Why evolution doesnt matter.

[EphelDuath]

The Church tells us we are free to believe in creation or evolution, but - apparently not.

Yes, because this is a false dichotomy. Creation through evolution is the proper option.

Then we’re told that not accepting evolution will somehow “hinder” others from looking at the faith. Apparently not.

It does, because it gives us the image of being hostile to scientific achievements when inconvenient to our religious beliefs. As the Church allows its faithful to believe in evolution, this shouldn’t be a problem; but it still is.

Evolution is not the new circumcision - a requirement for entering the house of God.

Correct, as Catholics are allowed to believe in YEC or theistic evolution as to their pleasure. The circumcisers, who were heretics by the way, said that one could only be saved if they were circumcised: there was no option. Keep that in mind as you continue to argue against theistic evolution.

And if an unbeliever asks you, Why did Jesus have to die? What do you say? Or, Who were Adam and Eve?, a long established part of Church teaching, what do you say?

Adam and Eve were real people, this is confirmed by scientific evidence that human beings descended ultimately from two people.

I think evolution is a dangerous ideology. That is the impression I would get from reading the posts here.

It’s not an ideology.

Every possible strategy is used in an attempt to convince dissenters that evolution > must < be accepted. This constant, almost daily insistence reveals this is not about science.

Correct. It’s about people who criticize science when it’s inconvenient to their beliefs, and make moral judgments about people who choose not to believe that God would be cruel enough to try and trick us with scientific evidence contrary to his machinations.

And a conspiracy? No, it’s out in the open. Billboard: Praise Darwin.

Some atheists think evolution is an excuse to replace God. This is not the case, and they are wrong. This has no bearing on the fact that the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, so if you think evolution is an evil, then you are admitting that the Church is leading its flock to evil.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Church tells us we are free to believe in creation or evolution, but - apparently not. Then we’re told that not accepting evolution will somehow “hinder” others from looking at the faith. Apparently not. Unless you can give a documented example of someone not entering the faith because of doubts about what some Catholics might think about evolution, I don’t see your point. Evolution is not the new circumcision - a requirement for entering the house of God.

And if an unbeliever asks you, Why did Jesus have to die? What do you say? Or, Who were Adam and Eve?, a long established part of Church teaching, what do you say?

I think evolution is a dangerous ideology. That is the impression I would get from reading the posts here. Every possible strategy is used in an attempt to convince dissenters that evolution > must < be accepted. This constant, almost daily insistence reveals this is not about science.

And a conspiracy? No, it’s out in the open. Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. And, Man Created God, on buses. Advertising is purchased for a reason.

Peace,
Ed

I see very few people here arguing that a Christian must accept evolution. What they are suggesting is that saying evolution is not compatible with Christianity is false. Anyone is free to argue that evolution is a bad theory on scientific grounds. One could also argue that science as a whole is false, though I think the Church might have something stronger to say about that, and most people who claim to believe this actually don’t take it to its logical conclusion.

Of course evolution is either true in some form, or not. So in that sense, whichever view is correct is the one compatible with Truth, which Christians think is Christianity.

But it seems you are consistently arguing here and in other discussions just this - that it is not compatible with Christianity, (despite the view of the Catholic Church that it is, so far as we know.) This is what people feel drives people away from Christianity and gives them a false idea of what Catholicism is about. And it is a false idea - the Church says no such thing, and it isn’t even in line with the approach of the Church to science historically.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, because this is a false dichotomy. Creation through evolution is the proper option.

It does, because it gives us the image of being hostile to scientific achievements when inconvenient to our religious beliefs. As the Church allows its faithful to believe in evolution, this shouldn’t be a problem; but it still is.

Correct, as Catholics are allowed to believe in YEC or theistic evolution as to their pleasure. The circumcisers, who were heretics by the way, said that one could only be saved if they were circumcised: there was no option. Keep that in mind as you continue to argue against theistic evolution.

Adam and Eve were real people, this is confirmed by scientific evidence that human beings descended ultimately from two people.

It’s not an ideology.

Correct. It’s about people who criticize science when it’s inconvenient to their beliefs, and make moral judgments about people who choose not to believe that God would be cruel enough to try and trick us with scientific evidence contrary to his machinations.

