Thread: Is there a truly satisfactory account of Theistic Evolution? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028655
Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on
:
I hope this isn't a dead horse cos it's quite a specific question...
Having been a young earth creationist for the first ten years of my adult Christian life, for the last 10 years I have argued that believing that God is The Creator is not incompatible with evolutionary theory.
However, it recently occurred to me that I am unclear how this works! That is, at what stage and in what way did God create? And switching from biology to physics and the recent work of people like Stephen Hawking (which I haven't actually read myself) if we say 'God lit the blue touchpaper' isn't that a god of the gaps? But if he didn't light it, what if anything did he actually do? And again, in what way is he actually the creator?
It may be that all this has been dealt with many times and I just haven't read the right books but having done two theology degrees in the last ten years, I have yet to come across a (to me) really satisfactory account of how Christian faith and Darwinism actually work together. Please don't get me wrong, I accept both but I don't understand how they fit together in a way that I can adequately explain to my parishioners or even myself (and when I spoke to Alister McGrath about this v briefly at the end of a lecture I saw him give in London, he sort of agreed with me!)
Any suggestions?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think there is a satisfactory account, and I'm not sure that there can be. It is probably impossible to marry theological (or metaphysical) concepts with concepts from physics or biology.
Thus, if we ask questions such as 'how did God create fundamental particles?', the question just seems incoherent to me, like asking 'why is the ash-tray quarrelling with the toaster?'
There is also the big problem of the unplanned nature of evolution, which on the face of it, seems to contradict theism.
But, it's worth looking at stuff by Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist, who is a Christian, who talks about convergent evolution in interesting ways. I think his best known book is 'Life's Solution', but he has bits and pieces scattered around the internet.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Firstly, there are some problems with the phrase 'theistic evolution'.
From the Slacktivist:
quote:
We may believe that there is a certain providence in the fall of a sparrow, but we do not speak of theistic sparrows. Nor do we speak of theistic photosynthesis, theistic fusion, theistic chemistry or theistic algebra. We believe that God cares for the lilies of the field, but we never therefore refer to them as theistic lilies or speak of theistic botany.
One of the points that Fred Clark is making here is that we believe that God is in some sense responsible for everything that happens. The differential reproduction of organisms based on heritable traits is just one of those things that God's responsible for. If the sparrow with the seed-eating beak has more children and the sparrow with the less seed-eating beak falls that's just as much God acting as any other fall of a sparrow.
That is, there are no special philosophical or theological problems applying to evolution that don't apply equally to anything else we believe God's providence applies to.
As Julian of Norwich has it, everything that is created exists now and forever because God loves it. God is creator means that his love is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing and why there continues to be something rather than nothing.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
This is quite definitely a dead horse, but that should not be taken as a criticism or a death sentence. It is a quite a specific question (and one I personally find very interesting since I wrestle with many of the same concerns) but it is a question that by definition belongs on the Dead Horses board with all other discussions of creation and evolution.
Buckle up and enjoy the ride. Please continue your conversation in the corral.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on
:
Fair enough!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there is a satisfactory account, and I'm not sure that there can be. It is probably impossible to marry theological (or metaphysical) concepts with concepts from physics or biology.
This surprises me. I think that there is an easy and obvious way to marry these things to create a truly satisfactory account of theistic evolution.
All that is necessary is to posit that there are consistent physical laws that govern the physical world, and also consistent spiritual laws that govern the spiritual world. These two sets of laws coexist, one within the other, and interact.
What this does is provide purpose and guidance from God. Invisibly. All it really means is that perfect randomness doesn't actually exist - but I think that everyone already knows this.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
I tend to think that theistic belief and evolutionary theory are generally married together for the pragmatic reason that the former is desirable and the latter undeniable, rather than because they form a coherent picture. Nevertheless, I think it's possible to construct an understanding of this question that makes a certain amount of sense.
If you roll a die, the result is random, right? Yes, of course, but on the other hand, no. It's possible in theory to calculate the outcome of any given roll of a die. Just measure the initial position, orientation, velocity and rotation (not to mention wind speed and a precise mapping of the surface you're rolling on) with sufficient accuracy, and you can predict the result. Easy, see?
Of course, we can't do that in reality - the precision required is just too great. Even a simple coin toss poses a massive problem, and that's without trying to perform the calculations in real time. But the calculation can be done in principle. Even chaotic systems like weather patterns or the rotation of Hyperion conform to normal physical laws - it's just the accuracy of the initial conditions and the rapid divergence of paths from minute differences in those conditions make it impossible in practice.
If you define randomness as being determined out of thin air, then nothing's truly random - it's all pseudorandom. There's no way for an observer to predict it with accuracy, but that's just because the various factors that determine the supposedly random result are either sufficiently well-hidden or sufficiently complex to make those barriers insurmountable.
Apply this reasoning to an infinite intellect responsible for everything that exists, and Robert's your mother's brother. Of course, that infinite intellect represents a rather large assumption on its own, and it brings the Problem of Evil back into very sharp focus, but one thing at a time.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In general "theistic evolution" covers a range of hypotheses in which God is actively involved in the direction of evolution. It includes Intelligent Design, in which God steps in to specifically create particular cellular pathways that, according to ID propenents, couldn't be produced any other way. It includes a variety of models in which God nudges things along every step of the way, without leaving behind the fingerprints ID says exist.
Deism posits a God who created the universe with a set of laws, lit the blue touch paper and retired without subsequently getting involved in how those laws work out.
I would say that theism asserts that God sustains all things by his powerful word, continuously calling creation into being. But it tends to be more vague about the exact nature of that sustaining power. The faithfulness of God is demonstrated in the fact that the ways he sustains is consistent, and we see this in the laws of nature. But, the sovereignty of God is also demonstrated because he can choose to act differently, and we see a miracle. Theistic evolution sits within the structure of theism, but theism is larger.
One approach I've found interesting is posited by John Polkinghorne. He draws an analogy with free will. God has the power to compel us to do his will; he chooses not to, wanting us to freely love him. Polkinghorne suggested a term he called "free process"; God could compel the physical universe to act in a particular way, but chooses to let it develop freely within the constraints of his orderly and faithful sustaining power. Thus, although everything exists in response to Gods continuing "let there be ...", it also exists in a manner that is free of the direct will of him who sustains it. That freedom covers biological evolution, of course, but also the physical evolution of the universe and earth - so includes cataclysmic events such as super-novae and earthquakes as examples of the physical universe exercising freedom in its processes while under the direct call of God into existance.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Here is my own satisfactory account:
God made everything.
All of the physical evidence suggests that it happened over a long time (humanly speaking) and that life, critters, etc. developed gradually.
God is involved, both providentially (in every moment of spacetime, in this world and any other) and, when it suits Him, miraculously, in everything that happens.
... erm, beyond that, the details vary. How matters such as the Fall, the brokenness of the created world, death, and the like work in this context--I have suppositions, notions and opinions about how some of it might fit together, but neither my faith in God, nor my understanding of evolutionary biology/geology/etc., rely on those. (The idea that evolution--or anything else in the world--is truly random or meaningless is, I argue, a philosophical notion and not a scientific one.)
I am sure that, like the rest of His Creation, God loves the wee tyrannosaurs and stegosaurs that He made (everything is wee to Him, and He loves it), and I hope/trust that they will get to come back in the new Creation, however that will work. We may find out that the Neanderthals were always just as human as our distinct species, and/or that Eve was of the same race as "Lucy." I do not know.
I tend to suspect that the story in Genesis may be the only way to communicate certain truths to the human mind about the nature of Creation, the Fall, and the like--perhaps it is a kairos/chronos thing. Again, I do not know.
But this satisfies me, anyway. Your mileage may vary. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I tend to think that theistic belief and If you define randomness as being determined out of thin air, then nothing's truly random - it's all pseudorandom. There's no way for an observer to predict it with accuracy, but that's just because the various factors that determine the supposedly random result are either sufficiently well-hidden or sufficiently complex to make those barriers insurmountable.
Apply this reasoning to an infinite intellect responsible for everything that exists, and Robert's your mother's brother.
Yes, that's it. I find that truly satisfactory. The piece that completes it for me is an understanding of the way that God exerts this consistent influence.
As I understand it, the Lord sustains everything in existence moment-to-moment, and animates all living things, through a constant influx from Him, through the spiritual realm into the physical realm. Everything in the physical world receives this influx according to its form, everything in its own way. However, this influx also has purpose and direction, and influences the things that receive it. This means that over time everything undergoes gradual changes, influenced by many different factors, but essentially guided by the Divine influence.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Of course, that infinite intellect represents a rather large assumption on its own, and it brings the Problem of Evil back into very sharp focus, but one thing at a time.
Yes, it is important to account for this. One way is to trust that the infinite intellect knows what it is doing, and that evil would not be permitted if it did not serve a larger positive purpose.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If you define randomness as being determined out of thin air, then nothing's truly random - it's all pseudorandom. There's no way for an observer to predict it with accuracy, but that's just because the various factors that determine the supposedly random result are either sufficiently well-hidden or sufficiently complex to make those barriers insurmountable.
I can't say I understand it - maybe Alan or IngoB do as this is much more their part of science than mine - but for the last eighty years or so physicists have been telling us that they do NOT think that is how the world works. There are no "hidden variables" which, if we only knew them would allow us to predict things like, say, when an atomic nucleus is going to decay.
So there is real unpredictability and uncertainty. Even if you knew the state of every particle in the universe you could not calculate exactly what would happen next. Not even in principle - its not due to limited knowledge or limited computing power but because that's the way things are.
[ 14. September 2012, 15:22: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Also the main (but not only) traditional Jewish/Christian/Muslim idea of God does not say that God can predict what happens in the universe by means of infitie intellect. It says that God creates what happens in the universe. Including time and space.
The universe is noit like a book of mathematical tables, where a sufficiently mathematical reader might be able to predict what was on the last page if they knew what was on the first page. Its more like a story, where things happen because the author wants them to.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there is a satisfactory account, and I'm not sure that there can be. It is probably impossible to marry theological (or metaphysical) concepts with concepts from physics or biology.
This surprises me. I think that there is an easy and obvious way to marry these things to create a truly satisfactory account of theistic evolution.
All that is necessary is to posit that there are consistent physical laws that govern the physical world, and also consistent spiritual laws that govern the spiritual world. These two sets of laws coexist, one within the other, and interact.
What this does is provide purpose and guidance from God. Invisibly. All it really means is that perfect randomness doesn't actually exist - but I think that everyone already knows this.
Ah, apologies. I thought the OP was asking if such a link can be demonstrated as against merely asserted. I would have thought not.
I agree that an unsupported assertion can link anything with anything, but the tricky bit is to provide a demonstration of it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought the OP was asking if such a link can be demonstrated as against merely asserted. I would have thought not.
I'm sure you are right. This is not something that could ever be demonstrated. It can only be asserted.
This doesn't mean that an adequate and accepted explanation is impossible. But is it likely that an explanation can be accepted that can't be demonstrated?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought the OP was asking if such a link can be demonstrated as against merely asserted. I would have thought not.
I'm sure you are right. This is not something that could ever be demonstrated. It can only be asserted.
This doesn't mean that an adequate and accepted explanation is impossible. But is it likely that an explanation can be accepted that can't be demonstrated?
That is a great question. I think there are different answers to it.
1. There are unsupported assertions which make us feel warm and fuzzy, and many people accept them. For example, life is beautiful.
2. There are some which can't be demonstrated, but which seem impossible to turn down, as they are metaphysical subtrata. Examples, (a) this is now; (b) free will exists; (c) other minds exist; (d) I am a person; (e) there was a past.
3. There are some assertions which follow within a deductive system, e.g. maths. Or really, they flow from a set of foundational axioms. So they do have some support, and can indeed be demonstrated within the system. QED.
Of course, the really interesting thing is that theism has been linked with both (2) and (3), and I suppose (1) also.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Correction to that - many of the things in (2) are being challenged today. Thus free will is argued against commonly today; and it is quite common to hear people say, there is no past, and I actually know Buddhists who say there is no present.
So we are in a period of great tearing down of such ideas, which is very exciting no doubt.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Isn't the problem is that we are confusing two ways of measuring knowledge?
To say that evolution is scientifically provable is to make a claim based on empirical evidence.
If I say that God was responsible for evolution, I'm not making a scientific claim. I'm making a theistic claim which is no more scientific than saying that I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence or involvement of God.
The problem with creationism isn't because it is about God. The problem with creationism is that it doesn't square with the empirical evidence and thus fails as a scientific explanation for biological origins.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Anglican Brat
Exactly right. In fact, science makes no comment about God since it is not a philosophical (metaphysical) discipline. It uses methodological naturalism, which of course, omits any consideration of God. But it is not saying 'there is no God' or 'there is only nature'.
You can even argue that science makes no comment about truth or reality, for the same reason, although this is more controversial. Thus, if I make an observation and generalize on it, that has no implications for a theory of reality.
Of course, you can construct such a theory - scientific realism, but that itself, is not a scientific claim.
I would say creationism is failed science, but that is another can of worms.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
1. There are unsupported assertions which make us feel warm and fuzzy, and many people accept them. For example, life is beautiful.
2. There are some which can't be demonstrated, but which seem impossible to turn down, as they are metaphysical subtrata. Examples, (a) this is now; (b) free will exists; (c) other minds exist; (d) I am a person; (e) there was a past.
3. There are some assertions which follow within a deductive system, e.g. maths. Or really, they flow from a set of foundational axioms. So they do have some support, and can indeed be demonstrated within the system. QED.
Of course, the really interesting thing is that theism has been linked with both (2) and (3), and I suppose (1) also.
Yes, that last point is important. All of religion is an unsupported assertion. Belief in the Bible is the best example.
So people can have a perfectly satisfactory and adequate belief in theistic evolution, even though it is not demonstrable.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Freddy
It depends on what you mean by 'satisfactory', I suppose.
How can you distinguish it from a guess?
Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The universe is noit like a book of mathematical tables, where a sufficiently mathematical reader might be able to predict what was on the last page if they knew what was on the first page. Its more like a story, where things happen because the author wants them to.
Interesting. So God is the author?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'satisfactory', I suppose.
How can you distinguish it from a guess?
Yes, that's the question.
I guess my answer is that once ideas like this are woven into a complex system that purports to explain reality they become more than a guess. They can certainly be wrong. They usually are. But I have no trouble accepting that a system of thought can be adequate, despite not being demonstrable.
"Satisfactory" is a subjective term, so it does depend on what a person means by it. But "adequate" can have a more helpful meaning.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
So God is the author?
Yes - that's a very old analogy.
[ 15. September 2012, 21:57: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
[Professor Kirke voice]
It's all in Boethius, all in Boethius...
[/Professor Kirke voice]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican Brat
To say that evolution is scientifically provable is to make a claim based on empirical evidence.
I think that needs qualifying. Evolution within certain limits can be observed, as a mechanism of adaptation, but the grand theory is clearly an extrapolation from this.
quote:
The problem with creationism is that it doesn't square with the empirical evidence and thus fails as a scientific explanation for biological origins.
Again, it depends what you mean by "creationism". Certainly the general affirmation of the role of an intelligent creator is not contrary to the scientific method, because that is a perfectly logical inference from the empirical data of the information rich complex systems of life. After all, information requires a source.
The question is: how could this intelligent creator actually create? My view is that the creator has put into the systems of life a body of information that allows for considerable freedom, adaptation and environmental interaction. Hence evolution (up to a point). And this is the kind of evolution we can observe.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Nothing is scientifically provable as such, but you can test a scientific hypothesis. I think evolutionary theory allows us to make many predictions which can be, and have been, tested.
The claim for the existence or role of God cannot be scientifically tested. But it is most challenged, if there is nothing left for the idea of God to explain. I think the biggest challenge will come when some scientist somewhere, combines inanimate substances and creates a process chain that ends up with a multicelluar life form. And I think that will happen.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... Certainly the general affirmation of the role of an intelligent creator is not contrary to the scientific method, ...
An "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, since it cannot be studied or tested by scientific means. As for "information requires a source", that's just the prime mover argument, which is also untestable. EVERYTHING has information in it, not just biological systems - crystal structure, planetary orbits, electromagnetic radiation ....
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think the biggest challenge will come when some scientist somewhere, combines inanimate substances and creates a process chain that ends up with a multicelluar life form. And I think that will happen.
If it does... poor things. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
We do such terrible things to the critters we already have, so God knows what processes would be involved, and how many of them would live short/unhappy lives in the process of coming up with whatever the end results would be. And of course the notion that if we made them entirely, then we could do whatever we liked with them. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
There was a truly horrific art piece done by someone showing what genetically-engineered pets could be like, and even more disturbing (which was part of the point) if you read between the lines.
Not sure that such a thing would be a challenge, honestly, since we are made in God's image and all that. Not to mention, of course, that it's not as if we'd be making such beasties ex nihilo!
PS: Since the whole issue of hoaxes and lying about art (see other thread here in DH about abortion) are on my mind this morning, I thought I'd point out the critical disclaimer for the GenPet site-- while you have to click on "about" to see it, the fact that it is an art project and not a real animal is right there on the site.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Well it took 277 clones with abnormalities inconsistent with life before Dolly was successfully produced. So I think the answer will be lots.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Lord have mercy. Poor things.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
ken - reality is indeterminate. Period. By God who thinks it. He can't think it otherwise. Why do we need IngoB ? The OP is asking why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.
Dame Julian and John Polkinghorne have it via Dafyd and Alan. Therefore, Lamb Chopped, science DOES disprove God IN evolution. It's in Him.
Materialism is hoist by its own petard in Fermi's paradox of course. Higher with every dead exoplanet. Making life and mind ever more spectacularly miraculous, if that were possible. We could have been squid of course.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anglican Brat
Exactly right. In fact, science makes no comment about God since it is not a philosophical (metaphysical) discipline. It uses methodological naturalism, which of course, omits any consideration of God.
This depends on what kind of God you're talking about and whether He/She/It/They interact with the universe in any way. For instance, if you were to say "Zeus causes the rain by pissing into a sieve" that's a claim that is testable by the scientific method.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'satisfactory', I suppose.
How can you distinguish it from a guess?
Yes, that's the question.
I guess my answer is that once ideas like this are woven into a complex system that purports to explain reality they become more than a guess. They can certainly be wrong. They usually are. But I have no trouble accepting that a system of thought can be adequate, despite not being demonstrable.
"Satisfactory" is a subjective term, so it does depend on what a person means by it. But "adequate" can have a more helpful meaning.
Well, sure, some guesses are more complex than others!
I don't think 'adequate' is any better really. It sort of floats around in the ether, like a Chesire Cat, unless you define the possible constraints on being adequate.
It sounds like for you, it means 'I like it', which is fine.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think 'adequate' is any better really. It sort of floats around in the ether, like a Chesire Cat, unless you define the possible constraints on being adequate.
It sounds like for you, it means 'I like it', which is fine.
Yes, that's one way to define "adequate." ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I had in mind something more along the lines of "offers reasonable explanations of all associated phenomena" or "has fully thought out answers to challenges and objections."
My psych professor in college used to say that none of the various psychological systems advanced by noted psychologists were "adequate" because they failed to explain "feelings of warmth and intimacy." I always thought that it was funny that he dwelt on this one point so often, but it made an impression on me about the meaning of "adequacy."
It seems to me that something can be "adequate" and also dead wrong. But "adequacy" implies to me that many people consider the system to be satisfactory.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Like scientology?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Like scientology?
Exactly. I wouldn't consider it adequate. Neither would you, I'm sure. I'm not sure it's even a system. But for some it probably fits the bill.
If it did for everyone, or for most people, then it might be generally considered satisfactory.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Okay, let's try.
The big bang. Everything began with that. God planned to the random and non-random processes take over and never intervened or did anything further. The idea that something can be infinitely small and then explode outwards into infinite possibility has a symmetry with an infinite deity. It is aesthetically pleasing to consider that God created at the big bang such that there were infinite possibilities, and that God quit after that, and by creating infinite possibilities, that free will was the only possibility. Hence the possibility for life or possibility of not life, and apparently self conscious life being a rare event. Free will meaning the possibility that molecules could form, become self replicating and it being fully possible that the whole process could stop with that, or even stop with no life occurring.
I don't think multicellular life was designed in any way at all, it just evolved, and could more easily have not evolved given an history of the universe/planet with most of its existence. There is no inevitability for conscious life, no inevitability for beings to become aware of self, other, mortality, nor God. It just happened within an universe of infinite size and possibility as set to start before the big bang.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Given a single universe and Fermi's paradox life can't arise spontaneously from matter. Given a multiverse and Fermi's paradox, something unimaginably weird is going on.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
The Fermi paradox is: quote:
The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.
Not much of a paradox, if you ask me.
The missing element in the idea of this paradox in a single universe is the question of whether the physical universe exists by itself, or whether there is a co-existent spiritual universe, as most religions assume.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No it isn't.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The Fermi paradox is: quote:
The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.
The big problem with the Fermi Paradox (and the related Drake Equation) is that the assumptions upon which it is based are largely guesswork. It's always dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of one (the number of planets we know of where human-level intelligence has developed). I've pointed out the big pitfalls in this analysis before, most of which stem from physicists making undue assumptions about biology.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There was life on Earth as soon as it rained. How difficult is it ?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna
An "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, since it cannot be studied or tested by scientific means.
Likewise an unintelligent creator, because science could never prove conclusively that any living system actually self-assembled - i.e. arose without intelligent intervention.
Furthermore, even if an "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, it is not irrelevant to truth. The scientific method is limited in its scope, especially considering that it relies on certain assumptions that lie outside its remit, such as...
1. The uniformity of nature.
2. The universality of cause and effect.
3. Its own validity (by which I mean that *the idea* that claims have to be validated by this method cannot itself be validated by this method).
Given that we can only draw conclusions about nature from a scientific experiment by inference on the basis of these and other assumptions, then it follows that we can also infer the existence of non-empirical realities - such as an intelligent creator - from what we can observe.
By the way... it is interesting to note that SETI is considered a project consistent with the scientific method. But this is premised on the idea that it is possible that we could detect a certain kind of information from outer space, which would lead us to infer the existence of non-observed extraterrestrial intelligence. If that is not so, then the project is a complete nonsense. Such a project does not rely on the idea that we can only believe in the existence of such an intelligence if we can directly observe it. This is exactly the same method which is used to infer the existence of a supernatural intelligence (i.e. inferring the existence of an unobserved intelligence from the nature of what we can observe). After all, an extraterrestrial intelligence and a supernatural intelligence are both unobservable (at least while the extraterrestrial intelligence remains as merely the distant transmitter of the signal). It is a huge irony that the celebrated atheist who argued against the existence of God by means of his analogy based on radical empiricism (the invisible dragon in the garage) was one of the prime movers behind SETI. I am, of course, referring to the late Carl Sagan.
Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty.
quote:
As for "information requires a source", that's just the prime mover argument, which is also untestable.
So what if it is untestable? The scientific method itself is untestable, as I have argued above.
quote:
EVERYTHING has information in it, not just biological systems - crystal structure, planetary orbits, electromagnetic radiation ....
Exactly. Therefore everything follows instructions, which came from where exactly?
But, of course, we need to look at the type of information. The information of crystals, for example, is completely different from that of the genome. Crystals are formed by a process of the iteration of a simple function - or algorithm - which is not the case with genetic information. This information is a language not determined by chemical affinities within the molecular structure of DNA / RNA, in the same way that the words I am typing are not determined by the pixels on my screen. This kind of algorithmically incompressible information requires an information source independent of the information content of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is clearly not the case that the sequence of nucleobases in DNA and RNA is determined by the information inherent within the structure of these macromolecules. If that were the case then such molecules could carry very little information content - certainly not sufficient to code for the complex functions necessary for life.
[ 19. September 2012, 21:20: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Er, the information coded by the sequence ensures the survival of the sequence. Or not. No ?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Likewise an unintelligent creator, because science could never prove conclusively that any living system actually self-assembled - i.e. arose without intelligent intervention.
Living systems self assemble all the time. I recall watching a seed assemble itself (slowly) into a much larger plant a school when I was seven. Unless you're positing that lima beans are intelligent, that seems to disprove your assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, even if an "intelligent creator" is irrelevant to the scientific method, it is not irrelevant to truth. The scientific method is limited in its scope, especially considering that it relies on certain assumptions that lie outside its remit, such as...
1. The uniformity of nature.
2. The universality of cause and effect.
3. Its own validity (by which I mean that *the idea* that claims have to be validated by this method cannot itself be validated by this method).
These aren't so much "assumptions" as they are "observations". Newton didn't assume that the gravitational forces at work on Earth were the same forces moving the planets, he observed that this was the case, and the demonstrated it to satisfaction of his peers.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty.
I'm not sure what you're asserting here. If "unobserved realities" are interfering their effects (i.e. the interference) can be observed. Clarification?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But, of course, we need to look at the type of information. The information of crystals, for example, is completely different from that of the genome. Crystals are formed by a process of the iteration of a simple function - or algorithm - which is not the case with genetic information. This information is a language not determined by chemical affinities within the molecular structure of DNA / RNA, in the same way that the words I am typing are not determined by the pixels on my screen.
This seems obviously false. If genetic information isn't determined by the molecular structure of genes, you'd expect that genetic damage would be harmless to organism. This is obviously not the case.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty. ...
When science makes inferences or hypotheses about "unobserved realities", they are still consistent with natural phenomena and laws that we can observe directly. We can send signals using various electromagnetic wavelengths, so it's a reasonable inference that alien life forms could do the same. The existence of Pluto was predicted because it explained orbital aberrations of observed planets. Proposing a intelligent designer is in no way equivalent to proposing another planet.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... This kind of algorithmically incompressible information requires an information source independent of the information content of the laws of physics and chemistry. ...
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but a string of completely random ones and zeros is also algorithmically incompressible, and I can generate it with a penny and a piece of string. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I wish I could say, why the penny ?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Recently published research into empathy in dogs illustrates my dissatisfaction with purely evolutionary explanations.
