|
On September 14 2009 13:52 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
Why cant John believe god was the guiding hand behind the big bang/evolution/anything science discovers ?
Because John is true to his faith and follows the bible closely. Or he does not read the bible at all but instead gets it pre-digested and in small easily consumable sermons from his local priest. Either way, he believes as said in the 7 Day creation myth, Man was created in God's image, before the animals and monkeys. For John to accept the theory of evolution, he would have to accept that the Bible had it backwards, and that although it claims to be a book of God's Truths, it is not. And if this is not true, then what else is the book wrong about? Either that, or he would have to get angry to get people to stop asking so many damn questions.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 12:34 Zinfandel wrote:
Alright, I concede that I lack detailed knowledge about the relation between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics. As such, I concede that my example was probably not the best to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, it was just an example to illustrate a larger point. The point being a normative one. I think we ought to empathize with those who hold different views from ours (as a first step; we stop empathizing and start restraining them when they threaten to physically harm others) -- here I'm denouncing the aggressive debates (that degenerate into ad hominem flame wars) between fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) atheists.
I'm here advocating something like a global agnosticism. Yes, evolution is the best theory that we presently have to explain the origin of species (all species) on Earth. Yes, there are very many rational arguments against the existence of a benevolent God. Yet we must look at the status of our knowledge from a historical perspective. Each era has believed themselves to be in possession of The Final Truth. And each era has been wrong. Personally I think evolution is right and I'm agnostic about the existence of God. But, I am not intolerant or hateful towards anyone who holds a view different from mine because I understand that (a) we are always more ignorant of so much more than we know, (b) other people are just trying to make sense of this chaotic universe just as I am, (c) I can hammer out the clearest logical arguments to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God, and atheists and believers might still not be persuaded because more often than not we are not persuaded by reason alone.
And, I think the main reason why a debate about God cannot get off the ground is something Hume mentions: we cannot prove an empirical fact (i.e., whether or not something exists in the world) by reason (logical argumentation) alone. And since we can't empirically investigate the existence of God, we cannot show that God exists.
Zinfandel, your point about Mary is absolutely right. The people who replied to you with crass and offensive comments dismissing your whole post, didn't even understand what you were saying. You were obviously talking about physics in terms of fundamental understanding of natural laws, not usefulness in engineering or other applied disciplines (including non-fundamental physics). It's true that older scientists tend to cling to old explanations when their field undergoes a Kuhnian "paradigm shift." For example, there are some old school cosmologists right now who don't subscribe to the big bang.
As for Darwinian evolution, whether or not it's true, many people who take it as undisputable fact don't realize just how utterly nihilistic it is in its implications. If Darwinian evolution AND NOTHING ELSE sufficiently explains biological life, then it is difficult to see why other human beings should be valued, why all human relations are not all at the bottom exploitative power games. Evolutionary biologists would no doubt say something about "the evolution of cooperation" or "kin selection," but that misses the point, since it merely seeks to explain why living things do exhibit what is at the surface "cooperative" behavior, but is actually in the interest of "the selfish gene." This only shows why a view of life characterized by undiluted Darwinian evolution is undesirable, but it doesn't show that it is false. The strongest empirical argument against the TRUTH of raw Darwinism, I think, is the existence of consciousness which seems incompatible with a purely mechanical view of life.
|
On September 14 2009 14:23 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 12:34 Zinfandel wrote:
Alright, I concede that I lack detailed knowledge about the relation between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics. As such, I concede that my example was probably not the best to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, it was just an example to illustrate a larger point. The point being a normative one. I think we ought to empathize with those who hold different views from ours (as a first step; we stop empathizing and start restraining them when they threaten to physically harm others) -- here I'm denouncing the aggressive debates (that degenerate into ad hominem flame wars) between fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) atheists.
I'm here advocating something like a global agnosticism. Yes, evolution is the best theory that we presently have to explain the origin of species (all species) on Earth. Yes, there are very many rational arguments against the existence of a benevolent God. Yet we must look at the status of our knowledge from a historical perspective. Each era has believed themselves to be in possession of The Final Truth. And each era has been wrong. Personally I think evolution is right and I'm agnostic about the existence of God. But, I am not intolerant or hateful towards anyone who holds a view different from mine because I understand that (a) we are always more ignorant of so much more than we know, (b) other people are just trying to make sense of this chaotic universe just as I am, (c) I can hammer out the clearest logical arguments to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God, and atheists and believers might still not be persuaded because more often than not we are not persuaded by reason alone.
And, I think the main reason why a debate about God cannot get off the ground is something Hume mentions: we cannot prove an empirical fact (i.e., whether or not something exists in the world) by reason (logical argumentation) alone. And since we can't empirically investigate the existence of God, we cannot show that God exists. Zinfandel, your point about Mary is absolutely right. The people who replied to you with crass and offensive comments dismissing your whole post, didn't even understand what you were saying. You were obviously talking about physics in terms of fundamental understanding of natural laws, not usefulness in engineering or other applied disciplines (including non-fundamental physics). It's true that older scientists tend to cling to old explanations when their field undergoes a Kuhnian "paradigm shift." For example, there are some old school cosmologists right now who don't subscribe to the big bang. As for Darwinian evolution, whether or not it's true, many people who take it as undisputable fact don't realize just how utterly nihilistic it is in its implications. If Darwinian evolution AND NOTHING ELSE sufficiently explains biological life, then it is difficult to see why other human beings should be valued, why all human relations are not all at the bottom exploitative power games. Evolutionary biologists would no doubt say something about "the evolution of cooperation" or "kin selection," but that misses the point, since it merely seeks to explain why living things do exhibit what is at the surface "cooperative" behavior, but is actually in the interest of "the selfish gene." This only shows why a view of life characterized by undiluted Darwinian evolution is undesirable, but it doesn't show that it is false. The strongest empirical argument against the TRUTH of raw Darwinism, I think, is the existence of consciousness which seems incompatible with a purely mechanical view of life.
Having Consciousness only implies being conscious of ones surroundings. Many species exhibit this trait. Just because you can't understand other species use of space doesn't mean they do not exhibit it.
Case in point, dogs sufficiently know when they are being treated unfairly. They will either shy away from humans or scare them off. Further sill chimpanzees have been known to throw rocks at villages that expand into their territory. Rocks, as in trying to start a conflict, war. Consciousness is an evolutionary trait that is becoming very apparent in most large mammals.
|
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
That's fine. However, there's a big difference.
Science needs Mary. Science needs here to make sure that quantum mechanics is actually legitimate. Her job is to do her best to break QM. Science gets better because of Mary. If she can't break QM, then it's a pretty good guess that QM's on the right track.
And here's the thing: if Mary keeps pushing past the point where her arguments against QM make sense (ie: she's clearly spouting nonsense), then Science will shun her. Science only accepts what has good evidence behind it, and Science as a process is designed to weed out nonsense. If Mary gets to the point where she's spouting nonsense, she will eventually be marginalized, discarded, and left behind while the more open minds conduct the business of Science.
There are people like Mary in Science. In the past, these people could slow down the progress of science, by trading on their respectability and so forth to get their pet notions published and accepted. This is much less likely today, but it can still happen. Yet despite all of this, Science Marches On. Because worst case, Mary will eventually die, her respectability will be challenged, and her pet notions will be discredited and discarded by people doing good Science.
Catholicism doesn't get better because of John. It just gets more insular, introverted, and divorced from reality. It will never shun John if he resorts to nonsensical arguments.
BTW, Catholicism, or at least Roman Catholics, accept evolution.
On September 14 2009 10:39 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:47 Foucault wrote:On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote:
the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition. No reason to be lacking in knowledge towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition...? wat
No, he's right. The problem isn't religion; it's dogma. As pointed out earlier, Catholicism has no problem with evolution because it doesn't accept the Bible as completely factual.
Attacking all people of faith for the horrible views of a portion of them is not helping. Indeed, it turns the reasonable believers who might otherwise come to the defense of science away from science. Militant Atheism is no better than fundamentalists.
On September 14 2009 11:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 10:56 fusionsdf wrote:On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale. True. Lack of unification doesn't mean that either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics invalidates the other... they are both useful for different types of situations.
Classical mechanics are wrong; this is undeniable, as it is a verifiable fact. But what they are is good enough for a lot of things, which is why they are still taught and used.
On September 14 2009 12:03 starfries wrote:
So my view on the education point is that it's completely ridiculous not to teach evolution. It's undeniable that it occurs. Whether you think it explains the different species today is a completely separate matter.
I hate to use this word, but that is appeasement, not science.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not science. It has been ruled in the court of science itself to not be science, and thanks to Kitsmiller vs. Dover Area School District, it has been ruled to not be science in a court of law. It doesn't play by the rules of science and it doesn't have to go through the rigor that anything else in science textbooks had to go through to get into those textbooks.
Yes, evolution is a verified fact. But it is also a theory, one with mountains of supporting evidence, and little if anything against it. It is better supported than General Relativity (due to problems with it interfacing with Quantum Mechanics).
Saying that it's a "completely separate matter" to say that the Theory of Evolution is valid is absolutely untrue. The Theory of Evolution was valid long before it was ever actually witnessed in the laboratory. The theory fit with known facts. It made testible predictions which were later tested and confirmed. It survived the discovery of DNA as the source of genetic material in the cell; this one discovery had a great shot at overturning evolution. Yet, it did not; it confirmed evolution yet again.
Physiologically, just by dissecting Chimpanzees, Humans, and Gorillas, you can determine that Humans are more closely related to Chimps than Gorillas. This was discovered by a Christian Creationist scientist. You can confirm this by looking at the archeological evidence, the various intermediate species that have been discovered. You can confirm it again through genetic testing.
The Theory of Evolution is considered the unifying theory of Biology because it links all of the disciplines. Archeology confirms links that physical biology does, which is again confirmed in genetics, which is again confirmed in embryology and so on.
And you think it is a "completely separate matter." The actual scientists who spend their lives doing this stuff don't. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Just as nothing in chemistry makes sense except in light of atomic theory (elements, elemental periodicity, etc, all are verified facts, but atomic theory is what explains why they are as they are).
On September 14 2009 13:38 0neder wrote:
One example would be the Progressive movement. This movement holds that there are no eternal standards of right and wrong, but that like Darwin's theory of evolution, moral standards change over time as we learn more about the world around us.
Note: off-topic:
First of all, Aristotle was probably the first documented instance of having moral standards change over time, or rather, having them be applicable to the situation rather than (as Plato suggested) moral absolutes that were inflexible and blind to the particular situation. I'm pretty sure he was not part of this "Progressive movement" you are referring to.
Second, what you're talking about isn't a "Progressive movement"; you're talking about reality. Moral standards have changed over time. The Bible says it's perfectly acceptable to keep slaves, yet we don't. The Bible says it's perfectly acceptable to treat women as second-class citizens. We don't. The Bible says that it's perfectly acceptable not to give rights to gay people (if not stone them to death or burn down their cities). We don't. So it's very clear that moral standards have changed quite a bit over time. In short, Aristotle was right.
Was it "Progressive movements" that undid all of that? Probably yes. Is society better off for it? Absolutely. Did any of it have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Hell no.
On September 14 2009 13:38 0neder wrote:
I don't want to lengthen this wall of text talking more about this, but I just share this to point out that not all religious people are overly concerned about the details of the creation of the planet and mankind.
Yes, I've heard this view before. And it's a load of hogwash.
The basic idea is that the Theory of Evolution undermines the inerrancy of the Bible, and therefore undermines other parts of the Bible. Specifically, the various moral proscriptions. Therefore, people who accept evolution are more likely to... what exactly?
That's where it gets into a load of crap. I'm willing to say that accepting evolution makes it a bit harder to hold on to one's faith as a whole. However, this argument basically only works if you believe that the only way to live a moral life is to do as the Bible teaches.
Tough. The point of tolerance is to accept that other people have different ideas about morality. And unless those particular morals are especially repugnant or infringe on the reasonable freedoms of others (the various -isms), you have to accept that they have them.
You cannot have freedom of religion unless you have freedom from religion.
On September 14 2009 14:23 HnR)hT wrote:
As for Darwinian evolution, whether or not it's true, many people who take it as undisputable fact don't realize just how utterly nihilistic it is in its implications. If Darwinian evolution AND NOTHING ELSE sufficiently explains biological life, then it is difficult to see why other human beings should be valued, why all human relations are not all at the bottom exploitative power games. Evolutionary biologists would no doubt say something about "the evolution of cooperation" or "kin selection," but that misses the point, since it merely seeks to explain why living things do exhibit what is at the surface "cooperative" behavior, but is actually in the interest of "the selfish gene." This only shows why a view of life characterized by undiluted Darwinian evolution is undesirable, but it doesn't show that it is false. The strongest empirical argument against the TRUTH of raw Darwinism, I think, is the existence of consciousness which seems incompatible with a purely mechanical view of life.
The same argument, but from a different perspective. But consider this.
What is multicellular life? It is a bunch of single cells that came together to better survive. Indeed, many of these cells specialized themselves. Indeed, most cells in a multicellular being will never directly pass on their genetic information. And yet, the heart does not evolve its own gonads and try to mate with another heart.
There are many, many organisms that move in collective groups. They don't fight one another except over mating or in times of famine. And even for mating, the most important activity biologically, they usually pull their punches.
Think about the visceral reaction you and most people have to a news story of a mother killing her own children. This is generally considered unthinkable by most people. Yes, it happens, but the reaction is universal revulsion. Something is clearly wrong with the woman in question. Similarly, betrayal of significant trust is usually considered a heinous act, even when it's totally legal; expect to lose friendships over it. We all have a strong biological instinct not to kill people we know well, not to kill family members. And we, like most maternal mammals, have a strong biological instinct to protect furry, weak organisms with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio (ooh, isn't that kitten so cute!).
These are all your instincts, built into the brain of the vast majority of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth.
Under the umbrella of Evolution, one must ask: why does all of this happen? And the answer that Evolution provides is simple: because it was advantageous for survival at the time.
Cooperation is obviously therefore a survival mechanism. Thus, if you are going to promote evolution from a scientific theory to a moral law, it is clear that cooperation is a big part of that moral law. So why should other humans be valued? Because we value them; the valuation is built-in. It's firmware, overridden only under the most direct of conscious interaction. Evolution gave us that gift; if we're going to turn evolution into something sacred, why would you give it up?
|
Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n
(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant)
\
----
Pet Peeve:
Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 11:37 Freyr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
You are right that many different kinds of people face this sort of conundrum, but as others have pointed out your second example is not very good. Classical mechanics is not a belief, it is a way of describing and attempting to predict interactions. It is useful for some things, and less useful for others. Rarely, if ever, will you find a situation where a field in science is completely invalidated. Almost everything is build on top of previous ideas. Her whole life may have been in vain because, apparently, if she is thusly affected, she has failed to become a decent scientist. Further, if I understand it correctly, quantum mechanics is useless for predicting macroscopic phenomena - perhaps a better example would be general relativity. Also, I think it was Sadist who said they are both cowards, and I agree. This sort of behavior, while understandable and probably exhibited by many of us, should be something we try to eradicate. (Incidentally, AFAIK NASA still uses newtonian physics for engineering and mission planning and such rather than the newer, more "correct" general relativity. General relativity and non-relativistic gravity both seem to fail on a very large scale, which has brought about suspicion of the existence of dark matter (which could salvage the theories)- though we may just have gotten everything completely wrong.)
GR doesn't "fail" at large scales, it fails where quantum effects are important. As for dark matter, there is a vast amount of observational and theoretical evidence for its existence SEPARATE from stellar velocity curves, etc.
|
On September 14 2009 14:35 Railxp wrote:Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ---- Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
errr... its called Yahveh
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 14:35 Railxp wrote:Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ---- Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
|
On September 14 2009 14:46 HnR)hT wrote:
Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
1: This smart robot would be smart enough to self-analyze and determine that its own behavior, "however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic programmatic imperatives." Thus it would recognize all intelligence as kindred, different from inanimate matter.
2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being.
3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie?
4: You're assuming that life has no intrinsic value, despite its apparent rarity in the universe. Self-replicating processes could very easily be valued by this smart robot. It would certainly recognize the difference between living and non-living matter, as well as knowing that once living matter dies, that particular organism is dead and cannot return. That suggests a certain value to life, as opposed to non-living matter.
The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so.
|
don't know how this turned into a religion/evolution war but basically this:
On September 14 2009 06:01 FabledIntegral wrote:
Microevolution vs macroevolution is usually the argument.
i consider myself a religious individual but it isn't to the point where i am a fanatic. with that in mind, i find it hard to believe that my ancestors (no matter how long ago it was) were bacteria (macroevolution). however, i do accept the fact that turtles on the galapagos evolved to fit their environment (microevolution) and find counterarguments to this statement to be stupid.
regardless, we should all keep our minds open, whether its conservatives rejecting all forms of evolution or scientific liberals who blindly believe in all forms of evolution (especially macroevolution).
|
On September 14 2009 15:05 redtooth wrote:don't know how this turned into a religion/evolution war but basically this: Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 06:01 FabledIntegral wrote:
Microevolution vs macroevolution is usually the argument. i consider myself a religious individual but it isn't to the point where i am a fanatic. with that in mind, i find it hard to believe that my ancestors (no matter how long ago it was) were bacteria (macroevolution). however, i do accept the fact that turtles on the galapagos evolved to fit their environment (microevolution) and find counterarguments to this statement to be stupid. regardless, we should all keep our minds open, whether its conservatives rejecting all forms of evolution or scientific liberals who blindly believe in all forms of evolution (especially macroevolution).
We all share a common trait of mitochondria. Most of our cell functions remain the same. Where is the disbelief. I think micro evolution is more of a mutation based science myself so I think it still debatable.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 14:33 NicolBolas wrote:
The same argument, but from a different perspective. But consider this.
What is multicellular life? It is a bunch of single cells that came together to better survive. Indeed, many of these cells specialized themselves. Indeed, most cells in a multicellular being will never directly pass on their genetic information. And yet, the heart does not evolve its own gonads and try to mate with another heart.
There are many, many organisms that move in collective groups. They don't fight one another except over mating or in times of famine. And even for mating, the most important activity biologically, they usually pull their punches.
Think about the visceral reaction you and most people have to a news story of a mother killing her own children. This is generally considered unthinkable by most people. Yes, it happens, but the reaction is universal revulsion. Something is clearly wrong with the woman in question. Similarly, betrayal of significant trust is usually considered a heinous act, even when it's totally legal; expect to lose friendships over it. We all have a strong biological instinct not to kill people we know well, not to kill family members. And we, like most maternal mammals, have a strong biological instinct to protect furry, weak organisms with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio (ooh, isn't that kitten so cute!).
These are all your instincts, built into the brain of the vast majority of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth.
Under the umbrella of Evolution, one must ask: why does all of this happen? And the answer that Evolution provides is simple: because it was advantageous for survival at the time.
Cooperation is obviously therefore a survival mechanism. Thus, if you are going to promote evolution from a scientific theory to a moral law, it is clear that cooperation is a big part of that moral law. So why should other humans be valued? Because we value them; the valuation is built-in. It's firmware, overridden only under the most direct of conscious interaction. Evolution gave us that gift; if we're going to turn evolution into something sacred, why would you give it up?
Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts. You can then "overcome" your moral instinct the same way you overcome an irrational fear: the thinking part of your brain takes charge and enables you to act contrary to your instinct.
Your aversion to cheating people whenever you can get away with it is then, in principle, no different to a shy person's aversion to social situations: if you can overcome your innate tendencies and thereby improve your status, there is no rational reason not to. If you have a lot of willpower and your worldview is based on Darwinism, then you can cheat other people at will without feeling bad about it.
The only rational reason to treat people fairly is a "prisoner dilemma" type of consideration about your own interests, which is an example of an exploitative power game par exellence.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 14:56 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 14:46 HnR)hT wrote:
Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying. 1: This smart robot would be smart enough to self-analyze and determine that its own behavior, "however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic programmatic imperatives." Thus it would recognize all intelligence as kindred, different from inanimate matter.
This is a straw man. The robot needn't be "intelligent" in the sense that human beings are. It could simply be an automaton programmed to study terrestrial life and come up with a theory to explain it -- perhaps with the aid of an inbuilt Bayesian decision-making algorithm. Furthermore, your claim that artificial intelligence is similar in kind or "kindred" to human and animal intelligence is extremely controversial. But even if it were granted, see above.
2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being.
Obviously, I can't know with a 100% certainty that chimpanzees are sentient beings. But I believe that it is almost definitely the case. The difference between me and the automaton in the example above is that I myself am a sentient being, so I recognize that such a thing as consciousness exists in living things. But the robot would have no way of verifying that crucial data point.
CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT BE LOGICALLY DEDUCED FROM EXTERNAL OBSERVATION. This seems like such an obvious point that I can't imagine how anyone could seriously challenge it...
3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie?
Yes I am, and I'm basing that assumption on my personal experience  . A zombie wouldn't know that it's a mindless zombie, since it can't "know" anything in the sense that humans can know things.
4: You're assuming that life has no intrinsic value, despite its apparent rarity in the universe. Self-replicating processes could very easily be valued by this smart robot. It would certainly recognize the difference between living and non-living matter, as well as knowing that once living matter dies, that particular organism is dead and cannot return. That suggests a certain value to life, as opposed to non-living matter.
So? Firstly, ununquadium is also rare in the universe, but I don't equate life with ununquadium. Secondly, a robot doesn't make value judgements, it just attempts to give an accurate description. Thirdly, stars also "die" after they reach the end of their fusion cycle. I don't equate life with stars. Finally, I say nothing about "value" in the above post; you are conflating two different points I've made about Darwinian evolution.
The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so.
Once again, I say nothing about value in the above post, so this is completely beside the point.
|
I think the trick of interacting with religion is the same one that should be used with everything else, disregard the bad and use/learn the good.
I feel sorry for all of the people who were brought up with strict religion, because they now have these conflicting beliefs to blend with. I don't think the Bible is necessary to have good morals anymore.
I read the first ~20 pages of the bible and it seemed to be about ownership and control. I basically treated it just like a book.
"all these trees, rocks, mountains, animals are yours etc" uhhh no. (also the Noah/flood bit was just rofl bad.)
With me the Bible doesn't have very good cred.
|
LOL, what about all the other countless stupid religious films. This goes against freedom of speech, to the companies who are scared to take a risk on a controversial film; FUCK YOU. You can pump out trashy pop (comedy) films all year that are just as much of a risk financially. Worst cop out attempt and biased scape goat reason I've ever heard.
|
On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote:
Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts.
Again, that's not what evolution says, if you're going to posit it as a moral law. Evolution created those instincts! If you accept evolution as a moral law, then clearly listening to your instincts is one of the parts of that moral law. The "purposelessness" of your body's mechanical processes have nothing to do with evolution.
This is an argument based on the assumption that people must have a higher authority mandating a moral law in order to behave morally. That without such a thing, people would be immoral.
This is nonsense. Reality bears this out. Atheists are no less moral than those who believe that moral laws are absolute and come from God. Indeed, there's some evidence that Atheists are more moral on average than theists, as the crime rate in countries with more atheism tends to be lower than in countries with more theism.
People who make this argument are simply rationalizing an anti-social choice they've already decided to make. They're using the facts to justify what they already want to do, not following the fact to where they lead.
The human mind's ability to rationalize its own shortcomings is infinite.
On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote:
The only rational reason to treat people fairly is a "prisoner dilemma" type of consideration about your own interests, which is an example of an exploitative power game par exellence.
Perhaps, but thanks to evolution, people do not act rationally.
On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +1: This smart robot would be smart enough to self-analyze and determine that its own behavior, "however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic programmatic imperatives." Thus it would recognize all intelligence as kindred, different from inanimate matter. This is a straw man. The robot needn't be "intelligent" in the sense that human beings are. It could simply be an automaton programmed to study terrestrial life and come up with a theory to explain it. Furthermore, your claim that artificial intelligence is similar in kind or "kindred" to human and animal intelligence is extremely controversial. But even if it were granted, see above.
If it's just an automaton cataloging the behavior of chemicals, what does it matter what it classifies things as? All that matters is what thinking beings catalog them as.
Does it have some particular meaning for you if an unthinking robot catalogs life as a series of self-replicating chemical reactions who's only purpose is to perpetuate itself? Does that remove the dignity of having evolved your way into being a member of an intelligent, civilized being? Does that give you license to act in an anti-social way?
If so, those are choices that you choose to make, not that the facts make for you. These are value judgments you place on the facts, because you value having an innate purpose and a higher moral law than what your human reason provides.
Science is knowledge. Knowledge itself is never dangerous; it's what you choose to do with it that is or is not dangerous.
On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being. Obviously, I can't know with a 100% certainty that chimpanzees are sentient beings. But I believe that it is almost definitely the case. The difference between me and the automaton in the example above is that I myself am a sentient being, so I recognize that such a thing as consciousness exists in living things. But the robot would have no way of verifying that crucial data point.
Why would the robot be incapable of detecting sentience? If you can believe (presumably, for real reasons) that chimps are sentient beings, why can't the robot detect this? Why can the robot tell if a being has consciousness?
On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie? Yes I am, and I'm basing that assumption on my personal experience . A zombie wouldn't know that it's a mindless zombie, since it can't "know" anything in the sense that humans can know things.
That's the point. You're basing all of this on an assumption that you posses a fairly il-defined quality that other animals lack. This binary notion of sentience, where a creature can be determined to have sentience in full or no sentience at all, may well be a fiction. You do not know that.
The point I'm making is that everything with some form of brain organ may have a degree of consciousness. We humans behave according to certain particular norms, as do other brain-having organisms. Other brain-having organisms have been shown to consciously override instincts in some instances. We just may be better at it than they are.
On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so. Once again, I say nothing about value in the above post, so this is completely beside the point.
You missed the important part of it. The fact that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Even if it is overturned, it is an undeniable fact that all life as we know it are pure mechanical chemical processes.
|
On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 14:33 NicolBolas wrote:
The same argument, but from a different perspective. But consider this.
What is multicellular life? It is a bunch of single cells that came together to better survive. Indeed, many of these cells specialized themselves. Indeed, most cells in a multicellular being will never directly pass on their genetic information. And yet, the heart does not evolve its own gonads and try to mate with another heart.
There are many, many organisms that move in collective groups. They don't fight one another except over mating or in times of famine. And even for mating, the most important activity biologically, they usually pull their punches.
Think about the visceral reaction you and most people have to a news story of a mother killing her own children. This is generally considered unthinkable by most people. Yes, it happens, but the reaction is universal revulsion. Something is clearly wrong with the woman in question. Similarly, betrayal of significant trust is usually considered a heinous act, even when it's totally legal; expect to lose friendships over it. We all have a strong biological instinct not to kill people we know well, not to kill family members. And we, like most maternal mammals, have a strong biological instinct to protect furry, weak organisms with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio (ooh, isn't that kitten so cute!).
These are all your instincts, built into the brain of the vast majority of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth.
Under the umbrella of Evolution, one must ask: why does all of this happen? And the answer that Evolution provides is simple: because it was advantageous for survival at the time.
Cooperation is obviously therefore a survival mechanism. Thus, if you are going to promote evolution from a scientific theory to a moral law, it is clear that cooperation is a big part of that moral law. So why should other humans be valued? Because we value them; the valuation is built-in. It's firmware, overridden only under the most direct of conscious interaction. Evolution gave us that gift; if we're going to turn evolution into something sacred, why would you give it up? Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong. If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts. You can then "overcome" your moral instinct the same way you overcome an irrational fear: the thinking part of your brain takes charge and enables you to act contrary to your instinct.
No this right and wrong comes from being a community species and if everyone started robbing banks and got away with it then society would collapse. Hence people act towards the progress of society, nice straw man btw.
Darwinism doesnt exist anyways it is just a word that creationsims have started to use to redicule people who accept evolution...
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 15:57 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote:
Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts. Again, that's not what evolution says, if you're going to posit it as a moral law. Evolution created those instincts! If you accept evolution as a moral law, then clearly listening to your instincts is one of the parts of that moral law. The "purposelessness" of your body's mechanical processes have nothing to do with evolution.
To me, the concept of "evolution as a moral law" makes absolutely zero sense, and I'm beginning to doubt that you understand what evolution actually says. Biological evolution can tell you HOW CERTAIN BEHAVIORS CAME ABOUT. That's it. You can't derive an ought from an is, and evolution is only about the "is."
This is an argument based on the assumption that people must have a higher authority mandating a moral law in order to behave morally. That without such a thing, people would be immoral. This is nonsense. Reality bears this out. Atheists are no less moral than those who believe that moral laws are absolute and come from God. Indeed, there's some evidence that Atheists are more moral on average than theists, as the crime rate in countries with more atheism tends to be lower than in countries with more theism.
Once again, I'm sorry but this is not even close to what my post says. Obviously, it is undeniable that people behave morally all the time. The trouble is, within the framework of Darwinism they have NO RATIONAL REASON to behave morally if they can individually materially benefit from behaving imorally.
People who make this argument are simply rationalizing an anti-social choice they've already decided to make. They're using the facts to justify what they already want to do, not following the fact to where they lead.
This is totally beside the point, you don't refute an argument by attacking the motivations of those who make it (these people are just trying to justify their immoral behavior, etc.).
|
america: welcome back to the the middle ages
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 15:57 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being. Obviously, I can't know with a 100% certainty that chimpanzees are sentient beings. But I believe that it is almost definitely the case. The difference between me and the automaton in the example above is that I myself am a sentient being, so I recognize that such a thing as consciousness exists in living things. But the robot would have no way of verifying that crucial data point. Why would the robot be incapable of detecting sentience? If you can believe (presumably, for real reasons) that chimps are sentient beings, why can't the robot detect this? Why can the robot tell if a being has consciousness?
YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DEDUCE THE EXISTENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS FROM EXTERNAL OBSERVATION. This point seems to me to be so trivial, that I can't understand how anyone can possibly challenge it. The robot is itself is a non-conscious material object, and it has no way of "knowing" (I'm using the term loosely here) that earthly beings are conscious. Humans, on the other hand, do know from primary experience that they are conscious, and use that to infer (not deduce, strictly speaking) that others are conscious as well.
Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie? Yes I am, and I'm basing that assumption on my personal experience . A zombie wouldn't know that it's a mindless zombie, since it can't "know" anything in the sense that humans can know things. That's the point. You're basing all of this on an assumption that you posses a fairly il-defined quality that other animals lack. This binary notion of sentience, where a creature can be determined to have sentience in full or no sentience at all, may well be a fiction. You do not know that.
Once again, you seem to be badly misreading what I said. I said that it is almost definitely true that other animals are conscious. Furthermore, just because the concept of consciousness or sentience is ill-defined, it does not necessarily follow that it doesn't describe underlying objective reality.
The point I'm making is that everything with some form of brain organ may have a degree of consciousness. We humans behave according to certain particular norms, as do other brain-having organisms. Other brain-having organisms have been shown to consciously override instincts in some instances. We just may be better at it than they are.
True, but there is no way for a mindless pre-programmed automaton to know any of this, since it has external observation alone to construct its model for biological life.
Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 15:26 HnR)hT wrote:The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so. Once again, I say nothing about value in the above post, so this is completely beside the point. You missed the important part of it. The fact that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Even if it is overturned, it is an undeniable fact that all life as we know it are pure mechanical chemical processes.
First of all, it is not an "undeniable fact," which is the entire point. Second, Darwinian evolution is historically linked to a purely materialistic conception of life, so your statement that it has nothing to do with biological evolution is false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
