Purpose

[essentialsaltes]

It seems we may need to answer a corollary question: What is the difference between purpose and cause/effect (Since I assume you would agree evolution supposes cause/effect relationships)?

Purpose requires intention. Sedimentation and erosion sculpted the Grand Canyon, but they did not intend this result as a goal, and work towards this purpose.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I really do not see any special issue here, biological evolution assigns no purpose to what happens in the evolutionary history of any species and that is as it ought to be for a scientific approach.

A Christian might want to assign purpose to God's creation as a whole and to biological evolution especially but that is more of a presupposition than a conclusion based on observed evidence. The truth is that in nature evolutionary processes are quite violent and rather unkind so assigning a benevolent loving God as superintendent of these processes might be a little counter productive but thinking of creation more in terms of a set of laws arising from the creation 'event' is likely to be less problematic for theism because it leaves science to deal with observed events as it should. The sciences are competent to observe and note how things happen as well as to propose explanations for how they happen.

 

[juvenissun]

Purpose requires intention. Sedimentation and erosion sculpted the Grand Canyon, but they did not intend this result as a goal, and work towards this purpose.

Of course there is a purpose for that. It is to level the land to the sea level.

You need knowledge and wisdom to see any real goal or purpose.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course there is a purpose for that. It is to level the land to the sea level.

You need knowledge and wisdom to see any real goal or purpose.

Sedimentation and erosion do not have knowledge and wisdom. Therefore they cannot see any goal or purpose. Any goal or purpose that you see in their actions is something happening in your head.

You are confusing results or effects for purpose and goals, which was the point of Resha's most recent question: "What is the difference between purpose and cause/effect?"

Yes, the water runs to the sea, but it is not trying to get there. It does not intend to arrive at a destination. It does not have a purpose or a goal in mind. It has no mind to hold a goal in.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution has no conscious purpose, hence why there are so very many biological imperfections. Obviously, biological populations change and "improve" far more slowly than the various tools we create as a reflection of that fact. Evolution is caused as a natural result of mutation and the fact that some traits are better for survival and reproduction than others. No mutation, no evolution. However, items created with a purpose are typically very reflective of that purpose, to the point of which they are useful for little else. You don't see that in naturally occuring items.

Does this mean that, through biological imperfections, some races are better than others? Are some races more advanced, intelligent, better for survival?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does this mean that, through biological imperfections, some races are better than others? Are some races more advanced, intelligent, better for survival?

By "races" are you referring to differences in skin colour and the like among human beings?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Does this mean that, through biological imperfections, some races are better than others? Are some races more advanced, intelligent, better for survival?

I'd say each "race" has a slight edge in surviving in the geographic area from which it arose. No race is all around superior to any other. A person with a light complexion would be plagued by devastating sunburn if they lived towards the equator, while a person of dark complexion would suffer from near continuous vitamin D deficiency towards the poles. Of course, advances we have made as a species even far back into the past have made these slight geographically related advantages/disadvantages essentially null. More advanced civilizations tended to be ones that interacted with other civilizations and shared a larger population from which to obtain various ideas, practices, and innovations. Historical record shows that to be the case, and even has instances where previously advanced societies fell behind after isolating themselves from other peoples. Intelligence, being the key to the survival of our species, is generally favored equally no matter the geographic region.

 

[JayFern]

Please explain to us what "spiritual" is and why we should allow for it or how we could allow for it?

That reply was directed to a fellow believer. I don't expect you to allow for it, and even noted in the reply that ascribing purpose to the spiritual was outside the scope of my intentions for this thread.

I thought not, you can't explain what spiritual is because you don't know either it's just a meaningless word.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution has no conscious purpose, hence why there are so very many biological imperfections. Obviously, biological populations change and "improve" far more slowly than the various tools we create as a reflection of that fact. Evolution is caused as a natural result of mutation and the fact that some traits are better for survival and reproduction than others. No mutation, no evolution. However, items created with a purpose are typically very reflective of that purpose, to the point of which they are useful for little else. You don't see that in naturally occuring items.

I understand the distinction you're trying to draw. From there I'm trying to move on and ask "Why?" What materialistic cause apart from evolution drives the emergence of the human idea of purpose?

If you don't know what drives it, I don't see how you can say evolution is not the cause.

 

[Linuxgal]

I thought not, you can't explain what spiritual is because you don't know either it's just a meaningless word.

You can glean the meaning of spiritual from Christians with a handful of questions. For instance, if you point out that God said Adam and Eve would die in the day they ate the forbidden fruit, and further point out that they didn't die until nine hundred years later, Christians will explain that they didn't die physically but they died spiritually. If you point out that Jesus said the Son of Man would come with power within the lifetime of some of his disciples, and further point out that it has been two thousand years now, and the Son of Man has not come in power, Christians will explain that on Pentecost the Son of Man came with power spiritually. In other words, spiritual is a hand wave that preserves the inerrancy of the text.

 

[Resha Caner]

To do so requires some level of thought. Evolution is not a thinking thing, therefore it cannot assign purposes or have goals.

My reply to you would be similar to what I said to Sarah. I understand the distinction you're making. And I'm assuming that you view a "thinking thing" as having a material cause.

So, I'm asking, "What is that material cause?"

 

[Resha Caner]

I thought not, you can't explain what spiritual is because you don't know either it's just a meaningless word.

If you want to make unfounded statements, we have nothing to discuss. Do I not have the right to set the scope of my discussion? Your question is not in scope.

If you are interested in the topic of what I think a spiritual thing is, start a new thread and invite me to participate.

 

[JayFern]

If you want to make unfounded statements, we have nothing to discuss. Do I not have the right to set the scope of my discussion? Your question is not in scope.

Neither are you because you are religious and will believe just about anything that suits you,
I can't do that because my brain won't let me, it stands between me and unfounded beliefs..

 

[juvenissun]

Sedimentation and erosion do not have knowledge and wisdom. Therefore they cannot see any goal or purpose. Any goal or purpose that you see in their actions is something happening in your head.

You are confusing results or effects for purpose and goals, which was the point of Resha's most recent question: "What is the difference between purpose and cause/effect?"

Yes, the water runs to the sea, but it is not trying to get there. It does not intend to arrive at a destination. It does not have a purpose or a goal in mind. It has no mind to hold a goal in.

Of course it is in our head. We observe and we find out what the process does. We "called" it the purpose of the process. The "purpose" is simply a name given to the trend. The important thing is the trend.

Does evolution show a trend? As an evolutionist, you MUST say no.
But do we see a trend? a child can see the answer: YES!

 

[Linuxgal]

Does evolution show a trend? As an evolutionist, you MUST say no. But do we see a trend? a child can see the answer: YES!

Then have your child publish his statistics and the hit-space from which he derives his plot-points in Nature.

 

[Resha Caner]

Neither are you because you are religious and will believe just about anything that suits you,
I can't do that because my brain won't let me, it stands between me and unfounded beliefs..

IIRC this is the first time we've ever talked, so you have no idea what I believe. Until you manage to respond in a less prejudiced manner, we're done.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The only purpose to our lives are the purposes we give them.......

Isn't that a leap that evolution cannot make, a 'purposeless' entity granting itself purpose?

 

[Resha Caner]

Isn't that a leap that evolution cannot make, a 'purposeless' entity granting itself purpose?

Mmm. An astute statement. That may be the essence of my question. How does purpose emerge from the purposeless?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I understand the distinction you're trying to draw. From there I'm trying to move on and ask "Why?" What materialistic cause apart from evolution drives the emergence of the human idea of purpose?

If you don't know what drives it, I don't see how you can say evolution is not the cause.

Being able to assign and work toward goals (purpose) is probably beneficial to organisms, so it may well have an evolutionary basis. That is not the same as saying that evolution itself has a purpose.

Evolution produced eyes, but evolution does not see.
Evolution produced brains that can support goals, but evolution does not have goals.
Erosion produced canyons that have a depth, but erosion does not have a depth.

Processes can produce an result with features they do not themselves possess.

 

[Resha Caner]

Being able to assign and work toward goals (purpose) is probably beneficial to organisms, so it may well have an evolutionary basis. That is not the same as saying that evolution itself has a purpose.

Evolution produced eyes, but evolution does not see.
Evolution produced brains that can support goals, but evolution does not have goals.
Erosion produced canyons that have a depth, but erosion does not have a depth.

Processes can produce an result with features they do not themselves possess.

OK. I've got no reason to object to that ... with one caveat ... wouldn't it be better to say you're not seeking to assign a purpose to evolution rather than saying you know it has no purpose?