Why does there have to be some big plan?

[Syd the Human]

Whenever I see the evolution vs creation debate I repeatedly see that people don't like the theory of evolution because they don't want humanity to be just some random species that came into being (please note, evolution itself is not random). And to be honest I don't see why that is such a big deal. So what if we are not part of some big plan? Will that fact honestly change how a person lives their lives? I've accepted evolution since middle school and it did not affect my philosophy on life at all. It would be like changing my philosophy on life when I learned atomic theory.

So, why would the theory of evolution have anything to do with your philosophy on life?

 

[Senator Cheese]

I don't think Evolution contradicts a divine plan and I fail to see how anyone would arrive at that conclusion.
The LORD's ways have always been greater than any human could imagine - and the Evolution of Man is, as far as I understand it, a very great work of art.

To answer your question, I assume that many Creationists feel that the origin of man is a very important topic because:
a) A literal interpretation of Genesis is contradicted by Evolution
b) Evolution presupposes that death came before sin
c) Evolution contradicts the biblical notion that the LORD created everything in a "perfect balance" (or what we humans perceive as "perfect") before man brought in sin. I guess it somewhat indicates that the world was imperfect upon creation (because many would argue that death and killing in nature is imperfect).

 

[Paradoxum]

If they still believe in God I don't see how evolution would take away meaning any more than being born from random human choice or accident.

 

[Davian]

So, why would the theory of evolution have anything to do with your philosophy on life?

It doesn't for me, other than as a way to view my relatedness to other living things on this planet.

I gather that the theist's perspective is equating (the theory of) evolution with nihilism - if we are only biology, where is the magic?

 

[Syd the Human]

It doesn't for me, other than as a way to view my relatedness to other living things on this planet.

I gather that the theist's perspective is equating (the theory of) evolution with nihilism - if we are only biology, where is the magic?

I love the cartoons you post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whenever I see the evolution vs creation debate I repeatedly see that people don't like the theory of evolution because they don't want humanity to be just some random species that came into being (please note, evolution itself is not random). And to be honest I don't see why that is such a big deal. So what if we are not part of some big plan? Will that fact honestly change how a person lives their lives? I've accepted evolution since middle school and it did not affect my philosophy on life at all. It would be like changing my philosophy on life when I learned atomic theory.

So, why would the theory of evolution have anything to do with your philosophy on life?

Well, because some of us who also grew up believing the theory of evolution didn't see how it could imbue our lives with any kind of vibrant meaning. Thus, for me, it impinged upon having a positive outlook on life. Sommers and Rosenberg (2003) make a case for the nihilistic influence of the concept of evolution, particularly taking Daniel Dennett's position to task.

References
​

Sommers, T., & Rosenberg, A. (2003). Darwin's nihilistic idea: Evolution

and the meaninglessness of life. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 653-668.​

 

[Davian]

Well, because some of us who also grew up believing the theory of evolution didn't see how it could imbue our lives with any kind of vibrant meaning. Thus, for me, it impinged upon having a positive outlook on life. Sommers and Rosenberg (2003) make a case for the nihilistic influence of the concept of evolution, particularly taking Daniel Dennett's position to task.

References
​

Sommers, T., & Rosenberg, A. (2003). Darwin's nihilistic idea: Evolution

and the meaninglessness of life. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 653-668.​

Who promised you that a scientific theory was to imbue your life with vibrant meaning? What has that to do with its accuracy in explaining the data? Do you hold other theories to this standard? Germ theory? Atomic theory? Semiconductor theory? Gravitational theory?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who promised you that a scientific theory was to imbue your life with vibrant meaning? What has that to do with its accuracy in explaining the data? Do you hold other theories to this standard? Germ theory? Atomic theory? Semiconductor theory? Gravitational theory?

Do you read, or instead just wander through people's words?

No scientific theory promised me ANYTHING--THAT'S THE POINT!!! There's especially no promise (let alone comfort) to be found in Atomic Theory or Germ Theory.

 

[Syd the Human]

Do you read, or instead just wander through people's words?

No scientific theory promised me ANYTHING--THAT'S THE POINT!!! There's especially no promise (let alone comfort) to be found in Atomic Theory or Germ Theory.

Actually I think that was kind of the point he was trying to make. You are only looking for the emotional side of science, but there is not emotional side. It's not supposed to, and if you use your emotion to decide which theories are the most correct then you will not be able to make well informed decisions on the truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually I think that was kind of the point he was trying to make. You are only looking for the emotional side of science, but there is not emotional side. It's not supposed to, and if you use your emotion to decide which theories are the most correct then you will not be able to make well informed decisions on the truth.

No...you're missing my point as well.

