Ignostic regarding evolution.

[variant]

Well howzabout I qoute you from the other thread:

Is that me you are quoteing? I don't remember either the thread or the context I would have said those things in.

Please reference me directly to the place or correct your quote tags because I am lost here.

Nevermind... You are quoteing quotana. We happen to be differn't people, so fix your quote tags.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771-2/#post56249311 <Quotana

There are at least 5 distinct definitions of the term "evolution" on thefreedictionary.com.

On the page you linked to (at Berkley's educational dept) there are 167 words used to outline evolution, and Lamarckianism wasn't even mentioned. Lets assume that each of those words has 5 possible definitions, as things stand. I am trying to find an exact number of possible meaanings, but that billions upon billions of possible meanings for that one discussion alone. An online estimate is 5.3455 X 10^116* possible interpretations of that text.

You asked for a proper definition and you got one.

If it is meaningless all definitions are under your argument.

If it's appropriate for you or other 'ignostics' to play "Please elaborate, I'm lost!!!" isn't it appropriate for me to play the same game? If not, why not? If the principle of charity applies here, doesn't it work both ways, from you to me as well as from me to you?

Who said I was Ignostic? I am Agnostic.

Evolutionary biology is very clear on it's meaning, and if you ask the question of 100 biologists you will get essentially the same answer, try that with the religious.

But I do agree that God is a hopelessly abstract and nebulous term so I think your argument here alarmingly poor in trying to draw a direct comparison to how difficult it is to define evolution vs the difficulty defining God.

 

[UnReAL13]

But I do agree that God is a hopelessly abstract and nebulous term so I think your argument here alarmingly poor in trying to draw a direct comparison to how difficult it is to define evolution vs the difficulty defining God.

Exactly. Ignosticism shouldn't be applied to a concept that is already well defined, and isn't completely vague. So it doesn't really make sense to be Ignostic towards evolution. You could certainly claim to be Agnostic towards it though.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Like I clarified on the original Ignosticism topic, Ignosticism is not an epistemological position about everything, as has been demonstrated logically with the problem of radical skepticism, you couldn't even trust the terms you use to describe everyday things. With God, it is clearly not such a common thing that we can all agree about what it is. A dog is easier to define than God, a table, a chair, even basic scientific ideas like cells and molecules are more universally defined across the world than God. That is what the ignostic finds difficulty with. God is ill defined and ill specified as a term beyond what elite orthodoxy presumes is applicable and/or accessible to everyone. And for you to be ignostic about evolution is too vague, since you indicate by context that you seem to be speaking about biological evolution or the theory thereof. In which case, I imagine one could give you a basically common understanding that has changed and "evolved" in a different sense over history as a concept to what it is today. One might say the same of God, but then, that would ruin the whole exclusivist position you would want to claim about the God you believe in, wouldn't it?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is that me you are quoteing? I don't remember either the thread or the context I would have said those things in.

Please reference me directly to the place or correct your quote tags because I am lost here.

Nevermind... You are quoteing quotana. We happen to be differn't people, so fix your quote tags.

Please accept apologies for my mistake.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life

Ok back to playing ignostic about evolution. BTW I believe in evolution, but just want to show that I can play "What does that mean?" too.

Who said that I was Ignostic. I am Agnostic.

Ok fine,I am mainly trying to use the techniques used against me in the other thread against ignostics, but your definition evolution is suitable prey to start with ty.

So... "biology": lets define life, and then the scientific method for starters. We have to define out terms right, so thereforewe are "ignostic", (question for quatona?)

I think the proper answer to "Do you believe in god?" is always "God? What do you mean?". As far as I understand it correctly, that´s ignosticism in a nutshell.

These ("life" and "science" or "bio" and "logos") are nebulous terms for some of us, and I am not sure that the experts agree on the meanings. Are viruses alive, is alife alive, what about 'methodological anarchism'...does anything go in science? I have heard that the definition of life is arbitrary, does that make the science of biological evolution arbitrary, or the meaning of the term "evolution" arbitrary?

Next I want I want an agreed on definition of causation, insofar as there are causal mechanisms at work. Also if random mutations are not caused, then I want a definition of non-causation and an explanation of how uncaused events come about. You see, How can I understand the meaning of the term "evolution" without understanding these things. And if they can't be understood, then isn't that just like saying "an incomprehensible God is meaningless to me"?

Plus what evolves, is it a gene, a population or a species or what?

Also, what type of existence (objective or not) does this evolving entity have - can we please have a proof without metaphysical assumptions if evolution is to be regarded as a science. I ask because it is commonly regarded as an objective fact that things evolve, but I want to say "metaphysics is meaningless" along with the logical positivists at this forum.

