If either of choices 2 or 4 are true, then the debate is moot. We can debate all we want, but there is no such thing as "thinking" as we are discussing it. If either of choices 1 or 3 are true, then we have a debate. The question becomes, Is there evidence to support any of the choices, and if so, where does the evidence lead? From what I read, and we continue to learn from genetics, it appears that probably everything we are and do, including our illnesses, is driven by genetics. If there is no god, genetic research seems to be pointing to choice 2. We are simply genetically programmed bio-robots. Everything we do is an effort to reproduce or survive long enough to assist in the survival of our progeny. Society, government, cooperation, altruism - all are behaviors wired into our genes because an ancient ancestor practiced them, it aided their survival and/or ability to reproduce, and therefore it is passed down to us, or properly, through us. But, is that all there is to the evidence? The short answer - no. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting the claims of Jesus. There is enough to fill books, so I won't fill this space with them. One will suffice: "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. Lee was agnostic/atheist, the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune, and went around to university prof's asking all the usual, tough questions (was Jesus a myth, how can the Bible be a reliable document, did Jesus survive the cross, etc). He got some really cool answers and put them in this book. The evidence is compelling, and supports choice 3. Therefore, it is only in a universe created by God, that Free Thinking is possible! Any takers? (we got off my main reason for coming to your site - to discuss whether FreeThinking?? was possible in a God-less world.) -- BrucePennington
Sure, since as far as we know, it is a godless world, and we are free thinkers, there is no solid evidence to the contrary, so yes, I believe free thinking is possible in a godless world. You seem somehow under the impression that if we are just biological machines that it somehow lessens us, well it doesn't. Biology may determine what diseases I'll get, or how long I'll live, or maybe even my emotions at times, but it doesn't make us have this conversation, it doesn't tell me to type, I do. I think therefore I am, no god is necessary for this, no god need by, because my existence isn't affected either way.
Do a google search for the word sociobiology. Sociobiology is taught by a bevy of profs with degrees longer than my arm at every major university. It lit up a storm, because the idea it spawned is that all social behavior is driven by genetics. Love, art, even altruism are just genetic mutations that happened to promote it's recipient's reproductive success. Therefore the mutation got passed on to us. All things we do, including thinking, are just things that helped to attract a mate and reproduce. Who do you think would be more attractive - someone who thinks or someone who just goes around with drool hanging off their bottom lip? Of course this is hotly debated even among the professors who teach it because it attacks our pride. We like to think highly of ourselves, and finding out that we are just bio-robots takes us down a few notches. The area of study has morphed into "Evolutionary Psychology," but Sociobiology is still a big field of study. -- BrucePennington
Again, it doesn't matter how the behaviors developed, once consciousness developed, we became something more than just machines reproducing. You are setting up a straw man by implying that without god we aren't worth anything, I reject that hidden assertion. How we became what we are doesn't change what we are, and what we are is more than mere automatons carrying out a pre-determined program. If I lift my arm, that is my action, not something my genes made me do. I control me, my genes control my physical form, there is difference.
No, this discussion isn't about worth. It is about free will, free thinking. Let me ask you: does an ant think? Ants lift their arms. There are many scientists who believe all animal life (this would include us) have the appearance of "thinking" because they make choices. It is argued, though, that these "choices" are simply the animal following its instinct - genetically programmed behavior (eating, sleeping, mating, surviving). They face a variety of plants, sniff them, match up the smells with programmed acceptable food sources, and eat. A computer can do this, it doesn't require free will.
A computer can't do that, you give computers too much credit, I'm a computer programmer, I know. You don't understand the complexity of life and behavior, those things you think are simple, aren't.
A beautiful point! "the complexity of life" I find it fascinating that I'm talking to computer programmers, who, if I walked up with a very large program, plopped it on your desk, and proclaimed "Look, I've found a program that formed itself through natural forces!" would laugh me out of the room. But who have no problem buying the claim that the most complex program in the universe - the Human genome - is a product of nature. There are One Trillion chemical commands taking place in every cell of your body, every day. The complexity of the mechanisms in each cell exceeds the working of the utilities of New York City. The programming of our genes accounts for the uniqueness of finger prints of 3 Billion people. Yet, this program, one that we will never be able to come close to replicating, just happened. I find it more believable that the program for WikiWiki resulted in a computer burp. -- BrucePennington
Our programming is the most sophisticated of all animal life, but it is still the result of millennia of selective fine-tuning. Please try the Sociobiology sites and read it from the experts. This is highly scientific stuff. Your arguments come from your desire for how you want them to be, not from years of research like you'll find at the Stanford biology department. BUT, this argument I am relaying to you from them, is only true in a godless universe. -- BrucePennington
There's nothing highly scientific about it, it's a soft science full of rampant speculation and little if any evidence. Even if I am nothing more than a complex program who's sole purpose is to survive and breed, that still doesn't change the fact that I am a conscious being, I am self-aware, I am free to make my own choices, I have free will. I can choose to ignore my instincts and take actions that aren't in my own best interest, or my species' best interest. Being a biological machine in no way degrades or lessens free will.
Being a biological machine completely negates the possibility of free will! I also find it interesting that you claim sociobiologists’ teachings are ‘‘full of speculation and little if any evidence’’ since the ‘‘evidence’’ they rely on is Evolution! On this point we clearly agree. -- BrucePennington
God may be how you give your life meaning, but god doesn't give life meaning. You need to realize that the world, and people in general are much more diverse than you can imagine. People find meaning in all aspects of life, with and without gods. If you need a god to feel your life has meaning, that is your need; don't assume everyone is like you. I need no god to find meaning in life; to me, god is nothing more than a coping mechanism invented by the brain to remove the fear of death from a conscious being who has the ability to ponder the future and realize that death will come for him. I find meaning in art, literature, science, and relationships, meaning in human achievement. I need no god for this, and there are many people like me. Your entire "godless universe" rant is flawed by your fundamental assumption that without god there is no meaning in life, you are limited by your own limited beliefs.
I appreciate the fact that you find beauty and meaning in life. You will find this to be the majority opinion, globally, and this alone is evidence that there REALLY IS Meaning for Life. It is an observable effect of a Designed aspect of our being. However, if the universe is really here for no reason; if we evolved from the ooze for no reason; then there is no Reason for Life.
In your opinion.
We may find personal reason or meaning for our own lives, but that is simply our opinion. That's the point, all meaning found, be it god or godless, is personal opinion, including yours. Stalin didn't believe in the Meaning of Life, and had no qualms about killing 3 million people to support his lifestyle. In his world-view, those people's lives were meaningless. They were simply water bags carrying genetic material. If he could get away with killing them to improve his life while on this earth, so be it; right? And he got away with it for quite a while. We don't like it when others act that way, because to allow that behavior threatens our own personal safety; therefore threatening our chances of mating and passing on our genetic material in obedience to our genetic programming. So, we outlaw that type of behavior. -- BrucePennington
P.S. I've studied Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology, among other things, and you are mischaracterizing them rather badly - i.e. what you said above is false. Don't assume that us dumb programmers here won't know nothin' 'bout them fancy scientific stuff like them smart Scientists do.
{:)} Har, Har! Actually, it is your obvious intelligence that makes our discussion interesting! On Sociobiology: The issue of genetically-driven behavior is found in just about any 'biology' area of study. There are some famous Sociobiologists, though, that have spawned some heated debates within the community on whether "free will" or "free thought" exists or not. I saw one, I wish I retained his name, being interviewed on the PBS show "Evolution." He, among other sociobiologists, believes that there is no such thing as free will. He teaches that everything we do is genetically programmed. Clearly not all sociobiologists believe this, but several do. Just last week, the New York times reported a new study that is pointing to evidence that 'revenge' has genetic roots. I find it interesting that I, the believer in God-given free will, am arguing for genetically driven thought; and you, the believer in evolutionary-driven genetics, are arguing for free will! It seems to me that your recognition of "self-awareness" and "free will" is just another acknowledgement of what we all know deep in our hearts - that we are special, we are something far above plant and animal life. -- BrucePennington
Attempts to mischaracterize subjects, no matter what it is, tend to be caught fairly rapidly, because there is an astonishing variety of people here, and also because a number of people are either generalists, or came to programming following e.g. a degree in biology (or linguistics, or theology, or...)
Wow! What a tough question! From my research so far, I would have to say that I would convert to Judaism. Science, Archaeology, medicine, social science, psychology, etc., continue to verify the claims made by the Jewish authors of scripture. Just look at Moses. Either he was 3000 years ahead of his time in meteorology, zoology, entomology, etc.; or he was the luckiest guesser in the whole world; or God really told him what was going to happen! Frankly, the last choice is the most believable. The things he recorded were witnessed by approx. 2 million people. If he were making it up, they would never have left his writings unchallenged. Additionally, the OT writers included uncomplimentary things about themselves that you would not expect from someone making up a false dogma for personal gain. (Moses committing murder; King David having a top soldier killed so that he could commit adultery with his wife; Jacob being a liar and con-artist; etc.) As far as other religions, Hinduism is the biggest challenger (Buddhism is a spin-off of Hinduism, and Islam is a spin-off of Christianity/Judaism??). And Hinduism says the universe has always been around - eternally - which we've discussed at the top of this page. So, the evidence predominantly points to the God of Israel. I would have to become a Jew. -- BrucePennington
How was Moses 3000 years ahead of his time in meteorology?
When Moses went to Pharaoh to free Israel from slavery, he told Pharaoh each time what plague would befall him if he refused. There was the plague of the blood/water, of frogs, of gnats, of flies, on livestock, of boils, of hail, of locusts, of darkness, and finally of the death of the firstborn. Additionally, when fleeing from Egypt, God parted the sea with a wind. There have been articles in Science Journal hypothesizing that all of the plagues can be explained naturally, and that an unusually strong wind through the hills surrounding the sea could have actually parted the water. What this says to me is what I said above, either Moses scientifically figured this stuff out ahead of time, or he was the luckiest guesser in the world, or God actually told him it would happen. -- BrucePennington
... or perhaps some "predictions" were made after the corresponding plagues had started.
Quite possible if Moses wrote his documents in a social vacuum. The reality of Israel's social customs is quite different. He wrote this in a society of nearly 2 million people. Their oral history tradition was such that the youth would stand on the street corner reciting their history. Passers-by would listen and make corrections when necessary. Everyone was involved. If Moses tried to "fudge" on the facts, it would not have been tolerated. There were too many witnesses. -- BrucePennington
... Few would have knowledge to deny a claimed prediction; if one or two "friends" support the speaker, he will seem to have been truthful.
Again, this only works in a social vacuum. Example. Remember the two recent cases where a newspaper journalists got caught making up stories about people? They didn't get away with it because they are surrounded by lots of other people. Word gets around, people question things, people tell other people, people know other people who know things. If Moses had not really gone to Pharaoh and said the things he said, at the times he claimed to have said them, word would have gotten around. People talk. -- BrucePennington
JuanPabloNunnezRojas -- Welcome, my friend! Good point. So I checked my NIV study Bible. Under Author, it says: "Moses (34:1-12 possibly written by Joshua)....As Deuteronomy concludes, Moses appoints Joshua as his successor and gives his parting words to the people." It is likely that Joshua picked up the writing at this point, since he takes over as leader. The problem of fabricating the story is the same, no matter who the writer is. These people memorized their entire history (the Pentateuch, at this time), and I mean everyone, not just the religious leaders. These people lived through it all. They saw Moses strike a rock and water gush out. They walked through an entire sea on dry land. They ate manna from heaven for 38 years. If these were fabricated, people would squawk! -- BrucePennington [Back to the Sociobiology discussion] Something else we haven't touched upon in-depth. Love. I've reflected on the deaths of my mother (cancer, she was 35) and brother (motorcycle accident); and the birth of my child. The love I have for my daughter goes beyond anything I ever imagined before she came along. People described it, but for the 18 years of our childless marriage, I just couldn't picture it. Once she came into my life, I now knew a love that I had never known. Now, this could just be chemicals kicking in from my genetic programming in a godless universe. If so, what do we do with mourning? Would I mourn the deaths of my loved ones because of the loss of their related genetic material or the threat it poses to the survival of my progeny since we survive better in community? I don't buy it. My love for my daughter is real, not chemicals. And this is the love, or a tiny picture of it, that God offers to us. Without Jesus, I would be searching high and low for an explanation of this love, and the deep-seated need in all of us to be loved. You won't find one in any other religion. And beyond genetics, you cannot explain it in a godless world. -- BrucePennington
See http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040614/pf/040614-7_pf.html regarding how a single gene can affect social behaviour. (If that link is broken, try http://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/de67a4d2de111a8b85256eb7004887ea.)
Thanks! This is a very interesting experiment that backs up my point about bio-robots. If having affairs, and "choosing" to sleep around is driven by chemicals in our brain, are we really "choosing?" -- BrucePennington
![[Home]](/adjunct/adjunct.png)