Some atheists think evolution is an excuse to replace God. This is not the case, and they are wrong. This has no bearing on the fact that the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, so if you think evolution is an evil, then you are admitting that the Church is leading its flock to evil.

Human beings descended from two people and there is scientific evidence for this? Please show me. Then I can show it to those who post here that insist, also by using science, that 10,000 breeding pairs represents the minimum for the human population. They reject two people out of hand and claim science backs them up.

Please quit telling me what I’m admitting and not admitting. I see that I will need to be blunt in the future to avoid misunderstandings.

And please, stop with the God the deceiver argument. That’s not what I’m proposing either.

And yes, evolution, as currently presented in the media, including here, is presented as the “biology textbook” only version. Or - We don’t care what’s in your holy book just believe like it’s written in the textbook. No wonder atheists love evolution so much.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, but that only works by avoiding the import of “king” – see tyranny in the dictionary for example:
Free society’s definitely can fall victim to tyranny, and there’s lots of ways to do it. But a free society is itself a way to combat and prevent oppression. Def. 2a there is what I have in mind in labeling God a tyrant – according to Christians all power and authority is held by a single ruler, all are subject to a single, arbitrary will.

nobody vested all authority in G-d, it is the legitimate authority of the creator over the created.
your choice of terms amounts to a loaded language fallacy, an attempt to use the negative connotation of the words to influence your audience. legitimate authority is not tyranny. and you are allowed to be free of it if that is your choice. you are not requiired to obey, you may exercise your free will.

No, it could be that a creator would create, and invest moral authority and reason in his creatures, making them truly free and autonomous. And it’s worth considering that the Tyrant is a fiction in the first place, a social construct useful to provide the means for social organization, and to placate psychological needs of those who have an innate desire to be slaves.

so essentially He could just make whatever an individual decided to do morally correct? one man could murder the homeless and it would be the moral equivalent of another man sharing his last bit of food with the homeless? thats an innate contradiction.

you assert here the tyrant is a fiction, useful for social order, a rather marxian idea. as their was social order prior to religion, i dont see the truth of it now or when marx called it the opiate of the masses. family and kinship relations provide a social order entirely separate from religion. marx was wrong.

In a free society, we have recourse to defend our liberty, either through law, or violent overthrow of the tyrant. In Christian theism, no such recourse obtains. We are simply stuck with the tyrant, for better or worse. It’s a one way power relationship. In a free society, the ‘consent of the govern’ obtains, and provides liabilities for those in power – don’t tread on me! Abuse engenders overthrow in free society. Abuse is called “goodness” in a totalitarian arrangement where the slaves have no recourse.

A free citizen is not asked if he wants to exist, or even be a citizen. She is “citizenized” automatically, once of age. But with that responsibility also comes recourse, and this recourse is conspicuously absent in the totalitarian model of Christianity. They couldn’t be more different.

Those are all contractual, bilateral arrangements. If the people, or just I, consider the authorities oppressive, illegitimate due to its abuse of my/our freedoms, recourse is available – we can vote for changes in the system, and work to convince others to do the same, or we can even escalate matters to the violent overthrow of the tyrants.

you can of course choose to leave a society, as you can choose to be separate from G-d. you can do without the benefits of our society,as you can do without the benefits of a relationship with G-d. you are free.

Of course not, it’s often better to frame it in other, more preferable terms. Even if one is a slave, that’s not necessarily how one wants to think about the situation.

i would prefer terms not loaded, swaying by emotion. though you are not a slave, you can choose to live separately from G-d. a slave has no choice.

 

[edwest2]

I see very few people here arguing that a Christian must accept evolution. What they are suggesting is that saying evolution is not compatible with Christianity is false. Anyone is free to argue that evolution is a bad theory on scientific grounds. One could also argue that science as a whole is false, though I think the Church might have something stronger to say about that, and most people who claim to believe this actually don’t take it to its logical conclusion.

Of course evolution is either true in some form, or not. So in that sense, whichever view is correct is the one compatible with Truth, which Christians think is Christianity.

But it seems you are consistently arguing here and in other discussions just this - that it is not compatible with Christianity, (despite the view of the Catholic Church that it is, so far as we know.) This is what people feel drives people away from Christianity and gives them a false idea of what Catholicism is about. And it is a false idea - the Church says no such thing, and it isn’t even in line with the approach of the Church to science historically.

Evolution is a bad theory on scientific grounds. It is not compatible with Adam and Eve. The Church teaches that Eve was made by God from Adam’s side. Original Sin is why Christ was born and had to die. This is fundamental revealed truth. There are many posts here that do more than suggest.

The approach of the Church to evolution (not science) has been well-reasoned caution. The same approach it has always taken to modernism. Evolution/science cannot comment on the supernatural but its supporters do exactly that on this forum all the time. They are modernists and they should know better. Some of them claim to be Catholic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, be specific. What’s an assertion are you having trouble with? We can go from there. Sure you can see the irony in your protest here, three sentences of unsupported rant?

-TS

im still not sure what youre criticism of the intuition of being is?

 

[Touchstone]

im still not sure what youre criticism of the intuition of being is?

Well, if you’re trying to recall my objection from upthread, I said something to the effect that it gets used as a “proxy for knowledge”. He have some intuition, and we don’t have a way to describe, test, falsify, or validate it, but we accept it anyway. It’s accepted as a foundation uncritically, unnecessarily.

-TS

 

[EphelDuath]

Human beings descended from two people and there is scientific evidence for this? Please show me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

This is not the first woman in history, mind you, but it does demonstrate that at some point humanity could be reduced to two people.

And yes, evolution, as currently presented in the media, including here, is presented as the “biology textbook” only version. Or - We don’t care what’s in your holy book just believe like it’s written in the textbook. No wonder atheists love evolution so much.

This has no bearing whatsoever on whether evolution is true, just because some people misunderstand the theory and bring it to logical absurdities.

 

[Touchstone]

nobody vested all authority in G-d, it is the legitimate authority of the creator over the created.

Notice I didn’t use vested, but “held” in my comment. I think “held” applies. Do you think God holds all power and authority?

your choice of terms amounts to a loaded language fallacy, an attempt to use the negative connotation of the words to influence your audience. legitimate authority is not tyranny. and you are allowed to be free of it if that is your choice. you are not requiired to obey, you may exercise your free will.

I guess I’d say it was loaded, prejudicial language to call the “legitimate authority”. I’m not free choose if my choice results in destruction at the hands of a tyrant. If someone puts a gun to my head and says “deny me and I’ll shoot” I’m not free. I’m being coerced, on pain of death. Yes, I have my free will, but that’s the source of power the oppressor draws upon – I wish to live, and so the tyrant coerces my behavior by threatening my life, my well-being. In the case of God, it’s an eternal proposition.

In a free society, A man can choose how he wants to live, according to his choices. So long as he doesn’t harm his neighbor or interfere with his liberties, he is free. That isn’t the Christian model. The Christian model is a totalitarian one.

so essentially He could just make whatever an individual decided to do morally correct? one man could murder the homeless and it would be the moral equivalent of another man sharing his last bit of food with the homeless? thats an innate contradiction.

No, it would be just as wrong to kill a man like that as it is in any other model. The wrongness obtains from the victim’s desire to live, and the gratuitousness of taking that liberty away, and the suffering cause in bringing about his death. The victim is wronged, mortally wronged, in the most tragic way. God is no more involved or implicated that than in a godless scenario.

you assert here the tyrant is a fiction, useful for social order, a rather marxian idea. as their was social order prior to religion, i dont see the truth of it now or when marx called it the opiate of the masses. family and kinship relations provide a social order entirely separate from religion. marx was wrong.

That idea wasn’t invented by Marx. It’s as old as religion itself. The gods have always been a means of establish social order and hierarchy, a way to configure and justify political power. Family bonds and the community-based, socially-cohesive nature of man predates religion by quite a long time, so far as we can tell. Other primates exhibit similar, more rudimentary forms of social organization and gregariousness. So yeah, it’s quite likely that religion is a late arrival on the scene, an emergent property of language, human culture, and, judging by timelines, the rise of agrarian/proto-urban communities (as opposed to hunter-gatherer societies).

you can of course choose to leave a society, as you can choose to be separate from G-d. you can do without the benefits of our society,as you can do without the benefits of a relationship with G-d. you are free.

Yes, but man is a social animal, and does not fare well in isolation on several levels. Happily, societies can be constructed in such a way that the citizens have some recourse to abuses of power, some say and representation on how governing power is executed.

i would prefer terms not loaded, swaying by emotion. though you are not a slave, you can choose to live separately from G-d. a slave has no choice.

Well, my first reaction of course is: what God? But many choose their own slavery, as Paul said, a “bondservant” of Jesus Christ. To be a Muslim is to be a “slave of Allah”. Etc.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, if you’re trying to recall my objection from upthread, I said something to the effect that it gets used as a “proxy for knowledge”. He have some intuition, and we don’t have a way to describe, test, falsify, or validate it, but we accept it anyway. It’s accepted as a foundation uncritically, unnecessarily.

-TS

it cannot be tested, or quantified, or validated by the scientific method because it does not lend itself to such examination. it deals with the nature of existence, not the quantifiable aspects of essence. it is not however accepted uncritically, or unnecessarily.

i see no problem with its resistance to examination by the scientific method. that doesnt ameliorate is truth or validity in relation to the nature of being.

for instance if you remove the fish from the water, the water remains. if you remove the water from the fish, metaphorically speaking, nothing remains but that which was its capacity to hold water. its essence. its capacity to “hold” existence. what makes it a fish as opposed to a bicycle or a ghost.

 

[Touchstone]

it cannot be tested, or quantified, or validated by the scientific method because it does not lend itself to such examination. it deals with the nature of existence, not the quantifiable aspects of essence. it is not however accepted uncritically, or unnecessarily.

How is it tested, quantified, validated and potentially falsified, then? If you don’t have a method (it doesn’t have to be the ‘scientific method’, but must be some method, then it’s meaningless to talk about ‘uncritically’ or ‘unnecessarily’. There’s no semantic value to either of those without a method to apply tests to metaphysical propositions.

i see no problem with its resistance to examination by the scientific method. that doesnt ameliorate is truth or validity in relation to the nature of being.

I’m not saying it does. I am saying, however, that without some method that provides objective testing and validation – whatever that may be – it’s really not much better, epistemically, than pondering whether blue is a more favorite color than red.

As an example of where metaphysics does work that shows the poverty of speculative metaphysics, science. It’s a metaphysical gambit, but one that is liable to testing, verification and falsification. If reality is NOT intelligible to some degree through systematic natural investigation, the “metaphysical hypothesis of natural science” is falsified.

That “loop” demonstrates everything the other, frivolous parts of metaphysics are not.

for instance if you remove the fish from the water, the water remains. if you remove the water from the fish, metaphorically speaking, nothing remains but that which was its capacity to hold water. its essence. its capacity to “hold” existence. what makes it a fish as opposed to a bicycle or a ghost.

Gobbledy-gook, I say. What do you mean, precisely, by “essence”. I love chasing this one down, by the way, so thank you in advance for a quality answer, here.

Your example may (or may not) be a good one to apply the method you are going to supply for testing, validation and falsification of your metaphysics. I’m interested to see how you’d do that.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Notice I didn’t use vested, but “held” in my comment. I think “held” applies. Do you think God holds all power and authority?

i think he does so, legitimately

I guess I’d say it was loaded, prejudicial language to call the “legitimate authority”. I’m not free choose if my choice results in destruction at the hands of a tyrant. If someone puts a gun to my head and says “deny me and I’ll shoot” I’m not free. I’m being coerced, on pain of death. Yes, I have my free will, but that’s the source of power the oppressor draws upon – I wish to live, and so the tyrant coerces my behavior by threatening my life, my well-being. In the case of God, it’s an eternal proposition.

i dont see how a factual representation is prejudicial? He has the authority of the created over the creator. if you create something then do you not have authority over it? entirely legitimate. as to you being coerced, you are not being coerced there is no gun to your head, you can choose the separation from G-d if you so will. we consider that a horrible fate, but it is a choice, freedom inherently contains the freedom to fail, to starve, to want, along with the freedom to fulfill ones wishes.

In a free society, A man can choose how he wants to live, according to his choices. So long as he doesn’t harm his neighbor or interfere with his liberties, he is free. That isn’t the Christian model. The Christian model is a totalitarian one.

then no society is free by that defintion, but that doesnt make Christianity totalitarian, it doesnt delve into every area of your life. thats more loaded language.

