Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2012, 07:40 AM
RE: Analysis: Why Christianity is incompatible with evolution.
(07-11-2012 07:36 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 07:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm with houseofcantor on this one.

The process of life being an issue of morals is quite far-fetched.
In the first place, what are we using to measure the heat of the morals? Why would anything in the process be considered moral or immoral?
If everything that happened during evolution had to happen in order to get where we are, how can we call that immoral? We can't even call that moral! All we can do is say it was necessary to produce the result - Highly complex, intelligent, self-sustaining, organic computers (us).

I'm wondering if any of you would agree - This doesn't become an issue of morals until you add God to the equation. If there were an intelligent being behind the entire process, then you can start to blame someone for something concerning an issue of morality.

Also, doesn't it make more sense what Bucky Ball said? ""cruel" is anthropomorphism"
Unless there is something beyond humans that govern us, then the idea of morals is really a subjective issue that requires the perception of individuals to determine.
Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues.

n stuff..
Well said.

Small correction:
"Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues ethics."
Ah yes, thank you for the correction. I don't usually make the distinction between the two in context. Either that or I haven't said a lot of things that required me to lol

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
07-11-2012, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2012 08:36 AM by Cardinal Smurf.)
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 02:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Genetic disorders occur because of genetic glitches that occur due to unfortunate gene pools. Viral and bacterial sicknesses occur because of a living organism's necessity to survive. These are just as substantiated as the immorality of a God-designed evolution.
Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.
IOW: The suffering caused by the process of evolution isn't needless....unless you know some new way to evolve without suffering.

EDIT: Why did my post end up displaying as in the middle of the thread? My system clock shows 1:35pm 11/7/2012. Why is it showing as having posted 6:30 this morning?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 09:03 AM
RE: Subject too long
(06-11-2012 05:05 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If he is not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of limitation, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. In other words, why call him God?

God is morally perfect and all good... but, not in the way that you describe. "Good" is not only a moral state but also a function. "Goodness" functions in order of His plan.

God planned sin, evil, death, imperfection, etc... this is "good" and benevolent because it serves the function of His plan.

Omnibenevolence =/= prosperity, lack of death, or perfection

Quote:I think you will find that you are part of a minority in believing that omnibenevolence is not apart of God's list of special abilities. The majority of Christians, including Protestant and Catholic, believe that God is infinitely good and just. The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. I have yet to see any moral ramifications for the constant death and suffering of entire species of organisms.

No, the minority of Christians believe in omnibenevolence as you described. Most view it as a function of His plan. Word of Faith (Benny Hinn) is an exception, as they believe God gives His believers prosperity.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
07-11-2012, 09:14 AM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
It isn't the job of the scientist to decide what evolution is or is not compatible with. God and a belief in god is faith-based and as such, can have attributes of its structure adapted to come into conformity with accepted scientific theories. That doesn't make them correct or logical, but it isn't the job of the nonbeliever to define the beliefs of the believer.

Now, one could easily argue that YEC arguments are not only incompatible with evolution, but all of science in general.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
07-11-2012, 10:08 AM
RE: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(06-11-2012 06:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 05:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't think he was talking about insects. In humans, Evolution produced "moral" systems to promote survival.



Yes, but evolution is not a moral system, it is mechanical.
I think what he is saying is that the mechanical system of evolution created the byproduct of morality.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 10:09 AM
Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) explains things without gods or the supernatural. They are not so much incompatible as unnecessary.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-11-2012, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2012 12:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(07-11-2012 07:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm with houseofcantor on this one.

The process of life being an issue of morals is quite far-fetched.
In the first place, what are we using to measure the heat of the morals? Why would anything in the process be considered moral or immoral?
If everything that happened during evolution had to happen in order to get where we are, how can we call that immoral? We can't even call that moral! All we can do is say it was necessary to produce the result - Highly complex, intelligent, self-sustaining, organic computers (us).

I'm wondering if any of you would agree - This doesn't become an issue of morals until you add God to the equation. If there were an intelligent being behind the entire process, then you can start to blame someone for something concerning an issue of morality.

Also, doesn't it make more sense what Bucky Ball said? ""cruel" is anthropomorphism"
Unless there is something beyond humans that govern us, then the idea of morals is really a subjective issue that requires the perception of individuals to determine.
Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues.

n stuff..
The thing is, all of religion in the West is built on the notion of an historical intervention of a deity. We know that, because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, ANY intervention would not be limited to the "local". If a god healed or raised someone, or "did" anything, it would result in a change in the quantum states of all the electrons in the universe. The entire universe would be changed, or altered. There is no "local" change possible.

And yes, Anthropology has demonstrated that the concept of "cruel" is anthropomorphism, secondary to our evolved sense of "empathy".

"Unless there is something beyond humans that govern us, then the idea of
morals is really a subjective issue that requires the perception of
individuals to determine."

Exactly, and that is ALL it is. There is no absolute external standard for human morality. Take murder. Murder is not absolute. Soldiers murder every day, and it is not seen as evil, or immoral.

Actually the way, Ideas, you came to make that statement is part of your problem. You set a standard of :
"If I don't accept "thus and so, then thus and so" follows, and I can't accept that".
You eliminated the possible truth, because your premise's assumption was not examined, and dismissed , a priori. That's not how Logic, or Science works. You came to your conclusion, before you made your observation, and REQUIRED the explanation to fit your presumption.

Have you never read Euthyphro's Dilemma ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 10:38 AM
RE: Subject too long
(06-11-2012 07:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "cruel" is anthropomorphism.
If you dump the premise that "individuals" are important, (which they aren't), then the whole thing works perfectly.
It's "survival of the GROUP, not the individual. We are here. It worked great.
Your thread, however IS correct, they are incompatible. Maybe for other reasons.
The success and functionality does not justify, assuming there is a God, needless suffering caused by evolution. Of course the individual's liberties, feelings, and needs are not valued in the system.

(07-11-2012 07:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm with houseofcantor on this one.

The process of life being an issue of morals is quite far-fetched.
In the first place, what are we using to measure the heat of the morals? Why would anything in the process be considered moral or immoral?
If everything that happened during evolution had to happen in order to get where we are, how can we call that immoral? We can't even call that moral! All we can do is say it was necessary to produce the result - Highly complex, intelligent, self-sustaining, organic computers (us).

I'm wondering if any of you would agree - This doesn't become an issue of morals until you add God to the equation. If there were an intelligent being behind the entire process, then you can start to blame someone for something concerning an issue of morality.

Also, doesn't it make more sense what Bucky Ball said? ""cruel" is anthropomorphism"
Unless there is something beyond humans that govern us, then the idea of morals is really a subjective issue that requires the perception of individuals to determine.
Granted, it changes a little when you smash a bunch of humans together, call us a culture and plant a government. Then we all just try and come to a general agreement about lots of different "moral" issues.

n stuff..
Precisely. Evolution is not immoral or moral until God is thrown into the equation. That is why the title is, "Why Christianity is incompatible with evolution," and not, "Evolution? Try evilution!".

(07-11-2012 09:03 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 05:05 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If he is not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of limitation, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. In other words, why call him God?

God is morally perfect and all good... but, not in the way that you describe. "Good" is not only a moral state but also a function. "Goodness" functions in order of His plan.

God planned sin, evil, death, imperfection, etc... this is "good" and benevolent because it serves the function of His plan.

Omnibenevolence =/= prosperity, lack of death, or perfection

Quote:I think you will find that you are part of a minority in believing that omnibenevolence is not apart of God's list of special abilities. The majority of Christians, including Protestant and Catholic, believe that God is infinitely good and just. The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. I have yet to see any moral ramifications for the constant death and suffering of entire species of organisms.

No, the minority of Christians believe in omnibenevolence as you described. Most view it as a function of His plan. Word of Faith (Benny Hinn) is an exception, as they believe God gives His believers prosperity.
Your argument resembles that of C.S Lewis', in that evil is a necessity to said plan. Again, before I continue, this your position is not that of other Christians. Free will is the primary defense, which in itself presents an entirely different issue that I will not delve into. But I digress, it being part of God's plan does not morally justify it.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 12:01 PM
RE: Analysis
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Evolution is quite obviously not a moral system. Quite to the contrary, it is an incredibly cruel and, by popular moral standard, an immoral way of dictating the winner and loser in life. Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute. How is it, by the accepted definition of benevolence, justify the countless numbers of organisms that needlessly die by evolution, assuming that God could have conceived of a much more peaceful system of life?

Oh, and if you interpret that shit literally? Fuck off, bitch. Drinking Beverage
If your gonna say its not moral, I can buy that, having no motivation an all, but to then go on and declare it cruel and immoral seems well a little confused. Evolution is neither cruel or immoral, nor is the mechanism capable of this, any more than gravity is harsh.

However, if we're your gonna anthropomorphize, my sympathy would lie closer to moral than immoral, the system is for all its "faults" fair.

Also, Im a little confused by what you mean, by die needlessly.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 12:12 PM
RE: Analysis
(06-11-2012 04:31 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 04:28 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I'm not taking the blame for that. God put my ancestors in that garden. God put that stupid tree there. God, omniscient, knew they would eat it. He knew what his punishment would be. He knew it all before he said "Let there be light". He did it anyway. Therefore, God created all the uncomfortable things as part of His plan, and He used the damn tree to trick us into thinking it's our fault.

Nope, not falling for it.

Actually, the Tree wasn't at fault. It was that damn woman who brought destruction down upon us all. Weeping
Actually, given the fruit of that tree is the knowledge of good and evil, that damned woman is judged unfairly. She is not mentally competent, when she eats the apple, having no conception of the consequences of her actions. It is only by eating the apple that she is capable of making such a determination. Thus, her punishment is unjust.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: