Author Topic: Materialistic Evolution  (Read 17846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2006, 02:30:23 AM »
As I note again this thread has ceased being one of debate as one poster here continually misrepresents the Orthodox position with regards evolution.

Talkorigins has been shown to support materialism (they use the term naturalism).

The OCA doesn't reject evolution per se, but does materialism

There's been no evidence that the majority of Orthodox support either 'evolution', or 'materialistic evolution'. The best course he can get is that the OCA has 'no problem with it', which is not the same as saying they support it.

Trolling on this thread as he does will simply not go unchallenged.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #91 on: March 19, 2006, 02:34:49 AM »
The statement
"Yes, but most Orthodox Christians would be opposed to Fr. Seraphim's young earth creationism."

Still has not been proven.

Nor has the recognition of the fact that talkorigins supports one form of evolution; materialism.

I have noted that OCA gives support for evolution per se. They have not stated that they are opposed to Fr. Seraphim's 'young earth creationism'
« Last Edit: March 19, 2006, 02:36:19 AM by montalban »
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #92 on: March 19, 2006, 02:40:43 AM »
What does Fr. Seraphim himself say about the 'literal' creation?
He said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?” (Genesis Creation and Early Man, p69).

So Fr. Seraphim himself doesn't believe in materialistic evolution and he sees that one can't be strictly a literalist either.

However “We (Orthodox) believe that the created world itself is a 'mystery' originating in the sovereign will of God accomplished by the action (energia) of the Holy Trinity. We confess in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (325/381) that the Father is the “Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible”, the Son “He through whom all things were made”, and the Holy Spirit, the “Creator of life” (zoopion).” http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8050.asp

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #93 on: March 19, 2006, 02:44:23 AM »
Montalban,

I said that I have no intention of diverting the primary topic of this thread with extended discussion on a matter which the administrators have specifically requested to not be discussed but in the private EO/OO section, so seeing as you wish to extend the discussion in question, I have given my response to your latest post here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8491.msg112229;topicseen#msg112229

We can continue discussion on the matter there. If you are unable to access the thread, it may be because you have not registered to the private section of this forum, which is accessible only to those who have specifically registered (which one may do simply by PM'ing Robert).

If I have stepped on anyone's toes in realtion to some argument between Orthodox and Coptic churches then I apologise. Your statements otherwise are irrelevant to this thread because the writer you're defending here as cited one local Coptic church in Canada as a 'proof' that the majority of "Orthodox Christians would be opposed to Fr. Seraphim's young earth creationism"

How his this church's statement shown that this statement of his is true?
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #94 on: March 19, 2006, 03:23:39 AM »
Talkorigins has been shown to support materialism (they use the term naturalism).

Your inability to differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical materialism only shows your own ignorance regarding science and how it works.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #95 on: March 19, 2006, 06:13:39 AM »
One person here claims that I've confused methodological naturalism and philosophical materialism

Where did I do this? I note again that rather than meet other people's questions (still!) he just go onto the attack.
So in post #12 he was asked to back up his claim. Instead he replied by asking Bizzlebin to prove the opposite. Post #18 Bizzlebin asks him again for the evidence. Post #21 I asked him. Bizzlebin asked him again #34 and again in post #41, and again in posts #55, #59, and  #73

It's like he's totally unconcerned about advertising himself as a disrespectful member of this forum.

Opposing this method of 'debate', I am happy to forward information. I do not 'confuse' the two. Many scientists do. They confine science to the realm of the materialistic/naturalistic. This is opposed to others who believe that science can be used to show evidence of the super-natural, and non-material world, such as ID-Theory... which BECAUSE it takes a non-materialistic approach is deemed by some here and in the science-world as pseudo-science.


“Evolution is not alone in its naturalism. All science, all engineering, all manufacturing, and most other human endeavours are equally naturalistic. If we must discard evolution because of this philosophy, then we must also discard navigation, meteorology, farming, architecture, printing, law, and virtually all other subjects for the same reason.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html
Thus it accepts that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. It is 'philosophical naturalism' which makes them adopt 'methodological naturalism'. They also adopt 'methodological materialism', which leaves 'philosophical materialism', which I'll be getting to soon.

What is the materialism science uses...
In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Science uses a working assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. In terms of singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism stands in sharp contrast to idealism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Although it can be said by apologists
Scientific materialism or methodological materialism are interchangable dysphemisms for methodological naturalism (sometimes: scientific naturalism). The term is used to imply that scientists collude to force a materialist (or rationalist) worldview onto people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
That science doesn't acknowledge God, and itself claims self-constraint within the material world, it is not inaccurate. I accepted already talkorigins statement that they don't 'deny' God. But it's a hollow point given that I've shown that the Orthodox believe in a creative God, and this is directly at odds with the materialism talkorigins accepts. So they are in fact saying you can believe anything that there's no 'proof' for. In other words talkorigins is saying "You're allowed to believe in God, just not in any field of the world we've already provided a materialistic answer for."

And thus...
"...naturalism itself exists in two forms: (1) ontological or metaphysical naturalism and (2) methodological naturalism. The former is philosophical naturalism as described above; the latter is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."
http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html
Science takes up naturalism both as a method and as a philosophy. It does the former because of the later, in that it deems that science itself is restricted to observable (that is material) things.

Talkorigins says:
"The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism...That doesn't stop evolutionists, other scientists, engineers, manufacturers, and farmers from being able to look beyond the materialism (of evolution) and find spirituality in their lives."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html
Note here that they say that materialism of evolution is part of the methodological naturalism of science. They are saying though that they can't deny anything beyond it, because it's beyond the realm of science. But then they've already consigned 'belief' in the non-material to a harmless 'fun' pastime thing.

Talkorigins adopts a philosophy of science; naturalism. It is the same as materialism. Talkorgins says that they both don't 'deny God'
"Evolution's materialism or methodological naturalism denies a role for God."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601_1.html
Note that they don't in their answer differentiate.

Even a non-scientist recognises
“Carl Sagan described the theory of evolution in his final book as the doctrine that “human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.” It is the alleged absence of divine intervention throughout the history of life—the strict materialism of the orthodox theory—that explains why a great many people, only some of whom are biblical fundamentalists, think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact”
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html

I am quite happy to provide evidences to support my claim. In effect some scientists are adopting a philosophical materialism by stealth. A type of agnosticism, in that anything beyond the material can't be known anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Conversely one writer on this thread has been asked more than six times to provide proofs for his claim. And he has not. Respect should be a two-way street.

As to his claims regarding what most Orthodox believe, well he will never answer that one.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2006, 06:15:22 AM by montalban »
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #96 on: March 20, 2006, 03:36:28 AM »
First of all, you shouldn't use Wikipedia for any serious discussion. A monkey could write a Wikipedia article and no one would know.

Here's the deal, there is a difference between what I personally believe and what I regard as scientific. The very methodology of science prevents it from theorizing on a supernatural origin of the species. Biological evolution is the best natural explanation for what we observe in the natural world. Science is not, however, infallible. Even if all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification, that does not prove that all arose without the Providence of God. Orthodox Christianity has no problem with scientific fact, when it is able to show itself as factual, but it does not accept materialism in any form. Evolution itself is not inherently materialistic, it is not the majority of scientists who have intended it to be that way.

When it comes to what I personally think, irregardless of the opinions of scientists and theologians but my own personal opinion, I would subscribe to some form of the "day-age" theory. Genesis is rather clear that man was created from the dust of the ground and that Eve is the mother of all humanity. Sure, this may be entirely allegorical but then why make such specific of claims in an allegorical account? Then again, it is not clear that the "days" of Genesis refer to six 24-hour periods of time. Why would there be 24-hour days before the Creation of the sun?
Just from looking out your own window, it is obvious that the universe is billions of years old.
From how I understand it, day-age theory is the balance between what we read in Scripture and what we observe in the material world. Is it scientific? Probably not. Is it an infallible and unquestionable explanation? Definitely not. But it is something I would feel more comfortable to believe than either young earth creationism or "materialistic evolution." Either way, regardless of His mechanism, it is important to recognize that God is the loving Creator of all.

Peace.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 03:48:26 AM by Matthew777 »
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #97 on: March 20, 2006, 04:58:08 AM »
There's a difference between saying "I believe this..." to "Most (other) Orthodox believe this..."

Second, saying "biological evolution is the best whatever" is again to confuse the issue of this thread. I've stated, and then repeated again, and again, and again that there's different theories of evolution. To say that you believe in evolution and quote talkorigins is to say you believe in materialistic evolution, as opposed to, say that form of evolution that ID-theorists believe in.

As you've not proven your contention regarding what most Orhtodox believe, and as you insist after more than four times to continually blur 'theories of evolution' with 'a specific theory of evolution' this thread is, as far as I'm concerned over.

I've been generous in replying to you. Despite ending posts with 'peace' it is rather hollow when you've no intent on honest discourse.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #98 on: March 20, 2006, 05:07:32 AM »
There's a difference between saying "I believe this..." to "Most (other) Orthodox believe this..."

From what I have seen, most Orthodox Christians do not insist on a purely "literal" understanding of Genesis and nor would they insist that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Have I conducted a scientific poll? No, but I can make this deduction based on the Orthodoxy laity and clergy who I have spoken with on this issue and the theology which I have read.
Again, I must tell you that Talk Origins is not dedicated to philosophical materialism and neither am I.

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Materialistic Evolution
« Reply #99 on: March 20, 2006, 05:37:53 AM »
As for ERV's, it's possible that we share a common mechanism for the absorption of retroviruses with chimps, explaining why we share common endogenous retroviral insertions. Such an explanation would not require common descent.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm