1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured An open challenge to evolutionists.

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Iymus, Feb 23, 2020.

  1. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    20,414
    Ratings:
    +14,971
    Religion:
    None

    Ok, how about another track, i did the cosmology argument so now the life argument.

    It is believed that abiogenesis is the result of chemicals and conditions allowed simply life to form. (It is the predominant explanation given the knowledge available and is close to duplication in the lab, already the precise prerequisites (ribonucleotides) have been created)

    After that biological evolution happened so my story essentially ends other than to say.

    One of the forms that life evolved into was Homo, an offshoot of Homo and the only remaining homo species is homosapiens.

    Around 175000 years after homosapiens evolved one of them had the idea of religion. Then just 2000(ish) years ago the religion of christianity was created. Some literalists in the christian belief consider life was created by god magic just over 6000 years ago and creationism was born. So evolution from the earliest life until quite recently is perhaps what you mean by evolution before creation?
     
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Exactly: it is a human word that reflects human society and human values. Science can, at most, help us to achieve those goals, but it cannot determine what the goals should be.

    But that does not mean that human psychology doesn't work via the physical laws.
     
  3. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    20,414
    Ratings:
    +14,971
    Religion:
    None
    Not so.

    Biological evolution is only 1 type of evolution

    Evolution is also identified as the gradual development of something, that's anything from a single cell to the universe and everything in between
     
  4. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    So there are non-facts in the universe as humans are in the universe and use non-facts. We are at the end. You admitted in effect the limit of science. And that is all I wanted from you.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  5. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +1,471
    Religion:
    none
    AFAIK nobody has ever tried to deny that science has limits like those described. The point is that the history of the universe is actually within the scope of what science does do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Well, you should have asked about that at the beginning. Yes, humans use non-facts. Often they are far more important than facts in human life.

    Who said otherwise?
     
  7. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Again, we agree and religion is natural as described here:
    religion | Definition & List of Religions

    I am not a theist. I don't believe in magic and what not. Yet, I am religious as to humans and how I worship nature.
    You can't use science alone. You can't use religion alone. You can't use philosophy alone. We all combine that one way or another. You just call it opinions. That sounds nicer. ;)
    Yet: Opinion - view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Since you don't and can't use evidence on everything, you have beliefs(views/judgments) without evidence. Beliefs without evidence is faith. Faith is religious. You are just as far as I can tell secular, a humanist and a naturalist in your faith.
     
  8. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    If we look closer you might find at least one here on this forum.
    "I don't have beliefs without evidence. You have. I just call mine opinions and yours religious."

    Yet these non-facts are used to judge other humans in the name of with only and just reason, logic and objective empirical evidence.

    Look closer at those with only and just reason, logic and objective empirical evidence and you will find them, if you look for them.
     
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    I disagree at a couple of points here.

    First, not all belief without evidence is faith. For example, aesthetic beliefs are not a matter of faith. I also don't think that moral beliefs are. So your identification of faith as belief without evidence is, I think, wrong.

    I also think there is a HUGE distinction between religious faith and other sorts of faith (even if you include aesthetic and moral beliefs). One reason is that many religious beliefs can also be tested via science. So, for example, questions about the age and origin of the universe, or of life, are scientific questions. When religious faith starts to impinge on those questions that are NOT matters of opinion (since they are testable), then there is a possibility of conflict. And in that conflict, testability (science) wins.

    As I see it it is a question of fact versus opinion. Science deals with facts and testable ideas. Aesthetics and morality deal with opinions, values, and desires. That is why I call the first 'true' and not the second.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, I get what you are saying. The problem is this:

    I say of a human, that his/her thinking is incorrect. So how do I know that?
    Well, it depends on what the thinking is about, right? But it also depends on how I treat that and how I reason and feel about that. Now we are in morality.

    Then for the moral belief that other humans are wrong and/or their actions are wrong, it gets weird. That is not a fact. Indeed it goes against evidence. The same with all cases of ethical objective realism and strong logical/rational claims to morality. That is not, how the universe works.

    So here is how it ends. So moral claims, that are against evidence form science, are just as false as religious claims, yet you treat them differently. Yet they both claim something, which is not true of, how the universe works with methodological naturalism.
    All meta-ethical claims, which deny, that morality is subjective and not strongly objective, are false, for how the universe works.

    So why do you differentiate between the 2 kinds, when both kinds are false as per methodological naturalism?

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  11. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Hmm...as I see it, that depends on whether we are discussing testable facts (in which case, we can determine if the person is wrong by comparing their thinking to the tests) or whether we are dealing with somehting like aesthetics and morality.

    On the contrary, the evidence shows that people are frequently wrong in their thinking, as shown by comparing their thinking with testable observations.

    Where things get tricky is when we are discussing *opinions*.

    Usually, opinions are value based and, as a result, people have different conclusions because they have different value systems.

    I agree. Ethics is not a matter of truth, but of opinions and societal agreements. So?

    I don't see moral claims as 'true or false'. I see them as arising from the needs and values of a society. In the society I want to live in, certain values are assumed and I generally agree with those assumptions.

    I agree to some extent. But not fully.

    Humans are a type of social great ape. As such, there are certain rules of conduct in human societies that lead to more happiness, better health, are more fair, etc. These are values that are common to other great apes and are probably biological to some extent.

    To *that* degree, I think that morality is not completely subjective. I think that some sets of rules work 'better' for humans than other sets of rules.

    Now, what I also think is that the rules that work for humans are not uniquely determined: there is a lot of flexibility.

    I also think that other intelligent species may well have their own rule sets that work for them but that do not work for humans. And, in this sense, morality is NOT objective: if it were, it would hold for all species anywhere.

    Again, I don't see morality as either true or false, but rather useful or harmful for human society.

    On the other hand, religion tends to make statements about existence and claims to be objective fact. And *that* is where I see a big issue.

    Furthermore, religions often are on the opposite sides of moral issues to where I am. So, because it is my opinion, I argue against them and their morality.

    Regards
    Mikkel[/QUOTE]
     
  12. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    No, we are not, it is to simple. We are a type of animals capable of 2 kinds of group activity. Cooperative and dominant. Better changes subjectively with what kind of group you are dealing with. Further whether you view the group or the individual as the base of good, better changes.
    You have a bias in favor of properly cooperative groups.
    Even more in depth happiness, health, fair and so on are not that simple. We can go over that.

    You are to "high up" and yet "to low down" in your view based on the culture, you are a member of and your social is in fact: We are animals, who function in different kinds of groups and different kinds of understanding of individuality.
    Look at great apes and the social is different between the different species. We are a kind of mixture of different behaviors in the other great apes.
    So which is better and more fair? Well, it depends on what you believe in, in the end.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  13. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    @Polymath257

    Take 2: Opinions.

    Now I know you can properly deal with this, but I am going to be rough to you. I am going to explain something about opinions as it relates to harm, yet it has nothing to do with religion.

    Me as not meaning it, but showing you how it works: You are worthless. You have not worth at all. (Now that is nothing but an opinion and it has nothing to do with how the universe as it works in humans, right?!!)
    Well, here what could happen to you, if you were subject to than over a long time from a lot of humans. You could internalize and end in a state of being psychologically harmed.

    My wife has a book about "the little evil in everyday life". She is a social worker Scandinavian style; i.e. a social educator. She also has an education as a nursing assistant and an arts degree.
    Now we live in Denmark, so religion is really not that big of a problem. The problem is the opinions some people have and which they hold as true.
    The little evil are those opinions, which are treated as true for all humans, which end up cause discomfort and end in harming other humans. That has nothing to do with religion. It is a consequence of human psychology in those, who hold these opinions, but there is no problem in that, right?!! They are just opinions about the worth of other humans and they are treated as true. No problem there, right? It is not as if these individuals are claiming something about how something in the universe works, right?!! They are not really claiming something as true for something/someone other than themselves, right?!!

    Remove all religion and those people would still be there. They are there now!
    You are in effect treating religion as a "special negative" and not looking at how some opinions work just like religion. These opinions are used to judge human worth and treated as true just like religion. But since they are opinions and not religious beliefs, they are really not the same, right?!! Well, they are, because they work the same way. They are treated as true and used to judge the worth of other humans.

    It has nothing to do with the word "worthless" as such. It can include other words. So here it is from one of the most secular and happiest countries on earth. It is not that simple as just to concentrate on religion.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  14. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Based on a few assumptions, which are without reason, logic/proof or evidence.

    For which religions use different assumptions and some people combine these assumptions. And in the end within methodological naturalism religion is as natural as e.g. gravity. Go figure.
     
  15. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    News flash. Humans are a part of the universe, not outside it, looking in at it.
    The universe is in me as stardust and not just around me.
    You are talking inside the universe about some aspects of the universe, which are present in you also.
     
  16. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    You: The universe is logical.
    Me inside the universe and a part of it: No, that is to simple. Logic is a behavior in humans, which has its limits.
     
  17. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +1,471
    Religion:
    none
    I have no idea what you're finding so difficult here. It's based on the fact that it is a matter of fact, not a matter of taste or opinion, and that evidence can be used to distinguish between different hypotheses.

    This really isn't difficult. In everyday terms, if I claim that a work of art is beautiful, that is a matter of personal taste and my personal opinion. If I claim that there is a post office at the end of the street I live on, that is a matter of fact. In the latter case, anybody (at least in principle) can check whether my claim is true or not (it is intersubjectively verifiable). I am either right or wrong.

    The universe only has one history, it is a matter of fact, and we can use intersubjectively verifiable evidence to check what we would expect to find if one or other hypothesis were true.

    We can use the same methodology of understanding the universe (science) which led us to the knowledge that underlies the technology that works for everybody regardless of whether they accept it or not, and that you are using right now to try to tell me that everything is subjective.
     
  18. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    You do know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism?
    The former starts with the following assumptions:
    The universe is fair(no Boltzmann Brains) and thus knowable.
    The universe is treated as natural, but not proven to be natural.

    The 2 assumptions are the basis of evidence, but they are without proof or evidence.
    BTW no humans are right or wrong, unless you believe in that. There is no evidence for the fact, that a human can be either right or wrong. That is a cognitive artifact.

    You are using in effect certainty. There are no certainty in science. Check out Karl Popper and the problem of verification, while you are at it.
     
  19. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    20,414
    Ratings:
    +14,971
    Religion:
    None

    Yes of course, but very, very late comers. The universe is what 13.8 billion years old, humans have not been around for 0.000014th of that time. Doesn't it make you feel insignificant?
    hfaaQFh.png
     
  20. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    20,414
    Ratings:
    +14,971
    Religion:
    None
    And you show those limits magnificent
     
Loading...