Does evolution prove there is no God?

RickU

That was a terrible pun...and for it, you will be PUNished.

CranialVault

scrumfish: you are not "totally clueless" at all, keep up the good work.

mr. pess:
-What I meant was that because the individuals change, obviously the gene pool changes too but I thought I would just say it directly.

-Even over the course of a million years with reproductive isolation, the population cannot (in my opinion) drastically change simply from hybrid traits. A homozygous Black haired person marries a homozygous blonde person, you will have all black haired kids. The kids will have hybrid genes, but if they marry individuals with the same hybrid genes they still get kids with only black or blonde hair. Ofcourse if blonde is codominant its still the same story just with 3 varieties ("dirty" blonde).
There is no purple, orange, or half black & half blonde heads, UNLESS some silly group of genes decided to express themselves. NOTHING causes genes to express themselves, its random! Natural selection only controls the amount of individuals with certain genes. Reproduction only makes hybrids and hybrids of hybrids which end up with the same traits and same results. The same genes are still expressing themselves.

RickU: I don't disagree, all lifeforms are dynamic and we do have the capacity to change be it in small periods of time, large periods of time, drastic or minor.

Jeremy1952

misterpessimistic

Quote:
In evolution, it is the individual that is the subject of natural selection, not the gene.

Individuals live or die, along with their complement of genes, but ultimately it is the genes which are selected. One can't really understand evolution without reading (or at least understanding the material in) Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (short, not very technical) and/or The Extended Phenotype (longer, more technical, much more complete). I'd be happy to take a crack at explaining but after all, a much better writer than I devoted entire books to the topic.

CranialVault

Quote:
say if the earth slowly started to flood.

The earth IS slowly starting to flood… global warming threatens to inundate most human habitation on this planet, but an SUV now is more important to most Americans than solid land for our grandchildren.

If evolution could be counted on to respond to any specific threat then our disregard for environmental destruction and future asteroid impacts would be less frightening. But in fact, it's a crapshoot. Sixty-seven million years ago an entire clade, which had dominated the planet for two orders of magnitude longer than humans have been on earth, was wiped out because a climate change occurred to which they could not adapt.

When change is very, very slow, the odds are good that a random mutation to help with the new circumstances will occur and be selected. But it is important not to overlook the fact that initial variation is always random. If the variant able to survive the new conditions is not there, natural selection cannot select it. This is why each of the five great extinction events we know about wiped out the majority of life on earth; and the last one, that killed the non-avian dinosaurs, was far from the worst. The worst mass extinction we know of killed 95% of all life on Earth.

If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

CranialVault · Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject: Well said

QUOTE:
"When change is very, very slow, the odds are good that a random mutation to help with the new circumstances will occur and be selected. But it is important not to overlook the fact that initial variation is always random. If the variant able to survive the new conditions is not there, natural selection cannot select it. "

BAM thats what I was trying to say with my poor language skills *sigh*. You still need that for natural selection to happen. The odds being good or not is debatable but it doesn't matter since somebody understands! Natural selection cannot be the sole mechanism for evolution...

Instead of just digging up fossils, we need to calculate the chance of a positive mutation. It is not impossible, take beaches for example.

We know where sand comes from, but were are not there watching stones turn in to sand. If somebody asks us for proof, we can show them an "aged stone." We can take a normal stone, and hit it with high pressure water that will be the same force a stone faces over 500,000 years or whatever it takes. Even if the stone did not completely become sand we can show what the stone will become as time goes on. This is very good proof, and the same concept was used to create the first stealth bomber via computers, I believe its called inductive reasoning.

Doc Tiessen · Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:38 am Post subject: mass extinction

The earth has passed through several periods of mass extinction. You mentioned that the meteorite 65 million years ago was not the worst. You are right. Possibly, and most sadly, the greatest of all mass extinctions we are currently living right now. Not oxygen nor a meteorite but human beings are the protagonist of such a tragedy. I do not know for the others, but this makes me feel very sad and powerless indeed.

Diversity is Good!

Edited by: Doc Tiessen at: 11/13/04 12:39 am

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Evolution and God

Re: the original question: Of course not. No single scientific theory has yet managed to invalidate the idea of God, though certain claims about the activity or nature of God may need re-evaluation in light of scientific theory.

misterpessimistic: I still do not think there is a god, and I base this on an educated guess after examining the available evidence.

What evidence would that be? I'm not convinced that it's possible to make an "educated guess" about the existence of God.

misterpessimistic: That said, the thing is that scientific reasoning does not prove or disprove God or creation, but it is the rational thought behind the scientific process that points to the fact that God is probably a myth.

Elaborate, please.

The watchmaker and eye arguments have failed to convince and always revert back to subjective rationale.

Pascal, both a source of significant contributions to mathematics and science as well as theology, was quick to note that the so-called "proofs" of the existence of God were unlikely to convince anyone. Point in fact, they probably were not meant to prove the existence of God in the sense that we understand proof in modern science, but rather were means of pointing an audience of the already convinced to a particular characterization of God.

CranialVault: Now to believe that subtle changes to the gene pool like this can create a new species takes some faith.

Evolutionary changes that resulted in the division of species would presumably have to occur in isolation. In other words, given a particular species of wild dog, so long as members of that species remained in contact with one another, the environmental changes are unlikely to result in the development of new species. But were some natural phenomenon to seperate two groups of the same species, and were the environmental pressures of the two resulting habitats sufficient to provoke significant evolutionary changes, it's conceivable that ancestors of what were intially members of the same species could develop traits that made them reproductively incompatable. The environmental pressures unique to spatial distinct habitats can, over time, give rise to a diversity of changes through the normal course of natural selection -- you're not likely to see the same diversity in species that share the same or a significantly similar environment. Given reproductive incompatability and enough taxonomic changes, these ancestors could readily be described as belonging to different species.

Part of the difference, however, may just as easily be explained by the fact that taxonomic categories are somewhat arbitrary. We see the anatomical and behavioral differences between dolphins and iguanas as cumulative; we demarcate those differences in categorical terms.

Jeremy1952: But evolution unequivocally proves that there is no god.

Russian comsmonauts said the same thing about high-altitude aircraft flight. The fact is, scientific inquiry is incapable of addressing the existence of God, though it may force changes in the perception of God. The cosmonauts forced the less less-educated peasant population of Russia to abandon the medieval notions of cosmology -- most prominantly the idea that God inhabited a spatial realm somewhere above the clouds. The only reason an Orthodox Catholic would abandon their faith in God over such a discovery is the lamentable circumstance of experiencing the value of God as little more than a conception of spatial dispensation. Evolution, by analogy, has forced Christians to re-address the notion that the current state of human existence was an act of direct inspiration, concomittant with the supposed Creation. Evolutionary theory is only a threat to belief in God inasmuch as your idea of God depends on the idea that God created humanity in its full and final state with no intermediary steps.

So far I have shown why "god" is unnecessary to explain life as we know it.

Not that you can't, but you haven't yet. What you've explained is the means by which life achieved its present form. But evolutionary theory is inequipped to explain the distinguish between inanimate and animate matter.

Gods are immortal and unchanging.

There are ample exceptions to both cases. The pantheon of Norse religion was mortal, as were many of the gods of ancient Egyptian religion. For more modern examples you may examine the notions of divinity in Shinto and Buddhism. Really, the only form of theism that seems to demand immortality as an inescapable characteristic of Godhood are the monotheistic religions. Even those sometimes admit the possibility of divine change. The history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all marked by the changing relationship God has to humanity, the most obvious to our culture being the archetypal Christian shift from God as Lawgiver to God as Love.

Even were that not the case, I hardly see why a God should be required to evolve in order to meet the criteria for existence.

Interbane · Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
I have no sacred task in my life. For me there exists no parallel to the god you believe in.
------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

I disagree with the first sentence, and probably agree with the second.

You're right here. Just to clarify a little, I'll quote a definition.

sa·cred ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrd)
adj.
1) Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2) Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3) Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4) Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5) Worthy of respect; venerable.
6) Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

Number four hits the nail on the head. My intent was along the lines of number six, however. The rest of your post is correct also, I do have personally sacred tasks, but not religiously sacred tasks.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

I would think that the fifth definition (" Worthy of respect; venerable") would also fall in line with DH's use of the word.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

Madarchitect:

Quote:
Tillich shifts from a mode of legitimate inquiry to one of advocacy. I find this to be indicative of a number of important writers bridging the gap between theology and philosophy, and I think it's a rather unfortunate trend.

I dont see the illegitimacy of advocacy, rather, I see a human attempt to define priorities. I can't imagine anyone approaching philosophy without saying first: "Here is where I will begin, this is what I am looking for, and these are the questions I will ask, and here is my goal". The responses to these statements will probably shift and evolve as new information arrives, different questions develop, and new problems rise to the surface. But, I seriously reject any sort of "There is no advocacy in my philosophical project" claims. Tillich's advocacy, (in the face of a European nihilism and fascism the likes of which nearly decimated the planet) is warranted, as is yours or mine. The question is "What are you advocating, and will I support it?" Not, "Why is there advocation occuring here?"

As for Kung, Ruether, Lash, and Lacugna- I can only recommend you attempt to read some of their works: Kung's work with ecumenism within the Church between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant; as well as between the Secular and the Sacred; including his immense projects involving Inter-Religious dialogue; and his own struggle against the hierarchism and authoritarianism of the Roman Papacy...is an education in Religious studies all its own. Ruether is a primary source in understanding the role of Feminist theory and ideological criticism of Christian, and Religious, patriarchy and misogyny. Lash is excellent in applying a Wittgensteinian linguistic approach to theology, always seeking the meaning of these terms in proper context. Lacugna's "God With Us" book on the history and development of Trinitarian doctrine is a masterpiece in history, theology, social analysis, and pastoral care.

Quote:
Thus, Faith is forever the action that moves us forward in the face of uncertainty, with no guarantees, managing conflicting evidences...and, if done correctly, instilling a hope and love that our commitment to justice and healing is worth the effort- even though we can't prove it before hand.

Based on this summation, I think I would tend to find Hans Kung at odds with what I thought valuable in Tillich's examination of faith.

It isn't the best summation I've offered on the board. But, I would be interested in what you find valuable in Tillich's examination. Here is a summation of Kung's perhaps more enlightening:

Quote:
A radical trust in the overwhelming uncertainties of existence, acting as if these dark and abysmal mysteries were worthy of love and devotion- even if the evidence is inconclusive, contradictory and occasionally to the contrary. I.E., the dark abyss of existence is often untrustworthy, unworthy of love, and deeply devious.

Could "Faith" be a necessary ingredient for anyone facing this abyss and choosing to love and trust it anyway?

Quote:
I've read a great deal of Nietzche, but more from a sense of morbid curiosity than philosophical sympathy.

This is beginning to sound like traces of advocacy on your part....

Quote:
Nietzche was, at times, profoundly incisive, but as a philosophy I find him to be a great deal more pathological than strictly logical.

At times, profound incision is the proper tool, the best approach, the more intelligent way. As for his pathos, he was certainly one of those who embraced advocacy whole heartedly. His passion, exhuberance, enthusiasm, and excitability allowed for joy. It also paid a heavy price in that it sunk him deep into the darker reaches of the human psyche...our hunger for power, revenge, ressentiment, and disgust at the world and ourselves. This isn't problematic in my eyes. Rather, it allows for a far richer, diverse, interesting and frutiful exploration of a single fairly brilliant mind, and his occasional insights of real lasting genius.

