Living in a fallen Darwinian world
Moderator: Moderators
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Living in a fallen Darwinian world
Post #1The universe is in a fallen state. The thorns and thistles in Genesis 3 is an apt metaphor that the Darwinian world is the fallen world of Genesis 3. Under natural selection plants evolve thorns and thistles as a protective mechanism. I don't want to debate Genesis, rather I'd like to see why people think "Adam" (call it biological consciousness) couldn't in principle be responsible for a fallen world when a true understanding of time and space are not fully understood. I have no problem with consciousness being a causal factor in answering why the world is in this Darwinian state.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #41
[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]
Not in our case because it is used in philosophy of religion to indentify specific outcomes within natural selection that philosophers identify. Naturalist philosophers when using those terms don't actually believe such outcomes are necessarily evil, they use that term because within a certain paradigm they should be considered evil. The naturalist philosopher is perfectly able to believe that evil is a made up word for specific types of phenomena. The phenomena exists, but the values associated with it could be purely subjective. I wish to use the term without the value judgment so that we don't have to discuss anything other than the definitions themselves.
Not in our case because it is used in philosophy of religion to indentify specific outcomes within natural selection that philosophers identify. Naturalist philosophers when using those terms don't actually believe such outcomes are necessarily evil, they use that term because within a certain paradigm they should be considered evil. The naturalist philosopher is perfectly able to believe that evil is a made up word for specific types of phenomena. The phenomena exists, but the values associated with it could be purely subjective. I wish to use the term without the value judgment so that we don't have to discuss anything other than the definitions themselves.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2368 times
Post #42
[Replying to post 41 by harvey1]
I get it.
Evil isn't bad.
Your references to Genesis aren't references to Genesis.
Fallen doesn't mean fallen.
Is there anything else that doesn't mean what it means that I need to understand to make sense of your claims?
Tcg
I get it.
Evil isn't bad.
Your references to Genesis aren't references to Genesis.
Fallen doesn't mean fallen.
Is there anything else that doesn't mean what it means that I need to understand to make sense of your claims?
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #43
[Replying to post 42 by Tcg]
I get it, you don't want to talk about 4 even though I've been extremely accommodating.
a) You didn't want to talk about whether the basic premise of the Genesis fall could have occurred to bring about Darwinian evolution, so I showed how it was possible to define the fall without alluding to Genesis.
b) Then you didn't accept that Genesis was not part of the argument, so I put the argument in deductive form to prove we don't need to refer to Genesis in that argument.
c) Then you didn't like the term fall because some might value these outcomes as overall beneficial, so we changed to F-state.
d) Then you didn't like how F-states were defined so I provided a specific definition referring to how naturalists will refer to the natural evils of natural selection.
e) Then you complained about evils being derogatory and value based, and I pointed out that the term has no such meaning for the naturalists who refer to these "evils."
f) Now you are complaining that I shouldn't have accommodated you in the first place.
That's at least 6 cavils when all you had to do is deal with 4 at the very beginning. If you don't want to discuss a topic just say so. I think you should have said, "Harvey, I'm really uncomfortable with mixing myth with science, so if you don't mind I don't wish to discuss this topic with you." At least we wouldn't spend this much time trying to get you to respond to 4 when you never intended in doing so.
I get it, you don't want to talk about 4 even though I've been extremely accommodating.
a) You didn't want to talk about whether the basic premise of the Genesis fall could have occurred to bring about Darwinian evolution, so I showed how it was possible to define the fall without alluding to Genesis.
b) Then you didn't accept that Genesis was not part of the argument, so I put the argument in deductive form to prove we don't need to refer to Genesis in that argument.
c) Then you didn't like the term fall because some might value these outcomes as overall beneficial, so we changed to F-state.
d) Then you didn't like how F-states were defined so I provided a specific definition referring to how naturalists will refer to the natural evils of natural selection.
e) Then you complained about evils being derogatory and value based, and I pointed out that the term has no such meaning for the naturalists who refer to these "evils."
f) Now you are complaining that I shouldn't have accommodated you in the first place.
That's at least 6 cavils when all you had to do is deal with 4 at the very beginning. If you don't want to discuss a topic just say so. I think you should have said, "Harvey, I'm really uncomfortable with mixing myth with science, so if you don't mind I don't wish to discuss this topic with you." At least we wouldn't spend this much time trying to get you to respond to 4 when you never intended in doing so.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
-
Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 173 times
- Been thanked: 592 times
Post #44
<bolding mine>harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 27 by Tcg]
I defined the Darwinian outcomes along the lines of poisons and parasites as fallen properties. We could just as well call them F-properties if you prefer. They form a class of Darwinian outcomes that result in pain and suffering and even death to humans and other sentient life.
Hi, harvey1. You seem to be attempting to draw a rather arbitrary line at a point between ‘no pain and suffering’ and ‘pain and suffering’ as if there was such a thing as a ‘first pain’. The problem with this is that rudimentary nervous systems would have evolved long before sentience (in any recognisable form), so ‘pain’ could have been said to have existed before any life was truly sentient enough to ‘feel’ it.
The evolution of nervous systems isn’t fully understood, but the starting point might have been from ‘action potential’: a primitive form of cell to cell communication based on the differences in membrane potential (voltage) within and without a cell. Neurones may have evolved as ‘specialist’ communication and motor cells, which later either formed ‘nerve nets’ like in jellyfish, or a nerve cord. A true ‘brain’ would come much later, and so your ‘Point 4’ about physical consciousness being ‘responsible’ for this claimed boundary point doesn’t fit with what we know about Darwinian evolution.
If we accept that ‘pain came before brain’, then your Point 4 necessarily doesn’t follow.
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #45
[Replying to Diagoras]
But, there's no reason to believe that the early universe in its earliest stage wasn't a quantum object. As a quantum object it was capable of exploring a tremendous number of histories before it began its classical evolution at the big bang. If it was just the case that all of the histories that didn't lead to physical consciousness cancelled out, then a fallen state would be caused by the properties of physical consciousness exerting causal sway over the physical properties of the early universe. That would explain the coincidences in the physical constants, and many of the just so properties of the laws which seem to make life, as unlikely as it is, to be almost inevitable in our universe.
But, there's no reason to believe that the early universe in its earliest stage wasn't a quantum object. As a quantum object it was capable of exploring a tremendous number of histories before it began its classical evolution at the big bang. If it was just the case that all of the histories that didn't lead to physical consciousness cancelled out, then a fallen state would be caused by the properties of physical consciousness exerting causal sway over the physical properties of the early universe. That would explain the coincidences in the physical constants, and many of the just so properties of the laws which seem to make life, as unlikely as it is, to be almost inevitable in our universe.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15229
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 974 times
- Been thanked: 1799 times
- Contact:
Re: Living in a fallen Darwinian world
Post #46harvey1:The universe is in a fallen state. The thorns and thistles in Genesis 3 is an apt metaphor that the Darwinian world is the fallen world of Genesis 3. Under natural selection plants evolve thorns and thistles as a protective mechanism. I don't want to debate Genesis, rather I'd like to see why people think "Adam" (call it biological consciousness) couldn't in principle be responsible for a fallen world when a true understanding of time and space are not fully understood. I have no problem with consciousness being a causal factor in answering why the world is in this Darwinian state.
William: Perhaps if one thought of the Biological Consciousness as an entity experiencing a Simulated Reality whereby the "fall" has to do with it experiencing a beginning - thus having no recollection of ever existing prior to its insertion into the simulation - and add to that the quantum particles react to the stimulation of the Biological Consciousness whereby form is created in relation to that - life forms in which the entity can further experience through, this is not far fetched in relation to what we know and understand about the universe today.
As to "why the world is in this Darwinian state" I suppose this is referring to "the problem of evil"
For certainly, it is notable that non-theists acknowledge evil exists and it is likely that the phrase "The Problem of Evil" came from that camp.
Perhaps the "Biological Consciousness" is not even biologically based, but rather simply runs its thinking processes through algorithm filters which are based on the presumption that it is, and so self identifies as being - biological...because that is an aspect of the form it has taken on/created for itself through this process of 'Fall'.
The stories/mythologies themselves are then simply creative metaphor designed to help enlighten its outposts of form - aspects of itself which are naturally less aware of it or their connection with it.
William: Perhaps if one thought of the Biological Consciousness as an entity experiencing a Simulated Reality whereby the "fall" has to do with it experiencing a beginning - thus having no recollection of ever existing prior to its insertion into the simulation - and add to that the quantum particles react to the stimulation of the Biological Consciousness whereby form is created in relation to that - life forms in which the entity can further experience through, this is not far fetched in relation to what we know and understand about the universe today.
As to "why the world is in this Darwinian state" I suppose this is referring to "the problem of evil"
For certainly, it is notable that non-theists acknowledge evil exists and it is likely that the phrase "The Problem of Evil" came from that camp.
Perhaps the "Biological Consciousness" is not even biologically based, but rather simply runs its thinking processes through algorithm filters which are based on the presumption that it is, and so self identifies as being - biological...because that is an aspect of the form it has taken on/created for itself through this process of 'Fall'.
The stories/mythologies themselves are then simply creative metaphor designed to help enlighten its outposts of form - aspects of itself which are naturally less aware of it or their connection with it.
Re: Living in a fallen Darwinian world
Post #47[Replying to post 1 by harvey1]
Who says with total authority anything is in a fallen state?
What does fallen state mean? Not Heaven?
God?
The bible?
Maybe it's in a not perfect state, in comparison only (though I'd argue it's perfectly imperfect as is). Which would mean only Heaven is in a perfect state? Would that mean, initially, the world/earth/universe was Heaven?
All that aside, the only one (or ones) that can be held responsible for something not being perfect is those who know what perfection is and has the ability to make perfection I would think, no?
Who says with total authority anything is in a fallen state?
What does fallen state mean? Not Heaven?
God?
The bible?
Maybe it's in a not perfect state, in comparison only (though I'd argue it's perfectly imperfect as is). Which would mean only Heaven is in a perfect state? Would that mean, initially, the world/earth/universe was Heaven?
All that aside, the only one (or ones) that can be held responsible for something not being perfect is those who know what perfection is and has the ability to make perfection I would think, no?
-
Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 173 times
- Been thanked: 592 times
Post #48
I’m not sure what you mean by a ‘quantum object’.harvey1 wrote: [Replying to Diagoras]
But, there's no reason to believe that the early universe in its earliest stage wasn't a quantum object
I’m guessing that you are making a point about probabilities somehow, but I really don’t know. Possibly something about evolution as well?As a quantum object it was capable of exploring a tremendous number of histories before it began its classical evolution at the big bang.
How do ‘histories’ manage to ‘cancel out’? Are they like electrical charges? And what kind of consciousness does a ‘quantum object’ have? None of this is making any sense to me.If it was just the case that all of the histories that didn't lead to physical consciousness cancelled out, then a fallen state would be caused by the properties of physical consciousness exerting causal sway over the physical properties of the early universe.
I beg to differ, as your post was extremely confusing and doesn’t mention anything about pain and suffering, which was what I understood your original point to be about.That would explain the coincidences in the physical constants, and many of the just so properties of the laws which seem to make life, as unlikely as it is, to be almost inevitable in our universe.
