Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

The PSR & Final Causality

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aristotle understood the the natural world can be sufficiently explained in terms of 4 causes, Material, Efficient, Formal & Final.

The Final cause is "that for the sake of which" or a purpose or teleology. Now the PSR,

http://en.wikipedia.org...

first written about by Anaximander, years before Aristotle, gave me pause to think. I've not yet worked the details but toss this idea around:

Atheists often accuse theists of being deluded into seeing a final cause of everything, when, they presuppose, there is none. But PSR = no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise.

All naturalism has done thus far is presuppose itself in the sciences. But with such a presupposition, it's no wonder why we come up with naturalistic answers. However, if the common sense perception that blatantly overcomes us of "seeing purpose in everything" is just wrong headed, and at best a delusion, then we ought to have a reason why. But the only one on offer I'm afraid is the unjustified (or at best, weakly justified) presupposition of the sciences!

How then can our properly basic belief of purpose, which is just obvious to us and takes much work ignore, be sufficiently supported as a delusion?

My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world. But perceiving purpose can't be explained in terms of physical explanations. It follows then that physicalism is false.

What if we perceive purpose, because we were designed to perceive purpose?

^this explanation seems more sufficient than it's denials.

Now don't consider this an argument, it's not air tight by any means, indeed I don't think anyone can construct a good argument from design or any other alleged properly basic belief or perception, I want more of a discourse concerning what I've just said.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:04:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world. But perceiving purpose can't be explained in terms of physical explanations. It follows then that physicalism is false.

I think that there supposedly are evolutionary answers to this though. Could you elaborate on what you mean by perceiving purpose in the natural world just a little bit?
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:04:06 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world. But perceiving purpose can't be explained in terms of physical explanations. It follows then that physicalism is false.

I think that there supposedly are evolutionary answers to this though.

I agree.. I just don't think in terms of naturalistic Darwinianism- unguided evolution can adequately explain it without reference to final causation. Remember, methodological naturalism stifled explanations and limited them only to Material and Formal Causation.

Final and efficient causes are no longer in the text books ever since naturalism presupposed itself into the natural sciences without justification. So any explanation we do have of purpose or perceiving purpose with just automatically be writ off as a delusion brought on somehow by natural selection... the whole scientific enterprise become a charade then if there actually are other causal explanations for perceiving purpose.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by perceiving purpose in the natural world just a little bit?

I mean explanations in terms of "that for the sake of which." A dolphin has a blow hole for the sake of X and X has p for the sake of Q... now all of these have naturalistic explanations. I agree. But now when we step back, look at the bio, geo, comso system as a whole, then dive in and look at the parts, what is it that makes us initially see purpose in all of it? That's what needs explanation. And sufficient explanation.

By perceiving purpose I mean what Darwin himself meant when questioned by the 8th Duke of Argyll,

"I said it was impossible to look as these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding "it seems to go away." (George Douglas Campbell, 1885)

(PS check out my mad non-plagiarism skillz)

It just sweeps over us as immediately becomes obvious when I see a video of what happens inside a cell, or see the earth system as a whole and how everything is interconnected, as a scientist I have to constantly remind myself it's not purpose driven, it's all random selection... stop deluding yourself.

My point is this, what made Darwin have the same thing, what made countless other scientists working hard at convincing themselves, daily, to ignore that perception other than an unjustified presupposition of naturalism? But more importantly, what made us have that perception to begin with, THAT's what must be explained.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

well spoken! ... and I agree with you on the yahoos... now it's hard for me to convey this on a forum since the thought's so new to me, but the bold is what I'm getting at. It may be that our habit of perceiving purpose is rooted in our nature for fear, etc. But the origin of how a belief came about is irrelevant to it's truth value still.

That it's in our nature to perpetually perceive purpose is either a true perception, or it is a false one. And a sufficient reason must account for why we perceive it. I have a hard time seeing how our purpose can be explained naturally since purpose deals with a type of cause that isn't restricted to naturalism for one, but for two if one belief can be explained, sufficiently, but naturalistic terms and it be found wrong, then we have an undercutting defeater for all of our beliefs, including the belief that "our perception of purpose is a delusion."

This is a Plantingaian influence but for now I just don't see how it can be resolved.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.

The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:34:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.

The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

Caught that eh... ew I feel so deluded!

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

Nah, that's not a yahoo, a yahoo is a an old guy that announces "you got a devastating earthquake because there's gays in your town!"

^that's just to pretend to know the mind of God.

I'm sure you don't do such a thing.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:39:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We are told about how things are the way they are because they were designed intentionaily that way. Eyes see because that is what was intended, ears hear because that is what was intended and the ebola virus kills chidlren in africa because...........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:44:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:50:10 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

well spoken! ... and I agree with you on the yahoos... now it's hard for me to convey this on a forum since the thought's so new to me, but the bold is what I'm getting at. <b>It may be that our habit of perceiving purpose is rooted in our nature for fear, etc.</b> But the origin of how a belief came about is irrelevant to it's truth value still.

That it's in our nature to perpetually perceive purpose is either a true perception, or it is a false one. And a sufficient reason must account for why we perceive it. I have a hard time seeing how our purpose can be explained naturally since purpose deals with a type of cause that isn't restricted to naturalism for one, but for two if one belief can be explained, sufficiently, but naturalistic terms and it be found wrong, then we have an undercutting defeater for all of our beliefs, including the belief that "our perception of purpose is a delusion."

This is a Plantingaian influence but for now I just don't see how it can be resolved.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.

I can agree with some of your statements, but not all of them. You see, you just can't judge a sentient being with choice by the same yardstick you judge the rest of nature, because we can completely go against nature and instincts. The vast majority of human purpose actually appears artificial instead of natural, that does not automatically make it divine by any sense of the word, though.

So I can agree with your premise(human purpose and purpose we perceive isn't necessarily natural, and can be artificial), however, I would not agree that anyone should assume that means that there necessarily MUST be a divine cause or agent.

I am not sure I expressed my position as well as I could have, but I am sure that you will point out whatever parts that seem inconsistent.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:47:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.

The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

You pre supposing that the super-super natural doesn't exist. I am of those yahoos that believes that the super-super natural governs the supernatural by mechanism.

Now the next person says well what about the super-super-super natural........whatcha gonna do ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:01:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

To lightning, the Black Plague, and natural disasters?

Your damn right I do.

As far as human perception is concerned, it is influenced by artifices every day.

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

So do you think Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana because of immorality, or something equally offensive and downright hateful? If not, then you are obviously not one of the yahoos I was talking about. Granted, you might still be a yahoo if you want, you just aren't one of the ones I was talking about.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:49:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:01:49 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

To lightning, the Black Plague, and natural disasters?

Your damn right I do.

As far as human perception is concerned, it is influenced by artifices every day.

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

So do you think Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana because of immorality, or something equally offensive and downright hateful? If not, then you are obviously not one of the yahoos I was talking about. Granted, you might still be a yahoo if you want, you just aren't one of the ones I was talking about.

Influenced, yes, determined or irreducible to- that's what we want to know.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:52:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Aristotle understood the the natural world can be sufficiently explained in terms of 4 causes, Material, Efficient, Formal & Final.

The Final cause is "that for the sake of which" or a purpose or teleology. Now the PSR,

http://en.wikipedia.org...

first written about by Anaximander, years before Aristotle, gave me pause to think. I've not yet worked the details but toss this idea around:

Atheists often accuse theists of being deluded into seeing a final cause of everything, when, they presuppose, there is none. But PSR = no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can be increased without a designer overseeing the process so we have sufficient reason to think otherwise.

All naturalism has done thus far is presuppose itself in the sciences. But with such a presupposition, it's no wonder why we come up with naturalistic answers. However, if the common sense perception that blatantly overcomes us of "seeing purpose in everything" is just wrong headed, and at best a delusion, then we ought to have a reason why. But the only one on offer I'm afraid is the unjustified (or at best, weakly justified) presupposition of the sciences!

I have already shown why we can suppose otherwise. What are you defining naturalism to be?

How then can our properly basic belief of purpose, which is just obvious to us and takes much work ignore, be sufficiently supported as a delusion?

It is a delusion when we assume it is the explanation for things in the natural world simply when we have not figured out a naturalistic explanation. We know that this is just an assumption that has been shown wrong before.

My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world. But perceiving purpose can't be explained in terms of physical explanations. It follows then that physicalism is false.

When you ask children about why we see specific phenomena in nature that we can explain naturally, they will wrongly try to explain it with design. This over-presumption of design is a flaw in human nature.

Here is a document about it.
http://www.google.com...

What if we perceive purpose, because we were designed to perceive purpose?

Maybe we evolved to perceive purpose.

^this explanation seems more sufficient than it's denials.

The theory of evolution by far has the most evidence. That is undeniable.
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:45:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:49:50 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/29/2012 1:01:49 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

To lightning, the Black Plague, and natural disasters?

Your damn right I do.

As far as human perception is concerned, it is influenced by artifices every day.

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

So do you think Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana because of immorality, or something equally offensive and downright hateful? If not, then you are obviously not one of the yahoos I was talking about. Granted, you might still be a yahoo if you want, you just aren't one of the ones I was talking about.

Influenced, yes, determined or irreducible to- that's what we want to know.

Hmm, the artifices have a great influence in our lives, take money for instance. I am not sure if I can say that such artifices determine purpose, but they sure as hell have an impact, no?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:12:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:34:32 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.

The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

Caught that eh... ew I feel so deluded!

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

Nah, that's not a yahoo, a yahoo is a an old guy that announces "you got a devastating earthquake because there's gays in your town!"

^that's just to pretend to know the mind of God.

I'm sure you don't do such a thing.

Actually, I would affirm divine punishment through Natural disasters.

Of course the obvious - Noah's Flood, but it continues after that.

For example:
2 Chronicles 7:13-14 "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

Jeremiah 14:12 "Although they fast, I will not listen to their cry; though they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Instead, I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague."

And of course the four horsemen in Revelation represent these concepts.

Unless of course you are a Christian that does not look to the Bible to discern how God interacts with humanity.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:01:49 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

To lightning, the Black Plague, and natural disasters?

Your damn right I do.

Very logical and inspiring *sarcasm. If you are the pinnacle of atheism and wish to live in a limited deductive fallacy, I leave you to it.


As far as human perception is concerned, it is influenced by artifices every day.

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

So do you think Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana because of immorality, or something equally offensive and downright hateful? If not, then you are obviously not one of the yahoos I was talking about. Granted, you might still be a yahoo if you want, you just aren't one of the ones I was talking about.

New Orleans was one of the most corrupt cities in America and arguably the most corrupt. Heck the New Orleans Saints are a 'great' representation of the cities influence for an amusing point of cultural reference.

I do not know if God did it, but such a claim from God would not surprise me. Nor do I think punishing evil people with 'Just deserts' makes God somehow bad.
The same line of reasoning I do not believe locking people in a cage for their entire life as a punishment does not make the Judge, Jury, lawyers or even police as offensive or evil in turn.

Hence, the human concept of Justice.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:55:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 9:52:50 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Aristotle understood the the natural world can be sufficiently explained in terms of 4 causes, Material, Efficient, Formal & Final.

The Final cause is "that for the sake of which" or a purpose or teleology. Now the PSR,

http://en.wikipedia.org...

first written about by Anaximander, years before Aristotle, gave me pause to think. I've not yet worked the details but toss this idea around:

Atheists often accuse theists of being deluded into seeing a final cause of everything, when, they presuppose, there is none. But PSR = no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can be increased without a designer overseeing the process so we have sufficient reason to think otherwise.

Yes that's what the theory shows, thing is; just like it's hard to believe that millions of years of hurricanes rolling through a junk yard can build a car, likewise it's hard to accept, rationally, that something as abstract as a perception of purpose can emerge from complexity alone.

I accept evolution, but the Darwinianism mechanism is lacking here. It seems it lacking because the two other causal explanations aren't even an option.

All naturalism has done thus far is presuppose itself in the sciences. But with such a presupposition, it's no wonder why we come up with naturalistic answers. However, if the common sense perception that blatantly overcomes us of "seeing purpose in everything" is just wrong headed, and at best a delusion, then we ought to have a reason why. But the only one on offer I'm afraid is the unjustified (or at best, weakly justified) presupposition of the sciences!

I have already shown why we can suppose otherwise. What are you defining naturalism to be?

Methodological at least. (which I am an advocate of... to a point- a scientist should consult all she knows.)

How then can our properly basic belief of purpose, which is just obvious to us and takes much work ignore, be sufficiently supported as a delusion?

It is a delusion when we assume it is the explanation for things in the natural world simply when we have not figured out a naturalistic explanation. We know that this is just an assumption that has been shown wrong before.

Agreed. But like I'm beginning to think, how far can we take the two causes until it's sufficient to entertain the other two?

My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world. But perceiving purpose can't be explained in terms of physical explanations. It follows then that physicalism is false.

When you ask children about why we see specific phenomena in nature that we can explain naturally, they will wrongly try to explain it with design. This over-presumption of design is a flaw in human nature.

Here is a document about it.
http://www.google.com...

Thanks for the article!!

What if we perceive purpose, because we were designed to perceive purpose?

Maybe we evolved to perceive purpose.

Oh I certainly agree we evolved to perceive purpose... I'm trying to figure out why, who should natural selection 'care' about such a perception?

^this explanation seems more sufficient than it's denials.

The theory of evolution by far has the most evidence. That is undeniable.

I'm not arguing that point, Evolution's evidence is overwhelming, yes. But evidence against unguided evolution I'm afraid is nearly non-existent.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:45:47 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/29/2012 6:49:50 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/29/2012 1:01:49 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

To lightning, the Black Plague, and natural disasters?

Your damn right I do.

As far as human perception is concerned, it is influenced by artifices every day.

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

So do you think Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana because of immorality, or something equally offensive and downright hateful? If not, then you are obviously not one of the yahoos I was talking about. Granted, you might still be a yahoo if you want, you just aren't one of the ones I was talking about.

Influenced, yes, determined or irreducible to- that's what we want to know.

Hmm, the artifices have a great influence in our lives, take money for instance. I am not sure if I can say that such artifices determine purpose, but they sure as hell have an impact, no?

Certainly yes. An impact for sure... but an impact no more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:05:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why would a Christian cite or praise Aristotle. He's going to Hell according to their theology.

I know it's quite common actually for Christians to accept Aristotle and Plato but it makes no sense.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:05:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why would a Christian cite or praise Aristotle. He's going to Hell according to their theology.

I know it's quite common actually for Christians to accept Aristotle and Plato but it makes no sense.

Mainstream Christian theology does not cite such people are heading to Hell. That is merely one theological cited belief amongst select protestant demoninations and for the most part are not even a part of their creeds or confessions. Most within those denominations do not hold to such a belief either.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:33:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 5:55:31 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Yes that's what the theory shows, thing is; just like it's hard to believe that millions of years of hurricanes rolling through a junk yard can build a car, likewise it's hard to accept, rationally, that something as abstract as a perception of purpose can emerge from complexity alone.

The junkyard argument is a creationist argument and can be easily dismantled. Different natural forces have different results, so that is why natural selection and mutations can produce complexity but a tornado can't.

The number #1 thing we do is make tools. So to be able to fashion natural objects to perform a purpose is vital. So we need to be able to build things with purpose. We also need to be able to decipher the purpose of the tools of other people.

People who could see purpose in objects and then put them together to create that purpose and people who could see the purpose in the tools of others were more likely to survive than those who didn't. This is a possible reason who a sense of purpose evolved.

I accept evolution, but the Darwinianism mechanism is lacking here. It seems it lacking because the two other causal explanations aren't even an option.

In what way is that lacking? Maybe there are some things with not all of the causes that we humans came up with.

Agreed. But like I'm beginning to think, how far can we take the two causes until it's sufficient to entertain the other two?

The other two causes can only be considered unless they have evidence, so we can take the first two as far as we like until they stop being strong or they are shown to be wrong.
.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:44:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:12:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 6:05:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why would a Christian cite or praise Aristotle. He's going to Hell according to their theology.

I know it's quite common actually for Christians to accept Aristotle and Plato but it makes no sense.

Mainstream Christian theology does not cite such people are heading to Hell. That is merely one theological cited belief amongst select protestant demoninations and for the most part are not even a part of their creeds or confessions. Most within those denominations do not hold to such a belief either.

