Originally posted by stellspalfiehow is evolution connected to materialism, indeed, it proposes a materialistic explanation for the diversification of life.
how is evolution connected to materialism? are you saying that anybody that doesnt have god only has materialism?
dodging hypothetical questions is a cop out. they are a perfectly valid method of working things out. ill re-phrase the question taking out the hypothetical part.
after god what do you think is the second most likely explanation for the existence of life?
Call me old fashioned but I like to deal with realities, empirical evidence rather than
hypothetical scenarios, sorry, its the scientific method, observation, etc
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo my views regarding evolution 'form the very basis of my belief system', yet my views regarding another scientific belief ie, dark matter, you 'cannot say'.
Possibly, i cannot say, perhaps you also believe in parallel universes?
How come you are so certain about one yet not sure about the other?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLOL!!!!!
how is evolution connected to materialism, indeed, it proposes a materialistic explanation for the diversification of life.
Call me old fashioned but I like to deal with realities, empirical evidence rather than
hypothetical scenarios, sorry, its the scientific method, observation, etc
The man who refuses to read science books is teling us what is science. Is there no end to your insanity???
The proposition at stake here may be to the effect that:
People who believe in Evolution also hold certain moral values different to people who do not believe in evolution.
AND
If I agree with the moral values of people who believe in Evolution, then I will be content to believe in Evolution. If I prefer the moral values of people who do not believe in Evolution, then I will prefer not to believe in Evolution.
SO:
Not only is belief in evolution a matter of opinion, and something that one can choose to adopt or reject, but it is in effect a moral choice.
If this is a valid argument, then it has interesting results. For example, when making a scientific, objective study of the evidence, one will be aware that the evidence might support or reject not only a theory about Evolution but also a moral value system. So morality can now be studied scientifically and proved to be true or false. Very curious result to my mind.
Never mind. Thinking on, I find that people who do believe in Evolution have very diverse moral values and indeed, they include not only atheists but a majority of Christians. So it is very hard to work with the proposition that if I believe in Evolution, then my moral values or even my religious status can be determined from this information alone.
On the other hand, people who refuse to believe in Evolution do appear to belong to a particular mind set, primarily incorporating the modern sect of biblical literalists currently promenading about the USA. It is true that others object to any materialist description of life on earth, but they are not significant in this debate. It is at any rate fairly predictable that US citizens who argue against Evolution have a fairly clear set of moral values and beliefs in common.
From this I conclude that, in so far as moral values correlate with belief in evolution, this is only useful when dealing with people who do argue against Evolution, but not at all helpful when dealing with the vast majority of people who accept Evolution as a well established account of how such a huge diversity of viable living species have arisen on earth.
So now we must refine what was said earlier. Science cannot prove anything about the moral values of people who do believe in Evolution but it can do so in respect of people who argue against evolution, for the simple reason that they have foolishly insisted on making the two dependent on each other. That is their decision and the type of foolish risk that other Christians (notably the Catholic Church) learned fairly quickly to avoid taking. Otherwise, Copernicus alone would have proved all christian teaching false and the Church came to realise that it had to accept Copernicus, albeit not for perhaps a hiundred years. This is the sort of quandary Galileo, a good Catholic, tried to warn the Pope to avoid. (Curiously though, the Popes immediately adopted Copernicus for the purpose of calculating their horoscopes more accurately, whatever we might think an accurate horoscope means!)
Now what has been found in the 200 years since Paley published his classical account of the argument from Design? What has been found is that it is without value, totally useless as an account of the diversity of species, while by contrast, the theory of Evolution of Species by Natural Selection has turned out to explain coherently and in a useful manner all if the evidence so far presented on the topic. So on balance, all things considered, it appears the the creationists are not only wrong in fact but apparently their moral system is itself destroyed by the evidence.
This is not as ludicrous as it ought to seem since in reality we find that the creationists can only sustain their absurd doctrine by telling direct lies, by misrepresentation and by manipulation, as illustrated earlier in this thread.
One can of course avoid this whole line of reasoning by rejecting the initial premises. That is what I recommend. Stop making assertions about the assumed moral or religious status of all those endorsing Evolution - they are absurd and empty as well as insulting. They display too clearly the intolerant, theocratic ambitions of this very modern literalist movement.
Originally posted by Proper Knobboth of them form part of your belief system, dark matter and its existence is based
So my views regarding evolution 'form the very basis of my belief system', yet my views regarding another scientific belief ie, dark matter, you 'cannot say'.
How come you are so certain about one yet not sure about the other?
upon inferences from certain effects of gravity, whereas evolution is opposed to the idea
of a creator and is therefore more likely to influence your morality/behaviour. the
existence or otherwise of dark matter carries no such connotations or sway.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieare you referring to the philosophical use of the word materialism or are you talking about the human concept of acquiring stuff to measure your success?
how is evolution connected to materialism, indeed, it proposes a materialistic explanation for the diversification of life.
Call me old fashioned but I like to deal with realities, empirical evidence rather than
hypothetical scenarios, sorry, its the scientific method, observation, etc
i know why youve dodge the question, your answer would be that there is no alternative to your idea of where life has come from, which intern means it doesnt matter how much evidence you had bearing down upon you that it was evolution or aliens or whatever you would still argue for your god. which also invalidates your claims about evolution and science because you have too much of an invested interest in god for you to be truly unbiased and objective in your views.
@ Finn
great Finn, me thinks that you are not a little biased, for example, you make a case for
establishing the morality of fundamental Christians, however is it not so that a liberal is
more likely to embrace the theory of evolution than a southern baptist fundamentalist
Christian and strongly resonate with moral issues such as gay marraige, the right of
abortion etc so that a polarity exists and the polarising effect is simply due to the
adoption of a particular belief concerning life, the universe, its origins and how it came
about. I think this is undeniable and for want of scientific data could be proven
empirically.
Originally posted by FMFquite simply because they have ignored not only the idea of discontinuity between
There are surely hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who believe in evolution AND in there being a creator. How are they then "opposed"?
genus but have supplanted, in the case of christians, the teaching of Christ, Peter and
Paul and adopted a different teaching. In the case of other religions i cannot say.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wasn't talking about "Peter and Paul". People can believe in there being a creator without having anything to do with "Peter and Paul".
quite simply because they have ignored not only the idea of discontinuity between
genus but have supplanted, in the case of christians, the teaching of Christ, Peter and
Paul and adopted a different teaching. In the case of other religions i cannot say.
Originally posted by stellspalfieboth are kind of linked in a way, for example philosophically, the idea that existence is
are you referring to the philosophical use of the word materialism or are you talking about the human concept of acquiring stuff to measure your success?
i know why youve dodge the question, your answer would be that there is no alternative to your idea of where life has come from, which intern means it doesnt matter how much evidence you had bearing ...[text shortened]... oo much of an invested interest in god for you to be truly unbiased and objective in your views.
explicable solely in material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness or
intelligence and this in turn will influence reality for the individual, 'there is no reality
but that which is material'. My argument is, that the adoption of such a philosophy
influences the way a person acts, thus a materialist is less likely to go on pilgrimage
whereas a theist might think it a sacred duty. It may also manifest itself with regard to
material things, get a good job, buy the biggest house you can, amass as much money
as you can, etc etc
Originally posted by FMFso you are talking about non christians then, for example Muslims, Hindus? or just
I wasn't talking about "Peter and Paul". People can believe in there being a creator without having anything to do with "Peter and Paul".
some faceless millions you picked out of a hat?