3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[IWantGod]

Quite so. But I have just explained why evolution is not goal orientated, and that the tendency to stay alive is part of the evolutionary process.

If you want to dispute what I have said, then do so.

Well saying that to stay alive is a part of the evolutionary process doesn’t refute anything that i have. You haven’t shown that its not goal orientated. Avoiding pain is goal orientated behavior

Doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘lahlahla’, doesn’t change that…

That’s precisely what you are doing.

Another example, the obvious one to anybody with a brain.

Human beings make goal orientated decisions. that’s goal orientated behavior. That’s self directing - goal orientated processess. None of which makes rational sense when reduced to blind physical processes that do not act towards a goal.

You are just ignoring reality.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How does this in anyway refute what i have said? If anything, it further supports my argument. Life itself, by its very nature, is a goal driven process. Organisms would not be trying to survive if that were not the case. We cannot understand “life” in any other context. Being alive is what an organism is doing; it is not just a blind physical process.

Sure it is. The bacteria do not perform those chemical reactions with any goal “in mind”. Look at a sand-glass. The sand will always occupy a certain slope as it trickles down. (About 40[sup]o[/sup] degrees.)Do you consider that a “goal”? It is not a “goal” of any kind. It is just a blind physical process.

A goal would be a “conscious” process. And there is no “goal” in nature. Humans can have a goal. Members of the great apes can have a goal - in a very restricted sense. Vegetation does not have a “goal” (telos) in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

[IWantGod]

Sure it is. The bacteria do not perform those chemical reactions with any goal “in mind”. Look at a sand-glass. The sand will always occupy a certain slope as it trickles down. (About 40[sup]o[/sup] degrees.)Do you consider that a “goal”? It is not a “goal” of any kind. It is just a blind physical process. .

Comparing a sand glass to biological processes is ridiculous. and doesn’t in anyway demonstrate that the qualities i describe can be reduced essentially to blind physical processes.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Comparing a sand glass to biological processes ridiculous.

Only for you, because you don’t get it. Biological processes are more complicated, but they are also blind, natural processes.

 

[IWantGod]

Only for you, because you don’t get it. Biological processes are more complicated, but they are also blind, natural processes.

You’re speaking about organisms that self maintain, metabolize and reproduce and act consistently to that end - evidently performing all manner of goal orientated tasks in regards to its survival. And you compare that to an hour glass and actually think that is a good argument?

And i’m the one that doesn’t get it?

 

[Bradski]

Human beings make goal orientated decisions. that’s goal orientated behavior. That’s self directing - goal orientated processess. None of which makes rational sense when reduced to blind physical processes that do not act towards a goal.

I think you’ve got it at last. With a minor problem in that you don’t yet realise it.

Yes humans make goal orientated decisions. But staying alive is not a goal orientated decision. Unless you are ambivalent about maintaining your existence, then the desire not to die is as natural as a desire to breathe (would you say that breathing in and out is a goal orientated decision?). It is, as I explained, one of the very basic, if not the most basic, examples of evolutionary instincts.

And as you said, goal orientated tasks make no sense when associated with blind unthinking processes. Which, as I think we have agreed, is what evolution is.

I think we’ve covered all points. Unless you have something different to add…

 

[IWantGod]

I think you’ve got it at last. With a minor problem in that you don’t yet realise it…

Yes humans make goal orientated decisions. But staying alive is not a goal orientated decision. Unless you are ambivalent about maintaining your existence, then the desire not to die is as natural as a desire to breathe (would you say that breathing in and out is a goal orientated decision?). It is, as I explained, one of the very basic, if not the most basic, examples of evolutionary instincts.

And as you said, goal orientated tasks make no sense when associated with blind unthinking processes. Which, as I think we have agreed, is what evolution is…

I never said that a correlation between blind natural processes and teleological behavior was impossible. I said its unreasonable to reduce self organizing, self metabolizing, reproducing, - goal orientated behavior, to blind natural processes alone.

I think we’ve covered all points. Unless you have something different to add…

IWantGod: The Mind makes self determined goal orientated decisions.

Bradski: Its all blind natural processes with no goal in mind.

Yes, Bradski there is no point in adding anything. You wouldn’t understand.

 

[Bradski]

IWantGod: The Mind makes self determined goal orientated decisions.

Bradski: Its all blind natural processes with no goal in mind.

That is a quite deliberate misrepresentation of anything that I have said. At no point have I even suggested that it’s ‘all blind natural processes’. You were specifically talking about the survival instinct which is an evolutionary drive.

There are obviously facets of life which are goal oriented. I’m going to get up when I finish typing this and walk into the kitchen, the goal of which is to get a beer.

