Posted: Apr 08, 2011 11:24 pm
by byofrcs
pfrankinstein wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Here's a question/thought for you sir.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and selected effect' from bang to you, should one judge the chain in the 'positive', as good.

We measure in the positive 'survival of the fittest; not ' the extinction of the weak'.

Where I live the ticks have just started to come out. From a practical human point of view I don't view ticks as "good". They are very well adapted to their environment though. This is the survival of the fit.

Obviously the entomologists on this forum would measure ticks as a positive. They probably love these little guys. I don't.

From rock to life and on into the minds of men goes selection. What we choose, our cognitive selected stance/opinion with regard to the God question is very important.

The continuation of positive chain, atheist, agnostic, Christian?



I view the god questions like I do discussions about the technology on Star Trek. Though I have all of Star Trek series on DVD and I'm happy to discuss the ideas I don't view this as "very important". It certainly has little relevance to our existence as it is a fictional series. I view gods in a similar way. I have bibles like I have Star Trek DVDs. It is fictional and remains so until shown otherwise.

As with ticks and other parasites I don't view it as a positive chain to Christians. Others may.

Well, i wasn't asking the 'tick' for their opinion, if the tick had the ability to reason and cherished their being here, then their answer would no doubt coincide with what should be the human perspective, assuming they loved the mortal experience.

A 'single chain' from bang to now a 'good' positive one?

If the name of the game is 'survival of the fittest' then the question again.

The continuation of that positive chain, should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?

Good selection, isn't that what it is all about, making good selection. Myself i tend to see atheism as the "negative dead end" of our evolution. I'm agnostic myself, i tend to feel that where the positive meets the negative is the place where the lights come on.


No, you asked me and I gave you my answer on the question of "good". There is no good that can apply to all of existence, only things that are interpreted as good from one point of view. What is good from a human point of view could be not-good from a tick point of view.

And so to answer the question regarding "should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?", you have made a category mistake in that you have presented three different things as if they were in the same category.

An "atheism" is to not have a belief about god or to have no belief in gods or to doubt the existence of gods,
The "agnostic" is to take the stance that the proposition of the claims about gods are unknown or unknowable
A "christian" is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour or lives by ideals that are claimed to be from Jesus.

How can these three possibly be related to consider them an evolution ?.

Now I'll go out on a limb and reduce it to 2 because truthfully the agnostic is a fence-sitter that is irrelevant and I'll change "atheist" to "secular humanist" as this is a pretty common positive stance of atheists that would be comparable to "christian".

Part 1)
So now do I think "should mankind move forward as 'secular humanist' or 'christian'?"

The answer must be secular humanist as the christian beliefs are founded on the pretty slim evidence of the works of Christian writers of which there are no works that were written during the time of Jesus. There are no contemporaneous documents. Thus the very foundation of Christianity is suspect and untrustworthy. Christianity also places great significance on the supernatural existence of Jesus and God and without evidence for this supernatural realm then we cannot trust what is said is even remotely approaching the truth.

Secular humanism though is always relevant as this philosophy promotes human reason as the basis of morality and decision-making. Thus christianity is an anti-humanism as it makes dogma, supernatural and superstition to be its foundation. Christianity seems to be a failed model for society thus the rise of human rights legislation that correlates with the rise in secularism.

Part 2) You have also grouped two things together as if they were related; "mankind/science" are separate fields.

So now do I think "should science move forward as 'methodical naturalism' or 'christian'?"

The answer right now is "methodical naturalism" as the foundation of "Christian" science is a belief in the supernatural. Without evidence for this realm it is not even a candidate.

To date the processes of methodical naturalism have proven to be reliable.