Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020904084222.G88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D756B53.173640C0@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. What I do claim > > > is that resetting the clock to an earlier time does no good. We know > > > this because, to analogize Dave Hayes, there was no sudden heavenly > > > chorus announcing the amount of real, user, and system time elapsed > > > since the beginning of the universe, now that the run is complete. > > > > It's complete? > > If "The Answer" was arrived at at an earlier time, then yes, by > definition. Just trying to get at what you meant by "complete." The answer was here from the beginning all along, that's true, and the universe is "complete" in the sense that when it was created, it was declared "good." However, due to an unfortunate incident involving a piece of fruit and a snake it has been subjected to all sorts of evils. Taking that into account, it could be said to be "incomplete." > > The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have > > you ever met the Programmer? > > There's a programmer? 8-). See what I mean! 8-) > > > So I think most of these standards of conduct are emergent, based > > > on their anti- or pro- species survival value. > > > > Isn't the concept of "emergence" just a clever mask for "faith-based > > committment"? I mean really, as a theist, I feel like an absolute > > rationalist compared to you evolutionists! Consider this: > [ ... ] > > All of this is self-emergent, or self-creating, with no help from > > any supernatural intelligence! I look at that and think, wow, > > I guess I just don't have that kind of faith! Hence, the > > classification of evolution as a religion. Louis Pasteur > > disproved spontaneous generation but I guess some ideas die hard. > > The rationalist view is that, given two explanations which fit > the facts, the simpler one is the correct one. Self-creation is simpler than supernatural creation? Maybe its just me, but that sounds like one hairy thesis to me! > > Well, then why do we fight back, if not to impose our standards > > of morality on them? Besides, I would hardly classify Islam as > > "not a dominant religion", unfortunate as that fact is. > > 1) Or to *prevent* other people from imposing their standards > on you. That's the point I was making in the first place. So now then, how do you judge whose standards are "right" or "just"? > 2) Islam favors birth control? Since when? I was disputing your claim that a religion must favor birth control in order to become dominant. Take a good look, in the only places in the world where it isn't dominant, it is nevertheless gaining a strong foothold. In the places where it is dominant, no other viewpoint can peacefully co-exist. > > Yes, but one would have to show that propagation of the genetic > > material and survival of the species is a goal worthy of pursuing. > > Not really. You'd only have to show that it was desirous, not "worthy". Why does desire have any relevence? Murderers desire to live, but that doesn't mean they should. > > I mean, how do you know that murder victims are just the unhappy > > losers in the evolutionary fight for survival? > > You mean "aren't", I guess. One answer is that murderers are not > so prevalent as to constitute a generalized evolutionary pressure. Oh really? I would have to ask how you know this, especially since we have whole cultures in the world today that condone murder. Also, unless the murder rate in our own country has dropped to zero, I don't see how you can say it is not an evolutionary pressure (hypothetically speaking, of course, assuming for the sake of argument that evolution is true). > > This all just seems like so much rationalization. I admit, longer > > reproductive life spans and higher standard of living is nice from a > > subjective perspective, but in the ultimate scheme of things how do > > we know it isn't counter-productive? > > It is not the job of evoution to be "counter-productive" or > "productive". You assume a goal, without a goal in evidence. Then what you are talking about is not evolution. I thought the idea behind evolution was to be an explanation for how complex organisms (e.g. "the goal") could have arisen through modification over time of simpler organisms. > > > I guess in terms of conflicting societies, it comes down to whether > > > powerful society A can suffer less powerful society B to exist. > > > > Sometimes it comes down to whether more powerful society A can suffer > > itself to exist, or rather God can suffer it to exist. > > All societies which have ever existed have been suffered to come > into existance in the first place, by definition, if, in fact, > anyone is suffering them at all. You missed the point. Societies continue to exist until such a point that the internal pressures of human wickedness cause it to self-destruct. Human sin undermines the necessary preconditions of a stable society. > > Why are mutual boundaries relevant? I mean, what does it really > > matter if one piece of bio-matter A inadvertently bumps into > > another piece of bio-matter B, and in the process changes it's > > state from what we arbitrarily call "alive" to an equally > > arbitrarily named state we call "dead". Such is nature red in > > tooth and claw. > > To ignore the boundaries is to not admit the possibility of > stalemate. Why is stalemate a problem? > > Of course, what you call "emergent", is what some of us would > > call "providence". > > Call it what you want; if you need to believe that will is > required as a first mover in all things, go ahead and believe > that, though it's easy to conceptualize such things occurring > in the absence of will. Providence does not admit of Aristotle's god. It's not that will is required as a first mover, it's that without it, nothing at all would be possible. When you "conceptualize" the movement of all things from a state of chaos to increasingly complex states or order without some kind of will directing such movement, you are expressing an article of faith. Please explain why the belief that order comes from disorder on its own accord is not an absurdity. What you are asserting is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Things cannot create themselves. If there was a time in which primordial soup is all there was, please expain how there could be anything but primordial soup now. If all the factors remained the same, how do we have such complex organisms now? Here's one to ponder: If life began as simple-celled organisms that multiplied via cellular division, how do we get from that to organisms that copulate in order to reproduce? I want to know what happened in between to bring about *this* state of affairs! You not only have to believe that some organism developed a sex organ, you have to believe it occurred twice, all within the same infinitesimal slice of time during vast expanses of evolutionary time, which, you remember, is billions of years. Not only that, but once everything is plugged in and working, these organisms knew what to do with these sex organs! Amazing! I look at that and think, gee, isn't it simpler to just believe that God is the real origin of species? 8-) > > > Personally, I believe a global society is not possible, at least > > > until there are one or more additional globes involved. Call it > > > a result of "Thalience". 8-). There is an implicit need of "the > > > other", at least in all the societies we've so far managed to > > > construct. > > > > Kind of a yin and yang thing then, eh? > > You can't sort things into two groups by going through every one > of them, one at a time, if, after identifying which group it > belongs two, you throw them randomly back in the same bin. 8-). > There has to be a mutually acknowledged border. Yeah, but why bother sorting them in the first place? > > > It turns out that there is an escape hatch. It has to do with the > > > semantics of "human being". This is actually *why* it's OK to kill > > > the enemy, without having to make an explicit exception which leads > > > you to a slippery slope: you define them to not be a human being. > > > The Sioux understood this implicitly. The translation of the Sioux > > > word for themselves is "human being". > > > > So did the National Socialists. That's some escape hatch. More > > like out of the frying pan into the fire. That's all well and good, > > until you find yourself on the receiving end of being defined in > > such a manner. > > For example, when you break into someone's house and threaten to > kill their child, and find yourself killed by one of the parents in > consequence, because at that point, the parent is able to define > a human being as "not someone who would do this"? Some definitions > are emergent. Or when you are defined to be inhuman based on your ethnicity or beliefs. It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you begin arbitrarily defining people as inhuman, you can't get off the bus when implications arise that you don't like. > > On the other hand, if man is the imago Deo, you at least have > > a rationale for protecting God's image bearers through the means of > > capital punishment. > > ...Of God's image bearers? That doesn't make sense; it's self > contradictory. Why? Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make it self-contradictory. > > You fail to distinguish between murder and killing. Killing > > under most circumstances *is* wrong, but in some circumstances > > the greater sin comes from allowing murderers to live. > > Not coming from the theory of morphological value you've put > forth... from that theory, the murderer could in fact be acting > as an instrument of God's will. Mostly we lock those people up. You are talking about God's inscrutable will. This is irrelevent, since what we have to work with is God's revealed will. And that is that murderers by put to death. You know, kind of like it was God's will that Christ be crucified, yet he still holds those responsible for the crime guilty. > > Hence, as a previous poster pointed out, the governing > > authorities (whether Christian, or pagan) are ministers of God's > > wrath. > > By virtue of a popular election? I didn't realize that God > had deputized the population with the power to deputize people > to act on His behalf. I must not have got that memo... The particular form of government is irrelevent. They are ultimately accountable to God for the way the execute their office. > > > It is moral *within the context of that society*. Whether neighboring > > > societies would tolerate the activity is another matter altogether. > > > Societies hold each other to consensual standards, as well, in the > > > context of the society of societies of which they are members. > > > > Why shouldn't they tolerate it? > > It's not a matter of "should" or "should not". Tolerance or > intolerance arises fron consensus among the society of societies. So then, hypothetically, if the world community had decided to tolerate the extermination of jews, this would be okey-dokey with you? I'm still trying to understand how you get from desriptive to prescriptive ethics. > > I'm talking about a society that *does* consent, such as one that > > tolerates abortion. > > Dave Hayes made the initial statement. What you, Neal E. Westfall > are talking about, is adjunct context to the original discussion, > isn't it? ;^). Okay, okay. 8-) > > By the way, if it were not for imigration, most Western societies > > would be decreasing in population, as the native population is not > > reproducing fast enough to replenish those being lost. > > You act like you believe this is a bad thing, that a higher > population is somehow a global good. From my worldview, yes. Overpopulation is a myth. The fact that some societies have higher populations than others is indicative of a distribution problem. > > And by the way, speaking of abortion, isn't this also > > counter-productive to evolution? > > Not really. What is evolution's goal, such that abortion is > counter to it? Survival of the "fittest"? 8-) > > > In the case of a police state, where physical power is centralized, > > > there's always the possibility of subversion, infiltration, or, in > > > the limit, human wave assault. > > > > This usually ends up with many dead humans. > > Yes. But one ideal wins dominance. Which ideal *ought* to win? 8-) > > > To have a society is to grant that society rights over individuals. > > > There is no such thing as a tyranny of one. By your argument, all > > > jailed tyrants should be freed, because it's tyranical to jail a > > > tyrant. But in freeing a tyrant to act upon your society, are you > > > not therefore still tyranical, this time by proxy? > > > > Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. > > Why is this dichotomy false? Because maybe the rights of an individual end where they would conflict with the rights of another. > > I never advocated Dave's position any more than I advocated yours. > > I don't define tyranny as being "not free". With freedom comes > > responsibility, and it is acknowledged that the state must be > > granted some degree of power for the purpose of securing individual > > rights. This means putting tyrants in jail, and defining freedom > > in such a way as that it excludes acts of wickedness. For this we > > need an external, objective standard of ethics. > > Not really. All you need is a self-consistent system of ethics. According to you, as long as people are willing to tolerate it, *any* system of ethics is by definition self-consistent. BTW, why, on your worldview, is consistency necessary? > > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > > > > I would still like to know what "the greatest good for the greatest > > number" means. > > It means whatever consensus says it means. Do you apply this line of thinking to the laws of logic as well? I assume not. If this is indeed the case, why *ought* the laws of logic be adhered to when opposing parties start disputing with each other? > > Sounds kind of like Marx, or Star Trek. The problem, > > or course, is who gets to decide what the "good." > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. What I want to know is how consensus is arrived at. I don't think it can be done without appealing to a moral authority. > > Well, let's take the logic of naturalism for example. Recall that > > naturalism attempts to account for everything on the basis that > > all that exists is matter/energy and the operation of physical laws. > > > > Premise A: All current states of matter/energy are determined by > > the operation of physical laws on antecedent states > > of matter/energy. > > Premise B: My current beliefs can be accounted for solely on > > naturalistic principles. > > Premise C: Other people's beliefs can be accounted for solely on > > naturalistic principles. > > > > Conclusion D: All beliefs are pre-determined. > > So randomness is supernatural? You conclusion is invalid, if > naturalistic principles permit randomness. Sorry, but your appeal to randomness does not save reason. It is not even clear what you mean by "randomness." If what you mean is that we cannot exactly ascertain with certainty a given energy, position, or momentum, this does not invalidate the above conclusion. What is "chance"? All you are saying is that we cannot know all the factors that determine particular beliefs, but determined they are. "Chance" is a catch-all word that explains nothing at all. Whether determined by "chance" (whatever that is), or determined by the operation of physical laws on antecedent states, beliefs are still determined, they certainly *don't* have anything to do with whether or not they comport with reason or truth. > > IOW, you cannot get from electro-chemical reactions in the grey-matter > > to the notion of "true belief" and "false belief". All beliefs can > > only be accounted for on naturalistic terms, therefore nobody can > > say that their particular view of reality is true in the sense that > > it is the actual state of affairs that obtains, but rather you > > couln't help but believe what you believe, because that's just the > > way the synapses fired in your brain. And if someone else holds to > > a diametrically opposed view, it cannot be deemed "false" since it > > too is just the result of electro-chemical reactions in their brain. > > In short, if naturalism is true, it could never be known to be true. > > It would be like saying the Mississippi "knows" how to get to the > > ocean, while Lake Michigan does not. > > You appear to be trying to recreate an example of Godel's > incompleteness theorem, using a naturalistic example. The > problem with doing that is that naturalism recognizes Godel. Call it what you want, you still haven't answered the difficulty. > > And I've already anticipated your answer. You will say that > > reasoning abilities are "emergent". To which I will respond, > > "How?" Please elaborate. > > I don't understand what your example has to do with the existance > or non-existance of reasoning. All you've really addressed is > the idea that contradictory beliefs can be held by different > people. I would point out that the naturalist view is that these > contradictory beliefs can be tested empirically, and if false, be > falsified. You've completely missed the reductio. If naturalism is true, every reason you give for maintaining your belief in naturalism is itself determined by either chance or by the operation of physical laws on the antecedent states of the synapses in your brain. Your falsification principle itself is suspect. Nothing like "reason" ever enters the picture. Certain transcendental states of affairs must obtain before your falsification principle is even meaningful. To cite the previous example, the Mississippi does not, and cannot theororize and empirically test how it knows how to get to the ocean. > I think that many people apparently don't understand that the > scientific process is about the falsification of hypotheses; a > scientist does not *prove* things, a scientist only ever > *disproves* things. If you are a follower of Karl Popper. I don't have any problem with that, but his methods still rely on inductive reasoning, which, as we see above isn't even possible on a naturalistic worldview. > A hypothesis, if it has not yet been disproven, is still just > a hypothesis, not Truth. Does this include the hypothesis that science is about the falsification of hypotheses? > The standard we use to judge one hypothesis against another, > if neither has yet been disproven, is that of simplicity: the > simpler explanation is presumed to be the correct one, unless > there is evidence to the contrary (thus falsifying the simpler > explanation). Again, I don't necessarily disagree with that method, but it isn't even meaningful unless expressed within the context of a worldview that provides for the preconditions for the possibility of inductive reasoning. > > > > Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" > > > > attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > > > > > Why does there have to be a purpose? > > > > If you say something has a teleological basis, it has a purpose by > > definition. > > I think you are consuing teleology and theology? From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed: (from http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/T0089700.html) SYLLABICATION: teleology PRONUNCIATION: tl-l-j, tl- NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. teleologies 1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. 2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena. 3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history. > > > It may matter to you, personally. If it does, you with either act > > > within the system, to change the mechanism whereby the action results > > > in a penalty, or you will engage in civil disobedience to provide an > > > example to others -- sacrificing yourself to the greater good, or you > > > will declare your seperateness from society, in some way. > > > > Yes, yes, I know. But can you explain, on your worldview, why such > > disagreements should arise in the first place? > > Manifest self interest by one of the complaintants. Yes, but on your rationalism, there ought never to be intellectual disagreements at all. Wittgenstein recognized that the source of intellectual confusion is a moral issue. What do you think? > > > So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict > > > situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. > > > No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be > > > resolved to the satisfaction of the society. > > > > Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. > > To what ends *should* society be seeking? > > IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. Well, I can understand why a Christian would attain to such a noble goal, we are to take dominion over the earth to the glory of God, and so forth. But what I can't understand is why a person who believes there is no purpose or meaning behind anything would want to attain to that goal. > If nothing else, we will end up finding the answer to the question > os what ends society should be seeking, and, most importantly, > not be able to falsify the idea that we have discovered the answer. People are still trying to falsify the Bible. I don't think the attempts have been successful, do you? 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904084222.G88455-100000>