Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

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

It's not a tactic. It's a necessity.

If you and I can't even agree on the nature of the "object" we're talking about, there's no way we can make sense to each other. Worse still, it would deny both of us the ability to refer to any cases or specifics: since you don't believe "evil" has any objective reality, it also has no objective manifestations.

So now we have no data pool in common. How are we supposed to discuss with each other, absent a common idea and absent any access to relevant data?

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.

Well, you really can't. You don't believe any of it is real. It would be as futile as discussing the best way to farm unicorns -- you'd be making things up, and I'd be making things up, and there would be no standard in common to arbitrate any of our claims, since the subect of debate is a total fiction.

Let's not try to do the ridiculous, then. Instead, give me your definition of "evil," so I can understand what you're asking, and know to what common data pool I can legitimately refer and anticipate you might have some reason to agree...that, at least, you owe me, if you take your own question seriously.

You said you thought some kinds of "suffering" are "evil," did you not? What did you mean? Which ones, and what makes them "evil"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Which is it, according to your view, then? Is it merely a "concept," or is it also an objective "reality"?

Had you read what I wrote previously, you’d have been able to glean an answer.

What man defines as evil varies with the interpretive model that is held to. Each religious system, and its metaphysics, offer unique perspectives on the Ultimate Questions.

Why must I adjudicate this question? Why is my personal view of evil’s objectivity or subjectivity so important for you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you and I can't even agree on the nature of the "object" we're talking about, there's no way we can make sense to each other. Worse still, it would deny both of us the ability to refer to any cases or specifics: since you don't believe "evil" has any objective reality, it also has no objective manifestations.

I propose another perspective: For you to understand what I have been communicating would actually necessitate you considering alternate and different potential *interpretive models*. Were you able to do that, you would then be able to *make sense* of the ideas that I consider valid and considerable.

So here is the *real truth*: because you cannot step out of your own system, and because you are fundamentally and necessarily wedded to it, it is actually you that disables the prospect of *understanding one another*. In fact — again I am trying honestly to be truthful — you do not have as an intention any sort of *bending* of your own ideas and views. And I have no interest in modifying your stance. But I do wish to clarify it.

Note that I did not say that I do not *believe in* objective evil, nor in what is evil. But very definitely the notion of what is evil, bad, destructive, counter-productive, inhibiting and harmful to the individual (you and me and the next person) would have to be carefully laid out.

But you do not need to lay out anything because, over time, you have laid it all out in undeniable clarity.

What interests me, about you and your Christian Model — the perceptual model that you hold to as being an ‘absolute picture’ and a ‘literal picture’ — is what I take issue with. But less because I wish to deny what is metaphysically true in it (what is expressed through the Picture) and much more because what is metaphysically true needs to be accentuated.

So, I do not define myself as acting contrarily to that which may be objectively or metaphysically true when the essence of what is true in Christianity is presented, it is really that I am trying to get to actual, intellectually defensible cores that do not depend on The Story nor on any story.

[Alexiev]

I'm waiting to hear what the alternative would be. So far, we have nothing from anybody, and nothing from AI, for that matter, though all have tried.

It is possible -- nay, probable-- that many mating pairs were involved.

Describe how that story would go.

There are a bunch of pre-moderns...Neanderthals, maybe, running around...and then what? They all suddenly burst forth with progeny that are fully modern human beings? What's the mechanism for that sudden, colossal shift in genetics? What precedent have we for such an event?

You see, when you try to describe it in detail, it gets very implausible.

Huh? I described it in detail in the post you quoted. Go back and read it.

The shift is not "sudden". It takes place (as I clearly stated before) over hundreds of generations.
There is no missing link. One child is slightly more cro magnonish than others. His children inherit those traits, but one inherits more of them and, it turns out, has 12 children, 2 of whom are more like modern homo sapiens. And so on.

Irreducible complexity evolving is difficult to explain. Morphing from homo erectus to homo sapien is not. There is no irreducible complexity to explain away in that case.

[Immanuel Can]

Which is it, according to your view, then? Is it merely a "concept," or is it also an objective "reality"?

Had you read what I wrote previously, you’d have been able to glean an answer.

What man defines as evil varies with the interpretive model that is held to. Each religious system, and its metaphysics, offer unique perspectives on the Ultimate Questions.

This isn't an informative or interesting observation, I have to say: we know it's true...but the multitude of opinions never settles the question of truth. What we need to know is if there is any objective reality to "evil," which would necessarily implicate a reality that exceeds all opinion.

Why must I adjudicate this question? Why is my personal view of evil’s objectivity or subjectivity so important for you?

All that's important is that you and I mean the same thing when we use the word "evil." But right now, I think "evil" refers to an objective property, and you appear to think it refers only to a kind of opinion or subjective feeling. Apparently, according to you, "evil" has no reality, no cases, no data, no hard facts that we should agree on at all.

Consequently, we don't even have the first step of any conversation -- agreement as to what the subject matter is.

I'd like to fix that. But if you can't, then what's the next step? I can't see one.

But I suggest that maybe your intuition that suffering signals something could be of use. However, you dropped that one like a hot rock, for some reason. So now, I have no idea where you want to go with the question.

[Immanuel Can]

If you and I can't even agree on the nature of the "object" we're talking about, there's no way we can make sense to each other. Worse still, it would deny both of us the ability to refer to any cases or specifics: since you don't believe "evil" has any objective reality, it also has no objective manifestations.

I propose another perspective: For you to understand what I have been communicating would actually necessitate you considering alternate and different potential *interpretive models*.

Interpretive of what? You're not even conceding that "evil" is a real thing, so there's no subject matter to "interpret."

[Immanuel Can]

The shift is not "sudden".

That changes nothing. You still need a mechanism of change. And if Dube has ruled out sexual reproduction, then it has to be some asexual means of adaptation, such as spontaneous mutation of individuals. Yet there is no evolutionary paradigm I've ever encountered that suggests that.

Irreducible complexity evolving is difficult to explain.

Impossible, actually, within the constraints of Evolutionary theory. For if we actually mean "irreducible," then it implies changes that are impossible to explain in terms of gradualism.

Darwin himself insisted that Natural Selection could only "select" for those mutations that were an immediate survival advantage. He said it is "utterly blind" to anything that does not increase survival chances, and has to "select against" anything that is harmful in regards to survival. So the idea that an irreducibly complex organ could develop by stages is simply ruled out by the basic mechanisms to which Darwin himself attributed evolution.

That's not just a difficulty. That's a show-stopper.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So now, I have no idea where you want to go with the question.

More properly stated, more honestly stated, you subvert any conversation that suggests alternate ways of examining the Perennial Questions.

Again, in your own view Evil is objectively real; and came into our world as a result of the Fall. A satanic entity oversees it, stimulates its presence and extension, and will only be finally dealt with when the Prince of Peace returns, final battles are waged, and the Earth is sort if “wrapped up” as an enterprise of God’s creation.

I do not ask that you go anywhere or do anything. The purpose of my focus is largely only to describe your views fairly.

The more I do this, the more I offer service to a general understanding.

And to see what in them can stand up to metaphysical analysis on an “intellectual” plane.

[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.

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

True, you didn't say equal; you said there's room for belief in the biblical creation story. However, if evidence, which you yourself assert is the arbiter, how can there be room for such a ridiculous story devoid not only of evidence but logic itself.

Conversely, the evidence for evolution is the planet itself which doesn't require any human witness but human research to understand affirming the evidence insurmountable paleontologically, geologically and biologically. It can even be observed in a petri dish making it incontrovertibly true and by extension, the biblical version, incontrovertibly false. So where is the room for belief in a biblically ordered world...unless one chooses to believe it bypassing all evidence to the contrary or with even greater emphasis, insist no such evidence exists!

[Immanuel Can]

So now, I have no idea where you want to go with the question.

More properly stated, more honestly stated, you subvert any conversation that suggests alternate ways of examining the Perennial Questions.

No, that is actually not anything close to what I mean, honestly stated. What I'm asking your for is very simple, and basic to any discussion: it's called "define your terms."

If you can't do that, then you don't have a question. You can't ask about something that has no definition. That's a "nothing."

[Alexis Jacobi]

Interpretive of what? You're not even conceding that "evil" is a real thing, so there's no subject matter to "interpret."

“Evil” is a term proper to Christian and Hebrew worldview. I used the term first with quotes around it to refer not to my views, but to yours. I.e. those pertinent to the Fall.

If you wish to talk about badness and error in relation to man and man’s activities, I am sure that I will have sone things to say.

But I do not agree to accept your terms as to what Evil is, how it originated, etc.

Your views — those views — are less helpful to me than my own ways of talking about badness and error.

I do not absolutely negate the essence, or done essence, within your stark Hebrew-Christian views. I simply “take sone distance” from them for the sake of illuminating discourse.

Does that make sense?

[Alexiev]

The shift is not "sudden".

That changes nothing. You still need a mechanism of change. And if Dube has ruled out sexual reproduction, then it has to be some asexual means of adaptation, such as spontaneous mutation of individuals. Yet there is no evolutionary paradigm I've ever encountered that suggests that.

Irreducible complexity evolving is difficult to explain.

Impossible, actually, within the constraints of Evolutionary theory. For if we actually mean "irreducible," then it implies changes that are impossible to explain in terms of gradualism.

Darwin himself insisted that Natural Selection could only "select" for those mutations that were an immediate survival advantage. He said it is "utterly blind" to anything that does not increase survival chances, and has to "select against" anything that is harmful in regards to survival. So the idea that an irreducibly complex organ could develop by stages is simply ruled out by the basic mechanisms to which Darwin himself attributed evolution.

That's not just a difficulty. That's a show-stopper.

I didn't see the bit about excluding sexual reproduction. Obviously, sexual reproduction is advantageous because it creates genetic diversity even without mutations -- which could certainly explain the evolution from homo erectus to homo sapiens.

Also obviously, if "irreducible" implies "impossible" then you are correct. However, the way it is used by creationists is to suggest "seemingly irreducible". For example -- how did vision, or sexual reproduction evolve. The error in this thinking is to ignore the millions and even billions of years in which (for example) sensitivity to light might have been advantageous and slowly evolved into vision.

Natural Selection selects only for advantageous traits. But that doesn't mean changes cannot occur which are not advantageous. Haven't you read the Bible? "Time and chance happeneth to it all".

By the way: who cares what Darwin thought? His books are not scripture. Lots of geniuses were wrong about some things -- even Darwin's contemperary, Karl Marx.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I'm asking your for is very simple, and basic to any discussion: it's called "define your terms."

I have very clearly stated what yours are, and how fundamental they are to your view.

And if you wish to investigate my notions of badness and error I have made it plain that I think that would be interesting and fun.

I do not share your definitions though. Or, put differently, my views are I think more “expansive”.

[Immanuel Can]

Interpretive of what? You're not even conceding that "evil" is a real thing, so there's no subject matter to "interpret."

“Evil” is a term proper to Christian and Hebrew worldview.

Actually, you have to think it's not. It may be in the Christian and Hebrew worldview alright, but you can't call it "proper," since you believe they very improperly treat it as objective.

So "Why does God allow evil"? Translates to: "Why does the Entity I don't believe in allow the quality I don't believe in?" And if you can make sense of that question, I have no idea how.

Does that make sense?

That's the problem: it doesn't. You can't ask about a thing you don't even believe exists. If there's no objective evil in the world, then there's no question about God allowing it, either. Apparently, you don't even believe in the truth of your own question, let alone whatever answer I might offer.

[Immanuel Can]

The shift is not "sudden".

That changes nothing. You still need a mechanism of change. And if Dube has ruled out sexual reproduction, then it has to be some asexual means of adaptation, such as spontaneous mutation of individuals. Yet there is no evolutionary paradigm I've ever encountered that suggests that.

Irreducible complexity evolving is difficult to explain.

Impossible, actually, within the constraints of Evolutionary theory. For if we actually mean "irreducible," then it implies changes that are impossible to explain in terms of gradualism.

Darwin himself insisted that Natural Selection could only "select" for those mutations that were an immediate survival advantage. He said it is "utterly blind" to anything that does not increase survival chances, and has to "select against" anything that is harmful in regards to survival. So the idea that an irreducibly complex organ could develop by stages is simply ruled out by the basic mechanisms to which Darwin himself attributed evolution.

That's not just a difficulty. That's a show-stopper.

I didn't see the bit about excluding sexual reproduction.

Oh, sorry...Dube did that, not you.

Obviously, sexual reproduction is advantageous because it creates genetic diversity even without mutations

Genetic diversity IS mutations.

Also obviously, if "irreducible" implies "impossible" then you are correct.

All it has to imply is what it states: namely, that the composite elements of a given structure are not "reducible" to some simpler form, without a significant or total loss of function or identity.

The error in this thinking is to ignore the millions and even billions of years

That's the time fallacy. It means that the speaker hopes we will believe that something implausible right now will become more plausible if the time span is extended.

Natural Selection selects only for advantageous traits.

Darwin is clear: it's survival-advantageous traits only. But that doesn't mean changes cannot occur which are not advantageous. [/quote] Yes, it does, actually: Darwin says the process is "blind" (his word) toward any adaptation that does not immediately produce a survival advantage.

By the way: who cares what Darwin thought?

Evolutionists, apparently. I don't.

Lots of geniuses were wrong about some things -- even Darwin's contemperary, Karl Marx.

And Freud, and Nietzsche...sure, lots of smart people were wrong, in a whole lot of ways. But Darwin wants us to believe he was right, not wrong; and lots of people have followed him, and abused or made fun of those who had any of the sorts of obvious reservations we're talking about right now.

Yet there are very good, scientific, reasonable reservations about the whole Darwinian package: reservations that are usually smothered in the name of some kind of petulant orthodoxy toward Darwin. We needn't be like that, though.