A Compromise about ID in Biology Classes [Archive]

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Or, would evolving intelligence create a society where we could choose not to kill? (without fear of hell as the deterrent)

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Most animals don't kill their own kind or even kill at all except for pragmatic reasons (food,group dominance) - humans kill for pleasure. But the example was just for effect, evolution by chance destroys the basis of any and all morality for any reason other than pragmatism.

I think the notion that people obey God's law only because of fear of hell is wrong. It's true that fear of punishment is a strong motivation, but not the only one. Since we are made in God's image we have genuine love of and appreciation for truth and beauty. It is possible to want to do something that's right because it's right, to avoid evil because it's ugly, to love God for Who He is, and to want to be like Him because it's our highest good.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Murder is a property violation, so it's never ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's talking law?

10-03-2005, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since we are made in God's image we have genuine love of and appreciation for truth and beauty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there are only billions of counterexamples of humans made in God's image who have no appreciation for any such thing.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Brainwashing is a powerful technique.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no answer I guess.

purnell

10-03-2005, 11:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection would include the strong killing off weaker people, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this makes murder "ok".

[ QUOTE ]
Or, would evolving intelligence create a society where we could choose not to kill? (without fear of hell as the deterrent)

[/ QUOTE ]

We can choose not to kill, no?

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche never said or implied such a thing,

[/ QUOTE ]

It was attributed to him as well as Dostoevsky and stated clearly by Sartre. Pick one, I don't care.

10-03-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ID proponets are being backed futher and further into a corner

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have this backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more folks like you, NotReady, and Peter666 advocate teaching ID, the more it is obvious that the pathologically unreasonable and blissfully ignorant are leading the charge.

10-03-2005, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche never said or implied such a thing,

[/ QUOTE ]

It was attributed to him as well as Dostoevsky and stated clearly by Sartre. Pick one, I don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably attributed by an agenda-fueled theist like yourself rather than an objective scholar or reader.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, there are only billions of counterexamples of humans made in God's image who have no appreciation for any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading the hearts and minds of billions is beyond my ability.

vulturesrow

10-03-2005, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
lived more morally than probably 95% of all Christians in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

By what standards of morality?

10-03-2005, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Murder is a property violation, so it's never ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's talking law?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are when you say murder is okay without a god construct.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The more folks like you, NotReady, and Peter666 advocate teaching ID,

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never advocated teaching ID in the public schools.

10-03-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, there are only billions of counterexamples of humans made in God's image who have no appreciation for any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading the hearts and minds of billions is beyond my ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

You apparently already did when you claimed their appreciations for truth and beauty.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

stated clearly by Sartre.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post again and try to pay attention this time.

10-03-2005, 12:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

stated clearly by Sartre.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post again and try to pay attention this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post clearly. I never mentioned Sartre and was replying to your reference to Nietzsche.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 12:02 PM

What'd he say? (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich_nietzsche_quotes.html)

Duh.

10-03-2005, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What'd he say? (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich_nietzsche_quotes.html)

Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said God is dead (killed by rationalism, etc.), but did not say that equates to nihilism.

Your own link says the following: Given the "unbelievability" of the "God-hypothesis" Nietzsche himself seemed to favour the creation of a new set of values "faithful to the earth."

This hardly sounds like "If God is dead, all is permitted - Nietzsche" as you wrote. You clearly can't see any basis for ethical/moral behavior unless it is dictated by a supreme being, whereas Nietzsche (and myself and many others) can see such a standard for values beyond those dictated by a God. This clouds all your thinking on the subject of morality and god.

It is ironic how the atheists can see a reason to respect others without believeing that a God tells them so, but Christians feel that with no "law" (Ten Commandments) then its anything goes.

kiddj

10-03-2005, 12:13 PM

Why would God create the universe in such a way that would be illogical?

Shouldn't the discoveries that support evolution make for a stronger argument of how powerful a being that created everything is?

If God is beyond time, then the time between the ape-man and us is not even remotely significant. Who's to say that we (as we exist and appear now) are the final product of His plan? (I'm looking for more of a philosophical answer, not biblical.)

Jeff V

10-03-2005, 12:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
make sure that ALL OF IT is discussed. Not just the 5% that throws some doubt onto certain small specifics of evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to yours, and some others thoughts, this would be bad for evolutionists. Evolution has had about what 50+ yrs of misleading-no misinforming students across the country?

From Hoekel's drawing to the fossil record or how about the magic soup experiments of early earth that "proved" the chance formation of the first cells? These were/are presented as facts when they have all been proven false .

So I whole heartedly agree. Let's discuss it all.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You clearly can't see any basis for ethical/moral behavior unless it is dictated by a supreme being,

[/ QUOTE ]

Provide the basis. Mike Martin can't and admits it.

10-03-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution has had about what 50+ yrs of misleading-no misinforming students across the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

So the Christian church has a 2000 year head start, right?

10-03-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You clearly can't see any basis for ethical/moral behavior unless it is dictated by a supreme being,

[/ QUOTE ]

Provide the basis. Mike Martin can't and admits it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche, for one, already did.

It really isn't hard to provide a basis for moral/ethical behavior without the laws of some supreme being who grants eternal life or death, is it? The ONLY reason one should choose action A versus action B is because that's what God (some all-powerful "infinite being" who resides beyond the universe) wants? This is a more reasonable basis?

Jeff V

10-03-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So the Christian church has a 2000 year head start, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so typical of so many of your counterarguments.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche, for one, already did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't. Can't.

10-03-2005, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche, for one, already did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't. Can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

His book Beyond Good and Evil already touched on so much of these moral questions, but obviously you ask for a basis, and then say its not possible, clearly showing that you are choosing to believe in your Christian basis as the only one possible, so discussion is futile.

10-03-2005, 12:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the Christian church has a 2000 year head start, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so typical of so many of your counterarguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Bible says so and I have faith in it.

There, I'll try to follow your example.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

so discussion is futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

You finally got something right.

Jeff V

10-03-2005, 12:30 PM

Good one.

I don't recall responding to posts of a technical nature this way. A theological issue-yes I'd probably defer to the Bible.

10-03-2005, 12:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good one.

I don't recall responding to posts of a technical nature this way. A theological issue-yes I'd probably defer to the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Because Aristotle is like soooo stupid" was your response to a thread about "the First Cause", which implies that the teachings of an ignorant (in terms of cosmology) man should be viewed as truth. That's how you respond to technical posts.

Jeff V

10-03-2005, 01:06 PM

could you send a link?

10-03-2005, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
could you send a link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, mea culpa. That was Peter666. Easy to confuse the two of you.

David Sklansky

10-03-2005, 02:29 PM

"Contrary to yours, and some others thoughts, this would be bad for evolutionists."

"So I whole heartedly agree. Let's discuss it all."

I am far from an expert on evolution. But I know a thing or two about smart people. And it is my understanding that the vast majority of smart people who have studied the subject, and listened to creationists points, are almost always able to demolish those points. In fact even those few scientists who think evolution can't account for everything, I am fairly sure, think that most creationist arguments are hogwash.

But you seem to be saying that if everything was out on the table, smart kids who understood the arguments would tend to believe in ID. Meaning that experts in evolution (whose average IQ is certainly higher than the average IQ of atheists, and who sometimes include Catholics,) have come to a flawed conclusion, based on evidence, while the creationists, who beyond doubt have a lower average IQ, somehow evaluated the evidence more accurately.

The farfetchedness of the above scenario, and not my knowledge of evolution, is why I am sure you are wrong.

PS Bringing up 50 year old evolutionary theories that were still in their infancy and didn't include DNA is wrong. Scientists were not nearly as sure of the particulars then as they are now.

David Sklansky

10-03-2005, 02:37 PM

"This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people."

I am quite sure Not Ready means it's ok to murder people as long as you can get away with it and it doesn't make you feel bad (for whatever reason). He might be right. (He certainly is right about every other animal). So what? That is not a reason to avoid showing the flaws in creationist's viwepoints. If you philosophers want to argue about this do it on another thread.

NotReady

10-03-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

He might be right. (He certainly is right about every other animal). So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Propose this to your local school board.

bocablkr

10-03-2005, 03:31 PM

But you seem to be saying that if everything was out on the table, smart kids who understood the arguments would tend to believe in ID. Meaning that experts in evolution (whose average IQ is certainly higher than the average IQ of atheists , and who sometimes include Catholics,) have come to a flawed conclusion, based on evidence, while the creationists, who beyond doubt have a lower average IQ, somehow evaluated the evidence more accurately.

David,

Did you mean to say atheist or 'smart kids'??

DVaut1

10-03-2005, 08:09 PM

I am more than willing to allow ID taught in schools, so long as the creationist theory I believe in (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm) can be taught along side of it.

Here is a picture of my God:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/FSM_himself.jpg

Of course, in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, I hope that other reputable theories (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) are taught in physics classes, to provide the educational freedom our young students deserve.

10-03-2005, 08:14 PM

Good idea. I've always been opposed to teaching creationism because I think it's so stupid. But if you included teaching the arguments of why it's so stupid, that would be very educational. Most of the students raised in very religious families have probably never been exposed to such arguments.

Maybe after a generation of this teaching we could cut by half or more the ranks of those who believe that every word in the Bible should be taken literally. It's nice to dream about at least.

malorum

10-03-2005, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've never advocated teaching ID in the public schools

[/ QUOTE ]

No need. Just teach them that the bible represents the basic axiomatic framework for legitimate reasoning. Enrich our children's minds with a sound doctrinal framework, and they will no longer seek a posteriori proofs either for or against scriptural truth.
Of course if we didn't insist on separating church and state, an inquisition would also be a viable option.
I'll admit though that I have some reservations on the latter.

malorum

10-03-2005, 08:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And it is my understanding that the vast majority of smart people who have studied the subject, and listened to creationists points, are almost always able to demolish those points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly.

I'm sure I could be as harsh as any critic should I wish to be.

I don't particularly like bad science.

However: My religious faith and its epistemological sequelae do not rely on scientific or probabalistic interpretations of observed data, but rather on the unconditional acceptance of the innerancy, veracity and historicity of the bible.

Csll it circular, arbitrary, or irrational if you like. I don't think the belief itself necessarily disables me from appropriately applying scientific methods if required.
Most ID proponents sadly fail to adequately compartmentalise or adjust their axiomatic frameworks to the task in hand.

malorum

10-03-2005, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe after a generation of this teaching we could cut by half or more the ranks of those who believe that every word in the Bible should be taken literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back to the pit with ye oh minion of Satan.

RJT

10-03-2005, 09:34 PM

Creationism/ID should be kept out of the classroom, period (I know you have the copyright on the use of the punctuation mark spelled out. Please, send me a bill for its use.) Last I heard we had separation of Church and State (in the U.S.).

Churches can teach whatever they want. Schools should have no interference in what they deem good science.

If students can’t figure out what makes sense, then I think we better work on other things that are (not) going on in the classroom.

To address your Op directly:

Suggesting that ID be taught in the classroom is a clever way to further the cause against religion. May I suggest we change our Constitution prior to such an attempt? I further suggest that if your attempts are successful, you don’t hire too many of these teachers from the forum. Very few understand much regarding the valid creationist’s views that don’t conflict with science.

10-03-2005, 10:30 PM

Good Idea. Someone else made reference to an FSM in an earlier post and so I googled it and got a million different acronyms and Flying Sphageti Monster was one of them, but I had assumed that it was just by coincidence. I like the idea of teaching it along side other scientific theories like intelligent falling and creationism.

Puss In Boots

10-04-2005, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So basically your plan is to spread atheism as fast as possible? If so, I guess its no different than the religions that try to spread themselves.

Just out of curiosity. Was creating the science, math, philsophy forum and spreading your beliefs to like 50,000 internet pawns your master-plan all along when you guys decided to make the 2+2 forums. If so, that is AWESOME.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong, atheism isn't a religion. There are fools who call themselves atheists who believe they are certain about things but they're wrong too. Smart atheists simply have an aversion to theology, because it's stupid.

10-04-2005, 09:50 AM

You're right. I take it all back. It's preposterous for me to think that someone shouldn't take literally the obvious truth that god created light on one day and then the sun a few days later. Or that Noah built an ark and put two of every species on it.

Anyone who would dare disagree with those obvious truths and the many other clear-headed ones from the Bible must be working for Satan. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Girchuck

10-04-2005, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you get from "evolution by chance is true" to "It's ok to murder people"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Natural selection would include the strong killing off weaker people, right?

Or, would evolving intelligence create a society where we could choose not to kill? (without fear of hell as the deterrent)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. The strong humans do not possess overwhelming advantage in strength against the weak ones. Attempting to kill another without the use of weapons is likely to result in injury to the killer. An injured killer is weak, and his chances of reproduction are diminished. The cost of killing is likely too high for the killer to be profitable in most cases
Technological advances in weapons change this temporarily by giving a killer overwhelming advantage. However, a culture must exist to produce technological advances. A culture requires cooperation. Cooperating band will limit the killings first by force then by clever use of ideology and indoctrination.

Sifmole

10-04-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Have the biology teachers point out all of the generally accepted ideas of creationism and all of the generally accepted criticisms of evolution that they put out to the unthinking."

I realize that I should have also included the generally accepted ideas that the creationists have had in the past but have since abandoned in the face of new discoveries overwhelming counter arguments. To include only their present day arguments, a few of which have apparantly not yet been completely refuted, would not fully show students how ID proponets are being backed futher and further into a corner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will they also make sure to point out that Evolutionary THEORY is non-reproducible, untested ( and seemingly untestable ), and does not provide any predictive power to scienctific advancement? Will they also make sure to mention the numerous fakes and frauds that have been included in the evidence for evolution?

If the fact that a "theory" has been modified in light of new arguements and evidence makes a "theory" suspect -- then you have to chuck a large amount of science.

superleeds

10-04-2005, 02:38 PM

And when will they have time to dissect a frog? It ain't science, don't teach it in a science class.

10-04-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then have that teacher systematically show how wrong and ill conceived that 95% is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine (I'm assuming they'll get the non-sequitur), as long as they also teach that if God tells someone to, then it's OK to commit genocide or stone someone to death for picking up sticks on Sunday (or Saturday, depending which Sabbath day you adhere to).

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20samuel%2015:1-3;&version=31;
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=numbers%2015:32-36;&version=31;

(There are lots of other examples of God telling people to do things that we would consider highly immoral. But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

NotReady

10-04-2005, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

RJT

10-04-2005, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no such things as "abolute moral standards" without a context of a God. Period.

If there is no God there are no moral standards. Period

This does not mean there must be a God. It only says that there are no absolute moral standards without one.

If you disagree, fine, prove it. I'll even take a few examples of any.

lehighguy

10-05-2005, 01:00 AM

Popularity doesn't equal truth.

Look at the hands people play in poker.

10-05-2005, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you think it's OK to kill an entire population of people -- women, children, and all? And, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday is OK? Really?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, since God is the absolute moral standard, it must be right, huh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no such things as "abolute moral standards" without a context of a God. Period.

If there is no God there are no moral standards. Period

This does not mean there must be a God. It only says that there are no absolute moral standards without one.

If you disagree, fine, prove it. I'll even take a few examples of any.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sarcasm.

NotReady

10-05-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So, you think it's OK to kill an entire population of people -- women, children, and all? And, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday is OK? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. For God.

10-05-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, you think it's OK to kill an entire population of people -- women, children, and all? And, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday is OK? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. For God.

[/ QUOTE ]

And flying airplanes into towers seems about right, too, I suppose.

RJT

10-05-2005, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood the sarcasm. I was just pointing out there is no moral authority without a context of a God. If there are moral absolutes there has to be a God.

If there are moral absolutes and therefore from a God he has to be right, yup.

The problem with the sarcasm was that it was in the context of “There are lots of other examples of God telling people to do things that we would consider highly immoral”.

Your statement either assumes God said such things instead of assuming than man got wrong what He said; or that God did indeed say such things (I doubt this is the case) and you can’t see the possible reason He would say such things - the reasoning behind it is incomplete or unclear.

NotReady

10-05-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

the reasoning behind it is incomplete or unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is very clear. Do a google of Amalekites. As to the Sabbath violation, the Ten Commandments devote more words to this than any of the others. In this passage the man was openly and obviously violating a direct command of God. There is nothing inherently wrong about gathering wood. There is nothing inherently wrong about eating fruit. But both were flagrant and public rebellions against God. He chose for His reasons to make an example in this case. Compare that with how Jesus healed on the Sabbath, was accused by the Pharisees, and justified His actions by stating that He is the Lord of the Sabbath.

NotReady

10-05-2005, 01:37 PM

I just had some more thoughts on this. The verses just before the ones about the Sabbath breaking state:

22 " 'Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the LORD gave Moses- 23 any of the LORD's commands to you through him, from the day the LORD gave them and continuing through the generations to come- 24 and if this is done unintentionally without the community being aware of it, then the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, along with its prescribed grain offering and drink offering, and a male goat for a sin offering. 25 The priest is to make atonement for the whole Israelite community, and they will be forgiven, for it was not intentional and they have brought to the LORD for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering. 26 The whole Israelite community and the aliens living among them will be forgiven, because all the people were involved in the unintentional wrong.

27 " 'But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven. 29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

30 " 'But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. 31 Because he has despised the LORD's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.' "

Clearly God is allowing for lenience for unintentional sin but requiring the death penalty for open and public defiance. Furthermore, the Israelites did not immediately move to execute the man but held him in custody. They obviously wanted direction for God on the matter. Since they were basically asking God for His decision, God affirmed what He had already said, thus emphasizing that He means His Word and His commandments are not frivolous. I seriously doubt very many Sabbath violations since then have drawn capital punishment. God is far more lenient and patient that He is vengeful and strict.

David Sklansky

10-05-2005, 01:56 PM

"God affirmed what He had already said, thus emphasizing that He means His Word and His commandments are not frivolous. I seriously doubt very many Sabbath violations since then have drawn capital punishment. God is far more lenient and patient that He is vengeful and strict."

Why would he need to do it again? His one demonstration kept future Sabbath violations below 100 billion.

NotReady

10-05-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Why would he need to do it again? His one demonstration kept future Sabbath violations below 100 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is slow to anger but His patience isn't infinite.

10-05-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He is slow to anger but His patience isn't infinite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you learn this in "PSYCH 306: Psychology of Supreme Beings from Higher Dimensions"?

RJT

10-05-2005, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the reasoning behind it is incomplete or unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is very clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was speaking in generalities. I actually hadn’t realized he was talking specific examples (which I would not care to get into myself). Sorry for the (my)confusion.

I think my general point stands though regarding absolutes/God. If they (absolutes) exist, God got ‘em right – the error must be on man’s side somehow.

NotReady

10-05-2005, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]

the error must be on man’s side somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I believe all of God's reasoning is perfect but some may be unclear to us due to both our finitude and sinfulness.

10-05-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood the sarcasm. I was just pointing out there is no moral authority without a context of a God. If there are moral absolutes there has to be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if there are moral absolutes given by God that include mass genocide and death for picking up sticks, then I absolutely loathe that god. Sure, maybe the Bible was mistranslated in this case... and maybe God isn't the prick he's made out to be.

But, I've asked lots of people, like you did, for an example of an absolute moral tenet or truth -- some rule that has no exceptions, that states that a certain action is always wrong, regardless of conditions. I've never heard one.

NotReady

10-05-2005, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard one

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling God a prick qualifies.

DougShrapnel

10-05-2005, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard one

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling God a prick qualifies.

[/ QUOTE ] The father, cleary is a prick, The son seems allright tho, a bit of a pussy. And the holy spirit, well what bad can you say about him, nothing. Just being honest.

chezlaw

10-05-2005, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard one

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling God a prick qualifies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, god isn't bothered by being insulted.

chez

NotReady

10-05-2005, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Nah, god isn't bothered by being insulted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Go with it. Not my problem.

chezlaw

10-05-2005, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nah, god isn't bothered by being insulted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Go with it. Not my problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is if he punishes you for having so little faith in him.

chez

NotReady

10-05-2005, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It is if he punishes you for having so little faith in him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. So be it.

chezlaw

10-05-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is if he punishes you for having so little faith in him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. So be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange isn't it. Faced with faith arguments you disagree with, you resort to the responses of a non believer.

chez

NotReady

10-05-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Strange isn't it. Faced with faith arguments you disagree with, you resort to the responses of a non believer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the argument. Maybe you could id it for me.

chezlaw

10-05-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Strange isn't it. Faced with faith arguments you disagree with, you resort to the responses of a non believer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the argument. Maybe you could id it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough it wasn't explicit. Insults bother people because they fear the insult is true or they fear the insulter in some way.

Anyone with faith in God knows he has no such fears.

chez

NotReady

10-05-2005, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Insults bother people because they fear the insult is true or they fear the insulter in some way.

Anyone with faith in God knows he has no such fears.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you insult God you disobey Him. That bothers Him. So much so He sent His only Son to atone for the guilt.

And I meant it when I said it's not my problem. I don't get your connection of that with unbelief.

chezlaw

10-05-2005, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you insult God you disobey Him. That bothers Him. So much so He sent His only Son to atone for the guilt.

[/ QUOTE ]
He doesn't want your obedience. Reflect on your senses and rationality and you will see that obedience is of no value.

[ QUOTE ]
And I meant it when I said it's not my problem. I don't get your connection of that with unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]
because religous folk tell others it matters so much and unbelievers say its not a problem for them.

chez

NotReady

10-05-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

He doesn't want your obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]

because religous folk tell others it matters so much and unbelievers say its not a problem for them

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have the same color hair as an unbeliever does that make me an unbeliever?

chezlaw

10-05-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't want your obedience.

I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you reflect with a clear enough mind you may discover it is self evident.

[ QUOTE ]
because religous folk tell others it matters so much and unbelievers say its not a problem for them

If I have the same color hair as an unbeliever does that make me an unbeliever?

[/ QUOTE ]
No but hair colour doesn't indictate anything about your thoughts.

chez

10-06-2005, 03:05 AM

Of all philosophers, Nietzsche is perhaps most maligned through lightweight scholarship and reactionary jitterbugging.

NotReady

10-06-2005, 04:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Of all philosophers, Nietzsche is perhaps most maligned through lightweight scholarship and reactionary jitterbugging

[/ QUOTE ]

He made himself an easy target. And if I've misstated any position of his, please enlighten me.

RJT

10-06-2005, 09:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of all philosophers, Nietzsche is perhaps most maligned through lightweight scholarship and reactionary jitterbugging

[/ QUOTE ]

He made himself an easy target...

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL – what a way to start my day. Touché, is all I can think to say here.

10-06-2005, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard one

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling God a prick qualifies.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a terrorist was about to push a button & destroy Vatican City (some fancy nulear device, for instance)... and says the only way he'll not do it is if you call God a prick within 10 seconds. The Pope says: "God says it's OK". Then... would it be OK?

RJT

10-06-2005, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard one

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling God a prick qualifies.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a terrorist was about to push a button & destroy Vatican City (some fancy nulear device, for instance)... and says the only way he'll not do it is if you call God a prick within 10 seconds. The Pope says: "God says it's OK". Then... would it be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfair question - NotReady is not Catholic. Don't answer that question, NotReady! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

NotReady

10-06-2005, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Then... would it be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Motive is the essence of sin. I wouldn't really know till the situation came up. It's mostly a matter of conscience.

You can multiply moral dilemmas till the cows come home. I can't give you an absolute on any of them. I'm not your judge.

NotReady

10-06-2005, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Don't answer that question, NotReady!

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. I might spare even the Vatican.

Maddog121

10-06-2005, 10:44 PM

I have been holding off on posting in these arguments, but can stand it no longer. Sure, devote the first day of class in a biology course to an overview of the scientific method, being sure to delineate between a theory and a hypothesis in a scientific context. Devote the first 20 minutes of the next day showing how ideas such as "intelligent design" do not even meet the requisites for a hypothesis, much less a theory.

Of course barring that, devote equal time to the study of "intelligent falling". (gotta love The Onion)
Intelligent Falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

10-07-2005, 03:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He made himself an easy target.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. He was made an easy target by sloppy scholarship, poor translation, and misappropriation of his philosophy. There is nothing easy about Nietzsche; You don't "do" Nietzsche after a latte and cake.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If God is dead, all is permitted - Nietzsche, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if I've misstated any position of his, please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't stated a position.

I wonder if you are a reader of Altizer or Van Buren (who were both trendy for a time)?

NotReady

10-07-2005, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you are a reader of Altizer or Van Buren (who were both trendy for a time)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

My position is that Freddie's philosophy produces what I was talking about in this thread - if God doesn't exist we are beyond good and evil and should therefore abandon teleology and morals.

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 05:19 AM

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you are a reader of Altizer or Van Buren (who were both trendy for a time)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

My position is that Freddie's philosophy produces what I was talking about in this thread - if God doesn't exist we are beyond good and evil and should therefore abandon teleology and morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you call him little Freddie. Any special reason for that?

Anyway, you are correct about his views on teleology and morals, with morality being equated with religious doctrine, though that is only the beginning of his philosophy, certainly not the end.

It is a huge mistake to assume that he was a nihilist. In fact, that is a complete misunderstanding since he saw one of his main goals -- if not his entire goal -- as the overcoming of nihilism. Basically all of his late works are attempts at an overcoming of the nihilistic view you are attributing to him.

He saw the same consequences you repeat here -- no god equals no absolute morality -- though he had the belief that mankind could create their own values, and that in fact that is what we had been doing all along. In that regard, his views on humanity in the absence of God are much more noble minded than simply assuming we would reduce ourselves to mindless nihilism and end up in chaos, as you seem to do in nearly every thread.

I'm curious to know what you think his philosophy was, since at first glance you appear to have completely misunderstood what he wrote about.

10-07-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My position is that Freddie's philosophy produces what I was talking about in this thread - if God doesn't exist we are beyond good and evil and should therefore abandon teleology and morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure Nietzsche's philosophy produces this exactly.

Nietzshe was himself primarily a moralist. It's not the existence of god, but rather the platonic-christian concept of god that bothers Nietzsche.

NotReady

10-07-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I like how you call him little Freddie. Any special reason for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's something about him that evokes my strongest feelings of contempt. I think much of it is his prose style which truly sets my teeth on edge. I have a similar reaction to Sartre, but not to Dostoyevsky. And not to most other philosophers except maybe Berkely, but I haven't read a lot of him.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious to know what you think his philosophy was, since at first glance you appear to have completely misunderstood what he wrote about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, though I do try to read him occasionally. I classify him in general as an existentialist and an atheist. If that's all I knew about him that would be enough to make the comments I've made. He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion, assuming a working definition that "nothing matters". If I've misunderstood his position on the existence of God then I retract, otherwise what I've said is true for atheism. I believe all non-theistic world views are fundamentally irrational. It's obvious they would have to be if theism is true. And the logical conclusion of irrationality is nihilsim.

What is it you think I got wrong about him? I'm always ready to correct my errors, which are plentiful.

10-07-2005, 12:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you obviously understand nothing about his work and would be better off moving on to another topic since his work is about destroying that infantile statement you keep repeating.

NotReady

10-07-2005, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Nietzshe was himself primarily a moralist. It's not the existence of god, but rather the platonic-christian concept of god that bothers Nietzsche.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would surprise me if he was a pantheist but I admit I can't say he wasn't. I have read some of his work and some criticisms and never saw a hint of a belief in anything higher than man. I'm willing to remove him from my list of nihilists. Though as I just posted elsewhere all non-theistic roads lead to nihilism, I will try to be more precise about Nietzsche.

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I like how you call him little Freddie. Any special reason for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's something about him that evokes my strongest feelings of contempt. I think much of it is his prose style which truly sets my teeth on edge. I have a similar reaction to Sartre, but not to Dostoyevsky. And not to most other philosophers except maybe Berkely, but I haven't read a lot of him.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious to know what you think his philosophy was, since at first glance you appear to have completely misunderstood what he wrote about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, though I do try to read him occasionally. I classify him in general as an existentialist and an atheist. If that's all I knew about him that would be enough to make the comments I've made. He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion, assuming a working definition that "nothing matters". If I've misunderstood his position on the existence of God then I retract, otherwise what I've said is true for atheism. I believe all non-theistic world views are fundamentally irrational. It's obvious they would have to be if theism is true. And the logical conclusion of irrationality is nihilsim.

What is it you think I got wrong about him? I'm always ready to correct my errors, which are plentiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche devoted his life to showing how it was that humans could live a meaningful life despite the absence of God, and he railed against resorting to nihilism as a way out. When he wrote "God is dead" he didn't write it with the glee of a psychopath who felt he could now do as he pleased, he wrote it as a very concerned human who wondered how it was man could go on living after such a massive loss.

I find it unfortunate that someone like yourself, who certainly understands where he is coming from on this topic, cannot take the next step and see where he goes with it.

It is much easier to say, "Without God, life is meaningless, therefore I devote myself completely to my religion" than it is to say "God no longer exists? Well, let us use our human penchant for creativity and overcoming great hardship to press on and find a new way in which to live."

You should consider which view is indeed the nihilistic view. The view that believes man can indeed overcome the loss of God and formulate a way in which value can be created and life can be celebrated. The view that sees man for what he is, an animal who by chance sprung into existence and is self aware enough to know that his existence is quite trivial in cosmic terms, yet still has the strength, imagination, and audacity to proclaim himself important and worthy of life. Or the view that without God, man is lost in a sea of chaos, lacking in absolute morals and Gods guiding hand, weak, petty, and incapable of taking care of himself, wherein resorting to clutching ever more tightly to an antiquated metaphysical crutch through the most perverse applications of logic is the only way out.

NotReady

10-07-2005, 05:41 PM

You say several things that beg the question. I think N.'s philosophy is indistinguishable from nihilism even though he may have hated that idea as much as he hated the idea of God. The real issue is WHETHER life can have meaning without God. Stating that if God doesn't exist life has no meaning isn't nihilistic. I suspect I would be nihilistic if I was an atheist. Perhaps I would try to ignore the logical consequences of my position for practical purposes. Stating that God doesn't exist but I'm going to believe life has meaning is blind faith emotionally, a kind of whistling past the graveyard, but nihilistic logically.

Perhaps N. wanted the "God is dead" part but couldn't abide the logical conclusion, "all is permitted". Perhaps Sartre and Co. are the supermen, the brave ones, those who unflinchingly accept the logical end of the existentialist process, the going-over ones. N. was just the bridge.

10-07-2005, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think N.'s philosophy is indistinguishable from nihilism

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of debating with you? You said he was a nihilist and were told that he railed against nihilism. You still can't let go of the idea that without theism there can be anything for humans to live for, hope for, strive for. How can one debate with someone who takes this stance and refuses to consider any other alternative? If you want to believe that there is nothing for us to live for without your little book and its quaint little stories, fine then believe it. But don't try to keep pretending that this is the only logical conclusion and we should all kill oursleves or each other otherwise. EVERY THREAD YOU MAKE ENDS IN THIS SAME "CONCLUSION" -- IT IS YOUR FALL BACK TO EVERY ARGUMENT MADE AGAINST YOUR REASONING AND IT'S WORN OUT! It is YOUR philosophy that is indistinguishable from nihilism -- you keep stating that basically we live at the pleasure of some supreme being or we should just all murder each other. I don't have to know how or why we're here , but I know that we are here nonetheless and thus able to set our values to our existence. But there's no point in going this discussion path as to how humans can have values because we've done it with you a dozen times and you refuse to consider any value to anything without resorting to it being a gift or law from God.

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The real issue is WHETHER life can have meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, man can create his own values, which is what he has always done, despite the illusion that he was simply doing Gods will.

[ QUOTE ]
Stating that God doesn't exist but I'm going to believe life has meaning is blind faith emotionally, a kind of whistling past the graveyard, but nihilistic logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this is not what Nietzsche said, what does suppositional apologetics look like in comparison?

What he said was since God does not exist, what can we make of the systems of meaning that relied on God's existence that man had arrived at in the past. Then, going from there, what perspective can mankind take that will continue to give his life meaning, now that the metaphysical crutch has been removed. Since God never existed, yet people who lived in eras where belief in God did exist and those people lived meaningful lives, it is not difficult to see that man can indeed find meaning in the world without God; if the man made illusion of God is capable of giving meaning, then a man capable of seeing through that illusion is certainly capable of imagining for himself a life that is meaningful.

NotReady

10-07-2005, 06:49 PM

Thanks. I thought I might have read N. wrong. I'm sure now I had him right. And the point I keep drumming on is that if God doesn't exist there are no absolutes. If chance is ultimate, reason is absurd. I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've quoted from Bertie Russell to the same effect. I can find where Sartre also says this. It's famous as the "pessimism of the 20th century". London wrote novels about it. This is not new. This is the question. How can there be meaning in a meaningless universe. The finitude and relativity of man, which MUST be admitted by anyone who can think at all, precludes the possibility of man giving absolute meaning.

10-07-2005, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The finitude and relativity of man, which MUST be admitted by anyone who can think at all, precludes the possibility of man giving absolute meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why must man give "absolute meaning" in order to create values for man? Dogs don't kill themselves or each other aimlessly and don't creat absoulte meaning, but still value their own life -- but yet beyond this is an impossibility for man? Believe what you want.

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I thought I might have read N. wrong. I'm sure now I had him right. And the point I keep drumming on is that if God doesn't exist there are no absolutes. If chance is ultimate, reason is absurd. I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've quoted from Bertie Russell to the same effect. I can find where Sartre also says this. It's famous as the "pessimism of the 20th century". London wrote novels about it. This is not new. This is the question. How can there be meaning in a meaningless universe. The finitude and relativity of man, which MUST be admitted by anyone who can think at all, precludes the possibility of man giving absolute meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing you are overlooking is that if N is right and God does not and never did exist, man can indeed create meaning for himself since that is what he had been doing all along; the illusion of God was the meaning man created.

You can make the assertion that if God doesn't exist there is no meaning, but the fact that if one makes the assertion that God has never existed -- that God is a creation of man -- and it can easily be shown that people did indeed find meaning in their lives during the period when the man made belief in God gave life meaning, your assertion falls apart.

RJT

10-07-2005, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The finitude and relativity of man, which MUST be admitted by anyone who can think at all, precludes the possibility of man giving absolute meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why must man give "absolute meaning" in order to create values for man? Dogs don't kill themselves or each other aimlessly and don't creat absoulte meaning, but still value their own life -- but yet beyond this is an impossibility for man? Believe what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady is not saying “that man must give absolute meaning in order to create values for man.” He is saying (implying) you can have all the values you want. Just don’t say they are absolutes.

He also is not speaking against folk holding any and all values they want. All is he saying is don’t be hypocritical about it. If I want to commit murder, don’t say it is wrong. (You can say, "In my opinon it is wrong to murder". But just so you keep in mind - opinions are like a..holes, we all got 'em.) No one can impose their values on others. Without absolutes everything (values wise) becomes subjective. You can’t impose your values on others by decree. (You can impose collective values on others within any society, sure, and by any means necessary. We all basically sign a contract that we agree to/with the values of the society we leave in. It doesn't mean anyone has to actually hold the same values - one only has to abide to them.)

It really isn't (well to me, at least) a hard concept to understand.

RJT

10-07-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One thing you are overlooking is that if N is right and God does not and never did exist, man can indeed create meaning for himself since that is what he had been doing all along; the illusion of God was the meaning man created.

You can make the assertion that if God doesn't exist there is no meaning, but the fact that if one makes the assertion that God has never existed -- that God is a creation of man -- and it can easily be shown that people did indeed find meaning in their lives during the period when the man made belief in God gave life meaning, your assertion falls apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think NotReady says this either. He does not say you cannot have meaning in your life. Have all the meaning you want. It will never be absolute or universal is all. We each have our own meaning or lack there of in our own lives.

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing you are overlooking is that if N is right and God does not and never did exist, man can indeed create meaning for himself since that is what he had been doing all along; the illusion of God was the meaning man created.

You can make the assertion that if God doesn't exist there is no meaning, but the fact that if one makes the assertion that God has never existed -- that God is a creation of man -- and it can easily be shown that people did indeed find meaning in their lives during the period when the man made belief in God gave life meaning, your assertion falls apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think NotReady says this either. He does not say you cannot have meaning in your life. Have all the meaning you want. It will never be absolute or universal is all. We each have our own meaning or lack there of in our own lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear his response to this.

10-07-2005, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady is not saying “that man must give absolute meaning in order to create values for man.” He is saying (implying) you can have all the values you want. Just don’t say they are absolutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody is speaking in absolutes but him.

10-07-2005, 07:39 PM

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NotReady is not saying “that man must give absolute meaning in order to create values for man.” He is saying (implying) you can have all the values you want. Just don’t say they are absolutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody is speaking in absolutes but him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I understand him to be saying meaning cannot arise from chance.

chez

NotReady

10-07-2005, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear his response to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

My language may sometimes be extreme - to emphasize a point. But RJT has me nailed - pretty good for a Romish type.

NotReady

10-07-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I understand him to be saying meaning cannot arise from chance

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally. Now I can retire.

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear his response to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

My language may sometimes be extreme - to emphasize a point. But RJT has me nailed - pretty good for a Romish type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if that is what you truly believe than it sounds like you are admitting that meaning can exist in a world without God and most of our debates have been more of a waste of time than I originally thought.

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, I understand him to be saying meaning cannot arise from chance

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally. Now I can retire.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you're talking about any meaning at all aren't you? Not just some absolute meaning.

chez

RJT

10-07-2005, 07:56 PM

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear his response to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

My language may sometimes be extreme - to emphasize a point. But RJT has me nailed - pretty good for a Romish type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not ony Roman (Church), but Italian descent (southern Italy actually.)

[/ QUOTE ]

whereabouts? She who sleeps at night is from Calabria

chez

RJT

10-07-2005, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear his response to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

My language may sometimes be extreme - to emphasize a point. But RJT has me nailed - pretty good for a Romish type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not ony Roman (Church), but Italian descent (southern Italy actually.)

[/ QUOTE ]

whereabouts? She who sleeps at night is from Calabria

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

3/4 Basilicata, right next to Calabria (the instep of the Italian "boot") , 1/4 Sicilian.

RJT

10-07-2005, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear his response to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

My language may sometimes be extreme - to emphasize a point. But RJT has me nailed - pretty good for a Romish type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic how a fellow believer points out what you "really" mean and you go right with it. So you're basically admitting that your extreme position about absolute meaning in all these threads was just you being stubborn. Very well.

NotReady

10-08-2005, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]

and you're talking about any meaning at all aren't you? Not just some absolute meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fundamental difficulty I have here is discussing something theoretical with the assumption that God doesn't exist. I do it to demonstrate the internal lack of coherence in the any non-theistic system, but to discuss it in actualities becomes meaningless to me. For me to say there would be meaning of any kind without God would be to assume the logically impossible.

I think people have meaning (relative) in their lives because God exists, whether they admit it or not, because they have life at all, knowledge at all, something to know at all, because God exists. So someone can have meaning (relative) in their lives while denying the existence of God (which sets up the tension that is most pronounced in modern man and labelled angst), but to say they could have meaning in their lives if God didn't actually exist is beyond my knowledge because I believe it's impossible for God not to exist.

NotReady

10-08-2005, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if that is what you truly believe than it sounds like you are admitting that meaning can exist in a world without God and most of our debates have been more of a waste of time than I originally thought

[/ QUOTE ]

I just posted a response to chez which addresses this. In a nutshell I don't believe meaning can exist in a world without God because I think that it's impossible for God not to exist. I believe someone who doesn't believe in God still has relative meaning in their life because God created them and created the meaning they have.

I suppose I could say that if God doesn't exist what you see is what you get - you could then go the N. route and make your own meaning, but it would be ultimately futile, a kind of cosmic joke, and completely meaningless in the end.

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and you're talking about any meaning at all aren't you? Not just some absolute meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fundamental difficulty I have here is discussing something theoretical with the assumption that God doesn't exist. I do it to demonstrate the internal lack of coherence in the any non-theistic system, but to discuss it in actualities becomes meaningless to me. For me to say there would be meaning of any kind without God would be to assume the logically impossible.

I think people have meaning (relative) in their lives because God exists, whether they admit it or not, because they have life at all, knowledge at all, something to know at all, because God exists. So someone can have meaning (relative) in their lives while denying the existence of God (which sets up the tension that is most pronounced in modern man and labelled angst), but to say they could have meaning in their lives if God didn't actually exist is beyond my knowledge because I believe it's impossible for God not to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you remind be again why you believe it's impossible for god not to exist. (Sorry, I could trawl through all the threads but I might not live that long /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

chez

Fillamoore

10-08-2005, 05:30 AM

umm...i dont get what exactly it is that is so hard to understand. Evolutionary theory, is based primarily off of natural selection, and other small variables such as genetic drift and gene flow but those we wont discuss. Natural selection, IS tested, HAS BEEN proven, and is proven EVERY SINGLE DAY...natural selection is the reason antibiotics fail to work after a given amount of time. The disease has EVOLVED and the medicine doesn't work. The same laws apply to basically everything. Creationism, in my opinion, has to be a joke. Anyone beliving in it, obviously doesn't think for themselves and only repeats what theyve been told by others, which is fine because they dont know any better. Im not patronizing either, it really is okay its not their fault. But the argument is simple, evolution is a fact now, not an idea. The only remaining question is what started the very first organism.

NotReady

10-08-2005, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Could you remind be again why you believe it's impossible for god not to exist. (Sorry, I could trawl through all the threads but I might not live that long )

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance. One of my presuppositions is that the universe has meaning. If this is true, God must exist. It's not an absolute proof, but if it isn't true, this dialogue has no meaning so it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Actually, in that case there would be no right or wrong.

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 09:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier you had a fundemental difficulty with considering the situations in which god did not exists because god is a neccesary being.

Now it appears the reason you think god is necessary is a consequance of you having considered other rational explanations for existance so thoroughly you can rule them out as imposible.

This is inconsistent so I must have misunderstood. Can you clarify what you mean.

chez

David Sklansky

10-08-2005, 10:48 AM

"Natural selection, IS tested, HAS BEEN proven, and is proven EVERY SINGLE DAY...natural selection is the reason antibiotics fail to work after a given amount of time. The disease has EVOLVED and the medicine doesn't work. The same laws apply to basically everything."

Even most religious people don't dispute that. The natural selection that doesn't happen every day, and conceivably may never have happened, is the transition from being alive to being conscious. That's all that the Pope and Peter 666 care about.

David Sklansky

10-08-2005, 10:58 AM

"For me to say there would be meaning of any kind without God would be to assume the logically impossible.

I think people have meaning (relative) in their lives because God exists, whether they admit it or not, because they have life at all, knowledge at all, something to know at all, because God exists."

But do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the God you speak of who gives meaning to life could at least theoretically be the God of the Old Testament only, who for whatever reason didn't yet go to great lengths to show the world that the New Testament was a fraud?

Put another way, could an orthodox Jew make the same statement of yours that I quoted above, without being silly in your mind?

RJT

10-08-2005, 11:00 AM

Are you my dear wife? You sound just like she does sometimes? You say somthing like this:

[ QUOTE ]
umm...Creationism, in my opinion, has to be a joke. Anyone beliving in it, obviously doesn't think for themselves and only repeats what theyve been told by others, which is fine because they dont know any better. Im not patronizing either, it really is okay its not their fault...

