Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you talking on behalf of the God that may or may not exist!! Your wishful thinking is pathetic. You keep making empty claims merely because you said so. Maybe it’s enough for you, but you should know that its meaningless for everyone else.
The core discussion of this thread was the ToE. If you agree that the topic of the thread came to an end, then next is to have a fresh perspective of life/reality that is free from the illusions of Neo-Darwinism.
I personally don’t agree to make such distinction. The roots are the same and the overlap is huge. Science is born from natural philosophy and I think science still has the genes of natural philosophy but with a methodology that is more focused on observation/experimentation, regardless the rational basis of reasoning in the process of interpreting the observations and extracting conclusion is similar. Philosophy applies the power of mind, logic, rational reasoning to understand reality, which is necessarily essential for methodological naturalism as well. Without the philosophical principals establishing the logic of inference, no interpretation of the observations or the underlying reality would be possible. But Philosophy may continue in the realm where science stops, and no further observations are possible.
Yes, we are born with a “conscience” that gives us an “inclination” towards moral conduct, but it doesn’t define it. Before we discuss the need for “definition”, I have to ask what is “conscience” to you? Is it merely interactions of matter governed by natural laws that yield a dictated outcome? Can you call the outcome of a chemical reaction to be moral or immoral?
If you take the religious definition of morality out of the equation, if the genes and mere interactions of matter dictate your behavior and conduct, why would be any action immoral/wrong? If your conduct brings you a benefit or fulfills your need in one way or another and you can get away with it, why would it be wrong?
Relative morality is not fine, “relative rules” is essentially “no rules”. Conformity is the way for harmony and justice but if you conform to relative rules, then in all likelihood, superiority of brute force/self-interest will govern, which can be seen more clearly between different groups or different nations.
Meaningless empty claims.
And you continue to admit that you are wrong. Thank you, thank you.
No, I,understood that fine the first time. He is ripping you a new one in that post. So you are still referring to old arguments that you lost. Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.
Oh look! He admitted that he was wrong again.
How so? You keep claiming that he is a liar. That is a foolish mistake if one really believes in a god.
No, you did not. You asked this:"reading comprehension fail"
You said that they claim god is a liar. I asked how god is a liar.
So far it appears that you are the one has the illusions. You appear to be bothered by the fact that you are an ape. You are grasping at straws by continually referring to those that you do not understand, such as Gould, or those whose statements do not appear to be well accepted and also are not well supported, such as Denis Noble. The problem is that none of those people support your beliefs.
Every individual creates or adopts his moral code. The choice is subjective, and none of the choices can be called better without defining a goal. My moral intuition is irresistible to me. I must conform to it or suffer its condemnation (guilt). And it's the same one that has done the most to improve the human condition - the values of humanism. For societies, that intuition is utilitarianism, or the society that offers the most opportunity for the most people to pursue happiness as they understand it. For me personally, it's the Golden Rule. The rest comes from rational ethics, where reason is used to choose rules that facilitate those moral intuitions. That part is empirical. We can see whether our rules facilitate that vision or not.
I don't believe that any creator has given man a moral code in words, so I don't respect received moral codes. Furthermore, the most common one, Christian, doesn't comport with my moral values in many places, and in my opinion. That's the problem with received morals from antiquity. They're crystallized. Only compassion and the willingness to move past those old ways of thinking can correct their moral errors.
Is this part of an argument against the theory of evolution?
None have.
Man is a primate with monkey ancestors. And yes, that is supported by evolutionary theory. It isn't necessary that everybody agree. In fact, the experts in evolutionary biology don't really care what any of the rest of think including people like me who agree with them. Why should they be interested in lay opinions?
We have a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.
What illusions? You keep making such claims, but where's the support for them? Nothing need change. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. The only way it can be incorrect is if the evidence supporting it were a fraud perpetrated by some deceptive superhuman power, and that would not be known unless a falsifying find were uncovered, which hasn't occurred in a century-and-a-half of looking.
It does for me.
The irresistible intuition that some actions are desirable and others the opposite.
It is a function of the human mind and the result of naturalistic evolution. I don't judge chemistry by these intuitions, but I consider them the result of material mechanisms.
It is his intention that makes the act moral, not the outcome, which may be unintended. This is where the rational in rational ethics comes into play, and what make that process empirical. We have to test our opinions to see whether they generate the intended outcome.
What I say and do is what feels moral to me, and what is experienced as immoral is avoided. I understand that you wish to impeach that approach, but I've already rejected the alternative - accepting received moral values uncritically - and trust myself more than those who would tell me what to consider right and wrong, especially the Abrahamic religions, which are rife with what I consider moral errors. Look at that garden myth and the flood myth. The deity in those is immoral by my standards.
Each has to judge that for himself. And of course, short term rewards don't
Disagree. My rules don't need to be the same as yours.
Disagree. Conformity with humanist values generate harmony and justice, but I see a lot of conformity in American evangelicals, and their values are far from just.
Disagree, and irrelevant. I will be true to my conscience even if nobody shares my values and even if the world goes to hell in a basket.
I commented that those telling others how they ought to act, "don't have the individual's interests at heart, and what they offer is flawed." I find that quite meaningful and a useful warning. I wouldn't give or take the values in the Sermon on the Mount. They weren't included in canon for our benefit, but rather, for those who would exploit you and hope that you take it without an uprising. Be meek. Be longsuffering. Turn the other cheek, for your reward will come after death - we promise!
No, it doesn't know where it's been if it's not conscious, which I define differently than you do, although I couldn't give your definition. Consciousness is awareness, which requires a brain. A slime mold is no more conscious than a gallbladder.
No, niches are not species.
Individuals that can produce fertile offspring comprise a species. You might as well say that there are no societies, just individuals.
I've already argued that niches need not change for speciation to occur. You didn't rebut it, meaning give the counterargument that shows just what you consider wrong with the comment and what evidence supports that. Without that, I have no reason to believe that the comment isn't correct.
Evolution is a type of adaptation.
Why? You need to provide compelling arguments to change critically thinking minds. You either don't realize that or don't care to change those minds. But if this thread goes another 30 or 50 pages, and you still are just making claims without argument, you will be right where you are now.
