Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Neon Genesis on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:08 pm

[quote="Stegocephalian"]
Objectivitees wrote:


"Evolution is an accurate description of the history of life, but along the way, God intervened with miracles to guide evolution towards certain paths rather than others, to ensure an outcome he liked."

That would be theistic evolution, and the theory of evolution really has no comment on it, because it is an appeal to the supernatural, and unfalsifiable, which makes it outside the perview of science: this is because of the commitment to methodological naturalism.


Interestingly, Bishop John Shelby Spong is a progressive Christian who believes in panentheism and he has a radically different view of God vs science than even most theistic evolutionists do: http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=656

Neon Genesis

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-09-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Stegocephalian on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:43 pm

Thanks for the link Neon Genesis - that was an interesting article, especially it's brief history of the lay-religious resistance to evolution.

There are, of course a multitude of ways that Christians interpret what it means to be Christian, ranging from biblical innerrancy and the fundamentalism surrounding it, all the way to Christians who think most of the Bible is mythical writing, who's value is in whatever lessons we can glean of it. There's Christian mysticism, and it's not infrequently that when I discuss their beliefs with a Christian in more detail, they come out sounding very much like some of the early variants of Christianity which (what became the) orthodox view condemned as heresy (like Arianism - the belief that Jesus is not of the same substance as God, and that Jesus was created, and not an eternal being).

That's not what fundamentalist Christianity likes to acknowledge though - for them there's a sharp dichotomy: it's either their interpretation of Christianity, or no Christianity - not even God belief - of any sort.

Stegocephalian

Posts : 73
Join date : 2009-09-08

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-godless

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  jgrow2 on Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:11 pm

What is so fascinating about Spong's writing is his notion of the perfectibility of man, and that that is the thread that runs through the gospels. He and other Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian priests looked to this more open interpretation of Jesus' ministry in the '50s and '60s, culminating in Pope John XXIII's backing of Vatican II. This included a more metaphoric and symbolic interpretation of scripture and an openness to the more useful methods of spiritual contemplation found in the mystical arms of the Catholic church (Johannes Eckhart, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing come to mind here and are mentioned often).

In order for Christianity to be relevant and survive, it must move away from blind literalism and even more blind loyalty to scripture and toxic traditionalism in favor of a more internalized, more robustly active program of self-improvement and service to others in this life, not the so-called "hereafter." This view of Christianity by the way can survive scientific explanations of the world and its workings because it's less about clutching onto irrelevant scripture and outmoded beliefs and more about making life more bearable now.

This was the view I took from Spong's writings, and the writings of Thomas Merton and Thomas Keating. Of course the problem with this, so goes my cynical mind, is that the Benny Hinns and Joel Osteens of this world can't make money off this. Like living in a democracy, it implies and requires a well-informed populace, and does not need authority figures to sustain itself.

This might be why the efforts of Vatican II failed when John XXIII died, and was replaced by a succession of conservative popes up to the current one.

jgrow2

Posts : 102
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 48
Location : Arizona

http://turboblues.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Neon Genesis on Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:51 pm

What I find interesting about that particular article of Spong's is that most theistic evolutionists will argue there is no conflict between "traditional" religion and evolution and simply interpret Genesis symbolically while still holding onto the doctrine of Original Sin. But Spong takes a completely different approach and accepts there are conflicts between religion and science but redefines God in pantheistic terms.

Neon Genesis

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-09-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  jgrow2 on Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:27 pm

Neon Genesis wrote:What I find interesting about that particular article of Spong's is that most theistic evolutionists will argue there is no conflict between "traditional" religion and evolution and simply interpret Genesis symbolically while still holding onto the doctrine of Original Sin. But Spong takes a completely different approach and accepts there are conflicts between religion and science but redefines God in pantheistic terms.

No original sin = no need for saving = no need to harp on our indebtedness to Christ. Also, no original sin = no need for saving = no need for guidance toward salvation by a pastor (Latin "shepherd") = no need for the church, whether its the big ol' Catholic cathedral, the megachurch outside town or the little collectives who hole up in abandoned storefronts.

Where are these thieves going to get their money then?

jgrow2

Posts : 102
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 48
Location : Arizona

http://turboblues.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Neon Genesis on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:22 am

jgrow2 wrote:

No original sin = no need for saving = no need to harp on our indebtedness to Christ. Also, no original sin = no need for saving = no need for guidance toward salvation by a pastor (Latin "shepherd") = no need for the church, whether its the big ol' Catholic cathedral, the megachurch outside town or the little collectives who hole up in abandoned storefronts.

Where are these thieves going to get their money then?
Spong also has a whole chapter in his book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die about why Christians need to move past the language of Jesus as a Rescuer. He also joked about how the purpose of bishops is to wear fancy clothes and walk around.

Neon Genesis

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-09-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  jgrow2 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:34 am

Neon Genesis wrote:Spong also has a whole chapter in his book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die about why Christians need to move past the language of Jesus as a Rescuer. He also joked about how the purpose of bishops is to wear fancy clothes and walk around.

Jesus always made more sense to me as the exemplar of behavior, not the rescuer of little children. I think that's why I like the Jesus of Mark but loathe the one in John. In all though, Jesus is lost in the noise of transcription errors and competing theologies. Useless unless you want to use it to cow the rubes into thinking they're total crap without you and your special storybook Jesus to led them out of the mud.

Also, since Spong was a bishop, if I'm not mistaken, he would know what bishops really are. I admire his writing a great deal, though it feels too much to me like he's trying to justify his recent realizations against what he grew up with and invested so much time in. Hard to cast that kind of thing aside I guess.

jgrow2

Posts : 102
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 48
Location : Arizona

http://turboblues.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:54 pm

Really sorry guys... been very busy, I haven't forgotten the topic, I will read and reply when I can, hopefully later today...thanks for your patience!

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:01 pm

Evolution is only an origins story when it comes to the origin of biological species on Earth, given that life already exists. That's the extent of it. All the other origins (the origin of life, the origin of the elements, the origin of solar systems, the origin of the universe, the origin of the laws of physics, etc.) are dealt with in other theories, and not by evolution.

Steg, you cannot separate Evolutionary theory as an origin story of biological species from the origin story of “All the other” origin stories because without explaining the origin of matter, you don’t have a basis for explaining the origin of life (abiogenesis) and thus, Evolution. Therefore despite your claim, Evolution does stand opposed to Creation as I posited earlier, and as the OP implies.

I won't do it, if you won't. Looks like you are doing it with the term "evolution" though, which is what we why we have to deal with this before going on; you don't get to define what "evolution" means - it is a scientific term, denoting a scientific theory regarding the history and origin of diversity of life on Earth. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more - as I explained to you in quite some detail, and I will go into more detail yet in this post.

The “detail” is really not necessary, since as I explained above, Evolution is opposed to Creation without having to “define” the word differently than you do, as proof I’m not trying to redefine it, I am perfectly ok with your explanation of it as you did here, a “scientific theory” dealing with the origin of “life”. As such, it is still tied necessarily to naturalistic explanations. I’d really prefer it if you didn’t make me read a novel with each response. As a ‘theory’ dealing with ‘life’, from either a naturalistic or evolutionary view of the world, one still cannot explain the origin of logic without borrowing the construct from worldviews that allow for a metaphysic.

Can we agree to keep our exchanges shorter? After this, I’ll try if you do.


Evolution, like all scientific theories, is tied to methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. I am a philosophical naturalist - that's my world view. Methodological naturalism is not a world view - it is an epistemological view. A view of how to proceed about gaining knowledge and understanding of the world.

Yes, it’s an epistemological view, one that presupposes Philosophical naturalism, Naturalism, and Evolution. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Like I said three times now, I don’t mind if you proceed with your attempt to explain the existence of logic from within the naturalistic worldview so could you please spare me the definitions? Trust me, I know them well, but I don’t have time to re-read them all in your own words.

Now, I already noted Evolution is tied to naturalism, just as you did, and now you change the “goalpost” if you will to “methodological naturalism” as distinguished from “Philosophical naturalism” when you started at simply “naturalism”. It matters not what your worldview personally is. We (from the OP) are discussing Evolution. Evolution is a worldview, many people use it as such, but not you. That’s ok you don’t have to. However, since Evolution is tied to naturalism and philosophical naturalism, and methodological naturalism presupposes philosophical naturalism, you could just explain how methodological naturalism justifies the existence of logic. I don't mind. But really, as I asked directly before, can’t we just stay with the terms the OP used? It’s much less confusing that way.

Now, if what you mean by shifting the goalpost to “methodological naturalism” is that ‘logic is justified by the pragmatism of utilizing it’, you are going to run into a problem there too. That response fails to address the question I am asking…. where do the laws come from? How does Evolution (M.N., P.N. or N.) account for them, and justify their existence? What is the naturalistic explanation (origin story) for logic?

The existence of the laws of logic pose a serious problem for Evolution, laws of logic are not part of the physical world, not part of the universe, and therefore do not exist if Evolution (materialism) is true. If Evolution is true, you should be able to tell me where logic comes from.



Methodological naturalism does not claim that the world is fully naturalistic, and that there aren't any supernatural things - as far as methodological naturalism goes, there might be, or there might not be.

Actually, the methodological naturalist does not have to claim that the world is fully naturalistic, but only because a person can behave in a way that is inconsistent with their theories of reality. Methodological naturalism still has to explain things in terms of natural causes and events; therefore MN still has to explain where logic comes from. MN DOES presuppose the world is fully naturalistic and therefore must explain logic this way. This is the explanation I am asking you for.

The only thing methodological naturalism is concerned with is the epistemology of gaining knowledge, meaning that if there are miracles or supernatural things, they lie outside the explanatory scope of science, and cannot be appealed to in any scientific explanation.

So, now you agree with me? This has been my point all along. (Premise two) So, if ‘science’ can’t explain it’s existence, and yet science acknowledges it exists, and is a valid means (premise one), then isn’t it right to conclude logic must come from a supernatural cause? In conclusion, if logic comes from a (as you implied above) a ‘supernatural’ or ‘miraculous’ cause, and naturalism (any form) specifically excludes such causes, how can we rationally claim Evolution is true? We have to “borrow” an explanation of logic from some worldview that allows for a metaphysic. If we do that, we argue for the validity of that other worldview, because using logic to explain ours when ours does not explain or contain logic, presupposes that logic is true, and as a part of another worldview, it would have to be true, as would the rest of the worldview logic comes from, because if the rest of that worldview were false, then logic would be false too, as we both have already acknowledged, inconsistent worldviews should not be considered “true”. (or RATIONAL)

Any attempt here to say something to the effect of "well, science can't explain it yet, but as we advance our knowledge someday we will..." is nothing more than a 'rescuing device', and not in keeping with the laws of logic you use to explain the rest of your worldview. (it would be mere speculation)

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:49 pm

jgrow2 wrote:
Nathan Barley wrote:
Stegocephalian wrote:"This point I need you to get first. So either acknowledge it..."

I think we all know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of him acknowledging any such thing.

I am afraid so. I didn't see where Objectivitees has really said *what* his argument is. Is he arguing for a literal interpretation of the bible? If so, that's been refuted and deprecated several times over, both by the document itself and by the findings of science. Is it a deistic argument, where god winds the clock and walks away? Or like the "personal god," perhaps he sticks around and oils every little gear obsessively?

Steg is right, this seems more about naturalism versus creationism. Natural versus supernatural. Evolution is a fact with mounds of supporting evidence, and is not a "worldview" but an observable process. ...
I am still interested in seeing his "profession of faith," as I called it way back. To see what his viewpoint really is. To say "Christian" is really not enough as there are so many interpretations even of that appellation.

Jgrow, I believe I clearly posted a syllogism earlier in the thread, as to your comment on *what* my argument is. Anyhow, nice to see you back in the fray. Please note, I did not object to switching the terms of the argument to "Naturalism", and I did not object when naturalism was further split into "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism". I'd be happy to accept an explanation for the existence of logic from within any of those worldviews. The only objection I had was to the direction that takes the discussion by unnecessarily muddying the discussion with terminology and makes it difficult to follow and address. Therefore I suggested we dispense with all that, but it is not a demand, and clearly demonstrates this is not about me not understanding, equivocating, or evading.

As for my profession of faith, I have not forgotten you requested it, but it is not germane to the discussion at hand because I am not arguing for the validity of my position, I am arguing against the rationality of the Evolutionary/Naturalistic/Philosophical Naturalist/Methodological Naturalist/Atheist/Evidentialist/Empiricist/ position. We can have that chat in another thread at another time.


