Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[valentino]

It seems to me that many theists want to prove we were created out of the dust of the earth without any intermediary evolutionary antecedents. And, when they find others whose conclusions don’t align with their wishes, they choose to believe that opposition is founded on the same kind of wishful thinking.

That is a fairly glaring mistake.

What we want occasionally aligns with what is true, and can even influence truth when what we want is within the scope of consequences of our own actions. Consider, for example, what we call self-fulfilling prophecies. There are perceivable limits to this process. Our ability to influence events which occurred millions or billions of years prior to the emergence of our species is non-existent. However, those events and their causes, to some extent, can be discovered.

To extend the thought, and to address your question, how much can anything which occurred millions or billions of years before our births change our lives? Not much, I think. At most it can change the way we think about ourselves and our place in the universe. Knowing, or at least heavily suspecting, that the materials incorporated into our bodies were cooked up in a supernova explosion doesn’t affect the way I interact with my friends and colleagues. Well, unless they make a point of questioning this with me, which doesn’t happen in my circles. That sort of conflict seems restricted to the anonymity of the internet, in my experience.

As ever, Jesse

Im a theist but there is no way to prove we were created out of the dust without intermediary.One can only say what they believe the bible is telling them.What I want is the Truth not something that aligns with what I believe is the Truth.We can’t know when those events actuallly took place though.We can say that to form the grand canyon it took so many millions of years but we can’t say if the earth was created mostly as it is today or that it was created a barren waste and had to develop over millions of years.If there is a God He could have created the world much like it is today and He wouldn’t have had to wait 4 billion years for the earth to be in the shape its in today.I admit I still have questions.For instance why did God create dinosaurs?I have my own reasons.Also why does it appear that so much took place before humans as we are known today appeared?Again I have my reasons why.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Im a theist but there is no way to prove we were created out of the dust without intermediary.

True, which goes back to some other comments in this thread about science not being able to prove anything.

 

[lao_tzu]

Im a theist but there is no way to prove we were created out of the dust without intermediary.One can only say what they believe the bible is telling them.What I want is the Truth not something that aligns with what I believe is the Truth.We can’t know when those events actuallly took place though.We can say that to form the grand canyon it took so many millions of years but we can’t say if the earth was created mostly as it is today or that it was created a barren waste and had to develop over millions of years.If there is a God He could have created the world much like it is today and He wouldn’t have had to wait 4 billion years for the earth to be in the shape its in today.I admit I still have questions.For instance why did God create dinosaurs?I have my own reasons.Also why does it appear that so much took place before humans as we are known today appeared?Again I have my reasons why.

I really don’t have much time to spend on Last Thursdayism. While it’s clearly possible our senses are built to deceive us — and that’s what you’re suggesting here — if we’re to have any hope of discovering the nature of creation, we simply must believe it hasn’t been rendered unapproachable.

If what I can perceive of reality contradicts a sacred text, it’s the sacred text I’ll distrust first.

Personally, I consider a creator god who pushes subatomic particles together to create elements, and rearranges individual molecules to create lifeforms without resort to the higher order processes we observe … irredeemably clumsy. Like a potter who goes to the trouble of creating a wheel, and then leaves it to gather dust in the corner.

Evolution works. So do stellar furnaces. Would the author of a book refuse to read it? I don’t think so, and by analogy I can’t credit a creator who wouldn’t take advantage of evolution and stellar furnaces either.

I don’t want to be misunderstood here. I don’t believe in any gods, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think some gods are more unreasonable than others.

As ever, Jesse

 

[TheWatcher]

One more piece of data to prove what?

A piece of data is just that; data.

Tell me: Why are you a Catholic?

Did you first decide on Catholicism and then look for ways to prove that you were correct?
OR
Did you look at all the available information and come to the conclusion that Catholicism best explains the world and answers questions?

 

[valentino]

A piece of data is just that; data.

Tell me: Why are you a Catholic?

