Apes Copying Humans Does Not Constitue Evidence For Evolution!!!

[Trumble]

The subject of your example was convinced that a human did not write the Qur’an – so what? Another person may very well think the exact opposite.

Of course they might. But the purpose my example was to demonstrate that there are other forms of evidence than scientific evidence, evidence that in cases such as this may result in life changing decisions. Let's make the example somewhat broader. It generally agreed that Shakespeare was a great playwright, indeed perhaps the greatest playwright. As a result, countless millions of schoolchildren read Shakespeare but never encounter the works of another Elizabethan playwright in their lives. Science has no means of determining whether Shakespeare is a great author, and some people indeed disagree that he was.. but the vast majority believe he was on the evidence of both their own and other people's aethetic judgement. So are you saying it simply doesn't matter whether Shakespeare was a great playwright or not, because whether he was or not can only be based on a form of evidence you discard as worthless?

This is where science steps in and attempts to find the answers by non-subjective means.

In areas science can deal with, yes. In others, no. I'm also tempted to ask, in the context of the particular questions involved here, "what's so wrong with subjective"?

Each candidate would have to present evidence to support their case and then others would need to examine both and make a decision based on which evidence is the strongest.

Why? In the example I gave the person has examined the evidence and made a decision. Why does he "have to" or "need to" do anything else? When it comes to religion we all make that choice.. including atheists, although I'm aware you would deny that was true. That aside, more or less everyone here would say they have done exactly that. They just came to a different conclusion from yours.

But an opinion or belief is just that and cannot be used as useful argument for or against anything – surely you see that.

No, I don't "see that" because I do not believe it to be true. An opinion or belief isn't much use in a scientific argument (my previous comments about starting assumptions excepted), true.. but I disagree that is the only sort of argument worth having. An opinion or belief isn't just conjoured out of nowhere.. they are based on evidence albeit, as in the case of an artistic judgement, often evidence that cannot be produced directly.

Oh yes – and of course we could all be living as human batteries like in the Matrix movies! We could go on all day thinking up different fantasies like these but as you said, what good would it do us? You’re trying to take a philosophical question and use it to infer that because we make some basic assumptions about our reality, any and every other assumption must also be equally valid.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I just pointed out that, contrary to your claim, atheists do make assumptions and that the selection of those assumptions can only be based on value judgements. You have conceded that point, apparently. Whether an assumption is 'basic' or not is another value judgement. On what basis do you dismiss idealism (only my second point suggested solipsism, the rather more extreme version), a well established, much debated and never successfully refuted (albeit it generally rejected) metaphysical possibility as a 'fantasy' - a scientific one?! I don't think so. Such "fantasies" that remain logically consistent are rather more difficult to come up with than you seem to think. That particular 'basic' assumption, incidently, is not one that a theist has to make as that scenario is disqualified by the assumption there is a creator God. I am puzzled that you seem to think neither "there is a God" or "there is not a God" can be considered "basic assumptions about our reality" - I consider that point of view to be untenable. It flies in the face of both common sense and experience of the real world.

Ask yourself why you do not believe in fairies, ghosts, pixies, goblins, hobbits, etc. etc. (please tell me you don’t believe in those things). Then ask yourself how you have come to the conclusion that they do not exist when nobody has proven that they do not exist? I cannot explain it better and if you don’t see the logic there then I’ll never be able to explain it.

I don't believe in them because, in my assessment of the evidence (as much as I have considered it in that context), both scientific and otherwise, is that they do not exist. I believe Buddhism to be "true" for exactly the same reason. And, indeed, I don't believe in God for exactly the same reason.

In any case the burden of proof is not on the atheist to prove that God does not exist. It’s for the person asserting the existence of the thing to provide the proof (or at least the evidence). And Buddhist or not, that I’m sure you’ll agree has not been provided.

I'm not sure how you can assign the "burden of proof" the way you do.. a theist would consider it lies with the atheist. It depends, not on 'thing' or 'no thing', but on your starting position - your opening assumptions. I do agree, of course, but I also do not consider the atheist case comprehensively proven, either.

The answer may be that you cannot. Although what makes you think that question even has an answer? Just because you can form a grammatically correct question doesn’t mean it’s a valid question or has a sensible response (what is the smell of the colour blue?).

It is when science obviously "cannot" that people perfectly well aware of the scientific method seek alternatives to what remain very real questions. "It doesn't have an answer" is an answer in itself but in that particular case, unlike your spurious example of an obvious catagory mistake, linguistics (or science) cannot demonstrate whether it does or can have an answer or not. The question is therefore fair game.

Science and evolution will tell you we are in constant competition for survival and a stimulus that produces ‘suffering’ is likely to be detrimental to the replication of our genetic material. Forgive me for making an assumption, but I don’t think you will understand that because the more I read your responses the less I think you understand about evolution by natural selection (perhaps I could recommend some books?)

Please don't bother. Please also note I have not offered to recommend any books on Buddhism, a subject which you clearly know next-to-nothing about. If you think acquiring such knowledge (and I would certainly recommend that) would be helpful you are as capable of seeking it out independently as I am material on evolution.

What I have been saying has absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. Your 'explanation' indeed sounds reasonable enough but is of no relevance to the Buddhist conception of suffering as an experience, and how that can be ended. It is answering a different question to the one Buddhists (not to mention a great many other people) ask.

I don’t want to get sucked in to a philosophical debate. See my answer above relating to how science explains suffering.

Suit yourself. As the very nature of science itself is a continuing subject of philosophical debate, and much other philosophy (particularly of mind and aesthestics) is directly relevant to the issue at hand it is not something you will be able to avoid forever.

Buddhism seeks only to understand the origin of suffering as a means to ending it. That explanation has no relevance in that context, and the Buddhist 'alternative' can happily co-exist with it. But how does science answer my other question - "how can suffering be ended?" The only realistic answer, from what you say, would appear to be "we cease to exist", in which case the two points of view actually have rather more in common than you might think!

Maybe I can make that a little clearer. The Buddhist explanations of both suffering and how it may be ended should be considered psychological, not 'scientific', 'mystical' or "faith based" - although there are undeniably elements of the latter two. Of course Buddhist psychology differs from Western psychology in much the same way as assorted historical Western views of psychology have differed from each other. I trust you agree that psychology is a valid academic discipline, BTW? One that has to make truly huge philosophically based assumptions about its subject of study before it can even get started, incidently.

Psychological and scientific explanations of the same phenomena frequently co-exist, but are of little direct relevance to each other. Psychologists grapple every day with emotions - we all grapple every day with emotions, they can define our lives - while science can't even describe them in any useful way. I note you avoided that particular challenge; wisely of course. Your 'scientific explanation' of suffering (do you think it applies to 'dissatisfaction', too? I told you I used the Pali word for a reason) is of as little use to an analyst trying to solve his patients' problems as it is to a Buddhist who is, incidently, attempting to put into practice an identified solution to much the same problem... any more than knowledge that, say, experiencing a particular emotion is always accompanied by a particular neurophysiological phenomenon would be of use to either except, concievably, as a diagnostic tool.

Attempts have been made to unify the two approaches, but so far have proved spectacularly unsuccessful. It all comes down to that troubling little thing, direct experience.. what it is like to feel pain, grief, joy, whatever.. something science has never been able to get a handle on. The very thing that is at the heart of religious experience. Please note, by the way, I'm not saying Buddhism is a form of psychology, only that it includes one.

Again this is the kind of response that makes me think you know little about biological evolution. If you understand the ‘how’ we came to be here, then the ‘why’ are we here becomes all too apparent. You just don’t understand the how.

And that kind of response makes me think that you simply do not understand the question that is being posed. It was not a scientific one, but is still a very important one. Again it has nothing to do with 'biological evolution', or abiogenesis.

P.S Just to make clear one thing, in view of the overall tone of your last post. I fully understand your position. I do not, however, agree with it. That is a difference that I'm not sure you appreciate. Should you find the reasons I have given for disagreeing with it unconvincing, as presumably you do, that is your prerogative. I hope any reply you might make takes that into account... I am no more likely to change my opinion following repetition of a point already made than you are.

 

[Draco]

P.S Just to make clear one thing, in view of the overall tone of your last post. I fully understand your position. I do not, however, agree with it. That is a difference that I'm not sure you appreciate. Should you find the reasons I have given for disagreeing with it unconvincing, as presumably you do, that is your prerogative. I hope any reply you might make takes that into account... I am no more likely to change my opinion following repetition of a point already made than you are.

Acknowledged – I will try not to repeat but I fear I’m running out of ways to make my point. Perhaps I will try toning it down a little.
I still find your reasoning and logic a little fragile. Unlike you, I do make a distinction between the subjective – “do you like that painting?” or “do you like that song?” or “do you like Shakespeare?” or even “do you believe in a creator?” and other more ‘provable’ questions such as “What is the largest mammal on Earth”, “How many planets are there in the universe?” or “Does a creator exist?”. I think that distinction is important for helping us to determine what is a belief (or assumption) and what is true or not true.

I am puzzled that you seem to think neither "there is a God" or "there is not a God" can be considered "basic assumptions about our reality" - I consider that point of view to be untenable. It flies in the face of both common sense and experience of the real world.

I’m having trouble with this word ‘assumption’ that you like to use so much. When you have examined evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence then it is no longer correct to call it an assumption (which can be defined as something taken for granted). Everything to you seems to be an assumption. Now I realise we may disagree on what constitutes evidence and we may come to different conclusions but we’ve gone way beyond the point of making assumptions. My gripe with believers in a creator is that given the evidence (if they have indeed bothered to examine it), they have arrived at the wrong conclusion. So let the debate begin. But I think it’s simply inaccurate to keep accusing either atheists or theists of making assumptions (particularly atheists ).

Please don't bother. Please also note I have not offered to recommend any books on Buddhism, a subject which you clearly know next-to-nothing about. If you think acquiring such knowledge (and I would certainly recommend that) would be helpful you are as capable of seeking it out independently as I am material on evolution.

My experience with Buddhism is – as you rightly identified – limited to say the least. But I don’t think you need to be familiar with the ins and outs of every religion to be able to talk intelligently about them as whole. From the sounds of it however, Buddhism is less a religion than it is a life philosophy and I have nothing against philosophies or practices that attempt to deal with the challenges of life.
If a core goal of Buddhism is to attempt to eliminate suffering (dissatisfaction or whatever) then that seems to me a worthy (albeit lofty) target. Whether or not I agree with the Buddhist approach to solving this puzzle, if it is indeed solvable, is irrelevant. But I think, in my humble opinion, that the answers to many questions would become clearer if approached from an evolutionary context. For a Buddhist or anybody else trying to answer a question such as “how do we eliminate suffering”, it seems unwise not to consider the reasons for how we came to experience any emotion at all. The reasons why, from a Darwinian perspective, we feel anger, pain, joy, lust, love and yes – dissatisfaction. I offered to recommend books not because I want to shove it down your throat (c’mon I’m not religious kay, but because perhaps it may prove useful (on your path to enlightenment!).

 

[Trumble]

I will try not to repeat but I fear I’m running out of ways to make my point.

As I said, or tried to, you have made it eloquently enough.

Unlike you, I do make a distinction between the subjective.... and other more ‘provable’ questions.. I think that distinction is important for helping us to determine what is a belief (or assumption) and what is true or not true.

No, I fully accept the distinction.. I just don't dismiss the subjective, particularly in areas where the objective struggles to get any sort of hold at all.

My gripe with believers in a creator is that given the evidence (if they have indeed bothered to examine it), they have arrived at the wrong conclusion. So let the debate begin. But I think it’s simply inaccurate to keep accusing either atheists or theists of making assumptions (particularly atheists ).

I think you are making a mistake regarding those "believers in a creator" in assigning your own methodology (or, at least, their failure to follow it) to them. But they don't come to the conclusion "there is a God" in that way, or at least few of them do. The idea that there is a creator God is fundamental to their world-view. It is not an (erroneous) conclusion based on the study of scriptural, historical and scientific evidence but a fundamental assumption by which, to answer your previous point, I mean one made before the analysing evidence and reaching a conclusion point starts. As you know, I think exactly the same is (generally) true of atheists as well, but we really will have to agree to differ on that I think. I brought up idealism for a reason; I think its rejection represents exactly the same sort of assumption as a theist's that a creator God exists.

I offer the above as a thesis, not a statement of fact. The primary evidence I have to support it is observation, not least of the goings-on on these boards. You can offer scientific evidence until you are blue in the face to people who are, in a few cases in particular, both extremely intelligent and challenging disputants and get absolutely nowhere. The reason, I believe, is not that either side is making a mistake in their analysis, but that because of their different starting assumptions the relative value of particular pieces of evidence differs. Both are therefore reaching rational conclusions from the same evidence, hence neither side will shift because that would be irrational. In short, arguing whether there is or is not a God on the basis of assessing evidence is likely to be futile.

That's why, ultimately, you need to resort to philosophy and not science to settle the issue. Granted, to date there hasn't been much agreement there either but as good a definition of philosophy as any is as the study of just those same assumptions that we take for granted, and whether we really should.

My experience with Buddhism is – as you rightly identified – limited to say the least. But I don’t think you need to be familiar with the ins and outs of every religion to be able to talk intelligently about them as whole. From the sounds of it however, Buddhism is less a religion than it is a life philosophy and I have nothing against philosophies or practices that attempt to deal with the challenges of life.

I think you probably do need some familiarity with at least all the major religions to be able to do that; exactly how much rather depends on the issue being discussed. There are very few where lumping all religions together is a good idea. The religion/philosophy and indeed /psychology question is commonly asked of Buddhism by non-Buddhists, but any serious religious studies student (and all Buddhists I have ever met) would say it is without doubt a religion. The view to the contrary generally finds its origin in surprisingly careless dictionary definitions of 'religion' that insist they must involve belief in deity or deities.

But I think, in my humble opinion, that the answers to many questions would become clearer if approached from an evolutionary context. For a Buddhist or anybody else trying to answer a question such as “how do we eliminate suffering”, it seems unwise not to consider the reasons for how we came to experience any emotion at all. The reasons why, from a Darwinian perspective, we feel anger, pain, joy, lust, love and yes – dissatisfaction.

Actually, I am fairly well acquainted with the psychoevolutionary theory. I stand by my previous comments, though.. in my opinion it is not ultimately relevant to the Buddhist project. I have considered it in that light, as I tend to do with most relevant philosophy and science I come across. It s important to remember that Buddhism is not about about asking the question of "how do we eliminate suffering". The Buddha answered that 2,500 ago. Buddhism is about putting that solution into practice... and I will happily admit that believing that that solution exists is at least partly a faith issue. As I said, it is a religion. The Buddha himself put it pretty well. He asked someone who was questioning him;

"If you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was called to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask him who shot the arrow, which tribe he came from, who made the arrow, and who made the poison, or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"

"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; until the problems are solved, these questions are of secondary importance."

 

[Draco]

The religion/philosophy and indeed /psychology question is commonly asked of Buddhism by non-Buddhists, but any serious religious studies student (and all Buddhists I have ever met) would say it is without doubt a religion. The view to the contrary generally finds its origin in surprisingly careless dictionary definitions of 'religion' that insist they must involve belief in deity or deities.

You sound like your eager to have your belief system accredited with the title ‘religion’ – why? Whatever the dictionary says, when you talk about religion these days it practically infers the belief in a deity. That’s not true of Buddhism so why would you want to clubbed together with the God-believing religions?

Actually, I am fairly well acquainted with the psychoevolutionary theory. I stand by my previous comments, though.. in my opinion it is not ultimately relevant to the Buddhist project. I have considered it in that light, as I tend to do with most relevant philosophy and science I come across. It s important to remember that Buddhism is not about about asking the question of "how do we eliminate suffering". The Buddha answered that 2,500 ago. Buddhism is about putting that solution into practice... and I will happily admit that believing that that solution exists is at least partly a faith issue. As I said, it is a religion.

So that sounds like Buddhism (or at least the way you practice it) has little to say about the origins of life on this planet or at any rate doesn’t think it’s relevant. I would like to ask what the Buddha’s solution to the problem was but I won’t because I fear it will only provoke a cascade or riddles and anecdotes about having to walk the path oneself etc…

The Buddha himself put it pretty well. He asked someone who was questioning him;

"If you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was called to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask him who shot the arrow, which tribe he came from, who made the arrow, and who made the poison, or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"

"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; until the problems are solved, these questions are of secondary importance."

I’m always astonished how those little anecdotes seem to impress their religious devotees. Every religion has them and I suppose they sound kind of witty but they’re always so contrived. Here’s an Islamic anecdote that I find equally unimpressive –perhaps you’d care to read it:

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: “I don’t believe that God exists.”
“Why do you say that?” asked the customer.
“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”
The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”
“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber.
“I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!” “No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”
“Ah, but barbers DO exist! ” answered the barber. ” What happens is, people do not come to me. “
“Exactly!” affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist!
What happens, is, people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him.
That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

Now did that impress you? Actually I quite enjoy the buddhist anecdotes that I’ve read. Though I don’t see how your one helps you to learn. If anything that story tells you to stifle thinking about the solution to your problem.

 

[Trumble]

You sound like your eager to have your belief system accredited with the title ‘religion’ – why? Whatever the dictionary says, when you talk about religion these days it practically infers the belief in a deity. That’s not true of Buddhism so why would you want to clubbed together with the God-believing religions?

It's not so much that I'm "eager" as that that is what I think. It's certainly true I can get on the defensive on that a little, some here (mentioning no names) do like to dismiss Buddhism as 'just' a philosophy with the intention of demonstrating consequent inferiority to Islam. I shouldn't worry about that of course, but even Buddhists are human! They don't 'get it' about assumptions, either .. but it's another good example.

As to what 'religion' infers, it depends on who you talk to but even so I think most people accept Buddhism as a religion, although that may just be because they think Buddhists "worship the Buddha" or some such. In academic circles rather more sophisticated definitions, or a least criteria, are used because of the inadequacy of dictionary definitions - most famously those offered by Ninian Smart.

So that sounds like Buddhism (or at least the way you practice it) has little to say about the origins of life on this planet or at any rate doesn’t think it’s relevant. I would like to ask what the Buddha’s solution to the problem was but I won’t because I fear it will only provoke a cascade or riddles and anecdotes about having to walk the path oneself etc…

I'll answer it anyway, as it is very simple. It's the Noble Eightfold Path; right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. That really does need some commentary, of course, but to avoid the risk of 'riddles and anecdotes' I'll refrain from providing any. You can always look it up yourself.. you'll actually find it surprisingly obvious and riddle free, I suspect. Understand that and the doctrine of dependent origination ('cause and effect') and you'll have a reasonable grasp of what Buddhism is all about, at least.

I’m always astonished how those little anecdotes seem to impress their religious devotees. Every religion has them and I suppose they sound kind of witty but they’re always so contrived.

It is not meant to 'impress' but, as with the parables of Jesus, it is intended to make a point. I think that one makes the intended point rather well. I don't understand how your interpretation is possible, to be honest. The point is simply not to speculate about the irrelevant (he actually said it in the context of some finer points of philosophical discussion) when you have more important things to do. Obviously if the poisoned arrow is left in place you will die, so what good will pondering about who fired it and where they came from before you remove it do you? The analogy with suffering is obvious; why worry about the finer points of where it comes from when the solution to getting rid of it is known, and there is only so much time to practice it before you die. It's a general point, of course - a great many Buddhist scholars have in fact produced a great deal of metaphysical and psychological speculation. Like everything else in Buddhism there is a "middle way" and it is not intended as a recommendation to abandon philosophical and scientific activity, just as advice to keep it in its proper place.

In defence of Buddhist "little anecdotes", and to some extent to those from other religions too, you might like to consider their historic origins before dismissing them. There are two reasons they take the sort of form they do. The first is that they were intended for a general audience as well as disciples and intellectuals. The message had to be clear for the 'ordinary' folks, too... although there are often several 'layers' of understanding. The second, particularly in regard of the Buddhist Pali canon (the nearest thing there is to an 'original' Buddhist scripture) is that for at least two hundred years it was a purely oral tradition, passed down from master to disciple, one generation to the next. It therefore had to be learned and remembered, and is often in a form that made that easier to do. One advantage of not believing your scripture to originate from a divine source is that you can exercise a little flexibility in recording it. Several techniques are used as well as simple wittiness, most notably considerable (and quite deliberate) repetition... the latter tends to get missed out in English translation but is very visible in the Pali.

It's not all like that, of course, much relates the Buddha's teachings at a considerably deeper level. The later part, the Abhidhamma (which is unlikely to have originated from the Buddha himself) contains some truly ferocious metaphysics and psychology, as do many later works including those in Chinese and Tibetan. Although of comparable intellectual depth to even the best Western writing of the same period the style of all of them is distinctly 'Eastern' (those different world views and assumptions again). It is different, rather than inferior, to the style of the likes of Plato and Aristotle but that difference makes it very hard to get to grips with when you have been brought up with that Western tradition. As you will be aware - and dare I say demonstrate? - that style is embedded very, very deeply in Western culture and the minds it produces.