tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post357373320262158915..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Is moral law objective or subjective?mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56954166095887564772012-01-08T21:42:55.156-05:002012-01-08T21:42:55.156-05:00Michael,
So how does 'imagine' differ fro...Michael,<br /><br />So how does 'imagine' differ from 'conceive'? One online dictionary I looked at gave them as synonyms.<br /><br />Of course, you're just making it up as you go along, telling stories.<br /><br />Common popular convictions aren't necessarily true, and aren't a basis for rational argument. Most people think that memory acts like a video recorder, and memories are reliable, but they're also wrong about that too.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60059655199125897102012-01-08T21:10:49.148-05:002012-01-08T21:10:49.148-05:00@Doug:
1) Evolution did lead to a species of our ...@Doug:<br /><br />1) Evolution did lead to a species of our nature. It was and remains a teleological process, created and sustained by God. Our physical nature may well have evolved from other primates in the manner suggested by evolutionary biologists. Our soul and spirit did not evolve, but was created by God at our conception. <br /><br />2) "Imagine" is the wrong word. I can imagine anything. <br /><br />I cannot conceive any other possibility to explain our nature. I cannot rationally accept the emergence of the universe from nothing, natural laws from nothing, and moral law from no one. <br /><br />God's existence is demonstrated in Aquinas' Five Ways, which are refined logically rigorous expressions of the common popular conviction that the universe didn't come from nothing.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41824660921903572952012-01-08T21:01:18.336-05:002012-01-08T21:01:18.336-05:00Michael,
Nope. 'Darwinism' is what ignor...Michael,<br /><br />Nope. 'Darwinism' is what ignorant (not 'most') people mean by 'evolutionary theory'.<br /><br />The breeding of dogs and silver foxes weren't examples of intelligent design. They were examples of setting out to achieve one aim and accidentally and nonintelligently arriving at something else.<br /><br />Variation has to be inheritable, but it doesn't have to be adaptive. It just has to be near neutral (good or bad) because if it's very bad, it will be very quickly removed from the population.<br /><br />Evolution of species isn't an example of teleology in nature. All it means that when a single population is divided into two by some geographic barrier, each population is then free to diverge by selective pressure on pre-existing variants as a result of different environments to produce two populations that are so different that they are no longer capable of interbreeding, so they're separate species.<br /><br />There's no intelligent agent deciding that the two separate populations will evolve in different directions. It's just chance and environment.<br /><br />So now you're deciding what Aristotle and Aquinas would think about speciation, assuming that they had any idea as to what makes a species.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72243190699132426312012-01-08T20:54:58.506-05:002012-01-08T20:54:58.506-05:00To cut to the chase, am I correct in understanding...To cut to the chase, am I correct in understanding that you maintain that (1) evolution cannot lead to a species of our nature and (2) since you cannot imagine any other possibility to explain our nature, you conclude that god(s) gave it to us?Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46437984566015299012012-01-08T20:48:59.964-05:002012-01-08T20:48:59.964-05:00Egnor: Evolution of species is a nice example of t...Egnor: <i>Evolution of species is a nice example of teleology in nature. Aristotle and St. Thomas would concur, if you left out the atheist crap. </i> <br /><br />Why would I even care whether Aristotle and Aquinas would agree? (And how would we even check? With an oujia board?)oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54273439484179325702012-01-08T20:43:17.537-05:002012-01-08T20:43:17.537-05:00@bach:
[There's plenty of variation already i...@bach:<br /><br />[There's plenty of variation already in nature, even in apparently uniform populations of species. All the variants of dogs came from a single uniform population of grey wolves, ranging from chihuahuas to great danes.<br /><br />There's an ongoing experiment in Novosibirsk which has managed to take a uniform population of silver foxes and in less than 25 years produced subpopulations of very tame and very fearful foxes. The tame foxes also have gained the coloration of border collies (I've held one in my arms, and it was very tame).]<br /><br />Great examples of intelligent design.<br /><br />[You're simplistic in assuming that variation has to be be obvious to the naked eye, otherwise it doesn't exist or isn't important.]<br /><br />I don't assume variation has to be "visible". I observe that variation has to be heritable and adaptive to be preserved by natural selection. <br /><br />[I don't even have the slightest idea what you mean by 'evolutionary theory accords quite well with Aristolean/Thomistic metaphysics'. I suspect that you in your confused mind don't have the slightest idea either. Care to elaborate?]<br /><br />Evolution of species is a nice example of teleology in nature. Aristotle and St. Thomas would concur, if you left out the atheist crap.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48838283950761768012012-01-08T20:36:15.356-05:002012-01-08T20:36:15.356-05:00Michael,
There's plenty of variation already ...Michael,<br /><br />There's plenty of variation already in nature, even in apparently uniform populations of species. All the variants of dogs came from a single uniform population of grey wolves, ranging from chihuahuas to great danes.<br /><br />There's an ongoing experiment in Novosibirsk which has managed to take a uniform population of silver foxes and in less than 25 years produced subpopulations of very tame and very fearful foxes. The tame foxes also have gained the coloration of border collies (I've held one in my arms, and it was very tame).<br /><br />With a mammalian genome containing at least 20,000 genes, all of which are prone to neutral mutations, not affecting the product produced but instead its rate of production, it's inevitable that there will be considerable almost infinite variation within populations, albeit of visually undetectable kind.<br /><br />You're simplistic in assuming that variation has to be be obvious to the naked eye, otherwise it doesn't exist or isn't important.<br /><br />I don't even have the slightest idea what you mean by 'evolutionary theory accords quite well with Aristolean/Thomistic metaphysics'. I suspect that you in your confused mind don't have the slightest idea either.<br /><br />Care to elaborate?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55339763855038471052012-01-08T20:36:13.615-05:002012-01-08T20:36:13.615-05:00Egnor: The meaningful questions are much deeper: w...Egnor: <i>The meaningful questions are much deeper: why is nature the way it is, where do laws of nature come from, etc. </i> <br /><br />Philosophers have been going at it for millennia, and they don't have much to show for it. They are asking wrong questions.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22490840389960716922012-01-08T20:31:34.294-05:002012-01-08T20:31:34.294-05:00@oleg:
[It's a philosophical question. Philos...@oleg:<br /><br />[It's a philosophical question. Philosophers have produced tons of bullshit trying to answer it. Stick with it if you are interested in bullshit.]<br /><br />It's all philosophy, all the way down. Your assertion that philosophy is bullshit is philosophy. <br /><br />[Evolutionary theory accords quite well with Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. <br /><br />Change of heart? You used to say that evolutionary theory was a tautology. What happened?]<br /><br />I missspoke. The redacted version:<br /><br />"Evolution accords quite well with Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics." <br /><br />Darwinism, which is what most people mean by "evolutionary theory", is a composite of banality (variation) and tautology (selection). The meaningful questions are much deeper: why is nature the way it is, where do laws of nature come from, etc.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4235925797953576432012-01-08T20:25:42.358-05:002012-01-08T20:25:42.358-05:00Egnor: Variation must produce favorable organisms ...Egnor: <i>Variation must produce favorable organisms on which natural selection can "act".</i> <br /><br />I think you're on to something. <br /><br /><i>Where does adaptation come from, prior to the "action" of natural selection, which can preserve adaptation, but not create it?</i> <br /><br />No, I was wrong. You still don't get it. <br /><br /><i>The deeper question is: whence "our nature"? </i> <br /><br />It's a philosophical question. Philosophers have produced tons of bullshit trying to answer it. Stick with it if you are interested in bullshit.<br /><br /><i>Evolutionary theory accords quite well with Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. </i> <br /><br />Change of heart? You used to say that evolutionary theory was a tautology. What happened?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59927658714149288832012-01-08T20:22:51.534-05:002012-01-08T20:22:51.534-05:00@bach:
[Nothing is 'written' in our heart...@bach:<br /><br />[Nothing is 'written' in our hearts. I would have thought that a neurosurgeon with even a minimal understanding of neuroscience (as you seem to have) would have used a better figure of speech to imply that it's the brain that has implanted moral laws, and actually bothered to indicate a mechanism for it occurring.]<br /><br />"The law is written in our telencephalon" doesn't have the same poetic resonance. <br /><br />[The bible contains over 600 moral commands, most of which are ignored nowadays. Jesus was supposed to have claimed in Matthew that he came not to change one piece of law. So have do you decide (or anyone else for that matter) which biblical laws are to be followed and which ignored?]<br /><br />I'm not a fundamentalist nor a protestant, and I'm not a Biblical literalist. I learn from the Magesteria of the Catholic Church, and from my conscience. <br /><br />[Finally, how do you know that your prayers are genuine and an accurate reflection of 'God's will'? How do you know that it's not your subconscious that's talking to you?]<br /><br />I don't know. I pray for discernment, and faith. I'm a very imperfect creature. I do the best with what I have, and I use my best judgement. I give my life to Christ. With fear and trembling, as Paul called it. <br /><br />[Evolution does produce beneficial traits. Your manifest ignorance of biology doesn't impress me.]<br /><br />I'll keep working on it. Someday...mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30547140040903568932012-01-08T20:13:09.711-05:002012-01-08T20:13:09.711-05:00@Doug:
In evolutionary theory, random heritable v...@Doug:<br /><br />In evolutionary theory, random heritable variation (mutation, recombination of genes, etc) provides the substrate on which natural selection (differences in reproductive effectiveness) acts. <br /><br />Variation is random, ostensibly, and natural selection isn't an agent or a force, it is merely an observation of the result of myriad forces and agency in nature. <br /><br />Variation must produce favorable organisms on which natural selection can "act". It has often been said, perceptively, that the real question is about the arrival of the fittest, not the survival of the fittest.<br /><br />Where does adaptation come from, prior to the "action" of natural selection, which can preserve adaptation, but not create it?<br /><br />Evolutionary theory accords quite well with Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. <br /><br />The deeper question is: whence "our nature"?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48864266150098435942012-01-08T20:08:41.089-05:002012-01-08T20:08:41.089-05:00Egnor: Evolution preserves beneficial traits. It d...Egnor: <i>Evolution preserves beneficial traits. It does not create them.</i> <br /><br />Wrong as usual. You probably mean to say <i>natural selection</i> preserves beneficial traits.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1530779443367734482012-01-08T20:01:08.414-05:002012-01-08T20:01:08.414-05:00It appears that your understanding of evolution is...It appears that your understanding of evolution is not the same as mine. In my understanding, the limitation and thus the problem you suppose does not appear.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22840798710949676102012-01-08T19:51:13.055-05:002012-01-08T19:51:13.055-05:00Michael,
Nothing is 'written' in our hear...Michael,<br /><br />Nothing is 'written' in our hearts. I would have thought that a neurosurgeon with even a minimal understanding of neuroscience (as you seem to have) would have used a better figure of speech to imply that it's the brain that has implanted moral laws, and actually bothered to indicate a mechanism for it occurring.<br /><br />The bible contains over 600 moral commands, most of which are ignored nowadays. Jesus was supposed to have claimed in Matthew that he came not to change one piece of law. So have do you decide (or anyone else for that matter) which biblical laws are to be followed and which ignored?<br /><br />Finally, how do you know that your prayers are genuine and an accurate reflection of 'God's will'? How do you know that it's not your subconscious that's talking to you?<br /><br />Evolution does produce beneficial traits. Your manifest ignorance of biology doesn't impress me. We might not be able to explain how the 23,000 genes in the human genome interact to produce the human brain with its 100 billion neurons to the depth you appear to want, because if the brain was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand.<br /><br />We are making progress. We know that abnormal FOXP2 genes lead to defective speech. We know that traits such as psychopathy, narcissism, borderline personalities and Aspergers syndrome are associated with defective mirror neurons and Von Economo cells, and Aspergers syndrome is associated with various gene variants.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87562345596670676322012-01-08T19:19:23.577-05:002012-01-08T19:19:23.577-05:00@Doug:
Evolution preserves beneficial traits. It ...@Doug:<br /><br />Evolution preserves beneficial traits. It does not create them.<br /><br />Whence "our nature"?<br /><br />Don't pretend you don't understand the question. Unlike the usual drones I encounter, you're smart enough to know what I mean.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51488187265727212582012-01-08T19:03:16.780-05:002012-01-08T19:03:16.780-05:00Humans evolved to have the "nature" they...Humans evolved to have the "nature" they do.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26448637413055073182012-01-08T18:33:46.100-05:002012-01-08T18:33:46.100-05:00@Doug:
Whence "our nature"?@Doug:<br /><br />Whence "our nature"?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-65147514559360244782012-01-08T18:01:29.576-05:002012-01-08T18:01:29.576-05:00As I understand it, various philosophers ground &q...As I understand it, various philosophers ground "natural rights" in various sources, including god(s).<br /><br />My view is that, much like our sense of morality, derives from our nature as human beings, so too do "natural rights" that are unalienable because they are inherent in our nature.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56463837919829452582012-01-08T17:46:08.394-05:002012-01-08T17:46:08.394-05:00Doug:
More succinctly, there are differences of o...Doug:<br /><br />More succinctly, there are differences of opinion. <br /><br />I believe the Christian opinion is the correct one, which is why I became a Christian. <br /><br />Where do unalienable rights come from?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56153963136853518072012-01-08T17:40:47.451-05:002012-01-08T17:40:47.451-05:00mregnor,
I well understand that you defend only t...mregnor,<br /><br />I well understand that you defend only the Christian moral code (I set aside, for the moment, that there are several such codes, depending on the kind of Christian) and do not defend, but rather even attack, the moral codes of other types of theists--for the very reason that you regard your code as "objective" and "absolute" and "right" and regard theirs as "subjective" and wrong, just like they regard theirs as objective and absolute and right and regard yours as subjective and wrong. That, indeed, is partially my point. And the strength and validity of your conflicting claims depends entirely on your respective beliefs in your gods. To those who do not believe in your god, your moral code is every bit as "subjective" as you suppose the others' codes are. And to those who do not believe in any gods, any of the theists' moral codes are as "subjective" (in your understanding of that term) as all the others.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56961386241539478292012-01-08T17:31:51.317-05:002012-01-08T17:31:51.317-05:00@bach:
[Only certain Christians, of an incoherent...@bach:<br /><br />[Only certain Christians, of an incoherent type, believe that the moral code originates in the mind of god.]<br /><br />What a stupid assertion. The divine source of the moral law is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. <br /><br />[Most are pragmatic and willing to decide on laws on the basis of necessity and utility.]<br /><br />To that extent, they are not Christians. <br /><br />[How do you think that you discover God's moral code? I suspect by thinking about it, and making it up as you go along.}<br /><br />1) It's written in our hearts<br />2) The Bible and Church teaching<br />3) Prayermregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1125130395362915982012-01-08T17:28:51.595-05:002012-01-08T17:28:51.595-05:00@bach:
[Some plants do have directness and intent...@bach:<br /><br />[Some plants do have directness and intentionality. Such as the insectivorous plant the Venus Flytrap. It's able to trap an insect with a mind in less than 20 seconds. Does it have a mind?]<br /><br />The VF manifests teleology. Intentionality is a manifestation of teleology in living things with minds. I don't think that VF's have anything like a mind. <br /><br />[Go and read Richard Dawkins' book 'Climbing Mount Improbable', particularly the last chapter 'A Garden Enclosed' which discusses the stable gaming strategies of the fig (all 900 species of them, plants without a mind) and its fig wasp (similarly 900 species, each specific for a fig tree, and with hardly a brain at all). Both have directness and intentionality, but they evolved. Weren't designed.]<br /><br />"Weren't designed"? That's the matter at issue, and your presumption can't be used to settle the issue. Whether or not nature manifests design is the central question.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23190990396324406842012-01-08T17:24:51.530-05:002012-01-08T17:24:51.530-05:00Michael,
Only certain Christians, of an incoheren...Michael,<br /><br />Only certain Christians, of an incoherent type, believe that the moral code originates in the mind of god. Most are pragmatic and willing to decide on laws on the basis of necessity and utility.<br /><br />How do you think that you discover God's moral code? I suspect by thinking about it, and making it up as you go along.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26388891788984657242012-01-08T17:08:14.362-05:002012-01-08T17:08:14.362-05:00@Doug:
On the issue of subjective vs objective mo...@Doug:<br /><br />On the issue of subjective vs objective moral law, the difference between the Christian and the atheist position is obvious.<br /><br />Christians believe that the moral code originates in the mind of God, and exists independently of man's opinions. Our job is to discover it, not create it. <br /><br />Atheist views are a jumbled mess, and can't ground anything, morality among other things, in any coherent way.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com