Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

silverharp · 18-03-2015 08:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

But what evidence or basis do you have for arguing that becoming a moral being was a gradual process? Do you have a single piece of actual evidence to support that belief?

some basic morality in terms of empathy etc. can be observed in the animal kingdom,a tiny example but I remember a few cases where kids fell into monkey enclosures in Zoos and they were protected by one of the females until the staff came to help, Kin selection in Humans has an evolved feel about, why would we instinctively put ourselves at risk for direct family before friends or the general public? Why do psychopaths who have differently wired brains lack empathy?
Im not an evolutionary biologist so maybe someone can chip in here, but I understand science has done a lot of research in this area and havnt been overly stumped or have any particular "god gap" that they are worried about.If the point worries you, you research the science material and post up some points where there is a gap that needs to be filled by God?

Nick Park wrote: »

You suppose that it happened that way, and your supposition is based on your non-belief in God. If you believed that an omnipotent God existed then there would be no reason to suppose that morality was not conferred in an instant.

So, in effect, your argument is as follows: "If, like me, you reject the existence and possible intervention of God, then morality developed gradually. If morality developed gradually, then at no point did God create a moral being. If God did at no point create a moral being, then the Fall did not take place. If the Fall did not take place, then that constitutes a valid argument in the Atheism/Existence of God thread."

If we boil that down to the initial premise and conclusion, then we are left with: "If you start off by assuming the non-existence of God, then that becomes an argument against the existence of God."

Circle.

But there is no particular evidence of an omnipotent God in terms of a very hands on one. The universe is 14 billion years old, the Earth is not in the oldest part of the universe, evolution was interrupted by hundreds of millions of years because of Asteroid strikes ( a god nudge was all that was needed), and humans had to come out of an evolutionary process not zapped into existence. I'd agree with orubiro , its not an argument for the non existence of god as such, it might give original sin a run for its money maybe
One of your initial points was that God gave humans a soul, which is a different question from where did morality come from, which at least can be looked at in terms of brain chemistry and other science disciplines.

MaxWig · 18-03-2015 09:14PM

orubiru wrote:

However, does that apply to humanity as a whole? Are we all sinners? Did we really choose evil over good? I look around and I don't see it. I think that the good far outweighs the bad and I think its really quite false to say that man chose evil. Some individuals, yes. In general, we are actually pretty good, I'd say.

We are all sinners. Or else none of us are. If we are committed to a deterministic view of human behaviour, we are stuck with the realisation that people have no choice but to act as they do. Its a strange and unacceptable state of affairs for us to perceive.
Judge not lest ye be judged!

And yet we do. Its all we have. Atheists and faithful alike. We stubbornly believe that we are good, and others are evil!
The alternative would be to sit back and accept our fate which it seems is beyond us

Safehands · 18-03-2015 09:39PM

Nick Park wrote: »

But what evidence or basis do you have for arguing that becoming a moral being was a gradual process? Do you have a single piece of actual evidence to support that belief?

Is evidence important to you Nick? It's just that you never seem to use any.

Delirium · 18-03-2015 10:16PM

marienbad wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous at this stage ,this is an open thread any poster is entitled to comment whenever and on whatever they like , so get over yourself .

And there is no switching of topics, just the application of common sense , only you know your beliefs so it makes more sense for you to demonstrate where they do or don't agree with commonly accepted scientific facts .

If you can't or won't ,fine just say so .

As for attacking the poster , Matthew 7.4 again methinks

Depending on how informed Nick is about science and theology, it could be quite a large task for him to list/document where his faith complements or disagrees with science.

How about starting with a narrower focus? Maybe ask about one or two specific examples to start off the discussion and take it from there?

marienbad · 18-03-2015 10:50PM

SW wrote: »

Depending on how informed Nick is about science and theology, it could be quite a large task for him to list/document where his faith complements or disagrees with science.

How about starting with a narrower focus? Maybe ask about one or two specific examples to start off the discussion and take it from there?

