More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 10:11 (2958 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The theory states just that, a common basis for all.
dhw: But it does not give us any coherent description of what that basis is. 
DAVID: Back to stating Chomsky's and Pinker's point, grammar and syntax are basically the same throughout all languages.-Not worth arguing about, since so many experts point out that grammar and syntax are NOT basically the same throughout all languages.
 
DAVID (re Simon Conway Morris): His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used.
dhw: Back to square one!
DAVID: No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution.

The appearance of convergence implies intelligent organisms coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. Back to square one.
 
DAVID: [Adler] was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist.
dhw: One does not have to be a biologist to discuss evolution or God's possible methods. Adler obviously felt he knew enough about the subject to oppose the views of an expert in the field by the name of Darwin, plus every other expert who agrees with Darwin.
DAVID: Strange answer. Darwin's expertise was at an 1850's level of knowledge in biology. Adler is/was a modern day philosopher, educator, and proposed an interpretation of the human brain development in philosophic terms.-Strange answer. I included every other expert who agrees with Darwin, which means all modern Darwinists who agree that all organisms, apart from the first cells and including humans, descended from earlier organisms. But if a philosopher believes humans are so clever that there must be a God who made them separately, that is fine with me. There are other modern day philosophers and educators who believe humans are (sophisticated) organisms directly descended from earlier anthropoids and there is no God. That is also fine with me. I am an agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves in God. -dhw: I am merely pointing out that your belief in this one personal interpretation of God's methods and purpose is so fixed that when I offer you an alternative theistic version of evolution, you take it to be a sign that I am an atheist disguising myself as an agnostic!
DAVID: I didn't say that. To me you come across as an agnostic tilted toward atheism in your reasoning. Using Dawkins scale of nine, five atheist, four agnostic. Perhaps it is the way you try to analyze my reasons for theism which are in part an overall impression of purpose, without full interpretation of details, which details cannot be answered, but which details you insist upon for your thinking. There are lots which have no direct answers.-Your reasons for theism have always seemed to me to be completely acceptable: namely, that the complexities of life are such that it is impossible to believe in chance, and among these complexities are the unsolved mysteries of consciousness with all its manifestations, including so-called psychic experiences. These are the arguments I use when discussing such matters with atheists. They are balanced, though, by the fact that I find it equally impossible to believe in an eternal, sourceless consciousness of whose existence there is no evidence and which I find just as unlikely (50/50) as the ability of chance to create the first living cells. However, the third area of our discussion is very, very different. Your analysis of the course, purpose and methods of evolution seems to me not just to be “without full interpretation of details”, but to run contrary to the course of evolution as I see it. That has absolutely nothing to do with theism versus atheism. In place of evolution preprogrammed or directly engineered by your God for the purpose of creating humans, I offer you evolution driven by organisms themselves endowed with an autonomous form of intelligence, possibly created by your God, that has fashioned the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth. This does not fit in with your beliefs, but it is not an argument against God - it is an argument against your concept of God and his evolutionary purpose and methods.-PS In my personal experience, most theists regard agnostics as closet atheists, and most atheists regard agnostics as closet theists. We are a sadly misunderstood species.