Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: September 06 2010 at 18:25
Textbook wrote:
T: I don't know what to say to you other than that you're just wrong. I simply despise religion.
But you sound angry. You say religious people are blind, foolish, etc etc etc yet you can't say it without using mockery and trying to make them look like idiots. So that, instead of fortifying your position (I'm agnostic too, probably an atheist since I really doubt god exists) just weakens it. I don't like that attitude because it hurts atheism and makes us all look like arrogant people incapable of tolerating others' beliefs. That's why I react.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 06 2010 at 18:37
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Romans had a steam engine, but it was worthless because they didn't have coal.
Well, it didn't run on coal - it was worthless to them because it didn't have an application that a slave couldn't do better and cheaper. Not that the Roman's didn't have coal - of course they had coal, they mined it all over Europe (along with mining for metal ore) and used it for smelting iron and powering hypocaust heating.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: September 06 2010 at 18:38
If the argument against religion is that it is idiotic, then of course you would attempt to make it look idiotic.
I understand that my volatile style is not really going to appeal to the other side but as has been noted before, I think most people in this thread do not entertain sincere hopes of ever appealing to the other side but just engage in this for their own opportunity to vent.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: September 06 2010 at 19:19
Dean wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Romans had a steam engine, but it was worthless because they didn't have coal.
Well, it didn't run on coal - it was worthless to them because it didn't have an application that a slave couldn't do better and cheaper. Not that the Roman's didn't have coal - of course they had coal, they mined it all over Europe (along with mining for metal ore) and used it for smelting iron and powering hypocaust heating.
Oh wait yeah, that was a retarded thing to say, you can't really smelt iron without the heat of coal. But still, technological progress is not a straight line.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 06 2010 at 19:32
Henry Plainview wrote:
Dean wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Romans had a steam engine, but it was worthless because they didn't have coal.
Well, it didn't run on coal - it was worthless to them because it didn't have an application that a slave couldn't do better and cheaper. Not that the Roman's didn't have coal - of course they had coal, they mined it all over Europe (along with mining for metal ore) and used it for smelting iron and powering hypocaust heating.
Oh wait yeah, that was a retarded thing to say, you can't really smelt iron without the heat of coal. But still, technological progress is not a straight line.
I'd agree with that - progress of any kind tends to be exponential. A lot of technology was lost during the early middle ages - partly because of the 5th century plague that decimated the world population (and probably kicked off the "dark ages" more than the Goths knocking on the gates of Rome) and partly because the monks that did copy and record what little knowledge that did survive simply weren't interested in the technology enough to recorded it.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 06 2010 at 19:42
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Surely one key aspect of evolution is the common descent - I agree with that. But the other key aspect is that the mechanisms by which evolution is achieved don't require divine intervention - and in fact we have much reason to believe that there was no guiding force (designer).
I'm happy when people accept part of the theory, but I simply wouldn't say that someone accepts the theory (without any qualifiers) as long as they are not willing to drop the requirement of divine intervention.
What part of the theory do you think that theists put qualifiers on and which parts of evolution do you think they require divine intervention for?
The basic argument is that "God helped it along the way", or "God guided the process". The implication is that it couldn't have happened without this guiding force, and that the process of evolution had the purpose of creating our species as the end product (e.g. perceiving evolution as a ladder rather than a tree).
Theists that support evolution aren't cherry-picking which bits they like and which bits they don't - they are quite happy with natural selection, mutation, adaption, genetic drift, etc. Theist believe that gods are present at every moment of their lives, guiding, protecting, nurturing so it is only natural then for them to believe that gods would have guided their ancestors; and their ancestors before them all the way back to the first ape that fell out of a tree and learnt to walk on its hind legs; and that ape's ancestors all the way back to the first tarsid to climb into a tree etc etc; all the way back to the first bacteria that assembled itself from self-replicating strings of DNA from a post-primordial soup of complex self-replicating chemical compounds made from amino-acids. So while it may look like a ladder, it is simple one branch of the tree from root to tip, with all the other branches (that don't contain "man") being governed by the same mechanisms.
Theists who accept evolution don't have any problem with any of that - the bit they have a problem with is random chance and coincidence and that's where they insert their gods.
Now if you want them to drop the "requirement" for divine intervention then you are also asking them to drop the same "requirement" from their daily lives and I don't think that's a reasonable, or perhaps even necessary, pre-requisite for accepting the whole of evolution.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: September 06 2010 at 20:58
Dean wrote:
Theists that support evolution aren't cherry-picking which bits they like and which bits they don't - they are quite happy with natural selection, mutation, adaption, genetic drift, etc. Theist believe that gods are present at every moment of their lives, guiding, protecting, nurturing so it is only natural then for them to believe that gods would have guided their ancestors; and their ancestors before them all the way back to the first ape that fell out of a tree and learnt to walk on its hind legs; and that ape's ancestors all the way back to the first tarsid to climb into a tree etc etc; all the way back to the first bacteria that assembled itself from self-replicating strings of DNA from a post-primordial soup of complex self-replicating chemical compounds made from amino-acids. So while it may look like a ladder, it is simple one branch of the tree from root to tip, with all the other branches (that don't contain "man") being governed by the same mechanisms.
Theists who accept evolution don't have any problem with any of that - the bit they have a problem with is random chance and coincidence and that's where they insert their gods.
Now if you want them to drop the "requirement" for divine intervention then you are also asking them to drop the same "requirement" from their daily lives and I don't think that's a reasonable, or perhaps even necessary, pre-requisite for accepting the whole of evolution.
You are right Dean, but even more, we don't believe in Intelligent Design or that God helped ALL along the process.
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.
The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.
The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.
:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
Pope John Paul II said this:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [the exact words in french were: Aujourdhui, prčs dun demi-sičcle aprčs la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent ŕ reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothčse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory...rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based... theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, [that] consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996)
Being that religion should not mess with scientific issues, the Pope accepts evolution as more than a hypotesis, but doesn't give a definitive opion, which not being an issue of doctroine and faith isn't covered by the infallibility.
But about the human soul, he is the authority.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 07 2010 at 00:27
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: September 07 2010 at 00:16
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Surely one key aspect of evolution is the common descent - I agree with that. But the other key aspect is that the mechanisms by which evolution is achieved don't require divine intervention - and in fact we have much reason to believe that there was no guiding force (designer).
I'm happy when people accept part of the theory, but I simply wouldn't say that someone accepts the theory (without any qualifiers) as long as they are not willing to drop the requirement of divine intervention.
What part of the theory do you think that theists put qualifiers on and which parts of evolution do you think they require divine intervention for?
The basic argument is that "God helped it along the way", or "God guided the process". The implication is that it couldn't have happened without this guiding force, and that the process of evolution had the purpose of creating our species as the end product (e.g. perceiving evolution as a ladder rather than a tree).
Theists that support evolution aren't cherry-picking which bits they like and which bits they don't - they are quite happy with natural selection, mutation, adaption, genetic drift, etc. Theist believe that gods are present at every moment of their lives, guiding, protecting, nurturing so it is only natural then for them to believe that gods would have guided their ancestors; and their ancestors before them all the way back to the first ape that fell out of a tree and learnt to walk on its hind legs; and that ape's ancestors all the way back to the first tarsid to climb into a tree etc etc; all the way back to the first bacteria that assembled itself from self-replicating strings of DNA from a post-primordial soup of complex self-replicating chemical compounds made from amino-acids. So while it may look like a ladder, it is simple one branch of the tree from root to tip, with all the other branches (that don't contain "man") being governed by the same mechanisms.
Theists who accept evolution don't have any problem with any of that - the bit they have a problem with is random chance and coincidence and that's where they insert their gods.
Now if you want them to drop the "requirement" for divine intervention then you are also asking them to drop the same "requirement" from their daily lives and I don't think that's a reasonable, or perhaps even necessary, pre-requisite for accepting the whole of evolution.
Dean has a strong point here. Mike always see things backwards. He understands that we (believers) change because we are afraid to accept things and we pick what is good enough for us. But is the contrary, logic, science and study of the documents that Mike dismiss because he has the will to do it, is what make us evolve in our understanding process. Just like Dean said, we don't need to pre-accept something just to dismiss something else, is not necesary to stop believing in God just to "accept" evolution.
Evolution is a good theory, and we are cool about it. The key to understand Catholic believes is that we believe mankind is special, is the key of existence, or to say better, is the key of why God created the World, and builded up all this "random chain of coincidences" that makes life possible on Earth. Mankind is not monkeys, we have soul and that breathe of life is what make us special to the eyes of God.
Now, I know this argument can't make me special into the eyes of Mike and the other textbook...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 07 2010 at 01:29
The T wrote:
Textbook wrote:
T: I don't know what to say to you other than that you're just wrong. I simply despise religion.
But you sound angry. You say religious people are blind, foolish, etc etc etc yet you can't say it without using mockery and trying to make them look like idiots. So that, instead of fortifying your position (I'm agnostic too, probably an atheist since I really doubt god exists) just weakens it. I don't like that attitude because it hurts atheism and makes us all look like arrogant people incapable of tolerating others' beliefs. That's why I react.
By that definition you are an Atheist - albeit a closet Atheist, since for some reason you seem to not be able to commit. I guess it's because of the baggage that the word carries - like for example the straw man argument that Iván keeps promoting (Atheism = Communism = Fascism = Religious Persecution = Mass Murder).
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 07 2010 at 01:32
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Surely one key aspect of evolution is the common descent - I agree with that. But the other key aspect is that the mechanisms by which evolution is achieved don't require divine intervention - and in fact we have much reason to believe that there was no guiding force (designer).
I'm happy when people accept part of the theory, but I simply wouldn't say that someone accepts the theory (without any qualifiers) as long as they are not willing to drop the requirement of divine intervention.
What part of the theory do you think that theists put qualifiers on and which parts of evolution do you think they require divine intervention for?
The basic argument is that "God helped it along the way", or "God guided the process". The implication is that it couldn't have happened without this guiding force, and that the process of evolution had the purpose of creating our species as the end product (e.g. perceiving evolution as a ladder rather than a tree).
Theists that support evolution aren't cherry-picking which bits they like and which bits they don't - they are quite happy with natural selection, mutation, adaption, genetic drift, etc. Theist believe that gods are present at every moment of their lives, guiding, protecting, nurturing so it is only natural then for them to believe that gods would have guided their ancestors; and their ancestors before them all the way back to the first ape that fell out of a tree and learnt to walk on its hind legs; and that ape's ancestors all the way back to the first tarsid to climb into a tree etc etc; all the way back to the first bacteria that assembled itself from self-replicating strings of DNA from a post-primordial soup of complex self-replicating chemical compounds made from amino-acids. So while it may look like a ladder, it is simple one branch of the tree from root to tip, with all the other branches (that don't contain "man") being governed by the same mechanisms.
Theists who accept evolution don't have any problem with any of that - the bit they have a problem with is random chance and coincidence and that's where they insert their gods.
Now if you want them to drop the "requirement" for divine intervention then you are also asking them to drop the same "requirement" from their daily lives and I don't think that's a reasonable, or perhaps even necessary, pre-requisite for accepting the whole of evolution.
I agree that this would be the implication of accepting evolution in its entirety - it *does* lead to Atheism. Not to Anti-Theism, but it implies that no God is necessary for everything to work as it does. And once you are at that point ("it could have happened entirely naturally"), Occam's Razor applies.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 07 2010 at 01:42
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.
The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.
The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.
:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
Well, it's nice to hear from you that despite everything you said before you do still believe in the literal Adam and Eve. And it's also interesting that the center of your believe (as you put it) has been almost entirely debunked by modern science - cognitive neuroscience, to be precise.
Iván wrote:
Being that religion should not mess with scientific issues, the Pope accepts evolution as more than a hypotesis, but doesn't give a definitive opion, which not being an issue of doctroine and faith isn't covered by the infallibility.
But about the human soul, he is the authority.
Iván
Yeah - screw all these idiotic neuroscientists.
All these things that you attribute to the soul can also be attributed to the brain itself - most can be demonstrated, and there's no reason to assume that we won't eventually be able to demonstrate all.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 07 2010 at 02:15
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I agree that this would be the implication of accepting evolution in its entirety - it *does* lead to Atheism. Not to Anti-Theism, but it implies that no God is necessary for everything to work as it does. And once you are at that point ("it could have happened entirely naturally"), Occam's Razor applies.
Except Occam's Razor doesn't apply to anything - it's not scientific and it's not actually true, it's just convienient because you can use it to justify any outcome you desire. Remember we are dealing with the concept of a god that can do anything it wants, whenever it wants, including those things it's not necessarily required to do or needed to do. You cannot dispose of their gods quite as easily if your justification uses the word "could".
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 07 2010 at 02:28
He'll have to answer for himself but I seriously doubt that Iván believes in a literal Adam and Eve anymore than anthropologists believe that the first Australopithecus afarensis fossil found (aka Lucy) was also the first literal Eve. As I have said before in this thread, Adam and Eve of gen:1 is a metaphor for "Mankind"
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 07 2010 at 03:36
Occam's Razor can be applied as a rule of thumb in situations where there isn't any solid evidence. You can dismiss it as unuseful in your opinion, but then you're essentially saying that as long there isn't any solid evidence, any hypothesis is equally valid. I just don't agree with that.
About Adam and Eve: The statement that Iván quoted assumes a literal interpretation that is incompatible with the concept of evolution:
"Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls"
At which point did that happen? Evolution is a process of small, gradual changes. This Theistic theory though suggests that at a specific point God intervened and somehow added a soul, changing apes into humans. Even if you say that it's not literally one couple (Adam & Eve) but say one generation, it still flies in the face of the theory of evolution by natural selection (@Negoba: yes, and several other natural mechanisms of selection). Neuroscience further strengthens my argument here, since many aspects that used to be attributed to the "soul" can now be said with a high degree of certainty to be attributes of the brain. Since Theists already admitted that the brain - along with the rest of the body - evolved naturally, they now have to face the problem that there isn't really any need to suppose that a soul even exists.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.359 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Slartibartfast wrote:
