theistic evolution... this question is for you, jp...?

Question

"Considering that human consciousness, including reason, conscience, etc, are well explained by evolution and neurology without needing a deity, I see no reason to invoke the deific hypothesis"

you wrote this on another of my questions. please provide me with a link that contains conclusive evidence and not pure speculation. nothing has interested me more in neurophysiology and i did a senior thesis paper on the evolution of intelligence. even if it could be explained by natural selection (which it cannot, at the present), would you be able to explain the driving force behind the mechanism? i can't. evolution is an amazing and elegant process, but once again, i have to point out that science explains the "how" and not the "why" of it. and you could cop out and say that the "why" is to propagate one's species, but you and i both know that isn't what i mean.

acid zebra, your reasoning is going in circles. but at least you had the balls to answer (even though you were very defensive and had to resort to name-calling).

jp, of course there doesn't have to be a why. and there very well could be. so maybe it is philosophical, but hardly irrelevant. if you are satisfied to believe that it is not relevant, then that is up to you. i find this issue relevant.

Answer 1

I guess this highlights the age old debate between atheists and theists.

Acid Zebra is quite wrong, Science does not explain why from the theistic point of view as there is no underlying REASON as to the sky being blue.

AZ- IT IS NOT PROOF!!! It is just your point of view. As is the theists. I agree with you on the pattern recognition thing, although I think it is a little more complicated on that :)

Theism seeks to explain everything as having a creator that chose to make such things happen, and hence give purpose to everything.

Atheism, and along with it a fair chunk of the scientific community, states that there is no evidence (apart from what is essentially heresay) as to this creator.

At the end of the day it is a different paradigm that will never be solved.

Theists NEED to believe in a creator so they do, atheists do not need this security.

I think your question points out a big weakness in an Atheists argument.

There is no such thing as a Scientific fact, it is only evidence awaiting further improvement on the measurement so increase our understanding of a phenomenon.

Basically, you cannot use science to disprove that god doesn't exist as you cannot use science to prove that he/it does exist.

edit: I like JP's argument but I don't agree that there is proof that there is no free will...

JP - let me put it this way - will the understanding of the brain be the same today as it will be in 50 years time?

No discipline of science dares state it has a complete understanding of its field, and this is especially so in neuroscience...

human beings (or other animals for that matter) are not automatons following pre-set courses. Anyone who seen women trying to decide what to wear should be able to figure that out :P

Answer 2

Look up split brain studies, look up partial brain anasthesia studies, look up stroke victim studies. There is no aspect of mind that is not demonstratably a direct consequence of the physical structure of the nervous system.

The problem with your question is that in your comment about 'how' vs 'why' you prove that you have a bias which you are not willing to reach past, even if I provide you the evidence on a silver platter.

You assume that there must BE a why -- why must there be? Is it possible that there is no 'why'? If you say it is not possible, then your bias is proven. If you say it is possible, then the question is purely philosophical and irrelevant.

And yes, I can describe the fundamental driving force -- dispersion into differing environments where intellectual development was favored over physical change.

---------------

As you split them, 'how did human intelligence form and what were the forces behind it' and 'why did it form, what is its purpose philosophically', renders one question solveable (look up the studies I mentioned above) and the purpose question is entirely moot.

Consciousness is provably monistic -- there is no intangible. Therefore free will cannot and does not exist (it would take an intangible not subject to physics for free will to exist).

Unfortunately for theism, the entire theistic 'hypothesis' falls apart without free will. If there is no free will, then there is no purpose for divine revelation, and that is the very definition of theism. Without free will, no theistic deity can exist. (formulate this as modus tollens).

As such, there simply is no 'why' as you mean it.

------------

frogme:

If there is no intangible, then the mind is purely a consequence of the brain. The brain is a combination of matter and energy following the laws of physics.

As such, even allowing for quantum effects (which there is no evidence have the ability to influence the macro scale of the brain), the brain and thus the mind are at 'best' probablistic choice-making automata. If the quantum scale has no effect, then they are deterministic choice-making automata.

This disproves free will.

Answer 3

What happens when it is explained in terms of natural selection?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that no one else can.

Besides, people have put forth ideas on why we have such large brains compared to other animals and eventually one of them will probably be proven (or maybe features from many of them will be shown to have happened).

Religion can't explain anything anyway, not the how and not the why so science just has to do its best.

Answer 4

The reference you want appeared in Nature magazine about a year ago. (Unfortunately, I am on the road and do not have immediate access to the citation, but if you want it, send me an e-mail and I will send it along.) Increased intelligence is such a powerful asset to survival that it is hardly surprising that it has occurred, especially given the ice ages and other natural catastrophes which have occurred over the last few million years. You can, if you wish, choose to insert some sort of god into the process, but (a) it is not necessary; (b) it is provably useless to do so -- nothing is thus explained.

Answer 5

that's thoroughly ignorant to easily "have faith" in what you opt for. you would be unable to opt for to have an opinion on issues like this. extraordinarily once you're gonna merely throw it available with one sentence like RiverKid. Evolution and God at the instant are not together unique. yet evolution does take place, that's subsidized with vast quantities of annoying info, which you will bypass see in any organic background Museum, in any Biology Textbook, and so on. merely like Plate Tectonics, Planetary Orbiting, Gravity, and so on. Literal Creationism is fairly lots disproven. the worldwide isn't a number of thousand years previous, yet around 4.sixty 8 Billion Years previous, additionally subsidized with huge quantities of records and info. the tale of Adam & Eve is likewise not a literal tale. no remember in case you prefer to think of that god exists and created the worldwide we live in continues to be as much as you at this factor, yet evolution does take place, animals do replace by way of the years. And in the previous you disagree, please bypass to the Smithsonian or the different national Museum of organic background. that's all there.

Answer 6

I have to agree with D1BALLA. He makes some good points and it sounds like the opposition is just looking for a foothold to stand on. That's why they resort to name-calling and making fun of you, OP, because they feel threatened.

Answer 7

Obviously, if science does not provide a ready answer for some question regarding origins, then we must conclude that leprechauns are real.

Answer 8

the OP makes some very good points. and acid zebra- you are completely wrong. maybe it is you who needs to go back to natural science so you can understand what it's purpose is.

Answer 9

I've never heard of the evolution "theory" well explaining anything, much less something as complicated as consciousness. If it had well explained something it might have become evolutionary "fact or law".

Answer 10

Good question , I agree with you , no matter what their arrogant answers will be.