Relativism and skepticism are logical suicide

[Bill_B_NY]

Ok Dan. You’re not willing to investigate or understand what I said.

 

[Dan123]

You’re very far from the truth.

Google Scholar

Most of those don’t even seem to deal with the topic you claim. But again, biological evolution isn’t everything you’re dragging into it. If you’re religious you obviously feel the origin of religion is divine revelation and such, you don’t have to accept every single thing every single person who believes in evolution has ever said. The core concept is quite narrow and specific, and that’s why you’re trying to make it this big behemoth, because it’s easier to disagree with.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Most of those don’t even seem to deal with the topic you claim.

You claimed evolution didn’t say anything about the origin of religion.
I gave you pages of scientific papers and books that all made that claim.
I wasn’t going to sort and hand pick them. There are dozens.
You now say that some of them weren’t on-topic. You just said that there were none. Now you see, and you can’t deal with it.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Dan123]

Evolution doesn’t, you’re talking about papers which discuss how evolutionary principles may have brought about various other aspects of life. I’m talking about the actual concept of biological evolution, that life changes over time due to various mechanisms. THAT is what I’m asking if you find incompatible with theism and you keep trying to drag in “oh but this guy says people might have developed religion as an extension of tribalism and so on”. I’m asking about biological evolution, as that is what is typically implied by the concept of theistic evolution.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I’m asking about biological evolution, as that is what is typically implied by the concept of theistic evolution.

It all comes from mutations and selection. That’s what they’re talking about. That’s where all of human behavior comes from in the Darwinian world.

I took like ten seconds to find something, anything at all:

https://bigthink.com/going-mental/the-neurological-origins-of-religious-belief

The brain emerged from physical mutations, just as dna, just as cellular reproduction. Mutations, created the brain. From that, mutations created a religious instinct.
That’s evolution. It’s not a secret. It’s mainstream science. Evolution claims that religion is a physical development in the brain. Read that story - one of hundreds.

 

[Freddy]

Annie:

The soul, along with the rest of what is spiritual, is not in the area of science, which studies the material.

How can science recognize the difference between a human and a non-human ancestor?

There is no hard dividing line. Species don’t suddenly pop into existence. There is a very gradual change from one species to another. It’s a fallacy to think that something that wasn’t human gave birth to something that was. There’s no black and white.

You are definitely different to Homo erectus but there wasn’t a specific time when one became the other.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Now it is true, what the lying-Darwinists don’t tell us is how mutations actually created human rationality. They just bluff and say it happened that way.

But they’re lying. There’s no evidence that a blind, random process can create consciousness, self-aware free choice, moral conscience, religious understanding of the presence of God.

It’s a materialistic fraud.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

There is no hard dividing line. Species don’t suddenly pop into existence. There is a very gradual change from one species to another. It’s a fallacy to think that something that wasn’t human gave birth to something that was. There’s no black and white.

You are definitely different to Homo erectus but there wasn’t a specific time when one became the other.

So, the human soul gradually emerged from a process of mutations and selection? It developed physically? There never was a first human?

 

[Freddy]

But more importantly, evolution is random.

Aaaargh…

If I only had a dollar for every time someone wrote that down in this forum. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people who know so little about a theory can argue so vehemently that it’s wrong.

You are exclusing yourself from the discussion if you start with basic errors such as that.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I will assist:

Rational power. Immaterial. Not from matter and mutations Not from genetic determinism. Not from Darwin.
Moral conscience. Immaterial. Not from matter and mutations. Not from genetic determinism. Not from Darwin.
Self-aware free choice. Immaterial. Not from matter and mutations. Not from genetic determinism. Not from Darwin.
Religious sense of God. Immaterial. Not from matter and mutations. not from genetic determinism. Not from Darwin.

 

[Dan123]

I took like ten seconds to find something, anything at all:

I don’t care about someone’s theory on whether religious belief has neurological origins. I was asking about biological evolution as a mechanism for the development of the human form. I’ve made that clear several times and you keep wanting to bring in tangentially related stuff because it’s new and published in the last 10 years, while avoiding the principles of mutation, adaptation and selection that have more than a century of study.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There is no hard dividing line. Species don’t suddenly pop into existence. There is a very gradual change from one species to another. It’s a fallacy to think that something that wasn’t human gave birth to something that was. There’s no black and white.

You are definitely different to Homo erectus but there wasn’t a specific time when one became the other.

So, the human soul gradually emerged from a process of mutations and selection? It developed physically? There never was a first human?

Biologically…no. Theologically…yes. Humans developed gradually. That’s a scientific fact. But science has nothing to say about souls. It’s a theological concept. Not a scientific one. So you need to find a theological answer to that. Don’t ask a scientist and don’t ask anyone in this thread for a scientific answer. It doesn’t exist. You’re in the wrong department. You need the theology department. Down the corridor, second door on the left.

And I’d appreciate toning back comments such as ‘lying Darwinists’. People may take offence.e

 

[niceatheist]

Now it is true, what the lying-Darwinists don’t tell us is how mutations actually created human rationality. They just bluff and say it happened that way.

This is a step too far. This lacks any charity. What’s more it’s clear you have little or no knowledge or science.

 

[niceatheist]

The fact is the Church does not object to evolutionary theory. The poster’s dilemma is one of his own making, and he’s making a fallacious appeal to the Church’s authority.

 

[Barnesy]

The fact is the Church does not object to evolutionary theory. The poster’s dilemma is one of his own making, and he’s making a fallacious appeal to the Church’s authority.

There are causes and there are lost causes. I’m going to try to avoid getting further involved and will probably fail miserably.

 

[niceatheist]

The point is that science is never going to falsify Original Sin. Most of the people I see making that assertion are Creationists. An atheist like myself won’t accept the claim of Original Sin, but won’t claim science disproves it either

 

[Freddy]

niceatheist:

the Church does not object to evolutionary theory

The Church says that you can believe in evolution UNLESS it causes you to challenge any of the Church’s teachings.
For example, the Church maintains that Adam was a REAL individual, that sinned, and ALL humans alive today are descended from him (and only him).
If you make the extrapolation that evolution contradicts this, you must denounce it as it violates the fundamental premise of Original Sin and why we must be saved.

The concept was originally conceived in the second century. Do you think that they may have formulated it differently if they had known that man was an evolved creature? That someone would have said: ‘Hang on, this doesn’t actually work with how we know man came to be’.

Nobody would propose it these days. Well, a few creationists might when asked about the evil in the world. ‘Ah yes, the first man was created by God from dust and then what happened…’.

Would anyone take them seriously? The answer to mans fall would have to be couched in terms that took the scientific factsninto consideration. As it is now we are left trying to squeeze a 2nd century concept into a 21st century framework.

 

[Beryllos]

@LeonardDeNoblac, did your question get answered?

 

[nafatyuk]

Sorites paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

What question? My original one? Well, yes. However, I wouldn’t have expected this topic to shift from relativism and skepticism to evolution, even because I have no problem accepting the latter as a scientific well-attested fact.