The point is that science has no emotional side, no promise, no future, no hope...when I was a kid. I understood that then, but the realization left be numb and with a negative outlook. I did not expect to find any 'emotion' in science and still don't. I know science isn't supposed to ofter metaphysical comfort; I knew that then, and I know that now.

Are we still speaking past each other...or have I somehow entered the Twilight Zone? Please don't send me to the cornfield!

 

[Davian]

Do you read, or instead just wander through people's words?

These words of yours: "Well, because some of us who also grew up believing the theory of evolution didn't see how it could imbue our lives with any kind of vibrant meaning. Thus, for me, it impinged upon having a positive outlook on life."
(my bold)

Here, you made your positive outlook on life contingent on your "belief" in the theory of evolution, implying that it should have had something that it did not. Did someone tell you that this was a fair critique of a theory? If not, why then the reference to the Sommers and Rosenberg book?

No scientific theory promised me ANYTHING--THAT'S THE POINT!!!

Then why complain when one lets you down?

There's especially no promise (let alone comfort) to be found in Atomic Theory or Germ Theory.

Especially? Some theories impinge upon your having a positive outlook on life more than others?

Do you accept the theory of evolution or not?

 

[quatona]

So, why would the theory of evolution have anything to do with your philosophy on life?

If evolution theory would be proven wrong tomorrow this wouldn´t affect my philosophy one iota.
As opposed to theists and the divine entity of their preference, I have absolutely no positive emotional inclination towards any particular scientific theory.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

No reason for science to demonstrate a 'big plan'. No reason for agnostics or atheists to demonstrate a 'big plan'.

The only purpose I can see for a 'big plan' is to give some larger meaning to life. If there is no larger meaning to life, then when one dies, there is no more meaning.

So all one's achievements are really only meaningful as long as the person is alive. Perhaps one's wealth can be passed on to one's children, but things like honor and decency are merely cultural constructs. With information from studies showing more and more people think cheating - on most everything - is acceptable, our society is rapidly dismissing the need for honesty and so forth.

With the existence of God and an unchanging moral standard, then honesty and moral fiber is rewarded both in this life and the after life.

Without God, there is no unchanging moral standard. Without that, nothing really matters. If someone thinks less of one, who cares? Nothing really matters anyway.

 

[quatona]

Without God, there is no unchanging moral standard. Without that, nothing really matters.

Without God, nothing matters to a God. That much is agreed.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Without God, nothing matters to a God. That much is agreed.

If that's the only reed at which you may grasp, I suppose it will have to do.

 

[quatona]

If that's the only reed at which you may grasp, I suppose it will have to do.

You almost make it sound like I am drowning, or something.
The thing is: It´s not me who seeks for a solution for a problem that doesn´t even exist - were it not for sake of the solution.
You have a desperate need for a "big plan" and a "bigger meaning". Ok, go for the solution of your preference.
But please don´t pretend that your desire is my problem.

 

[Paradoxum]

So all one's achievements are really only meaningful as long as the person is alive.

How so? If you contribute to society, or family, that will have an affect beyond your life.

Perhaps one's wealth can be passed on to one's children, but things like honor and decency are merely cultural constructs.

I don't care about honour, as it seems that word honour comes become someone gets acid thrown in their face, or is murdered in the name of family honour. It doesn't seem like a good concept to me.

But decency isn't just a cultural construct... in so far as it is related to morality. Morality really does affect people and cause a positive impact on the world.

Without God, there is no unchanging moral standard. Without that, nothing really matters. If someone thinks less of one, who cares? Nothing really matters anyway.

I disagree. I believe in an unchanging moral standard, and I bet my foundation for morality is better than yours.

God does change anything in regards for morality. God only introduces an extra opinion, and an opinion is just an opinion. If God's opinion is correct, then it is correct for a reason, and such a reason could exist without God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

These words of yours: "Well, because some of us who also grew up believing the theory of evolution didn't see how it could imbue our lives with any kind of vibrant meaning. Thus, for me, it impinged upon having a positive outlook on life."
(my bold)

Here, you made your positive outlook on life contingent on your "belief" in the theory of evolution, implying that it should have had something that it did not. Did someone tell you that this was a fair critique of a theory? If not, why then the reference to the Sommers and Rosenberg book?

Then why complain when one lets you down?

Especially? Some theories impinge upon your having a positive outlook on life more than others?

Do you accept the theory of evolution or not?

Ok, Davian. Let me backtrack a little so I can attempt to clarify what I posted earlier.

First off, I apologize for the caps response—that was a little reactionary on my part. I thought you were trying to be antagonistic and smug toward what I wrote, but in looking at what you were asking, I think you were more than likely just trying to challenge my thinking. Ok, then. Perhaps I didn’t articulate very well what I was attempting to say on this thread in response to SydtheHuman. You and I haven't specifically interacted with each other on these forums, so, I’d rather begin by giving you the benefit of the doubt than get frustrated from misunderstanding.

What I was attempting to say in earlier posts on this thread was that when I was a kid, I developed a basic notion that science and the theory of evolution could not provide meaning to my life. In addition to that, not only that, I also thought that it might detract from the attempt to have meaning in my life. Some of this was brought on when I saw Carl Sagan’s (1980) TV program, Cosmos, and I heard him say that:

The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.
​

When, as a kid, I heard Sagan’s poignant speech during that program, I took his meaning somewhat nihilistically. Now, years later, I don’t think he specifically intended his comments to be taken as points in support of nihilism, at least not in the kind of way that Richard Dawkins might.

In reflecting upon Sydthehuman’s first question,

"Why does there have to be some big plan?"
​

I would assert that no clear scientific reason exists supporting the notion that there has to be a big plan, at least not simply as a part of personal wish fulfillment. I know some Christians promote their faith as a kind of personal bulwark against nihilism, and perhaps they do this because they see no other way to prevent the loss of supreme meaning and/or hope in their lives. I, on the other hand, do realize that if we approach science and the theory of evolution within the operative context of “methodological materialism” rather than “ontological materialism,” we don’t have to allow the findings of science to impinge on our supreme hopes and/or faith.

In response to Sydthehuman’s second question:

“So, why would the theory of evolution have anything to do with your philosophy on life?
​

I would say that we do have to be careful with how we handle the theory of evolution, because if we approach it by way of “ontological materialism,” then yes, the theory, as Daniel Dennett put it, and as Sommers and Rosenberg point out in the article I cited in my earlier response, is quite acidic to the propositions of theism and particularly Christian Faith.

We might also want to keep in mind that Darwin's own theory contributed to his loss of the Christian faith.

Yes, I subscribe to the basic theory of evolution.

 

[Syd the Human]

Ok, Davian. Let me backtrack a little so I can attempt to clarify what I posted earlier.

First off, I apologize for the caps response—that was a little reactionary on my part. I thought you were trying to be antagonistic and smug toward what I wrote, but in looking at what you were asking, I think you were more than likely just trying to challenge my thinking. Ok, then. Perhaps I didn’t articulate very well what I was attempting to say on this thread in response to SydtheHuman. You and I haven't specifically interacted with each other on these forums, so, I’d rather begin by giving you the benefit of the doubt than get frustrated from misunderstanding.

What I was attempting to say in earlier posts on this thread was that when I was a kid, I developed a basic notion that science and the theory of evolution could not provide meaning to my life. In addition to that, not only that, I also thought that it might detract from the attempt to have meaning in my life. Some of this was brought on when I saw Carl Sagan’s (1980) TV program, Cosmos, and I heard him say that:

The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.
​

When, as a kid, I heard Sagan’s poignant speech during that program, I took his meaning somewhat nihilistically. Now, years later, I don’t think he specifically intended his comments to be taken as points in support of nihilism, at least not in the kind of way that Richard Dawkins might.

In reflecting upon Sydthehuman’s first question,

"Why does there have to be some big plan?"
​

I would assert that no clear scientific reason exists supporting the notion that there has to be a big plan, at least not simply as a part of personal wish fulfillment. I know some Christians promote their faith as a kind of personal bulwark against nihilism, and perhaps they do this because they see no other way to prevent the loss of supreme meaning and/or hope in their lives. I, on the other hand, do realize that if we approach science and the theory of evolution within the operative context of “methodological materialism” rather than “ontological materialism,” we don’t have to allow the findings of science to impinge on our supreme hopes and/or faith.

In response to Sydthehuman’s second question:

“So, why would the theory of evolution have anything to do with your philosophy on life?
​

I would say that we do have to be careful with how we handle the theory of evolution, because if we approach it by way of “ontological materialism,” then yes, the theory, as Daniel Dennett put it, and as Sommers and Rosenberg point out in the article I cited in my earlier response, is quite acidic to the propositions of theism and particularly Christian Faith.

We might also want to keep in mind that Darwin's own theory contributed to his loss of the Christian faith.

Yes, I subscribe to the basic theory of evolution.

I think I understand you now.

You are not using your morals/emotions etc to determine what science you accept, you just don't have science impact the morals you adhere to.

Is that what you meant?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I understand you now.

You are not using your morals/emotions etc to determine what science you accept, you just don't have science impact the morals you adhere to.

Is that what you meant?

Yes, you've got my meaning now. We don't have to allow science to impact our morals, ideals, religion, etc, but we do have to be careful with how we handle science and/or the theory of evolution.

Thanks for the response.

Peace