The Naturalistic Worldview and Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Jan 2, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN WELLS
    The test of "truth" in a worldview is: Does it work? What does reality reveal about it? The naturalistic worldview, which evolution is a big part of, teaches there is no god; there are no moral absolutes; "each person must decide what is right for them" - Dewey/Skinner; denies the concept of sin (since there is no god to sin against); humans are intrinsically good; society corrupts them; social engineering fixes things (salvation).

    The biblical worldview says: There is an omnipotent God who created all - ex nihilo (out of nothing); this God has established moral absolutes and will hold every human being accountable to them; humans are inherently sinners (due to original sin); humans cannot not sin; and that the only "fix" is Jesus Christ. His atonement for sin settles God’s penalty for sin. He regenerates the believer into an inclination toward righteousness rather than sin.

    The naturalistic worldview and its underlying philosophy has brought the world Nazism, communism, fascism, and in the “free world” social engineering disasters (safe sex, abortion, the welfare state). These are the reality of the naturalistic worldview played out. Do the principals work? Because the education system, TV, and the film industry promote no moral absolutes, crime is rampant and driving to a younger and younger age.

    The Christian worldview ended the Roman empire barbarism; ended the “Dark Ages;” founded a vast majority of universities in America and Europe (though there is sadly little semblance in most today); built hospitals; provided humanitarian relief; and has transformed millions of lives from evil to good (examples furnished upon request).


    KANDDAK
    There is no "good" for humans to intrinsically be.
    What these first two paragraphs come down to is simple wishful thinking. Truth is decided by what is pointed to by the evidence, not by what fantasy world we'd prefer to live in.


    The naturalistic worldview and its underlying philosophy has brought the world Nazism, communism, fascism,

    The theistic worldview and its underlying philosophy has brought the world the crusades, the inquisition, witch hunts, the taliban, etc. Of course it's all irrelevant. The results of something are not tied to its truth, you seem to be drifting off into wishful thinking again.


    and in the “free world” social engineering disasters (safe sex, abortion, the welfare state).

    Safe sex is a social engineering disaster? How is that?
    As for abortion of course that's a whole other debate.


    These are the reality of the naturalistic worldview played out. Do the principals work? Because the education system, TV, and the film industry promote no moral absolutes, crime is rampant and driving to a younger and younger age.

    Non causa pro causa. Support this assertion, how can you demonstrate that rampant crime is because the media don't engage in censorship?
    Furthermore if we are to promote a system of moral absolutes, which moral absolutes should we promote?
    Christianity is not the only religion, there are thousands, what do you have that they don't?


    The Christian worldview ended the Roman empire barbarism; ended the “Dark Ages;” founded a vast majority of universities in America and Europe (though there is sadly little semblance in most today); built hospitals; provided humanitarian relief;

    And none of these say anything about its truth. Say something relevant please.


    and has transformed millions of lives from evil to good (examples furnished upon request).

    Is that by YOUR definition of "evil" and "good"?

    JOE MEERT
    The test of "truth" in a worldview is: Does it work? What does reality reveal about it? The naturalistic worldview, which evolution is a big part of, teaches there is no god; there are no moral absolutes; "each person must decide what is right for them" - Dewey/Skinner; denies the concept of sin (since there is no god to sin against);

    Ho hum. how many times must someone explain to you that this is an incorrect view of science. Evolution does not teach there is no God. Some evolutionists might say that, but they are not wearing their scientist hat at the time. Science has no ability to test the idea of a supernatural being. Science is neutral on the subject. As for your argument that there exist some 'moral absolutes' this is an absurd parody of both science and religion.
    Science is not about morality nor is evolution. Religion has no moral absolutes. One need simply look to the Bible for evidence against any moral absolutes. They don't exist in the document you hold forth as the ultimate moral guide. Why should science (which does not deal with morality) to a higher standard then your own religion? You have to be careful switching from philosophy to science. One can just as easily argue that evolution would find the notion of 'do what feels good for you' as anathema. However, playing games with science for either side is just a plain misuse of science.


    HELEN
    Kanddak,
    If there is no good to be, where on earth did we get the idea of good? And how did you understand that concept when it was spoken of?

    And if good is simply opinion then so, certainly, is 'truth.' You can't have it both ways. Both are either external to us in origin or internal, in which case they are simply opinions and the original words have no meaning at all.

    As far as behavior is concerned, I think the evolutionary paradigm has thrown the behavioral sciences into something of a tailspin. If evolution is true we may not be responsible, or only partly so, for our actions. So punishment is wrong. If there is a 'wrong,' of course. So what do we do?

    In the meantime, human nature being what it is, every advantage is being taken of the lack of moral or ethical foundations which result from this evolution argument and so we have no way to anchor ourselves as a society regarding behavior of the members in it.

    So yes, evolution is, in many ways, as a philosophy (it is not a science by any means!) at least in part responsible for a lot of the turmoil which we see in our society here in America, anyway.

    One word about 'safe sex.' That is an oxymoron outside of marriage. My definition. My opinion. As long as you have declared no right or wrong by definition, that's how I feel about it and my opinion is easily as good as anyone else's, eh?



    THE BARBARIAN
    Science has no ethical values at all. I would shudder to think what a completely and exclusively "scientific" person would be like. Even atheists will tell you that they don't look to nature for values.

    I don't see that "naturalistic" dictators were any worse than Calvin or Torquemada, or Cromwell, or Ben Laden, etc. They just had modern means of being more effective.

    Fact is, when one is inclined to that sort of thing, any ideology will do.

    We should, if we are Christians, avoid making the kinds of accusations we see in this thread. It smells of desperation. And it's not a very good example to be parading for those who do not believe.


    KANDDAK
    Originally posted by Helen:
    If there is no good to be, where on earth did we get the idea of good? And how did you understand that concept when it was spoken of?


    I meant good does not exist as an objective entity. There is no object in the universe to which you can point and say "this is called good". Good is a subjective idea.


    And if good is simply opinion then so, certainly, is 'truth.' You can't have it both ways. Both are either external to us in origin or internal, in which case they are simply opinions and the original words have no meaning at all.

    Sure, both are either objective or subjective, but they need not both be the same one of the two. Morals are an opinion. The word truth is defined as "Conformity to fact or actuality.". If something was opinion, and not an objective concept, it would be by the very definition of the word, not truth. But of course we are going off track into the realm of pointless semantic quibbling.


    As far as behavior is concerned, I think the evolutionary paradigm has thrown the behavioral sciences into something of a tailspin. If evolution is true we may not be responsible, or only partly so, for our actions. So punishment is wrong. If there is a 'wrong,' of course. So what do we do?

    Responsibility, punishment, wrong, all subjective ideas. Argument From Adverse Consequences.


    So yes, evolution is, in many ways, as a philosophy (it is not a science by any means!)

    Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Don't confuse a scientific theory with, as the subject puts it, the "naturalistic worldview".


    at least in part responsible for a lot of the turmoil which we see in our society here in America, anyway.

    Could people perhaps learn to mind their own business and not attempt to force their religious beliefs upon others?



    HELEN
    Kanddak: I meant good does not exist as an objective entity. There is no object in the universe to which you can point and say "this is called good". Good is a subjective idea.

    OK, How do you determine good, then? And where do you get the idea that something is good, per se, as compared to bad, per se? The way it appears to me, the term itself indicates an objective reality -- or some standard outside of men's minds with which something may be compared to determine 'good' or 'bad.' If you are simply talking 'useful' or 'beneficial,' then use those terms. 'Good' really does imply a moral or ethical judgment the way John used it originally, and you did not like its use there. And yet I also see the argument over and over that men are intrinsically good. What do you think is meant by that? Why do you think people use that sort of phrase or idea?

    "Truth" is not simply synonymous with 'fact,' or even 'accuracy.' It has a much broader meaning in that it also means that which is opposite a lie. Now a lie can be the opposite of reality, but it is also represented by only giving a part of reality. We catch kids all the time on this sort of thing when we are raising them, and I think we all call it what it is: "Yes, you may have told me that much, and that much is true, but the way you chose to present it was intended to deceive me regarding this other part..."

    Ultimately, however, I think we would both agree there is objective, stand-by-itself truth which just is. For instance, if a corpse is rotting, it's dead. That's the truth of the matter. That sort of thing. OK. But most things are simply not that fully known to us, actually, so how to we judge what is true or not without that sort of knowledge? And if there is no way to judge it, why are we so concerned about it, especially in relationships?

    Are morals simply opinions? If this is true, then might truly does make right. Whoever has the power has the ability to force his or her morality on the populace regardless.

    Is this right?

    You then stated "Responsibility, punishment, wrong, all subjective ideas. Argument From Adverse Consequences"

    Ah, then consequences are objective?

    I then got the old "Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time". No it's not. That is a brush so wide that it includes the differences between parents and children! Allele frequency changes produce variation -- not new forms or functions. And that is what the 'bacteria to bears' evolution idea depends on -- new forms and functions. We can do a lot of things a single-celled organism cannot. We have a few different forms and functions, and they had to appear somewhere along the evolutionary way. Changes in allele frequencies won't do it. You need new alleles, new genes, new meaningful information in the genome altogether.
    And then you need a cell that is already equipped to be able to recognize and decode and obey that information that comes down to it. You can't depend on changes in FREQUENCIES of alleles to do anything remotely like that.

    ITM, yes, religions are responsible for a lot of turmoils. And if it is not right (in your subjective opinion, of course) to force one's beliefs on another, then why are you posting on this board? This is a small religious Baptist board and we did not go out seeking you to force our ideas on you. You came here to try to change what we think. Why? We think we are right. And certainly our opinion is as good as yours, isn't it? So why bother with us?



    MILAN
    Naturalism doesn't teach that gods dont exist -there is no evidence for gods therefore naturalism doesnt deal with them. It can be argued, though, that scientific explanations render gods unnecessary to explain phenomena.

    [John’s post presents] a very peculiar and biased view of the fruits of Christianity. The massacres brought about by the crusades, the genocide of the native populations in America, the barbarian practices of the inquisition, the religious wars, obscurantism, persecution of dissenters are not mentioned. It seems to me that the evils caused by religions far outweigh the positive effects.


    THINKPLEASE
    Posts like the lead post in this thread always make me question my allegiance in an organized Christian faith.

    Often the dogmatic closed-mindedness inherent in the fundamentalist Christian mind can be ignored or set aside as imagined, until one comes across a post such as this. Never in my life as a Christian and as a scientist have I come across a post that is as closed minded and so dogmatically stubborn as the only that leads this thread.

    In my mind a moralistic comparison of a worldview is the philosophical equivalent of the theological holier-than-thou argument, and in a crevo forum it is another application of Godwin's Law of Electronic Discussions (Whoever compares the other position to the Nazis or other fascist group loses, since they have lost all sense of perspective in the argument, AND have been basically reduced to name-calling instead of any substantive argument).

    God gave us the intelligence to explore the universe and the wisdom to understand it. I've always felt that to waste that intelligence and wisdom on a simple cop-out like "God did it and he did it like the Bible says", is at best a cheap form of idolatry, and at worst a lazy mind unwilling to put in the time and hard work necessary to truly understand the world around him.

    To me, that "God did it" is not the question. Of course he did. The question is "What did God do? and How did he do it?". It's obvious simply looking at the astrophysical and geological evidence that he did NOT do it like the Bible said, but that somehow somewhere the contents (but not the message!) of the Bible got mucked up in the translations and misunderstandings and word of mouth through the ages.

    The thing is, the scientific method has nothing to say about God. It literally, as a base definition, can't say anything about a supreme being, since it cannot accept a supernatural event (it is non-repeatable, after all).
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HAL PARKER

    .. Actually, there is some credible evidence that a link exists between moral values and the issue of origins.
    The paper 'Comparing Origins Belief And Moral Views' by Richard Overman was presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism
    Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998
    It can be read online at the ICR website at: http://www.icr.org/research/ro/ro-r01.htm
     

Share This Page

Loading...