No Problemo , as silverharp has already asked '' how evolution ties into the story of adam.'' ?

Cen taurus · 18-03-2015 10:56PM

marienbad wrote: »

No Problemo , as silverharp has already asked '' how evolution ties into the story of adam.'' ?

Do you not think it does, and if not for what reason(s) ?

marienbad · 18-03-2015 10:57PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Do you not think it does, and if not for what reason(s) ?

Do you think it does and why ?

Cen taurus · 18-03-2015 11:00PM

marienbad wrote: »

Do you think it does and why ?

I've already posted quite a bit on the topic, but there's been no contributions from you on the subject.
I asked first, so when you respond to my question, and post something considered, and an opinion and position of your own for discussion, then I'll be happy to.

marienbad · 18-03-2015 11:06PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I asked first, when you respond to my question, and post something considered for discussion, then I'll be happy to.

I see we are back in the schoolyard again , so a reply in kind , no you didn't.

''No Problemo , as silverharp has already asked '' how evolution ties into the story of adam.'' ? ''

I think the ? is the giveaway

marienbad · 19-03-2015 12:47AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I've already posted quite a bit on the topic, but there's been no contributions from you on the subject.
I asked first, so when you respond to my question, and post something considered, and an opinion and position of your own for discussion, then I'll be happy to.

You really shouldn't edit or delete your posts after they have been replied to, it really is bad form .

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 06:56AM

marienbad wrote: »

No Problemo , as silverharp has already asked '' how evolution ties into the story of adam.'' ?

I think I've already outlined my beliefs pretty thoroughly in this thread so far. There are three main beliefs here

1. I believe that there are two major Christian doctrines called the Creation and the Fall. I have, at no point in this thread, argued that you or anyone else should believe these doctrines. I've stated that they are basic Christian doctrines. These can be defined as follows:
a) God is the maker of all things.
b) Mankind was in a state of innocence and chose to sin, losing his relationship with God.

Neither of those doctrines are contradicted by the theory of evolution. It is entirely possible that evolution was the method that God used to create humanity. The theory of evolution describes what scientists think happened, it says nothing about whether anyone initiated or guided the process. Nor does the theory of evolution address issues of sin or relationship with God.

2. I believe that theistic evolutionists present two main theories about Adam. I have not argued in this thread that you or anyone else should believe them, but I have explained them as beliefs that are held by many Christians. I am open-minded to the possibility of either of them being true. These can be defined as follows:
a) Adam was a literal figure. As such he was an evolved humanoid who was the first being in whom God implanted a spirit (this being what the Creation story means by being made in the image of God). This spirit enabled Adam to be God-conscious, a trait which does not appear to be possessed by the rest of the animals who, according to the definition advanced by many in this thread, are atheists. Adam chose to disobey God and this led to moral degeneration.
b) Adam was not a literal figure, but is rather used in the Creation story to represent 'mankind' (Adam, of course, is the Hebrew word for 'mankind'). Mankind evolved from lower life forms and, at some stage, developed a God-consciousness and a sense of morality. Mankind chose to commit sin and hence commits immoral acts such as murder, rape and telling lies about other people on internet discussion boards.

3. I believe that theistic evolutionists treat the Creation story as just that, a story. It teaches foundational truth about the Creation and the Fall, but the details are not important. This was a common teaching tool in the Semitic world for thousands of years.

None of these views, as far as I can see, are in conflict with the theory of evolution.

If you, marienbad, think they do so, then it is up to you to demonstrate where and how. Rational argument is preferred to personal comments.

God bless you.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 07:08AM

Safehands wrote: »

Is evidence important to you Nick? It's just that you never seem to use any.

Now, presumably you aren't speaking about my life as a whole since you know squat diddly about me. Also, that would be a personal attack, attacking the poster rather than addressing the post, which we both know would be against the Forum Charter.

So, I'm going to charitably assume that you are addressing the post, but that you just didn't make a very good job of expressing yourself.

You claim that I never seem to use evidence in my posts. I think that is a falsehood.

So I'm calling you out on it. Back up that allegation or withdraw it.

Please link to three posts of mine where I have advanced arguments for which I was not prepared to use evidence. There are over 400 posts beside my name, and boards.ie has a search function. If I really never seem to use evidence then it should be very easy indeed to find three arguments that I have advanced and, when challenged, failed to produce evidence.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 07:28AM

silverharp wrote: »

some basic morality in terms of empathy etc. can be observed in the animal kingdom,a tiny example but I remember a few cases where kids fell into monkey enclosures in Zoos and they were protected by one of the females until the staff came to help,

That is not evidence of morality. There could be any number of causes for that action without it being the operation of a sense of right or wrong.

Kin selection in Humans has an evolved feel about, why would we instinctively put ourselves at risk for direct family before friends or the general public?

Unfortunately a vague sense that something "has an evolved feel about it" falls a wee bit short of the kind of evidence that we would look for you to be presenting in constructing a convincing argument against God's existence.

Why do psychopaths who have differently wired brains lack empathy?
Im not an evolutionary biologist so maybe someone can chip in here, but I understand science has done a lot of research in this area and havnt been overly stumped or have any particular "god gap" that they are worried about.If the point worries you, you research the science material and post up some points where there is a gap that needs to be filled by God?

I've never advanced a 'God of the gaps' argument. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

What you're presenting is simply saying, 'It could have happened this way.' You have presented absolutely nothing that counts as real evidence that God did not impart a human spirit into man. Maybe you can present some fossils where the bones show a developing morality?

I note that you're trying to switch the discussion here. Instead of providing evidence that the doctrine of the Fall is in conflict with the science of human origins, you're now asking me to go looking for gaps that I never claimed existed.

One of your initial points was that God gave humans a soul, which is a different question from where did morality come from, which at least can be looked at in terms of brain chemistry and other science disciplines.

It was a spirit, actually, which is a different thing entirely. The spirit is that part of us that can communicate with God, or give us a troubled conscience when we do something that benefits ourselves, yet deep-down we know we've done something wrong.

You may speculate about brain chemistry all you like. That's grand. But it doesn't constitute evidence that God did not impart a spirit to mankind, or that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall conflict in any way with what science tells us about human origins.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 07:35AM

orubiru wrote: »

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that God "imprinted" morality onto Man at some arbitrary point in the past?

Or are you just saying that nobody can prove that it didn't happen?

I don't think that proving Man somehow "evolved" his morality would disprove the existence of God. It would cast doubt on the historical reality of the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story. I don't think anyone was claiming the story as anything more than just a story though, right?

I really feel like you are attempting to "debunk" Silverharp's points when you dont really have to.

Why not tell us where you think morality came from then. Was it non-existent one day and God just came along and gave it to one or two humams, or all humans, or what?

I genuinely don't know what you believe here?

I am saying that the Christian doctrine of the Fall is not in conflict with what science tells us about human origins.

Since silverharp is apparently arguing that it does, I'm asking him to demonstrate how. He has not done so.

I do happen to believe that God gave us a sense of morality, but I am open to how that happened. It may have evolved gradually, or maybe one day a humanoid reached that point suddenly (which is also consistent with some views whereby evolution can happen in sudden leaps). I'm not arguing for one or the other since, unlike some in this forum, I don't like to present arguments that cannot be supported by evidence.

RikuoAmero · 19-03-2015 07:57AM

I don't like to present arguments that cannot be supported by evidence.

The spirit is that part of us that can communicate with God, or give us a troubled conscience when we do something that benefits ourselves, yet deep-down we know we've done something wrong.

Just chipping in here to ask...where's your evidence for that bit about spirit? Note, I'm not here to debate, I'm just here to ask for evidence. If you're going to demand from others that they provide evidence, then surely you'd do the same for your yourself, right?
Just to clarify, I'm not getting back into the debate. I won't attempt to critique whatever you reply back with, I'm only asking that you hold yourself to the same standards that you ask of others.
Please whatever you do, don't reply back with something along the lines of "I don't have to do that, due to the charter". That's a cop-out, a way for the Christians in this debate to never have to back up their arguments.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 08:59AM

Nick Park wrote: »

That is not evidence of morality. There could be any number of causes for that action without it being the operation of a sense of right or wrong.

its just an example that higher primates are social animals unlike a Shark say. they have evolved to live in groups and to nurture young. They have a sense of justice , I remember watching an animal documentary where they experimented with monkeys introducing tokens for food and then rewarding the monkeys in an unfair way and the monkeys reacted to this. So I conclude that we evolved higher emotions as our brains evolved. If you want to conclude that god guided this using the same process that guided the process of developing the eye say, then fine , except there is no evidence.

Nick Park wrote: »

Unfortunately a vague sense that something "has an evolved feel about it" falls a wee bit short of the kind of evidence that we would look for you to be presenting in constructing a convincing argument against God's existence.

its not an argument against god existence, Im stating that evolution states that higher brain function evolved

Nick Park wrote: »

What you're presenting is simply saying, 'It could have happened this way.' You have presented absolutely nothing that counts as real evidence that God did not impart a human spirit into man. Maybe you can present some fossils where the bones show a developing morality?

I dont know what "human spirit" means , I know that higher brain functions are a function of the brain , damage the brain and you can reduce the traits that make us human.

Nick Park wrote: »

I note that you're trying to switch the discussion here. Instead of providing evidence that the doctrine of the Fall is in conflict with the science of human origins, you're now asking me to go looking for gaps that I never claimed existed.

I am saying the doctrine of the Fall doesnt make sense , man has evolved from a more instinctual animal to a more thinking one. A monkey probably wouldnt be able to follow a traffic light system or instigate a court system. A caveman again wouldnt have been able to run a courts system as they didnt have a language or ability to write and record laws.

Nick Park wrote: »

It was a spirit, actually, which is a different thing entirely. The spirit is that part of us that can communicate with God, or give us a troubled conscience when we do something that benefits ourselves, yet deep-down we know we've done something wrong.

You may speculate about brain chemistry all you like. That's grand. But it doesn't constitute evidence that God did not impart a spirit to mankind, or that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall conflict in any way with what science tells us about human origins.

Well I'd still like to know how you think the fall happened. genetically I believe the minimum population of what would be described as early humans was around 5000 , they would have been spread over a wide area with little or no contact with each other. Are you suggesting that God approached all these 5000 , some of them? 2 of them? and based on some initial contact that went wrong , punished them or such? how did he communicate with people that had no prior concept of a god and wouldnt have had the language to follow a higher code.

Peregrinus · 19-03-2015 09:23AM

silverharp wrote: »

its just an example that higher primates are social animals unlike a Shark say. they have evolved to live in groups and to nurture young. They have a sense of justice . . .

Nitpick: I'm not sure we can say this. All we can say is that on occasion we observe monkey behaviours which parallel behaviours in ourselves that we ascribe to our sense of justice (or to some other moral sense). We can't say, though, that the monkeys have a sense of justice; they may just be driven by instinct to exhibit behaviours resembling those which (we like to think!) we adopt out of a sense of justice.

silverharp wrote: »

. . . I remember watching an animal documentary where they experimented with monkeys introducing tokens for food and then rewarding the monkeys in an unfair way and the monkeys reacted to this. So I conclude that we evolved higher emotions as our brains evolved.

Maybe we did, but so what? I don't think mainstream Christianity buys into a dichotomy in which something is either the product of evolution or the work of God. Evolution, like any other natural process, is itself the outworking of creation; it can just as readily be attributed to God as any other aspect of created reality. Mainstream Christianity has asserted since at least the time of Aquinas that divine intentions can be realised through chance and contingent processes and events, so the fact that something evolved is no way an objection to or rebuttal of the claim that it is part of a divine plan.

silverharp wrote: »

If you want to conclude that god guided this using the same process that guided the process of developing the eye say, then fine , except there is no evidence.

