Why does there have to be some big plan?

[Syd the Human]

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

Ok, and you're welcome.

 

[Davian]

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.

The latter was my intent.

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.

Have you read Pale Blue Dot? Specifically the chapter titled the Great Demotions?

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.

You have lost me there. Why shouldn't the findings of science "impinge on our supreme hopes and/or faith"?

Or are we back to here:

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.

What is the "basic" theory of evolution? How does it differ from the actual theory of evolution?

I think your "acidic" analogy is flawed. If I drop a sugar cube in the river, what happens to it is not because of the acidity of the water.

 

[bhsmte]

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!

I think I hear what you are saying, but despite what the theory of evolution states and the boatloads of evidence to support it, we still all have the ability to place purpose and meaning to our lives and with that, emotion.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

Because you have not taken the philosophy serious enough.
If you are a true evolution believer, then all kind of "bad" behaviors can automatically be justified. That is serious.

You name a bad behavior to me, I can show you how to justify it according to evolution, with just a few words.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Yes. Than try me, and see how long could you still hold on your cool head.
It is easy to justify killing or murder based on evolution.

 

[Davian]

Because you have not taken the philosophy serious enough.
If you are a true evolution believer, then all kind of "bad" behaviors can automatically be justified. That is serious.

You name a bad behavior to me, I can show you how to justify it according to evolution, with just a few words.

That does not speak to evolutionary theory being accurate or not. Should not the challenge be to provide something that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms? Have you anything?

 

[quatona]

It is easy to justify killing or murder based on evolution.

Sure...if you have no qualms employing logical fallacies, that is.

 

[Syd the Human]

Because you have not taken the philosophy serious enough.
If you are a true evolution believer, then all kind of "bad" behaviors can automatically be justified. That is serious.

You name a bad behavior to me, I can show you how to justify it according to evolution, with just a few words.

Yes. Than try me, and see how long could you still hold on your cool head.
It is easy to justify killing or murder based on evolution.

Well you provided yourself with an example, explain it to me then without using a fallacy.

And, how does the philosophy of gravity affect your every day life? Please explain in detail.

 

[Davian]

I don't think juvenissun has any issues with using logical fallacies in his responses.

 

[juvenissun]

That does not speak to evolutionary theory being accurate or not. Should not the challenge be to provide something that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms? Have you anything?

We are talking about philosophy, not science. It does not matter if evolution is true or not.

 

[juvenissun]

Well you provided yourself with an example, explain it to me then without using a fallacy.

If one is murdered, then there must be a reason. Almost always, the reason is for the benefit of the murderer.

A very important philosophy of evolution theory says: if something is beneficial to your survival, then do it.

Do you see any fallacy?

 

[juvenissun]

And, how does the philosophy of gravity affect your every day life? Please explain in detail.

Do not resist anything which is irresistible. It is certainly true when you swim in strong current.

May be you can see more in the "philosophy of gravity". I don't see any big problem there. But to the philosophy of evolution, boy, nearly every item in them is dangerous.

 

[bhsmte]

If one is murdered, then there must be a reason. Almost always, the reason is for the benefit of the murderer.

A very important philosophy of evolution theory says: if something is beneficial to your survival, then do it.

Do you see any fallacy?

If your life is threatened sure, but then it wouldnt be murder.

The more dominant means of survival, is to get along with your fellow man. Remember, we are social creatures.

 

[juvenissun]

If your life is threatened sure, but then it wouldnt be murder.

The more dominant means of survival, is to get along with your fellow man. Remember, we are social creatures.

No. Animal does not have the idea of getting along. They just want to make themselves comfortable. Getting along is a human idea. Suffering for others definitely does NOT belong to the philosophy of evolution.

Nearly ALL murderers are desperately trying to solve their own emergent problems. That is a very very important principle of evolution.

 

[Davian]

That does not speak to evolutionary theory being accurate or not. Should not the challenge be to provide something that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms? Have you anything?

We are talking about philosophy, not science. It does not matter if evolution is true or not.

I didn't think you had anything.

 

[Davian]

No. Animal does not have the idea of getting along. They just want to make themselves comfortable. Getting along is a human idea. Suffering for others definitely does NOT belong to the philosophy of evolution.

Nearly ALL murderers are desperately trying to solve their own emergent problems. That is a very very important principle of evolution.

How then does a wolf pack get along? Do the adults just eat the pups as they are born? Easy food, after all.

 

[bhsmte]

No. Animal does not have the idea of getting along. They just want to make themselves comfortable. Getting along is a human idea. Suffering for others definitely does NOT belong to the philosophy of evolution.

Nearly ALL murderers are desperately trying to solve their own emergent problems. That is a very very important principle of evolution.

Some animals are more social than others.

Getting along in a social environment far outweighs the rate of murders. Some happen because of desperate situations and some happen because of simple mental illness.

 

[Syd the Human]

Do not resist anything which is irresistible. It is certainly true when you swim in strong current.

May be you can see more in the "philosophy of gravity". I don't see any big problem there. But to the philosophy of evolution, boy, nearly every item in them is dangerous.

Do not resist which is irresistible? Swimming? What are you even talking about?

 

[FireDragon76]

Everyone has a story about their life, it's just atheists have largely bought into western materialism, which invariably leads to a kind of hedonism. But imagine if you were poor, disabled, disenfranchised, your life didn't have much hope. What is to stop you from committing suicide, or worse, in the name of escaping misery?

Absolute truth claims aside, atheism is just unlivable for most people.

 

[Davian]

...
Absolute truth claims aside, atheism is just unlivable for most people.

Comfort is preferable over truth?