In a study of canine empathy with human emotions, dogs' reactions to humans were monitored:
quote:
The majority of the dogs comforted the person, owner or not, when that individual was pretending to cry. The dogs acted submissive as they nuzzled and licked the person, the canine version of "there there." Custance and Mayer say this behavior is consistent with empathic concern and the offering of comfort.
Very interesting. But the explanation is one I have heard a thousand times:
quote:
Custance and Mayer think canines over the thousands of years of domestication have been rewarded so much for approaching distressed human companions that this may somehow be hardwired into today's dogs.
Another account of the same study said:
quote:
She said the dogs' behavior shows how highly attuned they are to human emotions owing to thousands of years of evolution. (The Week, September 21, 2012, p. 21)
The canine response is due to evolutionary adaptation. I think that this is the standard explanation.
I don't find this very satisfactory. As a religious person I think that it makes much more sense that emotions come from a single source, and that all living things respond to them in their own way. This is not simply due to random evolution, but is part of a pattern that has its ultimate source in God.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The canine response is due to evolutionary adaptation. I think that this is the standard explanation.
I don't find this very satisfactory. As a religious person I think that it makes much more sense that emotions come from a single source, and that all living things respond to them in their own way. This is not simply due to random evolution, but is part of a pattern that has its ultimate source in God.
Is there any reason to prefer your theory besides personal prejudice? And doesn't your theory fall down on the question of general applicability? For instance, if all emotions come from a single source, wouldn't canine sympathy extend beyond humans? This seems distinctly disadvantageous for a semi-predatory species.
Further, if this canine reaction is due to the common source of all emotion, why wouldn't this apply equally to other species? We would expect any crying human to be mobbed by a horde of local wildlife if your hypothesis were correct.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there any reason to prefer your theory besides personal prejudice?
Yes, that's one way to put it. Another would be that it is a theory that fits the evidence just as well as non-Theistic evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And doesn't your theory fall down on the question of general applicability? For instance, if all emotions come from a single source, wouldn't canine sympathy extend beyond humans? This seems distinctly disadvantageous for a semi-predatory species.
I don't think it falls down on the question of general applicability. Even if there is only one source of emotions, the emotions themselves manifest differently in every living thing according to its own capacities and situation. I didn't mean to leave it as a simplistic explanation.
My point, though, isn't about the correctness of my view, but about how unsatisfactory and empty the purely evolutionary view is. If empathy is nothing more than a survival mechanism it robs it of its authenticity, I would think.
Beyond that, though, people who believe in God would struggle, I would think, to leave God completely out of these kinds of developments.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And doesn't your theory fall down on the question of general applicability? For instance, if all emotions come from a single source, wouldn't canine sympathy extend beyond humans? This seems distinctly disadvantageous for a semi-predatory species.
I don't think it falls down on the question of general applicability. Even if there is only one source of emotions, the emotions themselves manifest differently in every living thing according to its own capacities and situation. I didn't mean to leave it as a simplistic explanation.
You're evading the question. If a sympathetic response to emotional distress is due to all emotion coming from God, why wouldn't a dog react in the same way to the emotional distress of a prey animal it was trying to eat? Doesn't that emotion come from God too?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point, though, isn't about the correctness of my view, but about how unsatisfactory and empty the purely evolutionary view is. If empathy is nothing more than a survival mechanism it robs it of its authenticity, I would think.
Why isn't this about the correctness of your view? "Is this right?" seems to be a much more basic question than "Is Freddy comfortable with this?"
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Beyond that, though, people who believe in God would struggle, I would think, to leave God completely out of these kinds of developments.
Why? A lot of people who believe in God don't seem to struggle with the absence the God of their preference from orbital mechanics. I've never heard anyone complain that they're uncomfortable with the Maxwell equations because they make no explicit reference to Jesus/Vishnu/Zeus/Cthulhu/Whoever. This mostly seems to be about vanity, since life science also applies to humans.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're evading the question. If a sympathetic response to emotional distress is due to all emotion coming from God, why wouldn't a dog react in the same way to the emotional distress of a prey animal it was trying to eat? Doesn't that emotion come from God too?
Yes, it all come from God. However, since everything that receives what comes from God does it is in its own way the response also differs. So the distress cry of a prey animal evokes a different response than that of a human.
But my point is that this is not merely an evolutionary adaptation but a feature of companionship springing from what companionship actually is - an aspect of love originating in God. Dogs have evolved to be able to connect with this reality, and display these features. But it isn't purely random.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why isn't this about the correctness of your view? "Is this right?" seems to be a much more basic question than "Is Freddy comfortable with this?"
While I am confident of the correctness of my view my point is my frustration with the vapidity of the evolutionary explanations that universally describe these kinds of things. The just don't actually explain much.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Beyond that, though, people who believe in God would struggle, I would think, to leave God completely out of these kinds of developments.
Why? A lot of people who believe in God don't seem to struggle with the absence the God of their preference from orbital mechanics.
God is not absent from orbital mechanics. But yes, I doubt that most people struggle with any of this because they don't think about it. Still, surveys show that the average person, in the USA anyway, assumes some form of theistic evolution.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But my point is that this is not merely an evolutionary adaptation but a feature of companionship springing from what companionship actually is - an aspect of love originating in God. Dogs have evolved to be able to connect with this reality, and display these features. But it isn't purely random.
Evolution isn't "purely random". It's random variation subjected to selective pressure. So many creationists miss out on the importance of this last bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
While I am confident of the correctness of my view my point is my frustration with the vapidity of the evolutionary explanations that universally describe these kinds of things. The just don't actually explain much.
God is not absent from orbital mechanics. But yes, I doubt that most people struggle with any of this because they don't think about it.
And yet no one seems to complain about "the vapidity of gravitational explanations" because there's no explicit mention of God. I've yet to see anyone seriously protesting NASA because it's not using "theistic gravitation" as the basis of its launches. To borrow an earlier link from Fred Clark mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to invent something called "theistic evolution" but not be worried about "theistic meteorology" or "theistic geology" or "theistic gravitation". Why does evolution get singled out as a special case? The only reason I can think of is human vanity.
BTW, if God is present in orbital mechanics, does it make a difference which God you assume? "No, no, no!!! That's a Hindu orbit you've plotted. I need a nice Jewish orbit."
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
... My point, though, isn't about the correctness of my view, but about how unsatisfactory and empty the purely evolutionary view is. If empathy is nothing more than a survival mechanism it robs it of its authenticity, I would think. ...
Freddy has implicitly outlined one of the real problems I have with Christianity. In the Christian view, the world is fallen, and people are all inclined to do evil all the time unless they have Christianity to keep them good. So doing good is a deliberate choice in that view, and I think Freddy is arguing that it is somehow more authentic to choose good rather than to just do it because one is programmed to do so and it is beneficial.
However, if altruism and empathy are survival traits, that means that they are transmitted from one generation to the next by the DNA of eggs and sperm, and copied into every cell of each new creature. We don't just teach children those values, they're standard features from the manufacturers. How can something be inauthentic when it is written into every cell of our bodies? It's the very essence of being human, something we have more than any other creature, and it is who we really are. It is when we hurt each other needlessly or deliberately that we go against our nature. It's why we develop ways of resolving conflicts with cultural laws and customs instead of pointy sticks. I think that is something to celebrate and be proud of and try to live up to.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Evolution isn't "purely random". It's random variation subjected to selective pressure. So many creationists miss out on the importance of this last bit.
Yes, good point. I am fine with evolution, by the way. Certainly the "selective pressure" is an important feature.
I just think that this by itself misses out as a complete explanation.
Last week's New Yorker had an article about this: "It ain't necessarily so", about "the hubris of evolutionary psychology." The article complains about the claims made for evolutionary explanations of almost everything, when the truth is that most of these explanations are weak and conjectural. It concludes by saying:
quote:
Barash muses, at the end of his book, on the fact that our minds have a stubborn fondness for simple-sounding explanations that may be false. That’s true enough, and not only at bedtime. It complements a fondness for thinking that one has found the key to everything. Perhaps there’s an evolutionary explanation for such proclivities.
So I'm not ruling out the usefulness of evolutionary explanations, I'm just saying that they aren't very complete and often don't explain very much.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet no one seems to complain about "the vapidity of gravitational explanations" because there's no explicit mention of God. ... Why does evolution get singled out as a special case? The only reason I can think of is human vanity.
Physical phenomena that are observable and measurable are different from evolution, which is a reasonable theory about how living things change over time, based on evidence.
I'm sure that God is behind gravity, but He doesn't need to be invoked unless we are talking about the purpose of gravity. Evolution is all about purpose, or the lack of purpose. So God comes into the discussion in ways that aren't important when speaking of things such as gravity.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
BTW, if God is present in orbital mechanics, does it make a difference which God you assume? "No, no, no!!! That's a Hindu orbit you've plotted. I need a nice Jewish orbit."
I don't think it matters what kind of God is present in orbital mechanics. It works the same either way. But if we are postulating that God is present in evolution, then what kind of God He is does seem important. If He were vindictive, for example, we might find harshness in nature.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
In the Christian view, the world is fallen, and people are all inclined to do evil all the time unless they have Christianity to keep them good.
That's right. It's not quite the way that I would describe it, though.
I would say that people are inclined to follow the natural inclinations that are linked in obvious ways to self-preservation unless they are socialized differently. Our physical appetites for food, rest, sex, etc. exert a strong pressure that can be anti-social unless we learn to control them.
Religion is one way to characterize this control, but it joins forces with many naturally based needs such as the need for approval, for assistance, friendship, membership in a group, and other things.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So doing good is a deliberate choice in that view, and I think Freddy is arguing that it is somehow more authentic to choose good rather than to just do it because one is programmed to do so and it is beneficial.
I'm not actually arguing for that, although I agree that a freely based choice is a better way to think about it. But certainly there are many aspects of altruism that we are simply programmed to engage in, and that is a good thing.
What I am meaning by "authentic" is the idea that these behaviors and feelings have an authentic origin in a God who is love itself. Remember, we are speaking of canine behavior, not freely chosen human behavior.
The point is that I believe that when dogs, or people, behave this way it is because they are connected to universal emotions that come from God, received according to the pattern of being that we were born into. It is like we are radio receivers tuned to different frequencies. The radio waves are uniformly present, but only the proper receiver can make use of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
However, if altruism and empathy are survival traits, that means that they are transmitted from one generation to the next by the DNA of eggs and sperm, and copied into every cell of each new creature. We don't just teach children those values, they're standard features from the manufacturers. How can something be inauthentic when it is written into every cell of our bodies?
I agree that they are survival traits and that they are genetically transmitted. They are partly standard features from the manufacurers and they are also taught. So they are certainly authentic.
My point is that this does not actually explain what they are. But if they are reflections of God's nature, given for the purposes implicit in His love, then we have an explanation. This is what I meant by authentic. The dog's love is something genuine, with a genuine source.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Last week's New Yorker had an article about this: "It ain't necessarily so", about "the hubris of evolutionary psychology." The article complains about the claims made for evolutionary explanations of almost everything, when the truth is that most of these explanations are weak and conjectural.
Evo-psych is a wretched hive of pseudoscience and villainy. I'm not saying that there aren't people doing good work in the field, but there seems to be more crankery and question-begging per capita than in any other scientific field. A lot of it seems to be finding (but not testing) superficial reasons to support pre-existing prejudices. (I'm looking at you, Kanazawa!)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet no one seems to complain about "the vapidity of gravitational explanations" because there's no explicit mention of God. ... Why does evolution get singled out as a special case? The only reason I can think of is human vanity.
Physical phenomena that are observable and measurable are different from evolution, which is a reasonable theory about how living things change over time, based on evidence.
Hold on a second! Doesn't "evidence" usually consist of "phenomena that are observable and measurable"? Given that we can observe and measure evolution in action (e.g. the antibiotic resistance of a strain of S. aureus or whether or not flavobacteria can metabolize polymers), why does this count as something different? Is it just because it's biology instead of physics?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm sure that God is behind gravity, but He doesn't need to be invoked unless we are talking about the purpose of gravity. Evolution is all about purpose, or the lack of purpose. So God comes into the discussion in ways that aren't important when speaking of things such as gravity.
So whereas from an evolutionary standpoint the development of MRSA is a fairly obvious adaptation to a specific selective environment, from the theistic perspective God's purpose is . . . what? Saying "Hey, I invented infectious diseases for a reason you ungrateful apes!"? Or in the case of nylon-metabolizing bacteria "Thou art the chosen strain! You shall feast upon this bounty, unlike your competitor strains, for truly have I blessed thee with superior enzymes."?
My problem with the "purposes" theistic evolutionists often assign to these thing is similar to my earlier complaints about certain factions in the evo-psych community: that they're simply personal prejudices glossed over with an inappropriate veneer of scientific legitimacy.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Physical phenomena that are observable and measurable are different from evolution, which is a reasonable theory about how living things change over time, based on evidence.
Hold on a second! Doesn't "evidence" usually consist of "phenomena that are observable and measurable"? Given that we can observe and measure evolution in action (e.g. the antibiotic resistance of a strain of S. aureus or whether or not flavobacteria can metabolize polymers), why does this count as something different? Is it just because it's biology instead of physics?
Not because it is biology instead of physics but because it deals with the "why" and "how" of a changing system, and not just what exists at present and the laws it is observed to obey.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So whereas from an evolutionary standpoint the development of MRSA is a fairly obvious adaptation to a specific selective environment, from the theistic perspective God's purpose is . . . what? Saying "Hey, I invented infectious diseases for a reason you ungrateful apes!"?
Yes, there's the rub. The reason is the same as the reason behind the existence and development of anything that may be called "evil." If the existence of evil makes the idea of God untenable, which it seems to do for many people, then that is the obvious answer. Not only is God not involved in evolution, He doesn't exist at all.
To me, however, there is a sensible reason why God is real and good, and yet infectious diseases come into being and spread mischief. This reason is that the universe operates according to a complex set of laws, laws that cover both the spiritual and physical realms. Against the backdrop of that stable environment things freely interact in ways that allow for things to happen that are not strictly God's will.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem with the "purposes" theistic evolutionists often assign to these thing is similar to my earlier complaints about certain factions in the evo-psych community: that they're simply personal prejudices glossed over with an inappropriate veneer of scientific legitimacy.
Sure. I understand that. But the alternative is not necessarily the denial of purpose. How is that satisfactory?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To me, however, there is a sensible reason why God is real and good, and yet infectious diseases come into being and spread mischief. This reason is that the universe operates according to a complex set of laws, laws that cover both the spiritual and physical realms. Against the backdrop of that stable environment things freely interact in ways that allow for things to happen that are not strictly God's will.
This seems to contradict your previous position that God is directly guiding evolution and nudging it in the "right" direction. If evolution works according to God's direction then He must have ordained the development of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, since that bacterial strain didn't exist prior to the widespread use of antibiotics. On the other hand, if evolution works without the direct involvement of a deity, then it's no different under your system than gravity or electrodynamics. Which brings us back to why there's a need for "theistic evolution" but not "theistic gravity"?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem with the "purposes" theistic evolutionists often assign to these thing is similar to my earlier complaints about certain factions in the evo-psych community: that they're simply personal prejudices glossed over with an inappropriate veneer of scientific legitimacy.
Sure. I understand that. But the alternative is not necessarily the denial of purpose. How is that satisfactory?
As I've pointed out previously, there's no reason to expect that reality is laid out for your personal satisfaction. You may find the result of a sporting event (to pick a trivial example) to be unsatisfactory, but that doesn't your favored team didn't lose.
Speaking of which, you never said what you thought God's purpose was in directing nylon-eating bacteria to evolve. I'm all a-quiver with anticipation for the explanation.
[ 24. September 2012, 00:08: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Against the backdrop of that stable environment things freely interact in ways that allow for things to happen that are not strictly God's will.
This seems to contradict your previous position that God is directly guiding evolution and nudging it in the "right" direction. If evolution works according to God's direction then He must have ordained the development of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, since that bacterial strain didn't exist prior to the widespread use of antibiotics. On the other hand, if evolution works without the direct involvement of a deity, then it's no different under your system than gravity or electrodynamics. [/QB]
It's not as simple as whether God directs everything that happens. He did not ordain the development of resistent bacterial strains. Rather He ordained the system that made them possible. He permitted their creation to be one of the effects that can come about within that system.
The point of this permission is that it is better than what would be necessary to prevent that from ever happening. Meanwhile, other trends act against the development of these strains and against similar things. Whether things will get better or worse over the long term depends on many factors - not purely the direct will of God.
This doesn't mean that it makes no difference whether God is involved or not. God's will is exerted over the long term, but always in ways consistent with human freedom and the laws of the physical world.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How is that satisfactory?
As I've pointed out previously, there's no reason to expect that reality is laid out for your personal satisfaction. [/QB]
I think that we are within our rights to demand an explanation for existence that makes some kind of sense. If there is an explanation that includes a purpose and point to the whole thing I will go for that every time.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of which, you never said what you thought God's purpose was in directing nylon-eating bacteria to evolve. I'm all a-quiver with anticipation for the explanation.
The same as the purpose for inventing Hitler. Because preventing it would be worse. The implications of preventing all evil are in conflict with the proposition that God is love, because genuine love and autonomy are inseparable.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Oh, I think it is worse than that. God did not ordain a system where bacteria could evolve antibiotic resistance, rather God ordained that a system would exist. Full stop. Big bang had infinite possibilities, and organized itself thereafter by merely being given a start. Nothing further after that. The universe we're in could have become simply a smooth void, with matter - atoms scattered evenly throughout. I suspect the initial idea was only to create the initiation, with everything else worked out by chance after the briefest of interventions at the start. I suspect further, that there could have been an infinite number of big bangs, with only this one, the one we're in, having resulted in an organized universe because otherwise God would have been directing in a manner that showed evidence of God throughout, such that if sentient beings evolved, they would have no choice to believe, and thus no real free will. The dirty choice God made is to all an infinity of possibilities, such that free will was possible, and this extends to everything, including every molecular process and every adaptation.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I suspect the initial idea was only to create the initiation, with everything else worked out by chance after the briefest of interventions at the start.
That's one way to look at it. But if you can have one invisible intervention why can't you have more?
I think that it is best to look at the whole thing from the question "What is the point?"
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I suspect further, that there could have been an infinite number of big bangs, with only this one, the one we're in, having resulted in an organized universe because otherwise God would have been directing in a manner that showed evidence of God throughout, such that if sentient beings evolved, they would have no choice to believe, and thus no real free will.
Yes. At least it needs to seem that way. Actually I think that there is evidence throughout, but designed so that people can believe what they wish.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
[qb] I suspect the initial idea was only to create the initiation, with everything else worked out by chance after the briefest of interventions at the start.
That's one way to look at it. But if you can have one invisible intervention why can't you have more?
Indeed. Hence I suspect total number of interventions, in the sense of "suspend the laws of physics to make it go a particular way" is actually zero.
If God's God he can create a cosmos that does what he wants it to according to the laws he creates it with.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... otherwise God would have been directing in a manner that showed evidence of God throughout, such that if sentient beings evolved, they would have no choice to believe, and thus no real free will.
Funny thing is, St Paul seemed to think that was the universe in which we did live:
quote:
Originally posted by St Paul (Romans 1)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse
Fortunately, my view of Scripture does not require me to assume Paul was always right.
[ 24. September 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] But if you can have one invisible intervention why can't you have more?
Indeed. Hence I suspect total number of interventions, in the sense of "suspend the laws of physics to make it go a particular way" is actually zero.
If God's God he can create a cosmos that does what he wants it to according to the laws he creates it with.
My thought exactly.
Or rather, I believe that God is intimately involved with every aspect of creation. He flows into it moment-to-moment as the very being of existence itself and the source of all life.
However, this proceeds according to the laws that came about from the beginning. There is never any intervention that suspends the laws of physics to make something go in a particular way.
Although I believe that all the biblical miracles literally happened as recorded, I also believe that they took place within the stable framework established from the beginning. If the circumstances could be replicated they would each happen again exactly as described. God rules all things.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Or rather, I believe that God is intimately involved with every aspect of creation. He flows into it moment-to-moment as the very being of existence itself and the source of all life.
I may not be understanding you correctly, but I read Panentheism in this (this is not Pantheism). I don't know that there can be objection within our developing conception of theistic evolution, because there would be nothing to show this is true nor that it is not, thus, effectively neutral insofar as evolution was considered.
quote:
Freddy:
However, this proceeds according to the laws that came about from the beginning. There is never any intervention that suspends the laws of physics to make something go in a particular way.
This seems contradicted by your next paragraph. You seemed to be on track to positing a non-interventionist God and then had to erect a protective fence around the biblical miracles?
Understandable from a Christian perspective. You'd have to throw out the orthodox Jesus story and meaning of it to go totally to the evolutionary story. It does seem to mean that possibly the theistic account cannot abide the purely evolutionary account, and vice versa.
quote:
Freddy:
Although I believe that all the biblical miracles literally happened as recorded, I also believe that they took place within the stable framework established from the beginning. If the circumstances could be replicated they would each happen again exactly as described. God rules all things.
I'm wondering if we might have to go with "Jesus as moral teacher" and dispense with the miraculous to go with Jesus at all. As soon as we get specific about Jesus' life, we're in trouble with the "zero intervention" as discussed by Karl:LB.
Some recent life adventures make me more sympathetic to Karl's view, with me wanting, illogically, to maintain hope and go with Freddy's final paragraph. But I find I must suspend critical judgement and read both evolution and the Christian, theistic account like I would a well written novel, and make judgements on the aesthetics as well as the data and logic.
(Never could abide the pure enlightenment approach, and was grateful to learn of the romantic era which followed. I am so full of hopeful nonsense and sense, and the inherent contradictions, that I am uncertain where one begins and the other ends.)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Or rather, I believe that God is intimately involved with every aspect of creation. He flows into it moment-to-moment as the very being of existence itself and the source of all life.
I may not be understanding you correctly, but I read Panentheism in this (this is not Pantheism). I don't know that there can be objection within our developing conception of theistic evolution, because there would be nothing to show this is true nor that it is not, thus, effectively neutral insofar as evolution was considered.
quote:
Freddy:
However, this proceeds according to the laws that came about from the beginning. There is never any intervention that suspends the laws of physics to make something go in a particular way.
This seems contradicted by your next paragraph. You seemed to be on track to positing a non-interventionist God and then had to erect a protective fence around the biblical miracles?
Understandable from a Christian perspective. You'd have to throw out the orthodox Jesus story and meaning of it to go totally to the evolutionary story. It does seem to mean that possibly the theistic account cannot abide the purely evolutionary account, and vice versa.
quote:
Freddy:
Although I believe that all the biblical miracles literally happened as recorded, I also believe that they took place within the stable framework established from the beginning. If the circumstances could be replicated they would each happen again exactly as described. God rules all things.
I'm wondering if we might have to go with "Jesus as moral teacher" and dispense with the miraculous to go with Jesus at all. As soon as we get specific about Jesus' life, we're in trouble with the "zero intervention" as discussed by Karl:LB.
No we aren't. There are a couple of possibilities here. A lot of it depends upon your view of Jesus' miracles (on which subject I am agnostic, and not in agreement with Freddie)
1. Jesus' life was part and parcel of the contingent but within the working out process of God just like everything else in the universe. this view works better if you don't take the miracles literally.
2. God's non-intervention refers to his "normal" mode of interaction with his physical creation; he's at liberty to work otherwise when interacting with his spiritual creation even if that disrupts the "normal" operation of the physical. This view works better, meseems, if you take the miracles more literally - it seems to be mandated, really, if you're going to assert a literal, physical, BodyWasDeadIsAliveAgainNow resurrection.
quote:
Some recent life adventures make me more sympathetic to Karl's view, with me wanting, illogically, to maintain hope and go with Freddy's final paragraph. But I find I must suspend critical judgement and read both evolution and the Christian, theistic account like I would a well written novel, and make judgements on the aesthetics as well as the data and logic.
(Never could abide the pure enlightenment approach, and was grateful to learn of the romantic era which followed. I am so full of hopeful nonsense and sense, and the inherent contradictions, that I am uncertain where one begins and the other ends.)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Or rather, I believe that God is intimately involved with every aspect of creation. He flows into it moment-to-moment as the very being of existence itself and the source of all life.
I may not be understanding you correctly, but I read Panentheism in this (this is not Pantheism).
I think that God's omnipresence and His animating power are fairly ordinary Christian beliefs. No need to resort to panentheism. Christians have always believed that God is the source of life.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Freddy:
However, this proceeds according to the laws that came about from the beginning. There is never any intervention that suspends the laws of physics to make something go in a particular way.
This seems contradicted by your next paragraph. You seemed to be on track to positing a non-interventionist God and then had to erect a protective fence around the biblical miracles?
That's just because I think that the biblical miracles can be explained within the order that God has created. They are no less miracles. You could also say that God continuously intervenes, and that nothing could run, or exist, without Him.
The key to this idea is the concept of degrees or levels of existence. God is omnipresent, but at a distinctly higher level of existence. So He cannot be perceived in any way. Miracles are nothing more than shifts in these levels, causing lower phenomena to obey higher laws.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It does seem to mean that possibly the theistic account cannot abide the purely evolutionary account, and vice versa.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm wondering if we might have to go with "Jesus as moral teacher" and dispense with the miraculous to go with Jesus at all. As soon as we get specific about Jesus' life, we're in trouble with the "zero intervention" as discussed by Karl:LB.
It does seem that we would be in trouble with "zero intervention" if we get specific about Jesus' life. That is certainly the way the Bible is written.
Another way to look at it is that Jesus is what happens when the conditions are right. The course of human development and human free choices tripped the switch activating the Incarnation. God shows His face.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Some recent life adventures make me more sympathetic to Karl's view, with me wanting, illogically, to maintain hope and go with Freddy's final paragraph. But I find I must suspend critical judgement and read both evolution and the Christian, theistic account like I would a well written novel, and make judgements on the aesthetics as well as the data and logic.
I think that's a good way to go. No need to rush to judgment.
[ 25. September 2012, 11:34: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's just because I think that the biblical miracles can be explained within the order that God has created. They are no less miracles. You could also say that God continuously intervenes, and that nothing could run, or exist, without Him.
The key to this idea is the concept of degrees or levels of existence. God is omnipresent, but at a distinctly higher level of existence. So He cannot be perceived in any way. Miracles are nothing more than shifts in these levels, causing lower phenomena to obey higher laws.
Can you develop this a little further please. Would we know about "shifts in these levels"? Are they detectable if they operate on higher levels? The scientist wanting to remain Christian might suggest miracles are matter of interpretation versus violating physical laws. Again, reading the miracle as a pleasing, metaphorical, illustrative story versus fact.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'll see your multiple levels, and raise you Ockham's Razor.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's just because I think that the biblical miracles can be explained within the order that God has created. They are no less miracles. You could also say that God continuously intervenes, and that nothing could run, or exist, without Him.
This water froze at 32°F. It's a miracle!!!
Doesn't this kind of "everything's a miracle" redefinition of the term rob it of any meaning?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God is omnipresent, but at a distinctly higher level of existence. So He cannot be perceived in any way. Miracles are nothing more than shifts in these levels, causing lower phenomena to obey higher laws.
Can you develop this a little further please. Would we know about "shifts in these levels"? Are they detectable if they operate on higher levels?
I think that most people implicitly assume this concept when they believe that God is with them, can see their heart and feel their pain. Obviously He is not visible or detectable in any manifest way. The only option is that He is present in a way that is intangible and yet somehow real.
My understanding is that angels co-exist with us in a similar way, but on a level below the Divine sphere. So heaven is omnipresent in a way similar to the way that God is omnipresent. Most people understand that time and space do not apply to God, or to angels and heaven, so this simultaneous presence is not hindered by physical realities.
This set-up is, I believe, clearly assumed in the biblical narrative. Angels and God appear and disappear, voices are heard, visions are given, people are "taken up" and see into heaven.
The obvious assumption is that angels, God and other spiritual entities exist in a "place" that is normally invisible, but which can be seen under special circumstances.
This idea is not understood in a sophisticated way, nor is there any clear concept of a "spiritual realm." But some kind of supernatural reality is part-and-parcel of any biblical understanding.
I am saying that biblical miracles are nothing more than shifts between these levels of reality. Circumstances cause people to see something in terms of the spiritual reality that is behind it, rather than the physical reality that is normally manifest.
More dramatically, what happens in the Bible is that circumstances cause the spiritual reality to subsume the physical reality - so that suddenly nature is obeying spiritual laws rather than natural ones. This always happens by means of the symbolic connections that join the worlds together. This makes it possible for a rod to become a serpent, a rock to gush water, frogs to appear, animals to speak, a person to be physically resurrected, and any number of other phenomena.
This kind of thing is normally understood as intervention, but it is really something that happens automatically when the circumstances are right. God is constant. He never changes. The power to make these things happen is always there - they aren't sudden decisions.
The assumption here is that there is a constant interaction between the physical world and the layers of underlying reality behind it, or within it. This also explains how Theistic evolution works, enabling subtle changes to take place in living forms over long periods of time that are apparently due to random variation, but which are actually due to the constant influence of an underlying pattern of existence.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's just because I think that the biblical miracles can be explained within the order that God has created. They are no less miracles. You could also say that God continuously intervenes, and that nothing could run, or exist, without Him.
This water froze at 32°F. It's a miracle!!!
Doesn't this kind of "everything's a miracle" redefinition of the term rob it of any meaning?
Yes it does. Miracles are a normal part of existence if you undertand what they really are.
Mind you, though, I am saying that this means that the biblical miracles really happened exactly as described.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
More dramatically, what happens in the Bible is that circumstances cause the spiritual reality to subsume the physical reality - so that suddenly nature is obeying spiritual laws rather than natural ones. This always happens by means of the symbolic connections that join the worlds together. This makes it possible for a rod to become a serpent, a rock to gush water, frogs to appear, animals to speak, a person to be physically resurrected, and any number of other phenomena.
This kind of thing is normally understood as intervention, but it is really something that happens automatically when the circumstances are right. God is constant. He never changes. The power to make these things happen is always there - they aren't sudden decisions.
By claiming this, aren't you arguing that "miracles" are actually natural aspects of creation, therefore testable? So what would the theoretical perfect observer actually see? How would you codify this "natural" breakdown in what we consider to be the normal laws of nature? And how would you test for it?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
By claiming this, aren't you arguing that "miracles" are actually natural aspects of creation, therefore testable? So what would the theoretical perfect observer actually see? How would you codify this "natural" breakdown in what we consider to be the normal laws of nature? And how would you test for it?
It's not testable because you can't reliably duplicate the spiritual conditions required for it to take place.
However, this is exactly what magic is.
I believe that magic is possible, but it is hard to do and fundamentally wrong. So I guess that magic is, theoretically, testable. The reason that it is not easily testable in reality, though, is that it necessarily involves a kind of fanatical superstitiousness that the very act of "testing" would interfere with. So my understanding is that it only takes place in dark corners of the world where there are people among whom the necessary conditions can be met.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The assumption here is that there is a constant interaction between the physical world and the layers of underlying reality behind it, or within it. This also explains how Theistic evolution works, enabling subtle changes to take place in living forms over long periods of time that are apparently due to random variation, but which are actually due to the constant influence of an underlying pattern of existence.
As Gumby points out, anything with an effect on the physical world can be studied and measured. I'd also like to point out that this supposed "explanation" would seem to apply equally to all other scientific fields. For instance, theistic gravity would posit that objects falling apparently due to having mass within a gravity field are actually due to invisible angels pushing them around. I'm not exactly sure how this assumption makes a difference in our understanding of gravity, but you seem to feel the distinction is important.
I'm also a bit curious as to why you classify nylon-eating bacteria as "evil"? Bacteria living off toxic waste seems more "weird" than "evil" to me, but YMMV. At any rate, the big question was if an apparently natural adaptation like this is really the deliberate action of an external entity with some kind of agenda, what exactly is the revelation we're supposed to take away from the development of a bacteria that can metabolize 6-aminohexanoate?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Come now. If everything is a miracle then we have the panentheism and the elation of simply living, watching the flowers grow and hearing the birds?
I enjoy the normal everyday happy occurrences as much as anyone, but expect that the conventional definition of miracle to apply, as in changing water into wine, take up your bed and walk, struck down on the road and cannot hear nor talk. I'm wanting more than the explainable biological and natural phenomena as miracles to be actually miracles.
There appears to be disconnect between religious miracles and explanation of natural phenomena via evolution I think. They are partly resolvable?
Karl: LB - good one!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Come now. If everything is a miracle then we have the panentheism and the elation of simply living, watching the flowers grow and hearing the birds?
I enjoy the normal everyday happy occurrences as much as anyone, but expect that the conventional definition of miracle to apply, as in changing water into wine, take up your bed and walk, struck down on the road and cannot hear nor talk. I'm wanting more than the explainable biological and natural phenomena as miracles to be actually miracles.
There appears to be disconnect between religious miracles and explanation of natural phenomena via evolution I think. They are partly resolvable?
Karl: LB - good one!
There's a disconnect between religious miracles and science, is more the point. There's no special status for evolution within science, hence my discomfiture with the term "theistic evolution" as if we need to qualify it, whilst not qualifying "theistic gravity", "theistic germ theory" or "theistic fluid dynamics".
Miracles as commonly understood are when things don't go according to natural laws. Whether that happens or not is largely a philosophical question. God could have created miraculously; he appears not to have.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
By claiming this, aren't you arguing that "miracles" are actually natural aspects of creation, therefore testable? So what would the theoretical perfect observer actually see? How would you codify this "natural" breakdown in what we consider to be the normal laws of nature? And how would you test for it?
It's not testable because you can't reliably duplicate the spiritual conditions required for it to take place.
The LHC couldn't reliably create the conditions to detect a Higgs Boson. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have bothered.
You're taking a position that the laws of nature are such that bizarre things which appear entirely contrary to our current understanding can occur spontaneously, with no external influence. That makes it a testable claim, whether you can do it reliably or not.
Of course, you could suppose that the "spiritual conditions" which are necessary for it to work include everyone really, totally believing it's true and no one being sufficiently unholy to record the events because proof is the antithesis of faith. But that sort of special pleading would reduce your claim to nothing more than wordplay.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As Gumby points out, anything with an effect on the physical world can be studied and measured.
Good point. I think it is too subtle to measure, and is accountable as existing within natural laws.
However, I do tend to think that the effect is that development occurs over periods of time that are less than we would expect by random variation. I've heard this before and don't know whether it is right or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd also like to point out that this supposed "explanation" would seem to apply equally to all other scientific fields. For instance, theistic gravity would posit that objects falling apparently due to having mass within a gravity field are actually due to invisible angels pushing them around.
I like that. Things fall because the angels push them down. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
But I don't think that it applies in the same way to gravity or similar observable, measurable effects in the physical world because they are about the "what" not necessarily the "how" and the "why" that evolution deals with.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also a bit curious as to why you classify nylon-eating bacteria as "evil"? Bacteria living off toxic waste seems more "weird" than "evil" to me, but YMMV.
Sorry. The context made me think that you thought they were somehow bad. We all know how precious nylon is...
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, the big question was if an apparently natural adaptation like this is really the deliberate action of an external entity with some kind of agenda, what exactly is the revelation we're supposed to take away from the development of a bacteria that can metabolize 6-aminohexanoate?
Not the deliberate action of an external entity. Rather, part of a long term process set in motion and sustained by an external entity for reasons that spring from God's identity as love itself.
So the "revelation" is an appreciation of the way that everything that happens is consistent with God's infinite love. The universe is a single organized system, with coherent purpose and infinite wisdom behind every aspect. It is supposed to give you a warm hopeful feeling about the present and the future, and cause you to be content with your life, loving God and your fellow man.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I enjoy the normal everyday happy occurrences as much as anyone, but expect that the conventional definition of miracle to apply, as in changing water into wine, take up your bed and walk, struck down on the road and cannot hear nor talk. I'm wanting more than the explainable biological and natural phenomena as miracles to be actually miracles.
That makes sense. To me, though, having an idea of how they work makes them all the more real and interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There appears to be disconnect between religious miracles and explanation of natural phenomena via evolution I think. They are partly resolvable?
Sorry about that. I was making the connection to illustrate the idea that God continually intervenes (or never intervenes depending on how you want to put it) according to fixed laws.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You're taking a position that the laws of nature are such that bizarre things which appear entirely contrary to our current understanding can occur spontaneously, with no external influence. That makes it a testable claim, whether you can do it reliably or not.
I'm saying that it can happen but that I have my doubts about whether anyone can really do it. So, yes, it is testable, but I would predict that most or all of the tests would probably fail. I don't think it is worth trying.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Of course, you could suppose that the "spiritual conditions" which are necessary for it to work include everyone really, totally believing it's true and no one being sufficiently unholy to record the events because proof is the antithesis of faith. But that sort of special pleading would reduce your claim to nothing more than wordplay.
That's probably why the tests would fail.
My experience in Africa, where belief in magic is common, is that these kinds of claims are bound up with just the kind of special pleading you mention.
So all you end up with is unverified stories. This is what the Bible is full of. I had Peace Corps friends who were scared witless by displays of what they believed was magic. I remember one especially who observed spontaneous fires being magically caused by an old man. I didn't believe it, but you never know.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I think I'm mostly with Karl on this. God doesn't seem to choose to violate physical laws, nor to intervene in other ways. Or at the very least, within anyone's observation. Perhaps God plays miracles with the physical laws in uninhabitted galaxies or parallel universes, or on planets where un-self aware single celled organisms live. But I doubt it. If there's one characteristic of God, it is consistency and honesty (okay that's two).
I've felt the God stories we have are merely the beginning, or maybe only the kindergarten or play-school before that. We can barely count and spell right now, we constantly soil our pants as a species, and we bomb other countries and people in our tantrums. And then we say we haven't done it, and that God is good with what we do, particularly the environmental destruction and the wars. A far humbler story of humanity and our importance to God seems in order, and I think we need to construct it via full incorporation of science.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As Gumby points out, anything with an effect on the physical world can be studied and measured.
Good point. I think it is too subtle to measure, and is accountable as existing within natural laws.
However, I do tend to think that the effect is that development occurs over periods of time that are less than we would expect by random variation. I've heard this before and don't know whether it is right or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd also like to point out that this supposed "explanation" would seem to apply equally to all other scientific fields. For instance, theistic gravity would posit that objects falling apparently due to having mass within a gravity field are actually due to invisible angels pushing them around.
I like that. Things fall because the angels push them down.
But I don't think that it applies in the same way to gravity or similar observable, measurable effects in the physical world because they are about the "what" not necessarily the "how" and the "why" that evolution deals with.
This kind of runs into a bit of a definitional problem. If God is accelerating the mutation rate everywhere and in all cases, how is that different than claiming that gravity is 50% stronger (or weaker) than "we would expect", but is forced to its current strength by the continuous and universal action of God? These are measured values derived from observations so what "we would expect" would be consistent with this ongoing God-influence you posit, unless we were able to reliably also observe how things behave in a God-free zone.
On the other hand, you make this contradictory argument:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
By claiming this, aren't you arguing that "miracles" are actually natural aspects of creation, therefore testable? So what would the theoretical perfect observer actually see? How would you codify this "natural" breakdown in what we consider to be the normal laws of nature? And how would you test for it?
It's not testable because you can't reliably duplicate the spiritual conditions required for it to take place.
However, this is exactly what magic is.
I believe that magic is possible, but it is hard to do and fundamentally wrong. So I guess that magic is, theoretically, testable. The reason that it is not easily testable in reality, though, is that it necessarily involves a kind of fanatical superstitiousness that the very act of "testing" would interfere with. So my understanding is that it only takes place in dark corners of the world where there are people among whom the necessary conditions can be met.
So God is everywhere and influences everything except where there's someone who says "pshaw!"? This in itself seems to be a testable hypothesis. If God is indeed increasing mutation rates, as you suggest, then we should expect to see higher rates of mutation in areas with less human skepticism, and rates even higher than that where humans are entirely absent. We should probably also test to make sure that gravity works the same in those places too, I guess.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
although everything exists in response to Gods continuing "let there be ...", it also exists in a manner that is free of the direct will of him who sustains it. That freedom covers biological evolution,
The 'cake' and the 'eating' comes to mind.
Just a question Alan; How can an evolutionis believe in miracles?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Why do you ask?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Just a question Alan; How can an evolutionis [sic] believe in miracles?
This gets into the question of what gets considered a "miracle". But of course evolution is not a special case. It makes just as much sense to ask how someone can believe in fluid dynamics and still believe in the parting of the Red Sea.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Croesos, bad example - there's been some research to show that the parting of the Red Sea could have happened under certain wind and tide conditions.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos, bad example - there's been some research to show that the parting of the Red Sea could have happened under certain wind and tide conditions.
A very deliberate example. I'm well aware that for years people have been saying "well, if the winds and the tides were just exactly right then a certain specific stretch of the Gulf of Suez (or the Nile delta) might be traversible on foot". (If foot travel is still possible in the wind conditions stipulated.) Of course this kind of explanation is only necessary if you're outright rejecting an "according to Hoyle" miracle.
From the Parable of Vinncent and Jules:
quote:
Jules: Man, I just been sitting here thinking.
Vincent: About what?
Jules: About the miracle we just witnessed.
Vincent: The miracle you witnessed. I witnessed a freak occurrence.
Jules: What is a miracle, Vincent?
Vincent: An act of God.
Jules: And what's an act of God?
Vincent: When God makes the impossible possible. But this morning, I don't think, qualifies.
Jules: Hey, Vincent, don't you see? That shit don't matter. You're judging this shit the wrong way. I mean, it could be that God stopped the bullets, or He changed Coke to Pepsi, He found my fucking car keys. You don't judge shit like this based on merit. Now, whether or not what we experienced was an "according to Hoyle" miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I wandered off to find more about according to Hoyle miracles because it's a phrase I don't recognise. All very fascinating and you're using it in a specific way that certainly isn't familiar to me in the UK. What is your point without the allusions?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
However, I do tend to think that the effect is that development occurs over periods of time that are less than we would expect by random variation. I've heard this before and don't know whether it is right or not.
If God is accelerating the mutation rate everywhere and in all cases, how is that different than claiming that gravity is 50% stronger (or weaker) than "we would expect", but is forced to its current strength by the continuous and universal action of God?
I'm not saying that God is accelerating the mutation rate. I'm guessing that it is just about lucky developments. I'm not aware of a lot of evidence for transitional forms in measured increments. It seems as though most animals and plants retain their basic forms over remarkably long periods of time.
But again, I don't know much about this, so I am not making any claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
By claiming this, aren't you arguing that "miracles" are actually natural aspects of creation, therefore testable?
It's not testable because you can't reliably duplicate the spiritual conditions required for it to take place.
However, this is exactly what magic is.
I believe that magic is possible, but it is hard to do and fundamentally wrong. So I guess that magic is, theoretically, testable. The reason that it is not easily testable in reality, though, is that it necessarily involves a kind of fanatical superstitiousness that the very act of "testing" would interfere with.
So God is everywhere and influences everything except where there's someone who says "pshaw!"? This in itself seems to be a testable hypothesis.
I was distinguishing what God does from magic. What God does happens reliably whether anyone says "pshaw" or not. But it is too subtle to observe or measure.
Magic, on the other hand, should theoretically be testable. But it is so difficult to do - requiring the creation of a completely false, but sincerely believed in spiritual environment -that it can only happen in places where that is possible.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I wandered off to find more about according to Hoyle miracles because it's a phrase I don't recognise. All very fascinating and you're using it in a specific way that certainly isn't familiar to me in the UK. What is your point without the allusions?
My point is simply my frustration with what I've referred to in the past as "faint-hearted theism", which is the proposition that an all-powerful being manipulates the world in a way completely indistinguishable from the laws of nature. This is akin to claiming that you've invented a pill that will cure cancer, and then issuing the proviso that it only works in conjunction with standard chemotherapy, and that chemotherapy without the cancer-curing pill seems to work just as well as with it. If you're going to claim some sub-, super-, or un-natural entity is manipulating the universe in some way, have the courage of your convictions and say they can perform sub-, super-, or un-natural feats!
In other words it's a spineless attempt to have it both ways while saying nothing of any real value. For example:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not saying that God is accelerating the mutation rate. I'm guessing that it is just about lucky developments. I'm not aware of a lot of evidence for transitional forms in measured increments. It seems as though most animals and plants retain their basic forms over remarkably long periods of time.
But again, I don't know much about this, so I am not making any claims.
You'll notice the way he's trying to make claims (like "remarkable" phylogenetic stability) while denying that he's making claims. Again, if Freddy's earlier assertion about God always twiddling with the genes of all organisms is correct, how do we measure what's "remarkable"? Wouldn't our only benchmark be creatures which God is constantly adjusting, which we'd classify as having "ordinary" or "typical" rates of change? We're back at assertions like gravity is "really" twice as strong as we think it is, but it's held in check by God for our comfort and convenience. In short, things that are as unprovable and irrelevant as my cancer pill example.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This water froze at 32°F. It's a miracle!!!
Doesn't this kind of "everything's a miracle" redefinition of the term rob it of any meaning?
Well, given the truly remarkable properties of water when it freezes...
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My point is simply my frustration with what I've referred to in the past as "faint-hearted theism", which is the proposition that an all-powerful being manipulates the world in a way completely indistinguishable from the laws of nature. This is akin to claiming that you've invented a pill that will cure cancer, and then issuing the proviso that it only works in conjunction with standard chemotherapy, and that chemotherapy without the cancer-curing pill seems to work just as well as with it. If you're going to claim some sub-, super-, or un-natural entity is manipulating the universe in some way, have the courage of your convictions and say they can perform sub-, super-, or un-natural feats!
I agree that your analogy applies to claims made by some theists trying to connect their theism to evolutionary science. But I also think that some claims made by atheists to advance the idea that evolution doesn't "need God," such as the claim that human compassion can be completely explained as an evolutionary adaptation, aren't any more convincing. Someone may eventually find a way to test that hypothesis and give it credibility, but meanwhile it seems to me to be akin to pre-Newton explanations for why things in motion tend to slow down and eventually stop: philosophically appealing but lacking a scientific basis.
Personally, I would replace your analogy about a cure for cancer with an analogy about studying the behavior of a software program. Someone could study it until they are satisfied that they understand it well enough that they need no reference to any entity "outside" the program to fully explain its behavior, and fail to realize that if I change the clock rate on the hardware, that program would then be operating under a slightly different set of rules and would no longer exhibit exactly the same behavior that was previously observed.
I have no problem with searching for a truly satisfactory account of Theistic Evolution because normal, scientific evolution works just fine for me as is. My belief in God is already reconciled with evolution (along the lines Freddy is describing) and I don't expect to convince anyone else that evolution somehow only works in combination with the existence of God. It's more that I think all the elements necessary for evolution (e.g. random genetic variation and selection pressure) wouldn't even exist without God, not that I think God somehow provides a theistic alternative to evolution (or even a theistic version of evolution). To me, evolution is one manifestation of how God uses orderly processes to achieve his purposes.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
the proposition that an all-powerful being manipulates the world in a way completely indistinguishable from the laws of nature.
I guess I understand your frustration with that. But, along with WHyatt, I'm not trying to describe anything that looks different than what science describes. I'm just saying that a non-theistic view doesn't explain it in a way that is satisfactory to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You'll notice the way he's trying to make claims (like "remarkable" phylogenetic stability) while denying that he's making claims. Again, if Freddy's earlier assertion about God always twiddling with the genes of all organisms is correct, how do we measure what's "remarkable"?
Again, I deny that I'm making claims about this. I don't know if the observed phylogenetic stability is remarkable or not.
As for God always twiddling with the genes, I see it as something that is constant and stable, a consistent influence. I'm not imagining that God randomly decides "Let's make bees!"
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
although everything exists in response to Gods continuing "let there be ...", it also exists in a manner that is free of the direct will of him who sustains it. That freedom covers biological evolution,
The 'cake' and the 'eating' comes to mind.
Just a question Alan; How can an evolutionis believe in miracles?
I simply don't see any problem with believing in miracles. Here's my thinking in simplified ways:
- God continually calls everything into existance, upholding all things. What we perceive as the 'laws of nature' are simply how God normally works. I take Croesos' point about "faint-hearted theism". It is a philosophical position. It makes no difference to how I do science, although it does impact why I do science to an extent.
- A miracle is then simply God doing things in a special way, God changing how he upholds all things (or, how he upholds a very small fraction of all things). Of course, one could argue that the very fact that God upholds things with consistency is itself special, and all existance is a miracle ... but let's just stick to things that are unusual
- The class of 'miracle' covers a wide range of events - from the 'merely fortuitous' (like meeting an old friend unexpectedly on the bus) to something that really is a suspension of the laws of physics (eg: the sun standing still overhead for an extended period). Many miracles follow from an entirely explicable chain of cause and effect, each link on the chain being nothing remarkable, but the overall effect being special - the delays that meant you missed your bus and got on a later one, and the events that bring your old friend into town and getting onto the same bus.
- There seems to be a correlation between frequency of miracles and the extent to which they require a suspension of the normal chain of cause and effect - meeting people, hearing just what you need in the sermon on Sunday etc happens very regularly, and can't (even in principal) be subject to scientific explanation; unusual events that science might be able to assign a low probability too happen more rarely (eg: spontaneous healing of disease); very rare are the miracles that would result in a change in measurable quantities by a scientist present with suitable equipment, and so far no such miracles have ever been observed with a suitably equipped scientist in attendance observing.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
OK, Croesos, all is revealed. It sounds as if you're starting from the assumption that you can "evangelise" all these Christians (as you seem to be seeing Christians on the Ship) into atheism by convincing us that evolution proves that God doesn't exist.
Most Christians I know* accept evolution and don't see the need to have a totally worked out theology of how that fits together with God, although panentheism is being described quite often when that group are asked to explain their beliefs. Evolution isn't a deal breaker in their faith. The lack of a feeling of the presence of God might well be. It's faith. It often arises from experience of God working in one's life - which is anecdotal and experiential and unprovable to people who are convinced of a lack of God.
* I am reading this thread because I do know a few people who are starting from a belief in creationism.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
But if we're saying that God is intimately involved in the minutia of mutation, then doesn't that lead to greater questions. If he is so bothered about getting the spirals of a snailshell just right, why is he not a bit more bothered about other stuff which seems more important?
Moreover, it seems a bit bizarre to argue that this good-and-powerful God you all claim to believe in should chose the most cack-handed, time consuming and wasteful possible way to populate the planet with organisms.
A far simpler explanation seems to me to be of a deity who put the pieces in place and let them run (possibly very occasionally acting to nudge things in a particular direction).
As to miracles, I think by far the majority of things described above are not miracles but unlikely happenings. As far as I am concerned, miracles are not just unlikely things to happen, but impossible things that cannot happen.
A car to a 15 century peasant looks like a miracle, but is just highly unlikely (given the materials, knowledge and skill, it would have been possible to make it in the 15 century). Creating fish and bread from nothing is not.
So then you're left with the options that the Jesus who did these things was somehow a visitor from the future with actions that were misunderstood, a conjurer, or misunderstood and misquoted.
Miracles by their nature are not part of the order of things and therefore cannot happen without disrupting the nature of things.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
although everything exists in response to Gods continuing "let there be ...", it also exists in a manner that is free of the direct will of him who sustains it. That freedom covers biological evolution,
The 'cake' and the 'eating' comes to mind.
Just a question Alan; How can an evolutionis believe in miracles?
Perhaps you need to tell us why you think there's any kind of problem with miracles in a universe where biodiversity is explained by change in allele frequency over time
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
the long ranger - I don't think most Christians are saying that God is intimately involved in allele mutations - I don't think they've got the knowledge of evolution to think that.
But I'm not the best person to be arguing this one, it's not where I am.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
the long ranger - I don't think most Christians are saying that God is intimately involved in allele mutations - I don't think they've got the knowledge of evolution to think that.
Not in any way that he's not involved in the weather, ocean currents or stellar formation.
I really don't quite get why evolution has to be considered as such a special case.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
the long ranger - I don't think most Christians are saying that God is intimately involved in allele mutations - I don't think they've got the knowledge of evolution to think that.
Not in any way that he's not involved in the weather, ocean currents or stellar formation.
That's right. It's all part of the same system.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
I'm sorry, too many double negatives in recent posts - are you saying he is involved in mutations or he isn't?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm sorry, too many double negatives in recent posts - are you saying he is involved in mutations or he isn't?
Define "involved". If you mean that if you created a God-proof bell jar (yes, I know, but this is a thought experiment) and put some DNA in it, and some in an ordinary bell jar, then mutations could occur in the latter but not in the former because God couldn't poke his finger in but just had to let things be, then no.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm sorry, too many double negatives in recent posts - are you saying he is involved in mutations or he isn't?
Like Karl, I'd probably want to know exactly what is meant by "involved". But, for most reasonable definitions of 'involved', I would say that God is involved and God isn't involved.
God is involved because he upholds all things, constantly calling them into existance. If we could have a "God-proof bell-jar" then the DNA, and everything else including the very fabric of space-time and the physical laws that operate here, inside the jar would simply cease to exist as the ongoing "let there be .." from God would not be able to penetrate the jar to cause things to exist.
God is not involved because the actual mutations that might occur do not do so as the will of God. If that were so then human free-will would be an illusion, we would not be responsible for our sins, God would be directly responsible for the suffering caused by genetic mutations and all other natural disasters.
Yes, it's a contradiction. A mystery. But, I don't think Christians need to be alarmed or worried by the contradiction. If we can handle a God who is One and Three, a saviour who is fully God and fully Human, a ritual meal where we eat a chunk of bread and eat the Flesh of Christ, and other contradictions then one more contradiction about the way God upholds all things shouldn't worry us.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
I see it the way Alan does, but I don't see any contradiction. The laws of nature proceed in the order that God gave them, including the laws that permit real autonomy, allowing things to happen that are not specifically God's will.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
OK, Croesos, all is revealed. It sounds as if you're starting from the assumption that you can "evangelise" all these Christians (as you seem to be seeing Christians on the Ship) into atheism by convincing us that evolution proves that God doesn't exist.
Not at all. I'm trying to evangelize a very particular subset of Christians into science. I'm trying to convince them that it works just fine completely independent of the magic spirits they feel the need to postulate.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
God is involved because he upholds all things, constantly calling them into existance. If we could have a "God-proof bell-jar" then the DNA, and everything else including the very fabric of space-time and the physical laws that operate here, inside the jar would simply cease to exist as the ongoing "let there be .." from God would not be able to penetrate the jar to cause things to exist.
I have been thinking about this and I'm not sure it really means anything at all. You seem to be discounting the possibility of a creator who made a complex clockwork machine, wound it up and stood back to watch it work. Indeed, from inside the machine I cannot see how you can possibly tell that he is 'constantly calling things into existence', and I finally think your subtle point of him being both involved and uninvolved is essentially nonsense.
If there is a God, either he is intimately involved in every natural process (which appears to be along the thought-lines of Chesterton - to the extent that he appeared to believe that flowers opening every morning were responding to the commandment of God) or he stood back and allows things to happen. I can't see how you can possibly believe in any other option.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Put simply, I'm a theist not a deist. I believe in a God who is involved in the world, rather than one who stands back and simply observes. I find deism to be deeply unsatisfactory, mainly because the God portrayed in Scripture is so very un-deist; he gets too involved in the world. At it's extreme deism would deny the incarnation, which is the ultimate expression of God getting down and dirty to act in the world.
As I've said it's a philosophical position. There is no practical difference in how things normally work (ie: let's put the question of miracles to one side for the moment) between atheism, theism and deism. Whether God lit the blue touch paper and retired to let the universe run by the laws he created, whether he's constantly upholding all creation in accordance with his faithful will, or there is no God makes no difference to the orbit of planets, the rate of decay of radionuclides or the evolution of biological organisms. I have different criteria by which to judge between those options, and theism wins for me.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Yes, but if you are a theist you must then believe he is involved in every single natural process. I don't understand your assertion that he can both be involved and not involved. I can't see how that can possibly be an option which is left open to you.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I find it's the only option left open for me.
I believe the Bible clearly describes a God who upholds all things, a God who speaks creation into being (there are good arguments IMO to say that in the imagery of Genesis 1 we are in 'days' 1-6 with God still calling creation into being, and awaiting the sabbath day when God will stop speaking at which a new heaven and earth that somehow don't depend on God to call them into being will be perfected). The God who walks in the garden, who called Abraham and formed his children into a nation to be a light to the Gentiles, who becomes Incarnate to bring people to himself, a God who's Spirit indwells believers.
Yet, I cannot believe in a God who consciously wills all things to be as they are. A God who denies free will can not be a God who calls people to repentance (without free will we have nothing to repent of, and no ability to repent even if we needed to). A God who consciously causes genes to mutate bringing cancer and genetic disease, who wills tectonic plates to grind together inundating vast areas in tsunami is a monster.
Therefore, my only choice is to hold onto the paradox. God calls and upholds all things, but not all things are caused by God.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Therefore, my only choice is to hold onto the paradox. God calls and upholds all things, but not all things are caused by God.
I see it the same way, except that I don't see it as a paradox. Rather, it is a set of hierarchical values.
This hierarchy means that it is simply more important for the created thing to autonomous than it is for it to do everything right. So things happen that are contrary to God's will, and yet the long term goal is still in sight. God allows wars to happen, even though the long term goal is peace, so that if peace comes it will be freely chosen peace.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Yes, but if you are a theist you must then believe he is involved in every single natural process. I don't understand your assertion that he can both be involved and not involved. I can't see how that can possibly be an option which is left open to you.
I think hierarchical values is the easy answer to this question. God is involved with every single thing that ever happens, but He allows wrong things to happen for the sake of larger good things. This doesn't mean that we can guess what good thing might be so important that mass exterminations should be allowed. Rather, the good thing is that people need to be autonomous, and will never be able to voluntarilly reform unless they are.
Part of this is that everything that happens needs to happen within the laws that govern creation, both spiritually and naturally. So that gravity is allowed to do what it does, even though it is responsible for much pain in the world. Still, this is better than an inconstant gravity that was suspended whenever it looked like someone was about to fall.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
... I think that we are within our rights to demand an explanation for existence that makes some kind of sense. ...
Srsly?
I invite you to look at this picture and demand away. Or this one. We want an explanation. It's not evident to me that the universe owes us one.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This hierarchy means that it is simply more important for the created thing to [be?] autonomous than it is for it to do everything right.
I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed about what "autonomy" means for a bacterial strain or a slime mold colony. Are you positing that any genetic mutations that occur in such organisms are acts of will?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Part of this is that everything that happens needs to happen within the laws that govern creation, both spiritually and naturally. So that gravity is allowed to do what it does, even though it is responsible for much pain in the world.
So rocks also have "autonomy"? How does that work?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
... I think that we are within our rights to demand an explanation for existence that makes some kind of sense. ...
Srsly?
Not at all. We're obviously in no position to demand anything.
I just mean that it is reasonable to want one, and to believe that one exists.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This hierarchy means that it is simply more important for the created thing to [be?] autonomous than it is for it to do everything right.
I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed about what "autonomy" means for a bacterial strain or a slime mold colony. Are you positing that any genetic mutations that occur in such organisms are acts of will?
They are not acts of will. By "autonomy" in these kinds of thing I mean that they proceed according to fixed laws, not always according to the will of the creator.
So gravity and weather can cause harm, but they are not malevolent forces. They simply operate according to fixed laws, regardless of what might be objectively "good" for any particular individual in any particular situation.
This is the "autonomy" that they have. But "true autonomy" can only be attributed to sentient beings.
Posted by Goar (# 3939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... Clearly we cannot claim that the inference of unobserved realities is consistent with the scientific method when it suits our philosophy and deny the same privilege to conclusions, which happen to be ideologically unacceptable. That is just plain dishonesty. ...
When science makes inferences or hypotheses about "unobserved realities", they are still consistent with natural phenomena and laws that we can observe directly. We can send signals using various electromagnetic wavelengths, so it's a reasonable inference that alien life forms could do the same. The existence of Pluto was predicted because it explained orbital aberrations of observed planets. Proposing a intelligent designer is in no way equivalent to proposing another planet.
Why isn't it similar? If we regularly see that order and energy are infused into systems from sources outside those systems, then why wouldn't we propose a Great Infuser of energy and order from outside the universe? - The Great Infuser in whom we live and breathe and have our being?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed about what "autonomy" means for a bacterial strain or a slime mold colony. Are you positing that any genetic mutations that occur in such organisms are acts of will?
They are not acts of will. By "autonomy" in these kinds of thing I mean that they proceed according to fixed laws, not always according to the will of the creator.
<snip>
This is the "autonomy" that they have. But "true autonomy" can only be attributed to sentient beings.
So the fixed laws of the universe aren't "the will of the creator"? Interesting. What's also interesting is that you can use the word "autonomy" to mean both "rigidly following a set of pre-defined rules" (for everything except humans) and "not rigidly following a set of pre-defined rules" (for humans). This is an obvious contradiction.
Another question that comes to mind is if "true autonomy" only applies to sentient beings, as you assert, and "it is simply more important for the created thing to [be] autonomous than it is for it to do everything right", does that mean that anything without sentience (i.e. most of the universe) wasn't "created"?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
Why isn't it similar? If we regularly see that order and energy are infused into systems from sources outside those systems, then why wouldn't we propose a Great Infuser of energy and order from outside the universe? - The Great Infuser in whom we live and breathe and have our being?
Does your Great Infuser follow the laws of thermodynamics? In other words, When GI infuses order and energy into a system does GI lose order and energy? Because that is what we regularly see.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the fixed laws of the universe aren't "the will of the creator"? Interesting. What's also interesting is that you can use the word "autonomy" to mean both "rigidly following a set of pre-defined rules" (for everything except humans) and "not rigidly following a set of pre-defined rules" (for humans). This is an obvious contradiction.
Not a contradiction at all.
Yes, the fixed laws of the universe are the will of the Creator. But their effects may not be. This is possible because there is a hierarchy of value here, as most people experience in their own lives. It would be nice if tripping and falling weren't possible, but all in all gravity is probably fine for most people.
It is not a contradiction to define autonomy in both of those ways because the autonomy is in relation to the will of the Creator. Both the fixed laws of nature and human free will fulfill that role.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Another question that comes to mind is if "true autonomy" only applies to sentient beings, as you assert, and "it is simply more important for the created thing to [be] autonomous than it is for it to do everything right", does that mean that anything without sentience (i.e. most of the universe) wasn't "created"?
No. Good question though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Yes, but if you are a theist you must then believe he is involved in every single natural process.
What, you mean like a CEO is involved in every single process in his or her company?
Posted by Goar (# 3939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
Why isn't it similar? If we regularly see that order and energy are infused into systems from sources outside those systems, then why wouldn't we propose a Great Infuser of energy and order from outside the universe? - The Great Infuser in whom we live and breathe and have our being?
Does your Great Infuser follow the laws of thermodynamics? In other words, When GI infuses order and energy into a system does GI lose order and energy? Because that is what we regularly see.
Fair enough.
But that seems to leave me choosing one of two great mysteries: a universe that sustains or at least initiated itself or a universe that is sustained or was initiated by a GI.
Also, the concept that the GI has in some way emptied Himself for the life of the world is not entirely foreign to Christianity.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
Why isn't it similar? If we regularly see that order and energy are infused into systems from sources outside those systems, then why wouldn't we propose a Great Infuser of energy and order from outside the universe? - The Great Infuser in whom we live and breathe and have our being?
Does your Great Infuser follow the laws of thermodynamics? In other words, When GI infuses order and energy into a system does GI lose order and energy? Because that is what we regularly see.
Fair enough.
But that seems to leave me choosing one of two great mysteries: a universe that sustains or at least initiated itself or a universe that is sustained or was initiated by a GI.
Also, the concept that the GI has in some way emptied Himself for the life of the world is not entirely foreign to Christianity.
Your GI just puts the problem back a stage - where (without special pleading) did the GI's order and energy come from?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
It seems to me there is a false distinction being suggested in that a creator could somehow meddle with the clockwork machine in operation and not affect every other part of it. Indeed, by meddling at any one point he must by necessity have an effect on every other part.
By moving one electron, he has moved the whole universe. And we're not saying he has only moved one electron but substantial direct impacts on the systems. This is also why God cannot create miracles without also holding and commanding everything in its order at any given movement - because each miracle would require a corresponding and correcting action elsewhere.
Creating bread and fish from nothing would introduce extra energy into the system. How can this not have an impact on everything else?
Hence I believe if you're saying that evolution is the mechanism of an involved God in reality, then I think you have to assume that every process is directed and that he takes responsibility for it all. And then I can't see that you have any option other than believing he is a bastard.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It seems to me there is a false distinction being suggested in that a creator could somehow meddle with the clockwork machine in operation and not affect every other part of it. Indeed, by meddling at any one point he must by necessity have an effect on every other part.
Of course we are already assuming an omnipresent Creator, so there is no part of it where He is not already present. But maybe that makes no difference.
The good question here, though, is how energy, of "meddling", makes the bridge from God's realm into the physical realm. Clearly He is not visible or tangible. Does He add matter to the universe? I would say not. His influence works differently than that.
The question is how spiritual reality affects physical reality. Rather than write a long explanation let me just say that the "meddling" is not occasional and selective, but proceeds constantly according to the rules of existence that God created. So it's not as if any action of God produces some kind of disequilibrium that must be accounted for. Rather, the sustained interaction maintains the equilibrium of the universe.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Hence I believe if you're saying that evolution is the mechanism of an involved God in reality, then I think you have to assume that every process is directed and that he takes responsibility for it all.
Yes, God directs all things. That does not mean, however, that He is responsible for evil.
The reason is that He makes it possible for people to think and act autonomously, and therefore not necessarily in harmony with His will. It is one thing to act according to God's will. It is another thing for Him to permit or allow something to happen for the sake of a larger goal.
But it is also true that He accounts for everything that happens, because as you point out every small thing affects the entire system.
This accounting is what is called Divine Providence, and orchestrates everything that happens. It especially provides that everything that happens, no matter how contrary to God's will it is, is able to serve some long term good purpose. If that isn't possible, then He prevents it from happening.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And then I can't see that you have any option other than believing he is a bastard.
Only if you don't understand Him and how He works. He is actually love itself, and He will not fail to bring that same love into the lives of humanity as a whole in the long term, and into every individual who wants it at any point along the way. This is the point and purpose of the whole shebang.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It seems to me there is a false distinction being suggested in that a creator could somehow meddle with the clockwork machine in operation and not affect every other part of it. Indeed, by meddling at any one point he must by necessity have an effect on every other part.
By moving one electron, he has moved the whole universe. And we're not saying he has only moved one electron but substantial direct impacts on the systems. This is also why God cannot create miracles without also holding and commanding everything in its order at any given movement - because each miracle would require a corresponding and correcting action elsewhere.
Creating bread and fish from nothing would introduce extra energy into the system. How can this not have an impact on everything else?
Hence I believe if you're saying that evolution is the mechanism of an involved God in reality, then I think you have to assume that every process is directed and that he takes responsibility for it all. And then I can't see that you have any option other than believing he is a bastard.
And again I want to ask: do you think a CEO is a bastard if his company sometimes does something bad?
It pretty much seems to be the reasoning you're using. And indeed, some people DO tend to regard everything that happens in a company (or in a government or in a government department) as something to be sheeted home to the person in charge as a personal action. But I've never really understood that form of reasoning.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again I want to ask: do you think a CEO is a bastard if his company sometimes does something bad?
Yes I do.
But that is not even slightly analogous to the argument made here. We are saying here is a God who knows and cares about the whorls in the shell of a snail species (and frankly it makes no odds to me if he directly influenced the many evolutionary mutations necessary or got a minion to do it) but has no time to do a whole heap of other things.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again I want to ask: do you think a CEO is a bastard if his company sometimes does something bad?
Yes I do.
I agree with long ranger here. Especially considering that this is an infinitely intelligent and powerful CEO.
We might not be comfortable with a CEO who said that he allowed his company to make a mistake that caused an enormous oil spill because he knew that the long term effects would be good. I'm sure we would get rid of him right away.
Unless He was God. I am confident that no matter how many terrible things happen in the world that God is still in charge and that it would not actually have been beneficial for Him to reach miraculously into the world and stop them all. You would think it would be, but you have to consider what you would have done in His place.
I, for example, would have stopped WWII. This means, of course, that I would have had to stop the hateful situations that led up to it. Ultimately I would have prevented the European peoples from ever having developed their mean colonialist temperaments, or from migrating around Europe and pushing out the original inhabitants. Then everyone would be happy.
Posted by Goar (# 3939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
Fair enough.
But that seems to leave me choosing one of two great mysteries: a universe that sustains or at least initiated itself or a universe that is sustained or was initiated by a GI.
Also, the concept that the GI has in some way emptied Himself for the life of the world is not entirely foreign to Christianity.
Your GI just puts the problem back a stage - where (without special pleading) did the GI's order and energy come from?
Sorry, I wasn't clear Karl. I am fully aware of that. Let me expand a bit.
My list of options seems to be:
1) an self-infused universe or
2) a self-infused GI that infuses the Universe or
3) a mysteriously-infused GI (a GI that is itself the recipient of infusion from the GGI) ad infinitum.
On a relative likelihood scale it would appear that in fact, the problem, or rather solution, does lie back a stage, because the evidence we have on this stage indicates that 1) is not likely. On this stage systems get infused with energy from outside. And when I refer to this stage I must admit that I am referring to the world I experience day in and day out.
Granted I have never gone anywhere near any dead horse since Jan 2003, so if there is some remedial thread out there that addresses this question, I would be happy to be sent off to take a look at it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Why is 2 any more likely than 1, given that both are self-infused entities?
1 being unlikely, therefore 2 is the Prosecutor's Fallacy. If 1 and 2 are both unlikely, the unlikelihood of 1 does not point to 2. I'm not sure I know how we can assess the likelihood of either, TBH.
[ 27. September 2012, 13:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
My list of options seems to be:
1) an self-infused universe or
2) a self-infused GI that infuses the Universe or
3) a mysteriously-infused GI (a GI that is itself the recipient of infusion from the GGI) ad infinitum.
Yes, it's turtles all the way down.
I like those options and think that 2) is the answer.
But the aspect of the GI being outside the system is an important one to understand. What does it mean to be outside the system and yet able to be the infinite source of all the energy present in the system?
While not explaining this completely, the concept of God existing on a different level from that of the created universe is key. The idea that He is also both "above" and "within" the created universe is also important.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
sounds like Panentheism
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
sounds like Panentheism
Yes, that was raised before. Maybe you are aware of a Christian alternative that is not simply Deism?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I'm not aware of alternatives and it was probably me who said earlier on one or other of these threads that panentheism seems to be the belief that people can combine with evolution.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I'm not aware of alternatives and it was probably me who said earlier on one or other of these threads that panentheism seems to be the belief that people can combine with evolution.
I guess the alternative is that God wound up the created world like a clock, and then stands apart from it and lets it run on its own. Except from time to time He reaches in and does things like miracles.
But if there is any idea that God answers prayers, or guides our lives, then this immediately goes out the window.
I think that most Christians assume that God is intimately engaged in His creation in some way. But I don't think that this is usually called panentheism.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess the alternative is that God wound up the created world like a clock, and then stands apart from it and lets it run on its own. Except from time to time He reaches in and does things like miracles.
But if there is any idea that God answers prayers, or guides our lives, then this immediately goes out the window.
Hold on a sec. I thought you said a diety that interferes outright in the universe violates the all-important rule of autonomy-for-sentients/obedience-for-nonsentients.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess the alternative is that God wound up the created world like a clock, and then stands apart from it and lets it run on its own. Except from time to time He reaches in and does things like miracles.
But if there is any idea that God answers prayers, or guides our lives, then this immediately goes out the window.
Hold on a sec. I thought you said a diety that interferes outright in the universe violates the all-important rule of autonomy-for-sentients/obedience-for-nonsentients.
That's right. This is why we don't observe any of those things, and may believe them or not.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess the alternative is that God wound up the created world like a clock, and then stands apart from it and lets it run on its own. Except from time to time He reaches in and does things like miracles.
But if there is any idea that God answers prayers, or guides our lives, then this immediately goes out the window.
Hold on a sec. I thought you said a diety that interferes outright in the universe violates the all-important rule of autonomy-for-sentients/obedience-for-nonsentients.
That's right. This is why we don't observe any of those things, and may believe them or not.
This sounds more like something the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal would write.
Not observing something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's understandable to say that we can't know if there's any divine interference going on, but that doesn't mean you can simultaneously say that it happens and that it doesn't, as in the quoted text. It's either one or the other. God either intervenes or He doesn't. There's no middle ground.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Not observing something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I guess this does sound like something the Bugblatter would say.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
It's understandable to say that we can't know if there's any divine interference going on, but that doesn't mean you can simultaneously say that it happens and that it doesn't, as in the quoted text. It's either one or the other. God either intervenes or He doesn't. There's no middle ground.
What I'm saying is that there is a continual relationship, and a continual influence, even a continual intervention if you will. But this does not amount to any interference with our perceived autonomy.
The world operates according to fixed laws and the same is true of the spiritual realm. These are the laws according to which God operates, and He never violates them.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What I'm saying is that there is a continual relationship, and a continual influence, even a continual intervention if you will. But this does not amount to any interference with our perceived autonomy.
Yes, but how do you know this and if it is a faith position, why do you believe this? And can't you see how you're tying yourself in knots trying to fit the God of your imagination into the system?
[ 27. September 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Yes, but how do you know this and if it is a faith position, why do you believe this? And can't you see how you're tying yourself in knots trying to fit the God of your imagination into the system?
This is just the standard belief of my church. I can't see that anyone is being tied in knots here. I'm sorry if I am not communicating it clearly.
I believe it because it makes sense. I think that it is a unified system that explains everything. Of course, that's just an opinion.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I believe it because it makes sense. I think that it is a unified system that explains everything. Of course, that's just an opinion.
Fair enough, but for me an answer to a question which involves a whole new category of God's involvement in creation is a made-up answer. He can't be both involved and uninvolved, in my opinion, hence your unified system is based on faulty logic.
Which, in my view, goes to show that theistic evolution in a Christian sense can only be held by people who are prepared to accept 6 or more impossible things before breakfast.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Fair enough, but for me an answer to a question which involves a whole new category of God's involvement in creation is a made-up answer. He can't be both involved and uninvolved, in my opinion, hence your unified system is based on faulty logic.
I think that you just don't understand what I am saying. God is not both involved and uninvolved. He is involved, but in such a way as not to interfere. The involvement is by means of a set of laws that govern everything that happens.
Everyone is familiar with physical laws, so I don't see why this concept should present such an issue.
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on
:
quote:
The world operates according to fixed laws and the same is true of the spiritual realm. These are the laws according to which God operates, and He never violates them.
Who/what made those laws?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
The world operates according to fixed laws and the same is true of the spiritual realm. These are the laws according to which God operates, and He never violates them.
Who/what made those laws?
God.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nope. Necessity. The only possible variables are the dimensionless constants.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nope. Necessity. The only possible variables are the dimensionless constants.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
Posted by Goar (# 3939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why is 2 any more likely than 1, given that both are self-infused entities?
1 being unlikely, therefore 2 is the Prosecutor's Fallacy. If 1 and 2 are both unlikely, the unlikelihood of 1 does not point to 2. I'm not sure I know how we can assess the likelihood of either, TBH.
Karl, I do not purport to have a proof for the existence of God that will persuade those who choose 1 over 2 or 3. But I do think that both those who choose 1 and 2 should willingly acknowledge that they are statements of faith.
Posted by Goar (# 3939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
My list of options seems to be:
1) an self-infused universe or
2) a self-infused GI that infuses the Universe or
3) a mysteriously-infused GI (a GI that is itself the recipient of infusion from the GGI) ad infinitum.
Yes, it's turtles all the way down.
I like those options and think that 2) is the answer.
But the aspect of the GI being outside the system is an important one to understand. What does it mean to be outside the system and yet able to be the infinite source of all the energy present in the system?
While not explaining this completely, the concept of God existing on a different level from that of the created universe is key. The idea that He is also both "above" and "within" the created universe is also important.
I would hold that he is both fully transcendent and fully immanent. Just as Christ is fully God and fully man. Let's hear it for mystery!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goar:
I would hold that he is both fully transcendent and fully immanent. Just as Christ is fully God and fully man. Let's hear it for mystery!
I don't think that we need to see this as a mystery.
The key to understanding God's simultaneous transcendence and immanence, if you want to put it that way, is seeing that there is a discrete degree of difference between the physical and spiritual realms. This enables God to be both above and within all of creation, without being part of creation.
The two worlds touch and communicate only through the correspondence between the realities of divine love and the corresponding functions that exist in the physical world. They are completely parallel, so God and heaven are both omnipresent and distinctly removed.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's the only way Freddy. Quantum mechanics happens, as it MUST, because there is a free creation. If God interfered in His OWN freedom, routinely overruled indeterminacy at the quantum level, then where is ours?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's the only way Freddy. Quantum mechanics happens, as it MUST, because there is a free creation. If God interfered in His OWN freedom, routinely overruled indeterminacy at the quantum level, then where is ours?
Nicely put!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Most gracious of you Freddy.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0