No, it would be just as wrong to kill a man like that as it is in any other model. The wrongness obtains from the victim’s desire to live, and the gratuitousness of taking that liberty away, and the suffering cause in bringing about his death. The victim is wronged, mortally wronged, in the most tragic way. God is no more involved or implicated that than in a godless scenario.

why is any of this wrong? because you say it is? i dont buy the subjective line, if morality is subjective there is no reason for me to accept your version of right and wrong anymore than anyone elses, try to give me the golden rule as a reason, and ill tell you im willing to take my chances. subjectivity wont make it far with me. better the rules stemming from a legitimate authority based on being the Creator, than from what any created individual with no legitimate claim to authority cares for them to be. (you dont happen to be a brights do you?)

That idea wasn’t invented by Marx. It’s as old as religion itself. The gods have always been a means of establish social order and hierarchy, a way to configure and justify political power. Family bonds and the community-based, socially-cohesive nature of man predates religion by quite a long time, so far as we can tell. Other primates exhibit similar, more rudimentary forms of social organization and gregariousness. So yeah, it’s quite likely that religion is a late arrival on the scene, an emergent property of language, human culture, and, judging by timelines, the rise of agrarian/proto-urban communities (as opposed to hunter-gatherer societies).

i can buy a way to justify political power, many societies have done so but im not sure it goes much further than that. after all, there was a perfectly good religion in Rome for that very purpose.

Yes, but man is a social animal, and does not fare well in isolation on several levels. Happily, societies can be constructed in such a way that the citizens have some recourse to abuses of power, some say and representation on how governing power is executed.

its not as though you go to live on a deserted island, but rather you trade one society for another. and as to abuses of power, when the authority is legitimate, as the creator of an object has over that object, then there really is no such thing as an abuse of power. after all its is not the creation that has the authority, or rightly should be in the position of authority.

Well, my first reaction of course is: what God? But many choose their own slavery, as Paul said, a “bondservant” of Jesus Christ. To be a Muslim is to be a “slave of Allah”. Etc.

-TS

figures of speech arent a basis for the actual relationship, Paul could have refused service.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How is it tested, quantified, validated and potentially falsified, then? If you don’t have a method (it doesn’t have to be the ‘scientific method’, but must be some method, then it’s meaningless to talk about ‘uncritically’ or ‘unnecessarily’. There’s no semantic value to either of those without a method to apply tests to metaphysical propositions.

there is no method aside from reason. how do you test anything that doesnt lend itself to the scientific method? by reason. will certainty then be the issue? that just boils down to what level of solipsism your willing to accept.

I’m not saying it does. I am saying, however, that without some method that provides objective testing and validation – whatever that may be – it’s really not much better, epistemically, than pondering whether blue is a more favorite color than red. As an example of where metaphysics does work that shows the poverty of speculative metaphysics, science. It’s a metaphysical gambit, but one that is liable to testing, verification and falsification. If reality is NOT intelligible to some degree through systematic natural investigation, the “metaphysical hypothesis of natural science” is falsified.

That “loop” demonstrates everything the other, frivolous parts of metaphysics are not.

and why not? we can of course use reason insofar as it relates to nature. disintegrate an object and it still has some form of its capacity for existence, its essence, it is no longer a bicycle, its essence, is now some particle. the existence is unaltered, but the essence is. see, we can show its reasonable application to reality, while never using the quantifiable methods of the scientific method. so now we do have knowledge more valuable than simply pondering a favorite color. maybe then the other parts of metaphysics are not so frivoluos, they simply adrress different realms than that part of metaphysics, today called science.

Gobbledy-gook, I say. What do you mean, precisely, by “essence”. I love chasing this one down, by the way, so thank you in advance for a quality answer, here.

maybe capacity for existence. in both qauntitative and qualitative terms.

Your example may (or may not) be a good one to apply the method you are going to supply for testing, validation and falsification of your metaphysics. I’m interested to see how you’d do that.

-TS

see above, i think it works. but then this is a very difficult subject.

 

[rossum]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

This is not the first woman in history, mind you, but it does demonstrate that at some point humanity could be reduced to two people.

Mitochondrial Eve does no such thing. She was not the only human female alive at the time and although we all get our mitochondrial DNA from her, there are other genes we have that we not from her but from some of those other human females alive at the time.

There is enough variation in the human genome, and enough variation we have in common with the Chimps, to show that the population was never as low as two since the time we diverged from our last common ancestor with the chimps.

The genetic evidence says nothing about how many of those humans had souls. It seems to me that a more productive study would be to look at how having two ensouled humans in a population of non-souled humans would work out.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Mitochondrial Eve does no such thing. She was not the only human female alive at the time and although we all get our mitochondrial DNA from her, there are other genes we have that we not from her but from some of those other human females alive at the time.

There is enough variation in the human genome, and enough variation we have in common with the Chimps, to show that the population was never as low as two since the time we diverged from our last common ancestor with the chimps.

The genetic evidence says nothing about how many of those humans had souls. It seems to me that a more productive study would be to look at how having two ensouled humans in a population of non-souled humans would work out.

rossum

I can only make a quick comment here and then I will be back on CAF much later. The idea of humans without souls does not make any sense to me. The rational soul is part of what defines being human. You will need to explain what a “non-souled human” can possibly be.

 

[rossum]

I can only make a quick comment here and then I will be back on CAF much later. The idea of humans without souls does not make any sense to me. The rational soul is part of what defines being human. You will need to explain what a “non-souled human” can possibly be.

Science looks at material things, so for a palaeontologist this will be fossils, old bones, DNA sequences and the like. None of those things are a soul or give any indication of whether or not a soul was present. We cannot see “here is the soul” written in our DNA.

A non-souled human would be biologically the same species as a souled human, and the two would be able to breed successfully since their DNAs would be essentially the same. If you prefer, you can call the non-souled humans “huma” as they are almost, but not quite, fully human. Biologically they are the same species but theologically they are different.

That allows for a large population of physical humans, with only two theological humans among them.

rossum

 

[Touchstone]

i think he does so, legitimately

i dont see how a factual representation is prejudicial?

It’s not a fact! If you think it is, then you’ll have to explain to me what your concept of ‘fact’ is.

He has the authority of the created over the creator. if you create something then do you not have authority over it?

I do, but if what I create is a living, sentient being, then my authority gives way at some point to this creatures own interests. If we have the technology someday to create “nuPeople” in the label – totally our own creation, we are not morally entitled to do with them as we please, to treat them as means to an end, rather than ends in themselves.

If we are talking about inanimate, non-sentient objects being created, we can treat our creations like any other of our property. But if our creation is living sentience, our authority becomes on of stewardship.

entirely legitimate. as to you being coerced, you are not being coerced there is no gun to your head, you can choose the separation from G-d if you so will. we consider that a horrible fate, but it is a choice, freedom inherently contains the freedom to fail, to starve, to want, along with the freedom to fulfill ones wishes.

I think that’s fine if we can say “no thanks” due the moral objections of our conscience, and we die, that’s the end of it. But as I understand Catholic theology, that ain’t how it works. There is an eternal gun to man’s head. Simply opting out is not an option in the Catholic view. God is “cosmically coercive”. If I’m wrong and I’m not subject to punishment and torment at God’s arrangement as a result of my choice, please advise.

then no society is free by that defintion, but that doesnt make Christianity totalitarian, it doesnt delve into every area of your life. thats more loaded language.

What part of my life does God not assert authority and sovereignty over? Is there even a private thought that Catholics would say God does not know, and hold me accountable for under his authority? Friend, this is maximal totalitarianism. The Catholic God is at the theoretical limit, here.

why is any of this wrong? because you say it is? i dont buy the subjective line, if morality is subjective there is no reason for me to accept your version of right and wrong anymore than anyone elses, try to give me the golden rule as a reason, and ill tell you im willing to take my chances. subjectivity wont make it far with me. better the rules stemming from a legitimate authority based on being the Creator, than from what any created individual with no legitimate claim to authority cares for them to be. (you dont happen to be a brights do you?)

It’s objectively wrong because the community and social cohesion breaks down where wanton killing is not prevented and discouraged. And it’s objectively a violation of the Golden Rule – the killer wants to live, and is thereby violating the symmetry of the social contract by killing another without just cause. For the same reason the killer wants to live, it is wrong to interfere with another’s life.

These are rules of objective necessity. Man as a species (and as an indivual or a community) does not survive without them.

i can buy a way to justify political power, many societies have done so but im not sure it goes much further than that. after all, there was a perfectly good religion in Rome for that very purpose.

It’s not only the conjuring of political power. That power obtains from somewhere and that somewhere is the widespread credulity people have toward the unknown, particularly as regards the numinous.

its not as though you go to live on a deserted island, but rather you trade one society for another. and as to abuses of power, when the authority is legitimate, as the creator of an object has over that object, then there really is no such thing as an abuse of power. after all its is not the creation that has the authority, or rightly should be in the position of authority.

This is the moral poverty of Christianity – God making one vessel “unto dishonor” just because it’s his good pleasure to use human lives that way. Or ordering the genocide of entire races/tribes/communities. Under your model, a god who demanded ritual child sacrifice and the torture of innocents as propitiation would be just as good and just as any other god, because, as you say, “there really is no such thing as an abuse of power”.

This is moral abdication, a stance which would worship any form of wickedness and cruelty and call it good, because it conflates power with goodness.

figures of speech arent a basis for the actual relationship, Paul could have refused service.

He could have. But choosing to be a slave doesn’t mean you are not a slave. Why do you think Paul or the Muslim use the terms they use?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

there is no method aside from reason. how do you test anything that doesnt lend itself to the scientific method? by reason. will certainty then be the issue? that just boils down to what level of solipsism your willing to accept.

“Reason” doesn’t explain the method you apply to a metaphysical proposition. For example, how would you stress test your idea that “essence is the capacity to hold existence”. I think applying your method to that proposition would be quite enlightening for me.

and why not? we can of course use reason insofar as it relates to nature. disintegrate an object and it still has some form of its capacity for existence, its essence, it is no longer a bicycle, its essence, is now some particle.

When you disintegrate an object, “it” is not “it” any more. That’s what disintegration means. The original “it” exists no more, and you are left with raw materials, which are a very different “it”. The point being that no ontological change occurs – the atoms and molecules that made up the bicycle are still around, just not organized in the complex way we associate with the term “bicycle”. The atoms are the same as they ever were.

the existence is unaltered, but the essence is.

How is essence distinguished from “organization of matter/energy”. Essence seems to be entirely superfluous, as anything it attempts to explain is trivially handled by noting the organizational and emergent qualities of the configuration. Water’s “waterness” is explained by its bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Water is water because of its particular organization of matter/energy. The hydrogen atoms in a water molecule are perfectly interchangeable with a hydrogen atom taken from something else – the air, for example. It has no innate “waterness” or “airness”.

see, we can show its reasonable application to reality, while never using the quantifiable methods of the scientific method. so now we do have knowledge more valuable than simply pondering a favorite color.

We do not. What knowledge do we have beyond what science gives us. I can’t see any at all here in what you’ve said.

maybe then the other parts of metaphysics are not so frivoluos, they simply adrress different realms than that part of metaphysics, today called science.

Well, perhaps, but if so, that isn’t shown by what you’ve said here. As it is, you’ve made a point about the frivolity of “essence”. It’s totally superfluous to understanding, modeling, using, or otherwise interacting with a bicycle. It’s epistemically inert.

maybe capacity for existence. in both qauntitative and qualitative terms.

See, this is just fluffy language borrowing from physical concepts. What do you mean by “capacity”, and what do you mean by “existence”? What is your definition of “existence”, as you use it here? I’m interested to see how you answer this without stealing concepts from physics.

see above, i think it works. but then this is a very difficult subject.

It certainly seems difficult to show how it works, or adds value, epistemically!

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is not compatible with Adam and Eve.

If what you have written here is true, then i am sure there would have been an official pronouncement or message from the Pope stating that the theory of Evolution is incompatible with faith on the grounds that it necessarily contradicts the story of Adam and Eve, and that we are therefore barred from believing in the theory of Evolution. I haven’t seen nor heard of this message or pronouncement.

I don’t want to accuse you of being a liar, so can you please provide evidence for your assertion.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Mitochondrial Eve does no such thing. She was not the only human female alive at the time and although we all get our mitochondrial DNA from her, there are other genes we have that we not from her but from some of those other human females alive at the time.

It seems to me that you are just trying to confuse the situation. There may have been other “females” alive at the time, but that doesn’t change the fact that we got all our mitochondrial DNA from a “single women”. This is a very important point that cannot be over looked. What you have said about there being other “women” is really irrelevant; since, the Christian belief says that according to divine revelation the human race as we know it began with two human beings with souls, which is the very factor by which a Christian deems relevant the very point of pointing out that all conscious persons as we know them share their DNA with a single female.