Death and the Forfeit of Reason

[Ginkgo]

I am not arguing if life evolves or not .. I am saying we as a speices do not know for a fact, what our origin is.

That is not open to debate. All we have is speculation

This should interest you. For a while, men have been trying to synthesize abiogenesis.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE2CnThito"]Just 2 Days Ago[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Daedalus]

It's theory dude.. and nothing else.
It might make sense if it wasn't riddled with so many holes.

The score remains 0-0

As others have mentioned earlier, you seem to have misunderstood "scientific theory".
Electricity...its called the theory of electricity , but if you think "bah its but a theory", you can test its validity by putting you fingers into a power outlet and checking to see if you get an electric shock

 

[foolish heart]

Assuming God spoke the entire universe into existence, man-made science and theory has very little relevance as far as explaining acts of God. That's also in the Bible, by the way...

Isaiah 55:8-9

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Assuming God spoke the entire universe into existence, man-made science and theory has very little relevance as far as explaining acts of God. That's also in the Bible, by the way...

So then what is your opinion on the science behind things like gravity? Are you not convinced that if you jump off the roof of your house or apartment building you will fall to the ground? Science deals with the observable events in our world that are repeatable. So regardless of how you feel about the existence of god it is hard to deny the existence of things like gravity, time, electricity, fire (you get the point)... and through science we have made observations about these observable parts of our reality.. from those observations came hypotheses, and from those hypotheses came predictions, and from that came theories, and from theories came a few laws - and thus from all of this we have technologies like flight, computers, plastics, lasers and the list goes on... So I'm not sure what science has to do with the acts of god or what god has to do with science, unless he choses to start f#cking with us by making objects fly upwards towards the sky when dropped rather than crashing to the ground (and the like)... when that happens what you've said will carry a little bit more weight.

 

[foolish heart]

So then what is your opinion on the science behind things like gravity? Are you not convinced that if you jump off the roof of your house or apartment building you will fall to the ground? Science deals with the observable events in our world that are repeatable. So regardless of how you feel about the existence of god it is hard to deny the existence of things like gravity, time, electricity, fire (you get the point)... and through science we have made observations about these observable parts of our reality.. from those observations came hypotheses, and from those hypotheses came predictions, and from that came theories, and from theories came a few laws - and thus from all of this we have technologies like flight, computers, plastics, lasers and the list goes on... So I'm not sure what science has to do with the acts of god or what god has to do with science, unless he choses to start f#cking with us by making objects fly upwards towards the sky when dropped rather than crashing to the ground (and the like)... when that happens what you've said will carry a little bit more weight.

As you say, science measures observable patterns, so if God created blueprint upon which every principle of reality functions He can certainly change them... or more realistically, the true pattern of reality is far deeper than what we can observe or measure so it may not have needed to be altered to allow what we see as miracles.

Another thing this brings up, and I grantee this will sound crazy... that which we observe appeals to the human mind as a pattern implicates that the idea of "random" chaos is more likely a larger pattern that we cannot observe or fathom. Whatever we consider natural (natural numbers, natural selection, etc) can no longer be considered an absolutely accurate basis of measuring reality because "nature" is a result of chaotic inflation of the universe in the context of the earth... if that makes any sense. It's merely a section of reality that fits a pattern respective of itself, it is not the absolute foundation.

...which means we still pretty much don't know anything.

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

...which means we still pretty much don't know anything.

I don't really think that science pretends to know everything, of course I can't speak for all scientists though - just myself. However it's really not accurate to say that we don't know anything given our level of technological advancement today.

Personally I view science as a tool to string together repeatable observations into something greater than the sum of all it's parts. What you're saying doesn't sound crazy as much as it sounds philosophical... That method of thinking is simply incompatible with science, because it takes into consideration many things that science simply doesn't care about. You can't conceptualize god scientifically anymore than you can philosophically analyze science. There is no room for subjective interpretation in science, just as objectivity tends to fail when dealing with religion or at least this is how I tend to view things.

 

[Ginkgo]

As you say, science measures observable patterns, so if God created blueprint upon which every principle of reality functions He can certainly change them... or more realistically, the true pattern of reality is far deeper than what we can observe or measure so it may not have needed to be altered to allow what we see as miracles.

Another thing this brings up, and I grantee this will sound crazy... that which we observe appeals to the human mind as a pattern implicates that the idea of "random" chaos is more likely a larger pattern that we cannot observe or fathom. Whatever we consider natural (natural numbers, natural selection, etc) can no longer be considered an absolutely accurate basis of measuring reality because "nature" is a result of chaotic inflation of the universe in the context of the earth... if that makes any sense. It's merely a section of reality that fits a pattern respective of itself, it is not the absolute foundation.

...which means we still pretty much don't know anything.

Science is a field that is constantly expanding and evolving. Once we make one break through, there are more break throughs to be made afterward. The systems we measure shift every time we discover something new. Yes, the known universe is quite chaotic, but scientific progression has increased our life-spans twofold since the 1700's - mostly because of the expanse of medical faculties ever since the Bubonic Plague. Science has made an impact on the quality of our lives, in some ways positively, in other ways negatively.

 

[Lark]

This thread will get mired I bet.

Anyway, evolution is not the same as Darwinism, which I dont think properly spoke or understood exists, scientific ideas, unlike philosophy or ideology dont operate like that or at least they shouldnt, there wasnt any Newtonism for instance, by contrast there was Marxism.

The Christians denying death thing is interesting, although they dont, not really, there is a finality to it, even in the bible. However creationism is based upon what I would consider heretical ideas about biblical/scriptural literalism and solo scripture which arose with the in reformation, and more specifically with Luther's idea of a priesthood of all people, ie that everyone can read and understand, and the printing press.

I'm a practicing RC and I dont deny evolution, I'm not talking about any back doors here like intelligent design or anything (which I do believe is seriously nonsensical, at least in some of the seriously badly reasoned evangelical material I've seen) like that, I mean straight evolution, ie we share a common ancestory with the animal kingdom, our most close relatives being apes. I tend to think that this is what seperates even the greatest human scientists from God mankind cant put in train independently developing evolutionary species.

The disquiet that solitary walker expressed about encountering his "young earth creationists", which to be honest I know is a by word in anti-creationist circles of a pretty prejorative kind, I think is a little like the preachers zeal on the other side of the argument. I dont really believe either are that helpful.

I've got to be honest that I've dealt with a lot of existential angst about death, since a couple of neurological ideas about the origins of religious beliefs in auditory hallucinations in the pre-rational (to be honest pre-"mind") brain rocked my certainty, I dont deny it, I never did but the prospect of no after life bothers me. I cant exactly say why. Its not status anxiety, disappointment about either unfulfiled potential or any mid life junk like that.

There's a lot in the bible which is unbelieveable, particularly to the post-empiricist, post-deductive rationalist brain and world, I suspect that this is not simply a matter of metaphor versus literalism or interpretation, although in all seriousness there are very good community bibles made available by the RC church available from the CTS (Catholic Truth Society) which are an entirely different kettle of fish to "just believe, alright" literalism expounded by many evangelical congregations, especially in the US. That's if you're seriously interested in an alternative view in this debate.

 

[Lark]

To be honest I'm always more interested in why these debates take place, I've read Dawkins for instance and I think that he's gone from someone who expounded an athiestic evolutionary theory in Blind Watchmaker to someone who really has a dog in the fight with creationists and has gone away beyond his original premises with things like memetics.

The idea that cultural or ideological premises operate like self-perpetuating and self-preserving viruses is a little bit beyond his original, safer, premises about evolutionary theory since Darwin. I dont know that I buy it, I can see how he makes the inferences and draws the conclusions that he does but I dont know, vogue, fashion and trend are not the same as the rise and fall of meta-narratives, although it could account for why he is trying to spread his own theories so, so rapidly and so widely, hoping that it'll eclipse those of his rivals. I'm reminded of the schism and sectarianism of trotskyists though when I think about this sort of thing or, in a different way, different from the creationism vs. Darwin debate, of the christian right's culture kampf.

Its clear that Dawkins et al have an agenda, it could just be preventing the wrongs done in the name of religion. Although I'll be honest that the balance sheet of religion is not as bad considered objectively (which it seldom, seldom is) and definitely in comparatie terms with ideology and modernism. I think its about contending about truth and a lot of psychological needs which I'm sure one side will attribute to the other but over look in themselves.

 

[Ginkgo]

There is the 150000 or so years of no humaniod fossils.
There is the question of why multi celled organisims are not radically evolving still.. Do you really think we have hit the evolutionary apex?

and mostly .. simply because I don't trust a species that can't figure itself out to tell me what the secrets of life are.
I dont want speculation or theory.. I want proof.. Darwinisim has not been proven any more that the existence of God.
Just because it kind of makes sense and we have nothing better to explain things.. does not make it true.
Just so you know I dont believe in God either.

I trust my instincs and intution.. they tell me humanity is about 1 and half years old in terms of reaching it's potential..
So when A toddler tells you the meaning of life.. you tend to disregard it

I think your view of evolution is muddled. No offense.

There is no "evolutionary apex". Evolution is defined by gradual change over time; so to say that anything has reached an apex would be to thwart time and space. While one organism may be more complex than another, the former organism is not more evolved, because we all have a common ancestor and have been evolving since that ancestor came to be. There is a misconception that humans are more evolved than single celled organisms, fauna and flora, but this is not the case. We have no static potential because that potential is perpetually changing. Imagine walking along the earth's surface, and you see the horizon. You set this as your goal, your "potential" destination. However, once you arrive, you have an entirely new horizon ahead of you. The horizon need not be marked by us being stronger, faster, or more intelligent, because evolution dictates that we change by whatever means possible, whether we become slower, dumber, airborne, burrowing, whatever. The only potential one has is the potential to change, and you could not survive without change. Hence, you evolve for the sole purpose of survival.

Evolution has been proven on a genetic scale. You are a transitional fossil.

 

[JediVulcanisim]

From what I can tell there are 5 optional conclusions to derive from this thread:

Humanoid species were created by another intelligent life form.

Humans developed into their current existence via micro-evolution over millennia.

We do not know our biological origin, because genetic material has not been produced to confirm relation. (Sadly, speculation based on observation of the similarities of bone structure can not be considered an absolute science), (And basing our collective understanding of our genetic origins on the musings of a book that can be comparable to a collection of fairy tales can not be considered empirical data).

Human beings only have the ability to trace their origins based on genetically based data. (Family trees, physical genetic data, etc.)

OR....

All of these understandings of origin exist simultaneously and are all 100% truthful.

 

[kyuuei]

From what I can tell there are 5 optional conclusions to derive from this thread:

Humanoid species were created by another intelligent life form.

Humans developed into their current existence via micro-evolution over millennia.

We do not know our biological origin, because genetic material has not been produced to confirm relation. (Sadly, speculation based on observation of the similarities of bone structure can not be considered an absolute science), (And basing our collective understanding of our genetic origins on the musings of a book that can be comparable to a collection of fairy tales can not be considered empirical data).

Human beings only have the ability to trace their origins based on genetically based data. (Family trees, physical genetic data, etc.)

OR....

All of these understandings of origin exist simultaneously and are all 100% truthful.

Now wouldn't that be a thought..

 

[Mephistopheles]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/

Definitely related.

€: Actually, it's quite shocking to me how high the expectations of many people of scientific theories are.... They really think that they have to say us what is TRUTH, and so they deny every theory which isn't 100% true... But I don't think it's even possible to know the truth itself - We just can measure the input we get and look for patterns, and, through scientific methods, explain these patterns, verify them and set them together. And that's exactly what scientific theories are - One way how the world COULD work, and which proved itself as best-working so far. Therefore, they're all-time open for change, if you find a theory which works even more precise.

 

[Lark]

What if its the athiests who've been deluded and whose use of reasons to fit their purposes has been ill conceived?

 

[Thisica]

What if its the athiests who've been deluded and whose use of reasons to fit their purposes has been ill conceived?

Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!

 

[Lark]

Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!

To an extent I agree.

I posted because the original post was, from the very first sentence, extremely loaded and generalising. It was taken as rote that theists forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the finality of death, what if its atheists who forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the existence of a God?

These sorts of reasoning loops bother me, not just in religion or philosophy. Its dismissive in the extreme, simplistic and content with treating challenging opinions as a "fools paradise" or "bigot's delusion".

Too often people can find or invent straw men who exemplify, or seem to exemplify, the characteristics they know others beside themselves arent going to like, affect being more powerful than reason, that's often sufficient for their argument to rule the day.

 

[Nicodemus]

I posted because the original post was, from the very first sentence, extremely loaded and generalising. It was taken as rote that theists forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the finality of death, what if its atheists who forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the existence of a God?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q

 

[Arclight]

Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!

This

 

[Eric B]

I met these Young Earth Creationists on campus. They're nice guys, but I figured they must be terribly misinformed to deny evolution (at this time, I was totally ignorant of how frequently evolution was denied in America.) So, after determining that they were willing to take a hard look at both sides of this issue (look they did, reason they did not) I wrote them an e-mail in the form of a rebuttal against the evolution page in Answersingenesis.c0m, which is a website they recommended. By the time I was done with the e-mail, it was just over twenty pages long and was bullet-proof (accepting the assumption that my information was accurate). Well, they weren't convinced - they weren't even sold on the age of the earth (not ~6000 yrs), which was the first section of my e-mail.

(By the way, if any of you are not as well informed about evolution as you should be and either believe it is false, are on the fence, or have no good justification for your belief that it is true, I will send you this e-mail happily).

I was more distraught about this than I perhaps should have been. It wasn't just that they wasted my time - it was frustrating in a different sense...in the same sense as someone denying the conclusion of a simple and sound deductive argument. It was perplexing.

It must be partially due to this interaction that I began reading the Bible. I was struck by its potential utility as a tool for spreading atheism. The claims made within are so utterly incredible that I would expect any reasonable person to demand massive amounts of corroborative documentation. There are simply a lot of problems with some of the claims made, and this should be readily evident, but I'm still going to make a couple comments on this, so bear with me for a moment.

Noah's Ark:
Where'd the water go?

How did Noah and his family survive the incredible air pressure that would result from a world-wide flood?

How did a random catastrophe deposit all fossils all over the world in their proper strata, in the order that evolution would predict?
(By the way, Creationists account for the splitting of Pangea and other phenomena with a massive catastrophe, and a catastrophe is never even mentioned in Genesis - only rain.

How did eight people (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) feed and care for so many animals? I can't even imagine eight people running a zoo, which is a mere fraction of what would be required of them.

How did we get all of our genetic variation (hundreds of alleles) if all of our genetic information came from only a few people (the maximum number of alleles that can come from the offspring of eight individuals is sixteen). In the case of the animals, each specie should only have four alleles and there would be lots of genetic problems from inbreeding to boot.

---------------------------------------------------------

You can go on and on in this fashion without difficulty.

Richard Dawkins has a quote which I don't exactly recall that says something along the lines of 'those who don't accept evolution are either stupid or ignorant.' This sounds about right to me - if you have the information, it is impossible to deny....right?

I thought about it, and it isn't true. People who accept the Bible literally are not necessarily stupid, even if they are informed about Biology. So what's the solution to this problem?

It is rational to hold a level of belief according to the amount of evidence in favor of a claim. That's the obvious objective standard. So how does a fairly intelligent person believe that Jesus walked around casting demons out of people left and right (rather than the more reasonable assumption that what were considered a result of demon-possession thousands of years ago were misdiagnoses and it was most likely sickness caused by germs, not spirits)?

The solution is simple: They get into a mindset in which evidence is no longer an important factor for their belief about what is true. When I tell you that I have a living great great grandfather who is over four hundred years old, an alarm sounds in your head which can be explained by a quote from Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

When I tell you of my great grandfather, the alarm sounds and you demand evidence. Yet, when these same people are told of generation after generation of people exceeding six and nine hundred years, as in Genesis, they don't demand evidence. This begs for an explanation - what can account for this discrepancy of standards?

I have one idea. These people don't demand evidence because they have found a way to live forever. How is it that I can imagine nothing more frightening in principle than the discontinuation of my consciousness, and yet the thought of death does not really scare me? It's not so comfortable to think about, but it certainly is not as horrifying as it should be. Perhaps the recognition of my mortality came coupled with a sort of subconscious block so that I may function without obsession? So, when I find a way to defy death, I tend to hold on to it so dearly as to subconsciously allow myself to lower my rational standard. This accounts for both the denial of Biology and the belief in sacred texts.

I've just found a concept that sums up the origin of this approach to "faith":
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0505_Parsons_-_What_is_Re.html

Pillar #3: Presuppositionalism

Presuppositionalism is the self-sufficiency of an authoritative Bible. This is the sovereignty of God in revelation. Pesuppositionalism defines our approach to the sovereign Word of God. Too often Christians try to “prove” the Bible to the natural man by presenting evidences from creation or logic. They assume the problem is merely intellectual and that belief will flow naturally from an airtight presentation of the facts.

But the Bible says that natural man willfully suppresses the truth (Rom. 2:15). The problem is not, therefore, a lack of evidence, but the basic tendency to set oneself up as the ultimate judge of truth. The heart of Eve’s sin lay in exalting herself as the judge of what God had said. (Gen. 3:5,6).

These presuppositions radically alter our approach to the non-believer. If our defense of the faith consists solely of presenting evidences to his supposed independent reason, we are simply encouraging his independence, Instead of a focus on persuasion with facts and logic, Christian Reconstruction challenges the natural man, who presumes himself to be the ultimate judge of truth. The sword of the Spirit does not need to be proved, it needs to be used. We presuppose that the sword of the Spirit will penetrate the hearts of natural men knowing that the Law of God in their hearts confirms its truth.

Even though these Reconstructionists are the primary ones advocating the concept under this term, inasmuch as they draw it from Reformation principles, it is basically the foundation of much of Christian argumentation methods.

It always bothered me, as I believe, yet tend to favor reason and logical arguments. Yet, anytime they run out of logic, they hide behind presupposition, and it employes an ingerious defense mechanism: Notice the reference to the verse Rom.2:15. They interpret this to mean that everybody really knows all the necessary truth about God, but "suppresses" it; basically, pretending not to know.

So no reason is needed; all you need to do is hit the people with their [willfully committed/known] sin and error (as forceful and vitriolically as needed), and if elect, they'll be convicted and respond (eventually, at least), and if "reprobate", it will just "harden" them as God "willed" (according to chapter 9, their other favorite passage).
So you can teach that 1 + 1 equals one-in-a-bun, (if you can find the right proof-text for it), and horribly lose any argument on science and reason, yet still walk away smugly confident you "refuted" those "blinded fools".

Most Christians are not this radical with this system, but they have basically softened it down or de-emphasized it, leading to a bunch of of conflicts in the church with the more hard-liners condemning all the "compromise" in the "modern Church" (with many, this has even surpassed denouncing the non-Christian world!)

I still struggle with being able to prove the faith. I've come to adopt a more preteristic eschatology (which, ironically, the Reconstructionists hold) in which Romans is describing the Israelites, not all men. The whole system of their arguments on judgment collapses on that point. But of course; we all know that their interpretations are right!

Otherwise, if YEC and the Flood are to be taken literally, then there must have been some very different laws of the universe back then. Something has got to give on that one, if people are going to be so insistent on it. This is hypothetically possible, as God could have changed them as time went on (though scientists will still look for evidences against that. Like there's even a theory that light moved faster, then slowed down, allowing for a smaller, younger universe).
I even wonder if it may involve parallel realities, especially when you look at where the Garden of Eden might have been, and why the topography are the area seemed to be different as some have noted. Perhaps Adam was created directly like that, but when he fell, his banishment was to a "copy" of the universe, basically, where entropy reigned, and he was a descendant of the other creatures, and roses bore thorns, the rivers formed differently, etc. and all that other stuff that changed. Again, God could certainly have done that. Perhaps some stuff like the centuries lifespans of humans, plus the water canopy that could be held up above the earth, were retained for a bit, and then sometime after the flood, god made a final change, to the state of the universe we are familiar with today. Sounds farfetched, but it seems some more Ne was needed in these debates as serious as they get!

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm still reading through this thread I somehow missed last year, but this part rang true to my experience in evangelicalism and with family:

The solution is simple: They get into a mindset in which evidence is no longer an important factor for their belief about what is true.

Yes, either that... or at least not needing conclusive evidence.

But in general, evidence doesn't matter a ton, as long as it's not a smoking gun bit of evidence. There's a lot of evidence one can provide that I've been replied to with, "Well, maybe that's true, but in the end I think just don't believe the overall conclusion is true and/or I still think I'll be proven right in the end." A lot of stuff along the lines of "No, i don't understand why what you're saying seems to true, but I have faith it's not right."

Different priorities/standards of criteria.

I posted because the original post was, from the very first sentence, extremely loaded and generalising. It was taken as rote that theists forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the finality of death, what if its atheists who forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the existence of a God?

Well, all of that is supposition.

I think the most that can be said is that someone has chosen to believe, and their faith overrides other measures of criteria. It's values-based.