It's a process that could fit in a theistic setting, but not one that bible-readers would necessarily support because it doesn't favor one book over another.

Which brings us to the reason I am here on this thread. It's not "a process that could fit in a theistic setting" because theism allows for a metaphysic, and all these naturalistic worldviews don't. This is what I was pointing to when I noted the OP properly divided the subject into a debatable proposition using the law of the excluded middle. If this "process" were to be "fit in" it would make the worldview a type of theistic evolution, a position excluded from this conversation at the outset. The OP was right, if evolution is true, theism dies.

The reason I am here remember, is not to defend my faith, but to help you understand why "Christians might resist belief in Evolution". Many Christians see Evolution as a logically irrational position because it cannot explain the existence of nor justify the use of logic by means of it's own standards of explanation. (It just considers logic self-evident, which is premise one of my argument)

Logic allows the 'Evolutionist' to rationally explain his worldview. His worldview does not allow him to rationally explain the existence of the logic, where it comes from, why it exists, and what it is.

Logic allows the 'Creationist' to rationally explain his worldview. His worldview does allow him to explain it's existence, where it comes from, why it exists, and what it is.

This to the Creationist this is a more rational worldview, not because his view proves logic right, or that logic proves his view right but because logic affirms and explains his view, and his view justifies and explains the logic he uses... The Evolutionist is left without even the simple affirmation, let alone proof, only a rationally explained view, but no affirmation/justification of the logic used to do so, itself.


Last edited by Objectivitees on Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:06 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : typos)

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  jgrow2 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:58 am

Objectivitees wrote:Which brings us to the reason I am here on this thread. It's not "a process that could fit in a theistic setting" because theism allows for a metaphysic, and all these naturalistic worldviews don't. This is what I was pointing to when I noted the OP properly divided the subject into a debatable proposition using the law of the excluded middle. If this "process" were to be "fit in" it would make the worldview a type of theistic evolution, a position excluded from this conversation at the outset. The OP was right, if evolution is true, theism dies.

The reason I am here remember, is not to defend my faith, but to help you understand why "Christians might resist belief in Evolution". Many Christians see Evolution as a logically irrational position because it cannot explain the existence of nor justify the use of logic by means of it's own standards of explanation. (It just considers logic self-evident, which is premise one of my argument)

Logic allows the 'Evolutionist' to rationally explain his worldview. His worldview does not allow him to rationally explain the existence of the logic, where it comes from, why it exists, and what it is.

Logic allows the 'Creationist' to rationally explain his worldview. His worldview does allow him to explain it's existence, where it comes from, why it exists, and what it is.

This to the Creationist this is a more rational worldview, not because his view proves logic right, or that logic proves his view right but because logic affirms and explains his view, and his view justifies and explains the logic he uses... The Evolutionist is left without even the simple affirmation, let alone proof, only a rationally explained view, but no affirmation/justification of the logic used to do so, itself.

Using "naturalism" instead of "evolution" is really about clarifying the terms. You might not think so, but that may be because you do not fully grok evolution, or naturalism and the distinction between them. As someone whose religious belief depends on a creationist worldview you may not choose to fully understand it. I don't know and won't hazard a guess.

And Steg is quite correct. "Evolution" is strictly about how life went from simple forms to complex ones. It has nothing to say about the origin of those simple forms, and is not supposed to. We have pretty cohesive theories that are mainly the purview of chemistry--how amino acids formed on the early earth, how they may have grouped together to eventually form prokaryotes, which then ends the portion handled in chemistry. Experiments in the formation of amino acids given an environment similar to the young earth (3 to 3.5 billion years ago) have a lot to offer in terms of possible scenarios. Fascinating stuff, by the way.

The metaphysical aspect is the basic disconnect. Why Christians--or anyone who insists that a supernatural, extrasensory aspect exists though there is no empirical evidence (by definition) to support such a claim--will not accept any purely naturalistic, materialistic explanation of how life, the universe and everything work. It comes too close to deflating or dissipating aspects of who they are. It creates a condition where rationality fails and emotion takes over. Because anyone who uses religion to explain the universe, rather than to explain and comment on human behavior alone has overextended the metaphor.

Instead of accepting for example that the Genesis origins were conflicting explanations created in a pre-scientific environment and should hold no bearing whatsoever on how modern humans should get through the day, they expend a lot of time and energy and words wishing them true when the more elegant (and logical) explanations are found in science.

Evolution by natural selection explains the internal and external makeup of the human body, its inherent defects, and the similarity of humans to every mammalian species much more elegantly and coherently than Genesis does. If Genesis were literally true, god is a crummy designer. But, because literalist Christians have hitched their wagon to the notion of biblical infallibility and literalism, they are painted into a corner.

The verbal gymnastics required to support a creationist or biblical literalist worldview in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary should send a message as to the futility of such an endeavor. It doesn't, and we are bewildered at what is seen as willful ignorance. It's a bit like someone continuing to believe there is a little man in the refrigerator who turns off the light even after they're shown the light switch and where it hits the door.

jgrow2

Posts : 102
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 48
Location : Arizona

http://turboblues.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Neon Genesis on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:01 pm

Objectivitees wrote:Evolution is a worldview, many people use it as such, but not you.
Please cite an example of any legitimate scientist that is not a creationist who believes evolution is a worldview.

As for my profession of faith, I have not forgotten you requested it, but it is not germane to the discussion at hand because I am not arguing for the validity of my position, I am arguing against the rationality of the Evolutionary/Naturalistic/Philosophical Naturalist/Methodological Naturalist/Atheist/Evidentialist/Empiricist/ position. We can have that chat in another thread at another time.
But the moment anyone allows for the possibility that evolution might be contradictory and flawed, your god will immediately fly in to the rescue to save the day and be the knockdown explanation for everything and God is your "rescuing device" to use your phrase as you did just this in the post above where you claimed evolution was flawed, then jumped to the conclusion your beliefs must be right even though you're not trying to prove your beliefs.

