Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:24:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1144 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > Bob and Joe are twins. They share exactly the same... ...faith...
> >
> > Both Bob and Joe die at the same exact time, in the same exact manner.
> > Can God condemn Bob to eternal damnation and Joe to... ...heaven?
>
> No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both
> Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior.
Before I say 'Aha!' I'll say you can take this back and rephrase it if you
wish to... Can God condemn either Bob or Joe to a different fate than the
other? And your answer is no? Then aren't you arguing my point that God MUST
be fair on this issue? Bear in mind I didn't say that any God I'd believe in
had to be fair in ALL respects, JUST some-- particularly where morality is
concerned. Because if there IS an 'ultimate' morality, God MUST abide by it.
And surely, you might say "Oh, He COULD if he WANTED to, but He WILL not.",
but I'd argue back that He actually couldn't, in order to still meet with
your definition of God-- For if He DID, he would be breaking his promise,
and in so doing, would be in some manner imperfect, no? Would the act of God
violating his word not violate some 'greater' definition of what it is to be
good? CAN God go against his own word? Would he still be 'good' and
'perfect' if He did? Would you love and respect a God that did? Would you
love and respect a God that COULD without the consequence of even your own
negative judgement? I couldn't.
> > Fundamental question: What is it about the subjective ideals
> > held by the Bible (I.E. X is right because the Bible says so)
> > vs some other text?
>
> The Bible is the Word of God. [1] You can't seriously be telling
> me that you don't see the difference between the Bible and the
> words of Bob or Joe or me.
Honestly? No, I don't. Lemme tell you what I think-- and bear in mind it's
just what I think. I think the Old Testament was written a long time ago. It
was written as a collection of stories, and also as a testament to the
beliefs of the Jewish peoples. Some things, like the flood story, and the
'two' creation stories (which CAN be interpreted as one, but by my guess
they're different) can be seen elsewhere in ancient texts... Stories passed
down and finally written in the Bible. Then there's things like Exodus--
which are (excuse my saying so) complete fiction. The only shred of evidence
behind the stories are pictures found in a couple places in Egyptian texts
that appear to be Jewish nomads. I could go in more detail here, but that's
not the point. Point is, the Old Testament is something a person wrote down,
with no more say in morality than Joe or Bob, except maybe for the fact that
it was actually more likely written by several people, and even perhaps (I
don't know) modified in parts throughout the centuries via mis-copying and
the like...
New Testament? Same deal. A few people got together and wrote it, because
they thought Jesus had some really great ideas about morality-- a morality
which was no longer in the same style of Judiaism, but something new... And
they (going by Jesus' words and some of their own, I expect) all got
together and formed a new idea of religion. And these few people again, have
no more 'divine' or 'ultimate' bearing on morality than Joe or Bob.
BUT! I will say this: The ideas they came up with-- the ideas that Jesus
himself seems to have voiced, were GREAT ideas. And a LOT of people agree
with the morality of which they speak... which is what makes Christianity so
strong. I happen to agree with them myself (although one is forced to
interpret Biblical morality on one's own, I think, at least to a certain
extent.). But the important distinction that I'll make is that no matter how
many people agree with them, I DON'T think they're 'perfect' or universal.
> > Assumption 1 - People will only act insofar as they perceive
> > that their actions will benefit themselves.
> > Assumption 2 - People learn over time, realizing different things
> > that are perceived as self-benefiting.
>
> Well I don't agree with either,
I can't figure out whether you either aren't examining my assumptions in
full, not understanding them, or just plain HATE agreeing with me and are
doing so out of spite. At least the three times now I've presented options
to you that you first say you disagree with and then later (or immediately)
choose to agree with, while still holding that I was wrong, or implying such...
Anyway, that was more of a minor rant-- You're free to disagree with both
those assumptions. However, I really never expected you to disagree with the
2nd one at all. That really suprised me, honestly. It basically says that as
someone gets older, more experienced, etc, they learn what they like. Do you
like ice cream? Didn't you have to learn that at some point? Would you like
to die? Did you always know about death? Or did you at some point learn what
death was and conclude that you wouldn't like it? I'm not necessarily saying
(at this stage of the game) that your preferences actually CHANGE (although
I will at some point), but that people LEARN what they like. Do you really
disagree with that?
As for the 1st assumption, I completely expected you to fight that one, and
I think I understand your disapproval. You're quite welcome to do so.
> but you seem to have defined
> yourself a system whereby it can't be discredited by anyone.
> Aren't you doing precisely what you "accuse" me of?
Um... yes? Isn't that what ethics is? As far as I know, ethics isn't
anything that we can judge via physical evidence or by any scientific means.
And as such, it's not falsifiable, and thus, meaningless by scientific
terms. However, like you, I think that people who are truly capable of
understanding what I'm talking about will understand it as I do. That's what
most people DO. Just like you probably think that anyone with an open heart,
open mind, and a good spirit who has been reached out to by God will accept
His word and thereby understand things as you do. So yes. We ARE doing the
same thing. But this only applies to my moral theory. Other areas like God's
existence are different, though they may be related in part. One of my
purposes here is to test my theory-- What I'd like from this discussion
(regarding my moral theory)
A. What objections my theory will rise, and are these objections EXACTLY
what I'd predict the objections are?
B. Can anyone convince ME that I've made a mistake? Might I have logical
flaws which might convince me to re-think or abandon my theory?
C. Can I convince other people that my theory has value or that it's
actually right?
> I'm willing
> to say I accept creation and Biblical morality on faith and can't
> scientifically prove it to you - You must also admit that you follow
> "David morality" and Darwinism on faith and that there isn't
> scientific evidence for them.
Woah-- big difference. Morality vs. Darwinism. I admit I follow my morality
on my faith in my logical analysis of my experiences, but Darwinism is
rather a different area. There's a lot less faith involved. Sure, there IS
faith involved, but the faith there is of a MUCH smaller degree. My faith in
science is based on:
- My faith in my own physical senses
- My faith on my own mental senses
- My faith in others' data which is presented
- My faith in the combination of my own and others' logical methods
And really, you can ignore the first two. They're rather meaningless since
otherwise, nothing we can say is true other than some form of a tautology
like mathematics. And as for my faith in others' data, whenever I've doubted
in such a thing (and yes, I have), I've found science to be true
nonetheless. And as for my faith logic, I find that in part to be a
tautology ANYWAY, based on how human minds work and percieve reality.
> > Here's where I won't let you off the hook. But before I go on,
> > I'll say I think you've opted for the better choice for yourself...
>
> Glad you approve. :-) If there's a "hook" you'd like me to
> address I don't see it - please restate the question.
Ok. The theoretical situation. You see someone about to be chopped up into
tiny bits by a threshing machine. With a touch of a button, you can stop it.
I'll assume you do. Now why'd you do it? And because you've opted for the
"good is an end in and of itself" option, your answer is "I did it because I
SHOULD have done it. To do so was a good action, and thereby I should do
so." But I'll argue differently. I think you did it because of one or more
of the following:
- You'd feel terrible about yourself if you didn't
- You'd feel good about yourself for doing it
- You think he'll reward you for saving his life
- You think other people will feel better about you if you do
- You think other people would feel bad about you for not doing it
- etc, etc.
Important side note, but this is something provided here only in defense of
my theory if at some later point someone brings it up-- I really don't think
I've gotten across my theory well enough yet for me to discuss the issue
here yet. BUT: There are other reasons, like:
- You think he'd be happier living than dying
- You think others will be happier that he's living
- You think others would be sad if he had died
These reasons (I hold) while valid, are actually forms being 'happy'
yourself, or actually feeling good about yourself. Without getting into it
too much, the lowdown is mental association with other people. From early in
childhood, you are taught to 'think how others would feel', etc. If you
punch another kid in the nose, what does your mother say? "How would YOU
feel if someone punched YOU in the nose?" And by this psyche-association,
people feel happy when OTHERS are happy. Think about it. Think about your
emotion when you see someone crying. Now think about your resulting emotion
when you see someone laughing. Your emotional state is actually reflected in
how you percieve other people's emotions. Even if you never see the person
you saved again, you IMAGINE him happy (having lived rather than died, or
his family thinking the same), and thus are happy yourself, even if you're
not taking the direct route and feeling good about yourself for your
specific action.
> Oh - Well in that case I would say you quite early on showed there to be
> an error in the "Bibo". Such a fundamental error is not present in the Bible.
Wow! That was an unexpected opening you left for me. At what point is such a
fundamental error readily apparent? Was it apparent at phase 1 of my
example? Maybe to YOU it was, but that's because you already know that
feathers DO come from brids. In the example, you wouldn't know that at phase
1. What if we're only at phase 1 of showing evolution over Darwinism? Do you
KNOW that there are no such fundamental errors in the Bible? What if we
suddenly found evidence that DID, without a DOUBT, show that creationism was
flat wrong and evolutionism was right?
> I don't know how common it is, but I certainly don't support the notion
> that "God created the world via evolution over millennia." It's a cop-out.
I tend to see it a lot... Therefore *I* think it's pretty common, but as
I'll admit, I could be mistaken. And for the Bible's sake, given the
progression of evidence pointing to evolution, I hope it's not a cop-out.
But personally, I agree with you. If I stuck as strictly to the Bible as you
did, I'd call it a cop-out too.
> > The question becomes, though, at what point are you "forced" to
> > actually change your interpretation of the Bible? And at what point
> > is that interpretation changed sufficiently such that it is no longer what
> > it once was? And at what point is it no longer salvageable?
>
> In all our 6000 years, I've not seen an instance of such a change.
> There have been situations where us fallible humans have realized
> that we've miss-interpreted the Bible, but God's Word is infallible
> and will always remain so. [2]
As I'm told they say in Law School-- Interpretation is EVERYTHING. Right? :)
The question now is, what would you think if there WERE such a change? Can
you fathom something which would actually go so far as to invalidate the
Bible? Basically, is the Bible falsifiable? What would it take?
> > Basically, is creationism necessary to the religion?
>
> Well if by "the religion" you mean what I believe - yes, the
> account of creation in Genesis is an integral part of it. Anyone
> who rejects part of God's Word wouldn't fit my definition of a
> Christian, but many people do so. I can only answer for me.
That's not really the point, I guess... The question more or less is, if God
hadn't decided to put in the part about creationism, how different would the
religion be? But there's really no need to speculate on that, because as you
said, it IS a part of the Bible, and therefore, you hold it to be a part of
the puzzle without which Christianity is incomplete.
> > > That's the theory for which I say there is no evidence,
> > > and it's the other main branch I referred to.
> >
> > Like I said, only bits of evidence to support the theory have been
> > found. Not enough to 'verify' it by any scientific method I know of.
>
> Yet "your cohorts" present a theory for which there is scant
> evidence as though it has been scientifically established as fact.
I can only answer for me. My 'cohorts' are nothing of the kind, and I won't
hold myself accountable for their actions.
> A complex creation doesn't require an intelligent creator? That's one of
> the things that truly baffles me about people who believe in Darwinism.
> If I told you that the <set:8002> sitting (assembled and functional) on
> my desk wasn't created by me out of parts created by TLC, (using
> instructions created by their staff) but rather that a truck carrying ABS
> pellets crashed into a UPS van with some rubber bands and other
> items outside my office and the firemen found it amongst the rubble,
> you would (rightly) call such a statement absurd. In the next breath
> however, "you" posit the same thing about the earth - something far
> more complex and intricate - and don't see why _I_ say absurd?!?
No no-- I think the problem here is your understanding of chaos theory.
Hmmm... I'm really not sure of the best example. But the basic point is that
systems will behave in various ways. The system of Lego pieces being in a
box inside a truck being hit by another truck is NOT the same system as life
on Earth. I've seen Lego pieces fly through the air after a collision, and I
wouldn't expect such a result from that particular system. BUT, I would
expect a different KIND of complex system to result from such a collision.
And sure, it would look pretty random to us, but really such a collision was
done under very strict, complex, and yet simple laws of motion, time,
energy, quantum physics, and the like. But I honestly don't think I can
explain it very easily. If you're really interested (and I doubt you will
be-- it's only very rarely that people go reading other people's suggested
reading [when not online] from an o-t-debate thread) go check out _Chaos_ by
James Glieck. It doesn't go in depth in any PARTICULAR field, but goes in
partway into MANY fields. It's really very interesting. Also check out
fractals and random fractal generation techniques. Meanwhile, I'll try and
think up a good way of explaining it.
> > By all means you may try and show why the theory of evolution
> > as it stands doesn't hold up under scientific analysis-- but I'll most
> > likely argue that your objections either say nothing concrete or are
> > subject to similar critique by the scientific method.
>
> Meaning that you are believing Darwinism based upon faith in the
> same way I believe Creationism - that there isn't much evidence
> for either of them. I would of course say that the evidence there
> is supports creation - You would (I expect) say the opposite.
Quite so. And also, as you pointed out, it's rather unnecessary for
continued discussion of my moral theory if that's what you're interested in
discussing. I'm perfectly happy disputing either, although I think there's a
lot less plowed ground on my thoery than there is on Darwinism-- just look
at the flurry of replies so far :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) God always keeps his promises. Are we agreeing again? :-) (...) You said you wanted me to correct your assumptions; Here's a biggie - perhaps your most fundamental. The Bible was penned by men, but the author is God. Your assumption to the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior. (...) Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your false assumptions, you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
