Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Artificial or Natural

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

Science, Religion, & Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Plantinga does not waste time and in the first chapter begins addressing the big elephant in the room, evolution. He states the generalized hypotheses of a broad-sense evolution, a more narrowed Darwinism version, and a even more narrow Naturalism version. He clearly states that there is no conflict between Christianity and the broad sense evolution where God influences evolution either at the mutational level or at the level of selection, but seems to argue against a narrower Darwinism interpretation and certainly the Naturalistic version.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome. At the molecular level, we can detect Selection through polymorphism density and the presence of selective sweeps. But the effects of Natural and Artificial Selection are indistinguishable unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

In the case of crop plants, we know what traits are selected for because we have archeological evidence and wild populations to do this sort of analysis. But if you were to look purely at the genetic level without such a priori knowledge.....you wouldn't be able to tell artificial selection from natural selection.

Lets presume then that God acted through Selection of the species, would the evidence support or contradict this?

Actually I would argue that it's impossible to tell because the sorts of evidence we would look for, these genetic sweeps, are just as evidential for artificial selection as they are natural selection.
TheAsylum
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 5:27:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

Science, Religion, & Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Plantinga does not waste time and in the first chapter begins addressing the big elephant in the room, evolution. He states the generalized hypotheses of a broad-sense evolution, a more narrowed Darwinism version, and a even more narrow Naturalism version. He clearly states that there is no conflict between Christianity and the broad sense evolution where God influences evolution either at the mutational level or at the level of selection, but seems to argue against a narrower Darwinism interpretation and certainly the Naturalistic version.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome. At the molecular level, we can detect Selection through polymorphism density and the presence of selective sweeps. But the effects of Natural and Artificial Selection are indistinguishable unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

In the case of crop plants, we know what traits are selected for because we have archeological evidence and wild populations to do this sort of analysis. But if you were to look purely at the genetic level without such a priori knowledge.....you wouldn't be able to tell artificial selection from natural selection.

Lets presume then that God acted through Selection of the species, would the evidence support or contradict this?

Actually I would argue that it's impossible to tell because the sorts of evidence we would look for, these genetic sweeps, are just as evidential for artificial selection as they are natural selection.

The Fool: WE ARE NATURAL. or selection are part of the Natural Enviroment. Artificial and natural are false dichotomies no?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:55:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

This is clearly false. Human selection works much faster than natural selection. Through human selection all the varieties of dogs have emerged from wolves in only 5000 years or so. Natural selection works on the time scale of millions of years. For crops, radical changes are achieved by human selection in a matter of decades. So the time scale is one very strong indicator of natural selection.

Evolution occurs in response to environmental change. Species like horseshoe cabs have a stable environmental niche, and consequently have changed very little for 400 million years. The rate of change being proportionate to the degree of environmental change is another strong indicator of natural selection.

The fact of vestigial features shows natural selection. Whales still have bones from what was once legs. We would expect intelligent selection to do a more thorough job of adaptation.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome.

You can always argue that God established the physical laws that have lead to the natural selection that we observe, and that whatever has actually happened is in accord with God's intent. I see no harm in that belief. The problem comes in insisting that God must have obeyed your preconceptions.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:18:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:55:22 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

This is clearly false. Human selection works much faster than natural selection. Through human selection all the varieties of dogs have emerged from wolves in only 5000 years or so. Natural selection works on the time scale of millions of years. For crops, radical changes are achieved by human selection in a matter of decades. So the time scale is one very strong indicator of natural selection.

Evolution occurs in response to environmental change. Species like horseshoe cabs have a stable environmental niche, and consequently have changed very little for 400 million years. The rate of change being proportionate to the degree of environmental change is another strong indicator of natural selection.

The fact of vestigial features shows natural selection. Whales still have bones from what was once legs. We would expect intelligent selection to do a more thorough job of adaptation.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome.

You can always argue that God established the physical laws that have lead to the natural selection that we observe, and that whatever has actually happened is in accord with God's intent. I see no harm in that belief.

You don't think holding arbitrary/non-falsifiable claims tends to lead to irrational behavior?

As long as people maintain a belief in creator gods they will always be at odds with modern scientific learning about life and will, consequently, monkey around with science education.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to hold a baseless beliefs nor show defference to baseless beliefs. Beliefs always have consequences for the one holding the belief and for others.

The problem comes in insisting that God must have obeyed your preconceptions.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:55:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

I don't think it is ever a good idea to hold a baseless beliefs nor show defference to baseless beliefs. Beliefs always have consequences for the one holding the belief and for others.


What is a baseless belief? God? Saying God is baseless is 'baseless' when all the evidence points no closer to your theory than a creationist.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 1:02:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is clearly false. Human selection works much faster than natural selection. Through human selection all the varieties of dogs have emerged from wolves in only 5000 years or so. Natural selection works on the time scale of millions of years. For crops, radical changes are achieved by human selection in a matter of decades. So the time scale is one very strong indicator of natural selection.


Im insisting, God is, first off. Next, Your evidence shows no more sign of natural selection than a creationist young earth. That is the fact. You want to use adaptation in the same sentence with evolution of species is embarrassing. Third, What is clearly false? So you are saying that dogs could not have emerged from bredding of two different species? I is quite possible and though reject not for lack of evidence that it could but flatout denile. Plus you constantly used millions of as if you know the earyh has been here for that long, along with the life on this planet, absurd.
TheAsylum
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 1:10:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 12:55:02 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

I don't think it is ever a good idea to hold a baseless beliefs nor show defference to baseless beliefs. Beliefs always have consequences for the one holding the belief and for others.



What is a baseless belief? God? Saying God is baseless is 'baseless' when all the evidence points no closer to your theory than a creationist.

Neat. However, I'm more interested in the connection between fallacious beliefs and their consequences. I don't think it's possible for people to hold delusional beliefs about reality with out it eventually affecting the world negativly.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 1:30:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 1:02:13 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
This is clearly false. Human selection works much faster than natural selection. Through human selection all the varieties of dogs have emerged from wolves in only 5000 years or so. Natural selection works on the time scale of millions of years. For crops, radical changes are achieved by human selection in a matter of decades. So the time scale is one very strong indicator of natural selection.



Im insisting, God is, first off. Next, Your evidence shows no more sign of natural selection than a creationist young earth. That is the fact. You want to use adaptation in the same sentence with evolution of species is embarrassing. Third, What is clearly false? So you are saying that dogs could not have emerged from bredding of two different species? I is quite possible and though reject not for lack of evidence that it could but flatout denile. Plus you constantly used millions of as if you know the earyh has been here for that long, along with the life on this planet, absurd.

Is it absurd to say that the stars in the sky are millions of lightyears away?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 1:39:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

Science, Religion, & Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Plantinga does not waste time and in the first chapter begins addressing the big elephant in the room, evolution. He states the generalized hypotheses of a broad-sense evolution, a more narrowed Darwinism version, and a even more narrow Naturalism version. He clearly states that there is no conflict between Christianity and the broad sense evolution where God influences evolution either at the mutational level or at the level of selection, but seems to argue against a narrower Darwinism interpretation and certainly the Naturalistic version.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome. At the molecular level, we can detect Selection through polymorphism density and the presence of selective sweeps. But the effects of Natural and Artificial Selection are indistinguishable unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

In the case of crop plants, we know what traits are selected for because we have archeological evidence and wild populations to do this sort of analysis. But if you were to look purely at the genetic level without such a priori knowledge.....you wouldn't be able to tell artificial selection from natural selection.

Lets presume then that God acted through Selection of the species, would the evidence support or contradict this?

Actually I would argue that it's impossible to tell because the sorts of evidence we would look for, these genetic sweeps, are just as evidential for artificial selection as they are natural selection.

I think I understand your argument, and it's an interesting one.

There are two things at play, here. First, you're making the same mistake I did when I first question Darwinist belief. Upon further exploration of the subject, I realize that the dogmatism that accompanies Darwinism was not supported by Charles Darwin himself. In fact, he found it disconcerting, and in a letter to a colleague, indicated, most pivotally, that cooperation through organisms is a much more poignant factor than what's simply interpreted as beneficial characteristics. This is not to mention that social behavior and biological proclivity are mutually exclusive, although they tend to intertwine, both in the animal and the human world.

However, what's more pressing is that if God had a hand in natural selection, he also has a hand in natural selection. This invisible hand is literally indistinguishable from what we consider the natural arrangement of things that appear to act autonomously (put the right chemicals in a petri dish, and watch them act predictably). Accordingly, this argument can satisfactorily disprove that evolution definitely disproves or is incongruent with a belief in God, but it certainly is not a strong argument (or even an argument at all) to substantiate a belief in God.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 8:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you're a Pantheist then you may have a point if not it's highly unlikely. I have been toying around with the principle of advanced species, like ourselves, genetically engineering intelligent [technology capable] organisms however in light of our massive fossil record I highly doubt that. Any being with the capacity of placing that much detail into a fossil record is liable to just wait the millions of years for intelligent life to form rather than go out of its way in the creation of it [plus beings capable of that much detail probably wouldn't be interested in anything as simple as the organisms that live on our world anyways for they are liable to have studied them when they were at a level comparable to us and actually attempted to create them.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:46:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

Science, Religion, & Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Plantinga does not waste time and in the first chapter begins addressing the big elephant in the room, evolution. He states the generalized hypotheses of a broad-sense evolution, a more narrowed Darwinism version, and a even more narrow Naturalism version. He clearly states that there is no conflict between Christianity and the broad sense evolution where God influences evolution either at the mutational level or at the level of selection, but seems to argue against a narrower Darwinism interpretation and certainly the Naturalistic version.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome. At the molecular level, we can detect Selection through polymorphism density and the presence of selective sweeps. But the effects of Natural and Artificial Selection are indistinguishable unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

In the case of crop plants, we know what traits are selected for because we have archeological evidence and wild populations to do this sort of analysis. But if you were to look purely at the genetic level without such a priori knowledge.....you wouldn't be able to tell artificial selection from natural selection.

Lets presume then that God acted through Selection of the species, would the evidence support or contradict this?

Actually I would argue that it's impossible to tell because the sorts of evidence we would look for, these genetic sweeps, are just as evidential for artificial selection as they are natural selection.

Plagiarized from http://www.onlinedebate.net...
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 11:21:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 8:28:20 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
If you're a Pantheist then you may have a point if not it's highly unlikely. I have been toying around with the principle of advanced species, like ourselves, genetically engineering intelligent [technology capable] organisms however in light of our massive fossil record I highly doubt that. Any being with the capacity of placing that much detail into a fossil record is liable to just wait the millions of years for intelligent life to form rather than go out of its way in the creation of it [plus beings capable of that much detail probably wouldn't be interested in anything as simple as the organisms that live on our world anyways for they are liable to have studied them when they were at a level comparable to us and actually attempted to create them.

Those are some interesting principles you have written there. I do have a few questions.
1-That is quite interesting, in regards to the evocation of pantheism, which is based on the notions of an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature; however, at least for pantheism, would refusing to acknowledge the sentient aspect of God essentially make him not the Divine Agency that is often spoken of?

2-Interesting, again. I won't try to pull out the card or accuse you of making assumptions, but I can see the issue there, especially in regards to defining God (something that actually is challenging given the number of representations of god-in either nature or overall function).

But, considering you're an ignoticist, can you explain how you view God--or any divinity or agency-- or, in other words, try to accompany His image in regards to the world--the natural processes, questions of human nature, history, etc???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 11:24:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:33:22 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The rate of selection by humans in domesticating crops is no different than the rate of Natural Selection.

Science, Religion, & Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Plantinga does not waste time and in the first chapter begins addressing the big elephant in the room, evolution. He states the generalized hypotheses of a broad-sense evolution, a more narrowed Darwinism version, and a even more narrow Naturalism version. He clearly states that there is no conflict between Christianity and the broad sense evolution where God influences evolution either at the mutational level or at the level of selection, but seems to argue against a narrower Darwinism interpretation and certainly the Naturalistic version.

If God did indeed direct evolution either through mutation or selection, that the signature of this effect would be undetectable through any current (or even maybe theoretical) means that we have of detecting Natural Selection in the genome. At the molecular level, we can detect Selection through polymorphism density and the presence of selective sweeps. But the effects of Natural and Artificial Selection are indistinguishable unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

In the case of crop plants, we know what traits are selected for because we have archeological evidence and wild populations to do this sort of analysis. But if you were to look purely at the genetic level without such a priori knowledge.....you wouldn't be able to tell artificial selection from natural selection.

Lets presume then that God acted through Selection of the species, would the evidence support or contradict this?

Actually I would argue that it's impossible to tell because the sorts of evidence we would look for, these genetic sweeps, are just as evidential for artificial selection as they are natural selection.

OP, can you explain how this view would fit with the acknowledged role of God as a Creator? or, should I say, in other worlds, how gradual processes of development would fit with the act of creation and especially how the Bible would support this????

)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Awesome-Sauce
Posts: 208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:13:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
For some completely random reason, when I first saw this thread title, I thought the thread was about boobs........
Cogito ergo sum - Rene Descartes

: At 6/23/2012 1:15:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote: (to Jimtimmy)
:
: You are the equivelent of a fly buzzing around a cow. I can just swat you with my tail without it taking my attention away from grazing the sweet grass that is DDO.

DDOians for a better DDO! (DDOfabDDO)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 9:34:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:18:12 AM, vbaculum wrote:
You can always argue that God established the physical laws that have lead to the natural selection that we observe, and that whatever has actually happened is in accord with God's intent. I see no harm in that belief.

You don't think holding arbitrary/non-falsifiable claims tends to lead to irrational behavior?

Yes, it tends to lead to irrational behavior. The greatest problem of irrational claims today are the claims of socialist ideologies that are held as fact despite endless data that shows them false. It is falsifiable and proven false, but that makes no difference to the faithful. Some irrational religious claims, like those of terrorist fanatics, are a severe problem. However, I don't see any harm in believing that the world is the way it is because of divine intent rather than simply natural causes.

Belief in Young Earth Creationism is falsifiable and proven false, but the only bad consequence I can see is that a believer cannot be a scientist, at least not in an area of study in related disciplines. There is no real chance of the belief catching on and causing a general abandonment of science. Bogus political ideologies do cause enormous harm.

I do not think it is true that an irrational belief about one thing means that a person will likely have irrational beliefs about other things. I know learned professors of physics that have odd superstitions.

A saw a lecture recently about the scientist von Neumann:

John von Neumann (play /vɒn ˈnɔɪmən/; December 28, 1903 – February 8, 1957) was a Hungarian-American mathematician and polymath who made major contributions to a vast number of fields,[1] including set theory, functional analysis, quantum mechanics, ergodic theory, geometry, fluid dynamics, economics, linear programming, game theory, computer science, numerical analysis, hydrodynamics, and statistics, as well as many other mathematical fields. He is generally regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians in modern history.

Well, the story is that von Neumann would never turn off a light switch just once, he would always turn it off seven times.

We have numerous other examples. William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was a racist. Noam Chomsky is a great linguist, despite nutcase political theories. People have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their thinking.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to hold a baseless beliefs nor show defference to baseless beliefs. Beliefs always have consequences for the one holding the belief and for others.

Not so.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:02:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 11:21:10 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/20/2012 8:28:20 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
If you're a Pantheist then you may have a point if not it's highly unlikely. I have been toying around with the principle of advanced species, like ourselves, genetically engineering intelligent [technology capable] organisms however in light of our massive fossil record I highly doubt that. Any being with the capacity of placing that much detail into a fossil record is liable to just wait the millions of years for intelligent life to form rather than go out of its way in the creation of it [plus beings capable of that much detail probably wouldn't be interested in anything as simple as the organisms that live on our world anyways for they are liable to have studied them when they were at a level comparable to us and actually attempted to create them.

The Fool: that is kind of wierd. Are you trolling.?

Those are some interesting principles you have written there. I do have a few questions.

1-That is quite interesting, in regards to the evocation of pantheism, which is based on the notions of an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature; however, at least for pantheism, would refusing to acknowledge the sentient aspect of God essentially make him not the Divine Agency that is often spoken of?

The Fool: can you give a clear and distinct definition of 'sacrednss', 'Divine', special, exelent, Greatness.

The Fool: I have always had trouble telling the difference can you help me?

2-Interesting, again. I won't try to pull out the card or accuse you of making assumptions, but I can see the issue there, especially in regards to defining God (something that actually is challenging given the number of representations of god-in either nature or overall function).

The Fool: So if you are changing the definition of the word 'God' does God change too. or does he remain the same?

But, considering you're an ignoticist, can you explain how you view God--or any divinity or agency-- or, in other words, try to accompany His image in regards to the world--the natural processes, questions of human nature, history, etc???

The Fool: is God is the universe, then would he not be the Perfect image of himself?

