Well again that does not factually seem to be the case. The fact that the Nazis and Stalinists and Maoists killed and tortured tens of millions of people does not seem to have affected our survival as a species one whit.

But our genes can’t exactly make accurate calculations of these things. They simply “know” that harming others is not good for the species as a whole, and that helping others and generally doing good things are good for everyone.

Well, if that is ‘what human nature is like’ then by your estimation evolution has made human nature exactly that way – and this contradicts your earlier contention that we are repulsed by cruelty.

I don’t see a contradiction. The world doesn’t operate in absolutes. We can be born with an innate repulsion to cruelty, but due to other aspects of the complex machinery inside us, this repulsion can be completely overriden by other factors, should the circumstances dictate. Hence the nationalism example I gave.

I am not sure how ‘hypothetical evidence’ is particularly useful against observable reality. If I say, “I don’t believe fairies exist” and you say, “Hah! It is possible for them to exist in some conceivable universe, therefore your contention that they don’t exist is nullified!” Well no – we can all imagine a universe where something might be true, but this isn’t strong evidence for or against what we observe to be true in the only universe we know to exist.

If you replace “fairies” with “God” in the first part of the above, that seems to me a pretty rational attitude. With respect, I still thinking you’re not quite seeing my point. Allow me to illustrate:

The year is 3789. A theologian is arguing with a physicist. The theologian says, “no sir, no matter what you tell me, nothing will change the fact that this universe is a very meaningful one, and that science alone does not account for that meaning. I put this to you: the universe is so fine-tuned for life that it is impossible it could have arisen without a creator intending to create life.” The physicist is then frustrated by his inability to give a good reply. Just then, another physicist runs into the room, shouting, “Eureka! I’ve found it! I have finally proved beyond any shadow of a rational doubt that universes are self-creating according to a higher set of physical laws which I now know in its entirety! And furthermore, there are billions of other universes, only about 0.01% of which have the potential for life! Not only that, but this higher set of laws springs from pure logic, so it can’t be any other way!” Both the theologian and the first physicist are taken aback by this, and he proceeds to write up his proof on several blackboards. The other two men, having a good enough understanding of mathematics, can do absolutely nothing but nod their heads in awe.

The theologian is faced with a bit of a dilemma. Does he hold up his hand in resignation and say, “that as good as proves there’s no God,” or does he say that it was God who designed these higher laws, which doubly proves his greatness? And given that the laws are logically inevitable, where does that leave his idea of the meaningfulness of the universe?

The above may be extremely hypothetical, and it’s *not* used as proof there’s no creator, but the simple point is that if you are convinced the world has some inherent purpose in it, then you must remain convinced *no matter what can be thrown at you*, and the above example shows this is untenable.

Are you saying you are not strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty?

I certainly think it’s wrong to be intentionally cruel, though I confess that I enjoy seeing Jack Bauer kill bad guys on television as much as the next person. That being said, I like/don’t like lots of things that one would hardly attribute to evolutionary history. Obviously, considering the amount of cruelty in human history, there are millions, perhaps billions, who aren’t repulsed by it.

Of course, there have been many incidents of extraordinary cruelty in the past (and today), and evolution does not imply that that’s not the case. However, it’s true that, on the whole we are repulsed by cruelty exactly because our genes want the species to survive.

Well again that does not factually seem to be the case. The fact that the Nazis and Stalinists and Maoists killed and tortured tens of millions of people does not seem to have affected our survival as a species one whit.

The only time that is overriden is when other survival factors are brought into play. For instance, nationalism can lead to great cruelty because other nationalities are seen as a threat to one’s own nationality’s survival. Unfortunately, that just seems to be what human nature is like.

Well, if that is ‘what human nature is like’ then by your estimation evolution has made human nature exactly that way – and this contradicts your earlier contention that we are repulsed by cruelty.

Let me stop you there. I’m absolutely not suggesting it as the basis for belief, but merely pointing out how ultimately shallow is the view that the universe has some purposeful meaning, as it can be thrown aside so easily with such (hypothetical) evidence.

I am not sure how ‘hypothetical evidence’ is particularly useful against observable reality. If I say, “I don’t believe fairies exist” and you say, “Hah! It is possible for them to exist in some conceivable universe, therefore your contention that they don’t exist is nullified!” Well no – we can all imagine a universe where something might be true, but this isn’t strong evidence for or against what we observe to be true in the only universe we know to exist. It is not ‘shallow’ for me to suggest fairies don’t exist, and it is not shallow for me to suggest that there is no indication that either the fine-tuning of the universe or life’s complexities can arise unguided absent actual evidence to the contrary.

If you introduce God to explain things, invariably you make things more difficult for yourself. For instance, if meaning is the sole reason for belief in a creator, why not just posit a meaning-substance that magically endows meaning on things? If you are really, truly honest with yourself, you must concede an element of wishful thinking in your view. A creator as is conventionally imagined can in fact be replaced with a whole host of alternative possibilities, none of which are generally favoured because they just “don’t *seem* right”.

But I have made it clear meaning is not the only reason for my belief in a Creator – I have many reasons to believe in a Creator. I am just showing that science has not reduced those reasons in any way.

And if I was merely creating a Creator out of a desire for wish fulfillment, I certainly wouldn’t posit the one I do believe exists.
Sorry –messed up formatting on the other post – feel free to delete.

Why would you say we evolved to be strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty? Humans can be extremely cruel; we are even capable of killing off entire populations of fellow humans. It would seem to me that even if one believed we evolved, there is still no evidence we don’t have a penchant for cruelty.

Are you saying you are not strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty? Of course, there have been many incidents of extraordinary cruelty in the past (and today), and evolution does not imply that that’s not the case. However, it’s true that, on the whole we are repulsed by cruelty exactly because our genes want the species to survive. The only time that is overriden is when other survival factors are brought into play. For instance, nationalism can lead to great cruelty because other nationalities are seen as a threat to one’s own nationality’s survival. Unfortunately, that just seems to be what human nature is like.

I am just saying if this possibility (that universes are created without assistance, according to some unknown laws) is the basis for one’s non-belief…

Let me stop you there. I’m absolutely not suggesting it as the basis for belief, but merely pointing out how ultimately shallow is the view that the universe has some purposeful meaning, as it can be thrown aside so easily with such (hypothetical) evidence. If you introduce God to explain things, invariably you make things more difficult for yourself. For instance, if meaning is the sole reason for belief in a creator, why not just posit a meaning-substance that magically endows meaning on things? If you are really, truly honest with yourself, you must concede an element of wishful thinking in your view. A creator as is conventionally imagined can in fact be replaced with a whole host of alternative possibilities, none of which are generally favoured because they just “don’t *seem* right”.

Can you elaborate on this? It seems to me that not wanting to do something is a good enough reason not to do it, without invoking some grand purpose. We have evolved such that we are strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty (because these are not exactly good for the species’ survival), therefore we don’t do them. It seems odd to say that we refrain from hurting each other because we know there is “intent and purpose” to the universe.

Why would you say we evolved to be strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty? Humans can be extremely cruel; we are even capable of killing off entire populations of fellow humans. It would seem to me that even if one believed we evolved, there is still no evidence we don’t have a penchant for cruelty.

Perhaps you don’t see how it can be verified, but that’s not to say it’s not possible in principle. Your answer seems to me to be wavering slightly towards agnosticism, hinting as it does that if such physical laws could be proven to exist, you would drop the need for a creator in one fell swoop. And then what would become of the apparent necessity for intent and purpose in the universe?

I am just saying if this possibility (that universes are created without assistance, according to some unknown laws) is the basis for one’s non-belief, then it isn’t based on a particular scientific fact merely an imagined possibility, giving such a belief no more warrant than a belief in theism. Indeed, in this instance theism is based on what is actually known about the nature of the universe, so there is stronger support for that idea than its alternative.

And to the last point, if it could be shown the universes have an inherent capability to organize themselves, and that these inherent characteristics produced order leading to the origin of life and human consciousness, then there would be strong warrant for agnosticism, at least.

If the world is not designed for any particular purpose, then I am free to do what I want without being concerned about such constraints, or the fear of consequence, other than perhaps that which is immediately dictated by my survival.

Can you elaborate on this? It seems to me that not wanting to do something is a good enough reason not to do it, without invoking some grand purpose. We have evolved such that we are strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty (because these are not exactly good for the species’ survival), therefore we don’t do them. It seems odd to say that we refrain from hurting each other because we know there is “intent and purpose” to the universe.

While I think such universe could be imagined, I am not sure how one could ever verify that such universe could exist – not without endeavoring in the same conjecture theists are accused of.

Perhaps you don’t see how it can be verified, but that’s not to say it’s not possible in principle. Your answer seems to me to be wavering slightly towards agnosticism, hinting as it does that if such physical laws could be proven to exist, you would drop the need for a creator in one fell swoop. And then what would become of the apparent necessity for intent and purpose in the universe?

”I really don’t think that non-theists desire for things to not be designed. They simply don’t see a good reason why conscious creation is necessary. After all, even if it is necessary, why endow the creator with certain qualities?”

I think they do; if the world is created with intent and purpose, then that means we may or may not conform to that purpose – and be constrained accordingly. If the world is not designed for any particular purpose, then I am free to do what I want without being concerned about such constraints, or the fear of consequence, other than perhaps that which is immediately dictated by my survival.

”The only quality necessary for a creator is that he/she understands the laws of physics enough that he/she can fine-tune the constants accordingly. But what if the laws of physics, when fully understood, allow that different universes can have different constants, some which work well together, and some which don’t, and that universes are created without assistance, themselves according to some laws? Where, then, would a creator fit in?”

While I think such universe could be imagined, I am not sure how one could ever verify that such universe could exist – not without endeavoring in the same conjecture theists are accused of.

Oh, and as far as I know blockquotes aren’t possible in the comments. Sorry.

Testing blockquotes

As it pertains to biology natural selection refers how environmental factors act on heritable traits in a population. Any claimed application to ‘black holes’ would be purely figurative, as no other objects have heritable traits.

And those traits that living organisms have are a product of information system driven machinery; which must exist in order for natural selection to act on it.

“By the way, all those things you listed only *seem* to defy non-teleological explanations because you, being human, desire them deeply. There is no logical reason to suppose teleological explanations are necessary at all. What is amazing is just amazing and that is that.”

Actually, I would say the opposite is true – I think, speaking as a former agnostic, non-theists deeply desire what is apparently designed to not be designed, and so they glom onto any idea that appears to explain away what is readily apparent. At least I did.
“As to your point about the food-filled shelter, again, if you did not awake in said shelter and instead found yourself in an inhospitable, foodless place, you would die and not be able to have these debates. But since we evolved *with* the earth, such things are highly unlikely to happen.”
Well, yes, that is exactly my point – any number of things could keep me from making observations, but aren’t in and of themselves explanations for my existence. And earth was suited for our existence long before ‘we’ got here.

By the way, can one do blockquotes around this place? Much neater.

Are you saying that cells existed before natural selection? Because it seems to me that absolutely nothing existed before natural selection, in that natural selection is not a thing that just starts “existing” at some point. It is simply a law that says whatever is not well-adapted to survive won’t survive for very long. This could apply to stars in black holes just as well as zebra and lions.

By the way, all those things you listed only *seem* to defy non-teleological explanations because you, being human, desire them deeply. There is no logical reason to suppose teleological explanations are necessary at all. What is amazing is just amazing and that is that.

As to your point about the food-filled shelter, again, if you did not awake in said shelter and instead found yourself in an inhospitable, foodless place, you would die and not be able to have these debates. But since we evolved *with* the earth, such things are highly unlikely to happen.