Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

[Dalek Prime]

FYI, DL, Andy Thomson (the speaker in the video you linked to) is a simple-minded bigot speaking to the choir. The fact remains, "From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to live," the principle of Evolution has been violated."

Evolution is not a principle. It is a mindless process.

[The Inglorious One]

FYI, DL, Andy Thomson (the speaker in the video you linked to) is a simple-minded bigot speaking to the choir. The fact remains, "From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to live," the principle of Evolution has been violated."

Evolution is not a principle. It is a mindless process.

Is that a scientific fact or a philosophic conclusion?

[Obvious Leo]

FYI, DL, Andy Thomson (the speaker in the video you linked to) is a simple-minded bigot speaking to the choir. The fact remains, "From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to live," the principle of Evolution has been violated."

Evolution is not a principle. It is a mindless process.

Is that a scientific fact or a philosophic conclusion?

It's mainly a philosophical conclusion because evolution is simply a natural consequence of cause and effect without need of an external organising plan or template. Simple systems evolve into more complex ones for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise rather than because they are designed to do so. In information theory this process goes by a number of names including syntropy and negentropy and it is also sometimes known colloquially as the 4th law of thermodynamics. In the common parlance it goes by the name of "complexity from chaos".

[Dalek Prime]

As I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher, I will say, my opinion. Which won't be altered until you can defend it being a principle, and not, as I stated, a mindless process.

[The Inglorious One]

As I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher, I will say, my opinion. Which won't be altered until you can defend it being a principle, and not, as I stated, a mindless process.

So it's the latter: a philosophic conclusion.

[Dalek Prime]

As I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher, I will say, my opinion. Which won't be altered until you can defend it being a principle, and not, as I stated, a mindless process.

So it's the latter: a philosophic conclusion.

If you like. And if others of a.more scientific leaning think likewise, I'd accept the former as well.

So, just out of curiosity, why do you say principle? Is that a philosophical conclusion, or a scientific one?

[The Inglorious One]

It's mainly a philosophical conclusion because evolution is simply a natural consequence of cause and effect without need of an external organising plan or template. Simple systems evolve into more complex ones for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise rather than because they are designed to do so. In information theory this process goes by a number of names including syntropy and negentropy and it is also sometimes known colloquially as the 4th law of thermodynamics. In the common parlance it goes by the name of "complexity from chaos".

It's an empty statement, Leo. You are saying it is a philosophic conclusion based on your understanding of the available evidence. Creationists make the same argument.

So, just out of curiosity, why do you say principle? Is that a philosophical conclusion, or a scientific one?

I didn't. It was a quote from Edouard Récéjac (Essay on the Basis of Mystic Knowledge). It is simply a matter of grammar: calling evolution a "mindless process" is a principle -- a basic generalization that is accepted as true and can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct.

To rephrase the quote: "From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to-live," the idea of evolution being a mindless process has been violated."

[Dalek Prime]

Okay. I had believed it to be a quote, but I was getting the impression you where taking responsibility for it. Thank you for the elucidation.

[Obvious Leo]

It's an empty statement, Leo. You are saying it is a philosophic conclusion based on your understanding of the available evidence. Creationists make the same argument.

Bullshit. Creationists make exactly the opposite argument and claim that the universe is the way it is because of a divine plan. Physicists make the same claim. I'm saying the exact opposite and that the universe is the way it is because that's the way it came to pass. Shit happens.

"From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to-live," the idea of evolution being a mindless process has been violated."

There's a lot to like about this quote but I assume that when Recejac refers to man he means homo sapiens as a species rather than the individual human being. I haven't seen the quote before so is this a correct assumption?

[The Inglorious One]

Bullshit. Creationists make exactly the opposite argument and claim that the universe is the way it is because of a divine plan. Physicists make the same claim. I'm saying the exact opposite and that the universe is the way it is because that's the way it came to pass. Shit happens.

That's a (dogmatic) philosophic conclusion on your part, one that based on your understanding of the available evidence. You might as well be a creationist.

I remember people seeing standing in front of a congregation saying, "I know this is the true church of God." Well, duh. Of course they think that and people attending other churches believe the same about their church and you believe what you believe with the same kind of certainty. You are a religious nut by your own standards: there is nothing that distinguishes you from them except what you believe.

"From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to-live," the idea of evolution being a mindless process has been violated."

There's a lot to like about this quote but I assume that when Recejac refers to man he means homo sapiens as a species rather than the individual human being. I haven't seen the quote before so is this a correct assumption?

That's my understanding, too. However (though I don't think you can see it), it entails a great deal of difficulty for you philosophy as I understand it.

[Obvious Leo]

You are a religious nut by your own standards: there is nothing that distinguishes you from them except what you believe.

This is nonsense. I have made no statement of belief whatsoever and the only two axiomatic claims I make are fundamental metaphysical principles which are mainstream in most of the major schools of philosophy. Just to refresh your memory as to what they are.

1. The universe is everything that exists

2. All effects must be preceded by a cause

These could hardly be called bleeding edge claims of blind faith but if you'd like to refute either of them then please be my guest and state your case. The burden of proof lies with you.

[Skip]

[
there is nothing that distinguishes you from them except what you believe.

Alfred believes that he can walk on water and cure and caner by the laying on of hands. Bertram believes that a boat will more probably get him across the lake and cancer responds to radiation and chemotherapy. Except for that, they're indistinguishable.

Charles believes that the only way to achieve world peace is to kill everyone who doesn't look, speak and think the way he does. David believes that the best way to achieve world peace is through tolerance, communication and mutual aid. Except for that, they're exactly the same.

Obviously.

[The Inglorious One]

I have made no statement of belief whatsoever and the only two axiomatic claims I make are fundamental metaphysical principles which are mainstream in most of the major schools of philosophy.

Exactly. The belief that there must exist a TRUTH that will liberate us is so deeply ingrained in our way of thinking that not finding it won’t deter us from stumbling onward in our search.

You assume:

Truth exists somewhere
It has a definite form
A specific content
It is unique
Universal
If only found, it would solve all our problems
Everyone will recognize it
To be THE TRUTH

If only Reality were that definite. "There is no trustworthy standard by which we can separate the “real” from the “unreal” aspects of phenomena. Such standards as exist are conventional: and correspond to convenience, not to truth. It is no argument to say that most men see the world in much the same way, and that this “way” is the true standard of reality: though for practical purposes we have agreed that sanity consists in sharing the hallucinations of our neighbours. Those who are honest with themselves know that this “sharing” is at best incomplete." -- Evelyn Underhill

there is nothing that distinguishes you from them except what you believe.

Alfred believes that he can walk on water and cure and caner by the laying on of hands. Bertram believes that a boat will more probably get him across the lake and cancer responds to radiation and chemotherapy. Except for that, they're indistinguishable.

Charles believes that the only way to achieve world peace is to kill everyone who doesn't look, speak and think the way he does. David believes that the best way to achieve world peace is through tolerance, communication and mutual aid. Except for that, they're exactly the same.

Obviously.

Agreed.

[Skip]

And yet, I have no trouble deciding whom to consult in matters of navigation, health and diplomacy.

[The Inglorious One]

And yet, I have no trouble deciding whom to consult in matters of navigation, health and diplomacy.

"The fact that Nature seems a given way from all viewpoints, or in other words, that there is agreement between the perceptions of different beings, does not lead to the logical inference that Nature is really this or that way, only that we perceive it that way and that there is agreement between our perceptions. Nevertheless, I would argue that statements about the real nature of things can only be stated as workable tools, not as ontological statements with a truth-value." -- Clara Szalai

Or, if you prefer Albert Einstein:

“The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori. For even if it should appear that the universe of ideas cannot be deduced from experience by logical means, but is, in a sense, a creation of the human mind, without which no science is possible, nevertheless this universe of ideas is just as little independent of the nature of our experiences as clothes are of the form of the human body.”

In short, DL, Hobbled, and Leo are ensnared by the same kind of certainty as the religions they condemn.