Which brings us to the reason I am here on this thread. It's not "a process that could fit in a theistic setting" because theism allows for a metaphysic, and all these naturalistic worldviews don't. This is what I was pointing to when I noted the OP properly divided the subject into a debatable proposition using the law of the excluded middle. If this "process" were to be "fit in" it would make the worldview a type of theistic evolution, a position excluded from this conversation at the outset. The OP was right, if evolution is true, theism dies.
Even if one presumes a god exists that created the universe, how did God create the universe? If evolution is false, how do you then explain the process of how life got here? A naturalistic scientist cannot simply say God didn't create the universe because God doesn't exist as an explanation for how life arose. The naturalistic scientist still has to find an explanation to explain how we got from point a to point b. Likewise simply saying "Goddidit" does not explain how Goddidit, so even if you believe that God created the universe, you still have to explain how God got life from point a to point b. If you think evolution is false, what is your alternative theory to explain how life got here then? And you can't use God to explain it since you claimed in this post you aren't trying to prove your faith.

Neon Genesis

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-09-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:07 pm

Using "naturalism" instead of "evolution" is really about clarifying the terms. You might not think so, but that may be because you do not fully grok evolution, or naturalism and the distinction between them.

Good Lord people, which part of "it doesn't matter do you not understand? I said I was perfectly fine with not using 'Evolution' as a worldview, but as a component of the worldview "Naturalism", thus neatly dealing with your claim that I am equivocating, or not understanding ("grok"ing) or evading. All these worldviews you have mentioned have to accomplish the same task, which is to "naturally" explain the existence of Logic. So, I don't care which one you use, so can we dispense with the claim I don't understand, or that my argument is refuted because "Evolution" is not a worldview? I already said you may consider it not to be. The reason I am fine with it is because as a "component" of a more 'comprehensive' worldview, it, (and the worldview from which it comes) must still attempt to explain the existence of logic in natural terms.

When it comes down to it, your repetitive attempts to claim I am equivocating even though I am graciously allowing you to define your own terms, (several times now) shows an evasion on your part, and an inability (or unwillingness) to demonstrate logic exists in natural terms, (or Atheistic/Evidentialist/Naturalist/Philosophical naturalist/Methodological Naturalist/Evolutionist/Empiricist terms)which frankly, is what I have been saying you cannot accomplish from the beginning. (Premise Two)

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:16 pm

But the moment anyone allows for the possibility that evolution might be contradictory and flawed, your god will immediately fly in to the rescue to save the day and be the knockdown explanation for everything and God is your "rescuing device" to use your phrase as you did just this in the post above where you claimed evolution was flawed, then jumped to the conclusion your beliefs must be right even though you're not trying to prove your beliefs.

Not actually neon, "God" would not function as a rescuing device. "God" functions as an explanation. The claim "we may someday find out" functions as a rescuing device because it offers no explanation. Since naturalism does not have an explanation for logic, and "God" is the creationist explanation, naturalism stands as an unexplained assumption, where creation is an explained one.

I have not jumped to any conclusion other than Evolution/Naturalism cannot explain the existence of logic. I never said "My beliefs therefore must be right" I said they are explained.

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  jgrow2 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:08 pm

So I went back through the thread to play some catch-up. Here's what I found...

Objectivitees wrote:So, here's the argument...

1) Evolution makes an A Priori assumption that Logic is a valid means for deriving 'Knowledge' in order to posit "True" (or rational) claims, or refute "False" (or irrational) claims about the nature of Reality.

2) Evolution is incapable of Rationally justifying or affirming the the existence of Logic from within the paradigm of it's own worldview making Evolution a rationally unsupported belief, and Arbitrary. {Arbitrary beliefs are irrational. (Premise one)}

Steg's response to this was actually right on the money. In an environment where things can be perceived to happen in a logical sequence--a cause is followed by some effect, or a = b, b = c therefore a = c--those organisms that cannot perceive this sequence of events will be supplanted quickly by those that can. That is evolution by natural selection. In a given series of mutations over geologic time, those that can adapt to a given environment best will survive and multiply.

As you point out in the quote below, "Logic" is not a law of nature. It is a mental process. One of the many that has allowed homo sapiens to become dominant in spite of lacking the speed, power or weapons of other predators. One of our peculiar methods of problem solving is logic. It's not the only one.

Objectivitees wrote:Logic is a valid methodology for determining the truth or falsity of an idea. (premise one) Logic is not a physical property of the universe. Events "in nature" do not "obey" logic, they obey physical laws of nature. Logic is used to rationally describe these observations we have. Logic is not a physical law of nature, it is a conceptual law of reason to allow us to claim knowledge. That's my argument. You have to show it is, (a physical law of nature) and why it is from within the boundaries of Evolutionary thought. In short, you have to show a physical correspondent to a non-physical construct.

If your argument is that evolution/naturalism has to show that logic is a law of nature, that's laughably absurd. It has to do no such thing. It is sufficient to point out what Steg did: The process we call logic is a process that we evolved, whether as a meme passed on to children by demonstration or as a fuller rendering of the fight-or-flight reflex thanks to the dramatically enhanced memory retention, pattern-matching ability and deductive reasoning in the human brain. It's no more a law of nature than Murphy's Law is.

Neurobiology will come up with a fuller "hardware/software-based" explanation of the process of logic in the brain over time, I am sure. It has already provided sufficient explanations for other aspects of consciousness that pretty much do away forever with the notion of mind-body duality. Suffice to say, there is a naturalistic explanation for all our mental processes, not just logic.

To sum up:

To respond to Premise 1: One of the thought processes we use when employing the scientific method is logic. It is a method of understanding how the world works. But it is not the only one. Testable hypotheses and repeatable experiments come into play, which produce empirical data or "evidence" which is used to prove/disprove hypotheses. Logic does not imply real-world conditions, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

To respond to Premise 2: This is a false premise and you completely misunderstand what logic actually is. Logic is not a tangible device. Socrates didn't reach for his vial of Logic and grab the hemlock instead. It's a thought process. What you ask is like me holding out my hand and asking you to hand me Tuesday at 4 PM. Can't be done, and I would question the mental stability of the person that asks that it be done.

In other words, your second premise is completely invalid and a foolish statement to make, and ignorant in the classic sense of the word (meaning "lacking knowledge," not meant to be an insult).

Now if I have misunderstood your point, then you will have to be clearer in making it. I went back to make sure I understood where you were coming from because, as I feared would happen, this entire interchange has been nothing but cute wordplay. Which by the way is what happens when such debates occur without supporting evidence. We can surmise and spin tall tales all the live-long day but all they are without evidence is a waste of breath.

Also, to move forward to what you were saying to Neon,

Not actually neon, "God" would not function as a rescuing device. "God" functions as an explanation. The claim "we may someday find out" functions as a rescuing device because it offers no explanation. Since naturalism does not have an explanation for logic, and "God" is the creationist explanation, naturalism stands as an unexplained assumption, where creation is an explained one.

I have not jumped to any conclusion other than Evolution/Naturalism cannot explain the existence of logic. I never said "My beliefs therefore must be right" I said they are explained.

Using god to explain away things you do not know or have answers for is actually a rescuing device. It is rescuing you from the apparent sin of not knowing something. It's the response that a beleaguered parent gives to a small child, which is why it no longer works on mature adults who have no problem with saying, "I don't know." It's a cop-out. Saying that we may someday have an explanation is the proven right answer, because we've been able to answer a lot of stuff that used to be explained away by "god did it" by providing much more elegant, logical, rational explanations for things. For example, evolution. Natural selection is that elegant answer.

If you yourself are satisfied with a "god did it" explanation for things, I actually pity you because you're robbing yourself of the gift of learning and thinking for yourself. To me, that's as close to an actual sin as could exist in this world.

jgrow2

Posts : 102
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 48
Location : Arizona

http://turboblues.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Neon Genesis on Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:32 pm

Objectivitees wrote:

Good Lord people, which part of "it doesn't matter do you not understand? I said I was perfectly fine with not using 'Evolution' as a worldview, but as a component of the worldview "Naturalism", thus neatly dealing with your claim that I am equivocating, or not understanding ("grok"ing) or evading. All these worldviews you have mentioned have to accomplish the same task, which is to "naturally" explain the existence of Logic. So, I don't care which one you use, so can we dispense with the claim I don't understand, or that my argument is refuted because "Evolution" is not a worldview? I already said you may consider it not to be. The reason I am fine with it is because as a "component" of a more 'comprehensive' worldview, it, (and the worldview from which it comes) [b]must still attempt to explain the existence of logic in natural terms.

This is like saying since the bible says the Earth is flat and science says the Earth is a sphere, then the fact that the Earth is a sphere either is a worldview or apart of the worldview of naturalism and if you somehow prove the Earth is flat, this somehow proves God exists. I don't know a single Christian who would argue that proving the Earth is flat would prove the existence of God, so why are you using this non sequitur for evolution?

Not actually neon, "God" would not function as a rescuing device. "God" functions as an explanation. The claim "we may someday find out" functions as a rescuing device because it offers no explanation. Since naturalism does not have an explanation for logic, and "God" is the creationist explanation, naturalism stands as an unexplained assumption, where creation is an explained one.
Then what is your alternative explanation for how life arose? If it's not evolution, what was the process God used to create life? How did God cause life to arise? Why haven't you presented this alternative theory yet if it is an explanation?

Neon Genesis

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-09-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Stegocephalian on Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:32 am

Objectivitees, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, but as you yourself are clearly not managing to keep your posts brief, and as the subject matter often cannot be dealt briefly without compromising in the ideas expressed, if you want to discuss these matters, you might just have to be prepared to read more than just a few paragraphs per post.

First, you say that in speaking previously of "naturalism" and then pointing out the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism, I'm "moving the goalposts" - I'm doing nothing of the sort.

In my discussion of naturalism earlier, I was clearly referring to my world view, not to science. I have a world view that is consistent with science, but my world view and science aren't interchangeable. I am a philosophical naturalist by world view, while science ONLY commits itself to methodological naturalism. My response was to point this out to you when you claimed that I had tied evolution to "naturalism", implying that I had tied it inseprably to my particular world view - philosophical naturalism. I denied that, and I deny it still, I did nothing of the sort. Evolution - just like ALL scientific theories - is committed to methodological naturalism, which makes no claims at all at whether or not there exists any supernatural entities.

Methodological naturalism is a practical, pragmatic approach to research. The formation of hypothesis to explain observations in terms of the mechanisms behind them and the formation of empirically verifiable predictions to test those hypothesis.

Anything that does not yield itself to this method - any claim that cannot provide a mechanism, and cannot produce empirically testable predictions which make the claim vulnerable to being disproven, is a claim where science can only say: "no comment". Methodological naturalism is not, and cannot be a worldview, because it makes no claim as to the nature of things, it only is a practical guide of how to go about investigating things.

IF you say that the task of methodological naturalism is to explain the origin of logic, and therefore evolution has to explain the origin of logic, and you feel justified in rejecting evolution because you can't see it explaining logic, then, to be consistent, you MUST apply the same logic to all of science. The same criticism would apply to germ theory, theory of heliocentricity, theory of gravity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and indeed every theory of science, because they are ALL commited to methodological naturalism to exactly the same degree as evolution.

So why aren't you arguing against the validity of these theories on the same grounds?

The fact is that, as I have stated, the theory of evolution, just like any other theory of science, limits it's explanatory scope to a very strictly deliniated area of the natural world. It is not tied to any particular explanation for the origin of chemistry, of matter, of the universe - or any other explanation of any origin besides the origin of the diversity of life on Earth. This should not be difficult to understand - all theories work like this.

Evolution is thus just as compatible with abiogenesis (the naturalistic explanation of the origin of life) as it is with the idea that there was a supernatural entity called God who fashioned, in some way, the first living things, and placed them on Earth.

Likewise, evolution is just as compatible with eternal inflation (one of the naturalistic models that explain the origin of the universe) as it is with the idea that there was a supernatural entity called God who miraculously made the universe materialize as it is, instantaneusly into existence.

Given this, answer me this: how could "evolution" possibly qualify for a world view? It does not address, or even try to address the vast majority of questions a complete world view has to address! Calling "evolution" a world view makes no more sense than calling "quantum physics" a world view. Both theories explain some things, and make no comment at all on others.

You claiming that evolution is a worldview, is exactly equivalent to, if I were to claim that believing in an afterlife is a worldview. Believing in an afterlife is a part of many world views, most of which are mutually incompatible in their answers to many of the relevant questions that any complete world view must answer. Clearly JUST the belief in an afterlife is not a world view, though it can be a component of one.

The same applies to evolution - evolution only answers one of the many questions that a complete world view has to address; it doesn't even attempt to answer other questions than the origin of the diversity of life on Earth! It cannot conceivably be a world view.

The only people who claim it is a world view are creationists who don't believe in evolution. NOBODY who's spent any time thinking about the big questions, who accepts evolution, thinks of it as their world view. Thus it is a gross missrepresentation of the facts of the matter to call evolution a world view.

Evolution has no obligation at all to explain the origin of logic (aside from what I've already explained, the question of why species behave logically), any more than quantum physics, or germ theory has to explain the origin of logic. You can accept any of these theories quite without addressing the question of any origins besides the ones they respectively directly address.

Your argument is ENTIRELY and EXLUSIVELY an argument against philosophical naturalism, and whether or not your argument stands or falls has no implications at all on the question of whether or not evolution is true. I'm quite happy to discuss your argument, as it pretains to philosophical naturalism, but if you think that you are arguing against evolution with that argument, then you are simply fooling yourself - it misses that mark entirely, because someone who accepts evolution, but is NOT a philosophical naturalist, can simply answer your problem by agreeing with you: God made logic!

And that answer would not contradict their acceptance of evolution one iota!

Enough about that - I sincerely hope that I got my point across. It's not a difficult concept to understand that scientific theories only apply to what they are made to apply to, and do not bear any responsibility to explain things beyond that scope. It is only because the most visible proponents of creationism tend to consistently missuse the term "evolution" to denote a whole range of ideas completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, that it can often be so unnecessarily difficult to drive this simple point through to someone who's been educated on the matter entirely through creationist sources.

Now is your objection an argument against methodological naturalism? No, certainly not. Because methodological naturalism makes no claims on how things are, and it is a practical approach to evidence gathering and theorizing, which can only apply to questions of which we can form testable hypothesis.

How would you test the origin of logic? What empirical, falsifiable test could you make to choose between one explanation or the other? For this question to be a scientific one, you have to be able to answer that question. Can you? I can't.

This makes your question of the origin of logic not a question for science at all, but a question for metaphysics, for philosophy.

So, is your argument a good argument against philosophical naturalism? At least it IS an argument against philosophical naturalism, but I don't think it a good one, and here's why.

In order for something to require an explanation as to it's origin, there has to be some conceivable way in which that something could be different from what it is.

So, for example, you can validly ask the question: what is the origin of life? How did the first living things originate?

This is because it is entirely conceivable that no life would exist - one can easily imagine a world that is entirely sterile and dead. There is nothing that would make it theoretically impossible that life would not have originated.

Thus, the question of the origin of life is a good one.

How about this question: How did the roundness of circles originate?

This isn't a good question, because circles, by definition are round - they could not be otherwise. No world view has to explain the roundness of circles, because anything other than round would not be a circle by definition. Nobody has to have created the fact that circles are round, and no mechanism is needed to explain that fact - the fact is built into the definition of the word. It is inconceivable that this could be otherwise, god or no god, evolution or no evolution, big bang or no big bang, germ theory or no germ theory.

I'm saying that your question of the origin of logic is of this same nature - logic is what it is, because there exists no alternative to that state of affairs, god or no god. Thus logic has no origin, and needs no origin, it is true by definition.

Could God have made logic to be something else than it is? I don't think so. Could logic not exist, or be otherwise than it is if there was no gods? I have no reason to think so.

So my answer to your problem is that it is a non-problem - it is not a valid question in the first place. If you disagree, then you must be claiming that God might have made logic something else than it is. In other words, that it is not necessary that X is X. That it is conceivable that a state of affairs in which the law of identity doesn't apply would exist.

That goes directly against what logic IS. What makes logic so compelling in the first place is that there is no conceivable alternative to it. That X is X by definition entirely irrespective of any other facts about our world, or any conceivable world.

That's it, in a nutshel.

Stegocephalian

Posts : 73
Join date : 2009-09-08

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-godless

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Stegocephalian on Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:57 am

I must address, just to be clear, one point in your replies to me specifically:

Objectivitees wrote:
Actually, the methodological naturalist does not have to claim that the world is fully naturalistic, but only because a person can behave in a way that is inconsistent with their theories of reality.

This is false - a methodological naturalist does not have to have a theory of reality that is fully naturalistic. Their scientific theories must be fully naturalistic in their explanations, but nothing in methodological naturalism makes the claim that scientific theories can in principle explain everything. Someone commited to methodological naturalism in their acceptance of science, and in their scientific work, can have a personal model of reality that is partly, or even largerly supernatural, without contradicting anything in methodological naturalism.

If they claim that their supernatural beliefs are scientific, then they would be going against methodological naturalism - but if they are simply saying that there are things that science cannot account for, that are accounted for by a supernatural entity, they are not at all in contradiction with methodological naturalism, because science does not claim that everything that is real must be accessible to it through it's methods.

Objectivitees wrote:
Methodological naturalism still has to explain things in terms of natural causes and events; therefore MN still has to explain where logic comes from. MN DOES presuppose the world is fully naturalistic and therefore must explain logic this way

No, MN does NOT presuppose the world is fully naturalistic - that's the very point of there being a difference between methodological, and philosophical naturalism in the first place! Why make the distinction if they are identical? Methodological naturalism makes no claims at all about how the world is, it simply makes a claim about what methods can be used to reasonably investigate reality, and those parts of it that are natural. It may, or may not be that ALL parts of it are natural, but methodological naturalism is not interested in that question.

The mistake here is to assume that science has to explain everything - it has no such obligation, and indeed, methodological naturalism directly rules out many claims as not being ones that science can address at all.

For example, if I claim that there is an immaterial, invisible dragon in my basement that leaves no trace at all that differs from what one might expect to be naturally there, and that I know this only through this dragon telepathically communicating with me, then science cannot say anything about this claim, and does not try to.

This is because methodological naturalism requires that for some claim or question to be open to scientific enquiry, it has to be vulnerable to be shown wrong through empirical evidence, which that claim clearly is not.

Stegocephalian

Posts : 73
Join date : 2009-09-08

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-godless

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:19 pm

…those organisms that cannot perceive this sequence of events will be supplanted quickly by those that can. That is evolution by natural selection….

As you point out in the quote below, "Logic" is not a law of nature. It is a mental process. One of the many that has allowed homo sapiens to become dominant in spite of lacking the speed, power or weapons of other predators. One of our peculiar methods of problem solving is logic. It's not the only one.

Right, logic is not a law of nature. I’m glad you agree with me here. By the way, may I congratulate you for being the first to directly address my argument? What you posted here is the first actual attempt (in this thread) to explain the existence of logic by natural means. Good job.

Unfortunately, your response does not refute my claim. If logic were as you claim, “a mental process”, which humans obtained through the process of evolution, then everyone’s “logic” would be the result of a biological process, or brain chemistry. Everyone’s “logic” would be different, because everyone has evolved slightly different, and has different brain chemistry…Similar, but different. This is a problem for your position because the use of Logic implies the ability to choose and discriminate between the propositions based on which is more rational. If logic were an evolved trait, our brain chemistry would simply be telling us which proposition we believed. (Whether or not that “belief” resulted in enhanced survival) We would not have a choice. Since the use of logic requires a choice, it cannot be an evolved trait. Since logic is not demonstrated by nature in this way, my second premise stands.



If your argument is that evolution/naturalism has to show that logic is a law of nature, that's laughably absurd. It has to do no such thing. It is sufficient to point out what Steg did: The process we call logic is a process that we evolved, whether as a meme passed on to children by demonstration or as a fuller rendering of the fight-or-flight reflex thanks to the dramatically enhanced memory retention, pattern-matching ability and deductive reasoning in the human brain. It's no more a law of nature than Murphy's Law is.
(Emphasis added)

As I pointed out above, logic cannot be an evolved trait, because then each of us would use slightly different methods of “logic”. In the first highlight, you claim it is a result of evolution, or as you put it earlier “a mental process” meaning it would be a “law of nature”. In the second highlight, you claim it is not a “law of nature”. Now do you agree with me or not? I am somewhat confused by your apparently contradicting claims here.

To respond to Premise 1: One of the thought processes we use when employing the scientific method is logic. It is a method of understanding how the world works.

I agree.
But it is not the only one. Testable hypotheses and repeatable experiments come into play, which produce empirical data or "evidence" which is used to prove/disprove hypotheses.
I agree.
Logic does not imply real-world conditions, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

Actually it does, because whatever are you using it for, except to validate or invalidate your hypothesis? Your “hypothesis” neccesarily contains a possible statement about reality. Therefore you acknowledge logic can comment on “real-world conditions”. Otherwise you wouldn’t use it yourself. If you deny logic is valid means, you take a nihilistic stance and eliminate yourself from the conversation.

To respond to Premise 2: This is a false premise and you completely misunderstand what logic actually is. Logic is not a tangible device.
No, I don’t misunderstand what logic is, I agree with you it is not a tangible device. That's the point of premise two.
Socrates didn't reach for his vial of Logic and grab the hemlock instead. It's a thought process.
Yes, it's a thought process. But it's a thought process that cannot be a result of evolution, because evolution eliminates the ability to choose and discriminate, and logic functions by that ability.
What you ask is like me holding out my hand and asking you to hand me Tuesday at 4 PM. Can't be done, and I would question the mental stability of the person that asks that it be done.
Precisely my point. It can’t be done. It’s Naturalism/Atheism/Methodological Naturalism/Philosophical Naturalism/Empiricism/Evidentialism/ or whatever you want to call it that cannot explain the existence of logic, because all these worldviews explicitly disclaim the existence of a metaphysical realm that can have an impact on reality. Logic belongs in the metaphysical realm. You use it, but cannot justify your use of it, because it should not exist in “your" (natural) universe. Premise two stands.


(meaning "lacking knowledge," not meant to be an insult).

No offense taken, I understand how you meant it.

Which by the way is what happens when such debates occur without supporting evidence.

But we are using “supporting evidence”, we are using the language of reason, a language we both speak, and agree upon in premise one, otherwise we take ourselves out of the conversation. At this point, I’ll let ‘neon’ speak for herself, and not comment on your comment on her post. I have Steg to respond to. Again, thanks and congratulations on being the first to attempt a naturalistic explanation for the existence of logic.

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:28 pm

Objectivitees, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, but as you yourself are clearly not managing to keep your posts brief, and as the subject matter often cannot be dealt briefly without compromising in the ideas expressed, if you want to discuss these matters, you might just have to be prepared to read more than just a few paragraphs per post.
Emphasis added.

Ok Steg, I was only concerned with making you wait a week or two for my responses, but if you don't mind then be as unbrief as you wish. Just note please, that my responses thus far have only been "long" because you have written so much to respond to. My suggestion that we keep it brief was for clarity's sake, so that we don't get lost in the details. If we can limit ourselves to one or two points per post, I think it'll be easier to have the discussion. Right now, after responding to Jgrow, I don't have time to deal with your detail. I'll be back as soon as I can.

Oh, and thank you all for maintaining civility, as a group of Atheists, most (there are one or two exceptions here) you have been without a doubt the most polite and thoughtful bunch I have experienced in some time.

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Nathan Barley on Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:54 pm

"Everyone’s “logic” would be different, because everyone has evolved slightly different, and has different brain chemistry…Similar, but different."

We evolved to have language, but that doesn't mean that everyone in a community speaks a different language to everyone else. Similarly, if logic aided our interaction with other humans, and also arose from our culture, as someone as already mentioned, through memes, then we'd all have consensus on it.

And regardless of differing brain chemistry, there's only one way of expressing 1+1 = 2, so it's not surprising humans reach consensus about it. (The concept of zero, however, doesn't occur naturally to all societies - it is a useful idea that gets passed on, taught and learnt). The law of non-contradiction is something you either get or you don't. Not much scope for variation there. And as already explained, understanding that a tiger charging towards is not simultaneously NOT a tiger, would be an important understanding for any human to have. ANY variation at all away from that understanding would drastically reduce your chances of survival, and therefore be bred out of a species.

I believe the law of excluded middle is a less intuitive concept, and would come under the banner of an intellectual tool, a meme, one that is taught to people. It could be called a tool that we invented (Arristotle?) for arriving at conclusions, in the same way that inventing the plough helped us farm. And yes, we evolved the brain that enabled us to invent these tools.

So still consistent with evolution.

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Nathan Barley on Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:24 pm

"Oh, and thank you all for maintaining civility, as a group of Atheists..."

Does this make anyone think of that time Bill O'Reilly congratulated a restaurant full of black people in Harlem for not being an ill-behaved rabble? "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' "

Objectivitee, atheists are generally no different to any other group - treat them civilly and you'll get civility in return.

If people have lost patience with you at all, it is for (initially) storming in and barking 'logical fallacy of irrelevance!' at people rather than trying to engage them in civil conversation, eg instead perhaps politely asking them to explain the relevance of their point if it has eluded you. The latter is, after all, what everyone has tried to do with you.

