Pattern recognition and belief in God

[jeremyp]

I have been convinced for a long time that atheists probably lack some natural faculty that predisposes them to atheism.  This is probably it!

No. A study found that the missing natural faculty in atheists is gullibility.

[Maeght]

WB Maeght 

Thanks 

[Outrider]

Merely saying that something is an evolutionary trait does not take away the factor of Intelligence and purpose behind it.

Merely saying that there is an Intelligence and purposes behind something doesn't make it so, either - it's almost like some people can have an overactive pattern-recognition faculty.  Someone should probably do a thread on that


O.

[Enki]

Evolution does not mean an unintelligent, automatic process. I have already discussed about human made products...all of which evolve from simple models to complex models...but which have intelligence behind them.  Evolution is everywhere around us in terms of products, culture, civilization, ideas...and always has intelligence and purpose behind it.

Indeed you have discussed evolution before and have shown your total ignorance of the subject, even to the point, if my memory serves me correctly, in suggesting that the chance element of evolution in producing human beings was akin to monkeys typing on a typewriter producing the works of Shakespeare. Also, as you have been told before, intelligent design is derivative, it results from evolution which requires no intelligent design at all.

Intelligence and purpose do not mean a Christian God! Most of you have Jehovah sitting in your heads and when I mention Intelligence or purpose, you imagine  a old man with a white beard waving his hands and making things happen.

Putting aside your original post which pointed out research which was concerned with pattern discernment and belief in god, this smacks of your usual stereotyping of those who disagree with you. As I can only speak for myself, this certainly isn't my approach.

That is not what I mean. Consciousness and Intelligence can be fundamental and an inherent part of the universe. Please read up on Panpsychism and cosmopsychism.  These are serious ideas being considered even by neuroscientists. It is not old school science anymore guys!

Interesting that you link consciousness and intelligence together. Intelligence is often quantified according to IQ, and this does not necessarily relate to consciousness, which is, above all, an experiential quality. Panpsychism suggests that  all things have a degree of consciousness, something which even the originator of the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness rejects, and cosmopsychism is simply an offshoot of panpsychism which suggests that there is an underlying cosmic consciousness which everything is part of.

Actually there is no evidence at all that evolution has a purpose. If it had, the first question I would ask is what on earth was that purpose?

[Alan Burns]

Actually there is no evidence at all that evolution has a purpose. If it had, the first question I would ask is what on earth was that purpose?

If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.

The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.

Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.

So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.

[Gordon]

If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.

Nope: the TofE via natural selection has sufficient explanatory value without the need to factor in any intent and, moreover, since there is no evidence of any agent that could supply any intent anyway, then the reasonable and parsimonious provisional conclusion is that the process is unguided.

The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.

Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.

So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.

The rest of this predictable waffle is just your faith-driven personal incredulity getting the better of you again plus your lack of understanding of the TofE since, if you were correct, then all these evolutionary scientists that are expert in this field are missing something: of these two possibilities I'd plump for the former.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.

Wrong again. It’s not a “presumption” - it’s a reasoned observation that rests on logic and evidence.

The only conceivable goal…

Wrong again. “Goal” implies intentionality – intentionality isn’t required by evolutionary theory.

…in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.

Your terminology is wrong, but essentially evolution is the cumulative change in a population or a species over time. When the population or species flourishes, then there will be more opportunities for those changes to embed. 

Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.

Yes, we do have concepts of meaning and purpose. So what?

So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality,…

They exist at a conceptual level. There’s no reason though to think that there’s reason and purpose just “out there” to be discovered. 

…but the big question is this:…

Oh-oh, here it comes – the Thought for the Day moment when god makes an appearance…

Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.

On the basis of the only reason and evidence we have, the former.

Oh, and that’s not a “big question” at all – or at least it’s not unless you think that “are rainbows only natural phenomena or do leprechauns leaves pots of gold at the ends of them” is a big question too.   

[Sriram]

The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence. 

Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation.  As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.

Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.

So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence.

In the workaday, colloquial rather than the epistemological sense yes we can assume that – just as we ‘assume” no leprechauns visiting the ends of rainbows without making definitive statements about the categoric non-existence of leprechauns. As evolution neither requires nor provides any evidence for intentionality, why assume otherwise?

Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation.  As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.

Wrongly – you’re conflating the naturalistic process that gives rise to speciation with the co-opted use of that term in manufactured situations – “the car has evolved from the Model T to the Ferrari” for example.     

Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.

No they don’t. If you seriously think otherwise, provide some evidence for it. In the meantime, I’ll tell Nature, New Scientist, Scientific American etc to hold their front pages…   

So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!

Not without reason or evidence to justify the assumption, no.

[Outrider]

If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.

If you don't come with a preconception and you look at what's been produced - from viruses through various bacteria that survive in an incredible range of disparate environments, through the various kingdoms of algae, plants, fungi, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles and mammals... what evidence of purpose do you find?

The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.

Survival sufficient to allow procreation, technically, but broadly yes.

Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.

You can say the same about shoes, that doesn't make shoes some sort of end-goal of creation.

So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:

If you can, please do... don't claim, and then claim that it can be shown, and then carry on as though it has been shown, you're not the Penn and Teller of philosophy.

Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.

Well, if you think it can be shown, show us.  Otherwise, in the absence of any strong evidence that it's for a particular purpose, it's reasonable to presume that it's just something that happened.

O.

[torridon]

If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.

The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.

Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.

So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.

So, evolution produces mental states, therefore mental states must have produced evolution.

Your penchant for circular thinking strikes again.

[torridon]

The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence. 

Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation.  As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.

Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.

So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!

Except that is a circular claim; as well as being without any evidence.

[Alan Burns]

So, evolution produces mental states, therefore mental states must have produced evolution.

Your penchant for circular thinking strikes again.

The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.
Our human ability to purposely conceive of goals and aim to achieve those goals by whatever means are available, then improve on them, is an obvious example of a purposely guided process of evolution.  We do not have any means of detecting whether every event involved in the evolution of life on this planet was intelligently guided to achieve a conceived purpose.  Neither do we have any feasible means of assessing the true probability of unguided evolution achieving the unfathomable complexity apparent in the functioning of a human brain.  So I feel justified in saying that the evolution of life being driven entirely by unguided events is a presumption rather than a likelihood.

[ProfessorDavey]

The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.

We know how it does - asking why it does presupposes some kind of intention. There is no reason to think there is any intention and therefore the notion of why it produces what it does is an irrelevant question.

[Gordon]

The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.

In this context 'how' is a valid question but not 'why': the latter is an example of begging the question, which is something you seem unable to spot even where it is obvious.
 

Our human ability to purposely conceive of goals and aim to achieve those goals by whatever means are available, then improve on them, is an obvious example of a purposely guided process of evolution.

No: it is just an example of evolution, Alan: you're over-egging the pudding again.

We do not have any means of detecting whether every event involved in the evolution of life on this planet was intelligently guided to achieve a conceived purpose.

Then, in the absence of the method you've just alluded to, your point is utterly redundant - as in pointless.
 

Neither do we have any feasible means of assessing the true probability of unguided evolution achieving the unfathomable complexity apparent in the functioning of a human brain.

Your begging the question again, with your usual added dash of hyperbolic personal incredulity.

So I feel justified in saying that the evolution of life being driven entirely by unguided events is a presumption rather than a likelihood.

Then your sense of justification is misplaced, since it is so dependent on your fallacy-laden thinking and a denial of the evidence to date.

Tell me, Alan, how many professional evolutionary biologists are actively looking for evidence of 'intent' or 'purpose' and have said so clearly in their publications? Since you are so convinced that there is 'intent' and/or 'purpose' involved I presume you'll have citations to hand that would include details of what methods are being used to confirm that these can be detected.   

[Enki]

If you presume that there was no conscious intent involved in the evolution process, then of course there can be no conceivable purpose - based upon this presumption.

The only conceivable goal in any unguided evolutionary process would be survival, which in itself would be an unintended consequence to naturally occurring events.

Yet we have the concepts of meaning and purpose occurring within our human conscious awareness, together with the means to interact with our world to bring fruition to these concepts of meaning and purpose.

So we can show that meaning and purpose exist in reality, but the big question is this:
Are the concepts of meaning and purpose just an unintended consequence of a blind evolutionary process, or are they an integral part of the reality beyond human understanding.

If, by 'presume', you mean on the basis of probability and taking into account the lack of evidence and lack of requirement for conscious intent in the explanation of the evolution process then I am guilty as charged.  If, by 'presume' you mean take for granted, then absolutely not.

The rest of your post has been answered fully adequately by others.

I note however that my question which you quoted (what on earth was that purpose?) has not been answered  by you at all,  not even by using your usual deepities.

[Enki]

The point is that merely because something gets created through a process of evolution...we cannot assume that there is no intelligence and purpose. Evolution does not automatically preclude purpose and Intelligence.

Of course they are not automatically precluded. However, as intelligence and purpose are not necessary for evolution, and as there is no evidence that they do play any part, then it is a perfectly reasonable working assumption to ignore them.   

Intelligence and purpose do not necessarily imply an instantaneous creation.  As I have pointed out, human products evolve in spite of having purpose and intelligence behind them.

And as I have pointed out, human products are derived from the process of evolution, which does not require intelligence or purpose.

Many evolutionary processes such as phenotypic plasticity clearly show 'intelligence' built into the process.

And yet again you show your ignorance. Phenotypic plasticity shows no such thing, as Prof D,  as a mechanobiologist, who has studied PP in detail, patiently explained to you in this thread:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.msg800366#msg800366

The fact that you simply rejected what he said, by saying:

Phenotype changes that are generated to fit the environment ...cannot be based on random variations. There has to be an intelligent (responsive) cause for them.

That's all I have to say...

simply illustrated the fact that you seemed simply mired in your convictions and ignorance. It seems that you have not deviated from this blinkered path.

So, it is just as reasonable to assume that there is some form of Intelligence and purpose behind biological evolution as not!

As the evolutionary process has been demonstrated to work successfully without any evidence of sense of purpose or intelligence, I find it much more reasonable not to attribute intelligence and purpose unless or until evidence is produced to the contrary.

[torridon]

The question I posed was not about what evolution produces, but how and why it produces what it does.
Our human ability to purposely conceive of goals and aim to achieve those goals by whatever means are available, then improve on them, is an obvious example of a purposely guided process of evolution.  We do not have any means of detecting whether every event involved in the evolution of life on this planet was intelligently guided to achieve a conceived purpose.  Neither do we have any feasible means of assessing the true probability of unguided evolution achieving the unfathomable complexity apparent in the functioning of a human brain.  So I feel justified in saying that the evolution of life being driven entirely by unguided events is a presumption rather than a likelihood.

All this does is paint god as evil and as a liar, and the baffling things is, you don't seem to recognise this. If evolution is a guided intentional process then the guider is responsible for all the bad things as well as all the good things.  In this scenario God didn't just create smart people and pretty flowers, he created cancer and malaria and novel coronavirus either because he chose to create them or because he chose not to intervene and allow these things to evolve when he could have intervened to stop them.  And this in the context of a guider making trillions upon trillions of interventions over millions of years in the germ lines of millions of individuals to gradually spread human-like characteristics amongst populations of pre-human ancestors.  If you have such supernatural powers to create mutations in individuals, why can you not just create humans with a clean slate genome from scratch, and drop all the legacy of our evolutionary backstory; why disguise his interventions under the cloak of natural processes such that he would leave zero evidence of any intervention ?  Was he covering his tracks ?

[Alan Burns]

All this does is paint god as evil and as a liar, and the baffling things is, you don't seem to recognise this. If evolution is a guided intentional process then the guider is responsible for all the bad things as well as all the good things.  In this scenario God didn't just create smart people and pretty flowers, he created cancer and malaria and novel coronavirus either because he chose to create them or because he chose not to intervene and allow these things to evolve when he could have intervened to stop them.  And this in the context of a guider making trillions upon trillions of interventions over millions of years in the germ lines of millions of individuals to gradually spread human-like characteristics amongst populations of pre-human ancestors.  If you have such supernatural powers to create mutations in individuals, why can you not just create humans with a clean slate genome from scratch, and drop all the legacy of our evolutionary backstory; why disguise his interventions under the cloak of natural processes such that he would leave zero evidence of any intervention ?  Was he covering his tracks ?

I did not mention God, or the presumed nature of God.
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
The examples of humanly guided evolution show that in addition to the desired end result, there will also be generated unintended by products and unwanted waste material which are an inevitable consequence of the processing.

[Stranger]

I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.

Where is this "case", then? You appear to be just making one of your usual baseless assertions.

If you think the human mind was an intended outcome, the you're begging the question - otherwise evolution will happen, given the right circumstances, and any result will be diverse and improbable, so there is nothing to explain.

[torridon]

I did not mention God, or the presumed nature of God.
I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.
The examples of humanly guided evolution show that in addition to the desired end result, there will also be generated unintended by products and unwanted waste material which are an inevitable consequence of the processing.

Something with supernatural powers would be able to achieve its ends without collateral damage.  Collateral damage results from incompetence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I did not mention God, or the presumed nature of God.

That’s right – you called him “designer” instead. You mean the same thing by it though.
   

I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.

No you’re not – you’re just asserting it with no reasoning or evidence whatever to support the assertion.

The examples of humanly guided evolution show that in addition to the desired end result, there will also be generated unintended by products and unwanted waste material which are an inevitable consequence of the processing.

Gibberish. “Humanly guided evolution” is just a re-characterisation of the natural phenomenon. Darwin’s famous book is called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Can you see that word “natural” there? 

[ProfessorDavey]

I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.

Which, as ever, demonstrates that you don't understand evolution.

Or maybe that you do but won't admit it as it doesn't not require a designer, creator, god, guide nor any other kind of intelligence, consciousness etc. Consciousness may, or may not be an outcome of evolution, but it is not required.

[Outrider]

I am just putting a case that the specific complexity needed for a functioning human brain is indicative of a consciously guided evolutionary process.

If that were the case, it would merely raise the question of what process led to sufficient 'specific complexity' as to result in the consciousness that did the guiding?  It doesn't resolve anything, it just pushes the question back to an unevidenced progenitor.   Of course, that fails to really address the fact that 'specific complexity' is a functionally meaningless term bandied about to try and lend academic credibility to the argument from incredulity: I can't believe this happened 'by accident', so therefore it must not just be my limited imagination, it must be mathematically or scientifically demonstrable that this could not have happened.

O.

[ippy]

Funny, but in my personal experience, most Pagans are lapsed Christians and the most common reason given is that it, Chritianity, is discredited in its origins and its dognmatic refusal to see the errors in its history as taken from the Bible.

Most pagans read Dennis Wheatly stories, persistently blow trumpets made of various kinds of animal horn, pagan men run around at weekends wearing whitish smocks, own a D V D of the Wicca Man film, are irresistibly drawn toward stonehenge, at any of the equinoxes or solstices, are always meeting up with Druids, female pagans always wear daisy chains in their hair or a floral garlands, wear long voluminous usually either black or white skirts, do a skipping kind of dance often in circles with all hands joined, of course they dance naked at night in secluded forest clearings acting as extras in the latest recording of a Dennis Wheatly film and always play Carl Orff's Carmina Burana on any device they can find whenever they can, when they're at home.

And you think most of us are far too shallow and don't know anything about paganism or understand paganism Owl?

Reggs, ippy.