No one can argue that a critical component to evolution is time...and lots of it. Therefore god concepts can exist in light of evolution.
Exactly. The only thing that evolution dissproves is a literal view of creation myths that include modern day animals emerging as is. Having said that, I can understand how someone who was raised to believe such a creation myth and then learns about evolution and asks him/herself "Well, if that wasn't true, what else in my religion is not true?"
Quote from: yodachoda on January 17, 2012, 01:39:29 AM
I really don't get how one can learn and accept evolution as true, then NOT become an atheist. This is how evolution works:
[...]Placentalia into (going more specific here) monkey. Monkey into human. 3.8 billion years of the environment naturally selecting reproductively isolated groups of individuals until finally humans were produced.
It does not at all require any kind of mind or intelligence behind it. What does God actually even do in that short bacteria example I explained?
I don't hold anything against evolution as we know it. However to
"yada, yada" over the most important part is...
<--- Taking a relevant college course on biblical interpretation (not trying to be pretentious)
According to both the reading and the scholar/rabbi/professor guy, the original Hebrew says nothing about the creation from nothing, but rather the formation/organization by Yaweh of what was. That being said, if someone understood the non-translated text, they could simply claim that evolution is the mechanism by which their god created animals and man.
For believing in most gods though, evolution doesn't pose any conflict. For those that pick one of the creation myths in Genesis as fact and think Yaweh created rather than formed (Amereligion), evolution would not fit in. That being said, the people who disregard evolution because of their religion would likely not forfeit it when shown evolution is true. Their belief system is an elastic band with a near-infinite stretch tolerance for reality. But at the end of the day, no matter how far it stretches, they will not have escaped the band.
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.
that does rather assume that we're the reason for natural selection and evolution, and that a moral sense is somehow relevant to evolution. I don't think many (if any) serious biological scientists would agree with you. It seems like you're trying to make evolution fit with your belief in a god in a rather unscientific way.
Personally, I'm not convinced that humans are the 'crown of creation', we're certainly not the most successful species on Earth. I think ants beat us hands down, there are an estimated 10000000 - 1000000000 billion of the litle critters on the planet. And if the whole point of evolution by natural selection was to create animals with a moral sense, why do all other animals appear to lack one? Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.
i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
[i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.
I don't think most children would make it to adulthood if their parents didn't have a strong moral sense of it being wrong to murder. ;D
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.
i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.
Elaborate? Which morals and emotions are detrimental to our survival?
I think that evolution is routinely misunderstood as something getting better. The truth is that nothing gets better in evolution, things just oscillate between stability and instability. Through this oscillation complexity is accumulated so at the end of the day you have basically the exact same stable chemical reaction there are just more steps to reaching the goal which is high fidelity copying of genes. This is commonly referred to as the red queen: It's a symbolic reference made to the red queen and Alice:
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
The easiest way to illustrate that is the development of camouflage mimicry and the development of an eye. Just imagine a basic eye, it sees in only black and white and has virtually no depth perception. The eye is used to find insect prey. All the insect prey looks about the same and are easy to spot with a very unsophisticated eye. If one of those insects is born with a mutation that makes it even a bit more difficult to see then that insect is less likely to get eaten, meaning it has more children and so the mutation is passed on. This mutation will eventually become widespread throughout the population which will in turn reinforce any mutation toward a more acute vision in the predator species. So basically with every improvement in prey there is improvement in predation. But at the end of the day balance or equilibrium is achieved so there is no real winner or loser. There is no better or best just stability.
This red queen effect can take hold in single species competition as well. It's the old saying you know, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you." So in early human cultures if deception evolves as a means of competition for the same resources then so does deception detection. If truth telling is successful on one hand then lying is successful on the other. It is easy to see how all of our current moral inclinations are just very complex forms of deception and deception detection. In group and out group preferences and altruism that over eons of accumulated complexity driven by the red queen now appear to be "better" It is not by definition any better because at the end of the day it is still accomplishing the same goal. The propagation of genes.
I feel as though we really need to start looking at ourselves in terms of evolved attributes and even the tendency to think of our complexity as being better had to be evolved. Our arrogance had to be evolved. Our self deception and interpretation of our own importance had to be evolved. It began by giving us the tools to survive in hostile external environments and now it has evolved and will continue to evolve in order for us to survive in this complex social environment that we have created to insulate ourselves from the wilder environment that we all think we are "better" than. There is no better in evolution there is only what works to establish stability for the time being.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:39:36 PM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.
i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.