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Neon Genesis on Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:39 pm

It'd be like going up to a group of Jews and thanking them for not being a bunch of corrupt bankers or whatever.

Neon Genesis

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-09-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Stegocephalian on Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:53 am

Objectivitees wrote:
Objectivitees, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, but as you yourself are clearly not managing to keep your posts brief, and as the subject matter often cannot be dealt briefly without compromising in the ideas expressed, if you want to discuss these matters, you might just have to be prepared to read more than just a few paragraphs per post.
Emphasis added.

Ok Steg, I was only concerned with making you wait a week or two for my responses, but if you don't mind then be as unbrief as you wish. Just note please, that my responses thus far have only been "long" because you have written so much to respond to. My suggestion that we keep it brief was for clarity's sake, so that we don't get lost in the details. If we can limit ourselves to one or two points per post, I think it'll be easier to have the discussion. Right now, after responding to Jgrow, I don't have time to deal with your detail. I'll be back as soon as I can.

Oh, and thank you all for maintaining civility, as a group of Atheists, most (there are one or two exceptions here) you have been without a doubt the most polite and thoughtful bunch I have experienced in some time.

I don't mind waiting. Clarity and thoroughness is always preferable to forced brevity.

Since you are addressing your argument now, perhaps you can include my answer to your argument, and your response to it - after all, that is very briefly expressed in the latter half of my post before the last one. (Not the post before this one, but the one before that.)

Shortly, are you claiming that logic might be something different from what it is? And if you are not claiming that, then why does ANY worldview need to justify something for which there is no option but to be as it is?

Stegocephalian

Posts : 73
Join date : 2009-09-08

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-godless

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Objectivitees on Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:42 pm

that is very briefly expressed in the latter half of my post before the last one. (Not the post before this one, but the one before that.)

I guess you mean the following, as most of your last replies seem to be trying to make the point that Logic does not need justification.

Also, could you please, please, please, get off the “Evolution is not a worldview” kick you are on, I have graciously allowed you to substitute “Naturalism” for the word “Evolution” where it appears in my argument. This eliminates any contention that I am equivocating, evading, or not understanding the concept, as I have also allowed you to define those terms. (And many other terms) I am really tired of repeating this, it would shorten your posts considerably by eliminating all the redundant explanations of what ‘Evolution’ is and isn’t, thereby allowing me to shorten my response as well, by not having to point this out many times.


So my answer to your problem is that it is a non-problem - it is not a valid question in the first place. If you disagree, then you must be claiming that God might have made logic something else than it is.

No, you have missed the point. Logic is a reality. You accept it is a reality. If naturalism is true, (real) then you should be able to explain Logic by natural means.

So, is your argument a good argument against philosophical naturalism? At least it IS an argument against philosophical naturalism…

It’s also an argument against Atheism, Naturalism, Empiricism, Evolution, Philosophical Naturalism, Methodological Naturalism, Evidentialism, and a few others I have not yet mentioned. It is an argument against them because they all have to explain the existence of things by natural means. Whether or not you think it “good” is irrelevant. You have to prove it unreliable by refuting the second premise.

In order for something to require an explanation as to it's origin, there has to be some conceivable way in which that something could be different from what it is.

I’m sorry, the limits of your imagination (or mine for that matter) do not determine whether or not something needs explanation. That’s silly, if that were true, you could not deny the ontology of God, because there is no conceivable way God’s ontology could be different from what it is. Yet you (Atheism) do deny God’s ontology, and demand of the Theist an explanation anyway. Therefore, if you get to demand an explanation for God’s ontology, then we get to demand an explanation for Logic. You can’t have it both ways, you don’t get to invoke a double standard.


I'm saying that your question of the origin of logic is of this same nature - logic is what it is, because there exists no alternative to that state of affairs, god or no god. Thus logic has no origin, and needs no origin, it is true by definition.

I could just as easily say the question of “God” is of the same nature- “God” is what it is, because there exists no alternative to that state of affairs, thus “God” has no origin, and needs no origin, “God” is true by definition.

But you wouldn’t let me do that, would you? You’d immediately claim I was avoiding your point. You’d say “you’re just making that up so you don’t have to defend your idea of “God”. And guess what? You’d be right. Therefore I am also right when I say, you are just avoiding the point so you don’t have to defend it. If you can’t come up with a natural explanation for the existence of Logic, then my argument stands.

The ‘Creation’ worldview contains a metaphysical explanation of the metaphysical construct of logic. The ‘Natural’ worldview cannot, yet uses Logic anyway. That’s an inconsistency, which demonstrates a logical contradiction in the ‘natural’ worldview. It can be expressed this way as well…Naturalism denies the existence of a metaphysical reality which imparts knowledge of the real world.

The problem with denying metaphysical reality is that the “denial statement” is a metaphysical belief itself, held to be “REAL”! It is self- refuting, a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Irrationally held belief. (Premise two.)


This is false - a methodological naturalist does not have to have a theory of reality that is fully naturalistic. Their scientific theories must be fully naturalistic in their explanations, but nothing in methodological naturalism makes the claim that scientific theories can in principle explain everything.

Right, glad you agree with me here…they (methodological naturalists) don't have to have a theory of reality that is "fully naturalistic" but that's only because a person can behave inconsistently with their own beliefs, the problem for methodological naturalism isn't about what it's practitioner believes, it's because it's explanations are limited by the same limits as Philosophical Naturalism, namely they have to explain by natural means, and since you now admit that they (science and methodological Naturalism) can’t explain everything, you acknowledge that the unexplained use of Logic makes Logic an assumption. (Premise one)

Assumed (unexplained) logic used to justify knowledge (about the natural world) makes the knowledge (of the natural world) itself an assumption. Assumed knowledge is arbitrarily held knowledge. Arbitrarily held knowledge is irrational knowledge. (By the precept of Logic) Therefore Naturalism (Atheism/Evolution/MN/PN/Empiricism/Evidentialism/Evolution, and now even “Science” (by your definition, which does not apply to Creationists, because the creationist has an explanation of logic that allows for science to proceed) are irrationally held beliefs. (Premise Two.)

Objectivitees

Posts : 120
Join date : 2009-10-08

http://www.objectivitees.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Christians Might Resist Belief in Evolution

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum