How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[mnbvcxz87]

Well looking at this message forum it seems like they are at odds, quite alot anyway.

If philosophy was based on science, and lets assume that evolution, the age of the universe and the big bang are fact, what philosophy could possibly derive from that? That billions of years of nothing happened, for no apparant reason, then billions of years of animals fighting eachother, then humans arrived on the scene for no apparant reason either, because all the bag things in the world (volcanoes hurricane viruses) are scientifaclly, impossible to end.

I think the end of my reply to empirical also applies to this subject.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Opcode where is the real strong evidence that living matter derived from non living matter? The big bang is as much of an ssumption as assuming how proteins and dna came to exist with eachother.

 

[Nooj]

Opcode where is the real strong evidence that living matter derived from non living matter?

Define living first.

The big bang is as much of an ssumption as assuming how proteins and dna came to exist with eachother.

The Big Bang theory is well supported by many pieces of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once you realize that you will start to realize why bibles are so chock full of error. They were written by men of antiquity with limited scientific knowledge. The made assumptions not unlike the ones you make today.

Empirical,

Is there something particular in the Bible that stands out to you as being a "gross error", or is this just something you've been trained to believe?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

'Because individuals evolved to be predators doesn’t mean Evolution is the root of bad morals and therefore not true. It’s just how it is.'

But if you apply moral reasoning to the universe, the TOE doesn't fit.

'Separates us from what?'

Non human, sentient animals. Does science know exactly how sentience works? It really depends which questions are most important to you individually. Personally the questions philosophy deals with are more important than scientific questions (how did that happen instead of why). If you accept that there is or at least could be reason for being, then the TOF can be negated on these grounds. If you put reason second to likelyhood (rather than proof) then the TOF can't be negated by that.

Isn't reason more or at least as important?

By the way opcode my argument isn't religious.

 

[Opcode42]

Opcode where is the real strong evidence that living matter derived from non living matter? The big bang is as much of an ssumption as assuming how proteins and dna came to exist with eachother.

The evidence that living matter derived from non living matter is pretty simple.

At one point in the universe there was no life. Then there was.

Regardless of wether you believe in the divine creation of life, or you accept current ideas of Abiogensis, or even other possibilities, at one point there was no life, and then later there was life.

There is a reason we do not have any formal theory of Abiogenesis. It is a young field. We currently have several good ideas, but they require much more testing before they can graduate to a theory.

Science is never afraid to say, "we just don't know, yet". You instead would throw god into it instead, which pretty well ends the discussion, as now we have no further need to figure it out.

Fortunately science takes an "I don't know" and uses it as motivation to find out.

But of course all this takes time. Patience is indeed a virute. If you expect every answe rot be handed to you on a plate, then you are doomed to disapointment. But this is no excuse to go out and invent your own answers that have no relation to what we already do know.


Care to respond to any other part of my fairly thorough previous post?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Also opcode here's a major problem with the TOF (also to anyone else). If we assume that living matter origonated in either the land, or in an aquatic environment, how is it even remotly possible that survival of the fittest, mutation of the genes, anything like that led to an animal becomeing amphibious? I simple don't understand it. If humans were to live o this planet for 5 billion years do you think there would ever have been just 1 who could breathe in water?

'Define living.' Organic.

 

[Nooj]

'Define living.' Organic.

I believe organic basically applies to anything with the element carbon in it. Maybe you need to narrow it down.

 

[Opcode42]

Also opcode here's a major problem with the TOF (also to anyone else). If we assume that living matter origonated in either the land, or in an aquatic environment, how is it even remotly possible that survival of the fittest, mutation of the genes, anything like that led to an animal becomeing amphibious? I simple don't understand it. If humans were to live o this planet for 5 billion years do you think there would ever have been just 1 who could breathe in water?

'Define living.' Organic.

Gas is an organic molecule. Try again.

By TOF I assume you mean the ToE?


You are thinking of evolution as if it were the X-Men. Animals do not change from one species to another in a single generation. Populations of animals evolve over many many generations.

There currently exist fish that can live and breathe for short times on land. Lungfish are such a fish. This adaption is similar to the original adaption that allowed fish to begin moving onto land. Over many generations, the time each succesive fish could spend on land increased, untill the time became indefinate. Not my area of speciallty at all. For a brief introduction and a list of further reading try the following site

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm

 

[Tomk80]

Well looking at this message forum it seems like they are at odds, quite alot anyway.

How?

If philosophy was based on science, and lets assume that evolution, the age of the universe and the big bang are fact, what philosophy could possibly derive from that?

Quite different ones. Some theistic philosophers have derived from this some sort of evolutionary, theistic philosphy where human knowledge of their surrounding life and of and of salvation also 'evolves'. Atheistic philosophers have set out certain similar philosophies. The nihilistic path you set out below is one other possible option, but not the only one. You are setting up an all or nothing position which does not exist in reality. You basically state that, if big bang and evolution are true, life becomes automatically meaningless. That is one possible answer that has been given, but if you had read a little more on current philosophy, you would know that this is not the only one.

That billions of years of nothing happened, for no apparant reason, then billions of years of animals fighting eachother, then humans arrived on the scene for no apparant reason either, because all the bag things in the world (volcanoes hurricane viruses) are scientifaclly, impossible to end.

That is one possible option. But why do you limit yourself to that and completely ignore all other paths that philosophers have set out in this?

And even if this is the only option, this doesn't mean it isn't true. The evidence indicates big bang happened and evolution happened, regardless of whether this makes life meaningful or not. I happen to think that the second house build by parents of my friends is pretty meaningless and useless. They agree, but they did it anyway because they liked it. Regardless, this doesn't have any impact on the fact that it has been built.

I think the end of my reply to empirical also applies to this subject.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Well opcode maybe I'll change my belief's if science can answer questions like that. At the moment it doesn't know, so at the moment, instead of assuming it is something science will inevitably come to uderstand, how is philosophy on this issue any less important than science?

Philosphy: I don't know but here's what I think.

Science: I don't know but I'll find out, hopefully.

Ok I understand your point on labelling of ideas.

Regards the dolphins question and your reply. Well this is just it you've gone on to make huge assumptions. I realise that intelligence is able to manipulate what tools it has to work with, but why have humans risen to dominance if just for our intelligence, when dolphins haven't? Why are sharks the most dominant squatic animal, and not dolphins. Dolphins can't throw javelins at sharks (I don't think anyway) but surely they could work together, in groups and out smart all of the other fishies using their intelligence. I don't see how primitive apes would have fared against prides and leapords. Twenty primates and 20 sticks vs 1 pride, my money's on the pride. This is a moot point anyway it's another thing we don't know, there's no point in going into a 'this is more likely' 'no this is more likely' debate on it.

We just don't know how humans rose to the dominance.

About the big bang is it not a theory? There is still the assumption that it is true, when we don't know it to be as a fact.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Ahh opcode look at the assumptions you just made regards fish. Honestly I do understand how the changing species developed under the TOE but I do not believe it ever possible that any mutation of any sort would enable an animal to breathe in it's opposite environment (land sea). That's an enourmous assumption you make if you claim TOE to be true.

I mean am I wrong in thinking these mutations and the whole principle is about very tiny changes, like slightly longer limbs, or sharper teeth, or stronger back legs to run faster, where on earth does an aquatic animal breathing air come into it?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Empirical,

Is there something particular in the Bible that stands out to you as being a "gross error", or is this just something you've been trained to believe?

You can start with the earth being flat. But I don’t mean to derail my own thread as I’m sure this will degrade into a GA interpretation debate really quickly. If you start a thread in GA about your bible and a flat earth I’ll participate.

 

[Tomk80]

'Because individuals evolved to be predators doesn’t mean Evolution is the root of bad morals and therefore not true. It’s just how it is.'

But if you apply moral reasoning to the universe, the TOE doesn't fit.

Why not? Sure, mortality and suffering seem cruel in our own, limited vision. But does that mean it doesn't serve a higher purpose? How do you know?

'Separates us from what?'

Non human, sentient animals. Does science know exactly how sentience works?

No. How does this impact the validity of the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with apes?

It really depends which questions are most important to you individually.

And that is where science is so good. Regardless of which questions we think are more important, the same conclusion is reached. That is why it trumps philosophy, because it is based on the evidence instead of speculation without evidence.

Personally the questions philosophy deals with are more important than scientific questions (how did that happen instead of why).

I might even agree with that. But to give a good answer on the "why", you'll need to start out with the "how". Science supplies the "how", it supplies the starting point for philosophy.

If you accept that there is or at least could be reason for being, then the TOF can be negated on these grounds.

How? How does the fact that we could have a reason for being negate the evidence for evolution?

If you put reason second to likelyhood (rather than proof) then the TOF can't be negated by that.

How can you put reason second to likelyhood? Likelyhood derives directly from reason.

Isn't reason more or at least as important?

By the way opcode my argument isn't religious.

Yes. Reason is important. But sound reason does not negate evidence. It uses evidence. Reason without evidence is nothing more than speculation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can start with the earth being flat. But I don’t mean to derail my own thread as I’m sure this will degrade into a GA interpretation debate really quickly. If you start a thread in GA about your bible and a flat earth I’ll participate.

I was just curious --- thanks

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Tom I'm open to any school of thought and if there is worthwhile philosophy of that sort, I'll definitely look into it.

It seems though, there little meaning, or ultimate good can be derived if you accept these scientific principles. Which is why many turn to religion. Which I don't agree with either, hence my own philosophy.

 

[Opcode42]

But if you apply moral reasoning to the universe, the TOE doesn't fit.

No, if YOU apply YOUR morals, the TOE doesnt fit. Sorry, you can not throw out evidence just because you don't like what it concludes. I don't like the idea of paying taxes on my income, but untill the flat tax happens, I will continue to have to do so, I cannot wish it away.

Philosophy is about why, not how. The universe does not require a why unless you assume a supernatural. And even then, it is not required, just very common.

Non human, sentient animals. Does science know exactly how sentience works? It really depends which questions are most important to you individually. Personally the questions philosophy deals with are more important than scientific questions (how did that happen instead of why). If you accept that there is or at least could be reason for being, then the TOF can be negated on these grounds. If you put reason second to likelyhood (rather than proof) then the TOF can't be negated by that.

Isn't reason more or at least as important?

By the way opcode my argument isn't religious.

Here againyou prefer to toss out evidence that you don't like, and insist that the universe conform to what you do like. The universe does not care if you do not like it. It is not a concious being(I understand you believe otherwise, but without evidence, it is just belief).
Here again you state that philosophy(at least your personal philosophy) negates the ToE. Again this is you throwing out evidence because you don't like it. Again I have to state that wether you like something or not does not change its validity. To believe otherwise is a very naive opinion, it shows a lack of experience with the real world, and a reliance on fantasy to escape the sometimes unpleasant realitys of our world.

Sorry, but your belief of a sentient universe and being able to stop all creatures from harming or eating each other is very much a religious belief. If you disagree, explain how it is not.

 

[Opcode42]

misread

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Well the core problem with TOE on moral grounds is the problem I referred to. I also strongly disagree on this higher purpose point which is something religion brings up alot. Is it really acceptable for us to dismiss a billion years of suffering for serving a higher purpose? I find that obscene. And then, once that had ended what purpose is our being here?

Like I say, if all of the negative aspects of life are according to science impossible to end, and to get to the point of being here there has been a few billion years of suffering, and now we can't do anything anyway, the only philosophical outlook you can have after you've made sure it's compatible with science is "errr".

There's nothing which fits.

 

[Tomk80]

Well opcode maybe I'll change my belief's if science can answer questions like that. At the moment it doesn't know, so at the moment, instead of assuming it is something science will inevitably come to uderstand, how is philosophy on this issue any less important than science?

Philosphy: I don't know but here's what I think.

Science: I don't know but I'll find out, hopefully.

Ok I understand your point on labelling of ideas.

Regards the dolphins question and your reply. Well this is just it you've gone on to make huge assumptions. I realise that intelligence is able to manipulate what tools it has to work with, but why have humans risen to dominance if just for our intelligence, when dolphins haven't?

Because our intelligence is not the only thing that makes us able to manipulate tools. Our build, especially our hands with their fine motoric skills come into play there. That's one of the big issues, dolphins cannot manipulate tools well. They're even worse at it then monkeys are.

Why are sharks the most dominant squatic animal, and not dolphins. Dolphins can't throw javelins at sharks (I don't think anyway) but surely they could work together, in groups and out smart all of the other fishies using their intelligence.

They do, but that only goes so far. Humans have only started dominating after the invention of agriculture. Before that, they did not dominate, but were just bands of hunter/gatherers, just as dolphins who group together (which they do) against schools of fish or sharks.

I don't see how primitive apes would have fared against prides and leapords. Twenty primates and 20 sticks vs 1 pride, my money's on the pride. This is a moot point anyway it's another thing we don't know, there's no point in going into a 'this is more likely' 'no this is more likely' debate on it.

twenty primates with sticks here, a herd of larger and more defenseless prey there. Which are you going to choose?

We just don't know how humans rose to the dominance.[/quote]
Examine the fossil record. No agriculture, no dominance. Agriculture --> rise of dominance. We do have a good idea how humans rose to dominance. It's not complete, but it's not absent either.

About the big bang is it not a theory? There is still the assumption that it is true, when we don't know it to be as a fact.

Scientific theory =/= guess. A well supported scientific theory is more certain than a less supported fact. Do you understand that?