Did you first decide on Catholicism and then look for ways to prove that you were correct?
OR
Did you look at all the available information and come to the conclusion that Catholicism best explains the world and answers questions?

well actually i went Catholic grade school and high school.And i believed little about Catholicm if any.but when I got to be about 16 and met a girl i liked a brother told me about how much God loved me.I knew deep in my heart I didn’t really love this girl after I was told about Jesus’s great love but was just attracted to her and was using her.All people are looking for love but most of us decide for ourselves what love is or should be.No one understands(well it seems like few)the saying “God is love”.We seek love in a girl,or love in money,or prestige,just about everything one can think .Anyway no matter how much I ignore God or sinned He never let me go.And yes I believe I was at an advantage to most people since I’d at least hear people speak about God.That’s a tough question.I don’t know that Catholicism explains the world actually God tells us to be apart from the world.I do believe Catholicism is a good predictor of things.I mean we knnow that when society looses its morals it will eventually fall apart.The obvious seems to escape many people.But you shouldn’t have to be Catholic to understand that.If you got a good knowledge of history one knows that decadent societies fall apart.People today are putting off the obvious.If our country doesn’t turn itself around and continues to go in the same direction i fear we are in very bad trouble.

 

[Planty_Business]

The Church is not perfect never has been and won’t ever be until Christ comes back.The Church does learn from Her mistakes and it honest in pointing them out.

Well, if the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of the universe (or at least the system), who’s to say the Church is absolutely right about every other judgment it makes and extrabiblical doctrine it endorses?

 

[davidv]

Well, if the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of the universe (or at least the system), who’s to say the Church is absolutely right about every other judgment it makes and extrabiblical doctrine it endorses?

If you could cite a Church document, but you can’t, that states that earth is the center of the universe, you might have a point. Please start another thread as is not really on topic in this thread. Or better yet, peruse the multitude of existing threads on the subject.

 

[Planty_Business]

If you could cite a Church document, but you can’t, that states that earth is the center of the universe, you might have a point. Please start another thread as is not really on topic in this thread. Or better yet, peruse the multitude of existing threads on the subject.

I don’t wish to discuss this subject in to much depth, but here you go:

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents.* From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

 

[valentino]

Well, if the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of the universe (or at least the system), who’s to say the Church is absolutely right about every other judgment it makes and extrabiblical doctrine it endorses?

The Church isn’t perfect.Christ never said His Church would perfect.The Pope isn’t perfect.Only God is perfect.The pope would confess 3 times a week.

 

[Planty_Business]

The Church isn’t perfect.Christ never said His Church would perfect.The Pope isn’t perfect.Only God is perfect.The pope would confess 3 times a week.

I acknowledge that fact! My point is that, if the Magisterium’s judgment in matters of biblical interpretation could be wrong regarding geocentrism, why should I trust its judgment about biblical interpretation of whether homosexual acts are immoral, or Jesus really rose from the dead (the Genesis stories are allegorical, so why not the Gospels?)? To claim authority in matters of biblical interpretation, yet to admit that such interpretations may be flawed, is a contradiction. It casts as much doubt upon Catholic theology as Protestant theology.

Plus, when innocent people are found guilty on charges of “heresy”, especially if that heresy is actually true, I take issue with that. I don’t like it when injustices are committed in the name of “divine authority”, which, I believe, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church claims.

 

[TheWatcher]

well actually i went Catholic grade school and high school.And i believed little about Catholicm if any.but when I got to be about 16 and met a girl i liked a brother told me about how much God loved me.I knew deep in my heart I didn’t really love this girl after I was told about Jesus’s great love but was just attracted to her and was using her.All people are looking for love but most of us decide for ourselves what love is or should be.No one understands(well it seems like few)the saying “God is love”.We seek love in a girl,or love in money,or prestige,just about everything one can think .Anyway no matter how much I ignore God or sinned He never let me go.And yes I believe I was at an advantage to most people since I’d at least hear people speak about God.That’s a tough question.I don’t know that Catholicism explains the world actually God tells us to be apart from the world.I do believe Catholicism is a good predictor of things.I mean we knnow that when society looses its morals it will eventually fall apart.The obvious seems to escape many people.But you shouldn’t have to be Catholic to understand that.If you got a good knowledge of history one knows that decadent societies fall apart.People today are putting off the obvious.If our country doesn’t turn itself around and continues to go in the same direction i fear we are in very bad trouble.

So, just to be clear…

Did you decide to be Catholic first, on a whim, and then go about proving it to everyone?
OR
Did you collect data, examine it and was lead to the Catholic Church?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you a young-earth creationist? If not, what reason do you have to think that the abundance of evidence for evolution and the Big Bang theory is not evidence that the universe could have ended up this way completely naturally?

