kornbelt888: Jesus Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

Planetary science indicates that the "foundation of the earth" was due to happenstance and gravity.

kornbelt888: Sorry if my thoughts aren't so clear at times.

I found your thoughts clear enough. You find it absurd someone would thank God for the dawn, all the while knowing that it is due to the natural rotation of the Earth.

Hi Joy. No, from what I'm reading from you it seems you understand my point quite well. Good post, by the way.

Joy: The Christ of the NT did not have hooves, walk on four legs, have really curly hair all over his body and say "baaaa." Thus the term "lamb" must be taken as a figurative analogy to some other theological issue (vicarious atonement ala the tradition of lots-casting and scapegoating).

Of course. The central message of Christianity is that Jesus Christ came to earth to suffer and die for the rebellion of humanity. Somehow this reverses the "bad karma", to use an eastern metaphysical term, of those who trust in that act. And according to the texts, this was foreordained prior to earth's existence. If humanity was not inevitable this would make no sense. In your "caveat" you pretty much get down to the brass tacks of what I've been trying to wrench out of Zachriel.

Sorry if my thoughts aren't so clear at times.

Believing evolution is completely a-telic all the time, no intervention, no foresight, does not square with the view that Jesus Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth, which is my main point here.

Hi, kornbelt. I've watched this back and forth, and am not sure what your point is. I can't answer your question about how a TE could believe in a 100% atelic evolution and a personal god/godhead because I don't believe in a 100% atelic evolution. Though I do accept that evolution has occurred.

In the quote above it looks like you're having a little trouble with your analogies. The Christ of the NT did not have hooves, walk on four legs, have really curly hair all over his body and say "baaaa." Thus the term "lamb" must be taken as a figurative analogy to some other theological issue (vicarious atonement ala the tradition of lots-casting and scapegoating). Casting lots is one of those 'random' things, you know.

This says nothing whatsoever about how 'inevitable' human beings were in the course of increasingly concentrated consciousness (to the point where it was capable of apprehending the god-connection). Had there been no asteroid collision 65 million years ago, the most concentrated consciousness on the planet right now might look a bit like a velociraptor (maybe with wings and feathers). I simply do not parse the omniscient creative power at the "foundation of the earth" (or even the universe) as a physical human being.

If the context were different - because WE were different - the message would be the same, wouldn't it?

[Caveat - because we are indeed human and we humans are the ones arguing about these things, obviously human beings were in fact 'inevitable' via the course of evolution. Evidenced by the fact that we are here, and we are human. An omniscient deific being unbound by time would of course know this.]

Zachriel: Most believers have no problem believing that rain is caused by condensation in the atmosphere while still thanking God for the weather.

I would hazard a guess that most believers don't think the weather is a totally random, blind, a-telic process, in that God can and does intervene. Thanking God for such an intervention, real or imaginary, is not inconsistent with one's non-interventionist views of the weather in general.

Believing evolution is completely a-telic all the time, no intervention, no foresight, does not square with the view that Jesus Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth, which is my main point here.

Any view that asserts that mankind was not inevitable is not compatible with such a view of Christ.

Zachriel: Most believers have no problem believing that rain is caused by condensation in the atmosphere while still thanking God for the weather.

I'll take your word for it. Although, I'm curious to know how you know what most believers do.

I don't think it's odd for a believer to thank God in general for a weather system setup by God that generally benefits mankind, and "sends rain on the just and unjust." But to thank God for a sunshiny day today because I happen to want to go to the beach today seems rather strange. Esp since the sunshine today may be causing others some harm.

But you are welcome to your sense of the absurd.

Thank God

Zachriel: Most believers have no problem believing that rain is caused by condensation in the atmosphere while still thanking God for the weather.

(Duplicate)

Zachriel: Maybe it's a miracle. Are you saying people shouldn't thank God when they win the lottery?

kornbelt888: Well, I know I would. But I'm not a thorough-going naturalist who accepts that any given natural process is always blind and a-telic.

You don't have to be a philosophical naturalist to understand correlations, or the lack thereof.

kornbelt888: I seems to me that this is only true if one could correlate all those who prayed, and who didn't pray, with the result.

Seems easy enough. Any luck with that?

kornbelt888: But we could never know if the winner was chosen by God to win.

That's why such a claim has no scientific meaning.

kornbelt888: Thanking God seems absurd to me if one really believes that all these processes are a-telic all the time.

Most believers have no problem believing that rain is caused by condensation in the atmosphere while still thanking God for the weather. But you are welcome to your sense of the absurd.

angryoldfatman said:
5. Now there are scientists in authoritative positions who don't think the misconception really is incorrect, and admit that following the originator's idea to its logical conclusion leads one to the same door that the Nazis stepped through.

In the link you posted, Dawkins is quoted as saying there are good reasons not to breed people that would persuade him, but that the question is worthy of discussion. So, it sounds he does actually think eugenics is incorrect.

…The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

Oh, give us all a break! If you want to 'breed' mathematical whizzes, marry a mathematician. If you want a musician, it's a good idea to marry someone with musical abilities, then get the kid some music lessons. People have been sexually selecting - thus selectively breeding - for as long as young people have been allowed by their societies to choose their own mates. That may not be a long time in the overall scheme of things, but it goes back well before Charlie Darwin.

What in the world would make Richard Dawkins or anyone else think this is controversial because of Adolph Hitler? It can't be the genocides or mass sterilizations, because sexual selection isn't a matter of eliminating lesser people. Could it be Hitler's Aryan breeding farms? You know, those enclaves where specially chosen blond haired, blue-eyed girls were used as brood mares - and elite SS members as studs - known as the Lebensborn.

Genetic medicine will soon allow parents to choose the traits of their children with a little bit more accuracy than results from choosing a mate. As it now offers parents screening for Tae-Sacs, Downs, CF or other congenital conditions. Fertility clinics stocked up with frozen embryos will probably market the screened embryos like they now market sperm from 'ideal donors'. Just like birth control, abortion and tubal ligation/vasectomy being available to individuals, it will boil down to individual choice. Government should regulate, but there's no reason to interfere. Besides, those ever so prolific poor can't afford such things. They have a hard time affording plain old regular health care.

It's scenarios that have indentured brood-slaves (no doubt poor black or brown women) contracted to carry those select babies that resembles the kind of eugenics popular in the first half of the 20th century (though they didn't have in vitro clinics or genetic engineering). Along with the likelihood that the blond haired, blue eyed 'elites' will privatize the technology. Not allow non-white couples to choose features and talents in their offspring or otherwise impose limits on their procreation.

See, blonde haired blue eyed mathematicians are never going to take over the world so long as brown haired brown eyed non-mathematicians are being born in greater numbers. The whole point of eugenics is to "improve the race" and that can't happen unless you prevent breeding in those deemed unacceptable. Designer Barbie will probably not be the avatar of choice of people that in no way resemble Barbie/Ken. Designer GI Joe could certainly be an issue, if the public were ever to find out about such a program.

I don't see that we have much to fear from individual parental choice. We've always got reason to be vigilant against force. So long as choice remains choice, we're not talking about eugenics. We're talking about the modern equivalent of sexual selection (now applied to the offspring), which has been practiced by humans and other critters since forever. Thus for Dawkins, et al. to be touting it as "New Eugenics" is a serious case of bad framing. Unless there's a dark side to the plan, that is.

…is there?

Zechriel: Maybe it's a miracle. Are you saying people shouldn't thank God when they win the lottery?

Well, I know I would. But I'm not a thorough-going naturalist who accepts that any given natural process is always blind and a-telic.

Scientific investigation will in all likelihood refute any correlation between belief or wishing or prayer and winning numbers.

I seems to me that this is only true if one could correlate all those who prayed, and who didn't pray, with the result. But we could never know if the winner was chosen by God to win.

Are you saying people shouldn't thank God when they wake? Or for their food? Or for the rain? Or for any manner of natural events?

Thanking God seems absurd to me if one really believes that all these processes are a-telic all the time. In other words, if no miracles or intervention occurs. What's the point in thanking a God who doesn't intentionally intervene or plan the event that you're please with? You may as well thank God that some rock is here, and another rock is over there. Unless the naturalist simply wants to hedge his bets.

If I randomly scatter rocks around the neighborhood that lead to some kid being saved from an accident, and my intent was unrelated to such an event, I would feel a little wierd accepting thanks from some happy parent for having saved their child.

At any rate, if one really and truly believes biological evolution is an utterly blind process, I don't see how such a one could accept that Jesus Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, without sacrificing intellectual integrity. For Christ to have been the preexistent lamb slain, man would have to have been inevitable. How could that be if the biological process was utterly a-telic with no intervention or foresight?