Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Dubious]

I mean, how does an entire population suddenly mutate from Neanderthal to modern person? Do you have any mechanism that can do that? Have you got any cases of it happening with any population?

You're as mentally incapacitated as it's possible to be. The god you so believe in seriously short-changed you on brain distributions.

Homo Sapiens (modern humans) and Neanderthals coexisted for at least 40,000 years. The latter, as we all know - except for the most ignorant of the ignorant - became extinct, though modern humans still inherited some Neanderthal genes by having interbred during that overlapping period. They, in case you still don't understand, were a separate branch of the family tree, so Neanderthals "suddenly mutating to modern" is a statement as uninformed as it's possible to be. You have a mind which belongs neither to this century nor the last.

Each of your posts, as mentioned before, highlights how abysmal your knowledge really is. No wonder you default to a simplistic Garden of Eden story, which for a mental zombie, is so much easier to understand, no questions asked.

[Immanuel Can]

Modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted for at least 40,000 years.

You're missing the point.

At some point, the first modern human had to appear. That human was the product of a "first mating pair," obviously. It doesn't matter when it happened, or how many stages you imagine or make up for before it. You're still stuck with a first mating pair. There's no getting away from that.

Sorry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Maybe. But that doesn't show that any of it is "evil." Rather, it suggests that death is just part of the way things are, and any feeling of "evil" existing in it would be a delusion.

The Adam & Eve story, which forms a crucial aspect of your belief-system, lays it out that the Snake was Satan’s emissary, and by encouraging disobedience in The Original Mating Pair, caused a tremendous fall from Grace and into the world as it is now: a fallen, degenerate, damaged world.

Not only did bad and unadvised tendencies come into the world through this circumstance, but evil did too. The first murder, no? And then so on ….

This is all your material, Immanuel, because you are a Bible literalist. It is not mine though, and the “pillar of my faith” does not hinge on that story, the literalist interpretation, et cetera.

I well understand how you understand evil to have come into the world. And I have asked you numerous times to define, not so much God, but God’s opposition. You have declined.

But it is a crucial piece.

I simply explained how another people, at a very different period of time, who were not Hebrews and did not operate under that strange psychology of having been “selected from among the nations”, and opposed to the ways of those surrounding nations, and who defined those of the nations as being allied with evil, which complicates everything for both Jew and Christian — I simply presented their view about what evil is, or in what it originates. It flows out of a “fish eat fish” reality. Man’s evil to man (theft, dispossession, deceit, etc.) is of the same sort. Biological creatures feed on other biological creatures: it is written into de rerum natura. The way things are.

The issue of our mortality and all that attends physical mutability is also a cause of deep distress. And it is also perceived as an ‘evil’ for those who must live through it.

However, deliberate evil acts — deliberate cruelty, pleasure in causing suffering, and even that self-centered selfishness of a two year old, these are markedly of a different quality than even ‘simple theft’ (as for example displacement of one people by another) — though I personally think they have a common root.

that death is just part of the way things are, and any feeling of "evil" existing in it would be a delusion

Death is definitely part of Nature, no doubt. But it is also the root of so much in human nature.

And when one wonders: How is it that God has created this mutable world that necessarily entails suffering? It is around that question that interpretations are constructed.

[Dubious]

Modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted for at least 40,000 years.

You're missing the point.

At some point, the first modern human had to appear. That human was the product of a "first mating pair," obviously. It doesn't matter when it happened, or how many stages you imagine or make up for before it. You're still stuck with a first mating pair. There's no getting away from that.

You're the one who just came up with another classic doozie, next to your certainty of a first mating pair, when you gave another example of incomprehension, claiming neanderthals suddenly mutated into modern humans. How would someone who makes such egregiously false statements know anything about a first mating pair or if such were even viable as an evolutionary process.

In your posts any minute remainder of credibility, if you ever had such, has been levelled to ZERO.

[Gary Childress]

We don't have to give them names. You can call them "Oog" and "Ook," if you want. Or nothing at all. Dube's point was that such a thing couldn't happen.


Well, if that's supposed to be a question specifically for humans, it's not. It's a question about how all of evolution is supposed to work. And so far as I know, all the current theories hold it happens by way of mutation through reproduction, modified by survival of the fittest, not by way of a magical genetic surge simultaneously across the entire population at one time.

Though if you have a case of such a thing happening, I'd be interested in knowing about it. So would Evolutionists, of course.

What do you mean by "magical genetic surge simultaneously across an entire population?" Can you unpack that statement?

I mean, how does an entire population suddenly mutate from Neanderthal to modern person? Do you have any mechanism that can do that? Have you got any cases of it happening with any population?

They didn't. There is Neanderthal DNA in humans but very little apparently. Species supposedly don't magically transform into other species overnight and in one big swoop. It takes thousands and more years for even minor changes according to science.

As far as Dubious position, I don't know what it is so I can only guess. Was he implying that the genesis account of human creation was scientifically impossible or improbable?

You can go back and read what Dube says. Apparently, it's that it's impossible that at any time in the past there was a "first mating pair" of modern humans. So the alternative would be some kind of massive, universal genetic shift, wouldn't it? So now, we'd need evidence of such a thing.

The alternative would seem to be maybe a few thousand mating pairs or less at one point that slowly produced variations from earlier hominid ancestors, of which we all share one common male and one common female ancestor who seem by chance to have lived in different eras of human development tens of thousands of years apart. Other parts of our genetic make up reflect a variety of inputs from other mating pairs.

As far as evidence, the genetic sequence is the scientific evidence. The evidence we have of the Biblical story is from stories (what could be fables or myths) handed down from culture to culture in Mesopotamia over a few thousand years. Presumably the descendants of Adam and Eve maybe relayed various stories over thousands of years. It doesn't seem far fetched that neolithic homo sapiens could look at population growth and think that there must have been a single mating pair that started it all. But that might be oversimplistic thinking based on lore and early attempts at something one might call pseudo logic or something.

There is room to still believe in the Biblical creation story, ultimately no one alive today was around to witness the beginning of hominids on Earth, so nothing at this point is incontrovertible.

[Dubious]

There is room to still believe in the Biblical creation story, ultimately no one alive today was around to witness the beginning of hominids on Earth, so nothing at this point is incontrovertible.

...so what you're saying rather directly, is that the biblical account of creation has an equal probability of being true along with evolution, since there was no one around to witness the beginning. Of course, to witness the beginning, someone from this period would have had to be around THEN for at least a million years to record and confirm that evolutionary changes did in fact occur. As long as we don't have that data from an actual witness, evolution as an accepted science fact remains as questionable as the one written in the bible with no real possibility to prove its viability since no such witnesses are possible. According to this logic the question remains forever unresolved.

[Gary Childress]

There is room to still believe in the Biblical creation story, ultimately no one alive today was around to witness the beginning of hominids on Earth, so nothing at this point is incontrovertible.

...so what you're saying rather directly, is that the biblical account of creation has an equal probability of being true along with evolution, since there was no one around to witness the beginning. Of course, to witness the beginning, someone from this period would have had to be around THEN for at least a million years to record and confirm that evolutionary changes did in fact occur. As long as we don't have that data from an actual witness, evolution as an accepted science fact remains as questionable as the one written in the bible with no real possibility to prove its viability since no such witnesses are possible. According to this logic the question remains forever unresolved.

I don't believe they are equal, Science counts more along the lines of what I would call "evidence".

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe. But that doesn't show that any of it is "evil." Rather, it suggests that death is just part of the way things are, and any feeling of "evil" existing in it would be a delusion.

The Adam & Eve story,...

No, let's not change the subject yet. This is important for us to sort out.

We need to decide whether "evil" refers to a real thing, an objective reality, or only to a feeling or attribution that people have in their heads. If it's just the latter, and unanchored to an objective truth about the former then it's a delusion, obviously -- because that's what we call it when somebody has an idea in their head, but that idea is utterly unwarranted by the state of things-in-themselves.

And if "evil" is just an attribution or feeling, then we can't even ask the question, "Why is there evil," because our own belief is that there ISN'T objectively any evil at all.

This is all your material, Immanuel, because you are a Bible literalist.

We can leave that aside for the moment, too...because if we adopt my worldview (which I accept you're not prepared to do), then "evil" refers to an objective thing, not merely to a feeling unanchored to reality. So in my worldview, we CAN ask the question, "Why does evil exist? However, since you don't share that worldview, then in deference to your preference, we have to return to the problem of what you can mean when you speak of there being some "problem of evil."

I think there is: but I can't see how you do, when you don't even believe "evil" is an assessment of anything that is objectively real.

When we solve this, maybe we can ask about "evil" again. But until we do, how can you ask me about something you insist is a nothing? "Why does evil exist?" turns out, then, to mean, "Why does this nothing exist?" And I can't answer that question, can I?

And when one wonders: How is it that God has created this mutable world that necessarily entails suffering?

Well, first, we'd have to know that "suffering" is evil. That we don't like it -- is that enough to justify an attribution of "evil"? Hardly. I think "evil" is supposed to be a great deal more serious than that, is it not? "I don't like it" might be no more than an attribution of inconvenience or discomfort. And who said the world owes us convenience and comfort? Where is that written down?

So we have to solve this riddle: what is "evil," given a worldview that insists that moral qualities are not objectively real?

[Immanuel Can]

...claiming neanderthals suddenly mutated into modern humans...

I'm not claiming that. I don't believe in any form of human-evolutionism at all. I'm trying to make sense of the just-so story you're telling, which is not only about how human evolution happened, but that it happened without implication of a binary pair reproducing in the normal way.

It looks to me like you're telling yourself a story without specific details. You just seem to be assuming there was some sudden jump of a whole number of individuals (I can't tell how many) who coincidentally got some new mutation. But you'd have to fill in those details...the story doesn't make sense as is...not even within the regular evolutionary story, which is that genetic mutations happen to individuals first, within the normal reproductive process, not to huge classes of individuals coincidentally, at the same time, by some unknown process.

[Immanuel Can]

Species supposedly don't magically transform into other species overnight and in one big swoop. It takes thousands and more years for even minor changes according to science.

Stretching the timeline actually changes nothing. And minimizing the change changes nothing. There's still always some point at which the first 'modern' humanoid appeared. And, according to the Evolution myth, he must have (very luckily) found a partner who's own genetic makeup would not revert his own mutated gene to the standard, but would allow it to persist from then on to eternity. And all the other humanoids that were around had to die off, taking their unmutated genes with them, and leave only modern humans to occupy the planet...

At that point, we can see that the story has very serious problems of probability and explanation.

As far as Dubious position, I don't know what it is so I can only guess. Was he implying that the genesis account of human creation was scientifically impossible or improbable?

You can go back and read what Dube says. Apparently, it's that it's impossible that at any time in the past there was a "first mating pair" of modern humans. So the alternative would be some kind of massive, universal genetic shift, wouldn't it? So now, we'd need evidence of such a thing.

The alternative would seem to be maybe a few thousand mating pairs...

How do these mating pairs all appear coincidentally, at the same time, able to mate with each other, because they all possess precisely the right gene to perpetuate the next mutation toward modern humanoids? We'd have to think there was some mechanism for that...it would be an astronomically unlikely coincidence, and science does not enjoy reverting to gross coincidences as explanations of things.

As far as evidence, the genetic sequence is the scientific evidence.

It isn't, actually. It evidences only that we have particular genes. How we got them, why others also got them, and what happened to those that didn't get them...those sorts of questions aren't remotely answered by saying, "Well, we have genes."

[Alexis Jacobi]

….

Actually, and in my opinion, I think your “idea of evil” is actually what must be talked through, and this would involve a self-analysis that you are not very well prepared for nor interested in.

Evil, in your system, entered the world through those events leading to the Fall. And evil will be resolved, again according to the view you hold, when The Prince of Peace returns, final terrestrial battles are waged, and Divine Rule is reestablished. That will represent the full circle back to a God-Directed world. Factually, how Christians visualized the completed world is rather complex, but we can leave that aside.

What you want to establish is your specific view of the realistically objective view of “evil”. Personally, as you know, I tend to see “explanatory stories” as containers for truths that are metaphysical in nature. I am not a Bible Realist for this reason. Except, and this is important (to my orientation) when the Gospel accounts are considered. But I do have to say that, even there, or especially there, the “message” transcends the Story (the picture, the account, the “narrative”).

[Immanuel Can]

….

Actually, and in my opinion, I think your “idea of evil” is actually what must be talked through, and this would involve a self-analysis that you are not very well prepared for nor interested in.

Au contraire: I'm fascinated by your question, and want to explore it. However, since you don't believe in objective "evil," I can't even figure out what you're really asking.

So I'm asking your to clear that up, so I can understand you aright. Do you mean "evil" as a mere feeling, or "evil" as an objective reality?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I did not say that I reject objective evil as a concept or a reality.

I simply explored a different backgrounding story.

I used the phrase “How evil entered our world” first to highlight your core preoccupation, and Occidental Christianity’s conception of objective evil, and in the context of the concerns and arguments of post-Christians and anti-Christians.

[Immanuel Can]

I did not say that I reject objective evil as a concept or a reality.

I simply explored a different backgrounding story.

Which is it, according to your view, then? Is it merely a "concept," or is it also an objective "reality"? Because in the "story" that says that evil is just a feeling, an attribution, or a concept (all unanchored to reality itself) we can't even get the question off the ground.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am, and I think most are, familiar with your tactics of argument.

You hold to the opinion that objective evil is ultra-real. And for you, and Christians universally, evil entered the world with the Fall.

So, I do not accept that you direct this investigation. Knowing your style, you (typically) assert directive control over the topics under consideration.

The broad topic is “Why do the religious reject science while embracing the impossible”. That is “all Mike” of course.

I am less interested in arriving at a definition of evil, and more interested in interrogating the views that YOU HOLD and that define your presence and your activity here.

But less because, like some, I oppose you because you certainly hold to views irreconcilable with “science”, and far more because I am interested in arriving at a “sound” metaphysics that does not depend on (pretty ridiculous) children's stories — like that of A&E et cetera.

On a separate note I wonder if you have read Peake’s Commentary on the Bible? Originally published in 1919 but revised up till 1951.

Which is it, according to your view, then? Is it merely a "concept," or is it also an objective "reality"? Because in the "story" that says that evil is just a feeling, an attribution, or a concept (all unanchored to reality itself) we can't even get the question off the ground.

Heh. All that I desire to discuss always gets off the ground. However, I recognize and accept that you may choose to remain grounded, as it were.

That is quite okay. No problemo.