Posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by Wolfstar
The descent from rocks sidebar is particularly fascinating to me.
Presuming a man, a tiger, a cockroach, a flower, a computer and a rock all descend from the same ancestor of the big bang with no extrinsic influence at all - then what is the atheist's moral premise for treating them differently?
In the Dennett philosophy, the "intentional stance" is intrinsic to both the man and the thermostat - consciousness is but an illusion.
And therein lies the moral dilemma for the materialistic evolutionists. The fact is that all life is composed of rock. So we have a choice. We can believe we are descended from the rocks and therefore are nothing more than walking talking rocks, or we can believe that we have ascended from rocks by the process of being created out of the dust of the ground. If the former, then our lives are no more intrinsically valuable than the chemicals which inhabit our physical shell. If the latter, if we are the creation of God, then our worth is derived from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God, our creator.
If in the beginning... chemicals, then we are no more valuable than the rocks from which we descended. If, in the beginning... God, then our worth is determined by the one who formed us from the dust of the earth into his image and likeness.
I find it interesting that many who declare the former behave as if they believe, but are in rebellion against, the latter. As an example, they attribute selfishness to the gene while declaring that the mind/soul/spirit is an illusion. And they don’t credit their discoveries to their composite matter but rather to themselves.
Once again, it appears you believe your own ad hominems are sacrosanct, but you can complain freely about those of others.
We can resume this discussion when you show some evidence of having grown up.
Thanks for the sort-of compliments. :-)
As I understand it, in order for a social system based on reciprocal altruism to work, people need to wear their hearts on their sleeves. I don't have the time to go into the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and other theoretical problems in game theory, and I'm not an expert anyway, but briefly: let's say you adopt the social strategy of "Tit for Tat with forgiveness" - you cooperate with others, except when they defect on you, when you retaliate; and then after some threshold is reached, you return to cooperation. If the defector shows some outward sign of shame, and you find that sign credible, you may return to cooperation faster, because you have some confidence the defector truly has recognized the error of his ways; and cooperation, if it can be guaranteed, is a better evolutionary strategy for both of you. Likewise, some forfeit paid for past defection will also evince sincerity.
Oddly enough, it may be better for our long term success to wear our guilt and shame on our faces, rather than be poker faced, since if you can't 'read' someone, why should you trust them? We also reserve special detestation for people who fake emotional responses. And of course, not only do we have to display emotion, we also have be able to read emotion.
This is a beautiful, mathematically interesting and socially relevant area of research, at the interface of biology, cognitive psychology, and mathematics, and it's all preempted if you discount a role for science in studying the evolution of moral behavior.
I thought you only operated within a one hour limit central time?
I've tried many unsuccessful strategies for reduing the amount of time I spend FReeping. My current is simply to stop corresponding with people if it gets into too much personal stuff. I don't mind dishing it out, I'm willing to take it in kind, but it rapidly gets tiresome when people incessantly complain about it.
Is that your usual and customary response when your students challenge you with questions you can't answer?
I came on this thread because you had accused a very well respected freeper of being a charlatan. I asked you to apologize and you refused. Since then you have continually ridiculed and insulted people who have attempted to discuss the issues by dismissing them as either not being serious or not being rational.
And you have the temerity to accuse others of acting dishonestly and immaturely.
You are correct, we may be able to continue this discussion when you see the evidence that others around you here are as grown up as you think you are.
If you give them an inch they will take a mile ;)
Wolf
You deny having a wish that the universe exist in a perfect state of grace. You say your expectations even fall well short of a universe existing in a state of near perfection, yet you express distress at its present state, and demand to know why it is not better. You must, then, consider the universe well below the level of good, and dwelling in such a dysfunctional state as to be verging on collapse.
I disagree that the state of the universe is that distressing. And even if my understanding of your disapproving view of the universe is overstated to some degree or another, it is obvious that we have gotten ourselves into the area of value judgments and matters of opinion, where sometimes discontents cannot be expressed properly or addressed precisely.
You’ve been given my understanding of the good, the perfect, and the truly awful of the universe, which I can only describe with analogies. And, you’ve pronounced it satisfactory. But, clearly, you’re unsatisfied. Is this surprising? We are talking about more than mere chipped liver. We have here, an intelligence light millenniums away from being adequate to create the universe, asking another, equally inadequate intelligence, why their concept of the perfect, or even of the good, doesn’t seem to match the reality of that universe. Our understanding is inadequate because we don’t know enough, and we aren’t intelligent enough. We can gain scarcely more than a mere glimmer by the use of analogy.
For the record: You’ve been laboring, as have a number of others, under the misapprehension that I am an advocate of ID. I am not. I find some of the science of ID’s better advocates falls into areas of interest to me, and I follow their product with interest. Speaking of which (ID’s better advocates), someone had earlier recommended Alamo-Girl to you, if you are genuinely interested in an ID resource. If you haven’t already, I recommend you pursue that referral. She’s top drawer.
Not so, but you've made it clear that you are incapable of understanding what I'm getting at. So this conversation between you and I is at an end. It's just going around in unproductive circles.
Ever consider the fact that the parents who gave birth to the aforementioned babies were on drugs or harmful substances?
I admittedly did not read all the posts so I apologize if what I wrote was already alliterated.
The birth defects listed above as well as other sources of pain in the world are often listed as reasons to doubt the existence of any omnipotent and good God, let alone a Christian one. I believe that this argument is flawed. It seems obvious enough that if God was as we view him to be all powerful and good then evil would not exist. It would seem it logically follows either God is not good (we’re screwed), or God isn’t all powerful. But what if there actually isn’t evil. Now before you tell me to take off the rose shades lets think about how humans have the incessant need to classify everything. Our classifications go so far that we define things based off their opposite. This is the case with good and evil. The horrors of the world we define as evil because in comparisons to events we define as good they bring us pain and anguish rather than happiness. Good and evil are human constructs they should have no bearing on the divine.
To assume that one could have any idea to what the rummaging of a divine mind could be is pompous folly. At the end of the day whether you believe we come from Adam and Eve or the apes of Africa we are merely atoms interacting with other atoms to form the most complicated set of reactions we could imagine. If one dies the only thing that changes are these interactions. The carbon and hydrogen and oxygen endure without knowing they came together to form a consciousness.
Getting back to birth defects. I was actually forwarded to this site to study the photos for an embryo midterm. The fact that anyone is alive is amazing. There are far too many times during embryonic development to go wrong. We shouldn’t look at babies born with defects and say this is evil we should look at those born normally and say it’s a miracle. The norm ought to be birth defects at best, when one studies how development occurs this becomes apparent. Because we see few defects and many normal pregnancies we define defects as evil. Consider if people lived to be 400 would dying at 100 not be thought of as evil. My point is there is no such thing as evil and good, and furthermore as these are human constructs any God would be far beyond the limits of them.
Thus I don’t think a valid argument can be made using birth defects as a premise for or against the existence of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.