Why does evolution select against atheists?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
well the platypus is certainly a prime example of how evolution gets it right isn't it?
maybe evolution is indeed consciousness but outside our current ability to detect it.
good point.
A pseudoscientist?
Whatever the correct explanation is, it's natural.
hey, where have you been dude?
i kind of figured you would be down in the open government forum kicking some ass.
What part of consciousness doesn't follow natural laws?
(Insert title here)
I would go with speculator at the outset. The critical question is whether said scientist can offer a testable hypothesis to explain the alternative.
Take, for instance, the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research, two organizations we've considered here at Sciforums in the past. Both insist that they are being discriminated against because people won't teach their "theories" as science, but any assertion of "creation" or "intelligent design" must necessarily demonstrate the existence of a creator or designer. In other words, they must eventually show us God. And, given that the ineffability and transcendent nature of God asserted by monotheism in general, it is very unlikely that such an experiment will ever be devised.
Generally speaking, direct experience of God will drive the finite, mortal mind of a human being to insanity at best. Some superstitions even suggest that if God is ever known, all creation will come undone.
It is, in one sense, a convenient proposition: Insist that something is true, even though it cannot be demonstrated. And then, of course, complain that one is discriminated against because what cannot be demonstrated is excluded from a process that depends on the ability to demonstrate an assertion.
With physics, for instance, take the idea of gravity. We are, indeed, connected to everything in the Universe, but not, as so many religions and superstitions would assert, by spirit or God. Rather, we are connected by gravity.
This can be observed with the proverbial apple falling from a tree, or a binary star system spinning inward toward collapse. The consistency of the observation is found in basic mathematical equations. If those equations were wrong, we should have figured it out by now, because the mathematical schemes devised to describe physics are widespread and often quite complex. Viewed metaphorically as a machine, we could say that there are plenty of things to go wrong, and so far the things that have gone wrong with the basic equations have been repaired by fine-tuning. In the last century, at least, and even pushing all the way back to Copernicus and Tycho Brae, among others, there have been relatively few established scientific laws that have been thrown out altogether in order to be replaced by something else.
If general relativity, for instance, was critically faulty, none of our orbital satellites would work; in order for things like GPS and telecommunications to function through the satellites, we must necessarily account for the relationship between gravity and the flow of time. Were the Universe so skewed as to have been created according to tradition, we should have found some grave inconsistency in fundamental physical laws.
In high school, I had a particularly wise biology teacher who was among the most devout of Christians. He saw no problem in reconciling Darwin to creation: God put things in motion, and Darwin figured out how things worked. But he also recognized that such a God was fundamentally more basic than the one described by his religion, and felt entirely comfortable that everything else he believed about the divine was a matter of faith.
It's one of the things I greatly appreciate about the Jesuits; at my school, at least, they were comfortable with faith. They recognized that their students needed to be able to function in society and compete in the marketplace. Where this challenged their beliefs, they had faith that God would show their students the way.
Compared to what we generally hear about in terms of religion—e.g., evangelical rejections of knowledge and human dignity in pursuit of God's favor—I find little to object to in this. Every once in a while, they fucked up completely, but that's part of being human.
When I graduated, one of the priests told me he didn't know until the end whether I would make it through. He wasn't just happy that I did, but also found comfort in the notion that they could keep someone like me moving forward—if the only minds they could develop were already sold on the program, that would describe a failure in their approach. Sure, that I made it through without burning out said something about me, but that I made it through without them chasing me away or throwing me out on my ear also told them that they were able to do the job.
Unfortunately, it's very hard to hear those kinds of people above the din and clamor of politics and faith.
I would go with speculator at the outset. The critical question is whether said scientist can offer a testable hypothesis to explain the alternative.
Take, for instance, the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research, two organizations we've considered here at Sciforums in the past. Both insist that they are being discriminated against because people won't teach their "theories" as science, but any assertion of "creation" or "intelligent design" must necessarily demonstrate the existence of a creator or designer. In other words, they must eventually show us God. And, given that the ineffability and transcendent nature of God asserted by monotheism in general, it is very unlikely that such an experiment will ever be devised.
Generally speaking, direct experience of God will drive the finite, mortal mind of a human being to insanity at best. Some superstitions even suggest that if God is ever known, all creation will come undone.
It is, in one sense, a convenient proposition: Insist that something is true, even though it cannot be demonstrated. And then, of course, complain that one is discriminated against because what cannot be demonstrated is excluded from a process that depends on the ability to demonstrate an assertion.
With physics, for instance, take the idea of gravity. We are, indeed, connected to everything in the Universe, but not, as so many religions and superstitions would assert, by spirit or God. Rather, we are connected by gravity.
This can be observed with the proverbial apple falling from a tree, or a binary star system spinning inward toward collapse. The consistency of the observation is found in basic mathematical equations. If those equations were wrong, we should have figured it out by now, because the mathematical schemes devised to describe physics are widespread and often quite complex. Viewed metaphorically as a machine, we could say that there are plenty of things to go wrong, and so far the things that have gone wrong with the basic equations have been repaired by fine-tuning. In the last century, at least, and even pushing all the way back to Copernicus and Tycho Brae, among others, there have been relatively few established scientific laws that have been thrown out altogether in order to be replaced by something else.
If general relativity, for instance, was critically faulty, none of our orbital satellites would work; in order for things like GPS and telecommunications to function through the satellites, we must necessarily account for the relationship between gravity and the flow of time. Were the Universe so skewed as to have been created according to tradition, we should have found some grave inconsistency in fundamental physical laws.
In high school, I had a particularly wise biology teacher who was among the most devout of Christians. He saw no problem in reconciling Darwin to creation: God put things in motion, and Darwin figured out how things worked. But he also recognized that such a God was fundamentally more basic than the one described by his religion, and felt entirely comfortable that everything else he believed about the divine was a matter of faith.
It's one of the things I greatly appreciate about the Jesuits; at my school, at least, they were comfortable with faith. They recognized that their students needed to be able to function in society and compete in the marketplace. Where this challenged their beliefs, they had faith that God would show their students the way.
Compared to what we generally hear about in terms of religion—e.g., evangelical rejections of knowledge and human dignity in pursuit of God's favor—I find little to object to in this. Every once in a while, they fucked up completely, but that's part of being human.
When I graduated, one of the priests told me he didn't know until the end whether I would make it through. He wasn't just happy that I did, but also found comfort in the notion that they could keep someone like me moving forward—if the only minds they could develop were already sold on the program, that would describe a failure in their approach. Sure, that I made it through without burning out said something about me, but that I made it through without them chasing me away or throwing me out on my ear also told them that they were able to do the job.
Unfortunately, it's very hard to hear those kinds of people above the din and clamor of politics and faith.
Rabbits having to eat thier own poop is a good design too.
leo,
On the other hands some advanced computer systems show more signs of consciousness than such simple biological organisms, but of course are not considered part of life.
Life? Consciousness? Difficult questions.
A single celled organism is considered life but is not considered conscious.
On the other hands some advanced computer systems show more signs of consciousness than such simple biological organisms, but of course are not considered part of life.
Life? Consciousness? Difficult questions.
probably why we are having such a hard time recreating it.
can you create something you can't define?
is there any reason this is in the philosophy forum?
leo,
The nature of life and consciousness are key to religious claims. If consciousness is somehow not a result of brain function but some mysterious supernatural effect then that is the realm of religion. And life is apparently designed and created by deities, according to religions.
If consciousness is somehow not a result of brain function, that is no indication of gods.
why does this always come back to a god?
why is it impossible to believe that there is an entire area of knowledge that we are completely unaware of?
People are so accustomed to seeing anything along these lines as evidence of gods that it is necessary to point out that it isn't.
perhaps the truth doesn't always make for a great story.
Therefore a great story must be fabricated.