> Evolutionary theory says that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from other hominid forms. There would come a time, scientifically, when these hominids would be "identifiable" (by our murky scientific categories that don't deal with transitional forms very well) as sapiens.
There is quite a lot of discussion regarding this below, with some saying that the first human would be impossible to determine as they would be indistinguishable from their immediate predecessors and that the change is not sudden.
> I take Genesis 1 and 2 the way Dr. John Walton does, as an account of functional creation, not as an account of material creation. Genesis 2.21-22 are not a narrative of the woman's material creation from Adam's rib (a bad translation in the judgement of many modern scholars), but to show the functional equality of the male and female, as opposed to a hierarchical (and abusive mysogyny) arrangement
This comes back to the traditional problem of how to tell what in the Bible is intended as a metaphor and what is literal, something which seems impossible to objectively determine. You seem to believe Genesis 4:26 literally from your last comment but disregard the literality of the creation story. Do you believe the world, animals and humans were created in 6 days?
> When you go fishing and you catch 6 fish but not the rest in the lake, is that unfair?
It's not unfair, it's just unfortunate. You didn't choose the specific fish to catch, unlike God who chose the specific hominids to give souls to.
they have also then been spared the potential destiny of hell. As I stated below, it is also unfair for some to have the possibility of going to Hell and some to not. (In my opinion, the very concept of Hell is unfair as infinite punishment can never be justified.)
> Salvation is based on whether or not a personal has a godly nature instead of a sinful nature, and the only way to receive a godly nature is by a gift. It cannot be earned or deserved. Now, to receive a godly nature one must repudiate and completely turn away from their abhorrent actions.
Surely this is a contradiction - you say you cannot earn or deserve a godly nature but then you say there is a requirement to "receive" it, hence indicating it is something to be earned.
> Anthropologists, sociologists and archaeologists tells us that religious practice is one of the oldest identifiable human characteristics (for instance, Göbekli Tepe, in southeastern Turkey), so much so that "religious devotion" is listed by some scholars as one of the traits that distinguishes humans from animals.
Couldn't find any evidence of religion dating back to 0.2 mya, would appreciate if you could supply some to prove it existed when (modern) home sapiens was first around. Looked up Göbekli Tepe, it seems to date from the 10th – 8th millennium BCE, so certainly not 0.2 mya.
> According to the Bible (Gen. 4.26), at the time of the first humans it certainly was the Jewish/Christian God YHWH.
According to the Bible: [insert list of scientific absurdities or inaccuracies here]. But in all seriousness, see my earlier point about deciding what is and isn't a metaphor (as you take Genesis 1 and 2 to be a "functional" account).
Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell
20 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by Jack Jack » Wed May 11, 2016 3:49 pm
- Jack Jack
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by jimwalton » Wed May 11, 2016 3:50 pm
> they would be indistinguishable from their immediate predecessors and that the change is not sudden.
Of course the change was not sudden. That's a "duh". But they would be distinguishable from the predecessors; that's how scientists are able to create distinctive categories, and why they do create those categories—because of distinguishable characteristics. That's the whole basis of the hierarchy of biological classifications.
> This comes back to the traditional problem of how to tell what in the Bible is intended as a metaphor and what is literal,
You know, I never said anything about metaphor. It's not metaphor. I never claimed it was metaphor. I said archetypal, which is a completely different conversation. I get frustrated when people jump to false conclusions based on things I haven't said.
> but disregard the literality of the creation story.
I do not disregard the literality of the creation story. It is literally about function, not material creation. Genesis 1.3-5—the point the text literally makes is about the functionality of light and darkness to give us evening and morning. Genesis 1.11-12 literally talks about the function of the earth to bring forth vegetation. Genesis 1.14-18 literally talks about the function of the heavenly bodies to serve as signs to mark seasons, etc. Genesis 1.24-25 literally talks about the function of creatures to reproduce after their kind. Genesis 1.26-28 literally talks about the function of humanity to rule the earth and subdue it, to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
> Do you believe the world, animals and humans were created in 6 days?
Of course not. Genesis 1 is a temple text. Temple in the ancient Near East were dedicated in 7 literal days, each day proclaiming a function that their deity performed on the earth.
> unlike God who chose the specific hominids to give souls to.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Are the hominids distinguishable or not? Besides, are you saying that every instance of anyone giving a benefit to someone else is intrinsically unfair unless said benefit is also given to all humanity?
> the very concept of Hell is unfair as infinite punishment can never be justified
Then you misunderstand hell, but that's a completely different conversation.
> you say you cannot earn or deserve a godly nature but then you say there is a requirement to "receive" it, hence indicating it is something to be earned
Then you misunderstand what I said and what the Bible teaches. To receive a gift is not indicate that you earned it. I get birthday presents and I receive them. That doesn't indicate that I had to fulfill a requirement and earn them.
> Couldn't find any evidence of religion dating back to 0.2 mya, would appreciate if you could supply some to prove it existed when (modern) home sapiens was first around
Homo sapiens didn't appear until about 200,000 BC. In parts of Asia they don't appear until 100,000, and in most of the rest of world until about 60,000-40,000 BC. Genesis 4.26, the piece to which I referred, dates to before 10,000 or probably even 20,000 BC. Whether it comes from as early as 60,000 or earlier is impossible to know. But the flood of Genesis 6 is probably before 20,000 BC.
You're right that Gobekli Tepe is dated to about 10,000. Just because it's the earliest yet discovered doesn't indicate there was no religious practice in hominids before that time.
> According to the Bible: [insert list of scientific absurdities or inaccuracies here]
Well, that's quite a subjective and unfounded bias. I sure would like you to substantiate that absurdity all by itself.
> But in all seriousness, see my earlier point about deciding what is and isn't a metaphor
I haven't talked about metaphor. Why do you keep inserting this into the conversation? Certainly not from anything I said. See my earlier point about taking Gen. 1-2 to be functional.
> According to the Bible
OK, so what evidence do you have that homo sapiens from 10,000 years and earlier did not worship YHWH? If what I have said is demonstrably absurd or inaccurate, you can only say that on the basis of evidence to the contrary, which I would like to see. What is the factual basis of your claim, or is this just an unfounded (and biased) opinion?
Of course the change was not sudden. That's a "duh". But they would be distinguishable from the predecessors; that's how scientists are able to create distinctive categories, and why they do create those categories—because of distinguishable characteristics. That's the whole basis of the hierarchy of biological classifications.
> This comes back to the traditional problem of how to tell what in the Bible is intended as a metaphor and what is literal,
You know, I never said anything about metaphor. It's not metaphor. I never claimed it was metaphor. I said archetypal, which is a completely different conversation. I get frustrated when people jump to false conclusions based on things I haven't said.
> but disregard the literality of the creation story.
I do not disregard the literality of the creation story. It is literally about function, not material creation. Genesis 1.3-5—the point the text literally makes is about the functionality of light and darkness to give us evening and morning. Genesis 1.11-12 literally talks about the function of the earth to bring forth vegetation. Genesis 1.14-18 literally talks about the function of the heavenly bodies to serve as signs to mark seasons, etc. Genesis 1.24-25 literally talks about the function of creatures to reproduce after their kind. Genesis 1.26-28 literally talks about the function of humanity to rule the earth and subdue it, to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
> Do you believe the world, animals and humans were created in 6 days?
Of course not. Genesis 1 is a temple text. Temple in the ancient Near East were dedicated in 7 literal days, each day proclaiming a function that their deity performed on the earth.
> unlike God who chose the specific hominids to give souls to.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Are the hominids distinguishable or not? Besides, are you saying that every instance of anyone giving a benefit to someone else is intrinsically unfair unless said benefit is also given to all humanity?
> the very concept of Hell is unfair as infinite punishment can never be justified
Then you misunderstand hell, but that's a completely different conversation.
> you say you cannot earn or deserve a godly nature but then you say there is a requirement to "receive" it, hence indicating it is something to be earned
Then you misunderstand what I said and what the Bible teaches. To receive a gift is not indicate that you earned it. I get birthday presents and I receive them. That doesn't indicate that I had to fulfill a requirement and earn them.
> Couldn't find any evidence of religion dating back to 0.2 mya, would appreciate if you could supply some to prove it existed when (modern) home sapiens was first around
Homo sapiens didn't appear until about 200,000 BC. In parts of Asia they don't appear until 100,000, and in most of the rest of world until about 60,000-40,000 BC. Genesis 4.26, the piece to which I referred, dates to before 10,000 or probably even 20,000 BC. Whether it comes from as early as 60,000 or earlier is impossible to know. But the flood of Genesis 6 is probably before 20,000 BC.
You're right that Gobekli Tepe is dated to about 10,000. Just because it's the earliest yet discovered doesn't indicate there was no religious practice in hominids before that time.
> According to the Bible: [insert list of scientific absurdities or inaccuracies here]
Well, that's quite a subjective and unfounded bias. I sure would like you to substantiate that absurdity all by itself.
> But in all seriousness, see my earlier point about deciding what is and isn't a metaphor
I haven't talked about metaphor. Why do you keep inserting this into the conversation? Certainly not from anything I said. See my earlier point about taking Gen. 1-2 to be functional.
> According to the Bible
OK, so what evidence do you have that homo sapiens from 10,000 years and earlier did not worship YHWH? If what I have said is demonstrably absurd or inaccurate, you can only say that on the basis of evidence to the contrary, which I would like to see. What is the factual basis of your claim, or is this just an unfounded (and biased) opinion?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by Anonymous Bits » Thu May 12, 2016 10:08 am
> The genera are the same, the species are different. So far scientists have created categories including homo habilis and homo erectus. What I meant when I said "homo sapiens sapiens bred with other like hominids" is that they bred with other sapiens, not with habilis or erectus or any of the australopithecines. Adam and Eve were representatives of the species. The breath of life came upon all sapiens (but we have no idea how many we are talking about here).
I'm not sure we are understanding each other. This is the issue I'm talking about: If Adam and Eve are ensouled, but others of their community are not, then it makes sense that their children will be ensouled, but their children will either have to breed with themselves, and only interbreed with direct ancestors of A&E, (which would create the genetic bottleneck that we both agree did not exist), or they have to breed with other un-ensouled members of the community. The un-ensouled are not truly human, so this would be an argument for bestiality. If instead God ensouled a bunch of hominids, all at the same time, then this avoids the bestiality/incest problem, but also contradicts the story of Adam and Eve and the idea of the first human pair.
