Atheism and Freewill (choice, church, experience, atheist, faith)

[linwood]

Evolution is a result of an organism adapting to the need in it's unique environment to survive. If an organism simply did nothing other than allow it's actions to be ruled by "how the particles in our (it's) head bounce around" it would not evolve further, it would stay as it is in a state of stasis indefinately. It seems the person that holds these views may believe that we are at the fullest development we are to achieve as these organisms that stems from creationism, I may be wrong.

This was essentially my argument the last time we had this discussion.
Albeit not as well said.

Thank you.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Dr. Nosophoros

Evolution is a result of an organism adapting to the need in it's unique environment to survive. If an organism simply did nothing other than allow it's actions to be ruled by "how the particles in our (it's) head bounce around" it would not evolve further, it would stay as it is in a state of stasis indefinately. It seems the person that holds these views may believe that we are at the fullest development we are to achieve as these organisms that stems from creationism, I may be wrong.

Actually, according natural selection, evolution is an accidental process. It happens as a result of "how particles happen to bounce around" and according to unthinking rules. Kinda hard to believe, huh?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by atofel

Actually, according natural selection, evolution is an accidental process. It happens as a result of "how particles happen to bounce around" and according to unthinking rules. Kinda hard to believe, huh?

Yes, it is much easier to believe that a spirit thought "I think it would be fun to make parasitic wasps specifically for the purpose of eating aphids alive from the inside".

[linwood]

Actually, according natural selection, evolution is an accidental process. It happens as a result of "how particles happen to bounce around" and according to unthinking rules. Kinda hard to believe, huh? [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Yes but evolution doesn`t usually stick with a mutation that doesn`t work.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Yes, it is much easier to believe that a spirit thought "I think it would be fun to make parasitic wasps specifically for the purpose of eating aphids alive from the inside".

Touche!

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Actually, according natural selection, evolution is an accidental process. It happens as a result of "how particles happen to bounce around" and according to unthinking rules.

Evolution and natural selection are two different things so they should be discussed seperately.

Evolution is not an accident, it is a physical change by an organism driven by it's will to survive. A fish didn't just happen to grow legs, a tiger didn't just happen to get stripes, it's physiology changed over time through the need to better allow it to survive in it's unique environment.

Natural selection is what an organism does conciously or unconciously whose decisions (selections) are at base driven by the will of that organism to survive and as I have said, the only law we seem to be bound to is the law of survival.

I do agree however, that there are many people who do what they do simply because of the way "particles bounce around in their head" with little or no understanding of the whats and why's or even care.

Plato said "The unexamined life is not worth living" which I agree with, if we simply believe that what we percieve we are is all we will ever be, then one is reduced to an animated entity that lives and dies with little or no reason or purpose for it. That is why religions were created in the first place IMO, It was an attempt to give some meaning or explanation for life and the world. The drawback of many religions however (those that support the view of creationism) is that they were written by human beings whose understanding of themselves was that we were at the highest point of evolution itself (not that they even acknowledged it), either through ignorance of evolution or their own egos, I think they miss the mark completely. In that world view, forward movement, evolution or development of the psyche cannot occur, the mind stays in a sort of statsis under the understanding that the only purpose in life is to serve or do the will of an outside entity instead of developing oneself compounded by the fact that thought outside of those frameworks of belief are discouraged, which keeps them in that state. Since evolution occurs from need and not by accident, evolution of the psyche does not and cannot occur under those circumstances.

Overall, the origional article appears to have been written by someone who believes in creationism and they attempt to use the argument of physics to support their claim all tempered by their own understanding and beliefs of our humanity. Debate within those parameteres is really the only strength of that argument, outside of those parameteres- it falls short.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Dr. Nosophoros

Evolution is not an accident, it is a physical change by an organism driven by it's will to survive. A fish didn't just happen to grow legs, a tiger didn't just happen to get stripes, it's physiology changed over time through the need to better allow it to survive in it's unique environment.

Natural selection is what an organism does conciously or unconciously whose decisions (selections) are at base driven by the will of that organism to survive and as I have said, the only law we seem to be bound to is the law of survival.

The whole point is that under the philosophy of naturalism, everything is accidental. As Spinkles has articulated, our free will (and I should add our creativity) are illusions under this world view. It suggests that our decisions only seem free because we are aware of the alternate choices. Therefore, the will of the organism may seem intentional, but it is entirely based on accidental processes. Organisms would have no more will than the weather does.

[Mr Spinkles]

atofel-- While your summation is basically a good one, I must nitpick at your choice of the word "accidental". Saying that something is an accident implies that it is something other than what "should" have happened. However, in my worldview there is no such thing as something that "should" happen and therefore there are no accidents--only phenomena which result from the nature of reality, which is neither intended nor accidental, but simply is. (Kind of like God's description of His own nature in the OT: "I am that I am".)

Other than this minor nitpick, good post.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

atofel-- While your summation is basically a good one, I must nitpick at your choice of the word "accidental". Saying that something is an accident implies that it is something other than what "should" have happened. However, in my worldview there is no such thing as something that "should" happen and therefore there are no accidents--only phenomena which result from the nature of reality, which is neither intended nor accidental, but simply is. (Kind of like God's description of His own nature in the OT: "I am that I am".)

Agreed. Perhaps "by chance" would be more appropriate.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by atofel

Agreed. Perhaps "by chance" would be more appropriate.

It's only as appropriate as saying that God is the way He is "by chance". Still, it is an improvement.