Alvin Plantinga: Science & Religion - Where the Conflict Really Lies
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 11. 2010
- Thanks to the generosity of Howard and Roberta Ahmanson, Biola hosted Dr. Plantinga for a special philosophy lecture and Q&A open to all.
Since 1982, Dr. Alvin Plantinga was the John A. O'Brian Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame until his retirement this year in May. Over his long and seasoned career, Dr. Plantinga has taught or lectured at Calvin College, Yale University, Harvard University, Boston University, Syracuse University and several other colleges and universities. He has authored or edited over a dozen books in philosophy, and several dozen more in top-tiered philosophy publications in the U.S. and in the U.K.
Cosponsored with Biola's graduate and undergraduate philosophy departments and Talbot's Philosophical Society.
Thank you, best Christian philosopher of 21st century!
That's rather telling since he is incredibly dishonest
@@GrimSqueaker exactly. A stunning admission of the obliteration of Christianity. Gloriously this hateful cult will fade into nothingness. Forever and ever. Amen.
If this is the best, boy is it not gonna be a good century for Xianity.
Agreed. My own mentor Michael Tooley, atheist, during my time in academia, co-authored a book with Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga ought not to be so flippantly dismissed.
We are VERY blessed to have Alvin Plantinga with us. Thanks to the Lord Jesus.
I had no idea Alvin Plantiga had such an excellent sense of humor
The sciences are Man's effort at explaining all that God has created. There is no conflict between the two.
Except when there is.
Chad D Good example
In 7 days? Or 6000 years? even if we accept that "god" created everything, there is no way you can connect this hypothetical god with your god
@@anujagarwal7992 Why do you assume that the way young earth creationists interpret the Bible is the way all Christians do? The Hebrew word translated to 'day' is 'yom' which can mean 24 hours, but it can also just mean an unknown period of time. Many early Church Fathers do not think it was literally 7 days. The 3rd century(!!!) theologian Origen points out how it is unlikely to refer to a 24 hour period because the sun and moon was said to be created on the 4th day. There would be no such thing as day or night before this.
The way to find out if the Christian God is the true God, assuming as you say that we accept the existence of God, is the historicity regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Among New Testament scholars, both atheist and Christian, there are several facts which have been agreed upon and practically universally accepted: 1. Jesus was crucified, 2. Jesus was buried in a tomb owned by the Sanhedrin, 3. The tomb was found empty, 4. The disciples had powerful experiences where Jesus appeared to them, and 5. The apostles were martyred for their faith. Atheist scholars hold to the idea that the disciples simply hallucinated the whole thing, or that they stole the corpse of Jesus even though the theory that he actually rose from the dead has more explanatory power because it would violate the laws of nature. But if we take the existence of God into account, then not only would the resurrection have more explanatory power, but it would also be plausible to say that he was raised by God.
@@shunoinori a day is 24 hr period,it's doesn't mean before formation of sun there would no such thing as day,it's just a convention
Secondly which explainatory power?at best your god has same explainatory power as magic.
This guy looks good for 80.
This man is just brilliant
You gotta love that stand-up rutine about solipism
Indeed
Word to thought ratio is difficult to retain my attention. Smart guy.
There is this intuition that beliefs which increase survival fitness will automatically be more correlated to actual truth. But this is absolutely circular because the very concept of truth would have been formed purely by whichever beliefs increased our survivability.
I love this guy!
The irony being that, in the circles of philosophical academia, Plantinga is probably most well known for providing a solution to the problem of evil which has thus far proven impossible to logically refute.
Interesting I didnt know about this! Where can I read about it? Any books or papers etc by him? I mean obviously I know that he would have defended the "problem of evil" in his career, but I wasnt aware that he was so renowned for it and that it has stood to such scrutiny. I had thought that the problem of evil (at least from a logical standpoint) had long been solved.
God, Freedom, and Evil is his most well-known book on this - not sure where to read more about the history of this issue.@@Raiddd__
Great introduction.
The last question was the one I was asking myself for a long time.
What book did professor Platinga write about this?
I agree with you completely.
I hope I don't come off as too defensive, but I'll just mention that the same limitations apply (more?) to any speculation we may make of the not-empirically observable.
Furthermore, stating our options are "our current empirical observations VS supernatural claims" is a false dichotomy. A more advanced brain than our current ones would very probably give us an improved grasp of reality, and/or capabilities of observation/inference.
Thanks for the conversation!
@acceptjesusorburn Is there a particular version of the Kalam cosmological argument that you prefer?
Okay, thanks for the feedback, I'll use another, more indirect way to put down these arguments in the future.
With far reaching consequences I meant that people are lulled into a state where some actions are not judged, but ignored or simply explained in a way that acts like a cover up. People learn to be passive, that is what I meant. I'm not saying that religion is bad by definition, but it does have it's downsides.
Damn, what a voice
Utilizing your criteria, all forms of knowledge should be jettisoned immediately. Science itself is quite malleable. Every day, new discoveries are made that either challenge or affirm prevailing hypotheses. Our knowledge is far from static. As a theist, I welcome these advances in science that sometimes challenge my beliefs-others are quite confirmatory. Each of us has a mind capable of apprehending, assimilating, and even creating a potentially infinite number of thoughts or ideas. Enjoy...
we certainly gain a lot of knowledge ( by learning and yet still fail to come to the knowledge of the truth...
27:00 Dawkins failure
28:13 Quotes regarding "random" and how it's used
Yeah it's easier to express a complex idea on paper then in words.
It's a shame to see so many atheists . Almost every time it's the same thoughts. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. But the evidence is you. Its life itself. We all have to ask ourselves what is this phenomenon of being? Why do we come and go? I think atheists should stop dismissing these claims so easily.. we should all examine each side of the argument if we are genuinely seeking the truth. I feel like too many just consider it make believe. But life itself is a miracle. The universe . To live now as we do.
@NewWaysMusic
By whom?
Like Laurence Krauss T-shirt says : 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.
Have you looked at " Why evolution is true " book & website by Jerry Coyne ? He makes many excellent points.
@camthejock In mathematics you don't calculate probability backwards. When something has happened it has already happened, improbable or not. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it and pull cards from the top, one after another, lining them up. What were the odds for that particular order? Practically zero. Still it happened. Does that mean it was a miracle?
I
Are u one?
At 1:13 this literally sounds like a Norm Macdonald bit
@idky1349 I haven't seen the entire lecture yet, but I'm gonna take a stab at this one, anyhow. I'm not sure which portion that you're referring to, but I imagine he is saying that logic, not the mind, is infallible. Your second point would, therefore, follow as a consequence. If you could cite the particular time in the lecture that you're referring to I may be able to offer a better answer. :)
That's an interesting comment from (correct me if I'm wrong) a mainstream Christian. How does that reflect on your reading of Christian texts?
"So it is a fact that there are multiple universes and dimensions?"
The multiverse is a theoretical prediction from modern physics and cosmology. No one ever said that they have conclusively observed it or shown it to exist.
Yes, there are multiple dimensions. Look up. Then look left. You just empirically verified two dimensions of space.
I am sure he heard it but dose he have a good explanation for it.
@DrHowbeit haha thanks man. He really is a good speaker. His lectures are really eye opening.
Check him out. And chaos is the only other option; and its an irrational option. How can you be unsure? If you see a sculpture, you dont infer that the sculpture has randomly formed by accident, do you? Hopefully you realize that the scuplture had a sculptor. When you see humans, nature, etc. you can safely infer that all design has a designer.
Alvin subscribes to the intelligent design hypothesis (divine guidance of evolution) which is incompatible with the scientific view, so he does 3 things:
1)Tries to undermine the scientific theory by ridiculing "as we now know" (the contemporary understanding) as something untrustworthy.
2)Misrepresents the contemporary theory of evolution (only mentions "random mutations").
3)Claims that the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis has not been successfully refuted (the eye example) whet it has.
To see what ONE looked like.
Did Zeus bring about true beliefs in his followers?
"As-we-now-know-ism" 😀
I was thinking of how you're reading of their earnestly held interpretation of the world with your own perspective of your beliefs. (in terms of Christianity, although not Christian myself, I'm closer to the writings of Meister Eckhart than this type of debate) Just wondered how this understanding affected your interpretation of Christian doctrine. :)
This is old, but the problem I see with the term evolution is that it's used in too many senses, some with which an atheist would agree and some in which a conservative christian could believe. Microevolution is simply the variations within "kinds", and this is observable in nature, whereas Macroevolution is never observed. Nor is it even mathematically possible that a random walk could generate life and direct it to produce what we see in the world. James Tour's exposition is the best I've seen at demonstrating the vacuous arguments promoted by origin of life researchers. The fact that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin equations have demonstrated as well that every conceivable universe has a beginning and that one is not rescued by imaginative multi-verses in this need for a beginning to the universe should put an end to the need for a singular mind creating ex-nihilo the world. What remains are questions of the character of this being and whether we are as individuals significant. Are we in a position to judge this being? We can certainly have an opinion, but if we were to wish to declare this being as immoral as do atheists implicitly or bizarrely explicitly do we have a problem. Do we have free will? Are we designed to have a perverted view of this creator such that we condemn him as immoral, or do we do this freely? On what basis is our judgment? We are necessarily inferior as being contingent beings, so how could it be that inferior contingent beings could come to be in a superior position to be able to correctly judge? It lacks logical coherence.
@themanofearth Syllogism: An argument from authority is when X argues that Y's claim is true, because Y is an authority. I gave no such argument. Therefore, I did not give an argument from authority. What matters in the end is not how hard you thump your chest but how good your arguments are. By your own admission you aren't interested in demonstrating your repeated assertions of fallacy. Asserting someone is wrong and demonstrating it aren't the same thing. Have a nice day.
It's not logical, or better put, intuitive to think that an electron can be in more places then one, but quantum theory shows that this is the case. Your reality is, at the fundamental level at odds with your intuitive perception of reality. I recommend you keep an open mind and remember that "logic" and "intuition" can only take you so far and have to be applied carefully and aren't simply tools used to justify your own preexisting notions about reality
What do you think of this video
Possibly we need to be renewed in the spirit of our minds as Paul spoke of then we would better able to employ our brain to use its cognitive operation to extract information to complete a given task
@Moving2U You still haven't answered my question. What is this "proof that invalidates evolution" you were talking about yesterday? I want to investigate it. Please?
And I'd like to hear your answer to DAREARTES's questions too. I'm honestly curios how someone who denies evolution views the evolutionary taxonomy... or how would you call it - taxonomy of the animal (& floral) kingdom. I too may learn something.
Good to know: There are 21 major religions in the world. Alvin grew up in a christian family in a christian country (USA). His father was an immigrant from a then christian country (Netherlands) and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from a christian university (Duke). Alvin studied at Jamestown college (christian) and Calvin college (christian) and is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (christian). Biola university is also christian.
Cool?
just curious.. has anyone read silmarillion by jrr tolkien? pretty interesting "creation myth" there..
Science is the study of reality, the study of what can be known. The study of what can't be known is what we call delusion, or, if you prefer a more "sophisticated" term, supernaturalism: the metaphysical position that ignorance is a form of knowledge and to make shit up is acceptable as a valid form of reasoning.
Is it up to us that he ressurrected or that we simply believe this proposition?
@camthejock "All things that begin to exist have a cause."
No amount of experience could justify this claim; we'll never experience all actual and possible causes. It can't be a metaphysically necessary truth either - there are possible worlds where things begin to exist ex nihilo. So what is the justification for the first premise of the Kalam argument?
Plantinga is probably most well known within the circles of philosophical academia for providing a solution to the problem of evil which has, thus far, proven impossible to logically defeat. That's only his most prominent claim to fame. So, good job on completely failing to put forth even a modicum of effort in bothering to inform yourself regarding a subject on which you choose to speak.
@camthejock I can tell you have been listening a lot to Craig.
Plantinga clearly does not consider "religion" a pejorative term; he himself adheres to a religion. His point is that the worldview of naturalism is not a "scientific" position, but a philosophical extrapolation which, in many ways, behaves in a fashion structurally analogous to a religious belief system.
O yeah,sorry I know you dislike these add-ones, but I forget to say I'm not really looking for truth... I'm looking for reliable methods. The chance is big I wont find any:P And I think I'm reasonably polite. I do not attack people, I attack what i see as wrong in their line of reasoning.
Genius
I think a better challenge is "name a single piece of information from modern physics that professionals believe without facts, evidence, observation, experiment, or quantitative modeling."
@Qorlaq You're as free to express your beliefs as I am, to have them effect culture and convert anyone they wish to your religion if you can. I will defend your right to preach in a public square with my life if necessary. In politics however, if you cannot justify your beliefs to everyone - which in the case of religion, by definition, you cannot and this includes non-believers & believers of different faiths - how can you justly apply them to politics (i.e. everyone) while insuring equality?
@camthejock Evolution for example is not synonymous with chaos. Neither is self-organization. But my main point here is that the truth about reality is not limited to what we can imagine. We have yet to unveil the profound truths. Things we can't even begin to envisage from where we are currently standing. The same way a neanderthal couldn't possibly imagine Beethoven's music.
@Moving2U The word *theory* as you define it (and which we indeed use like that in casual speech) is not to be mistaken with the term *scientific theory*.
No scientific theory can EVER be conclusively proven by it's very nature.
It can only be accepted and used until a more accurate iteration is available.
The theory of evolution, general relativity, electromagnetism, gravity... are all like that.
You can dismiss them all "as only a theory" if it makes you feel nice.
@DrHowbeit But we do use our knowledge to realize that a chaos and mindless processes never produce order and complexity. Again, If you see a sculpture, you dont infer that the sculpture has randomly formed by accident, do you?
There's no conflict between science and a religion of God of the gaps. But few people are willing to subscribe to a religion that needs revision every time science makes a new finding.
For a good refutation of God's existence from a logical-probabilistic angle, I recommend Colin Howson's new book "Objecting to God", where he also criticises some of Plantinga's arguments.
@themanofearth You still haven't articulated what you take to be the specific problem or problems with Plantinga's points.
Been seeing a lot of citing of Plantinga's thoughts on YT regarding ideas of God etc. so I thought I'd give this a watch, but I've got to say I find much of what's said to be pretty unremarkable. I'm sure his writings are much more involved.
@tty2020 Hey, thanks for the tips, will read it.
Bachelor's degree in finance here. Couldn't really take away anything.
@DrHowbeit Listen to william lane craig's debates, lectures, and sermons on CZcams for more...
@camthejock Forgot about Evangelism?
@Qorlaq Why am I a twisted individual? I would never deprive anyone of their religious beliefs even if I could. Nor would I force my position on anyone unless they were either harming others with their position or forcing their position on me and even then I would only do so to keep it from effecting other people and NOT if it were only effecting the person who held that position. i.e. Anyone's right to swing their fist (impose their beliefs) ends where my (or anyone els's) nose begins.
he has
The point is that supernatural "explanations" have not explanatory power at all. Supernatural have been made up in bronze-age (or even earlier) to explain lots of phenomena the most of which are now fully explained by science.
That doesn't rule out the possibility of a god, of course, but clearly shows that it can't be used as an explanation.
I noticed. I guess I jumped to conclusions. My mistake...
@frozenjafa An argument from authority, interesting fallacy to commit and it was also an interesting tactic that you didn't respond to me directly. Did you not know how to reply to a comment directly or were you just hoping your comment would go unnoticed by detractors?
@camthejock It's mostly because secular and atheist activists really don't like it when religious people force their beliefs on us and others through politics. Christians (nor any other religious group) is capable of justifying their beliefs without resorting to unfounded, unsupported, and unreasonable claims about the nature of the universe and I really wouldn't care if it didn't affect me or anyone else who didn't want to be affected by it.
@frozenjafa Well, though I've never spoken at a conference or published a paper I can say with some confidence that I wouldn't employ an argument this trivially countered.
can someone please explain to me again why Plantinga thinks that Naturalism and Evolution are incompatible?
No, I think you meant it was tautologic. A syllogism IS a logical argument. Look it up.
What's sad is that some insist that religion is a valid form of inquiry into objective reality and therefore admissible in science classes, and that, as a result, my statement is a neccesary one to make.
@Qorlaq On the "ESCR" we still need access to embryonic stem cells because the study of iPS cells is in its infancy, and the reprogramming approach may have serious limitations. The standard technique to create iPS cells uses viruses to transfer the reprogramming genes. The viruses cause genetic defects that predispose the reprogrammed cells to cancer. ASCR only means research will move slower and more deaths & suffering will accrue in the meantime. i.e. You're basically killing/torturing people
Adaption and mostly true belief can go hand in hand in the following way: If "meat" evolves memory to store observations, AND, evolves a means to compare observations in memory, AND acts on the comparisons, then true belief arises as certain actions as a result of comparisons are successful and then also go into memory. So for instance an octopus may see and remember that fish often swim through a hole in a rock formation. Then the octopus moves towards the hole, not knowing why or when the next fish will come through it, but assuming one might come through it as has happened before. So the octopus sits on one side of the hole, waits, and a fish eventually swims through and becomes an easy meal. The dumbest octopus may believe that fish just come through holes in rocks, and go sit by a hole, and may starve. The smarter octopus believes that if she has seen many fish come through the hole, then she may sit next to it and nab a fish fairly soon, and will not starve. Why the one acted on one observation and the other acted only on two observations could be due to variations in it's meat-head. Octo #2 has a better belief....will not starve, will likely reproduce. And it's not that the belief is 100% true, just works well most of the time.
I'm just saying that only prerequisites of memory, access to memory and a comparator are needed to cause a belief which is adaptively advantageous. Of course I have no idea how those prerequisites fall into place in the first place. But then over time, creatures with these prerequisites will flourish due to their beliefs being mostly true.
The frog example is sort of lame....a better example would be creatures that actively hunt, or know where to lie in wait....such creatures have beliefs that exist inbetween meals and cause action to be positioned to catch a meal.
I think you've nailed it; this is my problem with his defeater. The ability to remember and accurately manipulate abstract ideas is hugely advantageous and I can think of scenarios where it can evolve gradually, say starting with language and group behavior.
We see a spectrum of people with more or less ability to reason accurately; and it is a learned skill to a great extent.
The frog example seems too far removed from actual biology and ecology to be helpful.
So have you seen anywhere that AP has responded to this, or the issue is discussed. It seems fairly obvious as it came up in the Q&A as well (where he didn't exactly respond directly).
***** HI! No, I don't know if AP has more fully addressed the hypothesis I and members of the audience raised. While AP used the word "belief" many times, he did not say "memory" even once as far as I can recall. But of course a belief resides in memory. So then as I pointed out only a comparator circuit would be needed to compare present perception with the memory and then take action or not, the expected outcomes of which would also be in memory.
I am aware that I am presenting a very simplified explanation. The naturalist would want to maintain that once the comparator registered "same" that a subsequent event is triggered...some simple event. But in the case of humans, whether "same" or "not same" is registered, that can trigger either a somewhat simple response, or a complex chain along the lines of " OK, it's the same, now I must consult if another input is registering "same" or "not", and on and on, where both "same" and "not" of the second input have their own decision trees. And then what if a branch in the tree is reached where 00=don't know, 01=false and 11=true. What if 00 branches no further, but 01 and 11 have branches. Which may be considered what you call abstract thinking.
Now what if 00=don't know is reached and the critter's program has an instruction to jump to another part of the program which deals with 00=don't know. Now consider that part of the program is informed by memory and who knows what else, guided by what is the risk of choosing the 01 or 11 path in the case of encountering a 00. This can be very complex in the case of a human, sometimes ending in the flip of a coin.
All this complexity assumes consciousness, which I think the naturalists want to dismiss as mere programs. It is true that some unconscious/comatose people, when intubated, will reach for the tube with their hand to pull it out. That is program, combined with some memory, as the gagging along would be considered pure program but knowledge that the hand can pull out the cause of the gagging has to come from memory.
But if a fire breaks out in the hospital, while the comatose person will smell the smoke and may cough, he/she will not, zombie-like, get up from the bed and make a move in the safest direction.
Most of those who awaken from a coma report a complete blank out for the time they were in a coma. Some, smallish percent I think, report being aware, essentially awake, but unable to control any motor functions, and even their pupils may have been unresponsive. Those patients say they wanted to get up and speak, but could not. So they were thinking, but immobile. That suggests to me that the naturalist's view of everything as reflex is in need of more explanation as it seems there is a major linkage for all or most reflexes that can malfunction even as consciousness is still functioning. It seems odd that variously evolved reflexes would all have a master on/off switch.
Well I'm rambling on just to say that the naturalist simplifies things too far. AP used the example of the frog to suggest the oversimplification but did not expound on why it is an oversimplification.
Now it could be that it's all meat, and with simple organisms it does seem that way. It is still a vexing question as to how simple becomes complex in a way that complex is better. In hindsight it seems that complex is better but "complex" in humans is so radically complex....can that really build up over time, accident by accident, aided by some testing and winnowing, all of that blind?
O'm not a naturalist, and my comment was made primarily to call attention to AP's over-simplified response to the typically over-simplified naturalist arguments.
And then there is the strange situation with humans, that we consciuosly think about stuff, and apply what we "believe" in one area of stuff to another area of stuff, at first just to see what may result, then after tons of successful results we. So we must have belief(s) at first even to attempt to transpose them. Even if one want's to argue that those beliefs are memories of what worked, we have to generalize it first in order to attempt transposition. How do human minds generalize anything? A naturalist might say that the memories of what works and what does not work somehow overlay each other and then certain common features of the memories link up to become generalizations. And the common features end up being more or less the laws of physics. So then the generalization tend to track reality. That assumes a lot that is not known.
And while some generalizations come easily, other do not, and seem to anyone whose worked hard at a problem to require conscious effort often over a long period of time, with time off in-between time on. If it's all just meat, what is conscious effort that is seeking to find a rule within an array of memories?
A naturalist may say that what we call conscious effort was just a random occurance once upon a time that just so happened to have good results, resulting in the usual propagation throughout the species. The naturalist proceeds with a dogma and hatches possibilities without evidence. Naturalism does not meet the modern standard of falsifiability, and that best exposes it's weakness. AP was saying something like this by asserting that naturalists can't assume their rational thoughts to be reliable.
rh001YT
Thanks so much for your thoughts. It's a fascinating subject.
@themanofearth Not to put to fine a point on it, I argued for an attitude of intellectual humility because someone smart might have something to teach you. I did NOT argue for the truth of Plantinga's claims because he holds a position at Notre Dame (which would have been a fallacious argument from authority). That nuance may have escaped you.
@archon88 I don't think Craig is in the same league as Plantinga, frankly. I find him much more persuasive, irenic, subtle and fair-minded, even if I don't agree with him on absolutely everything.
i thinkt the question of the guy at 1:00:00 was wery well put, and the answer of platinga was not satisfying at all. sure evolutionary sucess depends on action, not on thoughts, but platingas argument implies, that thought and action have nothing to do with each other at all. If, as the questioner sugests, false beliefs lead to unsuccessful actions, then falsehood would to some extent get weeded out, and the evolved mind could thus grasp truth to some extent, though never perfectly.
People you have to understand that to settle the question of whether or not there is a God, one has to have an agreeable playing field. Science is subjective, it can be used to support or deny God, i.e. the"fine tunning argument", "theory of evolution, etc". The true,level playing field would be philosophy, whether or not there is a God is explainable through philosophical/metaphysical arguments, not strictly scientific/observable phenomenon.
@acceptjesusorburn "false religions due to logical contradictions"
Can you give some concrete examples of such logical contradictions?
There is a difference between speaking candidly and discourtesy. Saying that someone's ideas are a "defense mechanism" even if true is rude. One could say another's rational comes from fear and desire to sin, but that doesn't enlighten.
Method is only a means to an end and must be built upon a foundation.
The "far reaching consequences" of God's action are only known in perspective of ultimate consequence. God will resurrect everyone and promises to reward the righteous and punish the wicked.
@Moving2U Who says? The scientific community apparently.
It's a joint effort of thousands of dedicated people working in different fields across the world over the last 100 years. Archeologists, zoologist, biologists, geologists, chemists, geneticists... you know - real scientists doing the practical work.
You're asking specifically about the age? Look up "radiometric dating". Several different methods are used in mutually independent labs to avoid any bias.
You didn't answer my question again.
Give that last questioner an award for crushing the argument modestly.
2 frogs all things being equal - one with false beliefs and one with true beliefs. How could the frog with beliefs that more accurately reflect reality not be more adaptable?
Around 34:30 he make a claim I completely disagree with. Which is that the popular accepted culture perspective of the student and their parents ought to be reinforced by the scientists when it comes to talking about evolution in science class.
Sorry, science isn’t about spreading popular comforting ideas. It’s about describing what scientists have actually been able to discover through the scientific method. A method that weeds out what can’t be verified or accounted for in scientists work. It’s not a method to assure that as many families as possible of the students will be comforted by the by claims of the scientists.
Education isn’t meant to confirm our preconceptions and biases. It’s meant to overcome them if and when they’re wrong.
The conflict is both started out by human trying to find the truth of what we are and why we are here, but on the way both are lost it because of ego and need of control. Lots of religions telling you “ the god tell you to do this”. Like they really the god. Instead, they are using god to control others. That’s where I have no any interest in any religion. I was huge fan and firm believer of science, but now I see how many narcissistic people in science for their ego and control too. So that is the common problem in both path.
Like you say, it's an interesting subject. You could say the same about every animal on the planet regarding killing eachother, ..every species takes care of its own kind to further it's survival, ..even the humble ant will protect it's own. Yet these creatures clearly don't have morals as we know them. I think this process happens without any guiding hand from god.
But that's where Carrier and Ehrman go against the grain amongst modern scholarship--even liberal scholars. The natural explanations that usually explain these events don't even begin to do justice to a reasonable natural explanation. Whether you're willing to accept that or not is one but, but the fact remains, that is consensus widely across the board amongst historians.
@ninanotturna We must be talking apples and oranges. There is one specific DNA sequence that belongs to:
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Primates
Hominidae
Homo
Sapien
I.E. "man" or "human".
I'm not talking the gene that makes one's eyes blue vs brown, I'm talking the DNA sequence that makes us human. All dogs from yorkie to mastiff to grey wolf have the same dna (canis lupis familiaris). Diversity within species does not equate to a new species. Adaptation is not macro evolution.
In essence, what I'm saying is "at what point in our evolutionary path did god give us morals?", there was no specific time in our evolution when we became Humans as such, .. it's been an incredibly long process going back millions of years. We know a lot about our distant relatives Neanderthal man for example, they could make tools and hunt etc, .. did they have morals?, I'd say a definite yes.. albeit rudimentary, .. they looked after eachother etc.
Well, I guess, if you asume that the supernatural has access, even observational, to the natural. One would need to assume a supernatural realm that CAN observe the natural perfectly and completely, and not the other way around. It could perfectly be that the supernatural has no interface with the natural.
I'm not opposed to imagining this scenario (I'm a fantasy and SciFi fan myself), but I am strictly opposed to calliing it true, and further, calling it normative, with no observational basis.
Why? (opposed to the idea of the supernatural being true) Terror?
What of the Mandela effect, then? If not supernatural influence?
Learn more about non-human morals. Here is a very interesting starting point on CZcams:
Robert Sapolsky - 1/3 The Uniqueness of Humans 2009
?!?! Uh... say what?!?!? You are aware that Marilyn McCord Adams has stated that in her opinion Plantinga has absolutely solved the abstract problem of evil, no? Does that sound like she "has nothing positive to say" about him? Why would she consider someone who provided a logical solution to such a problem to be a "cheap sophist"? I'm sorry if Plantinga threatens your ideology or something, but that doesn't grant you license to just make stuff up.
I think the theory should be promoted as you have made clear, but cultural discussion really needs to take place. There is a complete lack of honest and respectful dialogue in the current culture, and I see that as the main hindrance of any reconciliatory progress. Any ways, sorry, I was just adding on thoughts to yours because your post got my mind started on a trail that wasn't entirely relevant to your post in a straight forward manner. :)
Good job, bro. I'm pretty sure the multiple-time Gifford Lecturing Notre Dame philosophy professor has heard of the problem of evil, but you know... maybe he hasn't.
Old comment, but whatever.
Thank you, I shall.
Tell me though, since this reasoned response proves you're obviously capable of having a discussion without casting aspersions on the psychology behind an individual's worldview (if you're sincerely seeking truth) why not do so politely? Someone who has asked the same questions that you have might be able to satisfy your desire if they were able to get past your mini-Hitchens sarcasm act.
God is not responsible for evil, it is a consequence of separation from Him.
I guess I misread what was supposed to be irony. It's ard to tell these days... especially when encountering Americans ;-)
Ok, fair enough, good post. It is a sufficient explanation for *now*. Just as different theories have come and gone. Not to say it won't stay, it absolutely may, but I don't like prideful dogma. I think evolution by now has been established as a legitimate and well founded theory. The problem, is that people morph this theory which should rightly be limited to scientific realms, into an underlying principle that via so called reason, justifies certain toxic philosophies and behaviors.