What evidence would you expect? For what it's worth, the Christian position is that both the evolution of humanity and the evolution of the eye are the outworking of divine providence. This doesn't require any special intervention by God into the way events would otherwise unfold.

God, in the Christian view, is not invoked primarily to explain why particular events unfolded this way instead of that way; he's invoked to explain why any events unfold at all. That's first and foremost a philosophical proposition about the meaning and signifcance of existence rather than a scientific proposition about the processes of nature. As such, it's a fundamental category error to look for scientific evidence in support of it, or to object to the lack of scientific evidence for it.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 09:24AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I am saying that the Christian doctrine of the Fall is not in conflict with what science tells us about human origins.

Since silverharp is apparently arguing that it does, I'm asking him to demonstrate how. He has not done so.

I do happen to believe that God gave us a sense of morality, but I am open to how that happened. It may have evolved gradually, or maybe one day a humanoid reached that point suddenly (which is also consistent with some views whereby evolution can happen in sudden leaps). I'm not arguing for one or the other since, unlike some in this forum, I don't like to present arguments that cannot be supported by evidence.

But based on human nature up to such a point I could tell you in an instant that no group of humans would ever knuckle under and follow anything much less a deity unfailingly for ever. Would a supreme being not be aware of this and not be so vindictive? What other result was god expecting?
The genesis account only makes sense as a story if you believe God zapped humans into existance.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 09:38AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

What evidence would you expect?

The burden of proof in favour of the existence of a "God" lies solely with those that believe in a such a supernatural entity actually exists, not on non believers. For Atheists like me whom live in a society were belief in the supernatural is still prevalent and which effects our daily lives are effected by it, we ask what proof do you have to propagate your beliefs and dictate policies based on religion/clergymen that claim to know the mind of God.
Personally I don't expect any evidence because there is non to provide as it would have been provided by now! Faith, hearsay, myth, legend, religious epiphanies/awakenings are not evidence that is testable are verifiable!
Claiming that God does not need to be invoked to explain his creation is the greatest get out of jail card religion has! If he happened to be invoked to explain his creation I would love to know why his creations are so defective and barely able to function! 99.9% of all animals that ever existed have gone extinct!

Peregrinus · 19-03-2015 09:49AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

The burden of proof in favour of the existence of a "God" lies solely with those that believe in a such a supernatural entity actually exists, not on non believers. For Atheists like me whom live in a society were belief in the supernatural is still prevalent and which effects our daily lives are effected by it, we ask what proof do you have to propagate your beliefs and dictate policies based on religion/clergymen that claim to know the mind of God.
Personally I don't expect any evidence because there is non to provide as it would have been provided by now! Faith, hearsay, myth, legend, religious epiphanies/awakenings are not evidence that is testable are verifiable!

Sure. But equally you have entirely secular notions (such as "justice", which silverharp invokes) which are just as unevidenced. Yet lots of people seek to propagate beliefs and, as you rather pejoratively put it, "dictate policies" on the basis of claims they make about justice (or equality, or fairness, or respect, or dignity, or a host of other philosophical concepts).

I repeat, it's a fundamental category error to look for "evidence" or "proof" or "verification" of philosophical assertions as though they were scientific theories.

19-03-2015 09:55AM

silverharp wrote: »

its just an example that higher primates are social animals unlike a Shark say. they have evolved to live in groups and to nurture young. They have a sense of justice , I remember watching an animal documentary where they experimented with monkeys introducing tokens for food and then rewarding the monkeys in an unfair way and the monkeys reacted to this. So I conclude that we evolved higher emotions as our brains evolved. If you want to conclude that god guided this using the same process that guided the process of developing the eye say, then fine , except there is no evidence....

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I'm not sure we can say this. All we can say is that on occasion we observe monkey behaviours which parallel behaviours in ourselves that we ascribe to our sense of justice (or to some other moral sense). We can't say, though, that the monkeys have a sense of justice; they may just be driven by instinct to exhibit behaviours resembling those which (we like to think!) we adopt out of a sense of justice.

...

Perhaps slightly OT, but quite interesting nonetheless when discussing morality etc in primates.

The Effect of money on Primates

silverharp · 19-03-2015 10:02AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I'm not sure we can say this. All we can say is that on occasion we observe monkey behaviours which parallel behaviours in ourselves that we ascribe to our sense of justice (or to some other moral sense). We can't say, though, that the monkeys have a sense of justice; they may just be driven by instinct to exhibit behaviours resembling those which we like to think!) we adopt out of a sense of justice.

Maybe we did, but so what? I don't think mainstream Christianity buys into a dichotomy in which something is either the product of evolution or the work of God. Evolution, like any other natural process, is itself the outworking of creation; it can just as readily be attributed to God as any other aspect of created reality. Mainstream Christianity has asserted since at least the time of Aquinas that divine intentions can be realised through chance and contingent processes and events, so the fact that something evolved is no way an objection to or rebuttal of the claim that it is part of a divine plan.

What evidence would you expect? For what it's worth, the Christian position is that both the evolution of humanity and the evolution of the eye are the outworking of divine providence. This doesn't require any special intervention by God into the way events would otherwise unfold.

God, in the Christian view, is not invoked primarily to explain why particular events unfolded this way instead of that way; he's invoked to explain why any events unfold at all. That's first and foremost a philosophical proposition about the meaning and signifcance of existence rather than a scientific proposition about the processes of nature. As such, it's a fundamental category error to look for scientific evidence in support of it, or to object to the lack of scientific evidence for it.

That's a more reasonable position , so there is nothing controversial that evolution is the observable mechanisms for why we have the brains that we do?
But like my post above , does the fall only make sense if humans were perfect and decided to be selfish yada yada? If humans have come from a more animalistic state to how we are now , have we not progressed not gone backwards?
Rejecting god because it has not even chosen to leave any particular evidence of its existence doesn't sound like a "fall" to me. At best one can read the Genesis account as a rigged game given the nature of man and the lack of information and contact from said deity.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 10:11AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But equally you have entirely secular notions (such as "justice", which silverharp invokes) which are just as unevidenced. Yet lots of people seek to propagate beliefs and, as you rather pejoratively put it, "dictate policies" on the basis of claims they make about justice (or equality, or fairness, or respect, or dignity, or a host of other philosophical concepts).

I repeat, it's a fundamental category error to look for "evidence" or "proof" or "verification" of philosophical assertions as though they were scientific theories.

There is much more thoughtful and useful philosophical assertions from Shakesphere, Plato, Socrates.......... God did not use these great philosophers as conduits, they formulated an idea then evolved it! Humans evolved as social creatures and with it senses of communal justice and fairness. How did anyone reach Mt Sinai at all if all they did was murder,rape and steal until a burning bush told a mythical Moses that it was all naughty and forbidden! As a matter of fact how did any civilization ever survive post Moses or like the Inca/Maya whom had thriving civilizations!
Now the Churches do dictate polices based on their beliefs (Sharia Law) not their in built sense of right and wrong they obtained through evolution. Instead their religious beliefs in the supernatural override this and cause some of the most absorb and irrational policies imaginable (Female Genital Mutilation)!
I am happy to believe we evolved with a sense of right and wrong but I am not willing to throw my common sense and rational thinking away so as to believe in a supernatural being that cannot be and has not been proven to exist for over 3000 years of monotheism for exsample!

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 10:27AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Just chipping in here to ask..

Welcome back to the thread (again). I know that, as a Christian, I worship someone who has promised a Second Coming - but three or four times is a tad excessive.

Ah, but wait ......

Just to clarify, I'm not getting back into the debate.

So, not a literal return, eh? More of a metaphysical thing? RikuoAmero's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, but his ghost still marches on?

