Philosophy Now Forum

Harry Baird wrote: Are you interested in my own view? I will take the risk that you are not and explain anyhow.

It's something of a hybrid between the scientific norm and creationism. I recognise that there is a lot of scientific evidence for "materialist" evolution, but also that, on the other hand, there is a lot of evidence too for a spiritual aspect to the human being; both that which one might refer to as a "soul", and that which one might refer to as an "astral body" (which is not even to mention consciousness itself, the "hard problem" of which even now admits of no "emergent" explanation). I have no problem with the theory of evolution as being in general scientifically sound, but it seems to me that it cannot account for these spiritual phenomena, and thus that it is not "the whole story". It seems to me that there must be an element of design to life too, to account for its spiritual aspects. I would suggest then that the "complete" answer might involve some sort of process of guided evolution, such that there are templates towards which the physical aspects of life - teleologically - evolve. It is, as with most of my views, provisional and tentative, and I'd welcome your thoughts on it.

aiddon wrote:So you do accept evolution? Kind of. Well, may be not. Ok just a little....Please tell me this is satire. It is satire isn't it? (Your words, not mine).

Harry Baird wrote:

aiddon wrote:So you do accept evolution? Kind of. Well, may be not. Ok just a little....Please tell me this is satire. It is satire isn't it? (Your words, not mine).

Heh. But why would it be satire? I'm not saying anything that isn't independently verifiable. The only real response is: do you accept the evidence for a spiritual aspect to life as evidenced by NDEs, other spiritual experiences, and astral projection?

aiddon: So you do accept evolution? Kind of. Well, may be not. Ok just a little....Please tell me this is satire. It is satire isn't it? (Your words, not mine).

Harry: Heh. But why would it be satire? I'm not saying anything that isn't independently verifiable. The only real response is: do you accept the evidence for a spiritual aspect to life as evidenced by NDEs, other spiritual experiences, and astral projection?

aiddon: Answer: No, No and No. None are independently verifiable - to use your own criterion.

aiddon wrote:

MMasz wrote: Uhh, yeah. I teach biology. I know enough to see evolution is a fable.

Makes more sense than rocks and water “evolving” into homo sapiens. You also have an exalted view of mankind and a distorted view of God.

Correction, you're teaching a version of biology - the subjective, biased, dogmatic version. With statements such as "Rocks and water evolve into homo sapiens" - it's probably just as well as you're not teaching the standard curriculum.

aiddon wrote:

Harry Baird wrote:

aiddon wrote:So you do accept evolution? Kind of. Well, may be not. Ok just a little....Please tell me this is satire. It is satire isn't it? (Your words, not mine).

Heh. But why would it be satire? I'm not saying anything that isn't independently verifiable. The only real response is: do you accept the evidence for a spiritual aspect to life as evidenced by NDEs, other spiritual experiences, and astral projection?

Answer: No, No and No. None are independently verifiable - to use your own criterion.

Harry Baird wrote: Ah. So, basically, you're as closed-minded towards real spiritual phenomena as you accuse others of being towards evolution. Are you not ashamed of that double-standard?

The possibilities for independent verification are all over the place, just do a bit of reading/viewing around the internet. There are cases where doctors have affirmed that their patient could not medically have survived their late-stage terminal illness, yet somehow that patient (miraculously) did, and that at the time of the patient's NDE, the patient was clinically dead. But hey, if you want to deny it, I'm sure you'll find a way to do so.

aiddon wrote:

Harry Baird wrote: Ah. So, basically, you're as closed-minded towards real spiritual phenomena as you accuse others of being towards evolution. Are you not ashamed of that double-standard?

The possibilities for independent verification are all over the place, just do a bit of reading/viewing around the internet. There are cases where doctors have affirmed that their patient could not medically have survived their late-stage terminal illness, yet somehow that patient (miraculously) did, and that at the time of the patient's NDE, the patient was clinically dead. But hey, if you want to deny it, I'm sure you'll find a way to do so.

Hold on a minute: am I supposed to accept evolution AND spiritual phenomenon - and if I don't I am closed minded? How does that make any sense. It's either one or the other. Unlike you I don't go in for a mish-mash of irreconsilable concepts. How is it double standards to suggest that you are incorrect in your assumptions and I am not? Double standards requires a conflict. There is no conflict.

A theistic evolutionist might disagree with you on this point.

Again, it doesn't come down to a belief - I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact - in the same way as plate tectonics is a fact, the heliocentric model is a fact. These are independently verifiable.

Evolution is not a fact, despite what you might believe.

You believe a patient gets cured of cancer because of a miracle. I believe it is do to with physiology and chemistry. Because one doctor cannot understand it says more about the doctor than it does about god.

Yet you say that it certainly cannot be a miracle. How do you know this? Just saying miracles can’t happen is circular reasoning.

How about the bloke who goes to church every day, gets cancer in the prime of his life, and dies a horrible, painful death, leaving behind 8 children? Are you going to put that down to god's mysterious ways...or are you going to admit that you are once again, moving the goalposts?

MMasz wrote:
aiddon, suppose you have a significant other that you believe “loves” you. How would you independently verify that? Might it not be that the person is acting that way for some ulterior motive? Is there a “love” hormone which can be independently verified to be at a level that verifies the person really loves you?

If you were honest, you would have to say "no”. Yet I think you would believe that someone could love you.

Kurt wrote:Why is it that many people of faith will put observations of science under great scrutiny
(And so it should). But very rarely will they place their faith under the same microscope.
Even to the point that stuff is made up to fill in the holes. At least when science does this they admit it with "this is our best guess at the present time given our observations". Faith however is more akin to a quantum particle, answers depend on how you look at it and who is looking. Like the title of this thread.
This is where some with faith loose credibility when comparing evolution with creationism. Not that they don't have an argument as many in the evolution camp admit it's a work in progress and creationism in some form might have a place, just not evident yet. Stick to where the evidence is. For example I remember seeing some research on the idea that there seems to be a half life clock built into the evolution of our ancestors discovered by looking at the base of skulls. It's not concluded yet but this could give an indication of grand design through observation.
Leave the rest in the Church where it belongs.

MMasz wrote: Oh, I see. But teaching the “theory” of evolution as the only explanation of the world isn’t dogmatic? Again, given the high statistical improbability of the various evolution theories to account for the complexities of life, and the unanswered question of “where did all the matter in the universe come from?", intelligent design seems a reasonable alternative and should be discussed.

aiddon wrote: Hold on a minute: am I supposed to accept evolution AND spiritual phenomenon - and if I don't I am closed minded? How does that make any sense. It's either one or the other. Unlike you I don't go in for a mish-mash of irreconsilable concepts. How is it double standards to suggest that you are incorrect in your assumptions and I am not? Double standards requires a conflict. There is no conflict.

thedoc wrote: There is nothing in religion that excludes evolution, in spite of what some fundamentalists say.

And there is nothing in evolution that excludes spiritual phenomenon, in spite of what some atheists say.

God created the Universe, the Earth, and all life, and evolution is how God did it. And that God could start everything in the beginning and have everything work out just as God intended, seems like an ellagant solution to me.

aiddon wrote:

MMasz wrote:
aiddon, suppose you have a significant other that you believe “loves” you. How would you independently verify that? Might it not be that the person is acting that way for some ulterior motive? Is there a “love” hormone which can be independently verified to be at a level that verifies the person really loves you?

If you were honest, you would have to say "no”. Yet I think you would believe that someone could love you.

You make a mighty assumption there, Mike.

Yes, it is possible that my wife loves me, and my children. Though it is tempting to think of love as some divine gift, there is strong medical evidence to suggest that it is a product of our neurology, honed throughout our evolutionary history to propogate our species. This should be intuitive. Other animals also display tendencies to love, and other complex emotions thought one time to be only the preserve of humans. Elephants have been documented to grieve for extended periods of time. Chimpanzees have demonstrated gang warfare in the ostracising of weaker members of the group. These are traits shared by many mammalian species. This is backed up with over 95% sharing of our DNA with our closest primate relatives. This is evidence. Real, hard evidence. Don't put up straw men such as rocks and water...because you are deliberatley massaging the evidence to suit your dogma.

thedoc wrote:

MMasz wrote: Oh, I see. But teaching the “theory” of evolution as the only explanation of the world isn’t dogmatic? Again, given the high statistical improbability of the various evolution theories to account for the complexities of life, and the unanswered question of “where did all the matter in the universe come from?", intelligent design seems a reasonable alternative and should be discussed.

But not in the public schools where 'science' is taught in the science class room.

And I see that you are falling back on the creationists lack of understanding of science, "It's only a Theory." Real ignorance in operation. I pity your students for not getting a real science education.