Did a Dramatic Change in Free Will Create Dramatic Changes in Civilization?

Conversation Side Conversation
#1

@Jonathan_Burke

While the bus driver to Crazy Town is enjoying his day in the sun, I thought I would ask your opinion of what is the best way to neutralize this intoxication over the wild-eyed speculation that Free Will somehow changed, and led to all the advancements of accomplished by civilizations in the ANE… and elsewhere?

What I thought originally was that the discussion might become grounded in the historical realities of the ANE … and instead, we are getting a front row seat to Mary Poppins flying around with her bumbershoot!

Do you have any recommendations?

Continuing the discussion from Real World Implications of GA in Human History:

#2

I quote this from @swamidass’ introduction to his book:

" … this framework continues to affirm monophylogeny , which is the way modern science came to reject polygenesis as a falsified theory. All humans alive today are the same kind, and all would share ancestry with Adam and Eve if they existed."

"Adam and Eve, if they existed, were not important for bringing advanced biological abilities to those “outside the garden,” but for a unique theological role they played."

"From this starting point, a careful review of the established science brings us to important conclusions.

(+) These conclusions are based on a mainstream science account of origins, which includes evolution.

(+) This is not a creative reinterpretation of the facts, or a challenge to evolution.

(+) Instead this is a correction to a scientific error in our understanding of how evolutionary science interacts with theology."

Quoted from: http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/

1 Like
#3

What do you think this is?

If a careful study of the established science starts butting up against something you’ve already established in your view as a certainty, your reaction is to not speak of it? What else is the point of opening up a public discourse?

The evidence determines what’s true. Whether or not they are in line with what so and so currently thinks.

“neutralize this intoxication”

What is so threatening about this? You act like I’m making up the story as I go, deciding for myself where the narrative goes. I have no control. It goes where the evidence goes. Keep it on track. Fact check it. Test it. Challenge it. But don’t fear where it goes.

#4

And thus we have additional evidence that your approach is not consistent with Joshua’s approach.

He has CONTROL over what he speculates about … he does not helplessly throw up his hands and start babbling about Free Will.

Caveat
The more you plead your lack of control, the scarier you become.

#5

Neither do I.

This isn’t about theology. This isn’t about what’s right or wrong to believe. This is simply compiling all the information we have and finding what makes sense.

And free will makes sense. It explains what’s being described in Romans. What Adam brought into the world. But again, I don’t want to make this about theology, so I’ll leave that there.

#6

@Jeremy_Christian

All you do is talk talk talk talk …

I insist that you start bringing peer-reviewed journal articles to cross-reference your claims… and start getting yourself on track with citations of Evidence to support your giant goose chase!

1] Links without quotes or discussion are unacceptable.

2] Books are not as helpful as journal articles, unless you provide adequate quotes from these books.

3] You should start to develop an OUTLINE of your points, so we can easily see what is supported and what still needs support with evidence and citations.

#7

I don’t mean to scare you George. I believe in what you guys are doing. The more you tell me the more I realize just how long you’ve been at this. I know this stuff matters to you, and I hope you recognize this stuff is important to me too.

I realize this place was put together to realize a particular vision. And that’s great. But what’s the harm in riffing a little bit? This group of people. We’re not going to sway anyone’s beliefs around here. But we could really be having some interesting discussions.

#8

@Jeremy_Christian

The problem is if 12 people start wanting to Riff all over these boards.

Riffing now and then is great. But you are making a campaign out of this riffing… and it’s not fair to Joshua. Set up your OWN site to make a life out of Riffing.

Follow?

#9

Do I not do all of these things?

#10

@Jeremy_Christian

No sir. You do not.

If you did these things, you would have a list of footnotes, would you not?

Start your work on your citations… and you will be welcome as someone who is attempting a scholarly project.

If you expect to dilate dramatically on your pet ideas… it is time to nail your ideas down with citations.

#11

Like I said before. If Joshua wants me gone, all he has to do is tell me. I won’t plead or argue or question. I’ll simply stop coming around. I promise.

#12

I’m still learning. I’m still organizing. Talking through these things has always been spring board. An outline emerges as I attempt to describe it.

I don’t know the “proper” way to do this. I hope I’m allowed around long enough to learn.

#13

I am really not sure what you’re concerned about. Peaceful Science is set up precisely to encourage such people. Look at the number of people with wild ideas that PS attracts and supports. There are many Christians here with wacky ideas, who have been here for years, and who still reject evolution. This is a haven and incubator for them.

There are Christians here who reject mainstream science on AGW. There are Christians here who think science peaked at Aristotle and theology peaked at Aquinas. There are Christians who try to support their rejection of mainstream science by citing centuries old philosophers, and expressing disdain at the idea that a scientist would take an alternative approach to finding truth.

Most of the Christians here are like Jeremy. He fits right in.

#14

@Jonathan_Burke

Thanks for the help, Jonathan.

The problem is getting compliance with academic procedures. He is un-responsive
to these requests… and he alternates between insistence that he is following necessary
academic protocol… before he swings to claims that he has already proved what he
needs to prove…

Suddenly, he’s off to the races to prove something even more speculative.