Oops nearly forgot, evolution is a tautology right, not a falsifiable science?

Ps this post may seem like trolling which is not my intent. I am just trying to find weaknesses in the "meaning" of the term evolution from any angle I can. But lets assume that all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that along with answering the creationists, this might be a worthwhile exercise.

 

[KCfromNC]

So... "biology": lets define life, and then the scientific method for starters. We have to define out terms right, so thereforewe are "ignostic", (question for quatona?)

Where are these terms used in the definition of evolution? You're jumping around from the definition of evolution to evidence for specific mechanisms to the philosophical underpinnings of methodological naturalism. The fact you have to do this to distract from the fact that you got concrete definitions for evolution is pretty telling - it's much different than the situation for god.

Oops nearly forgot, evolution is a tautology right, not a falsifiable science?

Snipped lots and lots of questions about how can we possibly know anything at all. Looks like more evidence for my idea that logical defenses of Christianity quickly degrade into solipsism.

Ps this post may seem like trolling which is not my intent. I am just trying to find weaknesses in the "meaning" of the term evolution from any angle I can.

It looks like flailing to me. And the fact that you can ask so many specific detailed questions from the definition and/or knowledge we have have of evolution tells me it's in a very different category as god. Thanks for showing that to everyone else.

 

[quatona]

Ok back to playing ignostic about evolution. BTW I believe in evolution, but just want to show that I can play "What does that mean?" too.

Why would you play a game when apparently and admittedly you feel you do understand sufficiently?

Ok fine,I am mainly trying to use the techniques used against me in the other thread against ignostics

I´m not sure I understand why you feel that these are "techniques" and that people use them against you.
People want to understand what you are saying (because they are assuming you want to be understood correctly), and they give you the opportunity to clarify. That´s more like a service, in my view.

So... "biology": lets define life, and then the scientific method for starters. We have to define out terms right, so thereforewe are "ignostic", (question for quatona?)

I don´t recall asking you to have a conversation involving the term "life" as a keyword(correct me if I am wrong). If I wanted to discuss my concept "life" with you, I´d certainly be very careful to make unmistakably clear what I meant by it.

These ("life" and "science" or "bio" and "logos") are nebulous terms for some of us, and I am not sure that the experts agree on the meanings.

I am a little confused why you address this question to me, in response to a statement that neither I made in this thread nor which contained any of the terms ("these") in question.
I agree: "life", "bio" and "logos" are nebulous terms. If you wanted to discuss with me with those terms as keywords I would expect a proper and sufficient explanation of the way you use these terms. If I wanted to discuss with you on that basis, I´d do every effort to make sure you understand the way I am using them.
"Science", in my opinion, is not really such a nebulous term. But should I ever start a discussion with the term "science" as keyterm, and you´d feel you don´t sufficiently understand how I use this term, I would try to explain it to the best of my abilities.

Are viruses alive, is alife alive,

Depends on the definition of "life" and "alive" you are using.

 

[quatona]

If it's appropriate for you or other 'ignostics' to play "Please elaborate, I'm lost!!!" isn't it appropriate for me to play the same game?

Why do you think it´s about "playing a game"?
I increasingly get the impression that you are questioning my sincerity. That´s not a good basis for a conversation.

There are at least 5 distinct definitions of the term "evolution" on thefreedictionary.com.

If we were about to discuss with "evolution" as a keyterm I certainly would insist that we make sure we are both referring to the same of these definitions before we start, and I would consider you careless if you wouldn´t insist on it, too.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ok back to playing ignostic about evolution.

Funny thing is. Although you are not being entirely serious, I like your approach.

You bring up a few of fairly good questions, that, if you get them answered, would help your understanding about what goes on out there in the real world quite a lot. And which, on top of that, if not properly understood might easily leave you with a tremendous false impression.

A little ironic, that you are intending for the exact opposite.

Anyway ...

So... "biology": lets define life, and then the scientific method for starters.

Way to go. Really good questions. Once you figure out that you are looking at life in the biological sense, that brings in chemistry, metabolism, reproduction and so on and so forth.

Are viruses alive, is alife alive,

Puzzling indeed. But I am sure you can master that.

Next I want I want an agreed on definition of causation, insofar as there are causal mechanisms at work. Also if random mutations are not caused, then I want a definition of non-causation and an explanation of how uncaused events come about. You see, How can I understand the meaning of the term "evolution" without understanding these things.

Agreed. How are you supposed to have a good understanding of evolution, if you are so easily thrown by "randomness" as found in "random mutation."

Just to think of what an incredibly wrongheaded thing it would be to see true randomness in chemical reactions.

Plus what evolves, is it a gene, a population or a species or what?