[/ QUOTE ]

But, then you show you do have a brain after all and say something like this.

[ QUOTE ]
The only remaining question is what started the very first organism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and btw, I hope I don't sound partronizing either.

10-08-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There's something about him that evokes my strongest feelings of contempt. I think much of it is his prose style....

[/ QUOTE ]

This is historically the biggest stumbling block to understanding Nietzsche. You're in good company.

[ QUOTE ]

I classify him in general as an existentialist and an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some prefer to think of him as the last metaphysician. Neitzsche is an atheist only in the Platonic-Christian sense; moving beyond this the atheist tag doesn't fit.

[ QUOTE ]

He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion...

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but it's Nietzsche's position that nihilism is not a desirable or necessary conclusion.

NotReady

10-08-2005, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the God you speak of who gives meaning to life could at least theoretically be the God of the Old Testament only

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to the logical argument only, yes. Since the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, both give meaning to life.

Dominic

10-08-2005, 07:46 PM

Paul Phillips posted this link on his blog about ID I think it says all there needs to be said about teaching ID in the classroom:

why ID people are idiots (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html)

ethan

10-09-2005, 06:44 AM

I don't read this forum all this often, but when I do I'm glad you keep posting. Otherwise, all I have is the answer to the question "what is the sound of one man arguing?" which is not entirely exciting. As far as the whole ID debate goes - it seems clear that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. At least, that should be clear to any scientist. I've no problem with it being taught in philosophy/religion classes, and in fact I've studied it in such. It's fairly easy to argue that ID doesn't come anywhere near following the scientific method, and thus that no sensible observer should argue it be taught as science. I like to think of it as the last refuge of the bible-thumping scoundrel.

Essentially, ID's saying "Wow this is so complicated, I don't get it, so God did it!"

That's not science. And that, unlike the origin of species, is simple. People should be free to present ID as a philosophy, or as a belief. Just not as science, and that's really all I care about in this debate. There's enough bad science going on without this entering the mix.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 03:18 AM

You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Now it appears the reason you think god is necessary is a consequance of you having considered other rational explanations for existance

[/ QUOTE ]

I said:

[ QUOTE ]

There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

My basic position is that God is necessary if the universe is to have meaning. It's almost tautological to say the universe is meaningless if chance is ultimate. Chance is irrational, not based on reason. Irrational means lacking reason or sound argument. They aren't synonymous, but almost.

bocablkr

10-10-2005, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance. One of my presuppositions is that the universe has meaning. If this is true, God must exist. It's not an absolute proof, but if it isn't true, this dialogue has no meaning so it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Actually, in that case there would be no right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your sentences have real meaning I sure can't figure them out. What a bunch of nonsense. There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists - what a bunch horsesh*t. How do people like you make such ridiculous statements? If that is true for you so be it - but don't assume everyone else feels that way.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If that is true for you so be it - but don't assume everyone else feels that way

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost a paradigm of our times. I discuss things rationally, I offer reasons and arguments, and the people of our day reply with subjectivism, relativity and emotion and think they are making arguments.

bocablkr

10-10-2005, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance. One of my presuppositions is that the universe has meaning. If this is true, God must exist. It's not an absolute proof, but if it isn't true, this dialogue has no meaning so it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Actually, in that case there would be no right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me any reasons or arguements for your statements above. Show me anything objective. Your comments to me hold more truth for yourself. You are more emotional than you think. I truly will never understand what makes someone like you tick.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Show me any reasons or arguements for your statements above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what you quote are arguments. The statement "If God doesn't exist the universe is irrational" is an argument.

chezlaw

10-10-2005, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance. One of my presuppositions is that the universe has meaning. If this is true, God must exist. It's not an absolute proof, but if it isn't true, this dialogue has no meaning so it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Actually, in that case there would be no right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me any reasons or arguements for your statements above. Show me anything objective. Your comments to me hold more truth for yourself. You are more emotional than you think. I truly will never understand what makes someone like you tick.

[/ QUOTE ]

In another thread NotReady has made clear that he needs to believe in something bigger than himself to deal with past issues?

he claims that its because god made him that way but doesn't recognise that that is not the only explanation. He even takes this to the extent of claiming everyone else has the same need.

chez

NotReady

10-10-2005, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

He even takes this to the extent of claiming everyone else has the same need.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I claim is that God made us in His image as His creatures, finite and dependent on Him. We are not self-sufficient. I claim this for mankind based on God's word.

Not everyone sees that dependency or is willing to admit it. That refusal is called unbelief.

chezlaw

10-10-2005, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He even takes this to the extent of claiming everyone else has the same need.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I claim is that God made us in His image as His creatures, finite and dependent on Him. We are not self-sufficient. I claim this for mankind based on God's word.

Not everyone sees that dependency or is willing to admit it. That refusal is called unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no better access to god's word then me. Maybe less if you've been corrupted by the words of men falsly claiming to speak for god.

You cannot recognise that just because you believe in god doesn't mean there is a god. You also can't recognise that your claims to know his nature (if he exists) does not mean that it is his nature.

Because you claim to know god created me such that I need to believe in him, I now have the best possible evidence that you are wrong. So does everyone else who thinks the way I do.

chez

bocablkr

10-10-2005, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because you claim to know god created me such that I need to believe in him, I now have the best possible evidence that you are wrong. So does everyone else who thinks the way I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never thought of that one. Use his own logic against him.

A. God made us with the need to believe in him.
B. I do not have the need to believe in him.
C. Therefore, god does not exist.

Thanks Chez.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You cannot recognise that just because you believe in god doesn't mean there is a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I can.

[ QUOTE ]

You also can't recognise that your claims to know his nature (if he exists) does not mean that it is his nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I can.

[ QUOTE ]

Because you claim to know god created me such that I need to believe in him, I now have the best possible evidence that you are wrong. So does everyone else who thinks the way I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are free to trust your own judgment to the extent that your soul is what's at stake. If you think that your unbelief is proof that God doesn't exist, you've made your choice.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

A. God made us with the need to believe in him.
B. I do not have the need to believe in him.
C. Therefore, god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

C. doesn't follow because A. should read:

A. God made us with the need to believe in him and with the power to sear our conscience and harden our heart.

The fact that you don't feel the need doesn't mean you don't have that need. Romans 1 says that man suppresses the knowledge of God and that at some point God gives man over to his own sin nature.

chezlaw

10-10-2005, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are free to trust your own judgment to the extent that your soul is what's at stake. If you think that your unbelief is proof that God doesn't exist, you've made your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a misquote. My lack of need to believe is the best possible evidence that you are wrong because you claim to know something different about my mind.

Leave god out of it. If there is a god you are wrong about his nature.

chez

chezlaw

10-10-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because you claim to know god created me such that I need to believe in him, I now have the best possible evidence that you are wrong. So does everyone else who thinks the way I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never thought of that one. Use his own logic against him.

A. God made us with the need to believe in him.
B. I do not have the need to believe in him.
C. Therefore, god does not exist.

Thanks Chez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not quite right. The conclusion is that god did not make us with the need to believe in him. From which it follows that NoTReady's view about god is wrong.

chez

NotReady

10-10-2005, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

you claim to know something different about my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a misquote. I claim the Bible says something different about your mind.

chezlaw

10-10-2005, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you claim to know something different about my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a misquote. I claim the Bible says something different about your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its you claiming to believe its true. I don't doubt the bible says what you claim it says.

It's your belief about the nature of god that I have the best possible evidence against.

chez

purnell

10-10-2005, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Show me any reasons or arguements for your statements above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what you quote are arguments. The statement "If God doesn't exist the universe is irrational" is an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not you imagine the existence of a god, the universe is irrational. Your argument reduces to "The universe is not rational". I have no problem with that.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not you imagine the existence of a god, the universe is irrational

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if God exists.

RJT

10-10-2005, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance. One of my presuppositions is that the universe has meaning. If this is true, God must exist. It's not an absolute proof, but if it isn't true, this dialogue has no meaning so it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Actually, in that case there would be no right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your sentences have real meaning I sure can't figure them out. What a bunch of nonsense. There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists - what a bunch horsesh*t. How do people like you make such ridiculous statements? If that is true for you so be it - but don't assume everyone else feels that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cab,

NotReady’s posts are actually very objective. Almost matter of fact when he speaks. This makes him sound subjective.

What he says is fairly basic (not to mean his posts are mundane, quite the contrary).

What he says in different ways is this (and I have tried to clarify this before, thought we had gotten this straight):

There is no absolute meaning without a God. (And he is right.) It is not to say that folk cannot give their own meaning to their own lives. Have all the meaning you want. It is just not an absolute and/or universal meaning of life.

RJT

Trantor

10-10-2005, 01:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Show me any reasons or arguements for your statements above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what you quote are arguments. The statement "If God doesn't exist the universe is irrational" is
an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is a diferent argument than you first posed and maybe there lies the confusion.

You said "My basic position is that God is necessary if the universe is to have meaning." Say that staement is accepted by atheists. I am an atheist and I happen to agree with your statement. Ie. he universe has no meaning in the sense of no purpose. But ..that does not mean the universe is irrational. In fact all the evidence (scientific investigation) shows the rationality of the universe in that it is susceptible to rational explanation and investigation).( And by this I do _not_ say this shows God doesn't exist, necessarily.)

So no meaning implies no God does not imply irrational universe.

HOWEVER, a God that can affect things so as to make happen outside natural law, ie, in principle, makes them unpredictable by any rational investiagation. So your premise leads to the conclusion that a God that gives meaning and can affect things at will is the only way, I believe, one can an irrational universe! the opposite of the conclusion I believe you came to!

In fact evidence to show the world is irrational maybe the only way tp prove the existance of a God who can direct outcomes that are beyond our ken (reason)?

bocablkr

10-10-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no absolute meaning without a God. ( And he is right .)

[/ QUOTE ]

This one has been done to death. And since you are right there is no point arguing. Let's just agree to disagree.

RJT

10-10-2005, 01:28 PM

RJT

10-10-2005, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no absolute meaning without a God. ( And he is right .)

[/ QUOTE ]

This one has been done to death. And since you are right there is no point arguing. Let's just agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t mean to sound argumentative. I have asked this question before in this subject: If there are absolute morals/meaning to life what are they? (I really want to be corrected in my thinking.) Do you have some in mind? I am not saying that one’s own meaning is not enough, either. (Although, it is isn’t for me, but that is irrelevant.)

I only say matter of factly “And his is right”, because I have yet to be educated that it is not right relative to absolutes.

purnell

10-10-2005, 02:02 PM

[quote

In fact evidence to show the world is irrational maybe the only way tp prove the existance of a God who can direct outcomes that are beyond our ken (reason)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems obvious to me that we are very limited in our ability to understand the universe. We start with our senses, and we use imagination and reason to leverage them into a greater ability to predict natural phenomena. But we have already run into phenomena that, it seems, break the rules of rationality. That is, they seem to be actually unpredictable by reasoning. This is why I say the universe is not rational (not reasonable, chaotic). I think it will turn out that the tool we are using (reason) is too crude, and "making sense" of the universe is not really possible.

NotReady

10-10-2005, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So no meaning implies no God does not imply irrational universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything except a technical distinction between meaninglessness and irrationality. I'm not speaking formal logic here, but I consider the two words as virtually synonymous. But I'm also talking about ultimate meaning and ultimate rationality. As has been discussed already, humans have relative morality, rationality, meaning and purpose. But those things are themselves meaningless, empty of content, if chance (irrationality) is ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, a God that can affect things so as to make happen outside natural law, ie, in principle, makes them unpredictable by any rational investiagation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say "by any rational, human investigation".

[ QUOTE ]

In fact evidence to show the world is irrational maybe the only way tp prove the existance of a God who can direct outcomes that are beyond our ken (reason)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. I believe God is ultimate reason (and much else). The difficulty is that we are finite so that our knowledge and ability to reason are finite. Absolute reason may appear irrational to finite reason, much the same as the commands of a parent may seem irrational to a child.

Trantor

10-10-2005, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So no meaning implies no God does not imply irrational universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything except a technical distinction between meaninglessness and irrationality. I'm not speaking formal logic here, but I consider the two words as virtually synonymous.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the technical distinction that you see? It could be the all important distinction:)

NotReady

10-10-2005, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What is the technical distinction that you see? It could be the all important distinction:)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just a fine point of definition. Irrational means not based on reason. Meaninglessness means having no ultimate reason. But something irrational(to us) at the relative level still has meaning at the ultimate level. I think they are synonymous at the ultimate level.

If chance is ultimate (the universe is irrational), there is no ultimate meaning.

maurile

10-15-2005, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Allow the ideas of creationoists in the biology clasroom except make sure that ALL OF IT is discussed. Not just the 5% that throws some doubt onto certain small specifics of evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no legitimate doubt about the basics of evolutionary theory, but there are still plenty of "small specifics" that are unknown. None of them have anything to do with creationism, though.

In this worthwhile article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html), Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne point out some actual controversies in evolutionary biology that are being played out in the science journals. Notice that "Intelligent Design" is not one of them. But here are some of the hot issues they list:

The "Cambrian Explosion"

Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve independently.

The evolutionary basis of human behaviour

The field of evolutionary psychology (once called "sociobiology") maintains that many universal traits of human behaviour (especially sexual behaviour), as well as differences between individuals and between ethnic groups, have a genetic basis. These traits and differences are said to have evolved in our ancestors via natural selection. There is much controversy about these claims, largely because it is hard to reconstruct the evolutionary forces that acted on our ancestors, and it is unethical to do genetic experiments on modern humans.

Sexual versus natural selection

Although evolutionists agree that adaptations invariably result from natural selection, there are many traits, such as the elaborate plumage of male birds and size differences between the sexes in many species, that are better explained by "sexual selection": selection based on members of one sex (usually females) preferring to mate with members of the other sex that show certain desirable traits. Evolutionists debate how many features of animals have resulted from sexual as opposed to natural selection; some, like Darwin himself, feel that many physical features differentiating human "races" resulted from sexual selection.

The target of natural selection

Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive or survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called "individual selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that selection can act at higher levels as well: on populations (group selection), or even on species themselves (species selection). The relative importance of individual versus these higher order forms of selection is a topic of lively debate.

Natural selection versus genetic drift

Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one gene by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random" evolutionary process called genetic drift, which is the genetic equivalent of coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable changes in the frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to the adaptation of their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing the genetic composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said to have evolved by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree about the importance of selection versus drift in explaining features of organisms and their DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift can't explain adaptive evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive.