Theistic Evolution?

[Ouroboros]

I am not sure if I can take you seriously, as you state your religion as 'reality's fool'.
What particular differences are there between this religion and Christianity?

It's a made up label. If it bothers you, it's your problem, not mine. And using ad hominem as a retort... well...

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

It's a made up label. If it bothers you, it's your problem, not mine. And using ad hominem as a retort... well...

It does not bother me, I made no ad hominem comments.
I'm just trying to appreciate your perspective on the issue.
A self-professed fool is surely the one with a problem,
not the person merely trying to understand what it means.
Is everything just a joke to you, perhaps?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The overall issue being that if people see themselves
simply as the dominant animal, then there is no reason
not to exploit weaker people in any way. Sure, sentiment
and aesthetics may sway many people to be nice when
there is no overwhelming reason not to be.

But if an atheist is dying of organ failure, there would be a powerful
reason to kidnap someone and simply harvest their organs.
There already are numerous claims that abortion is promoted
simply to harvest stem cells. And apparently in Wales one
is considered an organ-doner unless proactively stating otherwise.
No doubt, those who try and resist may find themselves the target
of cynics and other parasites.

Have we forgotten the Nazis and the Soviets so quickly?

 

[Jumi]

But if an atheist is dying of organ failure, there would be a powerful
reason to kidnap someone and simply harvest their organs.

Based on what I know, I doubt atheism or theism would be a factor in such a plot rather the moral quality of the person.

 

[Ouroboros]

It does not bother me, I made no ad hominem comments.
I'm just trying to appreciate your perspective on the issue.
A self-professed fool is surely the one with a problem,
not the person merely trying to understand what it means.
Is everything just a joke to you, perhaps?

Whatever.

And you don't strike me as someone trying to understand with the attitude you're showing. But that's your problem, not mine.

Nothing more to add here.

 

[Deidre]

Based on what I know, I doubt atheism or theism would be a factor in such a plot rather the moral quality of the person.

This is a very interesting point, and worth expanding on a bit more. It seems that many religious people view that without belief in or of a deity, that he/she would not lead a moral life. And it stands to reason, that one can believe in a deity, and even follow a religion, and still make bad choices. But, then what often happens is the religious person will look at the other religious person and say...''well, if only you had prayed more or 'if only you were a 'true' {fill in the blank with whatever religion...)' The truth is our lives are actually the sum total of our choices, regardless if we believe in a deity or not. I follow Christ now, and in that I strive to follow His teachings, but He allows me my free will, my freedom to choose my way over His. For me in my own walk of faith now, I'd like my 'ways' to become mirrors of His ways, and sometimes they are, sometimes, not. Your point here reminds me of these thoughts.

 

[Deidre]

Actually almost all the Theists i have spoken to agree that the processes of evolution are in keeping with their beliefs.
Although it is a typical habit of atheists to completely ignore this, and then project this notion of 'six literal days of creation'
onto anyone who accepts the morals and ethics of the bible.

Its quite a perplexing situation to observe.
Typically the atheist is trying to hide from their sins, by pointing out the incomplete ontology of Genesis.

The atheist was content with a black & white understanding of the creation / evolution debate.
So when the Christian points out that he or she accepts that the physical bodies of those not fit for survival die off,
and better equipped physical bodies survive, then the atheist just pretends not to notice the argument.

The atheist decides for the Theist, that they believe in six literal days of creation because they accept religious morality,
and the transcendence of the soul; and in the imagination of the atheist, the black & white arguments are preserved,
they do not have to feel the guilt of their sins, and the status quo is blissfully preserved.

When the theist states that they do not take Genesis entirely literally, the atheist is confused,
its seems, the very concept of metaphor, and the trouble it takes to decide which is which
is too much thinking, and after all it is much easier to just get angry.

Not all atheists, but yes, I've seen this type of exchange in action. lol Now that I've returned to Christianity, some of my offline atheist friends will use these types of arguments to steer the conversation in a different direction. My rebuttal to them is usually...I'm the same person when I was an atheist, as I am now. lol The only difference is that I believe in the value of my belief system. Personally, following Christ (but in an all new way than I did previously, before leaving Christianity) brings me peace and joy, and it is not something that is easy to put into words for non-believers. When I was an atheist, my mind was made up about spirituality and religion, but I always tried to still respect those who found value in believing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The overall issue being that if people see themselves
simply as the dominant animal, then there is no reason
not to exploit weaker people in any way. Sure, sentiment
and aesthetics may sway many people to be nice when
there is no overwhelming reason not to be.

But if an atheist is dying of organ failure, there would be a powerful
reason to kidnap someone and simply harvest their organs.
There already are numerous claims that abortion is promoted
simply to harvest stem cells. And apparently in Wales one
is considered an organ-doner unless proactively stating otherwise.
No doubt, those who try and resist may find themselves the target
of cynics and other parasites.

Have we forgotten the Nazis and the Soviets so quickly?

So where are all these examples of dying atheists kidnapping and harvesting living human beings for parts??
Why aren't all the prisons overflowing with atheists?
Where are the actual examples (rather than mere claims) of abortion being promoted to harvest stem cells?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The overall issue being that if people see themselves
simply as the dominant animal, then there is no reason
not to exploit weaker people in any way. Sure, sentiment
and aesthetics may sway many people to be nice when
there is no overwhelming reason not to be.

But if an atheist is dying of organ failure, there would be a powerful
reason to kidnap someone and simply harvest their organs.
There already are numerous claims that abortion is promoted
simply to harvest stem cells. And apparently in Wales one
is considered an organ-doner unless proactively stating otherwise.
No doubt, those who try and resist may find themselves the target
of cynics and other parasites.

Have we forgotten the Nazis and the Soviets so quickly?

I think it's good point, the moral equation is altered depending on various perspectives..

In the railroad analogy, most people agree that diverting a train and killing one innocent person on one track, while saving 10 more on the other track, is the right thing to do

But kidnapping one healthy person and harvesting their organs to save 10 sick people is not,
I would agree, but what is the difference exactly?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I think it's good point, the moral equation is altered depending on various perspectives..

In the railroad analogy, most people agree that diverting a train and killing one innocent person on one track, while saving 10 more on the other track, is the right thing to do

But kidnapping one healthy person and harvesting their organs to save 10 sick people is not,
I would agree, but what is the difference exactly?

The difference is all about intent.

Who is the one person, and who are the ten, is a subtle contingency that in many ways
reduces the effectiveness of the example. If the 1 person resembles someone you admire, or
perhaps even simply has a look of intelligence and compassion about him it would not be seen
as wrong to save the 1. This is because your intent is to do what is right. If the 1 person was dying
of old age but owed you a million dollars, and the 10 were innocent kids, it would be seen as wrong
to save the 1. However, if you could use that million dollars to save 100 innocent others... Well as
I suggest, its all about the intent. But it also goes beyond this to a precedent for future actions.

If I can save my own life by harvesting the organs of another person, I may be able to save more than
just myself, as perhaps, I am a surgeon, and they are homeless alcoholics. But this would still rile
against the moral conscience, because it sets a precedent that if followed generally would generate
a world where killing of 'inferiors' is allowed, which would result in class warfare, and the result would
be disastrous for everyone.

The thing is, even if you kill people for personally understandable reasons, there is still a tendency for
society to condemn you regardless of that. This is because it becomes very easy for people with malicious
intent to fake those personally understandable reasons. In South Africa (where I live) it used to be accepted
as self-defense if you killed an intruder on your property. Then people killed suspicious looking people
and simply dragged the corpse onto their property.

If you can find a way to justify doing what appears like a wrong deed, then others fake the justification,
so now even if you are innocently defending yourself, you are often judged guilty. This is the problem
with any rigidly defined code of ethics. It is always possible to twist the right idea into the wrong idea
because no worded code can ever fully describe each and every detail.

It used to be that in an assault case, the person who pressed charges was innocent, then people
attacked others, and immediately pressed a charge of assault before the victim could recover.

We are left with a very vague notion of 'intent'. The moment I try and define 'intent' then those with
the wrong intent simply mimic this definition with their own interests above all else. So there is no
set of principles that can be objectively expressed in ordinary human terms. However, we know that
some societies thrive for long periods of time, whereas others decay due to lack of ethics.
So objectively such ethics do exist.

So where are all these examples of dying atheists kidnapping and harvesting living human beings for parts??
Why aren't all the prisons overflowing with atheists?
Where are the actual examples (rather than mere claims) of abortion being promoted to harvest stem cells?

For example, if I supply my sources for the heinous examples mentioned in the above quote, then
those who are promoting such gross ideas, can get to those sources and shut them down, so by
satisfying such an objective claim to an ethic, I actually open the door to that ethic being undermined.

Thus we are left with logic and ideals, rather than endless real examples. He asks why are the prisons not
overflowing with atheists, then I wonder where he gets the idea that they are not? Surely the best defense
that such an atheist can attempt is to pretend to be a theist?