You are on track. Straight to the heart of the matter.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Quatona I asked for a definition of life because the article you linked to claimed to be about "biological evolution" IIRC. And biology is the study of life, right?

So I went for the jugular of "biological" in asking for the meaning of life and the science of it. I see that as a "game" because I think that certain posters are as a stratergy making deliberate efforts to not understand or to pervert in any attempts to explain. They are turning the principle of charity on it's head.

I think thats possibly the spirit of strong atheist & ignostic Lord Emsworth whom IIRM when I provided a definition of God as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" right away asked for a definition of the term "being" complaining he didn't understand. And also the spirit of UnReAL13 when he redefines "supernatural" ad lib as "superficially natural, and therefore self contradictory and non existent" or something like that.

So hows about this as a counter: ""Evolution" comes from a root meaning "unroll" (especially of books), but living thing's aren't books and don't unroll about do they, so evolution of life doesn't make sense!!!"?

 

[quatona]

Quatona I asked for a definition of life because the article you linked to claimed to be about "biological evolution" IIRC. And biology is the study of life, right?

I don´t recall linking any article.

So I went for the jugular of "biological" in asking for the meaning of life and the science of it. I see that as a "game" because I think that certain posters are as a stratergy making deliberate efforts to not understand or to pervert in any attempts to explain. They are turning the principle of charity on it's head.

Well, you better discuss it with those posters you insinuating doing this. It´s not my business.

Just like I want to understand your concept of "god" before I discuss it with you, I expect you to be interested in my opinion and trying to understand it in a conversation between us. That´s the principle of charity that I prefer. Else we wouldn´t discuss meaningful concepts meaningfully, but ramble and babble.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think thats possibly the spirit of strong atheist & ignostic Lord Emsworth whom IIRM when I provided a definition of God as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" right away asked for a definition of the term "being" complaining he didn't understand.

Strictly speaking, I did not ask you for a definition. In fact, I provided several from a dictionary. (How about that, huh?)

And on top of that, I played through several what-if scenarios of what plugging in various definitions would entail. Here:

What? Do you think that that OED definition is coherent? Because I would not know.

Start with "being". From Wiktionary: being - Wiktionary

1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.

OK, God is a being. What kind of being? A living creature as in Definition 1?
If yes, in what kind of sense does it live? In the biological sense, most certainly not. But?

If not, then maybe it has something to do with conciousness. Which will of course draw similar questions as above. Is a rock concious? Is a bee? An car alarm?

Or maybe "being" soley makes the statement that "it exists"?

Etc.​

And complaining that I did not understand? Hmmmm ... maybe.

(Strangely enough, you identified the least interesting of these possibilities as the "right" one.)

 

[UnReAL13]

And also the spirit of UnReAL13 when he redefines "supernatural" ad lib as "superficially natural, and therefore self contradictory and non existent" or something like that.

I didn't know that I possessed such a thing as a "spirit". Would you care to logically define the concept of "spirit"? Lemme guess, it has something to do with "supernatural" doesn't it?

So hows about this as a counter: ""Evolution" comes from a root meaning "unroll" (especially of books), but living thing's aren't books and don't unroll about do they, so evolution of life doesn't make sense!!!"?

To "unroll" or "unfold" as in an "expansion" of some sort. In reference to books, the addition of texts and volumes and such. In reference to life, the expansion of species. Whether through natural development or mutation. Sounds perfectly logical to me, only a bit lacking in meaning based on the etymological definition.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don´t recall linking any article.

Well, you better discuss it with those posters you insinuating doing this. It´s not my business.

Just like I want to understand your concept of "god" before I discuss it with you, I expect you to be interested in my opinion and trying to understand it in a conversation between us. That´s the principle of charity that I prefer. Else we wouldn´t discuss meaningful concepts meaningfully, but ramble and babble.

^^^
Oops sorry I am making a habit of confusing people. First I confused you with variant, and now confuse Unreal with you. Please accept apologies, I am not perfect, obviously.

 

[quatona]

^^^
Oops sorry I am making a habit of confusing people. First I confused you with variant, and now confuse Unreal with you. Please accept apologies, I am not perfect, obviously.

No offense taken.
It just seems to illustrate the problem that ignosticism tries to do justice to.

 

[quatona]

I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything.

Agreed.

All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?

How exactly are you planning to demonstrate that one "can be ignostic about" something by showing that one can "play as being ignostic" about it?

All you - at best - could demonstrate that one can pretend pretty much anything, and I won´t dispute that. I, for example, don´t think I´d have a problem with successfully pretending to be a Roman Catholic.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

All you - at best - could demonstrate that one can pretend pretty much anything, and I won´t dispute that.

