Atheistic Darwinist Creationism and It's Just a Sack of Chemicals

[justlookinla]

So, I take it you're going to throw in the towel on this particular point, right? After all, the consequences you say have occurred appear not to have occurred.

What?

 

[Willtor]

What?

Well, you have a bunch of "Darwinists" here who don't believe what you say we believe. So... I guess you're going to give that point up?

 

[justlookinla]

Well, you have a bunch of "Darwinists" here who don't believe what you say we believe. So... I guess you're going to give that point up?

Maybe the Darwinists could explain how humans are more than an evolved sack of chemicals?

 

[The Cadet]

Maybe the Darwinists could explain how humans are more than an evolved sack of chemicals?

We don't have to be. I'm nothing more than an evolved sack of chemicals, a complex network of biochemical and electrical interactions. And yet, I have non-arbitrary wants, desires, and feelings, and I can make reasonable assessments that other humans usually tend to have very similar non-arbitrary wants and desires, at least at a very basic level (i.e. don't be sick, don't die, etc). And I can determine through reason that egocentric morality is self-refuting. In other words, I have clear, non-arbitrary reasons to act in such a way that is most beneficial to those around me (because it is beneficial to myself and spreads the positive meme that others should act the same way). This forms the basis of most materialistic moral systems, and it's not a hard concept to grasp. I don't need to be more than an evolved sack of chemicals to have some basis for caring about my fellow human being.

 

[Willtor]

Maybe the Darwinists could explain how humans are more than an evolved sack of chemicals?

On top of TheCadet's response, those of us "Darwinists" who are Christians believe that God intends for us to live in community and that this forms the basis for morals and ethics. It isn't especially important whether we are evolved sacks of chemicals or not.

 

[justlookinla]

We don't have to be. I'm nothing more than an evolved sack of chemicals, a complex network of biochemical and electrical interactions. And yet, I have non-arbitrary wants, desires, and feelings, and I can make reasonable assessments that other humans usually tend to have very similar non-arbitrary wants and desires, at least at a very basic level (i.e. don't be sick, don't die, etc). And I can determine through reason that egocentric morality is self-refuting. In other words, I have clear, non-arbitrary reasons to act in such a way that is most beneficial to those around me (because it is beneficial to myself and spreads the positive meme that others should act the same way). This forms the basis of most materialistic moral systems, and it's not a hard concept to grasp. I don't need to be more than an evolved sack of chemicals to have some basis for caring about my fellow human being.

'Caring' is nothing more than an evolved emotional constraint though, isn't it? In other words, in the Darwinist world all emotion is simply those networks of biochemical and electrical interactions operating for the survival of the human machine. 'Caring' is only a cold entirely selfish survival mechanism which is triggered only by certain stimuli. In the case of killing the sack of chemicals and selling it's parts, the mechanism of 'caring' isn't triggered in some human life forms.

 

[justlookinla]

On top of TheCadet's response, those of us "Darwinists" who are Christians believe that God intends for us to live in community and that this forms the basis for morals and ethics. It isn't especially important whether we are evolved sacks of chemicals or not.

If we're only an evolved sack of chemicals, we're not made in the image of God. Those are two very different views of the human creation.

 

[Willtor]

'Caring' is nothing more than an evolved emotional constraint though, isn't it? In other words, in the Darwinist world all emotion is simply those networks of biochemical and electrical interactions operating for the survival of the human machine. 'Caring' is only a cold entirely selfish survival mechanism which is triggered only by certain stimuli. In the case of killing the sack of chemicals and selling it's parts, the mechanism of 'caring' isn't triggered in some human life forms.

There are people who don't "care" in this way, called sociopaths, but I doubt "Darwinism" is a strong predictor.

 

[Willtor]

If we're only an evolved sack of chemicals, we're not made in the image of God. Those are two very different views of the human creation.

Not for most Christians.

 

[justlookinla]

There are people who don't "care" in this way, called sociopaths, but I doubt "Darwinism" is a strong predictor.

The point was, there is no 'caring' in Darwinism. It's simply cold emotion produced for the survival of the species.

 

[justlookinla]

Not for most Christians.

Most Christians believe they're more than an evolved sack of chemicals, contrary to the views of Darwin.

 

[Willtor]

The point was, there is no 'caring' in Darwinism. It's simply cold emotion produced for the survival of the species.

Or, a warm emotion produced for the survival of the species. And if it serves God's purposes, why should we complain that it's chemicals in our brains?

Most Christians believe they're more than an evolved sack of chemicals, contrary to the views of Darwin.

Not physically, though.

 

[justlookinla]

Or, a warm emotion produced for the survival of the species. And if it serves God's purposes, why should we complain that it's chemicals in our brains?

If it's just cold emotion, our love for God is just cold emotion produced for the survival of the species.

Not physically, though.

Yes, physically.

 

[The Cadet]

'Caring' is nothing more than an evolved emotional constraint though, isn't it? In other words, in the Darwinist world all emotion is simply those networks of biochemical and electrical interactions operating for the survival of the human machine. 'Caring' is only a cold entirely selfish survival mechanism which is triggered only by certain stimuli. In the case of killing the sack of chemicals and selling it's parts, the mechanism of 'caring' isn't triggered in some human life forms.

You won't find a lot of warm and fuzzy stuff in Newtonian Mechanics either.

Caring is an evolved emotional constraint, yes. One that is predicated on us being a social species that relies on each other for our continued survival. It may be selfish, but it's selfish in a very non-selfish way; I'd call it Randian if I thought her philosophy was not total garbage.

And yes, some humans lack empathy. They're called "psychopaths". They don't tend to pass on their genes very well, on account of often going around killing people, and being shut out of society as a result.

 

[TheBarrd]

So, in science...in Darwinism (if that's the right term), is there any consensus as to the importance of life?

 

[justlookinla]

You won't find a lot of warm and fuzzy stuff in Newtonian Mechanics either.

This is about humanity, not gravity.

Caring is an evolved emotional constraint, yes. One that is predicated on us being a social species that relies on each other for our continued survival. It may be selfish, but it's selfish in a very non-selfish way; I'd call it Randian if I thought her philosophy was not total garbage.

You certainly have a right to embrace Darwinian guesses and suppositions.

And yes, some humans lack empathy. They're called "psychopaths". They don't tend to pass on their genes very well, on account of often going around killing people, and being shut out of society as a result.

It's not the human's fault that they go around killing people, it's the fault of their genes....in a Darwinian world.

 

[justlookinla]

So, in science...in Darwinism (if that's the right term), is there any consensus as to the importance of life?

In Darwinism, there is no importance of life other than for the individual to live.

 

[TheBarrd]

We don't have to be. I'm nothing more than an evolved sack of chemicals, a complex network of biochemical and electrical interactions. And yet, I have non-arbitrary wants, desires, and feelings, and I can make reasonable assessments that other humans usually tend to have very similar non-arbitrary wants and desires, at least at a very basic level (i.e. don't be sick, don't die, etc). And I can determine through reason that egocentric morality is self-refuting. In other words, I have clear, non-arbitrary reasons to act in such a way that is most beneficial to those around me (because it is beneficial to myself and spreads the positive meme that others should act the same way). This forms the basis of most materialistic moral systems, and it's not a hard concept to grasp. I don't need to be more than an evolved sack of chemicals to have some basis for caring about my fellow human being.

Cadet, according to Darwinism, is an individual life important?
Why or why not?

 

[Chany]

Cadet, according to Darwinism, is an individual life important?
Why or why not?

Darwinism isn't really a philosophy, I don't even know what it is. I do know about something called evolutionary biology.
This takes no stance on morality. It simply states that allele frequencies change in a population over time.

 

[justlookinla]

Darwinism isn't really a philosophy, I don't even know what it is. I do know about something called evolutionary biology.
This takes no stance on morality. It simply states that allele frequencies change in a population over time.

Darwinism yields a worldview concerning humanity and it's place in creation.