What if there was no God?

[witeken]

Not really. Simply because evolution is a philosphical doctrine that shapes how we view ourselves and our place in the cosoms, so its more than just a scientfic theory.

Like I said, if we evolved from magical soup, our outlook is different from what it would be if we are made in God's image. God gives humanity an ultimate goal (thus accoutablity), whereas evolution has no goal (no accoutability) -- these are directly opposed to one another.

You probably think you are very important, if God personally created you.

 

[moonbogg]

We are accountable to ourselves and to each other. If you think you are getting away with something just because there is no God to see you doing it, you forget that you know what you did. If that's not enough to point you in the right direction, then believing in a God won't save you. Its called having a conscience. No God required for that.

 

[Retro Rob]

If your idea does not meet the standards of science, certainly if it doesn't in even the slightest sense, it is simply false.

I think we have to realize how limited science actually is...it's really only good at establishing facts about what we can detect with our senses, but really, that's it. I'd posit that probably 90 something percent of the desicions we make that affect our lives directly cannot be measured in any way, but they're just as REAL. For example:

Is there a scientific measurement to determine who would make the best marriage partner?

Is there a peer-reviewed sceintific journal/paper that can show me how to best raise my kids?

What lab experiment is there that can tell me what's the best career choice, and if it will work out for me?

Measure the amount of love I have for my family without me having to show and/or tell you.

I'd say we take all this on without evidence, on purely faith and hope with no plausible way of knowing they will work out. We buy cars, houses, clothes etc without looking to scentific verification.

It has it limits.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

More specifically, it would seem that a willingness to learn and to trust your elders are an Evolutionary advantage. Especially for Children.

And then if someone abuses that trust by creating a fairy story, as long as that fairy story doesn't confer an evolutionary disadvantage large enough to be overcome by losing trust, then trust in kin-group stories runs rampant?

 

[sandorski]

And then if someone abuses that trust by creating a fairy story, as long as that fairy story doesn't confer an evolutionary disadvantage large enough to be overcome by losing trust, then trust in kin-group stories runs rampant?

Pretty much.

 

[alzan]

Not really. Simply because evolution is a philosphical doctrine that shapes how we view ourselves and our place in the cosoms, so its more than just a scientfic theory.

Like I said, if we evolved from magical soup, our outlook is different from what it would be if we are made in God's image. God gives humanity an ultimate goal (thus accoutablity), whereas evolution has no goal (no accoutability) -- these are directly opposed to one another.

Evolution is a philosophical doctrine? So why was it taught in Science class at school and not in Philosophy class?

Magical soup? I seem to remember someone on this sub-forum complaining how some peoples' beliefs are being misrepresented; now who was that....

 

[alzan]

I think we have to realize how limited science actually is...it's really only good at establishing facts about what we can detect with our senses, but really, that's it. I'd posit that probably 90 something percent of the desicions we make that affect our lives directly cannot be measured in any way, but they're just as REAL. For example:

Is there a scientific measurement to determine who would make the best marriage partner?

Is there a peer-reviewed sceintific journal/paper that can show me how to best raise my kids?

What lab experiment is there that can tell me what's the best career choice, and if it will work out for me?

Measure the amount of love I have for my family without me having to show and/or tell you.

I'd say we take all this on without evidence, on purely faith and hope with no plausible way of knowing they will work out. We buy cars, houses, clothes etc without looking to scentific verification.

It has it limits.

I think we have to realize how limited belief and/or faith actually are, they're really only good as a coping mechanism for things we don't or won't understand.

Is there a Bible verse to tell us how to make a peanut butter sandwich?

Is there a Biblical maxim that can show us the best picks for our fantasy football league?

Is there a Biblical dictum that will put forth the best solution for obtaining the best seats at a employment seminar?

Measure the weight of yesterday without resorting to asking a shaman, witch doctor, fakir, mullah, etc...

This is fun...

 

[Retro Rob]

Evolution is a philosophical doctrine? So why was it taught in Science class at school and not in Philosophy class?

Its philosphical in the sense that it has a huge bearing on how humans live their lives, and the choices they make.

Reading through the unintended consequences of the Selfish Gene, people believed that if we're only machines use to pass on genetic material, we can indulge in a selfish and self-serving lifestyle since we have no purpose but to pass on genetic material -- there becomes no reason to not be about "self".

Of course, I am not saying that this was Dawkins' intent, but my bigger and more important point is how believing such a thing can affect actions and outlook.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think we have to realize how limited belief and/or faith actually are, they're really only good as a coping mechanism for things we don't or won't understand.

Is there a Bible verse to tell us how to make a peanut butter sandwich?

Is there a Biblical maxim that can show us the best picks for our fantasy football league?

Is there a Biblical dictum that will put forth the best solution for obtaining the best seats at a employment seminar?

Measure the weight of yesterday without resorting to asking a shaman, witch doctor, fakir, mullah, etc...

This is fun...

True, very true sir. I don't recall saying that things that don't line up with Biblical inquiry is false anyway.

But good points, though...in all seriousness.

 

[sandorski]

Its philosphical in the sense that it has a huge bearing on how humans live their lives, and the choices they make.

Reading through the unintended consequences of the Selfish Gene, people believed that if we're only machines use to pass on genetic material, we can indulge in a selfish and self-serving lifestyle since we have no purpose but to pass on genetic material -- there becomes no reason to not be about "self".

Of course, I am not saying that this was Dawkins' intent, but my bigger and more important point is how believing such a thing can affect actions and outlook.

This is mostly a Strawman. It's also attributing something that is common through the ages on something that has only existed for less than 200 years.

 

[alzan]

Its philosphical in the sense that it has a huge bearing on how humans live their lives, and the choices they make.

Reading through the unintended consequences of the Selfish Gene, people believed that if we're only machines use to pass on genetic material, we can indulge in a selfish and self-serving lifestyle since we have no purpose but to pass on genetic material -- there becomes no reason to not be about "self".

Of course, I am not saying that this was Dawkins' intent, but my bigger and more important point is how believing such a thing can affect actions and outlook.

Our careers and jobs have a huge bearing on how we live our lives and the choices we make but careers are not philosophical; unless you're a philosopher.

I don't entirely disagree with your partial assessment of the Selfish Gene but I will say that confirmation bias colors our perceptions and even the information we glean from sources. However, I find the "selfish" outlook a particularly poor one and certainly not a way in which I want to meet the world each day.

 

[Retro Rob]

Our careers and jobs have a huge bearing on how we live our lives and the choices we make but careers are not philosophical; unless you're a philosopher.

Great. No one is claiming that jobs are a scientific theory.

I don't entirely disagree with your partial assessment of the Selfish Gene... However, I find the "selfish" outlook a particularly poor one and certainly not a way in which I want to meet the world each day.

So do I, but my point is that a scientific theory affected people's philosophical outlook, even if it didn't affect every single person's outlook.

Glad we can agree on that.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Best thing to do for that is to actually read the book.

He goes to great extent to demonstrate that what we typically think of as selfish and self-serving actually works against you. Much of the Selfish Gene deals with things we typically think of as altruism, and how they're actually efficient self-interest in the greater scheme of things.

Bird warning calls, Parent and Sibling altruism, even seemingly altruistic behavior between unrelated members of different species actually turns out to be basic self-interest.

I suppose it's theoretically possible some people used the title as a justification for some selfish - and ultimately self-destructive - behavior. But he's already written a book on how that's a bad idea and it's actually exactly the book in question. There's not a lot he can do about what amounts to massive stupidity.

 

[Retro Rob]

Best thing to do for that is to actually read the book.

He goes to great extent to demonstrate that what we typically think of as selfish and self-serving actually works against you. Much of the Selfish Gene deals with things we typically think of as altruism, and how they're actually efficient self-interest in the greater scheme of things.

Bird warning calls, Parent and Sibling altruism, even seemingly altruistic behavior between unrelated members of different species actually turns out to be basic self-interest.

I suppose it's theoretically possible some people used the title as a justification for some selfish - and ultimately self-destructive - behavior. But he's already written a book on how that's a bad idea and it's actually exactly the book in question. There's not a lot he can do about what amounts to massive stupidity.

Fwiw, I am not criticizing (not critiquing) the book, or his theory itself, just showing how it matters what we accept, and these things have tremendous affects on outlook and actions.

 

[OverVolt]

Sure as shit as you're yammering away on the keyboard there was a creator of some kind. It might not be a personified creator, but just the fact that you exist in time and space means you came from somewhere ya dingdongs. I'm okay with personifying a creator as that comes pretty naturally but I don't see how you can say there isn't "Something" responsible for your existence and the universes existence, thats stupid.

 

[sandorski]

Sure as shit as you're yammering away on the keyboard there was a creator of some kind. It might not be a personified creator, but just the fact that you exist in time and space means you came from somewhere ya dingdongs. I'm okay with personifying a creator as that comes pretty naturally but I don't see how you can say there isn't "Something" responsible for your existence and the universes existence, thats stupid.

Who says otherwise?

 

[njdevilsfan87]

God gives humanity an ultimate goal (thus accoutablity), whereas evolution has no goal (no accoutability) -- these are directly opposed to one another.

What is this ultimate goal. And who is to say evolution does not have some ultimate goal? The universe itself evolved to form conditions suitable for life. Now life itself is evolving.

I don't believe there is no God, but if there is one, he or the circumstances I have been brought up in did not make it clear what this goal might be.

 

[OverVolt]

Who says otherwise?

Soooo I actually think in terms of the universe we're here because of imperfection. If everything behaved perfectly, you wouldn't get matter/antimatter in the ratios we observe, and after the big bang everything would have been equidistant and never coalesce into planets and stars. So that is your creator, and its okay to personify it because thats what people do.

 

[sandorski]

Soooo I actually think in terms of the universe we're here because of imperfection. If everything behaved perfectly, you wouldn't get matter/antimatter in the ratios we observe, and after the big bang everything would have been equidistant and never coalesce into planets and stars. So that is your creator, and its okay to personify it because thats what people do.

First, how do you know the bolded?

Second, come on now, that's not really what Theism is about.

 

[Retro Rob]

What is this ultimate goal.

Well, it depends on what you believe and your religious beliefs. Some think God has the goal of perfection in Heaven, or on Earth, or some variation of that, but the goal is something better than what we are now.

And who is to say evolution does not have some ultimate goal?

Evolutionary science.

 

[alzan]

Great. No one is claiming that jobs are a scientific theory.

So do I, but my point is that a scientific theory affected people's philosophical outlook, even if it didn't affect every single person's outlook.

Glad we can agree on that.

Never said anyone did. You however claimed that evolution is philosophical; my response was to show that a lot of things, career, education, peer groups, etc. can greatly influence our lives and how we live them and the choices we make but are not philosophical.

Speaking only for myself, evolutionary theory has very little, if anything to do with my choices in life or my daily routine.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Fwiw, I am not criticizing (not critiquing) the book, or his theory itself, just showing how it matters what we accept, and these things have tremendous affects on outlook and actions.

An observation for which you'd have many allies in supporting, including Dawkins himself in later revisions when he explicitly makes mention of that happening.

But it's a mistake to label that as bad in and of itself without further consideration. Some people will have made the poor choice and affected their behavior on the superficial reading, causing some net cost to humanity as a whole and any given individual in particular. But how much of a cost, and what other effects does it have? If the title of the book alone makes 100 people mean, but also makes 100 people who would've been mean actually read the book then reconsider their behavior, is that a net loss or net gain? What other effects do those changes in behavior on those other people have?

Selfish Gene actually goes through trying to account for these kind of complex interactions - that's why it's a great book.


So much of what we call morality is really just an description of an effective survival tactic. Thou shalt not steal - take away God enforcing it, and it's still a good idea. The people you would steal from are going to try to prevent you from stealing, and they're going to refuse to help you if you get caught. Even without the divine, it's a questionable approach simply because of the sea of other people who are going to react to you doing it.

 

[witeken]

First, how do you know the bolded?

At the beginning of time, matter and antimatter were generated. When you bring those together, they annihilate. There had to be a breaking of symmetry to make this possible (IIRC, I'm not a cosmologist). Matter was generated iirc with an abundance of 1 part in 1 billion more than antimatter. So antimatter disappeared, and what would all particles in existence today were left over.

Another example is the Higgs boson. All particles should be massless, but there was some symmetry that was broken.

Another example is the fact that gravitation caused planets, moons, stars, galaxies and clusters to form. Inflation caused everything to be homogeneous and isotropic, but quantum fluctuations caused those imperfections that led to what you see today.


It does depend on what you consider behaving perfectly, though, although the anthropic principle and inflation both strongly suggest that it isn't perfect.

 

[Retro Rob]

Never said anyone did. You however claimed that evolution is philosophical; my response was to show that a lot of things, career, education, peer groups, etc. can greatly influence our lives and how we live them and the choices we make but are not philosophical.

Those things DO have a philosophical affect on our lives. You're actually helping my point by giving more examples of things that are not philosphical by definition, but have that sort of impact on our lives.

Thank you, very much.

You are not contradicting me.

 

[sandorski]

At the beginning of time, matter and antimatter were generated. When you bring those together, they annihilate. There had to be a breaking of symmetry to make this possible (IIRC, I'm not a cosmologist). Matter was generated iirc with an abundance of 1 part in 1 billion more than antimatter. So antimatter disappeared, and what would all particles in existence today were left over.

Another example is the Higgs boson. All particles should be massless, but there was some symmetry that was broken.

Another example is the fact that gravitation caused planets, moons, stars, galaxies and clusters to form. Inflation caused everything to be homogeneous and isotropic, but quantum fluctuations caused those imperfections that led to what you see today.


It does depend on what you consider behaving perfectly, though, although the anthropic principle and inflation both strongly suggest that it isn't perfect.

Ahh ok, makes sense.