The Fool: I am pretty sure that Spinoza(the philosopher who poplarized the Idea of Panthism) was a closit Athiest, He was a hardcore rationalist, who;s familily had barly escaped the Christain Spanish inquisition in Spain. And fleed to the Neitherlands which back then was the most liberal european country at the time. It was safty zone for the less, religious and minority views. His parents were Jewish. And even in this relative very liberal country he God exiled from the main city for holding 'heritical' views. You have to think most of post medival philospher are also scared for there life. You can't publish anything that suggest God doesn't exist. Or even be caught saying the possiblites of the opposite, philosophers like Kant and Hume are screaming Help, through there philosophy. There are making sure to be recognized an Thiest when thier philosophy directly obliterats the possibity of it making anysense of them sincerly being a Thiest. Definitly not a Christan theists as they claim.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:35:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 9:34:50 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:18:12 AM, vbaculum wrote:
You can always argue that God established the physical laws that have lead to the natural selection that we observe, and that whatever has actually happened is in accord with God's intent. I see no harm in that belief.

You don't think holding arbitrary/non-falsifiable claims tends to lead to irrational behavior?

Yes, it tends to lead to irrational behavior. The greatest problem of irrational claims today are the claims of socialist ideologies that are held as fact despite endless data that shows them false. It is falsifiable and proven false, but that makes no difference to the faithful. Some irrational religious claims, like those of terrorist fanatics, are a severe problem. However, I don't see any harm in believing that the world is the way it is because of divine intent rather than simply natural causes.

Belief in Young Earth Creationism is falsifiable and proven false, but the only bad consequence I can see is that a believer cannot be a scientist, at least not in an area of study in related disciplines. There is no real chance of the belief catching on and causing a general abandonment of science. Bogus political ideologies do cause enormous harm.

I do not think it is true that an irrational belief about one thing means that a person will likely have irrational beliefs about other things. I know learned professors of physics that have odd superstitions.

The Fool: it doesn't follow necessary, but because we try and cohere understanding of the world, strong beliefs is mostly likley going to influence them to try and cohere other idea with that strongly held ones.

A saw a lecture recently about the scientist von Neumann:

John von Neumann (play /vɒn ˈnɔɪmən/; December 28, 1903 – February 8, 1957) was a Hungarian-American mathematician and polymath who made major contributions to a vast number of fields,[1] including set theory, functional analysis, quantum mechanics, ergodic theory, geometry, fluid dynamics, economics, linear programming, game theory, computer science, numerical analysis, hydrodynamics, and statistics, as well as many other mathematical fields. He is generally regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians in modern history.

Well, the story is that von Neumann would never turn off a light switch just once, he would always turn it off seven times.

We have numerous other examples. William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was a racist. Noam Chomsky is a great linguist, despite nutcase political theories. People have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their thinking.

The Fool: But These are acnidotal evidence of what its not recognized. In that its a small and biasly (selected) sample which based from not recognizing, differences. Nothing demonstrates that they don't exist in even them but on lower degrees.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to hold a baseless beliefs nor show defference to baseless beliefs. Beliefs always have consequences for the one holding the belief and for others.

The Fool: I would say there is always consequence for any difference set of factors in the universe. The best we could claim against it is that we don't recognize the consequences.

Not so.

The Fool: but you can never claim and absolute not ness, as in complete non-existence of consequences. For non-existence is not even there to proof they don't exist. It is only in relative contexts, like within the fridge I do not recognize that Butter. That is in relation to fridge. We could only know Lack(in terms of reconiztion) by comparison between difference of something or another.

We didn't recognize radiation before 1500. (to be safe) But that has no barring of its existing or not. Science keep making this mistake, of confusing what we don't recognize with sense data, with actual non-existence
Recognition vs Reallity fallacy.

Proof can only be in a positive form. Even with real opposite (negative) we can always take the absolute value. (in that non-existence is not a negative, its literally not there at all)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 6:17:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 9:34:50 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:18:12 AM, vbaculum wrote:
You can always argue that God established the physical laws that have lead to the natural selection that we observe, and that whatever has actually happened is in accord with God's intent. I see no harm in that belief.

You don't think holding arbitrary/non-falsifiable claims tends to lead to irrational behavior?

Yes, it tends to lead to irrational behavior. The greatest problem of irrational claims today are the claims of socialist ideologies that are held as fact despite endless data that shows them false. It is falsifiable and proven false, but that makes no difference to the faithful. Some irrational religious claims, like those of terrorist fanatics, are a severe problem. However, I don't see any harm in believing that the world is the way it is because of divine intent rather than simply natural causes.

Yeah, I suppose deism is a somewhat inconsequential belief.


Belief in Young Earth Creationism is falsifiable and proven false, but the only bad consequence I can see is that a believer cannot be a scientist, at least not in an area of study in related disciplines.

Right, unless they've mastered doublethink. However, I think it is more consequential than that. If you can't master the science itself, then it follows that you can't, as a voting citizen, understand the public policy debates regarding the life sciences. This is why, in some states, we are getting close to teaching creationism. I don't think you would deny that this is a problem steming from a belief in YEC.

There is no real chance of the belief catching on and causing a general abandonment of science. Bogus political ideologies do cause enormous harm.

One of the major ones being Islam.


I do not think it is true that an irrational belief about one thing means that a person will likely have irrational beliefs about other things. I know learned professors of physics that have odd superstitions.

A saw a lecture recently about the scientist von Neumann:

John von Neumann (play /vɒn ˈnɔɪmən/; December 28, 1903 - February 8, 1957) was a Hungarian-American mathematician and polymath who made major contributions to a vast number of fields,[1] including set theory, functional analysis, quantum mechanics, ergodic theory, geometry, fluid dynamics, economics, linear programming, game theory, computer science, numerical analysis, hydrodynamics, and statistics, as well as many other mathematical fields. He is generally regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians in modern history.

Well, the story is that von Neumann would never turn off a light switch just once, he would always turn it off seven times.

OCD causes a lot of harm for the individual and can lead to antisocial behavior like stealing. But that's a neurosis and therefore a different subject.


We have numerous other examples. William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was a racist. Noam Chomsky is a great linguist, despite nutcase political theories. People have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their thinking.

Well, I think we are talking about irrational beliefs leading to commensuratly irrational behavior. Racists beliefs clearly lead to racist behavior and Chomsky's political ideas are highly influential and have certainly had an effect on the way people vote and on the things they demand from their leaders/rulers.

In summary, I think that if someone professes a sincere belief in a mythical entity like a god, we shouldn't assume that this wild disconnect from reality is harmless.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to hold a baseless beliefs nor show defference to baseless beliefs. Beliefs always have consequences for the one holding the belief and for others.

Not so.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:50:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 11:21:10 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/20/2012 8:28:20 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
If you're a Pantheist then you may have a point if not it's highly unlikely. I have been toying around with the principle of advanced species, like ourselves, genetically engineering intelligent [technology capable] organisms however in light of our massive fossil record I highly doubt that. Any being with the capacity of placing that much detail into a fossil record is liable to just wait the millions of years for intelligent life to form rather than go out of its way in the creation of it [plus beings capable of that much detail probably wouldn't be interested in anything as simple as the organisms that live on our world anyways for they are liable to have studied them when they were at a level comparable to us and actually attempted to create them.

Those are some interesting principles you have written there. I do have a few questions.
1-That is quite interesting, in regards to the evocation of pantheism, which is based on the notions of an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature; however, at least for pantheism, would refusing to acknowledge the sentient aspect of God essentially make him not the Divine Agency that is often spoken of?


Interesting argument. The only way to honestly address this is to focus upon the beliefs of the individual in the manner of whether or not divinity must be sentient. One could try to make the argument that the Universe itself is an organism and then make the claim that all organisms are sentient but generally I would never use this line of thought in arguing the claim, it'd be easier to argue the Pantheistic explanation as to the universe is either a mentally ill child or a deity of luck [probability].

2-Interesting, again. I won't try to pull out the card or accuse you of making assumptions, but I can see the issue there, especially in regards to defining God (something that actually is challenging given the number of representations of god-in either nature or overall function).

But, considering you're an ignoticist, can you explain how you view God--or any divinity or agency-- or, in other words, try to accompany His image in regards to the world--the natural processes, questions of human nature, history, etc???

The personal definition of god I prefer to use is the one following the lines of a significantly advanced being [alien or earthling, we humans can already pass for most of the Greek and Egyptian gods and with time we can surpass the rest as well], however I highly doubt any such beings have ever interfered with human development. Humans throughout history, however, have tended to worship many natural and sociological phenomena [natural being floods bringing vital water and nutrients to fields and the successful birth of offspring, sociological being the ascendancy of newer and more benevolent rulers and fortune/prosperity (money)] and then ascribe human qualities to said phenomena [it's a literary term and I have forgotten its name and am too lazy to research it] the question is more of a manner of whether or not said phenomena worshiped still classify as deities when they are not sentient inherently.

These are some good questions, I am coming close to finishing my studies so I will probably be able to create some far more substantial arguments later.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.