And if atheism were preferable as being ethically higher, then why has there been no serious presidential
candidate campaigning under an atheist ideology?

Essentially if you believe in an absolute judgement, you will have the best chance, whereas if you fake one
thing, typically you will fake other things. So this amounts to authenticity and consistency in your narrative.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The difference is all about intent.

Who is the one person, and who are the ten, is a subtle contingency that in many ways
reduces the effectiveness of the example. If the 1 person resembles someone you admire, or
perhaps even simply has a look of intelligence and compassion about him it would not be seen
as wrong to save the 1. This is because your intent is to do what is right. If the 1 person was dying
of old age but owed you a million dollars, and the 10 were innocent kids, it would be seen as wrong
to save the 1. However, if you could use that million dollars to save 100 innocent others... Well as
I suggest, its all about the intent. But it also goes beyond this to a precedent for future actions.

If I can save my own life by harvesting the organs of another person, I may be able to save more than
just myself, as perhaps, I am a surgeon, and they are homeless alcoholics. But this would still rile
against the moral conscience, because it sets a precedent that if followed generally would generate
a world where killing of 'inferiors' is allowed, which would result in class warfare, and the result would
be disastrous for everyone.

The thing is, even if you kill people for personally understandable reasons, there is still a tendency for
society to condemn you regardless of that. This is because it becomes very easy for people with malicious
intent to fake those personally understandable reasons. In South Africa (where I live) it used to be accepted
as self-defense if you killed an intruder on your property. Then people killed suspicious looking people
and simply dragged the corpse onto their property.

If you can find a way to justify doing what appears like a wrong deed, then others fake the justification,
so now even if you are innocently defending yourself, you are often judged guilty. This is the problem
with any rigidly defined code of ethics. It is always possible to twist the right idea into the wrong idea
because no worded code can ever fully describe each and every detail.

It used to be that in an assault case, the person who pressed charges was innocent, then people
attacked others, and immediately pressed a charge of assault before the victim could recover.

We are left with a very vague notion of 'intent'. The moment I try and define 'intent' then those with
the wrong intent simply mimic this definition with their own interests above all else. So there is no
set of principles that can be objectively expressed in ordinary human terms. However, we know that
some societies thrive for long periods of time, whereas others decay due to lack of ethics.
So objectively such ethics do exist.



For example, if I supply my sources for the heinous examples mentioned in the above quote, then
those who are promoting such gross ideas, can get to those sources and shut them down, so by
satisfying such an objective claim to an ethic, I actually open the door to that ethic being undermined.

Thus we are left with logic and ideals, rather than endless real examples. He asks why are the prisons not
overflowing with atheists, then I wonder where he gets the idea that they are not? Surely the best defense
that such an atheist can attempt is to pretend to be a theist?

And if atheism were preferable as being ethically higher, then why has there been no serious presidential
candidate campaigning under an atheist ideology?

Essentially if you believe in an absolute judgement, you will have the best chance, whereas if you fake one
thing, typically you will fake other things. So this amounts to authenticity and consistency in your narrative.

Thanks for the detailed response!

I think I would agree, there is no simple answer, but it seems to lie somewhere in how we identify with the actors and the victims,
I take your point about our assumptions of the hospital patients etc. but even if we grant the scenario where all individuals in both analogies are identical in being young, healthy, innocent- the vast majority still instinctively accept or reject the exact same resulting trade off, depending on the setting.


Maybe it is entirely selfish. maybe subconsciously we don't identify with the young innocent person on the track- that's somebody else- because 'we wouldn't be that stupid'

But we all identify with the poor guy minding his own business and getting Shanghaied for spare parts!

And that gets to the abortion issue, can we personally identify with the most innocent and young life of all? A state we were all once in, but we don't remember it

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Thanks for the detailed response!

I think I would agree, there is no simple answer, but it seems to lie somewhere in how we identify with the actors and the victims,
I take your point about our assumptions of the hospital patients etc. but even if we grant the scenario where all individuals in both analogies are identical in being young, healthy, innocent- the vast majority still instinctively accept or reject the exact same resulting trade off, depending on the setting.


Maybe it is entirely selfish. maybe subconsciously we don't identify with the young innocent person on the track- that's somebody else- because 'we wouldn't be that stupid'

But we all identify with the poor guy minding his own business and getting Shanghaied for spare parts!

And that gets to the abortion issue, can we personally identify with the most innocent and young life of all? A state we were all once in, but we don't remember it

It also depends on how overpopulated your part of the world is.
If there is little or no food, it would be more humane for 10 equivalent people to die on the railroad
because it would be worse for them to slowly die of starvation or in a fight to the death for the
last scrap of food.

The abortion issue once more raises the notion of it being ok to kill the weak and vulnerable, then
we set a precedent. When I first came across arguments in favor of abortion in Phil Ethics II back in
1994, it was stated that it would never be after 8 weeks of pregnancy and yet the debate has now shifted
to whether its ok at 28 weeks nowadays. Certainly a very slippery slope, and here in Africa where one's
right to overpopulate beyond the food supply is seen as an unquestionable right, the line between what
is logistically sustainable is shifting closer and closer to holocaust. So the line as to what is an acceptable
point to terminate a life is moving at a consistent rate of about 1 week of life for each year. In 12 years
it will be ok to kills infants at birth at this rate, and in 24 years ok to kill them at 3 months. This assumes
that this rate will stay constant. But birth rates typically increase exponentially.

So it seems that allowing sex before marriage was a bad idea, as that was the first slip on that slope.
Yes I was guilty of this. But at least I ensured no pregnancy. A very subtle control issue which it has
been proven most people are incapable of.

The more one thinks about it. The more one realizes that Christian Biblical ethics are the best.

Now that it is certain that overpopulation will result in warfare, how can it be anything but practical
to realize that those with Biblical ethics, are the ones most fit for peaceful survival?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually almost all the Theists i have spoken to agree that the processes of evolution are in keeping with their beliefs.
Although it is a typical habit of atheists to completely ignore this, and then project this notion of 'six literal days of creation'
onto anyone who accepts the morals and ethics of the bible.

Its quite a perplexing situation to observe.
Typically the atheist is trying to hide from their sins, by pointing out the incomplete ontology of Genesis.

The atheist was content with a black & white understanding of the creation / evolution debate.
So when the Christian points out that he or she accepts that the physical bodies of those not fit for survival die off,
and better equipped physical bodies survive, then the atheist just pretends not to notice the argument.

The atheist decides for the Theist, that they believe in six literal days of creation because they accept religious morality,
and the transcendence of the soul; and in the imagination of the atheist, the black & white arguments are preserved,
they do not have to feel the guilt of their sins, and the status quo is blissfully preserved.

When the theist states that they do not take Genesis entirely literally, the atheist is confused,
its seems, the very concept of metaphor, and the trouble it takes to decide which is which
is too much thinking, and after all it is much easier to just get angry.

It isn't just a matter of Young Earth Creationism:

- Day-Age Creationism is scientifically wrong.
- "irreducible complexity" is nonsense.
- monogenism is scientifically wrong.

There are many ways for a religion to get the science wrong, and only one way to get it right.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

It isn't just a matter of Young Earth Creationism:

- Day-Age Creationism is scientifically wrong.
- "irreducible complexity" is nonsense.
- monogenism is scientifically wrong.

There are many ways for a religion to get the science wrong, and only one way to get it right.

No.
One can equally attain the age of the Earth from geology as from astrophysics.
Two different ways completely.

Demonstrated:l logical positivism is a far more stringent epistemology, than flaky old science is.

For instance, how can you prove that the entire universe is not just
a very clever 'holodeck' like in star trek?

How can you prove that you are not living in another universe with your 'brain' plugged
into a highly sophisticated machine that is giving you the illusion of everything in this life?

How can you prove that they entire world was not generated as a very clever computer game,
and that all your memories were not artificially inserted into your mind this morning after you woke up?

Of course, in all the cases, it would not be very practical to live as if any of these were true.
My point was simply that lacking biblical ethics is far more nonsensical and far less
practical than any of the scenarios listed above.

That if one cannot appreciate biblical ethics, then any claims to fully understand the esoteric
nature of the age of the universe, are pretty much just here-say and devoid of genuine analysis:

That those who think that the age of the universe is more important than biblical ethics do not
know how to think for themselves.

only one way to get it right

You really need to think your ideas through.
There are always many ways to get anything right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The difference is all about intent.

Who is the one person, and who are the ten, is a subtle contingency that in many ways
reduces the effectiveness of the example. If the 1 person resembles someone you admire, or
perhaps even simply has a look of intelligence and compassion about him it would not be seen
as wrong to save the 1. This is because your intent is to do what is right. If the 1 person was dying
of old age but owed you a million dollars, and the 10 were innocent kids, it would be seen as wrong
to save the 1. However, if you could use that million dollars to save 100 innocent others... Well as
I suggest, its all about the intent. But it also goes beyond this to a precedent for future actions.

If I can save my own life by harvesting the organs of another person, I may be able to save more than
just myself, as perhaps, I am a surgeon, and they are homeless alcoholics. But this would still rile
against the moral conscience, because it sets a precedent that if followed generally would generate
a world where killing of 'inferiors' is allowed, which would result in class warfare, and the result would
be disastrous for everyone.

The thing is, even if you kill people for personally understandable reasons, there is still a tendency for
society to condemn you regardless of that. This is because it becomes very easy for people with malicious
intent to fake those personally understandable reasons. In South Africa (where I live) it used to be accepted
as self-defense if you killed an intruder on your property. Then people killed suspicious looking people
and simply dragged the corpse onto their property.

If you can find a way to justify doing what appears like a wrong deed, then others fake the justification,
so now even if you are innocently defending yourself, you are often judged guilty. This is the problem
with any rigidly defined code of ethics. It is always possible to twist the right idea into the wrong idea
because no worded code can ever fully describe each and every detail.

It used to be that in an assault case, the person who pressed charges was innocent, then people
attacked others, and immediately pressed a charge of assault before the victim could recover.

We are left with a very vague notion of 'intent'. The moment I try and define 'intent' then those with
the wrong intent simply mimic this definition with their own interests above all else. So there is no
set of principles that can be objectively expressed in ordinary human terms. However, we know that
some societies thrive for long periods of time, whereas others decay due to lack of ethics.
So objectively such ethics do exist.



For example, if I supply my sources for the heinous examples mentioned in the above quote, then
those who are promoting such gross ideas, can get to those sources and shut them down, so by
satisfying such an objective claim to an ethic, I actually open the door to that ethic being undermined.

Thus we are left with logic and ideals, rather than endless real examples. He asks why are the prisons not
overflowing with atheists, then I wonder where he gets the idea that they are not? Surely the best defense
that such an atheist can attempt is to pretend to be a theist?

And if atheism were preferable as being ethically higher, then why has there been no serious presidential
candidate campaigning under an atheist ideology?

Essentially if you believe in an absolute judgement, you will have the best chance, whereas if you fake one
thing, typically you will fake other things. So this amounts to authenticity and consistency in your narrative.

Okay so there are no examples and what you said was just a broad generalization that isn't observable in reality.
Thanks.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Okay so there are no examples and what you said was just a broad generalization that isn't observable in reality.
Thanks.

It is observable in reality.
Some nations disintegrate into warfare more quickly than others do.

Of course the full details of all ethical acts within such nations can
only be described in broad generalizations on any forum thread.

But broad strokes are like impressionist paintings.
The best ones are those that can describe much with as little as possible.

The most dangerous moral hazard in the world is Sweden, where they
are increasingly rejecting their founding moral principles, forgetting
what that part of the world was like before Christianity arrived:

The most notorious rape and pillage the world has ever known: The Vikings.
After many centuries of civilization, complacency always sets in.

It is very easy for the appearance of morality to take the place of psychological intent.
That is where it boils down to precedent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is observable in reality.

Apparently not, since you haven't managed to give even a single real-world example.

Some nations disintegrate into warfare more quickly than others do.

Of course the full details of all ethical acts within such nations can
only be described in broad generalizations on any forum thread.

But broad strokes are like impressionist paintings.
The best ones are those that can describe much with as little as possible.

The most dangerous moral hazard in the world is Sweden, where they
are increasingly rejecting their founding moral principles, forgetting
what that part of the world was like before Christianity arrived:

The most notorious rape and pillage the world has ever known: The Vikings.
After many centuries of civilization, complacency always sets in.

It is very easy for the appearance of morality to take the place of psychological intent.
That is where it boils down to precedent.

 

[Reflex]

Based on what I know, I doubt atheism or theism would be a factor in such a plot rather the moral quality of the person.

True, but on what grounds would the respective parties base their decision?

 

[Jumi]

True, but on what grounds would the respective parties base their decision?

That sounds like a topic of it's own. If we are raised to respect other people or find that empathy in ourselves, it doesn't change based on the amount of gods that we believe in.

 

[Reflex]

That sounds like a topic of it's own. If we are raised to respect other people or find that empathy in ourselves, it doesn't change based on the amount of gods that we believe in.

The historical and cultural context has to be taken into consideration. In China, the organs of executed prisoners were harvested -- and maybe still are in an unofficial capacity.