Elaborate? Which morals and emotions are detrimental to our survival?
i didn't say any of them were detrimental.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:39:36 PM
Elaborate? Which morals and emotions are detrimental to our survival?
The ones that impel a person to pick up a gun and kill other people. e.g. anti abortionists, terrorists, anti euthanasiasts, anti gay activists.
The ones that impel people to enforce oppression into law e.g. Arabian laws against female education, Catholic denial of sex education, laws against gay sex or gay marriage.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.
Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.
There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.
And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.
Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.
There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.
And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
Morality is debatable. I am of the current understanding that it doesn't exist. It is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.
Most behaviors, IMHO relate to survival. Social animals realise that antisocial behavior lessens their own chances of survival, protecting each other from dangers or looking after the weak improves chances of survival. Belonging to a society improves chances of survival, oppressing groups within society reduces chances of survival.
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 03:14:35 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.
Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.
There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.
And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
Morality is debatable. I am of the current understanding that it doesn't exist. It is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.
Most behaviors, IMHO relate to survival. Social animals realise that antisocial behavior lessens their own chances of survival, protecting each other from dangers or looking after the weak improves chances of survival. Belonging to a society improves chances of survival, oppressing groups within society reduces chances of survival.
I just find it difficult to drop the word 'morality', and I agree that it is a human
philosophical question (the whole 'ought' from 'is'). My point was that some behaviours that give rise to what's commonly accepted as moral, such as altruism, do have a clear evolutionary explanation. But like I said, bats and other animals don't philosophise over what's moral, what isn't, and if there even is a thing called morality in the first place. That as far as we know is exclusively human.
Replace 'bats' with 'people' in the above scenario. Within a tribe some people go out to hunt and bring back food for those that for some reason weren't able to hunt for themselves, such as the old, sick or children. It goes without saying that for both solitary bats and people, sharing food with others causes an individual disadvantage. Less food for the person or bat that shares might mean less ability for the solitary individual to survive.
Moral?
That comparison might actually help with your philosophical interpretation, since bats and other social animals are seen as amoral, hardly any questions asked. ;D
(Of course, there are whole other aspects, such as neurological, which we share with some animals, most among animals closest to us such as chimps, which give us the capacity for what's generally accepted as moral behaviour.)
QuoteIt is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.
I don't see this to be the case, morality is a very complicated subject IMO with it's many angles.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
Replace 'bats' with 'people' in the above scenario. Within a tribe some people go out to hunt and bring back food for those that for some reason weren't able to hunt for themselves, such as the old, sick or children. It goes without saying that for both bats and people, sharing food with others causes an individual disadvantage. Less food for the person or bat that shares might mean less ability for the individual to survive.
Sorry, I disagree.
Everyone get's sick at some point. Everyone has the misfortune of becoming dependent. If there isn't a culture of banding together to support the weak then what chance do you have when it is your turn to be weak. Taking care of your weak, will help to strengthen your society. More people will survive hence you have a bigger, stronger society. Other's will remember your generosity and will likely support you when you are weak. Besides you may have some strong emotional bonds with family and friends whom find their lives more enjoyable and more survivable with you around to support them.
We can think through these scenarios and it becomes clear that you are better off giving some of your food up to support the weak.
I am not sure how much capacity bats have to think this through, but some habits are hard wired. But regardless, these do count to improve chances of survival.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
QuoteIt is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.
I don't see this to be the case, morality is a very complicated subject IMO with it's many angles.
Morality is simply wrong (immoral) and right (moral), how more complex does it get?
First of all, isn't the definition of God a creator or a designer? If evolution is true, we weren't created or designed, we evolved. There are two ways to create a complex thing, such as a human being. The first is design, which implies a mind behind it. The second is evolution by natural selection, which requires no mind behind it.
Also, since mindless naturalistic processes can turn a self replicating single cell into humans and all other life we see, doesn't it suddenly seem less ridiculous that natural processes could also have turned regular molecules into a self replicating one? Also, couldn't mindless natural processes have created the whole universe and earth as well?
The human being is so complex that it's almost beyond comprehension. The difference in complexity between a bacteria and a human is huge. It's much larger than the difference in complexity between regular molecules and a self replicating molecule IMO. Yet we don't yet have a solid theory to explain how a self replicating molecule could have arisen from a regular molecule. This is because you need skeletons to fossilize, so we can really only make conjectures about how life could have arisen from non-life.
