Has evolution wired us for sin?

[Frank Robert]

Whodathunkit?

What we call "faith," science calls "intellectual dishonesty."

I am sure that is true in a few cases but it is wrong to take what a small minority may think globally. To do so would be an magnificent example of the common cognitive distortion of magnification.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In Christianity, a highest virtue is Faith.
Belief in that which cannot be " seen" nor
detected in any other way.
Belief despite no evidence. Belief in spite of
all evidence.

In research such bias is recognized as intellectual dishonesty, a disgrace. It is anti science.

A highest value, is to do ones utmost to be
objective.

That some benighted Christians play the
" same evidence, different conclusion" game
and make the grand canyon into flood proof
and "paluxy man tracks" into disproof of
ToE speaks only ill of them and their capacity
for intellectualtual honesty.
Fortunately, they lack the capacity to bring
discredit to all Christians, nor to the noble faith
that they so poorly represent.

That's unfortunately incorrect and reflects a more or less dogmatic position, one that smacks of Logical Positivism and Scientism, which neither atheists nor Christians can epistemologically sustain.

"Faith" definitely ISN'T "belief despite no evidence" or "belief in spite of all evidence."

This is claptrap of the utmost degree, and surely you're a better scientist than what you're expressing with all of this. You're being dishonest and simply presenting a lot of hubris. And you know what? It's getting to be a bit tiresome (and maybe just a little bit tinged with that dredded 'T' word that people aren't supposed to say here...so I won't say it.)

And why do I say that you're dishonest? I say this because like so many here, you refuse to engage so many other fields other than the one that you arbitrarily favor, so you grandstand and facepalm so much of what is presented. (I do understand, however, that AV's views make this a difficult situation to sort out...)

 

[AV1611VET]

I am sure that is true in a few cases but it is wrong to take what a small minority may think globally. To do so would be an magnificent example of the common cognitive distortion of magnification.

Then I take it you don't agree with her?

If so, that's refreshing to hear.

If not, then my magnification stands.

 

[Estrid]

What you say is true, but the article is not about OCD or hypertrophy it is about a hypothesis about evolution and what Christians label sin. I am interested in how cognitive distortions (distorted thinking) which are, more often than not, the culprit in both physical and mental illnesses relate to the deadly sins.

I know it's not about ocd. I just gave that as one
of a great many examples of innate impulses
and associated behaviors that can be taken
to harmful extremes.
If one accepts that we are nature's evolved
creatures, then, yeah, this stuff is obvious and
trivial to write articles about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Faith" definitely ISN'T "belief despite no evidence" or "belief in spite of all evidence."

I'm going to disagree with you here, chief.

I have faith that God created this earth by speaking it into existence, as stipulated in the Bible.

And believe me, science has ZERO EVIDENCE to that effect.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Of course we are wired for "sin'. It is our instinctive self preservation starting point. But evolution includes where we go from there, on to transformation ad self emptying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to disagree with you here, chief.

I have faith that God created this earth by speaking it into existence, as stipulated in the Bible.

And believe me, science has ZERO EVIDENCE to that effect.

Well, "Chief" you can feel free to disagree with me about the extent to which you and your church confuse so many issues.

I'm not overly concerned by your disagreement; I'm most definitely NOT threatened by it either. In your own way, you're doing the same thing as Estrid, just from another angle.

So, "chief." You can back off too!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, "Chief" you can feel free to disagree with me about the extent to which you and your church confuse so many issues.

I'm not overly concerned by your disagreement; I'm most definitely NOT threatened by it either. In your own way, you're doing the same thing as Estrid, just from another angle.

So, "chief." You can back off too!!!

Oh, my!

What tripped your hammer?

 

[Estrid]

That's unfortunately incorrect and reflects a more or less dogmatic position, one that smacks of Logical Positivism and Scientism, which neither atheists nor Christians can epistemologically sustain.

"Faith" definitely ISN'T "belief despite no evidence" or "belief in spite of all evidence."

This is claptrap of the utmost degree, and surely you're a better scientist than what you're expressing with all of this. You're being dishonest and simply presenting a lot of hubris. And you know what? It's getting to be a bit tiresome (and maybe just a little bit tinged with that dredded 'T' word that people aren't supposed to say here...so I won't say it.)

And why do I say that you're dishonest? I say this because like so many here, you refuse to engage so many other fields other than the one that you arbitrarily favor, so you grandstand and facepalm so much of what is presented. (I do understand, however, that AV's views make this a difficult situation to sort out...)

I did not attempt a treatise on all aspects of faith.
As it relates to the subject I was discussing, regarding "same evidence, different conclusion", that one aspect
of faith, my comment is exactly right on.