The idea of ensoulment just seems like more human exceptionalism. The lesson of evolution is that we are just like the other animals, not that we are super special snowflakes.
I'm not sure we are understanding each other. This is the issue I'm talking about: If Adam and Eve are ensouled, but others of their community are not, then it makes sense that their children will be ensouled, but their children will either have to breed with themselves, and only interbreed with direct ancestors of A&E, (which would create the genetic bottleneck that we both agree did not exist), or they have to breed with other un-ensouled members of the community. The un-ensouled are not truly human, so this would be an argument for bestiality. If instead God ensouled a bunch of hominids, all at the same time, then this avoids the bestiality/incest problem, but also contradicts the story of Adam and Eve and the idea of the first human pair.
The idea of ensoulment just seems like more human exceptionalism. The lesson of evolution is that we are just like the other animals, not that we are super special snowflakes.
- Anonymous Bits
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by jimwalton » Thu May 12, 2016 10:31 am
We're getting closer to understanding each other. I will try again. As I said, when God breathed the breath of life into the human race (Gn. 2.7), "The breath of life came upon all sapiens." Thus there was no necessity to breed with un-ensouled members of the community, for all were now ensouled. But this understanding doesn't contradict the story of Adam and Eve as the "first human pair," for those two were selected out from among the others, as representatives of humanity, for particular functionality. Notice Genesis 2.15: "The Lord God *took the man* and put him in the Garden of Eden." Took him *from where*?
Dr. John Walton explains: "Insight can be gain from an interesting parallel wording in the Gilgamesh Epic. In table XI the flood hero, Uta-napisti, disembarks from the ark to be met by a group of the gods discussing how he was spared, whether he should have been spared, and what they were to do with him now. In lines 203-206 the decision is made and a blessing conferred:
“In the past Uta-napishti was one of mankind,
But now Uta-napishti and his woman shall be like us gods!
Uta-napishti shall dwell far away, at the mouth of the rivers!”
They took (lqh) me and settled me far away, at the mouth of the rivers.
The setting to which the flood hero is 'taken' is an Edenic setting ('at the mouth of the rivers') where he will have an existence 'like the gods.' It is not a dwelling with the gods, but it is removed from the strictly mortal realm. (Note that Gilgamesh had to cross the river of death to get there.) His being 'taken' is seen as a blessing. This sort of understanding would also make sense for Enoch (who was 'taken') in Gn. 5.
On the basis of Gilgamesh 11 and Genesis 5, I would propose that Adam, the archetypal human, is being removed from the everyday realm of human existence and placed in a specially prepared place (the mouth of the rivers) as a blessing. If other people are around, he is being elected from among them to play a special role. From Gn. 4.14, 17 we could reasonably deduce that there are other people around—in fact, that may be the easiest reading. Regardless of whether or not other people were present, the text has shown us that the forming of the archetypal human is directed toward a particular role that he will play. The second half of v. 15 tells us about the nature of this blessing and elect role."
> The idea of ensoulment just seems like more human exceptionalism
It absolutely is. Humans are unique among the animal classifications.
> The lesson of evolution is that we are just like the other animals, not that we are super special snowflakes.
This is only true in a reductionist sense, and I disagree with it. There are substantial contributions by scientists about the uniqueness of humans as separate from animals:
1. We can remember (as in history and culture): we have cultures and ways of transmitting information. (Marvin Minsky, artificial intelligence pioneer, an American cognitive scientist in the field of Artificial Intelligence [AI], co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory, and author of several texts on AI and philosophy.)
2. We can reason with one another. (Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist)
3. Humans have a unique ability to imitate desire (mnemetic desire). Animals can imitate behavior, but they don't imitate desire. (Warren Brown, neuroscientist).
4. The capacity to worship; religious practice. (Craig Hazen)
5. Humans are the only creatures in the universe who ask “Why?” (Loren Eiseley, American anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer. He earned 36 honorary degrees.)
There is a serious logical and scientific problem with the thought that we are just like the other animals. if everything that exists had an impersonal beginning (mass, energy, motion, chemistry), all things are necessarily and equally impersonal, and everything can be understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor(s). But then nothing is exceptional. A drop of water has just as much meaning as a human being, and therefore nothing has any meaning. There is no such thing as purpose, or personality. No one has ever demonstrated how matter (energy) plus time plus chance can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of human beings, not to mention rationality and reason. There is little sense in this equation.
On the other hand, there is far more sense in the concept that personality has come from a personal source, purpose from a purposeful source, and meaning from a meaningful source (as opposed to personality, purpose, and meaning coming from matter + time + chance). The lesson of evolution is inadequate to explain what we see in ourselves and the world around us.
Dr. John Walton explains: "Insight can be gain from an interesting parallel wording in the Gilgamesh Epic. In table XI the flood hero, Uta-napisti, disembarks from the ark to be met by a group of the gods discussing how he was spared, whether he should have been spared, and what they were to do with him now. In lines 203-206 the decision is made and a blessing conferred:
“In the past Uta-napishti was one of mankind,
But now Uta-napishti and his woman shall be like us gods!
Uta-napishti shall dwell far away, at the mouth of the rivers!”
They took (lqh) me and settled me far away, at the mouth of the rivers.
The setting to which the flood hero is 'taken' is an Edenic setting ('at the mouth of the rivers') where he will have an existence 'like the gods.' It is not a dwelling with the gods, but it is removed from the strictly mortal realm. (Note that Gilgamesh had to cross the river of death to get there.) His being 'taken' is seen as a blessing. This sort of understanding would also make sense for Enoch (who was 'taken') in Gn. 5.
On the basis of Gilgamesh 11 and Genesis 5, I would propose that Adam, the archetypal human, is being removed from the everyday realm of human existence and placed in a specially prepared place (the mouth of the rivers) as a blessing. If other people are around, he is being elected from among them to play a special role. From Gn. 4.14, 17 we could reasonably deduce that there are other people around—in fact, that may be the easiest reading. Regardless of whether or not other people were present, the text has shown us that the forming of the archetypal human is directed toward a particular role that he will play. The second half of v. 15 tells us about the nature of this blessing and elect role."
> The idea of ensoulment just seems like more human exceptionalism
It absolutely is. Humans are unique among the animal classifications.
> The lesson of evolution is that we are just like the other animals, not that we are super special snowflakes.
This is only true in a reductionist sense, and I disagree with it. There are substantial contributions by scientists about the uniqueness of humans as separate from animals:
1. We can remember (as in history and culture): we have cultures and ways of transmitting information. (Marvin Minsky, artificial intelligence pioneer, an American cognitive scientist in the field of Artificial Intelligence [AI], co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory, and author of several texts on AI and philosophy.)
2. We can reason with one another. (Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist)
3. Humans have a unique ability to imitate desire (mnemetic desire). Animals can imitate behavior, but they don't imitate desire. (Warren Brown, neuroscientist).
4. The capacity to worship; religious practice. (Craig Hazen)
5. Humans are the only creatures in the universe who ask “Why?” (Loren Eiseley, American anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer. He earned 36 honorary degrees.)
There is a serious logical and scientific problem with the thought that we are just like the other animals. if everything that exists had an impersonal beginning (mass, energy, motion, chemistry), all things are necessarily and equally impersonal, and everything can be understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor(s). But then nothing is exceptional. A drop of water has just as much meaning as a human being, and therefore nothing has any meaning. There is no such thing as purpose, or personality. No one has ever demonstrated how matter (energy) plus time plus chance can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of human beings, not to mention rationality and reason. There is little sense in this equation.
On the other hand, there is far more sense in the concept that personality has come from a personal source, purpose from a purposeful source, and meaning from a meaningful source (as opposed to personality, purpose, and meaning coming from matter + time + chance). The lesson of evolution is inadequate to explain what we see in ourselves and the world around us.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by Anonymous Bits » Thu May 12, 2016 12:38 pm
> Thus there was no necessity to breed with un-ensouled members of the community, for all were now ensouled. But this understanding doesn't contradict the story of Adam and Eve as the "first human pair," for those two were selected out from among the others, as representatives of humanity, for particular functionality. Notice Genesis 2.15: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden." Took him from where?
A great response. I have never heard this interpretation before and it's fascinating, and makes sense.
> There are substantial contributions by scientists about the uniqueness of humans as separate from animals:
Yes, fine. We are unique. We do human things better than any other animal. But lions do lion things better than humans. Dogs do dog things better than humans. Etc. We elevate our own qualities, because they are ours. We like ourselves so much, we made ourselves the center of the universe. But this is just our biased viewpoint.
> There is a serious logical and scientific problem with the thought that we are just like the other animals. if everything that exists had an impersonal beginning (mass, energy, motion, chemistry), all things are necessarily and equally impersonal, and everything can be understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor(s). But then nothing is exceptional. A drop of water has just as much meaning as a human being, and therefore nothing has any meaning.
True, the universe lacks any purpose or teleology according to my viewpoint. As far as I can tell, it just exists.
> There is no such thing as purpose, or personality.
Let's not get carried away with black and white thinking. Purpose only requires intention. People can have intention. People can also have personality. (So can animals.)
> No one has ever demonstrated how matter (energy) plus time plus chance can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of human beings, not to mention rationality and reason. There is little sense in this equation.
No one has ever demonstrated that an immaterial being can exist and has the ability to create all of reality. There's little sense in that equation either, except perhaps wishful thinking.
A great response. I have never heard this interpretation before and it's fascinating, and makes sense.
> There are substantial contributions by scientists about the uniqueness of humans as separate from animals:
Yes, fine. We are unique. We do human things better than any other animal. But lions do lion things better than humans. Dogs do dog things better than humans. Etc. We elevate our own qualities, because they are ours. We like ourselves so much, we made ourselves the center of the universe. But this is just our biased viewpoint.
> There is a serious logical and scientific problem with the thought that we are just like the other animals. if everything that exists had an impersonal beginning (mass, energy, motion, chemistry), all things are necessarily and equally impersonal, and everything can be understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor(s). But then nothing is exceptional. A drop of water has just as much meaning as a human being, and therefore nothing has any meaning.
True, the universe lacks any purpose or teleology according to my viewpoint. As far as I can tell, it just exists.
> There is no such thing as purpose, or personality.
Let's not get carried away with black and white thinking. Purpose only requires intention. People can have intention. People can also have personality. (So can animals.)
> No one has ever demonstrated how matter (energy) plus time plus chance can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of human beings, not to mention rationality and reason. There is little sense in this equation.
No one has ever demonstrated that an immaterial being can exist and has the ability to create all of reality. There's little sense in that equation either, except perhaps wishful thinking.
- Anonymous Bits
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by jimwalton » Thu May 12, 2016 3:30 pm
> the universe lacks any purpose or teleology according to my viewpoint
The problem is that this statement is contrary to everything we see and believe, and contradictory to our actions. When anything happens, whether in science or experientially, we ask "Why," inferring a purpose. We act as if science, memory, and reason are reliable enough to guarantee truth, an unwarranted jump in reasoning if natural selection is the governing model. You even sense a purpose in us having this conversation. How can you justifiably say the universe lacks any purpose or teleology? You can't possibly live consistently with this philosophy.
> Purpose only requires intention. People can have intention
But from where does this come if we are only the natural agglomeration of chemicals assembled through time by chance? There is no purpose or possibility of it if purpose is not in the system. Even "natural selection" is a misleading term, for natural selection sounds like an instrument of intelligence or of design, when that's not what evolutionists believe. Cold chemicals changing because of random causal interactions by impersonal forces cannot by any stretch of rationality be attributed to intention, and cannot possibly produce intention, nor personality. You are illegitimately borrowing capital from theism to construct a system coherent with life as you know it, but you can't do that. Either we are cold chemicals with no purpose or intentionality as either causes or effects, possibilities or realities, or we have intention because such a realities is part of the system, viz., a teleological causal source. You can't have it both ways, because you're contradicting yourself. "The universe lacks any purpose or teleology" vs. "People can have intention." Those are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
> No one has ever demonstrated that an immaterial being can exist and has the ability to create all of reality
Of course they have. I know of seven rational arguments for the existence of God that demonstrate exactly that. What has never been demonstrated, on the other hand, is that such a being is both illogical and impossible (philosophically unnecessary).
In addition, it takes an immense amount of faith and a dismissal of reasoning to believe...
1. That the impersonal plus time plus chance has produced a personal man. This theory is against all experience.
2. That reason can develop in a system (evolutionary naturalism) based on sequences pertaining to survival, not truth.
3. That personal intention can be the end product of a universe that lacks any elements of purpose or teleology.
4. That personality (whether in humans or animals) can derive from natural processes (like manufacturing processes). It's like saying that, given enough time, a traffic light could develop consciousness and make purposeful decisions based learned traffic patterns and personal preferences.
The problem is that this statement is contrary to everything we see and believe, and contradictory to our actions. When anything happens, whether in science or experientially, we ask "Why," inferring a purpose. We act as if science, memory, and reason are reliable enough to guarantee truth, an unwarranted jump in reasoning if natural selection is the governing model. You even sense a purpose in us having this conversation. How can you justifiably say the universe lacks any purpose or teleology? You can't possibly live consistently with this philosophy.
> Purpose only requires intention. People can have intention
But from where does this come if we are only the natural agglomeration of chemicals assembled through time by chance? There is no purpose or possibility of it if purpose is not in the system. Even "natural selection" is a misleading term, for natural selection sounds like an instrument of intelligence or of design, when that's not what evolutionists believe. Cold chemicals changing because of random causal interactions by impersonal forces cannot by any stretch of rationality be attributed to intention, and cannot possibly produce intention, nor personality. You are illegitimately borrowing capital from theism to construct a system coherent with life as you know it, but you can't do that. Either we are cold chemicals with no purpose or intentionality as either causes or effects, possibilities or realities, or we have intention because such a realities is part of the system, viz., a teleological causal source. You can't have it both ways, because you're contradicting yourself. "The universe lacks any purpose or teleology" vs. "People can have intention." Those are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
> No one has ever demonstrated that an immaterial being can exist and has the ability to create all of reality
Of course they have. I know of seven rational arguments for the existence of God that demonstrate exactly that. What has never been demonstrated, on the other hand, is that such a being is both illogical and impossible (philosophically unnecessary).
In addition, it takes an immense amount of faith and a dismissal of reasoning to believe...
1. That the impersonal plus time plus chance has produced a personal man. This theory is against all experience.
2. That reason can develop in a system (evolutionary naturalism) based on sequences pertaining to survival, not truth.
3. That personal intention can be the end product of a universe that lacks any elements of purpose or teleology.
4. That personality (whether in humans or animals) can derive from natural processes (like manufacturing processes). It's like saying that, given enough time, a traffic light could develop consciousness and make purposeful decisions based learned traffic patterns and personal preferences.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by Hopping Fibber » Sun May 15, 2016 2:42 pm
> That reason can develop in a system (evolutionary naturalism) based on sequences pertaining to survival, not truth.
Why? Reasoning evidently helps a lot with survival, does it not? Abstract reasoning skills and planning seems to me like huge boons to survival, so it's reasonable that they will eventually arise from evolution.
Why? Reasoning evidently helps a lot with survival, does it not? Abstract reasoning skills and planning seems to me like huge boons to survival, so it's reasonable that they will eventually arise from evolution.
- Hopping Fibber
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by jimwalton » Sun May 15, 2016 2:52 pm
Our cognitive faculties include things like intuition, perception, reason, and memory. Memory, for instance, is only reliable if it produces mostly true beliefs (otherwise, it's worthless because it's inaccurate and undependable). What proportion must be true for my memory to be reliable? That's debatable, but it should probably be better than 2/3s if I'm going to claim reliability. And that's probably close to true for all of our mental capacities. But if I believe in both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for the assumption that my brain works reliably. Why?
First of all, taking raw naturalism and evolutionary materialism, the only players in the system are matter, time, and chance. Everything happens mechanistically in a sequence by impersonal chance: things happen. Natural cause and effect. But in such a system it's impossible for anything such as rationality, purpose, or morality to arise. I can never trust my thoughts—they are the result of chance sequences. "Truth" isn't a factor in the system, only cause and effect, reproduction, and survival. Anything mechanistic is outside of evaluation of "true." When a traffic light changes colors, it's a pattern. We don't ask "but is it relating truth?" Gravity holds us down. Is it giving regard to truth? It's a nonsense question if it's just chemicals, chance sequences, and mechanistic cause and effect.
Secondly, on what basis can I accept something as "true" or "false" if it came by accident as a result of impersonal, unintelligent forces? I automatically have reason to doubt that (1) truth is even possible, and if it is, (2) how could I know it?
Thirdly, because naturalism and natural selection claim that the principle function of our cognitive faculties is not to produce true or near true beliefs, but instead to contribute to my survival. All naturalism and evolution will underwrite is that my behavior is adapted to my circumstances. Natural selection is not interested in truth, but only in appropriate behavior.
A couple of useful quotes:
Nietzsche said, "Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life."
Thomas Nagel: "If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results."
Barry Stroud: "There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot it and consistently regard it as true."
Patricia Churchland: "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."
They all concur: Naturalistic evolution gives one a serious reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produces for the most part true beliefs. Ironically, though, the naturalist believes his own cognitive faculties are reliable, but with no evidence for that reliability. Even the generating an argument for reliability is just circular reasoning, because reliable cognitive functioning is not a given. Only if one presupposes it can it be the basis for reliability, but that's circular too. The belief in naturalism and evolution are self-defeating, logically defeated, and can't rationally be accepted.
First of all, taking raw naturalism and evolutionary materialism, the only players in the system are matter, time, and chance. Everything happens mechanistically in a sequence by impersonal chance: things happen. Natural cause and effect. But in such a system it's impossible for anything such as rationality, purpose, or morality to arise. I can never trust my thoughts—they are the result of chance sequences. "Truth" isn't a factor in the system, only cause and effect, reproduction, and survival. Anything mechanistic is outside of evaluation of "true." When a traffic light changes colors, it's a pattern. We don't ask "but is it relating truth?" Gravity holds us down. Is it giving regard to truth? It's a nonsense question if it's just chemicals, chance sequences, and mechanistic cause and effect.
Secondly, on what basis can I accept something as "true" or "false" if it came by accident as a result of impersonal, unintelligent forces? I automatically have reason to doubt that (1) truth is even possible, and if it is, (2) how could I know it?
Thirdly, because naturalism and natural selection claim that the principle function of our cognitive faculties is not to produce true or near true beliefs, but instead to contribute to my survival. All naturalism and evolution will underwrite is that my behavior is adapted to my circumstances. Natural selection is not interested in truth, but only in appropriate behavior.
A couple of useful quotes:
Nietzsche said, "Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life."
Thomas Nagel: "If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results."
Barry Stroud: "There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot it and consistently regard it as true."
Patricia Churchland: "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."
They all concur: Naturalistic evolution gives one a serious reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produces for the most part true beliefs. Ironically, though, the naturalist believes his own cognitive faculties are reliable, but with no evidence for that reliability. Even the generating an argument for reliability is just circular reasoning, because reliable cognitive functioning is not a given. Only if one presupposes it can it be the basis for reliability, but that's circular too. The belief in naturalism and evolution are self-defeating, logically defeated, and can't rationally be accepted.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by Anonymous Bits » Sun May 15, 2016 2:57 pm
> The problem is that this statement is contrary to everything we see and believe, and contradictory to our actions. When anything happens, whether in science or experientially, we ask "Why," inferring a purpose.
To the extent that we do this, we can see it as our cognition framing reality in a certain way, rather than reality having a particular property. We may say that the sun makes life possible, but it would be a mistake to say that the sun intended to create life. The sun is affected by the same forces that govern other stars that did not produce life.
And we don't always do this either. What is the purpose of cosmic radiation? Black holes? Gravity waves? Improperly folded proteins? They exist because the rules allow them, but that doesn't mean they have a purpose.
> We act as if science, memory, and reason are reliable enough to guarantee truth, an unwarranted jump in reasoning if natural selection is the governing model.
I think the argument that reason, as evolved through natural selection, would not be reliable, is not a sound argument. It over simplifies the processes by which reason came to be.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion ... nt/cvl6b9p
> Even "natural selection" is a misleading term, for natural selection sounds like an instrument of intelligence or of design, when that's not what evolutionists believe.
You are correct in that there's no teleology in natural selection. We have difficulty not biasing our thoughts towards teleology. This is generally because of efficiencies that have evolved in human cognition. We categorize and perceive patterns because it's efficient to do so. This leads to biases like agenticity and patternicity
> Cold chemicals changing because of random causal interactions by impersonal forces cannot by any stretch of rationality be attributed to intention, and cannot possibly produce intention, nor personality.
First of all, let's avoid the fallacy of composition. Books are made of molecules, yet they contain words and stories. Similarly, humans are made of "cold chemicals," yet they have feelings. Sometimes the whole has properties that do not belong to the parts. Human personality and feelings are not magical artifacts, but emergent properties of the human body and brain. There is a ton of evidence that shows that the brain is responsible for our thoughts and feelings.
> Of course they have. I know of seven rational arguments for the existence of God that demonstrate exactly that.
A rational argument isn't exactly a demonstration. If you can't explain how it is done, why should I believe that it can be done? No one has ever shown how a mind can exist without a body, and every mind we've ever encountered has been housed inside a body and brain. No one has ever shown a mechanism by which a mind can affect reality directly (let alone create reality.) I can't move or affect things with my mind (other than my body, which houses the neural components of my mind.) I can't make things that are not imaginary with my mind. So where are the rational arguments that show how these things are done?
The explanatory power of such arguments fail, because they are inadequate models of reality. The existence of magic has never been demonstrated. When you require magic to explain something, you have failed to explain it sufficiently.
> In addition, it takes an immense amount of faith and a dismissal of reasoning to believe...That the impersonal plus time plus chance has produced a personal man. This theory is against all experience.
> While there is chance involved, there are also constraints and self-organizing aspects to evolution, acting throughout billions of years. Read The Blind Watchmaker.
> That reason can develop in a system (evolutionary naturalism) based on sequences pertaining to survival, not truth.
Based on flawed analysis of evolutionary processes.
> That personal intention can be the end product of a universe that lacks any elements of purpose or teleology.
I don't even understand this objection. Based on what exactly, other than personal disbelief? I'm pretty sure the universe lacked mint-chocolate chip until someone made the ice cream.
> That personality (whether in humans or animals) can derive from natural processes (like manufacturing processes). It's like saying that, given enough time, a traffic light could develop consciousness and make purposeful decisions based on learned traffic patterns and personal preferences.
A human develops from a single cell to a human with consciousness and personality. The child's development, growing physically, learning language, learning to perceive and think, are natural processes. But a traffic light is not a human child, so the point of your analogy seems a little bit off.
To the extent that we do this, we can see it as our cognition framing reality in a certain way, rather than reality having a particular property. We may say that the sun makes life possible, but it would be a mistake to say that the sun intended to create life. The sun is affected by the same forces that govern other stars that did not produce life.
And we don't always do this either. What is the purpose of cosmic radiation? Black holes? Gravity waves? Improperly folded proteins? They exist because the rules allow them, but that doesn't mean they have a purpose.
> We act as if science, memory, and reason are reliable enough to guarantee truth, an unwarranted jump in reasoning if natural selection is the governing model.
I think the argument that reason, as evolved through natural selection, would not be reliable, is not a sound argument. It over simplifies the processes by which reason came to be.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion ... nt/cvl6b9p
> Even "natural selection" is a misleading term, for natural selection sounds like an instrument of intelligence or of design, when that's not what evolutionists believe.
You are correct in that there's no teleology in natural selection. We have difficulty not biasing our thoughts towards teleology. This is generally because of efficiencies that have evolved in human cognition. We categorize and perceive patterns because it's efficient to do so. This leads to biases like agenticity and patternicity
> Cold chemicals changing because of random causal interactions by impersonal forces cannot by any stretch of rationality be attributed to intention, and cannot possibly produce intention, nor personality.
First of all, let's avoid the fallacy of composition. Books are made of molecules, yet they contain words and stories. Similarly, humans are made of "cold chemicals," yet they have feelings. Sometimes the whole has properties that do not belong to the parts. Human personality and feelings are not magical artifacts, but emergent properties of the human body and brain. There is a ton of evidence that shows that the brain is responsible for our thoughts and feelings.
> Of course they have. I know of seven rational arguments for the existence of God that demonstrate exactly that.
A rational argument isn't exactly a demonstration. If you can't explain how it is done, why should I believe that it can be done? No one has ever shown how a mind can exist without a body, and every mind we've ever encountered has been housed inside a body and brain. No one has ever shown a mechanism by which a mind can affect reality directly (let alone create reality.) I can't move or affect things with my mind (other than my body, which houses the neural components of my mind.) I can't make things that are not imaginary with my mind. So where are the rational arguments that show how these things are done?
The explanatory power of such arguments fail, because they are inadequate models of reality. The existence of magic has never been demonstrated. When you require magic to explain something, you have failed to explain it sufficiently.
> In addition, it takes an immense amount of faith and a dismissal of reasoning to believe...That the impersonal plus time plus chance has produced a personal man. This theory is against all experience.
> While there is chance involved, there are also constraints and self-organizing aspects to evolution, acting throughout billions of years. Read The Blind Watchmaker.
> That reason can develop in a system (evolutionary naturalism) based on sequences pertaining to survival, not truth.
Based on flawed analysis of evolutionary processes.
> That personal intention can be the end product of a universe that lacks any elements of purpose or teleology.
I don't even understand this objection. Based on what exactly, other than personal disbelief? I'm pretty sure the universe lacked mint-chocolate chip until someone made the ice cream.
> That personality (whether in humans or animals) can derive from natural processes (like manufacturing processes). It's like saying that, given enough time, a traffic light could develop consciousness and make purposeful decisions based on learned traffic patterns and personal preferences.
A human develops from a single cell to a human with consciousness and personality. The child's development, growing physically, learning language, learning to perceive and think, are natural processes. But a traffic light is not a human child, so the point of your analogy seems a little bit off.
- Anonymous Bits
Re: Do only humans go to heaven, and who were the first?
by jimwalton » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:54 pm
The problem with your objections is that they all borrow capital from theism that is an illegitimate loan to support your point.
> we can see it as our cognition framing reality in a certain way
There is no scientific evidence, let alone proof, that information systems such as our cognition can come from anything other than previously existing information systems. All science tells us is that data arises from other data. There is not a single example of informational data (different from random data or organizational data) coming from anything other than an intelligent cause. Our science tells us that.
> We have difficulty not biasing our thoughts towards teleology
Because teleology is so ubiquitous and obvious.
> Books are made of molecules, yet they contain words and stories.
The words and stories originated from an intelligent source.
> Similarly, humans are made of "cold chemicals," yet they have feelings
There is no logical or evolutionary cause for emotions. The impersonal does not yield the personal. There is no scientific example or proof of such a leap of faith. There is such a theistic chain, however. If you're going to talk science only, then talk science only. The problem is, there is no science to substantiate your claim. You're borrowing from theism.
> If you can't explain how it is done, why should I believe that it can be done?
You really shouldn't go here. There is a world of stuff science can't explain, including the Cambrian explosion, especially given the lack of transitional forms in the geologic record. Nor can they explain many many things. If you're going to argue science, you need to argue science, but you're on very shaky scientific ground with your statement "If you can't explain how it is done, why should I believe that it can be done?", unless you're going to give me a Science-of-the-gaps argument: Well, one day we'll figure it out.
> self-organizing aspects to evolution
Only on an extremely limited degree. Most aspects of evolution assume self-organizing aspects because it fits the paradigm, but no proof.
> I'm pretty sure the universe lacked mint-chocolate chip until someone made the ice cream.
An example requiring intelligence.
> A human develops from a single cell to a human with consciousness and personality
Science cannot explain how this was done, so why should I believe that it can be done or that it happened? Science assumes it a priori. Science interpolates that it, well, must have happened that way, because here we are. There is no evidence of how this happened, given chemicals + time + chance; there are only guesses since we see it. But that's borrowing from theism again.
> The child's development, growing physically, learning language, learning to perceive and think, are natural processes.
Informational data can only come from an information cause or source. That's what science tells us. You just can't assume that impersonal natural processes can create personality, purpose, and reason. Those are not scientific statements, but philosophical ones. Science has not given any evidence of what you are claiming.
> we can see it as our cognition framing reality in a certain way
There is no scientific evidence, let alone proof, that information systems such as our cognition can come from anything other than previously existing information systems. All science tells us is that data arises from other data. There is not a single example of informational data (different from random data or organizational data) coming from anything other than an intelligent cause. Our science tells us that.
> We have difficulty not biasing our thoughts towards teleology
Because teleology is so ubiquitous and obvious.
> Books are made of molecules, yet they contain words and stories.
The words and stories originated from an intelligent source.
> Similarly, humans are made of "cold chemicals," yet they have feelings
There is no logical or evolutionary cause for emotions. The impersonal does not yield the personal. There is no scientific example or proof of such a leap of faith. There is such a theistic chain, however. If you're going to talk science only, then talk science only. The problem is, there is no science to substantiate your claim. You're borrowing from theism.
> If you can't explain how it is done, why should I believe that it can be done?
You really shouldn't go here. There is a world of stuff science can't explain, including the Cambrian explosion, especially given the lack of transitional forms in the geologic record. Nor can they explain many many things. If you're going to argue science, you need to argue science, but you're on very shaky scientific ground with your statement "If you can't explain how it is done, why should I believe that it can be done?", unless you're going to give me a Science-of-the-gaps argument: Well, one day we'll figure it out.
> self-organizing aspects to evolution
Only on an extremely limited degree. Most aspects of evolution assume self-organizing aspects because it fits the paradigm, but no proof.
> I'm pretty sure the universe lacked mint-chocolate chip until someone made the ice cream.
An example requiring intelligence.
> A human develops from a single cell to a human with consciousness and personality
Science cannot explain how this was done, so why should I believe that it can be done or that it happened? Science assumes it a priori. Science interpolates that it, well, must have happened that way, because here we are. There is no evidence of how this happened, given chemicals + time + chance; there are only guesses since we see it. But that's borrowing from theism again.
> The child's development, growing physically, learning language, learning to perceive and think, are natural processes.
Informational data can only come from an information cause or source. That's what science tells us. You just can't assume that impersonal natural processes can create personality, purpose, and reason. Those are not scientific statements, but philosophical ones. Science has not given any evidence of what you are claiming.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:54 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
20 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest