My conclusion on the matter (page 5)

Big Dog

ExBethel, I think its great that you are asking these questions and trying to sort things out in your mind. In my opinion the science vs. religion debate is just another version of the fighting between religions because in the end no one really knows either way how it all began and the exact process by which we got here.

A Catholic Priest at a lecture at Notre Dame once said that good science and good religion are complimentary not contradictory. I found that statement to be very interesting. Just like with TonusOH's comment about morality being flexible and the problem coming from thinking in black and white and absolutes. That's the problem with the whole science vs. religion debate in my opinion, why does it have to be either or? At least until one is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I try to approach it from the place of I want to hear it all then I will order it in my mind as it makes sense to me and I will try to avoid thinking in absolutes.

TonusOH

ExB: If you once believed in intelligent design as the origin of everything then go over to believe chance as the origin then who is to say what is right and wrong?

Morals are used to protect a group, be it a community or a nation. Thus, they are arrived at by the group, and as the community grows and becomes more organized, they are codified as rules or laws.

After all, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen to a community where murder and theft were not outlawed. The community would break down as people were robbed and killed, until few were left. Their lives would be worse off, and their prospects for surviving long enough to reproduce would dwindle. A community that worked to limit destructive behavior would not have this problem. Thus, human communities selected for traits and ideas that made for better and safer lives.

Even many animal species follow behavioral rules that protect the group, which makes them more likely to grow and evolve further. This kind of behavioral framework will work much better than those that do not control destructive behavior.

I don't need a god or book to help me to understand why certain behaviors are preferred and others are not. The simplest reason (but not the only one, by far) for why murder, theft, or rape are bad are that I know I would not want to experience them. A society where these behaviors are outlawed is going to be in better shape than one where they are not. This is easy to recognize without divine intervention.

cofty

Science does not prove that God does not exist - especially when theists obfuscate what they mean by god.

However you can't have it both ways. It is beyond all doubt that humans descended from non-human ancestors over millions of years. This is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat.

Therefore there was no fall from perfection, no Adam, no original sin, and therefore no ransom in the sense that JWs believe.

You can have your own beliefs and superstitions but you cannot have your own facts.

SydBarrett

“ conclusion is that I am now PIMA, physically in mentally agnostic.

Agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution”

Yeah, you tell us this same thing about once per month.

Big Dog

Once I was old enough and began learning about evolutionary theory and fossil records and so forth, I realized that most people had what I call the "I Dream of Jeannie" idea of creation. That God nodded his head, and everything sprang into existence fully formed and as we see it. I wondered if perhaps not, perhaps God was the master chemist, biologist, physicist, engineer, etc. Given the observable rules and certain order (like the Golden Ratio) couldn't evolution have been just another tool that was used to create life with a nudge here or there in the way a chemist will manipulate his chemical mix to get the reaction that he's after? Could it be at a certain point when evolution had produced homo sapiens that there was another nudge in the form of whatever people wanted to call it, soul, divinity etc? Hmm, an interesting theory. Most faiths (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) grant that Genesis is allegorical and not meant as a historical record, the fundamentalists of which include the JW's are lagging behind on that one.

Or perhaps not, it is all percentages. The old give a thousand monkeys typewriters and a couple hundred thousand years and one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare. That is certainly possible as well. Even the Catholic church acknowledges evolution is a fact which I think is pretty enlightened for them. I love science, it has answered a lot of questions about biology and the world and universe around us, but I am reminded by a note on my medication that says "the exact mechanism that this drug uses are still not understood" that we still don't have it all figured out and the ratio of what we know for certain vs. what we don't is still heavily weighted against us.

Civil discourse and discussion are the way to go forward. I try to eschew dogmatism in any of its forms, I've seen theists and scientists have to recant ideas that were presented as fact too many times. Put the ideas out there, discuss and dissect them and see how they hold up but do it with respect and kindness. Educate, don't annihilate each other as one of my favorite professors used to like to say.

cofty

The old give a thousand monkeys typewriters and a couple hundred thousand years and one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare. That is certainly possible as well.

Actually that shows a lack of understanding of how natural selection works. Evolution by natural selection is NOT about blind chance.

Educate

Which is why I have started dozens of threads in order to do exactly that. Ex-B admits having never read a single science book in his entire life, and refuses to engage in a conversation about the evidence, but is adamant that the facts support his superstitions. The tile of this thread is about 'CONCLUSIONS'. How can you reach a conclusion when you know literally nothing about the other side

The difference is that those of us who have made the effort to understand the scientific evidence are also experts on creationism.

'He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.' John Stuart Mill

Big Dog

I wasn't applying the monkey typewriter quote to natural selection, if I was unclear about that it's because this is a forum, not a peer reviewed paper I am working on to submit for publication. I take some liberties with my review of what I write. I was speaking in general terms of the universe itself and all of the incredible chain of events that had to occur from the big bang to arrive at me sitting here typing away if there was no supernatural component. The quote was aimed at why isn't that (fill in the blank) possible?

If we are talking about the natural selection portion of evolution then no, natural selection is not random. However, if we are discussing evolution in general, my understanding, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong is that evolution has at least three distinct parts. First you have the generation of mutations which is thought to be a random process with some qualifications. The next part is random drift, more or less a roll of the dice that decides which changes are kept and which are lost. This is caused by accidental or environmental events and many mutations are lost. The random effects of drift can overwhelm natural selection in small breeding populations and many mutations are discarded. The third part, natural selection, preserves the beneficial changes and mutations and is not random.

Evolutionary theory is certainly not my area of expertise, but I've had enough crossover in my education to understand the fundamentals that evolution is at least partially random, and the monkey typewriter quote would be applicable in part at least to the process.

I think it's wonderful that Ex-B has come far enough to at least ask some questions and draw some conclusions and exit a mind controlling cult. My word that's enough accomplishment that I want to throw a party. I would submit that at this point asking Ex-B if he is willing to examine any of his conclusions and be open to examining them would be the next step. Small steps sometimes are all we can manage after a life of indoctrination and misinformation. If he is not, then I would bid him a good day and wish him the best in the new clarity he has found.

cofty

It's probably easier for you to feel positive about Ex-B's progress when you have not been on the receiving end of his intellectual dishonesty and deliberate duplicity. I have endless patience for people with genuine questions and misapprehensions.

I would submit that at this point asking Ex-B if he is willing to examine any of his conclusions and be open to examining them would be the next step.

I did, he said 'yes please'. I said 'okay but we will need to be careful to stick to the topic we have agreed on'. He said 'don't bother then'.

Big Dog

I can't say that I have had your experience with Ex-B so I can't speak to that.

I guess I just try to remember where we all came from and really try to have patience as much as possible but I agree, there are limits.

Even though I left home as soon as I could and attended college it still amazed me at how long it took me to deprogram myself completely. Some people never get there.

I would say at this point maybe a policy of not engaging and moving on to more rewarding discussions might be in order.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

I do not refute the claim about DNA common ancestors so why discuss that? My entire point is that could be the case with chance or design. This is my point, why is there any dispute about this?

I am at the end after all that where I feel I do have freedom of thought and cognitive dissonance does not apply to me because my conclusion is that neither chance or design at the very start can be proven. I’m not on either side, so I can’t be accused of ignoring one side in favour of the other.

If you put yourself into one of those two boxes then cognitive dissonance definitely applies. You read books that support your belief system and ignore or overlook what goes against you

My conclusion on the matter

Share this