Why I don't believe in darwinian Atheism

[Calm]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

why would I be trolling atheists in a message board of religion? Makes no sense and it wouldn't be funny

You would not be the first to come on the board to get attention in any way or to attempt to make theists look bad.

I am more open today for you not pretending to be less educated than you really are, but if this is how you usually think things through, please take some logic classes to learn how to critically analyze not only how others think, but how you think about things yourself.  Otherwise you are wasting your own time and efforts and others with much of your commentary, imo.

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/9/2017 at 12:38 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

What makes you think that?  I am not an anti-mormon, it is not the first time someone tells me that. What makes you think I am a troll? and why would I be trolling for? By definition a troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community" .  I am not posting inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic messages.

Atheists don't do the math correctly because they argue improbable events such as explosions creating universes happen, If you think explosions creating universes is probable just ask Elder Nelson. Atheists  don't believe in low probability things like the fine tuning of the Universe. Therefore the atheists do the Math wrong. I don't know who is Stephen Dawkins, but his name sounds familiar.

Evolution has nothing to do with Cosmology. Evolution points to a kind of Punctuated Equilibrium for the evolution of life once it first appeared on this planet.

 

[3DOP]

I think I have an insight in to why evolution is acceptable to Mormons while it is inevitably harmful to Catholics.

I am not a student of evolutionary theory, and I seriously doubt that very many of those here who would oppose my views are students. Why then are we so vigorously attached to whatever view we have of evolutionary theory? It is not because we are so intellectually certain based on personal scientific study. At least I admit that. I propose that the deeper reasons why religionists accept or reject and even why academics mostly accept and occasionally reject evolutionary theory are more speculative in nature. The deepest source of our disagreements has less to do with scientific facts than with a philosophical worldview.

Here is where I think it gets interesting. I was just reading a review this morning of a book entitled Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism. The reviewer, in my opinion, well describes how evolutionary theory is rooted in modern philosophy. But I think he also unknowingly touches upon why modern philosophy and the evolutionary theory which flows from it is looked upon with a friendly eye by progressive members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "...even if as a scientific theory evolution was shown to be a dead letter, we would still have to contend with the philosophy of evolution, for at the moment it is the latter, not the former, which is the more powerful and pervasive phenomenon. It is evolution thinking as applied to history, economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology, and religion (and several other fields and endeavors as well) by which so many people are deeply influenced to day. In the minds of many, becoming has replaced being; all reality is to be taken as a continuous Heraclitean flux, not curbed or hampered by any finality." (bold mine)  (Catholic Family News, Dec. 2017, p. 18 of book review by Dennis Q. McInerny,  Ph. D.)

I would not quibble if someone more knowledgeable than I am takes issue with the accuracy of the expression "Heraclitean flux". I wonder if the primary difference between modern Mormonism and traditional Catholicism has to do with "being" or "becoming", and the same may be said with regards to evolutionary theory vs. creation. Hard science alone can not resolve the issue among people who cannot agree regarding "being" and "becoming". Maybe it is folly to hope for a meeting of minds about evolution theory when our more significant differences lie much deeper than the question of whether there was a Big Bang? 

Would anyone care to agree to disagree with me about the "evolutionary theory" I am suggesting. I would find it refreshing to be able to agree that different beliefs about evolutionary theory are irresolvable between people of radically opposed philosophical worldviews. Namely, about whether we and the world in which we live is "being" or "becoming." I am not champing for any philosophical debate on the subject involving my own participation. I merely wish to define our difficulties more precisely and discover if by backing way way up, we can agree about what makes many of us accept or reject the theory of evolution.

3DOP

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

You would not be the first to come on the board to get attention in any way or to attempt to make theists look bad.

I am more open today for you not pretending to be less educated than you really are, but if this is how you usually think things through, please take some logic classes to learn how to critically analyze not only how others think, but how you think about things yourself.  Otherwise you are wasting your own time and efforts and others with much of your commentary, imo.

Just to note but there were strong indications he was trolling a few months back when he was espousing positions that seemed like a caricature of Book of Mormon "literalism." I can't find the post but I distinctly remember him indicating then it was a bit of a role playing rather than authentically held position.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I would not quibble if someone more knowledgeable than I am takes issue with the accuracy of the expression "Heraclitean flux". I wonder if the primary difference between modern Mormonism and traditional Catholicism has to do with "being" or "becoming", and the same may be said with regards to evolutionary theory vs. creation. Hard science alone can not resolve the issue among people who cannot agree regarding "being" and "becoming". Maybe it is folly to hope for a meeting of minds about evolution theory when our more significant differences lie much deeper than the question of whether there was a Big Bang? 

Heraclitean flux just gets at two early pre-socratic philosophers. Heraclitus pushing what people call a "becoming" view of metaphysics - often assumed to have come from contact with thinkers from India. His view is that all permanence is an illusion and all there is is change. (This is very similar to basic Buddhist conceptions) He's often contrasted with Parmenides who held to a view in which all change is an illusion and all there is is change. With the history of Platonism the ideas of Plato are frequently interpreted in light of both these figures. Because they represent the two basic ontological ways of thinking of existence (change vs. permanence) they tend to be taken as representatives of each.

That said, I'm skeptical Catholicism has much to do with all this. It's true that certainly by the time of Augustine a neoplatonism that tended to privilege permanence developed in theology. God was seen as a necessary being in an eternal now due to time being a facet of creation not creator. I don't think that has much to do with science though since science is about descriptions in the world of creation. As such the issues of permanence don't really apply. That's why if anything Catholics are far, far more open to both physical theory about the early universe and evolutionary theory than Protestants are. There's really no theological problem. Further because Catholics have a very different hermeneneutic towards scripture rather than reading it as inerrant and primarily historical, they are open to readings more compatible with science. It's really a Protestant focus on every person being able to interpret scripture leading to what gets called "literalism" that causes the rift with science. It's true there were some riffs with science at the time of Galileo in Catholicism, but those issues really were much more complicated than usually described (they tended to be about Galileo taking opinions on metaphysics and theology rather than scientific acceptance). 

For contemporary Mormonism I think the problem of embracing science is largely due to the influx of Seventh Day Adventist apologetics into Mormon teaching. Again the history is a bit complicated and arises out of the first generation of Mormons sent to eastern schools to be educated on scripture. They tended to come back with what I'd term a somewhat naive view of higher criticism that led to conflicts in the 1930's. That in turn led to some conflicts with the naive way many Mormons read scripture unfortunately leading to an embrace of Seventh Day Adventist and Evangelical apologetics in the 1940's through 1960's. (Man His Origin and Destiny is one obvious example, but the Doctrine and Covenants Institute manual from the 1970's through 90's is an other great example) As sometimes happens by trying to oppose one thing they ending up embracing an equally wrong extreme. I think they correctly saw a skepticism of scripture and religious belief arising out of German Biblical hermeneutics and theology. Unfortunately to oppose it they embraced a skepticism of natural evidence that was just as problematic. It's really not until FARMS gets going doing apologetics due to critical attacks on the Book of Mormon that I think we get a more pro-scientific hermeneutic balanced with a general trust of scripture and theology but with a careful skeptical eye. By the late 90's that general approach tends to dominate. Now of late I think you're starting to get an attempt at a more liberal theology acceptable within Mormonism. I'm skeptical that'll be successful, although that may just be me disliking such movements.

[co-eternal]

Quote

What I am now going to tell you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you. When Yahovah Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when He had filled the Earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael or Adam goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.”

(Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see the Essential Brigham Young pg. 94)

I taught my children the truth of reproduction, that all species reproduce after their own kind. One son came home from school one day and said his seminary teacher call him a young prophet. I asked him why. He said the instructor had asked the class how Adam got his body and received many differing responses. The instructor then ask  him what he thought. He said "There is only one way bodies are produced, the exact same way each of us got a body".  To quote God "I was well pleased". But then my son goes to BYU to study geology and comes home and argues evolution with me. So I write o the BYU President and Department Chair asking them to account for teaching my son false doctrine. I got no response. Thanks a whole hell of a lot BYU.