I certainly wouldn't use Ecce Homo as any sort of starting point with Nietzsche. As wonderfully smart and striking as it is often is...it is Nietzsche at his full manic worst. Perhaps he was prophetic in this last work of his titling it "Behold, Man" (traces of the Gospel of Mark) and pointing towards a madly manic European civilization on the verge of annihilation.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

Doc: I dont see the illegitimacy of advocacy, rather, I see a human attempt to define priorities.

It's illegitimate in a context initially described as an inquiry into the root of all faith. Any such inquiry that denies the internal integrity of all faiths but one casts a serious shadow of doubt across its entire edifice. My personal take is that the first 3/4ths or so of "The Dynamics of Faith" are extremely valuable. But the moment he takes the premises derived from that inquiry and begins to use them to support conclusions concerning the primacy of his own faith, he has shifted from a mode that depends on the abandonment of bias to one that seeks to convince others of the supremacy of his own bias. The worrisome aspect of that shift, and the one that should have given Tillich pause as he wrote the final sections of his book, is that it breeds the suspicion that certain aspects of his inquiry were contrived or skewed in order to support the conclusion at which he planned to arrive.

I can't imagine anyone approaching philosophy without saying first: "Here is where I will begin, this is what I am looking for, and these are the questions I will ask, and here is my goal".

This is an acceptable course (though not ideal) so long as the philosopher is willing to revise the goal in light of the discoveries made en route, and not vice versa. The goal should always be truth, not an a priori conclusion. That's the difference between genuine philosophy and dogmatism.

Tillich's advocacy, (in the face of a European nihilism and fascism the likes of which nearly decimated the planet) is warranted, as is yours or mine.

I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing. To be clear, my problem with "The Dynamics of Faith" is not that Tillich advocates faith as a legitimate and necessary human activity (for lack of a better word), but rather that he uses the conclusions from that inquiry to advocate a particular faith as superior to all others, namely Protestant Christianity.

But, I would be interested in what you find valuable in Tillich's examination.

Essentially, his thesis and definition of faith. There are other tangental aspects that I found interesting and insightful as well, such as his discussion of fanaticism, and the role of doubt in legitimate faith.

Re: Nietzche: This is beginning to sound like traces of advocacy on your part....

More like opinion. If you really want to discuss Nietzche, start a new thread and we can try to strike a balance between advocacy and legitimate dialogue in the Socratic sense.

At times, profound incision is the proper tool, the best approach, the more intelligent way.

Absolutely. And when he's philosophizing with a scalpal, I find him generally worthwhile. But Nietzche was far more fond of philosophizing with a hammer.

I'm interested to know what you would count among his occasional insights of real lasting genius.

I certainly wouldn't use Ecce Homo as any sort of starting point with Nietzsche.

Nor would I. That's the book of Nietzche's that I've read most recently, and it did much to confirm what I was critical of in his other works. It's useful as a document of the man himself, which is how I read its title, allowing the reader to place the philosophy in the context of the philosopher. But aside from "Ecce Homo", I've also read "Beyond Good and Evil", "The Gay Science" (aka. "The Will to Power"), "The Anti-Christ", "Twilight of the Idols", and "The Birth of Tragedy". I think I have a fairly clear grasp on the essentials of Nietzchian philosophy.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

Any such inquiry that denies the internal integrity of all faiths but one casts a serious shadow of doubt across its entire edifice.[/i]

Why should we accept, apriori, the internal integrity of all faiths? There are a whole host of faith-systems I abhor, and suspect you do too...and can point out the severe lack of integrity that generate their deadly delusions into motion. Must we accept what we know to be wretched and evil just because we have some sort of allegience to 'objectivity'? Must the NAZI get equal air time when discussing world views?

...he has shifted from a mode that depends on the abandonment of bias to one that seeks to convince others of the supremacy of his o[/b]

Why must advocacy equal bias? An analysis that attempts to fairly explore the dynamics of human faith (aka, the challenge to trust an often terribly untrustworthy world) is not required to leave it's agenda at the door, or abstain from making judgement, or choosing between what it worthy and what is wretched- and all points between. If Tillich claimed to be bias free, or without an agenda, and then imposed one upon the project 3/4ths of the way through...then he was intellectually dishonest- if it was intentional. Like Descartes, he was working to find the ultimate ground and fundamental foundation beneath all faiths and truths about the world. Like Pascal, he engaged this project out of a love of God, and no one reading Tillich could miss this point.

The goal should always be truth, not an a priori conclusion. That's the difference between genuine philosophy and dogmatism.

Why truth? Why not disimulation, deception, make believe, fantasy, imagination? Perhaps the desire for truth is but another dogma- yet another a-priori conclusion? Maybe, the truth is, there are places the philosopher must travel where truth is not the goal. If truth is just one more deity, god, temple, altar, dogma....

...he uses the conclusions from that inquiry to advocate a particular faith as superior to all others, namely Protestant Christianity.

Again, I just don't see the exclusivist apologetics in the text...but I do see someone who advocates a particular point of view, and gives reasons for doing so that find their foundation in the prior investigations laid out in the book.

As for Nietzsche- I think a thread devoted to Herr Friedrich would be well worth the effort.

Cheers

MadArchitect · Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:57 am Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

Dissident Heart: Why should we accept, apriori, the internal integrity of all faiths?

We don't have to, because we're not writing a book that attempts to reconcile the word faith with what we perceive to be its proper meaning. In as much as Tillich recognizes a given phenomenon as faith, then his explicit purpose in writing "The Dynamics of Faith" should make it incumbent upon him to suspend the value judgements that would cause him to deem one faith superior to all others.

... and can point out the severe lack of integrity that generate their deadly delusions into motion.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Tillich, that it is the unwillingness to doubt that causes faith to veer into fanaticism, not anything inherent in the faith itself.

Must we accept what we know to be wretched and evil just because we have some sort of allegience to 'objectivity'?

Objectivity doesn't require us to accept anything, only to acknowledge what is. And up until the final chapters, Tillich does a wonderful job of expanding the notion of faith (within satisfactory limits) to include everything that ought to have a rightful claim to the title, be it religious faith or secular faith.

Why must advocacy equal bias?

It may not necessarily indicate bias, but consider the case: Tillich is a Protestant theologian who ends his purportedly unbiased account of the meaning of faith with the claim that Protestant Christianity is superior to all other faiths. Isn't it obvious how that casts doubt on the reasoning that led to the conclusion? Right away, knowing that Tillich is already a professed Protestant indicates an a priori conclusion.

An analysis that attempts to fairly explore the dynamics of human faith (aka, the challenge to trust an often terribly untrustworthy world) is not required to leave it's agenda at the door, or abstain from making judgement, or choosing between what it worthy and what is wretched- and all points between.

We're talking about two different agendas here. Tillich initiates the book by outlining an agenda to place faith in its proper context, to give it the fullness of meaning that it lacks in much of contemporary debate. The agenda that ends the book, his use of his discussion as a platform for the promotion of his own faith, is inconsistent with that initial agenda, which seeks to lend dignity to all properly maintained faiths (ie. faiths that admit of doubt).

Why truth? Why not disimulation, deception, make believe, fantasy, imagination?

Because we're talking about philosophy. All of the other faculties you've mentioned have their proper context.

Maybe, the truth is, there are places the philosopher must travel where truth is not the goal.

That's fine, but if our make-believe philsopher (let's call him N, for short) does so as a philosopher, then he belies the name.

Interbane · Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Sacred Spaces

"Maybe, the truth is, there are places the philosopher must travel where truth is not the goal."

Got a kick outta that.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT