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
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #31
harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 29 by Tcg]
It's just a definition. Even if we see it as overall beneficial, etc. the state is definable in general terms as "fallen." If you prefer, we can just call it an F-state. It doesn't change the overall argument.
Of course it does. If it is overall beneficial, then it represents an improvement, not a fall.
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 #32
[Replying to post 31 by Tcg]
The argument is valid if using F-states and F-worlds:
1) Def. A F-world is a universe having certain Darwinian outcomes (e.g., poisons and parasites).
2) Def. A pre-F-world is a universe prior to an F-world.
3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in an F-state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in an F-state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as poisons and parasites.
The argument is valid if using F-states and F-worlds:
1) Def. A F-world is a universe having certain Darwinian outcomes (e.g., poisons and parasites).
2) Def. A pre-F-world is a universe prior to an F-world.
3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in an F-state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in an F-state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as poisons and parasites.
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: 2369 times
Post #33
[Replying to post 32 by harvey1]
So instead of: "The universe is in a fallen state."
We have: "The universe is in a f-state."
The f-state being an improved condition.
Your OP title has morphed into: "Living in an improved Darwinian world."
Tcg
So instead of: "The universe is in a fallen state."
We have: "The universe is in a f-state."
The f-state being an improved condition.
Your OP title has morphed into: "Living in an improved Darwinian world."
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 #34
[Replying to post 33 by Tcg]
Haha. Again, we're not concerned so much on whether the natural evils of natural selection are good or bad, improved or degraded, etc. What we are focused on is whether the conclusion is true. In a sense I agree with you that a F-state is an improvement over a non-F-state if an F-state is "overall beneficial" compared to a non-F-state. That could certainly be the case if a non-F-state would result in nothing if not allowed to become an F-state. But, that's not the discussion. My question is, is (4) true? If not, why do you consider (4) false?
Here's the argument again:
1) Def. A F-world is a universe having certain Darwinian outcomes (e.g., poisons and parasites).
2) Def. A pre-F-world is a universe prior to an F-world.
3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in an F-state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in an F-state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as poisons and parasites
Haha. Again, we're not concerned so much on whether the natural evils of natural selection are good or bad, improved or degraded, etc. What we are focused on is whether the conclusion is true. In a sense I agree with you that a F-state is an improvement over a non-F-state if an F-state is "overall beneficial" compared to a non-F-state. That could certainly be the case if a non-F-state would result in nothing if not allowed to become an F-state. But, that's not the discussion. My question is, is (4) true? If not, why do you consider (4) false?
Here's the argument again:
1) Def. A F-world is a universe having certain Darwinian outcomes (e.g., poisons and parasites).
2) Def. A pre-F-world is a universe prior to an F-world.
3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in an F-state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in an F-state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as poisons and parasites
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: 2369 times
Post #35
You'd need to say more about what you mean by physical consciousness before I could comment. You'd also need to explain what you see as the casual role it could play.
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
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #36
This is an interesting twist. Natural evils of natural selection? What natural evils are you claiming?harvey1 wrote:
Again, we're not concerned so much on whether the natural evils of natural selection are good or bad, improved or degraded, etc.
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 #37
Natural evils associated with natural selection generally refers to those outcomes of natural selection that bring about pain and suffering, death, etc. The examples I provided such as parasites bring about a great deal of pain and suffering to their sentient hosts.
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: 2369 times
Post #38
harvey1 wrote: Natural evils associated with natural selection generally refers to those outcomes of natural selection that bring about pain and suffering, death, etc. The examples I provided such as parasites bring about a great deal of pain and suffering to their sentient hosts.
This could only be considered evil if you value the host over the parasite. The host provides life for the parasite. That's a positive for them.
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 #39
[Replying to post 38 by Tcg]
Again, the definition in 1 is not making any value judgments. Natural evils could be good in a certain perspective, but they nevertheless exist if sentient life experiences pain, suffering, death because of the natural evils of natural selection. We're just providing definitions. That's it.
Again, the definition in 1 is not making any value judgments. Natural evils could be good in a certain perspective, but they nevertheless exist if sentient life experiences pain, suffering, death because of the natural evils of natural selection. We're just providing definitions. That's it.
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: 2369 times
Post #40
harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 38 by Tcg]
Again, the definition in 1 is not making any value judgments. Natural evils could be good in a certain perspective, but they nevertheless exist if sentient life experiences pain, suffering, death because of the natural evils of natural selection. We're just providing definitions. That's it.
You are suggesting that the word "evil" doesn't include a value judgement?
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