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 04:22:14 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
Replace 'bats' with 'people' in the above scenario. Within a tribe some people go out to hunt and bring back food for those that for some reason weren't able to hunt for themselves, such as the old, sick or children. It goes without saying that for both bats and people, sharing food with others causes an individual disadvantage. Less food for the person or bat that shares might mean less ability for the individual to survive.
Sorry, I disagree.
Everyone get's sick at some point. Everyone has the misfortune of becoming dependent. If there isn't a culture of banding together to support the weak then what chance do you have when it is your turn to be weak. Taking care of your weak, will help to strengthen your society. More people will survive hence you have a bigger, stronger society. Other's will remember your generosity and will likely support you when you are weak. Besides you may have some strong emotional bonds with family and friends whom find their lives more enjoyable and more survivable with you around to support them.
We can think through these scenarios and it becomes clear that you are better off giving some of your food up to support the weak.
I am not sure how much capacity bats have to think this through, but some habits are hard wired. But regardless, these do count to improve chances of survival.
That's why they're a good case for the evolution of altruism, which co-evolved with social species. Living in a group is a whole different playing field from a solitary animal. Makes total sense that a group of bats would refuse to help a cheater. I also doubt that they think about it...
But anyways, many social animals do this. Hunting dogs do as well who as as a result of their success live in huge groups.
The difference between altruism between social animals and solitary animals is that in the latter, it can actually be detrimental. That's why such behaviours are closely linked to groups, and morality as well.
QuoteQuote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
QuoteIt is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.
I don't see this to be the case, morality is a very complicated subject IMO with it's many angles.
Morality is simply wrong (immoral) and right (moral), how more complex does it get?
That's more like the theistic version of fixed, objective and black-and-white morality. Any subjective interpretation is dependant on many angles which is incompatible with objective morality, since it's sort of like trying to see all a cube's sides at once, without the aid of reflective surfaces. Can you for instance say that what's good/moral/right for one person is necessarily good/moral/right for another?
You would have to define what's right and what's wrong and why. For many cases you're still stuck with different sides of a cube, except for the more obvious 'right' and 'wrongs' such as having to do with mutually perceived definitions of harm.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.
Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.
There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.
And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
I agree that some social animals can show altruism, but lots of animals don't. As a Christian, Bruce was saying that he reconciles evolution by natural selection and his god by viewing evolution as the means by which said god produces moral creatures like ourselves. I was pointing out that if morality is the purpose of evolution then all animals should evolve to be more moral, and that's not the case.
I also have to agree with Stevil, morality is a human construct of claiming certain things are 'right' or 'good', and other things are 'wrong' or 'evil'. It derives from the Latin word
moralitas which means 'proper behaviour'. I think it's something different from altruism, although some people may see altruism as morally correct behaviour. I don't see morality in animals' behaviour, even when it's altruistic behaviour.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 18, 2012, 09:43:33 AMI was pointing out that if morality is the purpose of evolution then all animals should evolve to be more moral, and that's not the case.
God didn't want morality for all creatures.
Beasts being beastly is an admonitory lesson for us.
Taking off Mod Hat for a moment in order to comment.
When people start talking out of their depth, are they aware that they're doing it? Just a bit of a face palm, exasperated post here. Please, I beg of you. If you don't have a freaking clue about how evolution works, can you just stop acting like you do? Or at least try to be aware that you don't know, and stop making absolute starements, based on nothing more than an uneducated opinion? Please? Pretty please?
Not pointing out particular names, but it should be obvious. If the shoe fits...
Damn, I need more coffee.
Damn. I'm continually out of my depth talking about morality with Stevil but I like it because it's thought provoking. *Zips lips*
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 04:10:53 PM
Damn. I'm continually out of my depth talking about morality with Stevil but I like it because it's thought provoking. *Zips lips*
You're also not talking in absolutes, so don't worry.
Don't make me name names! :)
It's not you.
As long as it's not me. Prepare to swim in the shallow end with me. ;D
Stevil - You mentioned that you think that something is either moral or not - that simple. Maybe that's (one of the) reasons why we disagree on morality, because I don't see morality as black and white at all. There are often conflicting morals at play (including "common" morals). So for example, when you talk about people killing for their morals, such as anti-abortion fanatics -
Morals at play
1. Murder is wrong - (in regards to the "babies" being aborted)
2. Murder is wrong - (in regards to the abortion doctors being killed)
2. What is that old quote - evil happens when good men stand by and do nothing - Imagine you truly, from the bottom of your heart, believed that there was a person who was murdering hundreds to thousands of babies a year (please note that words like "murdering" and "babies" may not be totally technically correct, but that is how they think of it) and no one would put a stop to it. What if they weren't fetuses, but children who had been born - would you act? Which would be the worse act, murder, or standing by and allowing someone else to murder?
My point in all of this is that morals are not always so black and white, and that yes, they may bring problems (such as killing abortion doctors) but remember that moral decisions are often based in morals that by and large serve humanity well in regards to survival (such as murder is wrong, and we don't stand by letting people commit evil.) Sometimes it goes awry, but I don't know that that is the norm.
Quote from: McQ on January 18, 2012, 03:47:29 PM
Taking off Mod Hat for a moment in order to comment.
When people start talking out of their depth, are they aware that they're doing it? Just a bit of a face palm, exasperated post here. Please, I beg of you. If you don't have a freaking clue about how evolution works, can you just stop acting like you do? Or at least try to be aware that you don't know, and stop making absolute starements, based on nothing more than an uneducated opinion? Please? Pretty please?
Not pointing out particular names, but it should be obvious. If the shoe fits...
Damn, I need more coffee.
I'm guessing it's me?
In my defense, I'm trying to albeit not very well, articulate how some of the behaviours that evolved that are generally seen as moral by us as a species capable of philosophising have evolutionary explaiantions that are closely linked to social animals.
Altruism, for example, can be detrimental to a solitary animal but enhances survival for animals that live in self-supporting groups.
Just because I use some examples of animals doesn't mean I see morality in nature. I agree with Too Few Lions who said that it's a human social construct, but unlike Stevil, I don't find it as easy to drop the word.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: McQ on January 18, 2012, 03:47:29 PM
Taking off Mod Hat for a moment in order to comment.
When people start talking out of their depth, are they aware that they're doing it? Just a bit of a face palm, exasperated post here. Please, I beg of you. If you don't have a freaking clue about how evolution works, can you just stop acting like you do? Or at least try to be aware that you don't know, and stop making absolute starements, based on nothing more than an uneducated opinion? Please? Pretty please?
Not pointing out particular names, but it should be obvious. If the shoe fits...
Damn, I need more coffee.
I'm guessing it's me?
Hmmmm, maybe its me, I can't work out who McQ is referring to.
However, I don't think you have to be an expert on a topic in order to think about it and express your ideas.
If you are open to discussion and let people know your ideas then they might get challenged and you might learn something.
I think conversation is a great way to go. Especially for non experts, otherwise I'd never be allowed to speak, given that I am no expert about anything. I consider myself a student of life not a teacher.
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 05:44:49 PM
I'm guessing it's me?
Hmmmm, maybe its me, I can't work out who McQ is referring to.
However, I don't think you have to be an expert on a topic in order to think about it and express your ideas.
If you are open to discussion and let people know your ideas then they might get challenged and you might learn something.
I think conversation is a great way to go. Especially for non experts, otherwise I'd never be allowed to speak, given that I am no expert about anything. I consider myself a student of life not a teacher.
I was thinking maybe it's me too, and likewise am not sure who it refers to. I think we're having a constructive enjoyable debate, I'm sorry if i've made any glaring face palming errors. I don't think any of us are experts in the field, so I'm sure we're all going to make the odd error or misunderstanding somewhere, or maybe not articulate our thoughts perfectly now and again.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
My point in all of this is that morals are not always so black and white, and that yes, they may bring problems (such as killing abortion doctors) but remember that moral decisions are often based in morals that by and large serve humanity well in regards to survival (such as murder is wrong, and we don't stand by letting people commit evil.) Sometimes it goes awry, but I don't know that that is the norm.
You are exactly right there is nothing concrete about morality. Morality is a set of behaviors invented by people. Morality itself is a concoction of the conscious mind and its interpretation of those behaviors. that is precisely why morality is defined differently in different cultures and under different religious belief systems. The predisposition for construction a moral baseline in society has evolved through natural selection but morality itself is subjective and dependent on cultural pressures that operate outside of natural selection.
Quote from: Ali on January 18, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
Stevil - You mentioned that you think that something is either moral or not - that simple.
Morals at play
1. Murder is wrong - (in regards to the "babies" being aborted)
2. Murder is wrong - (in regards to the abortion doctors being killed)
2. What is that old quote - evil happens when good men stand by and do nothing - Imagine you truly, from the bottom of your heart, believed that there was a person who was murdering hundreds to thousands of babies a year.
My point in all of this is that morals are not always so black and white, and that yes, they may bring problems (such as killing abortion doctors) but remember that moral decisions are often based in morals that by and large serve humanity well in regards to survival
I think of morals as a categorisation mechanism only.
Lets say you have three buckets, one is the moral bucket, another is the immoral bucket and the last is the neutral bucket.
Then someone gives you a list of actions, it is your job to sort each one putting it into the appropriate bucket.
Some people will pick up their bible and church interpretation and use that to sort out the actions.
Others will use their gut feel, what emotions are aroused when thinking about each action
Some people will use their observations as to what is the norm in society or what is the law.
Some people will think through the consequences of each action and what affect that may have with regards to a certain goal (e.g. humanistic, golden rule)
But however one goes about doing it, you all end up with a moral code, a set of rights and a set of wrongs. These are all generic of course, as you want them to guide you with regards to certain scenarios that you will encounter in future.
Now when a scenario does come up e.g. Person B might ask Person A how they feel about abortions.
Person A then refers to their moral buckets and finds the abortion action in the immoral bucket so they state that it is wrong for people to perform abortions.
Person B then might ask Person A why they think it is wrong.
Person A states that it is wrong because it is immoral. (now I hope you have noticed that claiming it to be immoral has not added any more detail than what Person A has already offered when claiming it to be wrong).
So Person B is now forced to ask why Person A thinks it is immoral.
Now Person A has to go back to the rules used when initially sorting out the actions into the morality buckets. Why was it that abortion was put into the immoral bucket, Person A may conclude "abortion is an act of killing a person and I don't feel that killing babies respects the babies right to live"
So Person B might ask, what if the pregnant mother is 14 and she is pregnant because she was raped would you still consider it wrong to have the abortion?"
Person A might state, "well, that is a horrible situation, although abortion is immoral, I think she should have the choice to have this abortion if she wants to. I can see that this baby could have a large detrimental effect on the mother's life, it could impact her education, her childhood and could be an unwanted reminder of the rape, she didn't choose to get pregnant, it wasn't through her negligence"
Now this last hypothetical statement that Person A states is not a moral judgment, it is a reasoned judgment/decision.
The moral judgement was "it is wrong because it is immoral" which added no value, but only hid the reasons for the judgment. When the reasons are hidden how can Person A decide that the situation is more complex than the original rule which was used to categorise the action into the morality buckets? At what point do they decide, I need to put more thought into this specific scenario?
If they choose to judge other people's actions and simply state, because it is immoral, then how can the judged people accept this judgement? They want to know the reasoning behind this judgement.
I hope you can see from, how difficult it has been for Struggling Atheist to offer his reasoning behind why he thinks the desire for gay sex ought to be counselled out of the immoral gay people, that we ought not let people make judgment or enforce restrictions based on morality. We need to insist on reasoned explainations.
Morality is dangerous, it suspends critical thought, it hides the detail of the judgement, and it often provides the confusion that a person can project their own personal values (morality) onto others. For example xSilverPhinx had agreed with me in a previous thread that her morality was only personal to her and subjective, and yet in this thread she fell into the trap of making a bold objective moral statement with regards to bats and people sharing their food with the sick.
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 07:02:25 PM
For example xSilverPhinx had agreed with me in a previous thread that her morality was only personal to her and subjective, and yet in this thread she fell into the trap of making a bold objective moral statement with regards to bats and people sharing their food with the sick.
Hmmm I see your point.
Yeah I'm starting to think that the whole evolution for the capacity for generally accepted moral behaviors and bats turned out to be a mistake. I didn't mean to say that bats are moral, though, just that a if the same examples were use for a human tribe, most people would (might?) say that sharing food with the sick is a moral/good/right thing to do. Same behaviour, different species and different categorisations.
But that's an easy comparision.
But anyways, I've made a mess of things.
OK, for Pete's Sake! ::)
Read my post again.
I NEVER SAID people who aren't experts in something couldn't discuss a subject. Please go back and read what I actually wrote.
Additionally, this thread is veering wildly off topic with talk about morals and things that aren't part of evolutionary theory. Put that stuff in the philosophy or religion threads. This is about evolution, supposedly. Last I checked, morality is not part of physical evolution.
So, please stop worrying so much about who I'm talking about.
Only worry if you happen to be declaring things in absolutes without having a clue as to what you're talking about.
That should be true of any topic anywhere. All people can discuss any topic. I can discuss economics with someone. I don't have a fucking clue about economics, but I can participate in a discussion about it. I just can't pass myself off as an expert, nor can I make statements as if I'm an expert.
Does it not bother anyone else when someone talks out of their ass?
;D
Now go back to the Salt Mines, all of you!
Come on then, we can all discuss who it is that McQ is referring to in the Salt Mines. ;D
Quote from: McQ on January 18, 2012, 08:00:37 PM
Additionally, this thread is veering wildly off topic with talk about morals and things that aren't part of evolutionary theory. Put that stuff in the philosophy or religion threads. This is about evolution, supposedly. Last I checked, morality is not part of physical evolution.
Agreed, fair enough.
Yeah this is about evolution let's not stray off topic please. I strongly feel like those who believe evolution to be true and still believe in God at the same time don't have a proper understanding of evolution. I'm a biology undergraduate btw. I think these people simply think evolution means "change over time". Yeah, I mean change can happen over time, but Darwinian evolution is the term people mean (or should mean) when speaking of evolution. Darwinian evolution is a bit more specific than just "change of species over time".
The theory really is not even all that complex at all. It's actually pretty simple, but then again I first heard about evolution and natural selection in like high school and I remained a theist at that time. Once you sit down and actually learn how evolution works, I believe it'll turn a theist into an atheist after they learn it. I'm not here to lecture you guys though so I'm not going to actually describe how it works.
Also, when learning how it works, you should also learn how the DNA molecules interact during meiosis, to produce genetic variability, as well as how sometimes mistakes occur (mutations). Each of you has on average 6 or so mutations, but most you won't notice because they may not even code a protein (junk DNA). This is an important part of evolution because it shows how random variability is produced. Remember, this is the first part of evolution, the second is non-random natural selection.
Thoughts?
Sorry for the derail. :)
What I think is really interesting is the theists who will concede that micro-evolution exists, and yet refuse to believe that macro-evolution (evolution leading to new species) exists. I always wonder what "barrier" they think stops micro-evolutions from accumulating into macro-evolution. Also, it blows my mind that "species" is a man-made concept. WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species" - we could have not made that designation or set the "line" somewhere else altogether. So if "species" is a man made concept, what makes them think that nature can't cross it?
I keep thinking of Kenneth Miller, who is a biologist and an evolutionist.
Here's a snippet from an interview (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html)
QuoteHow is it possible to believe in the evolution of a complex world and God?
Miller: That's an interesting question. God, for those of us who believe in Him, is the Creator and the Master of the universe. As C. S. Lewis once said, "[God] likes matter. He invented it." [Mere Christianity, Harper, 2001] It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe.
Now, what I don't find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world. I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends.
I don't see it as very satisfactoy because the metaphysical is immeasurable in any way, but there you have it...a theist, biologist and evolutionist. Looks like a totally backstage god, which looks more deistic than theistic.
Quote from: Ali on January 19, 2012, 01:10:14 AM
WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species"
So yeah, are wolves and dogs one species or two considering they can mate and produce viable offspring? ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 19, 2012, 01:10:14 AM
WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species"
So yeah, are wolves and dogs one species or two considering they can mate and produce viable offspring? ;D
Can 1/2 dogs 1/2 wolves mate and produce fertile offspring? (I know they can mate, just don't know off the top of my head about the fertile offspring part). If so, then yes, they are the same species. Crazy, right? ;)
Quote from: Ali on January 19, 2012, 01:28:48 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 19, 2012, 01:10:14 AM
WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species"
So yeah, are wolves and dogs one species or two considering they can mate and produce viable offspring? ;D
Can 1/2 dogs 1/2 wolves mate and produce fertile offspring? (I know they can mate, just don't know off the top of my head about the fertile offspring part). If so, then yes, they are the same species. Crazy, right? ;)
They can, though I don't know if this applies to all wolves or just those closer to dogs such as the grey wolf and timber wolf. But yes, they do produce fertile offspring.
Oh man I can't believe I found this one! I recently made this connection and I've also wondered how people can know that Evolution has been proven, yet still not convert to Atheism
The leap from accepting evolution to no longer believing in God is a large one.
I always thought that Christians accepting evolution could justify doing so by thinking of God in a more Deistic way, in that he created the universe, created life, set evolution into motion and then sat back and let it go its own. Meaning that Genesis is not meant to be taken in a literal sense.
Some Christians are probably realizing that the evidence is stacking up too much against them, and instead of going down the road of "Satan planted it here to fool us" (which is grasping at straws to us Atheists - well, I have to speak for myself here, surely I'm not alone), they decide to accept it anyway. They think that if they can merge modern science discoveries with the story of the Bible, then they have a way of keeping Christianity relevant, and allowing them to keep on believing in God.
(Sorry if anything I said was nonsensical or ill-informed. I am only now just starting to debate on this subject. I'm here to learn!)
Quote from: Radiant on January 31, 2012, 12:23:07 AM
The leap from accepting evolution to no longer believing in God is a large one.
I always thought that Christians accepting evolution could justify doing so by thinking of God in a more Deistic way, in that he created the universe, created life, set evolution into motion and then sat back and let it go its own. Meaning that Genesis is not meant to be taken in a literal sense.
Some Christians are probably realizing that the evidence is stacking up too much against them, and instead of going down the road of "Satan planted it here to fool us" (which is grasping at straws to us Atheists - well, I have to speak for myself here, surely I'm not alone), they decide to accept it anyway. They think that if they can merge modern science discoveries with the story of the Bible, then they have a way of keeping Christianity relevant, and allowing them to keep on believing in God.
(Sorry if anything I said was nonsensical or ill-informed. I am only now just starting to debate on this subject. I'm here to learn!)
Not at all nonsensical, I think that's pretty accurate.
It's also interesting to note that Darwin's theory was not very controversial among Christians when it was first published. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that a group of fundamental Christians began arguing that it violated Christian teachings about the beginning of time.
As I have argued before, there is no essential conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christianity. It's only if one insists on a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis that an artificial conflict arises. There is nothing about Darwinian evolution that controverts 1) the idea that there is a creator God; or 2) the idea that the historical claims about Jesus in the New Testament are essentially factual. How God chose to bring about life and the origin of species on the earth is a separate matter from the claims of Christianity.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 31, 2012, 04:06:06 AM
As I have argued before, there is no essential conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christianity. It's only if one insists on a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis that an artificial conflict arises. There is nothing about Darwinian evolution that controverts 1) the idea that there is a creator God; or 2) the idea that the historical claims about Jesus in the New Testament are essentially factual. How God chose to bring about life and the origin of species on the earth is a separate matter from the claims of Christianity.
Strictly, yes. Though it might be remarked the fact that the Christian God should choose to bring about homo sapiens in such a protracted, messy and in many ways strikingly inefficient manner does seem rather odd for such an omnipotent being. But then the Christian God is a pretty odd and inscrutable guy all round.
There is a prevailing idea that the christian god made man in his image (image referring to consciousness and free will) and that in order to accomplish this God set in motion the necessary elements for evolution to work in order to ultimately create a being with true free will. If god himself tightens all the nuts and bolts he may engineer into the being a bias toward god. Evolution provides a path where god creates conscious free will by proxy thus giving mankind a choice to accept or reject him. I find this an amusing stretch of the god concept and a desperate attempt to assimilate god into modern science but nonetheless it does illustrate how God or god concepts can coexist with evolutionary theory.
Quote from: Twentythree on February 01, 2012, 12:27:06 AM
There is a prevailing idea that the christian god made man in his image (image referring to consciousness and free will) and that in order to accomplish this God set in motion the necessary elements for evolution to work in order to ultimately create a being with true free will. If god himself tightens all the nuts and bolts he may engineer into the being a bias toward god. Evolution provides a path where god creates conscious free will by proxy thus giving mankind a choice to accept or reject him. I find this an amusing stretch of the god concept and a desperate attempt to assimilate god into modern science but nonetheless it does illustrate how God or god concepts can coexist with evolutionary theory.
I can't see the even most tenuous kind of nexus between evolution and free will. And anyway the Christian God being omnipotent could surly have found a far more economic and elegant way to imbue us with free will (not that I buy into that notion either).Bit you are right- religious belief will always be able to accommodate advances in scientific knowledge one way or another.