Yes, as much as any properties we ascribe to the universe. A tree, for example, is not “brown” and “green”. Strictly speaking, it is a configuration of atoms, and nothing more. We humans, with our imaginations and our drive to find meaning in the universe, have complete freedom to describe that configuration of atoms as a “tree”, which is colored mostly “brown” and “green”. Ever heard of the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”? That’s the principle of subjective beauty in life that I am referring to.
Ever heard of the Golden Ratio?

Do you find every colour or hue beautiful?

No, but I have a natural attraction to certain colors on certain objects because my species evolved with such an attraction. We humans have a natural affinity for beautiful plants, for example, because those plants are what give us the oxygen to survive. This is why we humans have the sense of smell that we do; I am repulsed by the natural odors of objects that are harmful to my health, and I am attracted to such scents of objects that are beneficial to my health. There are a few outliers, but this generally holds true.
So you believe there are reasons why plants are beautiful?

What is the reason we or anything else evolved at all?

Objectively speaking, there is none. We evolved simply because we could. Nature allowed it. There doesn’t have to be a reason for everything, at least not your definition of “reason”.Does there have to be a reason for anything? If there is no reason why we evolved how did reason originate?

What gives us the capacity for enjoyment and the power to give meaning?

Our brains. Specific parts of them, at least.
Our brains are biocomputers which lack insight into meaning or anything else for that matter!

So purposes exist only in the mind?

Right!
So your actions are purposeless?

Some random coincidences are not ugly but they are all meaningless in the context of Design. If you create a machine for a specific purpose and it happens to produce other effects they are meaningless in the context of your purpose.

True, but I find no reason to think that anything “created” this “machine” that is the universe. So I do not find coincidences ugly in this context.
Did the universe create itself?

Did our brains choose to give us consciousness?

Of course not.
So where do we get the power to choose?

[/QUOTE]

 

[bmonk]

I acknowledge that fact! My point is that, if the Magisterium’s judgment in matters of biblical interpretation could be wrong regarding geocentrism, why should I trust its judgment about biblical interpretation of whether homosexual acts are immoral, or Jesus really rose from the dead (the Genesis stories are allegorical, so why not the Gospels?)? To claim authority in matters of biblical interpretation, yet to admit that such interpretations may be flawed, is a contradiction. It casts as much doubt upon Catholic theology as Protestant theology.

Not necessarily. The Church was assured of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (see especially John 16:13, but there are other references to the Spirit and truth in Jn 14-17, as well as other texts. More, as Dei Verbum 11 says, “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (emphasis added) It makes sense that the authentic interpretation must follow a similar limit–that is, it is what is necessary for salvation. There is a difference between geocentrism and the truths of faith and morals. On the former, we are not assured infallibility; in the latter we are.

It is one of the strengths of the Catholic Church that we can and do learn from history. In the Galileo case we overstepped the bounds of our proper authority, ruling on purely scientific matters, as well as the manner in which they were taught. It was one of the experiences that helped us recognize that we were not totally infallible, and the Scriptures not totally literally true.

Plus, when innocent people are found guilty on charges of “heresy”, especially if that heresy is actually true, I take issue with that. I don’t like it when injustices are committed in the name of “divine authority”, which, I believe, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church claims.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are the people in question innocent or not? What do you mean by “especially if that heresy is actually true”? Do you mean that it was a real heresy, one they believed, or that the heresy was actually the truth?

If they insist on their own interpretation, we do no more than excommunicate them, saying in effect, “You have to go your own way, since we cannot agree with what you hold. You must work it out with God yourself.” In the past, yes, there were further punishments. As far as I know, these were always carried out by the secular authorities–although in many times and places, it was exceedingly hard to distinguish secular and religious authority–since heresy or not being a member of the “proper” church was considered a crime against the state, on a level with treason.

Do not forget also that, in those days, such punishments worked both ways. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth persecuted and executed Catholics, using torture and secret courts to try them. I have seen a Necrology book of the English Benedictines, in which they list all the deceased of the Congregation by date of death so that they can pray for them. Some names are crossed out–because they were beatified as martyrs, having gone into the United Kingdom for ministry, caught, and executed.

 

[Planty_Business]

Planty Business;8152772:

A false dilemma! Evolution **presupposes **

the existence of energy, order and Design.

Only the former two. The existence of energy and the apparent order of the universe are no problem for the naturalist. I already said that whether a God was necessary to create matter and energy is irrelevant to the point.

All Catholics believe God is a loving Father who sustains

everything in existence and ensures that life survives against overwhelming odds.

As far as the evolution on earth is considered, there were no “overwhelming odds”. It is unlikely that humans specifically would evolve, but that does not mean intelligent life is rare given an earth-like planet. If God the “loving Father” really were “sustaining everything”, evolution as a creative process would not have been necessary. Natural selection entails death; the creatures who cannot adapt to the environment die to make room for those that can. If I were God, I would not use a process that requires the death of billions of animals to create my beloved sentient beings. Would you?

Ever heard of the Golden Ratio?

No. I can’t see how that is relevant, after briefly skimming through a Wikipedia article about the subject.

So you believe there are reasons

why plants are beautiful?

Not necessarily. Evolution creates the illusion of reason and purposeful design of features, but really there was no intended reason that humans evolved to find plants beautiful. I already explained the evolutionary reason; that is, if humans did not find the life forms that give us oxygen to live beautiful, we would have either killed all the plants excessively (as we do now, due to intellect triumphing over instinct for the worst) or found less reason to stay alive. The evolutionary “reason” the earth seems so perfect for humans is not that earth was made for us, but that we were “made” (by natural selection) for earth.

Does there have to be a reason for anything? If there is no reason why we evolved how did reason originate

?

The capacity to find reason in the world, like all human mental capacities, evolved because it obviously provides a survival benefit. If the early humans hadn’t had the mental capability to notice that the reason plants grow and bear fruit is that they receive adequate water, soil nutrients, and sunlight, we would have died out from malnutrition (or scurvy). Reason is the most powerful tool we humans have as a species, so it’s no wonder that the genes necessary for forming a brain capable of reason survived.

Without sentient beings to see reason in the world, there is no “reason”, strictly speaking. There are only processes that are unintelligible because there are no sentient beings around to find intelligibility in those processes.

Our brains are biocomputers which lack insight into meaning or anything else for that matter!

If this is supposed to imply dualism, neuroscience is proving you wrong each day. Behest is numerous evidence to suggest that the brain itself is capable of rational processes that we humans call “the mind”. I thought that was obvious.

So your actions are purposeless?

If there were no sentient beings alive to be affected by my actions and find purpose in them, yes, they would be. As it is, however, billions of humans exist, and I intend to use my actions to effect changes in the world that I and, hopefully, other people, deem purposeful. There is no such thing as intrinsic purpose. Purpose is an illusion created by human (and other sentient creatures, perhaps) minds. If no humans existed on earth, would the computer I am using right now have any purpose? No. But it does now.

Did the universe create itself?

I see no reason to think the universe even needed to be “created” at all. Nothing is created or destroyed in the natural universe, so why did the universe need to be created to exist? As it stands, my position on the whole origin-of-the-universe debate is “I don’t know”. And that’s okay.

So where do we get the power to choose?

From our brains.

 

[valentino]

So, just to be clear…

Did you decide to be Catholic first, on a whim, and then go about proving it to everyone?
OR
Did you collect data, examine it and was lead to the Catholic Church?

No.My parents were Catholic so when I finally decided for myself that God was real and truelly love me more than anyone else could I sought out how not to sin.After years of struggle and going to many different churches i decided that the Catholic Church is the one and only true church of Christ.I can only prove what i know about.There is much I don’t know about.Actually i can’t prove very much because when I learn something I forget where I learned it. Im not good at quoting bible verses and telling chapters and verse and that sort of thing…But I do know what I believe to be true.I read the bible off and on(never have read the complete OT.I read much Catholic literature and non Catholic literature.I only examine verses from the bible or readings from other sources that are really relavant to my faith in God(or Jesus)I believe that God really wants me to understand Him.I don’t know if that is the same in your case and I don’t believe that is the case with most people.Most Catholics believe in Jesus and follow the rules of the Church but don’t really take much time in really understanding why many of the rules are put in place.I don’t think they necessarily have to.We’re all called to a certain type of life.Most Catholics to a married life,some to priesthood(or nun) ,some to contemplative(monks.)This is just my opinion but I don;t think anyone is called to the single life.Their single because they never met the right partner and also they were never called to the religious life.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you explain how all suffering could be prevented?

You are assuming there is protective mechanism other than pain which is universally feasible.

I do think that one way to prevent a lot of unnecessary suffering (even if not all) would be to create the planet on which humans will live without any potential for natural disasters. Perhaps evolution of life on Earth as we know it would have been impossible, but one has to wonder why God even chose such a wasteful process like evolution to create his beloved sentient beings.

Can you explain how to do it more** economically**?

The isolation and misery caused by selfishness are self-inflicted.

Are you implying that I am selfish and unloving for being an atheist? If not, why do I deserve hellfire? I agree that the consequences of selfishness are no one’s fault but the selfish person, but that does not relate to my (or any other non-Catholic’s) situation in any way.

Selfishness is not restricted to any category of believers or non-believers.

The myth of Adam and Eve reflects the indisputable fact that at one point in history our ancestors distinguished good from evil - and deliberately chose evil.

Fair enough.

Good.

1. Do you accept the reality of evil?
2. Sure, if by evil you mean “actions resulting in the misfortune of a sentient being inflicted by another sentient being’s malice aforethought”.

So evil doesn’t exist only in our imagination?

1. Do you deny that the lust for power is at the root of all evil?
2. I wouldn’t say all evil. Some people just commit evil acts because they do not want to accept responsibility for their actions. For example, a murderer who was caught in the act by someone would murder the witness in order to save his own skin. That’s selfishness, not a lust for power. But yes, power is a motivator for many weak-minded people to do evil.

The lust for power **includes **saving one’s own skin. Otherwise one has no power at all!

1. No; that was the point I was trying to illustrate, in fact. If the mythical Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil prior to the “original sin”, they could not be held responsible for that sin. God blamed them for a crime that they couldn’t have known was a crime until after they had committed the crime!

You agreed that at one point in history our ancestors distinguished good from evil for the first time. It was then that they became responsible.

You don’t represent the whole of humanity! Otherwise slavery, murder and rape would be extremely rare events. Is there any reason why you feel disgust?

If you’re willing to admit that an aversion to slavery, rape, and murder is not inherent in humanity, then that does not exactly help your case. It calls into question God’s moral integrity; if God wants humans not to do these things, wouldn’t it have been easier for him to instill in each of our minds a natural aversion to them, rather than giving us laws to follow for no reason other than “God says so”? I personally think that there are much better reasons not to rape, murder, and enslave than to appease God, but God never seems to provide a reason for this morality in the Bible, at least until Jesus comes along.

Basically, my point is that, if we humans have a natural aversion to something as amoral as our own waste (crude, but appropriate), why do we not have such aversions to things that really matter in a moral sense? This makes no sense in a theistic worldview.

It makes a lot of sense because we have a body as well as a mind. Normal people do have a moral aversion to atrocities but they still have the power to overcome that aversion if they choose to put their own interests first. God does give a very good reason: we should love others because He has created us and we are all valuable.

If you don’t want to suffer you are incapable of sincere self-sacrifice and therefore of a great display of love - which throws doubt on your professed belief in love.

The fact that I do not want to suffer says nothing about how incapable I am of self-sacrifice. It merely says that, in my ideal world (my heaven), there would be no suffering. Nothing about a lack of suffering precludes love of the greatest kind.

Your ideal world is a Utopia! You are capable of self-sacrifice but it doesn’t fit into your scheme of things.

Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. In the real world, sometimes I must suffer for the good of others, and vice versa. In a theistic world at least, the existence of love does not imply suffering, since suffering implies a cause of suffering, which, in a theistic world, is God’s negligence and indifference to human well-being.

You have not established the feasibility of a world without suffering…

Can I conceive of a world in which I could love someone without requiring any suffering whatsoever? Absolutely - that is my heaven, and I see no reason why it could not exist if God willed it to be so.

Omnipotence has to be consistent with the purpose of creating us with a mind and a body. If you cannot make a sacrifice for those you love you cannot prove you love them - even to yourself!

Incidentally, you still haven’t addressed the absurdity of a pre-Fall world without love. Pre-Fall, surely there would be no suffering? The Garden of Eden was supposedly a paradise, something that God deemed “very good”. Unless suffering is “very good”, by your logic, there was no love before sin.

The Garden of Eden is a myth which conveys the truth that we are created in the likeness of God with the power to choose good or evil, to love others or love ourselves at their expense…

 

[tonyrey]

Evolution presupposes the existence of energy, order and Design.

What is the source of energy? If order is only apparent why is science so successful?
If there is no Design where does our power to design come from? Purposeless particles?

All Catholics believe God is a loving Father who sustains everything in existence and ensures that life survives against overwhelming odds.

As far as the evolution on earth is considered, there were no “overwhelming odds”. It is unlikely that humans specifically would evolve, but that does not mean intelligent life is rare given an earth-like planet.
Stephen Hawking - an atheist - has recently stated that intelligent life is rare because intelligence is a handicap for survival. Simple forms of life have lasted to the present day whereas more complex organisms have become extinct.

If God the “loving Father” really were “sustaining everything”, evolution as a creative process would not have been necessary. Natural selection entails death; the creatures who cannot adapt to the environment die to make room for those that can. If I were God, I would not use a process that requires the death of billions of animals to create my beloved sentient beings. Would you?

For animals death is not a curse but a blessing! It is an essential element of the biocycle. Your imaginary world would be devoid of development.

Ever heard of the Golden Ratio?

No. I can’t see how that is relevant, after briefly skimming through a Wikipedia article about the subject.

Much beauty in nature has a mathematical basis.

So you believe there are reasons why plants are beautiful?

Not necessarily. Evolution creates the illusion of reason and purposeful design of features, but really there was no intended reason that humans evolved to find plants beautiful. I already explained the evolutionary reason; that is, if humans did not find the life forms that give us oxygen to live beautiful, we would have either killed all the plants excessively (as we do now, due to intellect triumphing over instinct for the worst) or found less reason to stay alive.

Do animals need reasons to stay alive?

The evolutionary “reason” the earth seems so perfect for humans is not that earth was made for us, but that we were “made” (by natural selection) for earth.

If it seems so perfect why do you complain about all its defects?!

Does there have to be a reason for anything?

If there is no reason why we evolved how did reason originate?

The capacity to find reason in the world, like all human mental capacities, evolved because it obviously provides a survival benefit.

Monocellular organisms have outlived many intelligent animals. How can reason provide a survival benefit when we pose the greatest threat to life on earth? Are science and philosophy essential for survival?

If the early humans hadn’t had the mental capability to notice that the reason plants grow and bear fruit is that they receive adequate water, soil nutrients, and sunlight, we would have died out from malnutrition (or scurvy). Reason is the most powerful tool we humans have as a species, so it’s no wonder that the genes necessary for forming a brain capable of reason survived.

How did those genes originate? By chance?

Without sentient beings to see reason in the world, there is no “reason”, strictly speaking. There are only processes that are unintelligible because there are no sentient beings around to find intelligibility in those processes.

Why is the universe intelligible if it had an unintelligible origin?

Our brains are biocomputers which lack insight into meaning or anything else for that matter!

If this is supposed to imply dualism, neuroscience is proving you wrong each day. Behest is numerous evidence to suggest that the brain itself is capable of rational processes that we humans call “the mind”. I thought that was obvious.

Is the lump of tissue inside your skull aware that it exists? How can electrical impulses know anything?

So your actions are purposeless?

If there were no sentient beings alive to be affected by my actions and find purpose in them, yes, they would be. As it is, however, billions of humans exist, and I intend to use my actions to effect changes in the world that I and, hopefully, other people, deem purposeful.
You are assuming you have that power but in your scheme of things neither “you” nor “intentions” exist! There is just a collection of electrical impulses at work in a skull…

There is no such thing as intrinsic purpose. Purpose is an illusion created by human (and other sentient creatures, perhaps) minds. If no humans existed on earth, would the computer I am using right now have any purpose? No. But it does now.

How can it? You believe you’re a biological computer programmed by purposeless processes. So all purpose whatsoever is an illusion…

Did the universe create itself?

I see no reason to think the universe even needed to be “created” at all. Nothing is created or destroyed in the natural universe, so why did the universe need to be created to exist? As it stands, my position on the whole origin-of-the-universe debate is “I don’t know”. And that’s okay.

You may think it’s okay but it’s unscientific! Your entire theory of reality is based on a total lack of explanation.

So where do we get the power to choose?

From our brains.

That would infringe the law of conservation of energy…

 

[Planty_Business]

What is the source of energy? If order is only apparent why is science so successful?

“I don’t know” is my answer to both of those questions. All energy can be traced back to the Big Bang, but I don’t know how that energy got there. That doesn’t mean I have to throw magic into the mix, as theists do.

Heck if I know why the universe is the way it is; scientists are working on it. As it stands, I don’t know why the universe is ordered any more than you know why God is ordered.

If there is no Design where does our power to design come from? Purposeless particles?

Yes. I don’t see why that is such an incomprehensible concept. If abiogenesis can bring forth life from non-life, I see no reason to think that the ability to design couldn’t arise from non-designed particles. That’s just how evolution on Earth ended up.

Stephen Hawking - an atheist - has recently stated that intelligent life is rare because intelligence is a handicap for survival. Simple forms of life have lasted to the present day whereas more complex organisms have become extinct.

Really? That sounds rather counterintuitive to me. How exactly does intelligence deter survival?

For animals death is not a curse but a blessing! It is an essential element of the biocycle. Your imaginary world would be devoid of development.

It would only be devoid of development if God would start with the least complex organisms in the first place. Far be it from me to agree with creationists, but at least they acknowledge that God could have simply “poofed” the diverse life forms into existence and protected them from suffering. The world I am imagining here is not one limited by spatial constraints, anyway, so the animals could still reproduce without having to die. If God is all-powerful, surely he could do this.

My point was that death is only necessary in a world that one would not expect given the existence of a designer. Surely you don’t like death, do you? Neither do other animals capable of experiencing suffering and fear. Sounds to me like your God is a psychopath if he couldn’t have come up with a better method of creation than evolution by natural selection.

Much beauty in nature has a mathematical basis.

But it is still only “beautiful” to us because we evolved to have a preference for “mathematical beauty”. There is still no “intrinsic beauty”, only perceived beauty.

Do animals need reasons to stay alive?

For most animals, I imagine, an instinct of aversion to death is enough reason for them. Unfortunately, we humans are too intelligent to stop at instinct. We need better reasons for survival than simply for survival’s sake, vain as we are to want to find something better.

If it seems so perfect why do you complain about all its defects?!

That was merely hyperbole. The earth is far from perfect, but the thing about evolution is that it has only equipped us with what we need to survive, not to live comfortable or “perfect” lives. That is apparently enough for more IDers and creationists to be amazed, but it isn’t for me, now that I know why this is the case.

If there is no reason why we evolved how did reason originate?

Through evolution, as a survival mechanism. I already explained this.

Monocellular organisms have outlived many intelligent animals. How can reason provide a survival benefit when we pose the greatest threat to life on earth?

We didn’t used to pose the greatest threat to life on earth. Our own intellectual pursuits, which were motivated by something besides survival, led us to invent nuclear weapons and the like.

 

[Planty_Business]

Are science and philosophy essential for survival?

No, but the intellectual capacities that we use to do science and philosophy were essential for survival. It’s comparable to the human tendency to engage in sexual acts for purposes besides reproduction; the instinct was always there, we just took it to levels that weren’t necessary for survival or passing on genes. Why do we do so? Well, that’s a question for psychologists, not me.

How did those genes originate? By chance?

Yes, but they didn’t survive natural selection by chance. Natural selection is, by definition, not random.

Why is the universe intelligible if it had an unintelligible origin?

That’s a question for cosmologists. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “unintelligble origin”, anyway.

Is the lump of tissue inside your skull aware that it exists? How can electrical impulses know anything?

Yes, you could say that. As for your second question, a neuroscientist could tell you that. I do not know about all the innerworkings of the brain, but the current scientific evidence suggests that thought is a natural process of the brain, both in humans and other animals. That’s simply a fact.

You are assuming you have that power but in your scheme of things neither “you” nor “intentions” exist! There is just a collection of electrical impulses at work in a skull…

True, but the effects of my intentions - actions - do exist, and those actions affect the mental and emotional states of other humans.

How can it? You believe you’re a biological computer programmed by purposeless processes. So all purpose whatsoever is an illusion…

Right, purpose is an illusion. But the perception of purpose motivates actions, which are not illusions. It’s the same principle as above. My perception of the purpose of my computer is entirely subjective, but it motivates me to type this message, an action that is objective.

You may think it’s okay but it’s unscientific! Your entire theory of reality is based on a total lack of explanation.

No, scientists know when to admit they don’t know something. To pretend I do know something I don’t is dishonest and arrogant. It seems to me that Catholics do just that.

That would infringe the law of conservation of energy…

“Power” in this sense is purely metaphorical. It does not require actual energy. What you are saying is tantamount to the creationist argument that evolution somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics, but it doesn’t.

 

[tonyrey]

…the intellectual capacities that we use to do science and philosophy were essential for survival.

Animals survive without them.

Natural selection is, by definition, not random.

But the power of reason is** ultimately **an accident?

Why is the universe intelligible if it had an unintelligible origin?

That’s a question for cosmologists.

It is not a cosmological but a philosophical question.

Is the lump of tissue inside your skull aware that it exists?

Yes, you could say that.

Can you explain how?

As for your second question, a neuroscientist could tell you that.

All neuroscientists know is that electrical impulses are **related **to thoughts.

I do not know about all the innerworkings of the brain, but the current scientific evidence suggests that thought is a natural process of the brain, both in humans and other animals.

It merely suggests a relationship.

You are assuming you have that power but in your scheme of things neither “you” nor “intentions” exist!

True, but the effects of my intentions - actions - do exist, and those actions affect the mental and emotional states of other humans.

For you intentions are illusions.

Right, purpose is an illusion. But the perception of purpose motivates actions, which are not illusions.

So all human actions are based on illusions?

My perception of the purpose of my computer is entirely subjective, but it motivates me to type this message, an action that is objective.

There is no “me”! You mean the brain is compelled to function in a certain way.

To pretend I do know something I don’t is dishonest and arrogant.

You pretend you know thought is a natural process of the brain, both in humans and other animals: “That’s simply a fact.” Isn’t that dishonest and arrogant?

“Power” in this sense is purely metaphorical. It does not require actual energy.

So you are powerless?

All energy can be traced back to the Big Bang, but I don’t know how that energy got there. That doesn’t mean I have to throw magic into the mix, as theists do.

It means you throw magic into the mix, as materialists do!

As it stands, I don’t know why the universe is ordered any more than you know why God is ordered.

No one can explain God but the Supreme Being is a far more reasonable explanation than purposeless particles.

If there is no Design where does our power to design come from? Purposeless particles?

If abiogenesis can bring forth life from non-life, I see no reason to think that the ability to design couldn’t arise from non-designed particles.

“If” is the key word… Can you explain how it arose?

That’s just how evolution on Earth ended up.

The question is what type of evolution. Blind or Designed? What is more effective?

Stephen Hawking - an atheist - has recently stated that intelligent life is rare because intelligence is a handicap for survival.

That sounds rather counterintuitive to me. How exactly does intelligence deter survival?

Complex organisms are more vulnerable than simple ones.

Your imaginary world would be devoid of development.

It would only be devoid of development if God would start with the least complex organisms in the first place.

So you prefer an existence without development?

Far be it from me to agree with creationists, but at least they acknowledge that God could have simply “poofed” the diverse life forms into existence and protected them from suffering.

Is suffering the worst evil?

The world I am imagining here is not one limited by spatial constraints, anyway, so the animals could still reproduce without having to die. If God is all-powerful, surely he could do this.

Imagination is not a valid substitute for fact.

My point was that death is only necessary in a world that one would not expect given the existence of a designer.

You haven’t shown it is unnecessary.

Surely you don’t like death, do you?

I accept it as a necessary transition to the afterlife - without which nothing makes sense.

Sounds to me like your God is a psychopath if he couldn’t have come up with a better method of creation than evolution by natural selection.

He did! Evolution by intelligent selection. You’re a psychopath if you regard suffering as the supreme evil which destroys the value of all life on this planet.

Much beauty in nature has a mathematical basis.

But it is still only “beautiful” to us because we evolved to have a preference for “mathematical beauty”.

Mathematics is based on logic not emotion.

We need better reasons for survival than simply for survival’s sake, vain as we are to want to find something better.

Why on earth do we want better reasons if we have evolved solely to survive? According to you survival doesn’t depend on reasons but biological facts.

The earth is far from perfect, but the thing about evolution is that it has only equipped us with what we need to survive, not to live comfortable or “perfect” lives. That is apparently enough for more IDers and creationists to be amazed, but it isn’t for me, now that I** know** why this is the case.

“To pretend I do **know **something I don’t is dishonest and arrogant”!

If there is no reason why we evolved how did reason originate?

Through evolution, as a survival mechanism. I already explained this.

“explained” or “claimed”?

Our own intellectual pursuits, which were motivated by something besides survival, led us to invent nuclear weapons and the like.

What is the “something besides survival”?