Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[buffordboy23]

And evolution seems a rather lengthy and cruel way to bring any species about. Couldn't a kind creator do it some other way - just pop 'em into existence?

The puzzle that explains our existence would then be too simple, since we are rational creatures who are able to "objectively" analyze our environment. We would have no other option but to conclude that some god exists and is responsible for our existence. If a god exists, then there must be a reason for our existence, and if we are firmly aware of his existence, our actions will be then to appease him. With the current state of things (evolution is pretty much a scientific fact), one must disregard the erroneous recorded religious scriptures that explain our and other species' appearance on Earth in order to believe in a god. To believe in a god is to assume that our reality has a "subjective" aspect and is not the whole of the true reality. This response is just me playing devil's advocate.

 

[buffordboy23]

I don't have an issue with people believing God utilized evolution for creation, but it does seem somewhat contradictory, as God himself would have to "evolve." Complex things only come into existence through gradual evolution, and God would have to be even more complex than that which he created, so it would only make sense that he too was created somehow. It leads to a regress, and I think the answer lies in whether or not one subscribes to NOMA.

Your using your "objective" knowledge of the evolution of life in our reality to make your argument that god must also evolve. However, what says that a god must answer to the same laws of nature (as in our universe) as us? Perhaps, our universe is a simplistic case of a more interesting and textured reality.

I have no clue what NOMA is. Please explain.

 

[buffordboy23]

I think that's being a bit harsh. It seems reasonable that a person who believes in God should also believe in evolution (99% of christians do)

Really. Where is source for such an astounding statistic?

 

[Phrak]

You are all very misimformed, I'm afraid to say.

God created the physical Universe next Tuesday at 42 minutes past midnight with all the bits and pieces in place, as if it had been going on for a very, very long time. Everything before this is simply illusion.

Notably, this slight of hand, left the dinosaurs--the philosophers of their time--very much upset with their assigned status.

 

[ConradDJ]

Moridin, it may seem impossible to you to both be a Chrisian and believe in evolution, but there are many people who do. A lot of people have used evolution to support their faith - existentialist theologians Paul Tillich and Martin Buber, Tielhard de Chardin and the advocates of Process Theology. I think they would certainly disagree with your statement that a Christian can't believe in evolution. There are many, many scientists who are practicing Christians, John Polkinghorne being one of the most vocal.

Hi -- I attended a lecture at a local church a few years ago by Kenneth Miller -- very entertaining. He's a devout Christian and an uncompromising evolutionary scientist. As was Darwin, of course.

Miller's main point is that Christianity is much more compatible with Darwinian evolution than it is with the idea that God made the world and defined everything in it, once and for all. In a Darwinian world, we all participate in creation, defining the world's future. And without that sense of being an active participant, he suggests there would be little meaning to the Christian message.

That makes sense to me, and probably to most educated Christians. I'm sure it's not 99%, but a lot of people in the world understand that the point of science is to give us an accurate factual picture of the world, and that the point of religion is something different, giving us a sense of how to live with each other in the world. Two distinct and important problems.

Here's Miller's book:

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/"

It's very sad, but deeply rooted in tradition, that so many religious advocates insist on their particular religion as a superior kind of science.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, it may seem impossible to you to both be a Chrisian and believe in evolution, but there are many people who do. A lot of people have used evolution to support their faith - existentialist theologians Paul Tillich and Martin Buber, Tielhard de Chardin and the advocates of Process Theology. I think they would certainly disagree with your statement that a Christian can't believe in evolution. There are many, many scientists who are practicing Christians, John Polkinghorne being one of the most vocal.

They indeed claim to accept evolution, but they do not accept the full implications of evolution, or does accept it, but compartmentalize. Other scientists include Ken Miller and Francis Collins.

 

[madness]

Which implications of evolution do they not accept? In what sense do they compartmentalise? I don't see that there are any implications of evolution which a theist couldn't accept. Clearly there are problems for a biblical literalist, but then there are surely problems here coming from all kinds of modern changes in thought.

 

[Moridin]

Which implications of evolution do they not accept? In what sense do they compartmentalise? I don't see that there are any implications of evolution which a theist couldn't accept. Clearly there are problems for a biblical literalist, but then there are surely problems here coming from all kinds of modern changes in thought.

The following is a list of implications of evolution that cannot be accepted within the mainstream Christian framework. Human beings are not special, not at the top or center of creation, but just one of billions of species in the world. This is in stark contrast to the mainstream Christian position of humans as being the pinnacle of creation. Evolution is without purpose, mutations does not happen with any specific future in mind and if we replay the tape of the history of life, it is not at all a given that humans would appear on the scene. Modern humans have existed for around 0,003% of the history of life, around 0.001% of the history of the universe as we know it. There are probably more black holes in the universe than humans and they have existed much longer than us. Evolution also implies that our minds is just our brains, that too a product of evolution. This means no ghost in the machine, no libertarian free will, religion/theism as a cultural construct.

So to sum up, modern evolutionary biology is incompatible with

- human beings as special, there was no intent behind our arrival at the scene.
- theistic mind/brain dualism
- libertarian free will
- religion/theism as being anything more than a social construction

A typical liberal Christian would start to make various forms of special pleading or invoke intelligent design creationism.

 

[madness]

1) Evolution does not tell us that humans are not special. Most people still consider humans as special in the animal kingdom due to our higher intelligence, self awareness etc. We are the only animals that ask questions about the meaning of our existence. This is a point of view held by many scientists.
2) Mind brain dualism hasn't been affected by evolution. It is true that there was a shift of many people towards materialism as science developed but after the advent of quantum theory many famous physicists rejected the materialistic view.
3) Libertarian freewill has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with determinism.
4) Evolution does not imply that religion can only be a social construction, that's the whole point of this debate.

 

[drankin]

The physical universe as observed scientifically really does not allow for a diety of any religion. The Judeo-Christian diety as described in the bible resides outside of the physical universe and is not subject to it's laws. The diety is described as having no beginning and no end but having created the universe and able to alter it at will. There is no scientific way of observing this and is naturally rejected by the scientific community because of this. The theory of evolution is an excellent conclusion describing the origin of species in the physical universe and should not be rejected by the religious community. IMO it does not have to conflict with Judeo-Christian theology. It pains me to watch the religious community try to make their theology fit into scientific analysis. It simply doesn't work. The basis of their faith should not and cannot be based physical analysis. If it did the "faith" aspect of their respective religion would be moot. And in that case you do not really have a faith at all.

 

[Moridin]

1) Evolution does not tell us that humans are not special. Most people still consider humans as special in the animal kingdom due to our higher intelligence, self awareness etc. We are the only animals that ask questions about the meaning of our existence. This is a point of view held by many scientists.
2) Mind brain dualism hasn't been affected by evolution. It is true that there was a shift of many people towards materialism as science developed but after the advent of quantum theory many famous physicists rejected the materialistic view.
3) Libertarian freewill has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with determinism.
4) Evolution does not imply that religion can only be a social construction, that's the whole point of this debate.

1. Yes, evolution explicitly implies that humans are not special, but just one species among billions. There are many other animals that have a high intelligence and claiming that humans are the only animal to ask questions about the world is just anthropocentric because you cannot rule this out.
2. Quantum mechanics is a materialist perspective and does not suggest mind/brain dualism. In fact, you are confusing two levels of analysis. Quantum mechanics has no influence on human behavior.
3. Yes it does. Evolution implies that our behavior is caused by who we are and our surroundings, rather than a magical ghost.
4. Yes, evolution implies that all forms of culture, including religion, is a social construction.

 

[madness]

Your responses have simply been "no it doesn't" or "yes it does" without any justification. If you can provide an example of any other animal who has literature, philosophy, religion or science then I can accept that humans are not special. Many of the leading quantum physicists claimed that quantum physics has discredited the materialistic view (John Wheeler and Erwin Schroedinger for example). In 3) you are saying a belief in evolution is incompatible with a belief in freewill? I think many scientists would disagree. It is true that religion may have evolved with evolution (you're argument in 4) but that is the whole point in theistic evolution.

 

[Moridin]

The reason that my responses have been short is because your "responses" consists of nothing but "some people would disagree with that". Provide arguments, or admit defeat.

Evolution dethrones humans as special. Other animals have culture as well, just check out birds and other apes, for instance. You claim quantum mechanics have refuted materialism, yet quantum mechanics contain no supernatural entities or implications at all, which makes your position contradictory. Yes, evolution implies that our cognitive machinery is a product of evolution and that who we are is a product of our cognitive machinery, rather than a magical ghost. Furthermore, since we have a natural explanation for religion, this means that the claims of supernatural origin religion makes is superfluous and unnecessary.

The incompatibility between evolution and theism holds.

This is one of the reasons I detest arguing with religious people -- they start with their ideology (in your case the belief that evolution is compatible with theism) and then reject without justification any evidence to the contrary.

 

[robertm]

Biology rips the warm gushy meaning, out of the non-existent soul.

 

[madness]

First of all I'm not religious, I'm coming from a physics background. I'm not claiming that quantum mechanics invokes supernatural forces, but rather that it invokes the need for a conscious observer. Materialists deny the existence of consciousness. This is besides the point anyway, we are talking about evolution here.
Evolution did not dethrone humans as special, we are still the only animals on Earth capable of asking questions such as whether God exists.
We have no natural explanation for our existence, the best we know is that the universe appeared out of nowhere 14 billion years ago. One explanation of why our universe exists at all is to invoke a creator, and the fact that evolution occurs adds nothing for or against this point of view.
Yes we are a product of our cognitive machinery, and our cognitive machinery came about through evolution, so what? This fact is true in secular evolution and theistic evolution.

You too start with your ideology (the belief that evolution is incompatible with theism) and reject without justification any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Moridin]

Quantum mechanics does not invoke the need for a conscious observer. This has been solved a long time ago by simply including the observer into the description. No, materialism does not deny consciousness. Daniel Dennet, for instance, who is a leading materialist philosopher has written the book "Consciousness Explained".

What you need to understand is that by not special, I am speaking biologically. Furthermore, culture is a mere social construction and cannot be used to argue against this position. We do have an explanation for our existence, it is called evolution. No, big bang does not state that the universe appeared in a puff of smoke 14 billion years ago. This also shows your fundamental lack of understanding about physics. No, arbitrarily asserting the existence of a creator is not an answer since it just leaves the question about the origin of the creator unanswered. If you claim that the creator just exists or does not need an explanation, then we are more than justified to do the same for the universe.

Christian theism is incompatible with our cognitive machinery as a product of evolution, since Christianity holds that the features of our cognitive machinery is actually a magical ghost soul.

Not at all. In fact, I have no ideology. I start with the evidence I have presented (whereas you have presented none), then draw the valid conclusion that the two are incompatible. Your posts contain erroneous scientific claims and a lot of hand waving, yet you have not been able to refute a single one of the arguments I have presented. Shame.

 

[Moridin]

A moderator has edited out a statement in the above post where I pointed out the inaccuracy in your description of quantum mechanics as it related to consciousnesses. Let it be known that I still hold this position despite the unfair censorship.

 

[madness]

Materialists deny the existence of anything other than the physical, maintaining that consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain - in this sense they deny its existence. I know that the role of consciousness in quantum physics is a philosophical one and I don't think it is central to the issue here.
You have to accept that we ultimately have no explanation of why anything exists rather than nothing at all. No, we don't have an explanation of how the big bang got there in the first place, if you think we do then it's your responsibility to offer a reference. Having nearly completed a masters degree in mathematical physics, I think I have a reasonable understanding of physics and I am currently taking a course in cosmology. It is true that one might reject the idea of a necessary being and simply accept that the universe has no explanation for its existence - this approach was taken by David Hume. This is irrelevant to my point that evolution is not incompatible with theism.
I would argue that our "cognitive machinery" is simply our mind or consciousness, which is synomymous with "soul".
It is really quite silly to think that you are an impartial observer and are the only one who has examined the facts correctly. Is it not possible that I have considered the same facts and come to a different conclusion? Furthermore, I do not accept that it is possible to have "no ideology". Science is an ideology as much as religion is. For every point you have made, I have offered a valid counterpoint. I feel like I am arguing with a religious zealot here. I am only arguing that evolution has not in itself disproved the existence of a creator.

 

[Moridin]

When materialists define consciousness as an emergent chemical process, the are affirming its existence, not denying it.

You have to accept that we ultimately have no explanation of why anything exists rather than nothing at all.

This is because the question itself is a fallacy, because it asserts that it is possible for the entity called "nothing" to exist, which is impossible by definition. As always, theists stand before the same problem, why does their god exist, rather than nothing? Victor Stenger explains it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

Furthermore, within the framework of Einstein's relativity, time is the fourth dimension of spacetime. Defining this fourth dimension as ict, where t is what you read on a clock, i = sqrt(-1), and c is the speed of light, the coordinates of time and space are interchangeable. In short, time is inextricably intertwined with space and came into being "when" or "where" (language is inadequate to mathematics here) spacetime came into being.

I have made the relevant parts of this quote bold. So it is clear that "before" the big bang or "cause" to the big bang are self-contradictory questions and therefore invalid points.

It is true that one might reject the idea of a necessary being and simply accept that the universe has no explanation for its existence - this approach was taken by David Hume. This is irrelevant to my point that evolution is not incompatible with theism.

Or one can simply point out that if you wish to postulate an arbitrary necessary being, you might as well hold that the universe is a necessary being -- we have at least seen that one. Yes, it has relevance for the incompatibility between evolution and theism, because it dethrones humanity in a cosmic perspective.

Is it not possible that I have considered the same facts and come to a different conclusion?

A lot of theists invoke this form of epistemological relativism when cornered. No, it is not possible that the same facts can lead to two different and incompatible conclusions.

Furthermore, I do not accept that it is possible to have "no ideology".

Also completely contradictory. If all statements and positions are skewed by the lens of personal ideology and therefore invalid, then this statement itself skewed by the lens of your personal ideology and therefore invalid. Invoking epistemological relativism will get you nowhere fast.

Science is an ideology as much as religion is.

This statement betrays a profound ignorance is why I doubt the validity of the credentials you claim you have. Science starts with the evidence, then uses logic, reason and empirical investigations to draw conclusions. Religion starts with their conclusions, then looks and see what evidence they can use to prop up their beliefs and which they have to deny in order to hold their beliefs as valid. This should be elementary with someone with a degree in mathematical physics.

For every point you have made, I have offered a valid counterpoint.

You have only stated that there are scientists who disagree, which is an appeal to authority.

I feel like I am arguing with a religious zealot here.

Likewise.

I am only arguing that evolution has not in itself disproved the existence of a creator.

But that is not what we mean by theism! By (Christian) theism (opposed to deism), we mean an active creator who has a significant influence and control over the process of evolution and the universe and who cares about humans as a central part of our world, who have infused humans with an immaterial soul that is their self with the common characteristics of being an intelligent designer, absolutely good and powerful and so on.

The unintelligent designs we find in nature, mass extinctions, the insignificance of humans from a biological, geological and cosmological perspective, the fact that consciousness is cognitive machinery and so on, refutes this idea. You are of course correct in that a watered down deism is fully compatible with ateleological evolution.

 

[Moridin]

Maybe this simply boils down to a discussion of semantics? What do you mean with "theism" in this context?

 

[madness]

I think it depends what you mean by materialist in this context - most materialists would deny the "hard problem" of consciousness exists.
I never asserted that "nothing" was a thing that could exist, but rather that it is concievable that there might not have been anything to exist.
We can only look back to the Planck time in our current theories of the Big Bang, we would need a theory of quantum gravity to look back any further. You have still not explained why the Big Bang was there at the Planck time.
Why does the fact that it is possible to consider the universe as a necessary being dethrone humanity? It only does this if you assume that the universe is a necessary being, ie if you assume there was no God. Either case is still possible.
It is certainly possible for the same facts to lead to different conclusions if there is not enough evidence to definitively constrain the answer either way, as is the case here. I'm not a theist and I'm not cornered here.
It is not inconsistent to say that everyone is speaking with a certain ideology, this statement is true within my own ideology, that is the point of relativism. I maintain that science is an ideology, even if it uses empirical evidence, "logic" and "reason". Note that different cultures have different ideas of logic (eg the law of excluded middle) and reason, ours being the western ideology. These problems are not "elementary" to anyone who has taken the time to read some philosphy and think things over properly. You can doubt my credentials all you like, the fact is I am soon to be starting a masters degree in mathematical physics and have done very well so far.
As for the end of your post (and the second one) I agree to an extent. Evolution is difficult (but not impossible) for a strict Christian to accept. I reject your arguments about cognitive machinery and the uniqueness of humans (I have given the reasons several times).
You are right there there may be semantic problems in that theism can be taken to mean a wide range of things, however I would say that they are mostly unaffected by the theory of evolution. The religious specifics (eg God made men in their final form) may disagree but I don't regard these particular points as central tenets of theism.

 

[Moridin]

- You misunderstand. It is the fact that we are just one planet in just one of billions of solar systems in billions of galaxies that dethrones humanity from a cosmological perspective. Why isn't the universe the way Aristotle or Aquinas thought it was? Just one solar system with the Earth in its center?
- No, it is not possible that the same facts can lead to different conclusions. A=A. Basic logic.
- You further advocate epistemological relativism by claiming that different cultures have different opinions. This is not at all relevant -- the holocaust has still occurred even if Nazis or Islamic extremists disagree.
- Your post oozes with contradictions. I will simply restate that if all statements and positions are skewed by the lens of personal ideology and therefore invalid, then your position is itself skewed by the lens of your personal ideology and therefore invalid. Your position is self-referentially incoherent and you are really just arguing with yourself.
- Again, science cannot be an ideology by definition, since it is based on evidence. As a mathematical physicist, this should hardly be news to you. Can you please describe the difference between science and religion as it pertains to this situation?

According to mainstream Abrahamic theism, our minds are not the same as our brain and our cognitive machinery is not who we are. According to that ideology, we are immaterial souls that can survive bodily death. I cannot phantom how you cannot see the contradiction here: either we are immaterial souls or material cognitive machinery. Also according to mainstream Abrahamic theism, humans have a unique supernatural origin separate from all other animals. This is not the case within the framework of evolution, where humans have a non-unique natural origin, that is not separate from other animals.

Maybe we should simply write this discussion off as semantic confusion.

 

[drankin]

Cannot the belief in only things that are supported by evidence be considered an idealogy in itself? I tend to believe than any "belief" system is an idealogy.

 

[robertm]

Cannot the belief in only things that are supported by evidence be considered an idealogy in itself? I tend to believe than any "belief" system is an idealogy.

Calling reality an ideology would be quite the feat of anthropomorphism.

Science is simply our best representation of objective reality, there is nothing ideological about it, just factual.

 

[drankin]

Calling reality an ideology would be quite the feat of anthropomorphism.

Science is simply our best representation of objective reality, there is nothing ideological about it, just factual.

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

 

[Moridin]

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

This is of course a straw man, since it is the case that our best representation of objective reality is incompatible with most forms of theism (apart from watered downed versions and deism). Rejecting these forms of theism would therefore not be an ideology but completely in line with the evidence.

 

[robertm]

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

If something is "outside the context of science" that simply means it has not been studied.

Science is the study of phenomenon, there are divisions of phenomenon but those are only superficial. If a phenomenon has no effect, then it does not exist, if it does have an effect, then it will be meticulously dissected and described and all attempts will be made to fully understand the implications of the phenomenon in the context of our wider understanding of the various other phenomenon. There is nothing "outside" of science by definition, you would only be fooling yourself to think otherwise.

I accept many things that are not properly verified by solid evidence, and so does everyone else, but that says nothing as to whether or not those things are 'in the realm of science.' Reality is the realm of science.

 

[madness]

Moridin, the reason humans are special is their ability to ask such philosophical questions, I have stated this several times.
It is of course possible that the same facts may lead to different conclusions if the people considering them are coming from different ideologies (science being one).
My post had no contadictions, and I too can simply repeat why you are mistaken: I am of the opinion that there are no facts outside of a belief system or ideology, and this fact holds within my own belief system or ideology, so there is no contradiction. What holds in one belief system might not hold in another, this is not a problem for a relativist.
Science is of course an ideology, it is the ideology that empirical data along with induction (which is a philosophical problem in science) and certain other assumptions about objectivism etc are the correct way to find "truth". It is easy to argue against many of these assumptions (eg induction, realism) but they are taken as axiomatic within the scientific ideology. As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, the reason humans are special is their ability to ask such philosophical questions, I have stated this several times.

Yes, but this is not what is mean by not being (biologically) special.

It is of course possible that the same facts may lead to different conclusions if the people considering them are coming from different ideologies (science being one).

I agree that people can think that the same facts can lead to different conclusions, but this is not an accurate representation of reality. An no, for the fifth time, science is not an ideology.

I am of the opinion that there are no facts outside of a belief system or ideology, and this fact holds within my own belief system or ideology, so there is no contradiction.

How is this not an obvious contradiction? You are basically saying that everything is relative, but at the same time saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative. It is the same basic contradiction all epistemological relativist stumble upon.

What holds in one belief system might not hold in another, this is not a problem for a relativist.

This is of course not an objective fact for a relativist either.

Science is of course an ideology, it is the ideology that empirical data along with induction (which is a philosophical problem in science) and certain other assumptions about objectivism etc are the correct way to find "truth".

Since science is based on evidence, and therefore not an ideology. Science uses deduction, not induction. Basic Popperian falsification.

As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.

You consider to inflate your credentials, but they do not correspond to the content of your arguments.

 

[drankin]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

 

[Condor77]

Greetings Madness!

First and foremost let me tell you that my post is not intended to discredit you in any way, shape or form. I am just curious about your so-called credentials; perhaps you can clarify the following for me:

In post number 53 you claim the following:

“Having nearly completed a masters degree in mathematical physics, I think I have a reasonable understanding of physics and I am currently taking a course in cosmology.”

Then in post number 56 you claim the following:

“You can doubt my credentials all you like, the fact is I am soon to be starting a masters degree in mathematical physics and have done very well so far.”

Finally in post number 63 you claim the following:

“As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.”

I am not entirely sure what to make out of the posts that I’ve quoted from you.

Regards,

 

[madness]

Condor, my degree is a 5 year undergraduate masters and I have finished the first 4, next year being the year involving the masters project. I am interested in philosophy and have read it in my spare time since before starting my degree in phyics. Hope that clears it up.

Moridin, I don't see why special should be taken to mean biologically special.
I'm not saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative, but that it holds in my own relative belief system. This is self consistent for a relativist, but not for an absolutist. This is why you think there is a contradiction.
In analogy to frames of reference in physics - we can't be sure that there is no absolute frame, but we have no way to pick one out as special and say "this is the absolute frame that all others are to be measured by", so we say (uniform) motion is relative. Similarly, since we can't prove certain things (like if the world exists independently of our senses, or whether God exists), I would say we have no reason to assume that any particular choice is the correct one. In science, the choices are that the world does exist independently etc. That is the "frame of reference".
Have you read any philosophy of science? It certainly does use induction. This is one of the central problems in the philosophy of science that many people work on. That's why it's called "the problem of induction" (worked on extensively by David Hume and Bertrand Russel among others). You mention Popperian falsifiability, this is an example of a belief system, to be contrasted with logical positivism.
In response to your final comment, I would have no need to "inflate my credentials" if I wasn't continually set upon for having "a profound misunderstanding of basic physics".

 

[Condor77]

Greetings Madness!

Thank you for your response, it is now clear to me.

By the way, the following book might be of some interest to you, as it pertains to the discussion that you and Moridin are having in this thread: Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian.

Though, I feel that I must tell you that this book argues against some aspects of your position in this thread.

Regards,

 

[madness]

Thanks Condor, I'll be honest and say that I am not necessarily a relativist. As I stated in the analogy with reference frames in physics, there are certain things which cannot be proven, and I would say that whether there is an absolute truth is one of them. I cannot be sure that truth really is entirely relative, but I would have no reason to pick one set of rules over another. In order to make any valid deductions, we need a set of axioms (a framework or belief system). You could choose the minimal set (something like solipsism, although even "I think therefore I am" requires some assumptions), but then you are limited in the deductions you can make. Science seems to have chosen a certain set which has allowed us to make a lot of progress, and this may be an indication that it somehow represents "reality". I would like to point out that science is not merely based on observational evidence - there are certain steps taken between experiment and theory. Consider dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall at the same rate. In order to then say "all masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field" we have to make a leap of faith. This is an example of scientific induction.

 

[ConradDJ]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.
Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

I would say instead:

1: Believing that certain things are facts, whether based on good evidence or not.

2: Believing in God, believing in yourself, believing in the power of faith, etc. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with facts -- it has to do with training yourself to live a certain way.

A friend of mine once said -- "I believe all those stories about Jesus are true, whether they happened or not." She wasn't being irrational. But learning how to live in the world is a lot more than getting the facts right.

Religion is myth. Story-telling. But some stories are a lot better to believe in than others. Some can even save people and turn their lives around. Religious "faith" should be a matter of consciously choosing what to "believe in" -- whether or not you think it's factual.

I find it very sad that so many people today seems to assume that "believing in God" is that same as having strong opinions about certain facts, i.e. "God really exists." I don't believe in facts about God -- that's not what's important.