Disbelief in Yahweh/Jesus = not saved = Hell

Aristotle did not believe in Yahweh or Jesus, how did he make it to heaven?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:35:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:05:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why would a Christian cite or praise Aristotle. He's going to Hell according to their theology.

I know it's quite common actually for Christians to accept Aristotle and Plato but it makes no sense.

I often receive great wisdom from non-Christians... I don't see your point.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 12:44:43 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:50:10 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:33:34 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:54:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
My point is, you must explain our overwhelming tendency to "perceive purpose" in the natural world.

The cause is psychological, arising from fear of the unknown or unknowable. It is in our nature to believe that understanding will somehow lead to control, so anything seemingly senseless or purposeless MUST be rationalized and internalized in way that gives us some modicum of control. Hence why the Greeks believed lightning was divine retribution, why medieval man believed the Black Plague was divine retribution, and why we still get yahoos who say that natural disasters today are divine retribution.

well spoken! ... and I agree with you on the yahoos... now it's hard for me to convey this on a forum since the thought's so new to me, but the bold is what I'm getting at. <b>It may be that our habit of perceiving purpose is rooted in our nature for fear, etc.</b> But the origin of how a belief came about is irrelevant to it's truth value still.

That it's in our nature to perpetually perceive purpose is either a true perception, or it is a false one. And a sufficient reason must account for why we perceive it. I have a hard time seeing how our purpose can be explained naturally since purpose deals with a type of cause that isn't restricted to naturalism for one, but for two if one belief can be explained, sufficiently, but naturalistic terms and it be found wrong, then we have an undercutting defeater for all of our beliefs, including the belief that "our perception of purpose is a delusion."

This is a Plantingaian influence but for now I just don't see how it can be resolved.

The concept that such things happen randomly, even purposelessly, is still very difficult for man to accept.


I can agree with some of your statements, but not all of them. You see, you just can't judge a sentient being with choice by the same yardstick you judge the rest of nature, because we can completely go against nature and instincts. The vast majority of human purpose actually appears artificial instead of natural, that does not automatically make it divine by any sense of the word, though.

So I can agree with your premise(human purpose and purpose we perceive isn't necessarily natural, and can be artificial), however, I would not agree that anyone should assume that means that there necessarily MUST be a divine cause or agent.

I am not sure I expressed my position as well as I could have, but I am sure that you will point out whatever parts that seem inconsistent.

For now just "artificial" ... what do you mean by that?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 9:45:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:05:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why would a Christian cite or praise Aristotle. He's going to Hell according to their theology.

I know it's quite common actually for Christians to accept Aristotle and Plato but it makes no sense.

...what?

Even accepting that Aristotle or Plato are going to Hell it doesn't follow that they never have had correct insights. It's always been accepted in mainstream Christian theology that there is such a thing as general revelation.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:20:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/29/2012 1:01:49 AM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:04:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The amusing point is you just did what the OP stated. You presupposed a naturalistic explanation :)

To lightning, the Black Plague, and natural disasters?

Your damn right I do.

Very logical and inspiring *sarcasm. If you are the pinnacle of atheism and wish to live in a limited deductive fallacy, I leave you to it.


As far as human perception is concerned, it is influenced by artifices every day.

BTW I am one of those Yahoos in believing the Supernatural governs the natural, by mechanism.

So do you think Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana because of immorality, or something equally offensive and downright hateful? If not, then you are obviously not one of the yahoos I was talking about. Granted, you might still be a yahoo if you want, you just aren't one of the ones I was talking about.

New Orleans was one of the most corrupt cities in America and arguably the most corrupt. Heck the New Orleans Saints are a 'great' representation of the cities influence for an amusing point of cultural reference.

I do not know if God did it, but such a claim from God would not surprise me. Nor do I think punishing evil people with 'Just deserts' makes God somehow bad.
The same line of reasoning I do not believe locking people in a cage for their entire life as a punishment does not make the Judge, Jury, lawyers or even police as offensive or evil in turn.

Hence, the human concept of Justice.

In the face of some tragedy, the proposition that some how God is punishing these people is refuted with the question "do you think these people are more evil than everyone else" ? Your answer is mean't to be no, and by reducto therefore God did not select out the less evil people to be punished while leaving the more evil people unscathed.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12