Just chipping in here to ask...where's your evidence for that bit about spirit? ... I'm just here to ask for evidence. If you're going to demand from others that they provide evidence, then surely you'd do the same for your yourself, right?

And I'm happy to provide evidence for every argument that I advance.

The context, remember, was that silverharp is apparently arguing that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall conflict with what science tells us about human origins. Therefore I have been asking him to provide evidence to back up that argument - evidence which is still not forthcoming.

As part of that discussion, I clarified what Christians believe in order to demonstrate that no such conflict existed.

That was where "that bit about spirit" came in. Nowhere did I argue for the existence of the spirit. I simply clarified the Christian belief and asked silverharp where the conflict was.

So, I am happy to provide evidence to support my argument that Christian belief about the spirit refers to the part of us that can communicate with God. This can be demonstrated by consulting pretty much any of the standard texts of Systematic Theology. For example, in Abraham Kuyper's Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology (1898) we read the following: "Inspiration rests upon the antithesis between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man, and indicates that the Spirit of God enlists into His service the spirit of man, disposes of it, and uses it as His conscious or unconscious organ." (page 506).

Peregrinus · 19-03-2015 10:27AM

silverharp wrote: »

That's a more reasonable position , so there is nothing controversial that evolution is the observable mechanisms for why we have the brains that we do?
But like my post above , does the fall only make sense if humans were perfect and decided to be selfish yada yada? If humans have come from a more animalistic state to how we are now , have we not progressed not gone backwards?

Well, of course, we could have done both. We observe in nature that things tend to proceed from order to disorder rather than the other way around - atoms decay, systems disintegrate, energy dissipates - and in fact one of the objections raised (not by me!) to claims about the evolution of life is that it involves a highly complex and ordered system developing out of a much simpler one, which is not what we would expect.

But, leaving aside that wider objection to evolution, if we accept that there's any merit in the observation about nature tending towards disorder at least some of the time, then it's entirely plausible that the evolutionary "ascent of man", to borrow a phrase, hasn't been a completely steady trajectory in one direction, and that it may wrap up a few declines along the way, including conceivably a moral decline. That wouldn't be my take on things, for what it's worth, but it's a conceivable take.

silverharp wrote: »

Rejecting god because it has not even chosen to leave any particular evidence of its existence doesn't sound like a "fall" to me. At best one can read the Genesis account as a rigged game given the nature of man and the lack of information and contact from said deity.

It seems to me possible (and easily defensible) to read the Genesis story on the basis that the event it describes is entirely mythic. It's not just that there was no fruit and no serpent, but that there was no primal event of disobedience. But the text could still have validity, value, worth, truth (or what you will) as an explanation of our nature, our moral vulnerability, and the position it places us in with respect to God. In other words, the "original sin" of stealing fruit doesn't just represent a primal event in which humanity committed some sin which wasn't, in fact, stealing fruit; it represents human sinfulness itself.

It's been said - I can't recall by who - that the Christian belief in "original sin" is the one Christian doctrine for which there is abundant historical evidence. On the one hand, we really do have a sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, selflessness and selfishness; we all know this from our own experience. On the other hand, we really do behave in ways which that sense tells us are wrong and destructive, and sometimes on a spectacular scale. We don't just take the last biscuit, say, or lie to get sex after a feed of pints - we commit genocide, we drop atomic bombs on undefended cities, we launch wars to defend a standard of living which is environmentally unsustainable, we spend our money on premium petfood for our cats while other people's children children starve. We really do fall short, morally speaking, of what we know we should be. It seems to me that the Genesis story is, at a minimum, an acknowledgement of that truth and an attempt to point to the way in which it fundamentally marks what it is to be human; how, all the time, our own failings f*ck up our experience of what it is to be human (our "expulsion from the garden").

If you're not a theist you can stop there. If you are a theist, though, then the Genesis story also addresses the implication of this imperfection for our relationship with God.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 10:34AM

silverharp wrote: »

Well I'd still like to know how you think the fall happened. genetically I believe the minimum population of what would be described as early humans was around 5000 , they would have been spread over a wide area with little or no contact with each other. Are you suggesting that God approached all these 5000 , some of them? 2 of them? and based on some initial contact that went wrong , punished them or such? how did he communicate with people that had no prior concept of a god and wouldnt have had the language to follow a higher code.

Really? So you're now arguing that not only was there not a first human being, but there wasn't a first 10, or a first 100, or even a first 1000 human beings? Instead you're arguing that we went straight from there being no human beings to there being 5000 occurring simultaneously in one generation?

That is a truly remarkable claim. Based on our interaction so far, I'm guessing that I would just be wasting my time if I asked you to provide evidence for this amazing event?

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 10:36AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

- we commit genocide, we drop atomic bombs on undefended cities, we launch wars to defend a standard of living which is environmentally unsustainable, we spend our money on premium petfood for our cats while other people's children children starve. We really do fall short, morally speaking, of what we know we should be. It seems to me that the Genesis story is, at a minimum, an acknowledgement of that truth and an attempt to point to the way in which it fundamentally marks what it is to be human; how, all the time, our own failings f*ck up our experience of what it is to be human (our "expulsion from the garden").

If you're not a theist you can stop there. If you are a theist, though, then the Genesis story also addresses the implication of this imperfection for our relationship with God.

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

It appears the Biblical God is not above the occasional bouts of genocide! The bible on a number occasion totally contradicts what most rational people would do! Even if God was real I would disobey as a continuous objector to killing Amalkite children and I love Donkeys!!!!

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 11:01AM

Nick Park wrote: »

Really? So you're now arguing that not only was there not a first human being, but there wasn't a first 10, or a first 100, or even a first 1000 human beings? Instead you're arguing that we went straight from there being no human beings to there being 5000 occurring simultaneously in one generation?

That is a truly remarkable claim. Based on our interaction so far, I'm guessing that I would just be wasting my time if I asked you to provide evidence for this amazing event?

There was no first human! If you take any example from the fossil record of any species all you are observing for example a single frame from a movie that is very very very long in duration, a snapshot of evolution in motion. It was a progression of these frames that made up the evolution of our species! No species was catapulted to earth from "Gods" hands!

silverharp · 19-03-2015 11:12AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, of course, we could have done both. We observe in nature that things tend to proceed from order to disorder rather than the other way around - atoms decay, systems disintegrate, energy dissipates - and in fact one of the objections raised (not by me!) to claims about the evolution of life is that it involves a highly complex and ordered system developing out of a much simpler one, which is not what we would expect.

But, leaving aside that wider objection to evolution, if we accept that there's any merit in the observation about nature tending towards disorder at le,........

Entropy is defined as disorder in a closed system , the earth isn't a closed system. In the lab bacteria have been observed creating new DNA. So I dont think that particular line of reasoning leads anywhere

Sure the scale of "evil" that man can do has grown but that's a function of technology. I would argue that certain political ideas can lead to some crimes that wouldn't happen under a different system. For instance I'm sure in the past kings would prefer to take cities so that they could tax them instead of blowing them to bits but the behaviour depends on technology , and the political system not any perceived decline in moral character.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 11:24AM

Nick Park wrote: »

Really? So you're now arguing that not only was there not a first human being, but there wasn't a first 10, or a first 100, or even a first 1000 human beings? Instead you're arguing that we went straight from there being no human beings to there being 5000 occurring simultaneously in one generation?

That is a truly remarkable claim. Based on our interaction so far, I'm guessing that I would just be wasting my time if I asked you to provide evidence for this amazing event?

You don't seem to grasp the nature of evolution , it wasn't like the movie the rise of the planet of the apes. If you sent cameras back in time at no particular point could one say "there, that one". Human DNA contains DNA from neanderthals for instance. And the process was very slow . as I understand the human gene pool can be traced back to a number of about 5000 , I'll look it up this evening if you wish.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments