1. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    31 Oct '06 22:45
    Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to continue the divergence and the thread took another direction.

    I will here take this assertion up anew. The first phase of the argument involves establishing the mechanistic materialism which (I believe) encompasses the majority of atheistic positions. I ask any of the proclaimed atheists if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?
  2. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    31 Oct '06 23:25
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to continue the divergence and the thread took another direction.

    I will here take this as ...[text shortened]... sts if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?
    God doesn't exist. Consciousness is a non-material property of minds. These two theses together entail a non-materialistic atheistic position. Combine this with some libertarian notion of freedom of the will, or with stochastic physical laws, or with metaphysical randomness, and you get rid of the mechanistic part too.
  3. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    01 Nov '06 00:121 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to continue the divergence and the thread took another direction.

    I will here take this as ...[text shortened]... sts if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?
    Personally, I am a materialist. I'm not sure about mechanistic, but maybe. I don't have all the answers by any means, I merely place a degree of bias upon the likelyhood of such things. My atheism is not entwined in this, I consider that based purely upon a lack of evidence for god and not upon any other theory, belief etc.

    How do you suggest reason is reason enough to discount evolution?

    EDIT: Whilst I'm on the subject I think I should read up on Bayesian probability, anyone reccommend a good introductory book?
  4. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    01 Nov '06 04:044 edits
    Originally posted by Starrman

    EDIT: Whilst I'm on the subject I think I should read up on Bayesian probability, anyone reccommend a good introductory book?
    Job.

    After reading it, as an exercise, estimate the conditional probability that an omnibenevolent God exists given that the account is true. Demonstrate your mastery of the concept of prior probability by additionally incorporating the facts of the massacres carried out in the Pentateuch into your estimate.
  5. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    01 Nov '06 09:361 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to continue the divergence and the thread took another direction.

    I will here take this as ...[text shortened]... sts if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?
    Are you asserting that the existence of reason in itself *disproves* evolution by random selection?

    Even if evolution by random selection does not suffice to explain the existence of reason fully (a view to which I incline), it does not follow that the existence of reason disproves evolution by random selection; even if Y is not explained by X, Y can still be compatible with X. Nor does it follow that God must be the explanation for why reason exists, should evolution by random selection fail to explain it fully; if Y is not explained by X, then the explanation need not be a particular Z, unless Z is both a good explanation, and is better than any rival explanation.
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '06 21:55
    Originally posted by bbarr
    God doesn't exist. Consciousness is a non-material property of minds. These two theses together entail a non-materialistic atheistic position. Combine this with some libertarian notion of freedom of the will, or with stochastic physical laws, or with metaphysical randomness, and you get rid of the mechanistic part too.
    The leftovers will be pesky, of course. How do you account for the material world, if not as described?
  7. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    01 Nov '06 22:04
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The leftovers will be pesky, of course. How do you account for the material world, if not as described?
    The leftovers will be pesky?
  8. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '06 22:06
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    The leftovers will be pesky?
    My assertion is related to the formula atheists rely upon in explaining the material world. Bbarr got rid of some of the formula but did not address salient points. Thus, leftovers.
  9. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    01 Nov '06 22:07
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    My assertion is related to the formula atheists rely upon in explaining the material world. Bbarr got rid of some of the formula but did not address salient points. Thus, leftovers.
    What points did he not address? He answered your closing question.
  10. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '06 22:15
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    What points did he not address? He answered your closing question.
    Read his post again. He addressed everything but the material. While in the scheme of things, a small thing; however, for the time being, it sure seems pretty big.
  11. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    01 Nov '06 22:501 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Read his post again. He addressed everything but the material. While in the scheme of things, a small thing; however, for the time being, it sure seems pretty big.
    I'm sorry, I can't parse your posts above. What else do you want me to provide? I thought I sketched a position that had all the necessary components. Now you want me to explain the nature (existence? beginning?) of the material world? I'm just showing you that there can be a nonmaterialist, nonmechanistic atheistic position, which is all you asked for.

    EDIT: Yes, I did "address the material". An atheist that maintains that consciousness is non-material property of minds is not a materialist. Anyway, an atheist could be a monist and believe that the world is all mind (like Berkeley, or John Foster) and dispense with the entirety of the material world.
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Nov '06 01:31
    Originally posted by bbarr
    I'm sorry, I can't parse your posts above. What else do you want me to provide? I thought I sketched a position that had all the necessary components. Now you want me to explain the nature (existence? beginning?) of the material world? I'm just showing you that there can be a nonmaterialist, nonmechanistic atheistic position, which is all you asked for.
    ...[text shortened]... mind (like Berkeley, or John Foster) and dispense with the entirety of the material world.
    Here, I will parse the original post for you:

    "I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it."

    From there, I asked if I had overlooked any atheistic viewpoint which could explain the existence of 'life as we know it' (i.e., the material world) from anything other than mechanistic materialism.
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    03 Nov '06 03:361 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Here, I will parse the original post for you:

    "I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it."

    From there, I asked if I had overlooked any atheistic viewpoint which could explain the existence of 'life as we know it' (i.e., the material world) from anything other than mechanistic materialism.
    Oh, sorry, I didn't realize what you were asking. I'm an advocate of evolutionary theory, but I'm not a materialist and I don't think that the all events are causally determined (some are metaphysically random).

    I'm not sure if you are confused or if you are just being unclear, but asking for an explanation of "life as we know it" is not the same thing as asking for an explanation of "the material world" (so you probably should not use the "i.e." to link the two). I'm agnostic about how the material world came about. Indeed, I'm agnostic as to whether the world is actually material, and whether it ever, in fact, came about. But there is pretty good evidence, discussed at length in these threads and in innumberable books on the topic, that life "as we know it" arose through evolutionary processes.
  14. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    03 Nov '06 04:23
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    From there, I asked if I had overlooked any atheistic viewpoint which could explain the existence of 'life as we know it' (i.e., the material world) from anything other than mechanistic materialism.
    Maybe I'm just too dense to understand (not a stretch, as you know), but why is a "mechanistic materialism" viewpoint necessarily bad? Can you provide any details on a theistic perspective of "life as we know it" that doesn't require ad-hoc arguments relying on untestable supernatural axioms?
  15. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Nov '06 23:40
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Oh, sorry, I didn't realize what you were asking. I'm an advocate of evolutionary theory, but I'm not a materialist and I don't think that the all events are causally determined (some are metaphysically random).

    I'm not sure if you are confused or if you are just being unclear, but asking for an explanation of "life as we know it" is not the same thing as ...[text shortened]... oks on the topic, that life "as we know it" arose through evolutionary processes.
    Since you are agnostic regarding the material world, your view cannot be considered atheistic. Maybe you can get in on the next game?

    Your take on reality is unique and (while worthy of a whole other thread) causes one to ponder how reality is determined.
Back to Top