Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

you have repeatedly stated that.
but you failed to SHOW it.

so far, the only thing you have shown is that evolution may explain the emergence of morality.
a possibility no one disputed.

but even if evolution could fully explain the emergence of morality in pre-humans, this would not be enough to prove that morality doesn’t transcend its origin.

even if you can prove that moral drives initially came from biological drives, you have yet to prove that “we falsely extrapolated metaphysical significance to attach to them”.

if you want to show that, you’ll have to actually refute metaphysics.

and to do that, you need to advance directly on philosophical ground. at the very least.
and you seem very reluctant to do so.

Evolution may explain the emergence of logic too.
it doesn’t mean that logic doesn’t exist. nor that logic is wrong.

402

[quote]kamui wrote:

you have repeatedly stated that.
but you failed to SHOW it.

so far, the only thing you have shown is that evolution may explain the emergence of morality.
a possibility no one disputed. [/quote]

I’m sorry, but doesn’t the mechanism that I used to show that it is plausible that morality emerged from evolution make it equally if not correlatively plausible that the concept of morality is an attempt to define that?

As for a refutation of the metaphysical philosophy… you’re right. In my haste, typing that post, I overreached… I had kind of hoped that one would have just gone away :slight_smile:

An aside: It’s gratifying to hear from ANYONE on this forum that I have fulfilled my original intent.

[quote] but even if evolution could fully explain the emergence of morality in pre-humans, this would not be enough to prove that morality doesn’t transcend its origin.

Evolution may explain the emergence of logic too.
it doesn’t mean that logic doesn’t exist. nor that logic is wrong. [/quote]

I may not have been clear enough, but I am confident that I pointed to epigenetic models for the evolution of morality past the mutation and adaptation stages. Essentially; cognition and cultural evolution take over at this point. Morality is absolutely transcendent of its origin in my model… in fact, the complexity of human thought on the matter drives and depends on this.

403

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I did finally manage to find my theory expressed somewhere else… seems pretty obvious, but it’s called evolutionary morality… it just took the right google search. Now, I have a good reading list. Incidentally, as I have stated many times, I do not hold that my theory is in any sense original. [/quote]

Wait, wait, wait - what? This entire time - with all the haughty tut-tutting about your expertise about natural selection, evolution, etc. - you weren’t aware of “evolutionary morality”?

Wikipedia’s own page on “Morality” even has an entire section devoted to this topic of the evolutionary take on the origin of morality:

Wow. Just wow.

404

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I did finally manage to find my theory expressed somewhere else… seems pretty obvious, but it’s called evolutionary morality… it just took the right google search. Now, I have a good reading list. Incidentally, as I have stated many times, I do not hold that my theory is in any sense original. [/quote]

Wait, wait, wait - what? This entire time - with all the haughty tut-tutting about your expertise about natural selection, evolution, etc. - you weren’t aware of “evolutionary morality”?

Wikipedia’s own page on “Morality” even has an entire section devoted to this topic of the evolutionary take on the origin of morality:

Wow. Just wow.[/quote]

Seriously… must you be such an ass?

Any “haughty tut-tutting about my expertise” is purely a matter of your interpretation of what I have written here… which obviously you haven’t taken the time to read, because I’ve stated more than once that I would like to find a precedent for my theory.

405

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Seriously… must you be such an ass?[/quote]

Pointing this out doesn’t make me an ass.

Not exactly - you’ve been trying to drown out criticism from the beginning with the constant refrain of “you just don’t understand evolution”, “you just don’t get natural selection”, etc. in fairly obnoxious fashion.

[quote]…because I’ve stated more than once that I would like to find a precedent for my theory.
[/quote]

You claim to have ready widely and deeply on these matters and use this claim to dismiss criticism of your “model”. And despite all this wide and deep research, you’ve never once stumbled across the idea that morality is simply an expression on evolutionary biology?

I type “morality” and “evolution” into a Google search box and I get a deluge on the topic.

Nothing wrong with being new to the topic. It just puts all of your dismissive hubris in a helpful context after all of the exchanges. Something related to pretensions, emperors and no clothes.

406

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Seriously… must you be such an ass?[/quote]

Pointing this out doesn’t make me an ass.

Not exactly - you’ve been trying to drown out criticism from the beginning with the constant refrain of “you just don’t understand evolution”, “you just don’t get natural selection”, etc. in fairly obnoxious fashion.

[quote]…because I’ve stated more than once that I would like to find a precedent for my theory.
[/quote]

You claim to have ready widely and deeply on these matters and use this claim to dismiss criticism of your “model”. And despite all this wide and deep research, you’ve never once stumbled across the idea that morality is simply an expression on evolutionary biology?

I type “morality” and “evolution” into a Google search box and I get a deluge on the topic.

Nothing wrong with being new to the topic. It just puts all of your dismissive hubris in a helpful context after all of the exchanges. Something related to pretensions, emperors and no clothes.[/quote]

I’ve pointed out instances where challenges you posed to my theory on the basis of the theory of natural selection were not consistent with the theory of natural selection. I almost had to beg you to explain the difference between progressive adaptation and mutation-driven adaptation, since you repeatedly brought into play a model that had all the characteristics of the “survival of the fittest” misconception.

You’re right. I challenged you understanding of the basic function of natural selection. I challenged you on this because I do actually know something about it… you, on the other hand dodged the question.

See… I’m generally careful not to make assertions where I don’t have good knowledge to back them up. I’m also careful not to purport any expertise that I don’t have. If you wish to see examples of where I show awareness of the limits of my knowledge, see my exchanges with Kamui.

Nowhere here or on the other thread have I touted a deep and broad reading on this topic to dismiss criticism. Again, I have challenged specific characterizations of the theory of natural selection where I felt they were incorrect. Nowhere have I asserted that anyone here was unqualified to challenge my position based on any lack of education or study.

One of the first things that I noticed and pointed out in this thread is that you have a tendency to assign distasteful caricatures to those you are arguing with instead of addressing their points. You are doing it here, again… in spectacular fashion.

If, in fact, I am the haughty dilettante dismissively lording his education on this topic over everyone else, then you have just managed an awesome victory for yourself and a crushing embarrassment for me.

The truth being what it is, though… you’ve just fulfilled all the traits that you accuse me of and found yourself laughing all alone… Enjoy the taste of victory! You can have it all to yourself.

407

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

You’re right. I challenged you understanding of the basic function of natural selection. I challenged you on this because I do actually know something about it… you, on the other hand dodged the question. [/quote]

Well, no, I didn’t dodge the question - I get Natural Selection, I get evolution. That was never the problem.

[quote]See… I’m generally careful not to make assertions where I don’t have good knowledge to back them up. I’m also careful not to purport any expertise that I don’t have. If you wish to see examples of where I show awareness of the limits of my knowledge, see my exchanges with Kamui.

Nowhere here or on the other thread have I touted a deep and broad reading on this topic to dismiss criticism. Again, I have challenged specific characterizations of the theory of natural selection where I felt they were incorrect. Nowhere have I asserted that anyone here was unqualified to challenge my position based on any lack of education or study. [/quote]

Let’s have a looksee:

They have both expressed repeatedly that the god-made nature of morality is inherent to their position and inherent in all others regardless of the opinion or intent of the arguer. This is not a basis upon which people can have reasonable discourse.

Oh, and this gem:

An equivalent act of intellectual disrespect would be for me to attempt to argue points of the function of the relationship between the christian god and man using what I purport to be my understanding of the Bible’s position in this respect. I went to church when I was younger, and I spent some time in religious schools, but I am no biblical scholar. If you were to give me your interpretation of the Bible’s take on the relationship between god and man, I would probably have to take it as largely valid. If I felt that I couldn’t trust its veracity, I would have a ton of work ahead of me to prove this. The first step would be gaining a familiarity with the subject matter.

Now, I am not all balled up on this. But let’s not pretend you’ve been something your’re not - after all, your initial shot across the bow was that I/we couldn’t be relied upon to provide “reasonable discourse”.

Super. What you mistake as my “tendency to assign distasteful caricatures to those you are arguing with” is really my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly and my willlingness to tell them so. I even offered to make a “fresh start” on the discussion, but alas, you couldn’t help yourself.

Not really, I just now understand more about what was said over the past several pages. Now I have a correct appraisal of what you are about.

Nope, I am not laughing in a “gotcha!” moment - I am just flabbergasted that with all your self-praising logorrhea, you were so ignorant of the one topic you were attempting to proclaim yourself master of. There’s no victory on my part - just a better understanding of what you know (and what you claim to know) versus what you actually know.

408

In Swole’s defense:

Swole has repeatedly acknowledged the limits of his assertions, presenting them as theories rather than unassailable facts. He has recognized the validity of points made by people with a different perspective, and has generally debated with decorum and respect, except when directly and personally disparaged by someone else.

In contrast, Thunder has repeatedly resorted to condescending comments and self-admitted insults. I can honestly say that over the course of years following his posts, I have never once seen him change his position, or even acknowledge the validity of points being made by others he disagrees with.

Thunder, you are obviously an intelligent guy and I think you have a lot to offer in a debate. Your personal comments toward others are beneath you, and are unnecessary. Your arguments stand on their own merit.

I’m hardly perfect myself, and I know very well how easy it is to fall into that trap. I’m really just making this post as a reminder to everyone, including myself, that debates are more interesting and more productive when we stay focused on the topic without diverting into personal insults.

409

[quote]forlife wrote:
…debates are more interesting and more productive when we stay focused on the topic without diverting into personal insults. [/quote]

I could not disagree more. :slight_smile:

And let’s be honest, the insults have been flying both ways with equivalent nastiness from the start of both these threads. I’m happy to admit having been quite the prick in certain of my exchanges with swole, and he was man enough to admit the same.

He does seem to be getting a bit of a sandy vagina at some of TB’s jibes, though, I notice…

[runs away…]

:wink:

410

Touche :wink:

411

[quote]forlife wrote:
I

In contrast, Thunder has repeatedly resorted to condescending comments and self-admitted insults. I can honestly say that over the course of years following his posts, I have never once seen him change his position, or even acknowledge the validity of points being made by others he disagrees with.

Thunder, you are obviously an intelligent guy and I think you have a lot to offer in a debate. Your personal comments toward others are beneath you, and are unnecessary. Your arguments stand on their own merit.

[/quote]

          Thunder is a big boy and can step up to the plate but i could not let forlife's point go unanswered, why should he change his postion if it is right, over the years i have seen him be direct, truthfull and most inportantly correct, he is one of the posters on this website that i will read every post given the chance. He does not suffer fools and why should he, he calls it as he see's it, i enjoy watching him hit people out of the ball park.
412

Because nobody is right 100% of the time, and those with the honesty and grace to admit it get brownie points.

413

Forlife, can you direct us to an instance in which you conceded a position you’d previously been arguing for? Because I think your description of TB could be translated to just about anyone with more than 100 posts in PWI, certainly yourself included.

414

[quote]forlife wrote:

I can honestly say that over the course of years following his posts, I have never once seen him change his position, or even acknowledge the validity of points being made by others he disagrees with.[/quote]

There are many things to disagree with in your post, and the last sentence here is flatly incorrect. But to your point about me never changing my mind: in a debate, it’s you job to change my mind or show why I am wrong, and in any event, your statement is incorrect.

My opinions on foreign policy have changed, my opinions on free trade have changed. My opinions on the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have changed. Your problem is you don’t engage in any threads talking about this stuff. You have two hooby horses: (1) atheism versus religion, and (2) gay rights. That’s it.

And then, of course, your answer to everything is that your opinion(s) on these two matters is the result of taking the “red pill” of enlightenment and people who disagree with you as taking the “blue pill” of blissful ignorance.

So, your plaint falls on deaf ears. You might be wise to broaden your topics of learning and interest, and you might find the world (and me) less caricatured.

415

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Forlife, can you direct us to an instance in which you conceded a position you’d previously been arguing for? Because I think your description of TB could be translated to just about anyone with more than 100 posts in PWI, certainly yourself included. [/quote]

I did reference myself as being as guilty as anyone else.

One of the few examples that comes to mind though is a point Thunder brought up regarding correlation and causation. I cited the standard textbook maxim that correlation doesn’t imply causation, and he made a good point that correlation, while not proving causation, suggests a higher probability of causation than a total lack of correlation.

416

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I can honestly say that over the course of years following his posts, I have never once seen him change his position, or even acknowledge the validity of points being made by others he disagrees with.[/quote]

There are many things to disagree with in your post, and the last sentence here is flatly incorrect. But to your point about me never changing my mind: in a debate, it’s you job to change my mind or show why I am wrong, and in any event, your statement is incorrect.

My opinions on foreign policy have changed, my opinions on free trade have changed. My opinions on the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have changed. Your problem is you don’t engage in any threads talking about this stuff. You have two hooby horses: (1) atheism versus religion, and (2) gay rights. That’s it.

And then, of course, your answer to everything is that your opinion(s) on these two matters is the result of taking the “red pill” of enlightenment and people who disagree with you as taking the “blue pill” of blissful ignorance.

So, your plaint falls on deaf ears. You might be wise to broaden your topics of learning and interest, and you might find the world (and me) less caricatured.[/quote]

I did qualify my observation as being limited to what I’ve personally seen. It’s good to hear that you do revise your opinion on some subjects, when warranted by a compelling argument from the other side.