I suppose your right, I can pretend to be ignostic about evoluiton. Do you think that in this post Unreal is genuinely ignorant of the meaning of "supernatural". Oris he onto a method here, i.e. for every "God" sentence consider every possible interpreation and remain non-commital until afinal and precise definition is given (if that is he accepts that there might be an end in view).

 

[UnReAL13]

I suppose your right, I can pretend to be ignostic about evoluiton. Do you think that in this post Unreal is genuinely ignorant of the meaning of "supernatural". Oris he onto a method here, i.e. for every "God" sentence consider every possible interpreation and remain non-commital until afinal and precise definition is given (if that is he accepts that there might be an end in view).

Since you define "god" as "supernatural", there must be a clarification of what constitutes something as "supernatural". So far I've only found logically contradictory meanings. Until you provide a clear and coherent meaning of "supernatural", I remain non-cognitivist. "Beyond natural" doesn't make sense, because no matter where something exists, it is "naturally existing". You can't go "above & beyond" natural existence without simply becoming "unnatural".

This is how Ignosticism works. It's not that I'm onto another method, it's the same method for the same overall concept. Being Ignostic towards certain things makes sense if there's an obvious lack of understanding for the terminology. But you clearly understand the concept of "evolution", and I assure you I'm genuinely perplexed by the concept of "supernatural".

 

[quatona]

I suppose your right, I can pretend to be ignostic about evoluiton.

Yes.
Or you could be genuinely ignostic about that. In which case a meaningful discussion would depend on an agreement in which meaning the term is used for purposes of this discussion.
Or you could be mistaken in your assumption that you know what the other person means when saying "evolution" (since, as you rightly pointed out, it is used in many different definitions, not all of which can intuitively identified by the context). Which would cause major miscommunication.
Or - as we observe here frequently - you (and I don´t mean you, GrowingSmaller) could even be completely uneducated about a well-defined term such as "evolution theory", yet try to discuss it as though you were.

Do you think that in this post Unreal is genuinely ignorant of the meaning of "supernatural".

I try my best to abstain from mind-, motive- and intention reading, and in cases where I am dependent on it, I always do it in favour of the person in question, i.e. I am assuming the best motive I can summon up.

Oris he onto a method here, i.e. for every "God" sentence consider every possible interpreation and remain non-commital until afinal and precise definition is given (if that is he accepts that there might be an end in view).

As I´ve told you before, the question whether a certain definition is sufficient and necessary for a conversation depends greatly on its purpose. In my experience, a serious discussion about philosophical subjects does require precise definitions (simply because people are very serious about their worldviews). Thus, unless we find ourselves in a small talk situation (when people are not really seeking to understand the person opposite but are just doing conversation for conversation´s and entertainment´s sake) this is exactly what imo we are better off doing: working with precise definitions.
Thus, if a person insists on me being precise about the definitions I use my terms in, I am inclined to think he´s taking me serious and is serious about understanding my worldview before he discusses it. I wouldn´t assume he´s playing a game - I would assume he wants to understand, and would feel complimented rather than being played tricks at.

Just a word concerning the follow-up requests to define the terms used in the definition: The same goes accordingly - particularly since those terms tend to be used in definitions that are exclusive to the worldview in question.

Apparently certain holders of certain worldviews are not aware how alien their concepts and sub-concepts are to certain persons who do not hold those worldviews. They feel everybody must understand them intuitively - simply because they make so much sense, are so significant and meaningful to them themselves.

My personal experience is: All those defining terms ("supernatural", "ominscient", "omnipotent", omnibenevolent", "self-existing", "eternal"...) in the end turn out to be defined by the god concept of the person holding it as it is vice versa, and therefore turn out to be not really helpful for a meaningful discussion. Prime example: "God" is defined as being "Love" or "Good" or "Justice", and when I ask for the definition of "Love" or "Good" or "Justice" I hear "God defines what "Love" or "Good" or "Justice" is."

Bottom line: My question "God? What do you mean??" serves two purposes: Making sure I understand those who want a serious consideration of their concepts, and making sure I am not about to engage in a discussion about a non-concept that´s based on terms mutuallly defining each other, and hence is just word game.

 

[variant]

Quatona I asked for a definition of life because the article you linked to claimed to be about "biological evolution" IIRC. And biology is the study of life, right?

So I went for the jugular of "biological" in asking for the meaning of life and the science of it.

The Jugular really?

Life is easy though, where as God is nebulous.

Asking you to give specifics on God makes you look bad, I, a biologist am happy to give specific definitions of what is meant by biological life.

Living things:
Are Organised
Exhibit Metabolism
Are Made of Cells
Reproduce
Respond to Environment
The product of evolution

Only one of these criterion are seriously debated, which is the one I underlined. There is some debate as to whether viruses are alive.

Why don't you define God for me in terms most of your peers can agree on?