The spray of adjectives you directed at me because
you reworked my simple observation about this
one aspect of faith would be better applied to yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, my!

What tripped your hammer?

The World.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did not attempt a treatise on all aspects of faith.
As it relates to the subject I was discussing, regarding "same evidence, different conclusion", that one aspect
of faith, my comment is exactly right on.

No, don't do that. Don't try to backpeddle. Just accept that you're over asserting the epistemic soundness of your claims, Estrid. Just admit that you haven't studied other fields that may have some implied weight upon your current perspective and simply not having an interest in this fails as an excuse, especially for those of us (you and me) who are academically inclined.

The spray of adjectives you directed at me because
you reworked my simple observation about this
one aspect of faith would be better applied to yourself.

There goes that hubris again. If you want your little claim here to surmount its limited and mistaken application, then start engaging and overcoming viewpoints and scholarly insights of Christian thinkers who don't reflect the idiosyncatic theology of AV.

Otherwise, you're just grandstanding and gaslighting.

 

[durangodawood]

Only if ones preconcieved ideas means evolution is more valid than the bible.

post conceived.

 

[durangodawood]

I do think one grand purpose for religion in human life is to help us re-mold our motivations and willingly forgo certain impulses that evolved to protect us as strictly animals, which now unchecked hinder our flourishing as reasoning humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do think one grand purpose for religion in human life is to help us re-mold our motivations and willingly forgo certain impulses that evolved to protect us as strictly animals, which now unchecked hinder our flourishing as reasoning humans.

Tell that to Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, and the Hindus.

 

[Frank Robert]

Only if ones preconcieved ideas means evolution is more valid than the bible.

Many people hold one over the other yet faith in bible and ToE are different in nature from something else of a similar type. There is no inherent need to value one over the other. The need to do so is man made.

 

[durangodawood]

Tell that to Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, and the Hindus.

Religion can also be used for nefarious purposes. But I think its purpose in the mainstream is pretty much as I described.

(Not sure what youre on about with Hindus - Im sure some of them particpate in leader-aggrandizing cults just like in every religion.)

 

[Estrid]

No, don't do that. Don't try to backpeddle. Just accept that you're over asserting the epistemic soundness of your claims, Estrid. Just admit that you haven't studied other fields that may have some implied weight upon your current perspective and simply not having an interest in this fails as an excuse, especially for those of us (you and me) who are academically inclined.



There goes that hubris again. If you want your little claim here to surmount its limited and mistaken application, then start engaging and overcoming viewpoints and scholarly insights of Christian thinkers who don't reflect the idiosyncatic theology of AV.

Otherwise, you're just grandstanding and gaslighting.

"Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".

Just as I pointed out. Such a concept,
such an approach to evidence would be
a disaster for any real research.
Hoping for certain results is the opposite of
onjectivity. Faith in evicence that cannot be
detected but putting it into theory anyway is,
in science, the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty.

If it works for your religion, terri. You deal, no
concern of mine.
My observation has to do with those who play
SEDI- "same evidence, different interpretation"
basing their "interpretation " on their faith. (In
themselves, speaking of o'erweening pride) as
ones gifted with True understanding of scripture-
and attending Knoweledge beyond that of any researchers
om earth


Some people, less prejudiced perhaps
or fair minded, interested in substance,
would ask for such clarification. If they needed it.
It's trivially obvious, but.

Some follow forum guidelines and respond
to the post rather than going for character attack.

After your last post to me some days ago,
that was similarly nothing but a personal
attack. I didnt bother to respond, meant to
move you to ig city to spare at least myself
such unseemly displays as here where you
accuse me of being dishonest and a liar,
whatever else that I won't review to find.

As noted before, your claims would be
better applied., with more truth and less
calumny, to yourself.

 

[Estrid]

Many people hold one over the other yet faith in bible and ToE are different in nature from something else of a similar type. There is no inherent need to value one over the other. The need to do so is man made.

Faith as in Hebrews and faith that water will
still be wet tomorrow are totally different matters.

 

[Frank Robert]

Example of Faith that does not involve
intellectual dishonesty? Flood belief, say?

I have no problem with what people believe. The problem arises when particular religions or their demonetization demand their religious creation stories to be taught in public schools. Imagine what the uproar would be for YECs if Hindus made similar demands that public schools teach that their creator god Brahma emerged from an egg and created the world.

 

[Estrid]

I have no problem with what people believe. The problem arises when particular religions or their demonetization demand their religious creation stories to be taught in public schools. Imagine what the uproar would be for YECs if Hindus made similar demands that public schools teach that their creator god Brahma emerged from an egg and created the world.

Same here. Believe ye as ye will.
Trespassing on public policy, or on me
personally with it, not so much.