But if you want to insist that life has some teleological meaning, which flies in the face of any interpretation of evolutionary theory, then whatever floats your boat…

 

[IWantGod]

That is a quite deliberate misrepresentation of anything that I have said. At no point have I even suggested that it’s ‘all blind natural processes’. .

Okay, i have looked over what you wrote and you didn’t say that, but if metaphysical naturalism is true, what else could be at the root of human thought other than blind natural processes with no goal direction.

You were specifically talking about the survival instinct which is an evolutionary drive.

and we’re back to my original point.

A drive from what exactly.? Is there an atom called empathy and another atom called love? An atom called fear? Isn’t there any goal direction in these experiences?

Can’t you see the correlation between the actual existence of danger and the emergent processes that allow organisms to avoid danger. There is an abundance of these correlations or relationships when it comes to organisms and their environments. I don’t think its just a coincidence. I don’t think a reasonable person can say that unless their commitment to metaphysical naturalism doesn’t allow them to acknowledge these relationships because of what it implies

B]There are obviously facets of life which are goal oriented. I’m going to get up when I finish typing this and walk into the kitchen, the goal of which is to get a beer.

But if you want to insist that life has some teleological meaning, which flies in the face of any interpretation of evolutionary theory, then whatever floats your boat…



You mean the theory that says there is no goal directed processes in nature? Well, you have a brain, do you agree with it?

 

[Bradski]

Can’t you see the correlation between the actual existence of danger and the emergent processes that allow organisms to avoid danger. There is is an abundance of these correlations or relationships when it comes to organisms and their environments. I don’t think its just a coincidence.

If you want to learn more about the basis for a lot of the reasons why we think and act as we do, other than blind evolutionary based instincts, then read up on evolutionary psychology. Which is not evolution as has been discussed as it affects the biological aspects of organisms but how psychological traits evolve, combined with sociobiology, neuroscience, cognitive science to name a few.

This is a good start: cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

And yes, I can see the correlation between danger and danger avoidance. I just spent two or three posts explaining it. And no, it’s not a coincidence. Which I was at pains to point out. It’s anything but a coincidence. In fact, it couldn’t be further from being a coincidence.

I’m not sure you are reading what I write, because you keep agreeing with what I say yet deny that you are doing so. I could cut and snip pieces from all your posts, collate them and present it as a reasonable argument for evolution.

You’d probably argue against it…

 

[IWantGod]

And yes, I can see the correlation between danger and danger avoidance. I just spent two or three posts explaining it. And no, it’s not a coincidence. Which I was at pains to point out. It’s anything but a coincidence. In fact, it couldn’t be further from being a coincidence.

…

 

[IWantGod]

I’m not sure you are reading what I write, because you keep agreeing with what I say yet deny that you are doing so. I could cut and snip pieces from all your posts, collate them and present it as a reasonable argument for evolution.

You’d probably argue against it…

I’m not arguing against Evolution. I’m saying that qualities such as fear, love, empathy etc… are teleological in nature. There is teleological meaning in those experiences.

I am, however, arguing against ****Metaphysical Naturalism ****using the very fact of evolution, and saying that it doesn’t make sense that such qualities would exist if the foundation of reality is just blind natural processes with no goal direction.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not arguing against Evolution. I’m saying that qualities such as fear, love, empathy etc… are teleological in nature.

I am, however, arguing against ****Metaphysical Naturalism ****using the very fact of evolution, and saying that it doesn’t make sense that such qualities would exist if the foundation of reality is just blind natural processes with no goal direction.

I think you contradicted yourself a least twice there.

Saying that natural instincts such as fear and empathy are teleologically based IS arguing against evolution. There is no goal as far as evolution is concerned. Implying that there is a goal automatically denies evolution.

And how can you argue against metaphysical naturalism ‘which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences’ when that is practically the basis for evolutionary principles. It is based on nothing BUT the natural sciences.

And your last comment is nothing more than saying that if evolution is defined by blind, natural processes with no goal (which it is), then it cannot exist.

Correction. You contradicted yourself three times. In two sentences. That has to be some sort of record.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you contradicted yourself a lleast twice there.

Saying that natural instincts such as fear and empathy are teleological bases IS arguing against evolution.

And how can you argue against metaphysical naturalism, which

No it isn’t. Its not an either or deal. All the principles of evolution are correct, and instincts such as fear and love have a teleological correlate in actual reality.

This simply show that there is more to evolution than blind natural processes.

You deny it all you want, there is no escape.

 

[Bradski]

No it isn’t. Its not an either or deal. All the principles of evolution are correct, and instincts such as fear and love have a teleological correlate in actual reality.

This simply show that there is more to evolution than blind natural processes.

You deny it all you want, there is no escape.

Apologies. I hit submit too early. See above for full post.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you contradicted yourself a lleast twice there.

Saying that natural instincts such as fear and empathy are teleological bases IS arguing against evolution.

And how can you argue against metaphysical naturalism, which

No it isn’t. Its not an either or deal. All the principles of evolution are correct, and instincts such as fear and love have a teleological correlate in actual reality.

This simply shows that there is more to evolution than blind natural processes.

You can deny it all you want, there is no escape.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you contradicted yourself a least twice there.

Saying that natural instincts such as fear and empathy are teleologically based IS arguing against evolution. There is no goal as far as evolution is concerned. Implying that there is a goal automatically denies evolution…

So now you are saying that its blind natural processes that drive evolution, including survival of the fittest and natural selection. I haven’t got a problem with blind natural processes, But blind natural processes by themselves cannot coherently be thought to produce love and empathy, as in they cannot be reduced to blind naturally processes alone,because these qualities are goal orientated by nature. They have teleological meaning in them and there is no meaning in reality if metaphysical naturalism is true.

And how can you argue against metaphysical naturalism ‘which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences’ when that is practically the basis for evolutionary principles. It is based on nothing BUT the natural sciences…

Science is not based on metaphysical naturalism. Its methodological naturalism. It only seeks out physical causes. it assumes the existence of an intelligible natural order. It does not speak on matters out side of that order. It is a mistake to think that the goal of science is grounded in Metaphysical naturalism. That is false and anybody who reads the history science knows that its false.

But it seems you are blinded by scientism. Whats the last philosophical book you read?

And your last comment is nothing more than saying that if evolution is defined by blind, natural processes with no goal (which it is), then it cannot exist…

Qualities like fear,empathy, love etc, would not exist if metaphysical naturalism is true. If there is nothing but blind physical processes with no goal direction.

Correction. You contradicted yourself three times. In two sentences. That has to be some sort of record.

I don’t see how and you saying so don’t make it so.

Lets just agree to disagree because you are slipping and sliding all over the place.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you contradicted yourself a least twice there.

No i haven’t.

 

[Bradski]

So now you are saying that its blind natural processes that drive evolution…

So NOW I am saying it. Hell’s teeth, I’ve been saying it for the last dozen posts. You really are not reading what I am writing.

But blind natural processes by themselves cannot coherently be thought to produce love and empathy, as in they cannot be reduced to blind naturally processes alone,because these qualities are goal orientated by nature.

I’m going to leave love out of this. There is a lot to unpack in that one term. But empathy? It’s just the ability to understand what someone else is feeling. Where the hell is the teleology in that? Haven’t we already agreed it’s evolutionary based, in which case, by definition, it cannot be teleogical.

Science is not based on metaphysical naturalism. Its methodological naturalism.

Read the quote I supplied re the definition of metaphysical naturalism and tell me where it contradicts how we employ evolution.

Qualities like fear,empathy, love etc, would not exist if metaphysical naturalism is true. If there is nothing but blind physical processes with no goal direction.

Let’s just take fear. Find me one source that tells us that fear is not an evolutionary adaptation to aid in survival. That is, part of evolution’s blind non-teleological process. Actually, maybe if you wade through the myriad of web pages that discuss empathy being evolutionary driven, you can do the same for that term as well.

 

[IWantGod]

So NOW I am saying it. Hell’s teeth, I’ve been saying it for the last dozen posts. You really are not reading what I am writing.

I’m going to leave love out of this. There is a lot to unpack in that one term. But empathy? It’s just the ability to understand what someone else is feeling. Where the hell is the teleology in that? Haven’t we already agreed it’s evolutionary based, in which case, by definition, it cannot be teleogical.

Read the quote I supplied re the definition of metaphysical naturalism and tell me where it contradicts how we employ evolution.

Let’s just take fear. Find me one source that tells us that fear is not an evolutionary adaptation to aid in survival. That is, part of evolution’s blind non-teleological process. Actually, maybe if you wade through the myriad of web pages that discuss empathy being evolutionary driven, you can do the same for that term as well.

You obviously don’t realize that there is goal direction everywhere we look and you seem to think that this would contradict the idea of blind natural processes.

Lets just agree to disagree on that point.

Its clear to me at least that fear teleological correlates with the existence of danger and there are many other examples of these meaningful relationships between organisms and their environments… Is it a coincidence that these relationships exist? i don’t think so.

If its not a coincidence it means things like fear first emerged in organisms as a response to their environments and that is clearly teleological behavior. Physical processes are blind? So why do these teleological relationships exist. Why would it exist as a response in the first place since physical process are blind?. You can’t say its just because of blind natural processes. Natural selection is clearly not sufficient enough to explain these relationships. Its best explained if blind natural processes exist in conjunction with meaningful and teleological information.