Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:28 amI believe that the moral sense, as fallible as it is, does not refer to nothing. But as I said before, the fact that people have that sense doesn't even remotely imply that we can decide that sense is accurate. They could be completely mistaken, of course, merely imagining ogres under the bed, so to speak, or trying to shake off the historical shackles of their mental confusion. So we can rest nothing much on such an observation.

What we can rest on is this: IF (and I offer this at the moment only as a hypothetical; I'm asking you only to consider the implications IF it's true, not to agree THAT it's true, okay?), IF it's true that there's a God, then this world was not created without purpose and direction. The Supreme Being had an intention in creating what He created. Some things were created for one purpose, and some for another. And if a creature actualizes the function and purpose for which it was created, or if a creature is helped to do so, then that is moral. IF, on the other hand, a creature is suffered to depart from its intended function, or if it is used in a way not intended by the Creator for it, then that is immoral.

But human beings are the only creatures on the earth endowed not merely with an intuition about good and bad, but with the self-awareness necessary to recognize that they are moral agents, to reflect and theorize about their moral standing, to consider the consequences and ramifications of their actions in light of the moral, and to be responsible to the Creator for what they do or fail to do. Lower animals, from the complex to the single-celled, or trees or the environment itself have no such self-awareness, no such reflective moral capacity. They have reactions, instincts, and some even have emotions...but the awareness of themselves as moral entities, they do not have. They simply run according to program, so to speak.

And there is a further way in which ethics are unique to human beings. God does not speak to dolphins and chimps -- or if He does, they're remarkably reticent about it. But we have the hypothesis that God speaks to man, revealing what HIs specific purposes and intentions in Creation are. Now, you might say, "I don't believe that God has done that." Fine and dandy: but I should say again that we are speaking only in hypotheticals right now, only in IFs. And IF God exists, there seems no reason at all why the Creator IF He should choose to do so, couldn't reveal His will and intentions to people. We humans communicate all the time -- including sharing our moral views. There is no prima facie reason to suppose God should be incapable of the same, surely.
Exactly! The objective moral standard is something demanded of evolution because it's what all religions claim for their many and various dogmas. It doesn't follow from rational assumptions; that morality is - or should be objective. Rationally, morality is a subjective sense, informed inter-subjectively. But it was necessary to create an objective authority for morality, to unite hunter gatherer tribes under a common moral doctrine. Religion, law, politics, economics - are political expressions of the innate moral sense.

The Papal Court of the Inquisition was established around 1200 AD to prevent the return of Greek and Roman knowledge to Europe; because knowledge might cast doubt upon the Church's claim to absolute moral authority, and those who, in service to God, went butchering people in foreign lands, were, upon their return destroyed as heretics by the Church that sent them.

400 years later, in 1633, Galileo was arrested and tried by the Inquisition for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. The Industrial Revolution is generally dated to 1730. The last witch burned alive by the Inquisition was in 1792 - 160 years after Galileo. Her name was Anna Goddi. The Inquisition wasn't disbanded until 1972; and you think it's "laughable" the Church had a long term effect on science - as you repeatedly demand from me, objective morality that only exists as a religious claim.

You might want to hope that God of yours really exists, because you've killed us all by making science a heresy to maintain religious authority. You divorced science as a tool from science as understanding of reality, and used the tools in service to religiously justified, political and economic ideological power. Rather than apply technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality; casting politics as knowing what;s true and doing what right in terms of what's true, you've applied technology to prosecute ideologically defined ends. How's that working out for you? Let's have a look. The forests are burning, the oceans are a landfill, and the sky is about to catch fire. But at least you ain't coveting your neighbours ass! Because that's what God really cares about; that and beards, and eating fish on Fridays!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:04 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:46 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:25 pm Evolution does not explain how life came to exist. Life is extremely complex even on the most basic cellular level. Evolution does not explanation what simple cells evolved from.

I also object to unscientific conjecture.
Our conclusions are similar but I think our reasons are different. I do not think anything can (or is required) to explain the origin of life, because I do not think life is a thing or substance, but a perfectly natural attribute of some physical entities, just as mass and temperature are.

I really do not object to conjecture or hypotheses regarding things which are uncertain, especially if they are plausible. What I object to is their being regarded as scientific theories, as if there were real observable evidence for those contentions. The specific problem with evolution being put over as science is the same as all conjectures about origins, like cosmology and much geology. There is no way to actually observe what happened in the past, and real science only pertains to what can actually be observed by anyone. Anyone can perform the experiments by which the properties if chemical elements are identified, for example, but no one can observe abiogenesis or the actual change of one specie into another by mutation. Until it can be observed it is conjecture. If and when it is observed, it can be called science.
In light of your explanation why I don't agree with you, I rescind my agreement.
Well, of course. It's what I expected.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:52 am
Note 'teleology' in general,



Your thinking above is too dogmatic, i.e. you cannot detached the term 'teleology' from teleology in the divine sense, i.e. teleology as an absolutely absolute purpose, like that from a God.

The concept of Teleology is now making a comeback in a more practical and rational sense.
This is where the term 'teleology' of "survival" can be effectively attributed to the Theory of Evolution.

There is nothing teleological in the theory of evolution that insist once birds evolved with flights that they cannot lose their ability to fly in another environment.
Birds evolved with flight to increase their chances of survival [teleologically] but if their [for some birds] chances of survival in a different environment is secured without the need to fly, they will eventually shed their ability to fly.

Such an occurrence is very common where birds happened to fly to an island that do not have predators that kill then and there is plenty of food on the ground for their teleological survival, and after some generations, they will lose their ability to fly. e.g. are the kiwi, penguins, dodo, and the likes.
Ultimately this is all about the teleology of 'survival'.

The point with humans is the more they understand is is able to use the principles of teleology within the theory of evolution based on evidence and rational justifications, the greater their chances of survival [teleological] as a human species.
Extract :
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?
Survival until the organism reproduces itself. Reproduction is a fact and together with two other facts namely struggle for survival and random mutations is the mechanism for natural selection. Each of those three components is free of intention on the part of the individual.

Humans evolve by means of artificial selection. Our evolution is largely controlled by culture not biology.
I have no objection to the evolutionary hypothesis, but I strenuously object to it being called, "science." It is not science, it is plausible conjecture based on a paucity of real evidence, yet it makes claims for concepts that are as baseless as those of creationists and intelligent design, both of which I totally reject.

"Natural selection," is nonsense, even when correctly understood, (as you do) only the observation of the fact that things that are better at surviving will also be better at perpetuating their species. What is called, "natural selection," is nothing more than an observation of what supposedly happened, not some kind of principal of nature.

"Natural selection," is just wrong. Before there can be any kind of selection, there must first be something to select from. The fundamental question is not why some species are selected for survival over others, the fundamental question is where do new species come from to be selected?

The big question of evolution is where do new species come from, how did any of the so-called "survival-advantages" of species come to be. There is only one supposed explanation offered by evolutionists (which you noted), mutation. All the actual mutations ever actually observed that actually affect a species or significnt physiological change are all detrimental (or neutral, providing neither survival advantage or disadvantage). No mutation has ever been observed that results in a new specie or anything that can be called a "survival advantage." This is the crux of the evolutionary hypothesis. If evolution is going to claim to be a science, it must be able to provide observable evidence of its fundamental tenet? So far, it cannot. Similarities in DNA are not that evidence. Similarities in DNA are only evidence of those similarities, not how they got that way. To use those similarities as evidence is nothing more than guesswork, or argument from ignorance—"we can't imagine any other possible explanation."

Survival is also not a fundamental principle, not even for the sake of reproduction. Not all organisms reproduce. Turritopsis dohrnii, a small jellyfish found in the Mediterranean and in the waters of Japan is genetically immortal, that is, it changes its form to survive changing conditions but returns to its normal genetically identical form and can do this perpetually. Prokaryotic cell division means all prokaryotes are also genetically immortal. If mere survival were the objective, evolution should have stopped with the procaryotes.

The following is from a paper I wrote long ago. It addresses this question of survival and evolution:
The evolutionary hypothesis assumes that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes since all advanced organisms are comprised of eukaryotes, but since all advanced organisms do not survive as well as prokaryotes, survival cannot be the reason for the existence of eukaryotes.

Forms of life in stasis, such as seeds and spores, compared to other forms of life can exist almost indefinitely. Endospores are dormant forms of certain bacteria of the firmicute phylum, that can remain viable for millions of years. A seed from a previously extinct Judean date palm was sprouted after nearly 2,000 years. A silene stenophylla was grown from fruit that was around 32,000 years old.

Clonal plants live thousands of years, like the Pando, (Quaking Aspen), found in Bryce Canyon National Park which is estimated to be 80,000 years old.

Most large perennial plants outlive conscious animals both as individuals and as species; for example: the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (5063 years old), the Llangernyw Yew, (4000 years old), and Fortingall Yew, (between 2000 and 5000 years old).

Many aquatic animals are longer living than man. Orange roughy, (deep sea perch), live as long as 149 or 156 years. Bowhead Whales have lived at least to 211 years. The freshwater pearl mussell (margaritifera) can live 210 to 250 years.

Among land animals, the tortoises are the longest living. For example these from various zoos around the world: Adwaita, an Aldabra Giant Tortoise died at an estimated age of 250; Tu'i Malila, a Radiated tortoise, died at an age of 188; Harriet, a Galápagos tortoise, died at the age of 175, and Timothy, a Greek Tortoise, died at an age of 160.

It is obvious, organisms with very simple natures that can exist in a large variety of environments and have very few requirements are much more likely to survive than very complex creatures with nature's requiring very strict environmental limits and having many varied requirements. Even if evolution is the explanation of the origin of life and the species, survival cannot be a major factor, and therefore, neither can natural selection. If those were the principles, why would nature keep producing ever more complex organism with less likelihood of surviving?
I have no objection to people believing evolution is the explanation for both how life came to be (if they believe it did) or the explanation of speciation. I do object to using such unscientific conjecture to explain human nature and as the basis for psychological, social, and political ideologies and agendas.
My underline. I agree. Same here. Don't you then agree that humans evolve (and we do change)mainly along the cultural channel as opposed to the biological channel?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:17 am The objective moral standard is something demanded of evolution because it's what all religions claim for their many and various dogmas.
I don't know one single person who believes in "demanding" what is already known to be impossible. The world is not composed of lunatics, V. at least some of us have sense.

Evolution cannot be "demanded" to do anything: it's impersonal, and therefore utterly indifferent to morals. In fact, that morals have appeared at all is a very odd fact, from any Evolutionary perspective; they should not have, because many of them are clearly not survival-oriented. And according to Darwin, that fact should make them utterly unselectable by Evolution, for exactly the same reason he said that un-survival-useful appendages and un-survival-oriented organisms could not be selected-for by Evolution: that's the only mechanism for selection that there is.

So there is no "demand" on Evolution. Nobody who has even a rudimentary grasp of Evolutionary suppositions thinks it can warrant any morality at all. We all know it can't.
It doesn't follow from rational assumptions; that morality is - or should be objective.
Actually, it does. If morality is not objective, then rationality would tell you it shouldn't exist at all, for the very reasons Darwin cited.
The Papal Court

Is, and has always been, uninteresting to me. It has no relationship to Christianity, being utterly unconceived of, uninstituted, unauthorized and unsanctioned in any Christian or Biblical way. It's just another human "religious" artifact, having no Christian warrant at all.
you've killed us all by making science a heresy
Who are you talking to now? :shock:

It's certainly not me. I've said nothing against science, and have no sort of ability to have done what you're saying.

It's like you've shot off into a sort of bizarre, visceral diatribe against an imaginary, cartoony version of religion or something, using me as the focus for it, for some reason. Whomever you think you're talking to, sorry; you've got the wrong guy.

I'm have to point out that whoever has been telling you this stuff has been fictionalizing and misrepresenting to the point of absurdity. But I encourage you to use at least a basic amount of skepticism in regards to what you've been told, because you've clearly been badly misled. That's maybe not your fault, at least initially; but persistence in believing that absurdity would be your fault, so I would suggest you get yourself some history books-- good secular ones -- and a few books on Christianity, and find out what you're talking about.

Right now, you're so far afield of the truth I don't really know where to start. It's pretty much all wrong. :shock: I hate to tell you how misled you've been -- but maybe that's a service, at least in the long run, so it's worth pointing out.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

keep telling yourself that!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:52 pm keep telling yourself that!
Telling myself...what?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:50 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:06 pm Meanwhile using technology based on scientific principles you don't understand, you spread ignorance and/or lies.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:25 pmWhat technology would that be that I don't understand? I've spent my life in science and technology and am always eager to learn about any new technological developments.
As you are so keen on new developments, one innovation you might be want to be aware of is genetics. The theory of evolution is only half the story; the whole story is the neo Darwinian synthesis. Genetics prove evolution, and if you disagree then you are necessarily ignorant. Or dishonest!
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pmI'm sorry you think my expressing my view is, "spreading ignorance and lies." I haven't asked anyone to agree with my views. I'm only pointing out the questions evolutionists refuse to answer and I think need to be answered before I'll swallow their hypothesis. I never said they were wrong. I will say they are always very thin-skinned, much like religionists when their doctrines are questioned. I certainly don't understand what you are worried about. Nobody is going to agree with me. Your evolutionary religion is safe.
Everything is for me, about the continued existence of the human species
That's your view, and that's fine. It's not everyone's. You do not have to, but would you care to explain, beyond your own life, what possible value the, "human species," has. Is the entire purpose of life the mere perpetuation of protoplasm?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pm I have no objection to people believing evolution is the explanation for both how life came to be (if they believe it did) or the explanation of speciation. I do object to using such unscientific conjecture to explain human nature and as the basis for psychological, social, and political ideologies and agendas.
My underline. I agree. Same here. Don't you then agree that humans evolve (and we do change)mainly along the cultural channel as opposed to the biological channel?
I do not know what, "humans evolve," actually means. Certainly their nature does not change. If you are only referring to the fact that cultural and social practices change, I don't know why that should be called, "evolution?" Do you think that killing masses of other human beings with planes, missiles, and bombs is some kind of advance over killing people with swords, spears, and bows and arrows? If anything, I'd say humans are devolving.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:18 pm If anything, I'd say humans are devolving.
The band DEVO thought so, back in the '70s. :wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc
Wry, dated, but not entirely wrong.

What's the evidence for any moral "evolution"? It's not strong, as you point out.

We were once capable of only person-to-person barbarity. Then we discovered organized war. Then weapons that allowed killing en masse and at distance. Then national war, then world war, and now enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. The same process could be tracked in technology and pollution, and even in medicine, since super-viruses are now a worldwide problem.

If we're "evolving," it doesn't seem to be neatly and universally forward, especially in the moral sphere.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:18 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pm I have no objection to people believing evolution is the explanation for both how life came to be (if they believe it did) or the explanation of speciation. I do object to using such unscientific conjecture to explain human nature and as the basis for psychological, social, and political ideologies and agendas.
My underline. I agree. Same here. Don't you then agree that humans evolve (and we do change)mainly along the cultural channel as opposed to the biological channel?
I do not know what, "humans evolve," actually means. Certainly their nature does not change. If you are only referring to the fact that cultural and social practices change, I don't know why that should be called, "evolution?" Do you think that killing masses of other human beings with planes, missiles, and bombs is some kind of advance over killing people with swords, spears, and bows and arrows? If anything, I'd say humans are devolving.
By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.

Warfare has changed over time. Notice how recent wars have been fought using some other nation's territory for the killing and destruction to take place. Notice how WWII was a just war of defence against an aggressor.
Human nature is an unknown , there are few occasions when human instincts are allowed free play, and cultures are main players in the shaping of how people think and act.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:01 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:04 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:46 pm
Our conclusions are similar but I think our reasons are different. I do not think anything can (or is required) to explain the origin of life, because I do not think life is a thing or substance, but a perfectly natural attribute of some physical entities, just as mass and temperature are.

I really do not object to conjecture or hypotheses regarding things which are uncertain, especially if they are plausible. What I object to is their being regarded as scientific theories, as if there were real observable evidence for those contentions. The specific problem with evolution being put over as science is the same as all conjectures about origins, like cosmology and much geology. There is no way to actually observe what happened in the past, and real science only pertains to what can actually be observed by anyone. Anyone can perform the experiments by which the properties if chemical elements are identified, for example, but no one can observe abiogenesis or the actual change of one specie into another by mutation. Until it can be observed it is conjecture. If and when it is observed, it can be called science.
In light of your explanation why I don't agree with you, I rescind my agreement.
Well, of course. It's what I expected.
You expected that I would learn you are obnoxious. Congratulation, you are being realistic.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
Immanuel, it's a simple thing; gradual change is what 'evolution' means. I am aware that English speakers often say "evolution" when they mean natural selection, but we are trying to be precise here.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8528
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
:roll:
Evolution is the change resulting from fitness in some way. This is neither good nor bad. Those things are just in your mind.

For you, evolution is the result of changes in Christianity that have meant that secular laws stop people like you burning witches, and hanging atheists. Christianity has had to evolve to believe in a different god that the ones that it previously believed in.
The once immutable god has had to change.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:30 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
:roll:
Evolution is the change resulting from fitness in some way. This is neither good nor bad. Those things are just in your mind.

For you, evolution is the result of changes in Christianity that have meant that secular laws stop people like you burning witches, and hanging atheists. Christianity has had to evolve to believe in a different god that the ones that it previously believed in.
The once immutable god has had to change.
Evolution does not necessarily imply progress . Neither does evolution necessarily imply regress. If you mean evolution by natural selection you should say so.If by evolution you mean moral progress you should say so. NB by "you should" I mean everyone should.
Post Reply