• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Darwinism"

Upchurch said:
Or maybe you just aren't as complex as you like to think?

Who knows?*


* I've got a pretty strong idea.
Click to expand...
Good for you. Please advise how complex I think I am. I do know how complex I think you are anyway.

As to the swabbie who gave himself a promotion .... LOL. Nooby, you couldn't buy a clue about what I'm saying, go read some history here. Meantime pontificate all you want about subjects that are not necessarily what you think they are.


Better yet, chat with Uppie; he's sometimes good for a laugh.
 
Last edited:
SuperCoolGuy said:
Unless God is physical.
Click to expand...
If you can stretch your acceptance of the meaning of physical to allow it, that's your choice although not a popular one in the usual meanings of the term (well, I guess we could then chat about the meaning of choice :) )

My dichotomy places "dead and passive" on the physical side of the ledger, opposed to my ~physical side "alive and active".
 
hammegk said:
As to the swabbie who gave himself a promotion .... LOL. Nooby, you couldn't buy a clue about what I'm saying, go read some history here. Meantime pontificate all you want about subjects that are not necessarily what you think they are.
Click to expand...

Dude. Seriously. Dualism and deism are not the same thing. If they are, I would really like for you to start a thread on that.
 
SuperCoolGuy said:
Dude. Seriously. Dualism and deism are not the same thing. If they are, I would really like for you to start a thread on that.
Click to expand...
Nor did I say they were. Deism is a subset of dualism -- unless you are an idealist, or define 'physical' as you suggested.
 
hammegk said:
Nor did I say they were. Deism is a subset of dualism -- unless you are an idealist, or define 'physical' as you suggested.
Click to expand...

Or, unless I am a monist physicalist deist. My name is SuperCoolGuy. Nice to meet you.

And yes, I would like a cookie.
 
Last edited:
hammegk said:
The word is deist- it's a philosophy that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment.
Click to expand...
Why yes. Dualism.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're saying they're the same thing, but very well, you were saying deism is a subset. Except it's not.

Please come up with some evidence that deism is a dualist philosophy, if you're going to make that claim?

And physicalism is STILL not related. It is NOT the same thing as skepticism, nor atheism. One can believe in souls but not God, or evolution but not souls.

As for your disparaging comments, "Admiral" is a nickname my friends gave me. The origin is a long story. And your post count is absolutely irrelevant to your arguments. Someone that has nearly 7,000 posts and is wrong is still wrong.
 
SuperCoolGuy said:
Sure sounded like it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1670106&postcount=20
Click to expand...
We are now sure that isn't what I meant.

Do you mean mind-matter dualism?
Click to expand...
In often-used terms, yes.

Even if, I don't see how deism is a subset of dualism.
Click to expand...

Admiral said:
Please come up with some evidence that deism is a dualist philosophy, if you're going to make that claim?
Click to expand...
Did that help?

SCG said:
Or, instead of how I defined "physical", perhaps how I defined "God".
Click to expand...
A monist definition includes all there is/was/can-be.

monist physicalist deist
Click to expand...
Isn't language fun? :)


Admiral said:
Someone that has nearly 7,000 posts and is wrong is still wrong.
Click to expand...
Ditto for the person with a few hundred.

And physicalism is STILL not related. It is NOT the same thing as skepticism, nor atheism. One can believe in souls but not God, or evolution but not souls.
Click to expand...
God? Souls? LOL. Where do get that crap?

And, sorry, they are related in that most skeptics are wannabe physicalists, and that physicalists who are not atheists are illogical. I again suspect closet dualists rule the day.
 
I less than three logic said:
Before the thread progresses too far, we should establish what is meant by “Darwinism”. I assume we’re taking it to mean the evolution of living creatures through the course of natural selection. However, some people seem to attach so many other ideas to the term, including concepts that have little to do with evolution, or even biology, such as the “big bang” theory. So it may be good practice to define exactly what context we intend to interpret from this term.
Click to expand...


I can't speak to his exact meaning of "Darwinism" but up until that point the conversation had revovled around evolution vs. creationism. I can only assume that is what he meant.
 
chriswl said:
I think the theory of evolution, if properly understood, is pretty much incompatible with theism.

Catholicism doesn't endorse the ToE - it endorses its own bowdlerised version of it which claims that natural processes are inadequate, in themselves, to fully explain the natural world and the guiding hand of God is required. The real ToE is a naturalistic theory that has no place for supernatural entities. If a scientific theory has a god-shaped gap in it's mechanism then it is just not a properly formulated theory.

Now, one can believe that God set the conditions for evolution to happen and then just sat back and watched while it took a random walk (complete with dead ends and mass extinctions) through biological complexity space and eventually, by chance, ended up with us. But does any established religion actually advocate this?

It would be an odd way for a "creator" to behave when he could just create a world exactly the way he wanted it, in one go.
Click to expand...
As Admiral has said, Deism isn’t incompatible with this idea. Perhaps the Creator isn’t omnipotent (although, the definition would suggest otherwise I suppose). Voltaire has some thoughts on this subject as well.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volpower.html
I SUPPOSE that the man who reads this article is convinced that this world is formed with intelligence, and that a little astronomy and anatomy suffices to make this universal and supreme intelligence admired.

Can he know by himself if this intelligence' is omnipotent, that is to say, infinitely powerful? Has he the least notion of the infinite, to understand what is an infinite power?

The celebrated historian philosopher, David Hume, says in " Particular Providence '' : '' A weight of ten ounces is lifted in a balance by another weight; therefore this other weight is of more than ten ounces; but one can adduce no reason why it should weigh a hundred ounces."

One can say likewise: You recognize a supreme intelligence strong enough to form you, to preserve you for a limited time, to reward you, to punish you. Do you know enough of this power to demonstrate that it can do still more?

How can you prove by your reason that this being can do more than he has done?

The life of all animals is short. Could he make it longer?

All animals are the prey of each other: everything is born to be devoured. Could he form without destroying?

You do not know what nature is. You cannot therefore know if nature has n0t forced him to do only the things he has done.

This globe is only a vast field of destruction and carnage. Either the great Being has be en able to make of it an eternal abode of delight for all sentient beings, or He has not been able. If He has been able and if He has not done so, fear to regard Him as malevolent; but if He has not been able, fear not to lock on Him as a very great power, circumscribed by nature in His limits.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, evolution was the best the Creator could do limited within the bounds of nature.

Now, as for hammegk’s Deism = Dualism, I’m going to leave that can of worms alone.
 
Last edited:
hammegk said:
Why would one think 'deism is a form of dualism' means 'deism equals dualism'?
Click to expand...
If deism is a subset of dualism then it follows that to be a deist one must be a dualist, hence deism=dualism. Of course, that doesn't mean that dualism=deism, since dualists could have a stance other than deist.
 
The real point is deism as a subset of physicalism is dualism; as a subset of idealism it is not dualistic.

BTW, that is not a stance I take in that I don't consider myself a deist; neither do I categorically deny the possibility "Deism is The Answer" although my epsilon for that possibility is very very near 100%. :)

The probability of True is 100%-epsilon. Capische?
 
Last edited:
I know not; indications in this universe are that that isn't the case. You would need to ask god, should he exist. ;)
 
hammegk said:
The real point is deism as a subset of physicalism is dualism; as a subset of idealism it is not dualistic.
Click to expand...

There you go, deism is dualism IF deism is taken as a subset of physicalism. That is NOT "deism is a subset of dualism".

And as for specific dualism, (which I had to first propose and get you to confirm) mind-matter dualism does not necessarily come from physicalist deism.

Dualism: mind is not physical.

Physicalists: everything is physical, including the mind.

Physicalist deist: everything including God and the mind is physical.

If Descartes, a deist, was also a physicalist, would he still be a dualist?
 
Hammegk why is evolution incompatible with idealism?

If I understand you right, you're saying that dualism is illogical, physicalism is okay, so long as you don't allow any dualism to creep in, and so is idealism.
You then say that evolution is a physicalist theory.

Why isn't it compatible with idealism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom