Theistic Evolution Questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2017, 01:32 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 09:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 09:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Always keep in mind that Tomasia has no evidence to support the existence of a 'fallen' state, or how that's any different from 'not fallen'. This is a shining example of post hoc rationalization.
If we can conceive of what it means to be good, then it's not hard to see that we're quite far from that. We're petty little creatures, prone to give in to our temptations, irritable and temperamental. I doubt many people here would see themselves as paradigms of goodness, though they might all desire to be good. Fallen would be representative of missing the mark here.


So 'fallen' is basically a superfluous and needlessly opaque way of saying 'less than my subjective ideal'. Okay, great. Why not just say that? Why couch such a concept with so much theological baggage, unless you actually want the baggage to go with it? Same thing goes for those 'god is love' dipshits. No, god is not love. We have a word for 'love', and that's 'love'. Equating the two only saddles the concept of love with unnecessary theological baggage.



(24-01-2017 09:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 09:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Literalism is at least somewhat intellectually respectable. It's nonsensical, impractical, and entirely impossible to apply universally across the board, given the books many contradictions. But it's arguably more honest than the faux intellectualism of picking whatever damn well pleases you.
I no more pick what's literal and non-literal, than I pick whether someone is being sarcastic or hyperbolic, or telling a joke, or using an analogy.


So you can always tell when someone is being literal? You can spot a poe 100% of the time? Bull-motherfucking-shit, and we all know it.



Poe's Law states: Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.

It is an observation that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other absurd beliefs and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to have been so over-the-top that they argue he was a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes. Support for this conspiracy theory of sorts is either supported or refuted, depending on your point of view, by the fact that he ran for office in five Kansas Democratic primary elections. He never won.

Poe's law applies not only to the absurdity of beliefs, but also to the absurdity of the arguments that are used on behalf of those beliefs. Arguments on behalf of young-Earth creationism and theodicy are especially known for their absurdity. The quintessential Poe's law argument is an argument on behalf of theodicy, which goes: "Who are we/you [mere humans] to question the motives of the almighty?". The absurd simple and obvious non-sequiter and circular logic therein (that the god is good because he is the god) gives one the impression that that argument is intended as a humorous parody of christians, but in fact that argument was made by a few actual insane christians.

It is important to note that: linking a claim to Poe's Law is not the same as suggesting that said claim is in fact any type of parody at all. On the contrary, linking to Poe's Law just means that you could not tell if said claim was parody, or indeed sincerely held crankiness — assuming the original claimant didn't decide to also supply a clear indication of intent. When one is presented with a claim that is so over-the-top as to either be a brilliant parody or reflect a genuinely outrageous extremist belief, Poe's Law has been invoked.



Now, would you kindly stop taking us for complete fucking idiots? Thanks.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2017, 02:10 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Our own basic obsession with literalism, is more a product of the scientific age, than in the ancient past.
I think your typical fundamentalist would take umbrage to the notion that his obsession with literalism is rooted in science. Your notion is certainly ironic to the extent it might be true.

Let's see, modern Christian fundamentalism has its roots in Darbyism in the 1830s. John Nelson Darby was involved in founding the Plymouth Brethren and invented doctrines like dispensationalism and the "rapture" that are central to modern fundamentalism. But I can't find any evidence from his bio that this was influenced in any way by science. It was reactionary to what he saw as error and corruption in the Church of Ireland. The proximal cause of his departure was rather political, he objected to the many converts he was winning over being obliged to pledge fealty to King George IV as rightful king of Ireland.

Maybe what you're suggesting is true in a very indirect sense that people since the time of Newton have tended to think more empirically and concretely, but even there, I think you're on thin ice because there has been no shortage of works of art and other subjectively mediated human enterprises during this time.

Finally I think it's valid to say that science is not about taking things literally all the time or suggesting that there are no such things as allegories, metaphors, hyperbole, poetry, etc. That's rather overthinking the point of science. Science is a proven and accomplished epistemology that helps us ground our thinking in reality and to guard against and self-correct for bias. Nothing more nor less. It does not keep us from transcending our human limitations on the personal level. It simply does not tend to produce people who, when confronted with lack of compelling evidence in favor of an idea, afford belief to it anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
24-01-2017, 03:24 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 01:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So 'fallen' is basically a superfluous and needlessly opaque way of saying 'less than my subjective ideal’ Okay, great. Why not just say that? Why couch such a concept with so much theological baggage, unless you actually want the baggage to go with it?

Because it still comes with a lot of theological baggage, such as teleological, as distinct from a subjective ideal like when it comes to getting in shape, or obtianing an ideal figure.

Quote:Same thing goes for those 'god is love' dipshits. No, god is not love. We have a word for 'love', and that's 'love'. Equating the two only saddles the concept of love with unnecessary theological baggage.

Yet, in a variety of other languages, there’s a variety of different terms for love, to distinguish between a variety of different forms, like romantic love, unconditional love, etc…. For an atheists perhaps love is nothing more than a neurochemical reactions, were as for religious folks, christian and otherwise, there’s a whole slew of theological baggage attached to it.

Quote:So you can always tell when someone is being literal? You can spot a poe 100% of the time? Bull-motherfucking-shit, and we all know it.

You folks love erecting strawman don’t you?

But to address your strawman, no I don’t have a hundred person accuracy in interpreting sarcasm, hyperbole, etc., or just every day conversations. But as accurate as the best of them. If you’re autistic, or on the autistic spectrum your ability to draw such inferences is very low on the spectrum, because of genetically handicapped inferential capacity. Others, are particularly adapt at picking up on social queue’s, perceptive to a variety of forms of communication, and have a knack for these things. If you’re a lover of literature you’re likely better at this, than those that hate reading novels, and prefer science textbooks instead.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 03:38 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 02:10 PM)mordant Wrote:  Let's see, modern Christian fundamentalism has its roots in Darbyism in the 1830s. John Nelson Darby was involved in founding the Plymouth Brethren and invented doctrines like dispensationalism and the "rapture" that are central to modern fundamentalism. But I can't find any evidence from his bio that this was influenced in any way by science. It was reactionary to what he saw as error and corruption in the Church of Ireland. The proximal cause of his departure was rather political, he objected to the many converts he was winning over being obliged to pledge fealty to King George IV as rightful king of Ireland.

Maybe what you're suggesting is true in a very indirect sense that people since the time of Newton have tended to think more empirically and concretely, but even there, I think you're on thin ice because there has been no shortage of works of art and other subjectively mediated human enterprises during this time.

Finally I think it's valid to say that science is not about taking things literally all the time or suggesting that there are no such things as allegories, metaphors, hyperbole, poetry, etc. That's rather overthinking the point of science. Science is a proven and accomplished epistemology that helps us ground our thinking in reality and to guard against and self-correct for bias. Nothing more nor less. It does not keep us from transcending our human limitations on the personal level. It simply does not tend to produce people who, when confronted with lack of compelling evidence in favor of an idea, afford belief to it anyway.

The scientific revolution made a value of literalism, particularly in the western world. A value for variety reasons spilled over unto some christian sects, namely the fundamentalist. Fundamentalist don't value science, they value literalism. That value didn't just appear out of thing air, but a variety of unique cultural and historical predicaments that arose in the modern world. And one of the few things many atheists and fundie have in common.

In the pre-modern world the value was on the meaning of things, not the literal history of things, a point that should be obvious in the selected mode of generation communication, via stories.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 03:40 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The TE that I have interacted with tend to have their own unique rationalization within their theological beliefs in order to make any science compatible with their religion.

I've long tended to have a better relationship with those theists who've developed their own "personal relationship with god" than the other kind. For example, Girly. Tongue

Blush

Dude wasn't showing up and the crowd was getting restless. Something had to be done.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 03:54 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Saying Girly has a personal relationship with god is saying he has a personal relationship with himself. Girly is god. Tongue

Right back at ya buddy. Thumbsup

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 03:59 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Saying Girly has a personal relationship with god is saying he has a personal relationship with himself. Girly is god. Tongue

I think that might have been HoC's point. It is a Trumpian sort of theism

You're not getting it. This is why you're ABD. Tongue

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-01-2017, 05:36 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Oh, wow. So you didn't say that "...I believe we were created into a fallen state?" And then compared it to two painters, implying that one of them made their work intentionally distorted? Meaning that either your god is an artist who made life fucked up just because it could, or it fucked up when it made life.

Don't call it a strawman when it is the logical extrapolation of your theology you've come preaching.

Damn even more strawman, you must own a barn with all that hay you got there?

Pro tip: Straw and hay are very different things.

How do you square the evolution of humans with "...I believe we were created into a fallen state"? It looks to me like a contradiction.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-01-2017, 05:58 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:01 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Intelligently designed badly. For when intelligent design is not goth enough.

That's sort of like saying a painting is done badly unless it looks like a Thomas Kincaid painting. That Picasso's work were composed badly because the images are contorted.

Your analogy is not even in the same ballpark.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I've long tended to have a better relationship with those theists who've developed their own "personal relationship with god" than the other kind. For example, Girly. Tongue

Saying Girly has a personal relationship with god is saying he has a personal relationship with himself. Girly is god. Tongue

He's god's right hand man.
Unless he's left handed, of course Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: