Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, November 09, 2014, 15:07 (3667 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Dhw: That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.-TONY: The biggest difference between the two is that theism accepts that there is a God, and that we can not know his origins unless he decides to enlighten us. Atheism makes up a story from which something comes from nothing and truly believes that it is possible for something to come from nothing.-We don't know the “First Cause”. Theism makes up a story that it is a conscious something that has either always been there or came from nothing. Atheism makes up a story that a non-conscious something has always been there or came from nothing. The only difference I can see is that theism believes (not “accepts”) in something that won't tell us where it came from, and atheism believes in something that can't tell us where it came from.
 
TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.
DHW: Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.-TONY: I didn't equate Atheism with immorality, I simply pointed out Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog, outright admitted why he pushed so hard for that naturalist theory.-Aldous Huxley was the grandson of T.H. Huxley, who was Darwin's Bulldog, was neither theist nor atheist, and coined the term “agnostic”.-TONY: It was never that it made sense, only that it gave him a way out of moral accountability to a higher court whose laws were not man's laws. I.E. If things are mechanical than it doesn't matter what he does so long as it can be justified because when he dies, he is simply dead. This same mode of thinking allowed for Eugenics and a host of other dehumanizing modes of thinking. -The quote concerns the philosophy of meaninglessness, which may provide a philosophical basis for immorality, but doesn't mean that people who disbelieve in God can't find meaning in life. (Aldous H. later turned to mysticism). While religion provides meaning, throughout its history one sect has persecuted others in the belief that their god(s) want(s) them to do so. This “dehumanizing mode of thinking” allowed for throwing Christians to the lions, burning heretics at the stake, and slaughtering people of all denominations. As you say later, “Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.” This has nothing to do with the truth of theism, atheism or evolution.-TONY: In short, I am not equating atheism or evolution with immorality, I am saying that the beginnings of naturalism and the push for atheism had their roots in it.-You are basing this assumption on a paragraph taken (possibly out of context) from a book written in 1937. Darwin published Origin in 1859, following decades of painstaking research, and feared that his theory might offend religious people. His contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace, an anti-materialist and the hero of many theistic evolutionists, believed that evolution was designed and purpose-driven. These two dedicated scientists provided the “roots” of evolutionary theory. How can you claim that their motives were “rooted” in a desire to justify immorality? You also persist in ignoring the fact that countless theists believe in the theory. Switching the subject from evolution to the roots of atheism simply won't wash. It is a genuine attempt to understand how life on this planet has developed from comparatively simple forms to the complexities of ourselves, and its exploitation for other purposes is no more relevant to its possible truth than the exploitation of the bible for other purposes.
 
TONY: Not all subscribers to a theory or religion are good or bad, moral or immoral. Once that mode of thinking has taken root, it doesn't matter because it is touted as fact and people grow up believing it without knowing or caring about the origins of it, much the same way that good people fuel up their care without thinking about the wars that were fought and people that died so they could do so cheaply. People are people, and people will do whatever they think they can justify under their dominant mode of thinking. Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.-We are in complete agreement, so long as you acknowledge that these observations apply just as much to the religious as to the irreligious, and have nothing to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the theory of evolution. 
--