Wednesday, April 21, 2010

God, Sex and the Meaning of Life

According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the purpose of life is to “glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” Indeed, this same sentiment is found all throughout Christian theology and philosophy. Some Christians, such as William Lane Craig, have stated that “the chief purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God.”

In light of this, it is pretty clear that the Christian purpose of life is not to do good to others, to give back to society, etc, but to come to know God, and worship him. Though, Christians would surely argue that once you know God, good deeds etc would subsequently emanate.

This is all well and good, but it seems to me that this meaning of life could ONLY be known if you were living in a time and place in which Christianity was around. No one would ever come to this conclusion on their own. That is, no one would ever figure that the meaning of life was to worship Jesus, unless they were told this. This seems to be a problem.

It seems that if the creator of the universe made a species of people, specifically for the reason of coming to know, worshiping, and glorifying him, it would be much more obvious. I would think that such a desire would be almost instinctual. It would be a drive that all of humanity shares. Something we all wanted, all yearned for, and all thought about. It would transcend gender, race, class, social status, etc. Obviously, this isn’t the case. Granted, there are many people who do do this. But as I mentioned before, this was taught to them, it wasn’t from some inborn desire.

However, there is indeed something that every human, regardless of race, sex, creed, etc desires. That thing is sex. Or more specifically, the urge to reproduce. This urge, in fact, is so strong, that it actually transcends our own species. Every living organism on the planet shares this urge!

From the naturalistic point of view, in which there is no supernatural creator; humans and all other life were “created” through the forces of natural selection, the most important thing that we can possibly do (from a biological perspective) is reproduce. Our genes want nothing more than to get themselves copied into the next generation.

How does theism, especially Christianity, account for this? As it has already been pointed out, our desires should be to come to know and worship God. So why is it that our actual desires are in no way related to what God wants of us, but exactly what evolution predicts?

I can think of only one answer. It would seem that the Christian would have to argue that our desire for sex is part of our sinful nature. Certainly this is consistent with Christianity’s terror over sex, but it seems very awkward and ad hoc. Today, most thoughtful Christians claim that sex is a gift from God. But if it is a gift from God, why would he have made it so powerful of an urge-- a more powerful urge than what he actually wants us to do? Why not give us a desire to seek, know, and worship him instead?

If God wanted sex only to exist for reproductive reasons alone, he could have made it not so pleasurable. He could have made it just be like so many other biological things. Blowing your nose, going to the bathroom, cutting your nails, etc. These things aren’t bad, but people don’t sit around obsessing over them, wanting to do them constantly.

On the other hand, if evolution alone is responsible for our existence, sex would be the most important thing there is. Evolution would have done everything it could to make sure that organisms reproduce and pass their genes on to future generations. Some species will go to great lengths, risking (even sacrificing) their own lives, just to mate. Even among humans, we will risk ruining our careers, destroying marriages, etc just for sex. God must have known that such a thing would consume us, so why make our urge for it so strong? It seems that he could have just as easily made the desire to know him and worship him as strong. And if that truly is what he wants of us, why didn't he create us with the desire to do so?

As a perfect case study, look at Catholic Priests. They have chosen to devote their lives to what the Christian meaning of life is: coming to know God. However, like everyone else alive, the biological meaning of life is much, much stronger, and in many cases, they give in.

In conclusion, I have to ask: seeing how sex is, without a doubt, the strongest urge that any living organism has, is that what we would expect to see if our purpose in life was to worship God? Subsequently, isn’t this exactly what we would expect to see, if indeed we were shaped by the impersonal forces of evolution, whose main "goal" is the survival and replication of our genes? Obviously, the fact that the strongest urge in existence is reproduction is explained much better by the naturalistic worldview, rather than theistic one. Therefore, we can conclude that it is more reasonable to presume that we were created without the help of God, than with.

44 comments:

  1. "I would think that such a desire would be almost instinctual."

    Well maybe that is what you would put into the minds of people you created.

    I know if I had created man I wouldn't want them to just automatically or "instinctually" love me. I would want them to seek me out and get to know me.

    It says in the Bible people have freewill to do this or not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If God's plan was to create people for the explicit purpose of nothing else but worshiping him (and not doing being punishable by eternal torment), I would hope he would make us with the desire to do so. Otherwise, that would just be sick.

    I am not arguing that God should make people instinctively love him. I am saying that we should have an innate desire to WANT to. Just as we all have an innate desire to want to have sex... though, not everyone actually does it.

    And just cause something is instinctual doesn't mean you are forced to do it. Look at birth control, for example. Or people who do successfully remain abstinent their entire lives. You still have a choice.

    The Bible does not say anything about free will. That was a foreign concept to the writers of the Bible. Besides, it's not really a free choice when the other option is "be tortured for all eternity." That's about the same amount of free will that a robber gives you when he puts a gun to your head and says "your money or your life."

    Anyway, the main point that needs to be answered is this: how does Christianity account for the fact that the strongest drive in all humans is to reproduce, when the alleged purpose of life is actually to worship God?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually the bible does speak about free will.

    I just searched http://www.biblegateway.com for words that connote voluntary decision-making, such as "choose," "submit," and "decide."

    John 7:17
    "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."

    James 4:7-8
    "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."

    2 Cor. 9:7
    "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
    Source(s):

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, there are decision making words. But the concept of free will had yet been explored when the Bible was written.

    Regardless, that misses the bigger point I am arguing for, and is irrelevant, because the type of free will you are arguing for is not really fee will ("do this or be punished").

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I guess the even bigger point we can argue is the existence of God. Which I firmly believe He is real and created earth and man.

    I do appreciate you being respectful towards your argument and it is obvious you have done a lot of research.

    I do know their are eye wittnesses who saw Jesus' miracles and profecy come to pass. People were crucified upside down for their Christian beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, this IS an argument regarding the existence of God. Though, it is an inductive argument-- that is, it's a probabilistic argument. As I have tried to reiterate, the point of this particular argument is to assess which theory (theism or naturalism) best accounts for the universal drive of sexual reproduction. And it seems clear that naturalism is, hands down, the better explanation.

    As for your final statement, I completely disagree (surprise), but those points are in no way relevant to this post, so I am not going to address them here :)

    I also appreciate your tone, and you seem like a nice person... so if you would like to discuss those other topics, feel free to email me. Zachary_Kroger@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zach,
    This is a point I've been promoting for a while that, while the "fittest" are more likely to survive, it's the horniest who are most likely to pass on their DNA.
    Also, down along the list for survival, I think developed the need for community in order to prosper. Along with that need we developed a tendency to hold mutual beliefs about the world to obtain acceptance within our communities. This need to be accepted manifests itself in group allegiance and ultimately mythological (religious) beliefs. In other words people are primarily religious for purely sociological reasons (peer pressure). Someone growing up in a relatively isolated environment will develop beliefs based on introspection - (animal gods, the stars, etc.). Put them in a community and they will tend to adhere to the belief system developed by that community.
    On a side note, I think Clemens may have been like so many who would have been ostracized for claiming a disbelief in god and paid some lip service to religion while believing otherwise (like Einstein living in McCarthy era USA and even Jefferson who didn't have the benefit of the knowledge gained from the voyage of the Beagle some 50 years later)
    My 2¢
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  8. Or MAYBE the Christians were wrong, and there IS a God, but his chief purpose for us is to enjoy the pleasures of life. Just a thought. ;)

    -Nichole

    ReplyDelete
  9. Enjoying life IS glorifying God, according to the Bible. In Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 we find the words:

    7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

    And some helpful Christian commentary is found here:
    http://www.raystedman.org/daily-devotions/ecclesiastes/the-gift-of-gods-approval

    I recommend reading the commentary as it makes sense of a seemingly pessimistic book of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Zac

    I'm a Christian, based in London..

    I just googled the meaning of life and your page came up somewhere. Your blog is interesting..as a conscientious christian you've posed all the q's that I have been and still am grappling with.

    I didnt read the whole of this page but I just wanna make a few points:

    1. I think that the strongest driving force in life isn't reproduction, it's probably staying alive(eating, drinking - but reproduction is up there

    2. with regard to the potency of lust and sexual urge, this drive is so strong in the average person because people live life out of balance...thats my guess. in a perfect world, in God's image, people arent swayed by lust, temptation because sexual desire finds its proper place...i.e by that point in time, our frame of minds have been so well re-calibrated that we only use sexual desire for what its meant to be used for - the transmission of life

    3. Still wondering what the meaning of life is, I think its probably to know God completely, for our souls to know God as completely as possible...at this point in my life I think thats my best guess....it used to be that meaning of life? - a life of meaning but my current guess goes beyond it.

    My reason for that guess is would take a long time to explain, but in short I say that because everything in life is geared towards perfection..evolving, intelligence, reproducing, technology, etc etc. Even if people dont know it, I think there's a primal urge in humanity to ascend.

    I think this is a good discussion you're having here, im not sure if you're religious or not but keep thinking openly deeply cos there is an answer!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Anon (Nov 14)
    Thanks for your comments!

    I would grant that survival is a probably a stronger urge than reproduction… but only with somewhat of a caveat. In some species of insects, the female eats the male, right after copulation occurs. So the goal seems to be to survive just long enough to reproduce!

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that people who have a strong sex drive have a life that is out of balance. I mean, is it really just a coincidence that when girls are most fertile, they are the most interested in sex? Are we really going to say that the “balance of women’s lives” follows a monthly cycle, and is the same for women throughout the world, regardless of religion, etc?

    It also seems quite apparent that no one, no matter what, can escape this desire. The more you repress it, the stronger it comes back (just look at basically any sex scandal in any church).

    If the meaning of life is to know God, then why doesn’t it feel like it? Why does this meaning have to be told to us? Why aren’t we innately drawn to know God, like we are drawn to sex?

    Anyway, thanks again for the comments!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Zac

    Thanks for replying.

    Im the Christian in the UK btw.

    I think my wording, i.e 'life out of balance' may have been superfluous. I'm not suggesting that these people, which I guess includes me, live chaotic unusual lives. I just think that sexual urge in its proper place is something that can be controlled more easily, but because of the nature of modern day life, people are more susceptible to the urge when it arises.

    I think that even if I didnt know any religious code, such as Christianity, or Judaism etc etc I would still try and search for a root cause in reality..and I think that the same applies for a whole lot of humanity that came before us, and will come. I dont have stats but I'll wager that at some point in a man's life they consider where everything started. I think this is partially an explanation for scientists, psychologists etc. On top of that, I think that trying to unravel the order of things is a means to knowing a God, if one truly exists! En masse, the human race is trying to draw nearer to a God but we are trying to do it in a multitude of ways. That's my guess, man.

    Re repressing sexual urge, you also have a point. Although, I reckon there are people out there who have re-shuffled the sexual urge so it's right down low on the hierarchy..I spent a while with some Buddhist monks 2 years ago, who explained that it's a question of raw will, since anything is possible in your mind. But by and large, it is a tough thing to ignore, but only because people have not been taught how to.

    Re that terrible and disgusting scandal in the church, I agree with you that it demonstrates the generally irrepressible nature of sexual urge. Yours is the same conclusion I came to. But for all the disgusting people that have done these things, I really do think there are other rev fathers, priests who have mastered Self and managed to overcome the urge for sex. Our minds really must be that powerful that it's possible right? My guess is that it just doesnt work all the time.

    Re the spider who eats the male after sex, I would wager that if that spider had been starving to the point of almost losing spider's life, she would rather eat the male than copulate first. The Will to Life is generally very powerful, and in reptiles, insects etc it's probably even stronger (I guess that because they, unlike mammals, probably lack other instincts).

    Thanks for this discussion btw. I checked out your blog and you seem cool.

    C

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey UK Christian! Thanks for the continued discussion.

    You make some good points… but I am not clear on some of the things you mentioned. You stated that in the proper place, the sexual urge can be controlled, but it is hard in modern life. I guess I am not really sure what to think of that. Do people in other societies (indigenous cultures, for example) have an easier time dealing with it? I don’t think so. I guess I just fail to see where the sex urge has a proper place and can be controlled the most easily.

    I agree that there is somewhat of an urge to understand where we came from, etc (though, I don’t think this urge is as common as we think.

    That is, it IS common to some people, such as you and I, but there are TONS of people who simply don’t care, and have no interest in the question. Ironically, I know tons of guys that worry more about how to get girls than what the universe is all about haha). But I think that is much, much different from the idea of wanting to “glorify and worship God.” And seeing as other animals don’t have the cognitive capacity to think about these things, it seems more likely that this desire to understand the world is a product of our large brains, rather than some urge planted in us by some higher power.

    I think there is a difference (and you seemed to allude to it) between repressing the sexual urge, and dealing with it in a healthy manner. For example, the Buddhists you have mentioned (as well as other people, I am sure), and found ways of dealing it via willpower, etc. However, when you try to repress something by saying it is bad, wrong, etc, it seems to always come back with a vengeance! Also, I am very skeptical that monks and priests have overcome the sexual urge… I think they just have ways to cope with it (though, I could be wrong).

    I agree, that a starving spider would rather eat than reproduce. But it seems like most creatures want to survive, simply so they can reproduce. Think of all the violence in the animal kingdom, over mate selection… it’s crazy. The risks animals (and humans) go to, simply for sex, are incredible.

    Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vluNd9H08XA

    So sex or survival… why is this urge so universal if the meaning of life is to worship and glorify God?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Zach,

    I'm glad you got back to me! And your response is welcome.

    It's hard to have this discussion without getting mired in minutae, but I'll try as best as I can. A small caveat, when I speak it's not on behalf of my religion, but it's only my p.o.v.

    Your point re indegenous cultures may be quite valid but I dont know how they deal with sex, if they masturbate etc. I think the point you're making, though, is that even though these people aren't caught up in modern day life they still have such urges. It may be so, but I have no data on them so I'm gonna have to step away from that point.

    Your point re people not caring about Real issues is true and pretty sad, I agree that generally people seem to turn their attn's on other things like how to get laid etc, or (more seriously) how to make more £, or feed my family, or get a promototion. But it always (rather generally) comes to pass that people wonder Philosophically on some level about human circumstance and reality around us. I even think some animals to an extent might think about that! But definitely, amongst people the world over. The difference with us is we just happen to think of these things earlier than they did, for whatever reason.

    You, like me, live in a the developed world, and I think amongst our lot consumerism, materialism etc is partly to blame for this...I'm not a social scientist but I think that's what contributes to the phrase I mentioned earlier, i.e living a life out of balance..too much of luxury, etc and not enough spiritual sustenance.

    Like I said earlier, I think we are groping at this entity called God, defined, in a plethora of ways the world over. (This is subjective and just my humble opinion, man). I also think that even animals of lower (i say lower, cos i believe even animals have a kind of brainpower) are trying to find their way towards God. I say it cos of evolution, their abilities to manipulate their surroundings via evolution, their instinct to transmit life, and (in mammals and other life forms)the desire to protect their own. It's almost like a pattern, a blueprint for something that I don't understand. But I do think it shows living long enough to do something. That something, I believe, is knowing God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. part 2 from C

    The Bible does speak about worshipping and praising God. It's something I do. The Scripture is meant to be God's word, but I maintain that God is not so worried about praise and 'worship' as he is about being acknowledged and accepted and trusted. I don't trust the powers that be, or that have been, to the extent that I believe certain aspects of the Bible may have been altered 1.on purpose, 2.on time, 3. lost in translation. Christians say God created us in His image, I agree. But I also believe God works in a way that can't be understood by us, except we can understand His Love. What I'm trying to say here is that the meaning of life isn't worship and glory of God, but rather knowing and accepting God. If it were glorifying and worshiping God people would probably be looking for better ways of worshiping and glorifying God all the time. Also, if that truly were the meaning of life, I'd hate to think of what it shows re His personality.

    I try and get a vivid feel of people when I meet them, so when I spent time in a monastery with the aforementioned monks they seemed genuinely at peace. They think on this thing they call Void, and use it to shape their minds. You can never really know the shape of another person's mind/soul but they seemed like they were genuinely in control emotions and I reckon that goes for sexual urge too, but how am I to know. All I know is that when it's pitched a man's Will is powerful beyond belief. Also stuff like NLP/hypnosis show that many things can be learnt or overcome with mind power, e.g bad habits, confidence, phobias, reams of data etc etc.

    Sorry, this is a long response.

    Re part 2, you are correct I think, re spiders surviving to procreate. But it doesnt mean that the will to have sex is stronger than a will to Live. Cos if the spider's dead it can't have sex (an animal must realise that, and that to me is a sign of an intellig).

    Lets take that spider actually. Lie any living being it recreates itself as best as it can by reproducing, and evolving. What is it's aim? Preserving and improving life I think. Why preserve it and improve it? To give us a better understanding and ability to deal with what's around us. Why? So we can finally know God. IN MY OPINION.

    The problem with most of we discuss is it's so subjective and based on what we experienced. But we do agree on a few things here, and one is that reality exists...but where did it come from? Do you think it was spontaneous?

    LOL i just saw the beetle, what a gentleman. But you're right that it shows something...

    I dont know if that beetle was horny, but it definitely wanted to reproduce! Not because it likes sex, in my opinion, but because of the will to Life that I mentioned earlier. I dont know if the beetle realises it has to die one day, but it knows surely that sex is something it has to do to keep beetles going, i.e keep life going....so it does it. In the process, the next generation gets smarter,stronger etc etc...but towards what?why?to unravel or get some knowledge of this world around us.

    Most of this is my opinion mind. Thanks for taking time to respond to my earlier ones man, and I hope this one helps conversation! I'll hope for a reply.

    Peace

    C

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Zach

    Its UK Christian here, my name is Clif by the way

    I want to retract what I said about the beetle not having sexual urge! I shouldnt have commented

    I saw the link below on bbc, u may enjoy it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pv1c3/The_Secret_Life_of_Chaos/

    take care

    C

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you believe in Eugenics Mr. Kroger?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oliver,

    Not sure what that has to do with this blog post, but no. I am not a proponent of eugenics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How about evolution is that off topic here? Do you have a more appropriate blog for that topic?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am not sure I follow you. Eugenics has nothing to do with science of evolution, other than people in the 1920's trying to justify not letting certain people reproduce by referencing Darwin. Besides that not being natural selection, it is a naturalistic fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There are more connections between evolution and eugenics than a few people in the 1920's.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, that's when it was the most popular. Whatever the case, like I said before, it's based on huge misunderstandings of evolutionary biology, and a naturalistic fallacy. So, empirically and logically, the only connection Social Darwinism has to Darwin is it's name.

    I would be willing to bet that anyone you find who DOES think there is a connection between the two doesn't actually know anything about evolutionary biology.

    It would be like me going around killing people, and justifying it by saying "Einstein proved everything is relative, therefore there is no right or wrong." People would be like "what the heck are you talking about?? That is not at all what the theories of relativity say."

    ReplyDelete
  23. And I'll take that as a no for being off topic or having a better blog for the topic.

    Anyway, I don't want to beat around the bush, I'll get to my main points, if it's off topic let me know.

    Evolution is not even close to scientifically proven.

    More importantly, evolution makes no sense based only on observations of the world around us.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The original title of Darwin's “Origin of species” was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life”

    Eugenics is about selective breeding with humans, and Darwin was an advocate of this.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, I only write blog posts on things that are mostly my original ideas. I am not sure what I would write about regarding such a thing.

    As for evolution not being proven and whatnot, do you have any criticisms that aren't listed on this website? www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    Also, could you list a few books you have read on evolutionary biology (if you like, I can list the ones I have read)? Because there isn't a single contemporary, publishing biologist on earth that would agree with you.

    Lastly, what is your opinion on selection being at the level of the gene, organism or species? And why do you think biologists accept one more than the other? And what do you think is more wrong, punctuated equilibrium or gradualism? Also, what do you think about molecular phylogenetics? As far as you understand it, what are your main criticisms?

    Of course, I ask this stuff knowing full well that you don't know a single thing about evolution, and everything you've ever heard is from people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

    Lastly, be aware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which states that the less you know about something, the more certain you are in your opinion of it. So, are you convinced that evolution isn't true because you got a degree in bio, published research, presented at conferences, read hundreds of books and papers on it, etc and you have found the evidence lacking? Or, did you just watch a few creationist videos on youtube, and now you fancy yourself an expert?

    Be honest here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ah, so you have read Origin. Great! Could you please point out the pages that mentions human evolution?

    (Hint, it doesn't).

    "Races" refer to varieties of organisms, not people, which is very, very clear if you had read the book. Funny how words change over the course of 150 years eh? So that is point number one of you not knowing what you are talking about, but acting like you do.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow! Ok I guess because I didn't come to the same conclusion as you I don't know what I'm talking about.

    Anyway, I have read a few books on biology, taken some classes, and being able to predict species only proves just that. You don't even need to read much into it to see that scientists are trying to prove evolution, maybe I'm wrong I'm not a self taught scientist like you.

    Anyway, maybe I should have said it SEEMS TO ME like science doesn't come close to proving evolution, because my main point is that it doesn't make sense with things like morals, or free will, or civilization, and one thing I do know is that science can't explain how life started, even in theory.

    Lastly, why would part of Darwin's title refer to species and the other part refer to races? Why was his son Leonard Darwin a eugenist president? Why did he have a cousin/friend who advocated eugenics? and why did he refer to superior classes in "The Descent of Man"?

    ReplyDelete
  28. If you think I am wrong about you not knowing what you are talking about, then please answer my previous questions. And please list the books you have read. Also, please explain how endogenous retroviruses don't provide evidence of evolution.

    So because evolution can't explain things that it doesn't try to explain (origin of life, free will and civilization), that means it's wrong? Does it's explanation of the diversity of biological life not count for anything? Is atomic theory wrong too since it can't explain the origin of life, free will, civilization and morals? Speaking of morals, what don't you find convincing about the vast amount of research that has been done on it in regards to morality evolving? That is... you have actually read books on it, right? You aren't just talking about something which you know nothing about, are you?

    As I mentioned already, "race" refers to varieties of species. Darwin never mentions human evolution in Origin. Don't take my word for it... go read the book yourself. I already explained this.

    I would suspect that his son was a eugenicist because Galton was a big advocate of it (as you pointed out). As I mentioned before, people used Darwin's theory to justify eugenics, but they didn't seem to actually understand it (for example, evolution is via natural selection, eugenics is artificial selection. Evolution preserves organisms that are best fit for an ecological niche, whereas eugenics is trying to select for traits that certain people deem to be the most desirable). For the second time, I already explained this... so please read my comments more carefully, as to prevent me having to re-explain everything.

    Lastly, Darwin refers to superior classes because he was a racist, just like everyone else in the mid 1800s. Though, more importantly, what do you think of that book? If you are going to be criticizing it, I hope you would have the honesty to actually have read it. I sincerely hope that you aren't just saying that because you heard Kent Hovind say it.

    But lets say you are right. Let's suppose Darwin loved eugenics, hated black people, raped his children, beat his wife and didn't pay his taxes. How does does that have anything to do with the validity of evolution? As I already pointed out, that is a naturalistic fallacy. Einstein's theories allowed for the creation of the a-bomb, so does such a terrible thing make his theories wrong?

    In summary, this is what I need you to do:
    Explain your opinion on the evolutionary biology questions I raised earlier to prove to me you actually know something about evolution. Or, just be honest and admit you don't really know anything.
    Explain why ERVs don't count for evolution, or admit you have never even heard of them.
    List the evolutionary biology books you have read.
    Explain why evolution needs to account for the origin of life, free will and civilization, even though it only attempts to account for the diversity of life.
    Explain why you aren't convinced by the arguments from evolutionary psychologists on how/why morality evolved. Please list a few books you have read on the topic too. Or, admit you didn't even know such research existed, and you know nothing about it.
    Explain why the supposed moral implications of an observation (life evolves by natural selection) means that the observation is wrong.
    Explain why Darwin's racism disproves evolutionary biology.
    Explain why you feel it is okay to criticize books you have never read.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Discover Biology: Core Topics" the other book was on nutrition. My only point is that I HAVE READ BOOKS, YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG. I don't remember much of them, had no interest at the time.

    If I did know something about evolutionary biology that would prove I know about evolutionary biology, not evolution as a whole.

    I get my information from people on certain topics, and I trust people who aren't scientists in this case because scientists admittedly have bias opinions, and by default exclude the supernatural. I don't have the time to be an expert on biology, so we can just say I'm ignorant if that's what you prefer.

    Sorry, but you don't always have to read a book to criticize it, if I knew someone followed Hitler and found a quote in his book supporting killing Jews, I would know he hated Jews and question his theories more.

    Evolution does have to explain the origin of life because it doesn't make sense without it, it can't explain the single cell coming into existence.

    There is no morality without God, you could tell me murder, rape, lying etc are wrong, and I just say they're not.

    By the way, there are other ways besides reading books to learn, like debates and talking to college professors.

    Galton worked with Darwin, THEY WERE FRIENDS, and Galtons eugenics theory was known to Darwin during this time.

    Why would I even waste my time scientifically researching a theory created by a man who believes in selective breeding of humans?

    Until evolution can even begin to make sense on a common sense level, I'm not going to put a whole lot of time or energy into researching it's science. If I did I would be researching stupid theories for the rest of my life, no thanks.

    It's funny how you go into attack mode on this from just a few sentences I posted.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am afraid my assumption is correct. You read one intro to biology text book for a class you took. It was not on evolutionary biology, but on biology as a whole. Perhaps there was on chapter on evolution. You also admit that you don’t remember much from any of it. So by both our contentions, you know nothing.


    Also, you failed to answer my evolution test questions. You also didn’t admit that you didn’t know anything about that stuff. Why? Why not be honest? Why act as if you know something that you don’t?


    You get your information from creationists, who have no science background, and are proven liars. Do you really think that people like Kent Hovind don’t have biases? I pointed out in another blog comment that even Henry Morris flat out rejects science if it contradicts the Bible. Is that not a bias?


    More importantly, if you are getting your information from non-scientists, how could you possibly say things like “Evolution is not even close to scientifically proven. More importantly, evolution makes no sense based only on observations of the world around us”? In order to know those things, you would have to talk to the people who actually study the field—scientists. It would be like me trying to learn about the moon landing by talking to conspiracy theorists.


    But you finally admitted what the real issue. You don’t like the fact that science hasn’t found evidence of God. So, instead of being honest, you dismiss the science, and just listen to people who will tell you what you want to hear. “Evolution is just a bunch of atheist nonsense.” You have no interest in the science, but are just worried about your beliefs being dismissed. But good news! No one thinks that evolution disproves God… except for creationists. I even say so in another blog post.


    You don’t have to be an expert on biology… but you have to know something. And you seem to not even understand the very basics. As a result, your opinion is based on nothing. And that is a failure of honesty on your part.


    You don’t have to have read a book to criticize it? Oh man, they must love you at amazon. Here is the thing though, you are embarrassing yourself and just helping reiterate the “idiot head in the sand Christian” stereotype. Every time you say something that is so flat out wrong, and refuse to adjust your views to the evidence, you make Christians look like idiots. The “I don’t have to read a book to know what it is about” mentality is the antithesis of honesty, integrity and openness.


    No, evolution does not have to account for the origin of life. Creationists are lying to you, and you know so little that you don’t understand why that is a lie. Evolution is about the development of life on earth. That’s it. Over. The origin of life is an entirely different field. Likewise, it would be like me saying “germ theory is wrong because it doesn’t explain where germs came from.” Or “atomic theory is wrong because it doesn’t explain where atoms came from.” Do you see how silly that is?


    I am also shocked (not really) that you are using these arguments, when I already provided you a link with rebuttals to all these things you are saying. Why don’t you care about truth? Why continue with the lies? The truth is literally at your fingertips… why ignore it?

    ReplyDelete
  31. No philosopher of ethics would agree with you that you can’t have morality without God. That is just the apologists lying to you. And again, you are just talking about things you know nothing of. Here, let me prove it to you: Please explain why Kant’s view of secular ethics is wrong. We both know you can’t because you’ve never read Kant and have no idea what his views are. All you do is listen to creationists tell you what you want to hear, and uncritically accept them. This just makes you look bad.


    Yes, there are other ways to learn, but you don’t seem to have learned anything. I know this, because you admitted yourself that you have no interest in the topic and have never read a book on evolution.


    You asked why you should research the theories of someone who believed in selective breeding. Well, should we dismiss the Laws of motion simply because Newton believed in alchemy?


    You never answered my question… what do Darwin’s moral views have to do with the accuracy of his scientific theory?


    How can evolution make sense on a common sense level if you know nothing about it? I do understand it and it makes perfect sense. This is just a failure of honesty on your part.


    Sorry if you feel that me exposing your ignorance is “attack mode.” I think that you just don’t like being called out on your ignorance. But if you were just honest to begin with, that wouldn’t happen. It is okay not to know something. But it is NOT okay to not know something, act like you do, and refuse to admit when you are called out on it. That is just flat out typical Christian dishonesty. Does intellectual honesty and integrity mean nothing to you?

    At this point, I STILL need you to…
    Explain your opinion on the evolutionary biology questions I raised earlier to prove to me you actually know something about evolution. Or, just be honest and admit you don't really know anything.
    Explain why ERVs don't count for evolution, or admit you have never even heard of them.
    Explain why evolution needs to account for the origin of life, free will and civilization, even though it only attempts to account for the diversity of life.
    Explain why you aren't convinced by the arguments from evolutionary psychologists on how/why morality evolved. Please list a few books you have read on the topic too. Or, admit you didn't even know such research existed, and you know nothing about it.
    Explain why the supposed moral implications of an observation (life evolves by natural selection) means that the observation is wrong.
    Explain why Darwin's racism disproves evolutionary biology.
    And then one new one… explain why you feel that philosophers have failed with a secular account of ethics, or admit you don’t know anything about that and are just parroting what apologists tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. AGAIN, there's more to the evolution debate than biology, and no I'm not informed on biology.

    -ERV'S, you brought it up, don't know.
    -Books read on psychologists/evolution, none.
    -Darwin's racism makes me sceptical that he's just trying to disprove God.
    -I have read Emmanuel Kant (ANOTHER WRONG ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART)
    -I did not get my thoughts of morality/evolution from any apologists (ANOTHER WRONG ASSUMPTION)
    (Didn't you say I've read NO books on biology? ANOTHER WRONG ASSUMPTION.)

    Darwin's reacism is relevant because it speaks to a bigger picture, and suggests evolution was an attempt to naturalize man from the very begining.

    NO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ A BOOK TO CRITICIZE CERTAIN PRINCIPLES. Otherwise YOU would have to read every book on creationism to hold your position.

    There is no moral authority without God. If I say a moral principle is true because God being vastly more knowledgeable and intelligent than us said it was so, it has authority, if it is only said to be true because another human, with the same capacities said it was true, it is no more valid than any of my positions, one could even argue logic and all of it's accomplishments are meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sure, there are subfields under Evolutionary Biology (like ecology, zoology, paleontology, etc), but all of those are generally classified under evolutionary biology when it comes to the study of the development of life on earth.

    How the heck do you not know about ERV’s?? You sit here, claiming evolution isn’t true, there is no evidence for, etc, and you don’t even know basic genetics. Jesus Christ. The dishonesty on display here is staggering.

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying young Darwin was trying to disprove God? Are you aware that he originally went to study natural theology and become a minister? Did you know that in his diary, he recounts being laughed at by crew members on the Beagle for quoting scripture? Are you aware that he was so torn up about his discovery that it took him 20 years do publish Origin? And do you know he only did so because Alfred Russell Wallace discovered the same thing, and Darwin didn’t want to be beat to the punch (unlike Darwin, Wallace wasn’t a Christian, but was all into the spiritualism stuff)? And since everyone else was racist at that time, does that mean that every other observation of nature was wrong? Because Darwin was racist, are you skeptical that different species of birds have different sized beaks? What you are doing here is attempting to poison the well.

    Let’s be real here though. You don’t care. You are just looking for reasons to reject evolution. And if using uninformed opinion and bad logic is what it takes, fine.

    Also, how do you account for the tons of biologists who accept evolution as a fact, and are religious? For example, Asa Gray was good friends with Darwin, a VERY devout Christian, and a huge supporter of evolution (as well as one of the most important botanists ever). Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian (and eugenicist) said “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” More modern examples would be Fransisco Ayala (he was also a priest), Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins to just name a few off the top of my head (I can list more if you like).

    So, where are you getting this idea that evolution disproves God? Heck, I don’t even believe in God, and I don’t agree with that evolution disproves God. How would one even make that argument?

    I guess we just have different standards of intellectual integrity. I have never, and would never criticize a book I haven’t read. There are quite a number of creationist books I have read, and I am happy to criticize them. But I won’t say anything other than “I don’t know” in regards to books I haven’t read. I especially would never continue to make the same criticisms once I was shown to be in error. I guess I just goes back to intellectual integrity. And I DEFINITELY wouldn’t make an argument like “Kent Hovind was a tax dodging criminal… therefore is views on evolution are wrong.” But that is exactly what you are doing. “Darwin was a racist, therefore evolution is wrong.”

    Yes, I very much encourage you to use your argument about with God there can be more morality or even logic. See how well that works out for you. These are not arguments taken seriously than anyone outside of evangelical Christianity. Don’t take my word for it though, go read some modern philosophy and see for yourself. Or heck, if you really want to argue those points, email me (as it is not really relevant to this blog post).

    ReplyDelete
  34. I never said there is NO evidence for evolution (WRONG AGAIN)

    I never said "Darwin is a racist therefore evolution is wrong" I said EUGENICS, and it makes me SKEPTICAL.

    If science told you pigs were once able to fly (still being fat round pink tubs of lard) you'd probably believe that too, because incorruptible scientists said so.

    If evolution is off topic you should have said so from the beginning WHEN I ASKED YOU, cause lets be honest, arguments for evolution are really against God.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You claim "I never said there is NO evidence for evolution." Then what does "Evolution is not even close to scientifically proven" and "evolution makes no sense based only on observations of the world around us" mean?

    If racism wasn't relevant, then why did you say "Darwin's reacism is relevant because it speaks to a bigger picture, and suggests evolution was an attempt to naturalize man from the very beginning"?

    Also, Darwin wasn't a eugenicist. But even if he was, why does that matter? How does that have any effect on the fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

    No, I wouldn't believe pigs could fly if scientists said so. They would have to present evidence.

    Here is question for ya: Are there any other areas of science you reject because they don't allow for the supernatural? Do you reject computer science? What about physics? Heck, how about math?

    Of course you accept them. You only deny evolution because it causes problems for your religious beliefs.

    I never said evolution was off topic, I said morality and logic was. As I have mentioned before, you really need to read what I write more carefully.

    If arguments for evolution are actually arguments against God, then you have a very weird view of evolution. Though, even if it was, how would you know? You've never even picked up a book on evolution.

    Plus, if that is the case, then why are there so many Christians who accept evolution? Why does the Catholic church accept it? Heck, could you even present an argument on how evolution disproves God? Because I would be very interested to hear it.

    I challenge you to find one book on evolutionary biology which claims it disproves God. Hint, you won't. Reason being, the creationists who told you that are lying to you--only making you, once again, look like a head in the sand Christian who doesn't know anything.

    I also challenge you to read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. He is a biologist at Brown, and a Christian. It's the best book I have ever read on evolution. I know you won't read it, because you don't care about science or truth, and you are afraid that your worldview is wrong. I get that. But if you ever decide that truth is more important than beliefs, check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ""Evolution is not even close to scientifically proven" and "evolution makes no sense based only on observations of the world around us" mean?"

    I'l tell you what it doesn't mean, IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

    "If racism wasn't relevant, then why did you say "Darwin's reacism is relevant because it speaks to a bigger picture, and suggests evolution was an attempt to naturalize man from the very beginning"?"

    You know as well as I do that that was about eugenics, YOUR the one who keeps changing it to racism, and I responded (incorrectly) with the same term you used (incorrectly).

    "Also, Darwin wasn't a eugenicist."

    No he never admitted it, but his son was, and his colleague/friend whom he worked close with was, and EVEN USED DARWINS WORK TO CREATE HIS THEORY ON EUGENICS, and DARWIN HAD NO OBJECTIONS.

    "Here is question for ya: Are there any other areas of science you reject because they don't allow for the supernatural? Do you reject computer science? What about physics? Heck, how about math?"

    Uhm, these do not exclude God or christianity, evolution does.

    "I never said evolution was off topic, I said morality and logic was. As I have mentioned before, you really need to read what I write more carefully."

    Morality and God have plenty do do with evolution, and God is in the title of this blog.

    "If arguments for evolution are actually arguments against God, then you have a very weird view of evolution. Though, even if it was, how would you know? You've never even picked up a book on evolution."

    "They are frequently used as arguments against God's existence. Most evolutionists believe we started from the single cell and it wasn't created by God."

    They have been pressured by people like you who claim anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant and denies science.

    "I challenge you to find one book on evolutionary biology which claims it disproves God. Hint, you won't. Reason being, the creationists who told you that are lying to you--only making you, once again, look like a head in the sand Christian who doesn't know anything."

    I don;t talk to creationists (HEY ANOTHER WRONG ASSUMPTION) looks like you're the one who likes to talk about things you know nothing about.

    "I also challenge you to read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. He is a biologist at Brown, and a Christian. It's the best book I have ever read on evolution..."

    So since you seem, SEEM to think that God and morality would be the best argument against evolution IF they conflicted, does that mean you believe in God?

    Anyway, people use evolution against God and/or christianity regardless of Millers great points.

    "... I know you won't read it, because you don't care about science or truth, and you are afraid that your worldview is wrong. I get that. But if you ever decide that truth is more important than beliefs, check it out."

    I have read that book (WRONG AGAIN( AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN...))

    ReplyDelete
  37. If you aren't talking about race at all, then why did you say "why did he refer to superior classes in "The Descent of Man"? Why did you bring up race?

    But regardless, even if you meant eugenics, there is no evidence Darwin was a eugenicist.

    Oh god, this is rich! So because Darwin's son and friend were eugenicists, and Darwin never spoke out against it (in writing) that makes HIM a eugenicist (even though evolution completely ruins eugenics for reasons I already listed)? LOLOLOL!! You've been watching too much Fox news, because that sort of logic, my friend... is not logic. Nothing there needs to be refuted, just underlined to show yes, this is what Christians ACTUALLY think! I am submitting that quote to FSTDT.com.

    Wait... I just had a thought. You have never denied beating slaves. And the Bible talks about beating slaves, and you believe in the Bible. Oh man, you are a slave beater!!

    Show me one physics book, computer science book, or math book that mentions God. Yes, they all exclude God and Christianity. Sorry! Plus, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and even Alan Turning were atheists. Turning was even gay! Oh man, computer science DEFINITELY is atheistic!

    The origin of morality and logic (not God) have nothing to do with this blog post. Read it again.

    "Most evolutionists believe we started from the single cell and it wasn't created by God." Yes, and most physicists believe that the universe wasn't created by God. So is physics a big atheist plot too?

    "I don't talk to creationists." Don't lie. It's incredibly apparent that all your info comes Kent Hovind videos and the like.

    "So since you seem, SEEM to think that God and morality would be the best argument against evolution IF they conflicted, does that mean you believe in God?" When did I say anything remotely close to that? Give me the quote.

    "Anyway, people use evolution against God and/or Christianity regardless of Millers great points." Against God, no. Against Christianity, yes. Though, you should check out neuroscience, because it's basic ideas DO disprove God (I have a blog post on it).

    "I have read that book." No you haven't. You already admitted you have never read a book on evolution. Specifically, you stated "Books read on psychologists/evolution, none."

    Plus, if you did, you would have known the answers to my evolution questions, and wouldn't be making such amateurish mistakes that are the result of a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I love you Zachary, you're such a sensetive little guy, making false assumptions about people because it fits your arguments.

    Telling me what books I've read, sorry you just don't know. SO AGAIN YOUR JUST ASSERTING ANOTHER WRONG ASSUMPTION.

    Even considering Millers book evolution just doesn't make sense when you look at human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh and that was PHYSCHOLOGY/evolution, I was RESPONDING to your assertion that I hadn't read books that were mainly about PHSYCHOLOGY AND EVOLUTION or atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well it looks like you've won this debate, and even pointed out inconsistencies in what I've posted here.

    Good job, but all that calling me ignorant, saying I've never read this or that book, not really needed, all you had to do was point out the flaws in my arguments without all the !, and extra stuff. Your responses are actually easy to understand without all that.

    Anyway, good job, I'll look more into the subject(s), maybe even email you if you don't call me ignorant in all your responses.

    ReplyDelete
  41. My assumptions are based on things you say. And so far, you have given me very little reason to doubt any of those assumptions. You can claim I am wrong, but everything you say suggests the opposite.

    Again though, I asked you earlier what books on evolution you read. You said the only relevant thing you read was a textbook. So is that not true? Why accuse me of making assumptions when you yourself told me that? And if you did read Miller's book, why couldn't you answer my questions? And what about Miller's book doesn't make sense in regards to humans? Be specific. Give actual examples. You can't just make grand sweeping statements like that, without backing them up.

    Sorry for calling you ignorant, but there is an easy way to prevent that: don't make statements about things you know nothing about. I would NEVER make any argument about German history, because I know nothing about it. I would never accuse the historians of making up the Holocaust because they are a bunch of Jewish sympathizers. It would make me look absurd, and people who knew what they were talking about wouldn't take me seriously. They would call me ignorant, misguided and deluded. And they would be absolutely correct.

    If you don't know something, don't act like you do. If you haven't read several books by experts in the field, don't act like you know more than the experts.

    I DID point out the flaws in your arguments (in some cases multiple times). The point of me pressing the issue regarding what books you have read is to make you realize that in fact, you don't have any interest in that, and don't know anything about the topic. If that makes you feel bad, then remedy it by going and reading the books. I won't blame you for not knowing something, but I will blame you for acting like you do. Also, google is your friend.

    Anyway, do feel free to email me any time (Zachary_Kroger@yahoo.com) to talk about anything. But here is the thing, I am more than happy to have a nice civil conversation. But soon as people start acting like they know things they clearly don't, or making unjustified claims... I have no patience for that. Such intellectual dishonesty gets no respect from me.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I realize you pointed out flaws in my arguments, and yes where I said you made assumptions about me going back and reading you were mostly right.

    My point is you can just leave out the your ignorant and don't read stuff. It's a debate, and that's the whole point of a debate is to see who's right (in this case you) and who's wrong (me). One of the corrections you made was about me saying I read about biology, when you asked about books on EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. You were right, I misread much of what you said.

    "But soon as people start acting like they know things they clearly don't, or making unjustified claims... I have no patience for that. Such intellectual dishonesty gets no respect from me."

    Sometimes people don't know they don't know, it's a bad policy to assume they're all liars.

    I'm currently taking philosophy (beginning level) and people debate and say really stupid things, but the debates stay respectful and they are simply shown to be wrong, without embarrassing them, or more importantly without making them more defensive, argumentative, and yes in many cases dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You make an excellent point, that often people don't know what they don't know.

    I wholeheartedly agree, and it is unfair for me to assume they are liars. But at the same time, I am constantly blown away that SO many Christians will message me (not so much anymore, but several years ago, cause I made a pretty popular youtube video about atheists) saying this that and the other, without having even read a wikipedia article on the topic. I always make sure to explain the Dunning-Kruger Effect, ask some basic questions about the topic, ask what books they have read, etc (as I did with you), with the hope that people will say "hmm, he is right. I am making claims about things I have never read about, and don't actually know anything about. Maybe I should do a little research in regards to what the experts think." But that Dunning-Kruger Effect... it's a doozie.

    Whatever the case, I always am amused by the fact that people actually would read what I write, and take the time to comment. So I thank you for that. And like I said before, if you ever want to just have a discussion (not a debate, preferrably) on anything, feel free to email me.

    ReplyDelete