Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[anonymouse]

I just want to touch on a couple of points raised early in this thread.

Historically speaking, all science originally began as philosophy. Over the past several millenia, philosophical debate about the nature of things turned up answers to philosophical questions. These 'answers' then broke away from philosophy and formed into various branches of science and art. It could be argued that this 'evolution of thought' is part of a wider evolutionary process.

There have been two very interesting books written in recent years to address the phenomenon of spiritual belief.

'God's Debris', written by Scott Addams, creator of the Dilbert series of comics, is available as a free PDF download (easily found by Googling it). It's a very enjoyable read that asks more questions than it answers.

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread and I hope I haven't treaded on the toes of anybody who might have a different viewpoint to mine.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

Thanks for the book tips. I'm always on the look out for books on the subject. Belief in an ubiquitous physical god I thought was called pantheism? Extremly interesting anyway.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Post modernist philosophers tend to get grossly miss-quoted in the press further adding to the confusion.

And then you've got smart-asses who use the term, (erroneously) because they're too damn lazy to engage their brains and just claim everything is relative. Right now it poisons the Swedish philosophical debates. I don't know how it is over there, but here it's rediculous. You might get some post-modernist feminist talking about axioms. I mean, that's not what her thing is. It's talking about ethics. Yes, there is a truth. The problem may be that nobody sees it, but that's a completely different matter.

[anonymouse]

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day

anonymouse

I totaly understand what relativism is all about. But as you say; it's largely about linguistics and not about truth at all.

I read "gods debris". I like Scott Adams. Thanks for the tip, he's fun. I'm guessing it's the result of taking a beginners course in philosophy because it usually covers just the problems he poses in the book. Even though none of it is very profound or new it was still a good read.

[Rhabbi]

I just want to touch on a couple of points raised early in this thread.

Historically speaking, all science originally began as philosophy. Over the past several millenia, philosophical debate about the nature of things turned up answers to philosophical questions. These 'answers' then broke away from philosophy and formed into various branches of science and art. It could be argued that this 'evolution of thought' is part of a wider evolutionary process.

There have been two very interesting books written in recent years to address the phenomenon of spiritual belief.

'God's Debris', written by Scott Addams, creator of the Dilbert series of comics, is available as a free PDF download (easily found by Googling it). It's a very enjoyable read that asks more questions than it answers.

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread and I hope I haven't treaded on the toes of anybody who might have a different viewpoint to mine.

anonymouse

I do not think you have tread on anyone's toes, at least you have not tread on mine. I kind of started this debate because i wanted to make people think about evolution in a new way. My reading over the last few years has raised a lot more questions about evolution than I had thought existed and has shown me that the debate between science and religion has never been that, the debates are always about philosophy.

I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type.

[TomOfSweden]

I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type.

I just thought I'd point out that all the religious beliefs are all philosophical schools. Nothing in this post makes any sense. It's comparing Toyotas to cars. The idea of objective truth is Aristotelian, and is just one of the pre-christian ideas incorporated into christianity. There is nothing in christianity philosophy which even at its inception that was original or new. The Bible is a collection of moral values that where commonly shared by most people at the time of its compilation, (ie ca 300 AD).

And you are on top of this wrong. If two philosophers have a discussion where one of them is open to every avenue and the other only is open to a world of objective, (ie external) truths. Who is the most open to new ideas?

You might have found that in general christians are more open to new ideas than non-christian philosophers, which is a gross generalisation. It's a value judgement impossible to measure of verify. Just a bag of wind, right?

All we have is our own intellect. You believe god gave you free will right? If its not your intellect at work, then what is?

[Rhabbi]

You might have found that in general christians are more open to new ideas than non-christian philosophers, which is a gross generalisation. It's a value judgement impossible to measure of verify. Just a bag of wind, right?

All we have is our own intellect. You believe god gave you free will right? If its not your intellect at work, then what is?

Actually Tom, I have not found this. I would like to point out that though I am a Christian, you are the one that keeps bringing up Christianity. I have found that most 'christians' are closed minded bigots. I am a believer in a God that is bigger than I am, so I do not have to defend him at the expense of truth. This allows me to apply all of my mind to a discusssion and not be offended when someone disagrees. I know that eventuall the truth will be found out, whatever it is.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually Tom, I have not found this. I would like to point out that though I am a Christian, you are the one that keeps bringing up Christianity. I have found that most 'christians' are closed minded bigots. I am a believer in a God that is bigger than I am, so I do not have to defend him at the expense of truth. This allows me to apply all of my mind to a discusssion and not be offended when someone disagrees. I know that eventuall the truth will be found out, whatever it is.

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.

[Rhabbi]

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

[anonymouse]

True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, including their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Do humans have free will or not?