Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#101

Post by ozy »

DougN7 wrote: post #81
ozy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are living in a simulation, it is a simulation of atoms, or quantum fields, or perhaps something deeper behind that. That got started with enormous energy in the form of hot dense quark gluon plasma. From there the rest follows. It is not a simulation of humans. We have zero indication there are rules at a higher level than the quantum or gravity. Like rules on what you ought to do in the bedroom. Also earth no…

You're taking some mighty large liberties defining what our simulation is, and how it started. A simulation can begin with any state, including a hundred years ago with already written books and simulated Big Bang background radiation. There is no difference.

Beings that find themselves in a universe that was created a minute ago but looks old, would be correct when they conclude it looks old. Anything else is unknowable and can not be used to further any theories.

Especially when such ideas are grounded in bronze age thinking.

"There is no difference." Indeed, if god exists or not, there is no difference ...

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#102

Post by milesf »

randcraw wrote: post #100
milesf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogma is no different than our skeletal system. Freedom of movement is enhanced in our bodies because we have something firm and fixed to pull against. Imagine being a human blob without bones. Is that freedom to move? Philosophy without a fixed reference is just endlessly chasing your tail. If you are satisfied with that experience, then have at 'er :) And sorry, but faith doesn't mean imagination is forbidden. Ever…

To Lewis, Narnia was a world that was never possible. As fantasy, it was literary allegory, intended for the entertainment of children, nothing more. But even in fantasy, Lewis felt obliged to invent a Christ figure (Aslan). So even in his dreams he was bound by the surly bonds of his faith. His dogma was truly inescapable.

My point was Jack was both a tremendous intellect and an imaginative storyteller.

But "obliged to invent a Christ figure"? I've never heard that before. Can you cite any examples?

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#103

Post by posterboy »

socmag wrote: post #76
posterboy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't mean you should write your comment by the same principle. Reducing entropy by growing more complex seems counterintuitive. I don't see rationality in the chaos. I don't even see what your "It" is. Attribution of rational reason to an "it" seems like a short cut leading to a domain error. Ultimately this leads to discussion about free will and what not, for which a short-lived discussion does indeed not seem t…

Well Hacker News is definitely not the medium for this discussion, I'll grant you that. It's not clear to me where is a better choice. Could go for phys.org or stackoverflow I guess, but equally inane. Nobody likes to talk about metaphysics, which is what this is really about I guess. For good reason I suppose. Then again, before Darwin and Einstein, everything was very clear. Right now very rational people are looki…

I am not going to entertain you on that. Nevermind I can't tell how serious you are because written text loses a lot of context, I'm just not going to tempt you when you introduced the whole idea saying you are tired of atheist arguments. Let's say I am a skeptic and if you make extraordinary claims, they better had been convincing.

I'll give you that "exist to exist", or an autonym god, for lack of a better word, seems to be a logical fix-point, which is notable given the name Y Combinator. At that point I want to quote wikipedia, which would mean I am out of my waters and shouldn't be baiting for someone to correct my ad-hoc interpretation.

All that to say, this argument is trite indeed.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#105

Post by cortesoft »

danielam wrote: post #89
cortesoft wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it. So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the a…

"In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it." Is that claim falsifiable?

Sure! If you can provide an example of a meaningful conversation where the claims being made are not falsifiable, then it would falsify that statement.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#106

Post by sago »

milesf wrote: post #91
sago wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions. Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, na…

One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.

Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to, and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as per the original comment.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#107

Post by milesf »

sago wrote: post #106
milesf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.

Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to, and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as per the original comment.

Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#108

Post by sago »

milesf wrote: post #107
sago wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to, and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as per the original comment.

Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?

Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that apologetics operates that way.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#109

Post by milesf »

sago wrote: post #108
milesf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?

Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that apologetics operates that way.

Well, I'm 47 now and have had the open challenge since 1990 that if anyone can show me that the Bible is not what it purports to be, then I will have to renounce my faith and search elsewhere. I think that qualifies as an honest attempt :)

I'm also not convinced that falsification is the be-all, end-all to deriving meaning. I think it's a very useful tool, but it has its flaws.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree that Christian Apologetics is merely about defending Christian doctrine. It does that, but it does so by encompassing historical, reasoned, and evidential bases. Is it proof? No. Is it a body of evidence that people can examine and decide for themselves if the message is plausible? Most certainly yes.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#110

Post by sago »

milesf wrote: post #109
sago wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that apologetics operates that way.

Well, I'm 47 now and have had the open challenge since 1990 that if anyone can show me that the Bible is not what it purports to be, then I will have to renounce my faith and search elsewhere. I think that qualifies as an honest attempt :) I'm also not convinced that falsification is the be-all, end-all to deriving meaning. I think it's a very useful tool, but it has its flaws. Looks like we will have to agree to dis…

:) Question is, what does it purport to be? This is probably not the venue for this, but it is a rabbit hole, that's for sure. if you're really interested in a respectful disagreement, I'll happily share my email.

I have the same open door, if anyone can give me a rational basis that supports their truth claims (without opening the door to claims they reject), then I'll change my view. I have, once. I was an evangelical, I'm not now.

> we will have to agree to disagree ... it does so by

Why is that disagreeing? I've argued from the outset that it uses tools of rationality in its defence of doctrine. My point has been that it begins with the certainty of the truth of its claims. And you haven't said what else apologetics does other than defend doctrine, just said we disagree on that point. You've not been forthcoming on examples, so far, here's another example. To be clear, it isn't a problem for me that defence (apologia, 1 Pet 3:15) is the point, just that you seem to think I'm missing something, but haven't given an example.

Post reply on HN