Naturalism And Evolution

Many philosophers have considered the mystery of consciousness to be a “hard problem.” In “The Hornswoggle Problem,” Patricia Churchland rejects the characterization of consciousness as a uniquely hard problem, and asserts her belief that arguing the unknown nature of consciousness, absent any scientific evidence is an argument from ignorance. A proponent of the “hard problem” would instead argue that consciousness possesses a subjective aspect that makes it uniquely different from all other problems. In this paper, it is my contention that Churchland is correct to reject the ‘hard’ problem argument; and without any objective inquiry or research, this “hard problem” argument lacks needed intellectual vigor, and tends to further

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

In the modern world, mankind is surrounding by a plethora of unique animals, plants, and other organism that have a certain natural design all their own. For instance, every organism appears to be best suited in their natural environment, as they are usually able thrive under unique conditions that may not optimal for every organism. Thus, it would appear as though divine intervention was necessary for this perfect design and placement of an organism into their environment. Consequently, this was the ideology for many centuries until Charles Darwin explained how these “illusions” fit into his theory of natural selection. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection stated that the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, such as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations (Cite). Although it is widely accepted that many of human’s physical traits are inherited from their parents, the notion that the mind has evolved and is designed to function is certain ways is still controversial (Cite). With that being said, the majority of theories that illustrate how the mind develops are still being debated. Moreover, the

1. Atheistic Naturalism is founded on the premise that it was an accident that human life was created, or just dumb luck.

4. What does it mean to be nature natural? How do we acquire different types of understanding into our knowledge? Can this lead to bias and

The questions, “What does it mean to be human, and how might we transcend human nature?” have been a subject of debate for philosophical and theological thinkers for centuries. In recent history, scientific discoveries have led to a resurgence of these ancient debates that break down into three primary schools of thought. There are those who believe that we, like the rest of the animal kingdom, have certain basic “programming” that determines our fundamental nature, and those who believe that human beings are born “tabula rasa” and that nurture determines who we are. The issue becomes increasingly complex for those with the theological belief that human beings are spiritual creatures and that our spirituality is what defines us. However, a

In terms of philosophical naturalism, the belief is that there are not any supernatural entities. “No such person as God”, but also no other supernatural entities. It is my opinion that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theories are different ideas, and despite the fact that the latter is normally thought to be one of the main pillars supporting the group of the former as each progressed. I see no similar problems with the conjunction of theism and the idea that human beings have evolved in the way contemporary evolutionary science suggests of a course of time. More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine. Meaning god caused evolution to take place. Personally I have a hard time agreeing with this idea (Naturalism Stanford Encyclopedia of

At the very core of naturalist beliefs however, matter is all that there was, is, and ever will be. The implications of this take on reality is that humans are merely complex machines, a result of evolution. How then, can one be sure that what one thinks to be logic and reason is really significant at all? Ironically, naturalism began as an Age of Enlightenment based on the affirmation of human intelligence, but a truly consistent naturalist leads to what is called a nihilist. Nihilists realize that they can place no confidence in knowing anything at all. In an attempt to escape the hopeless vacuum of nihilism, existentialism emerged, accepting all the propositions of naturalism except those regarding human nature and humans’

Exploring the debate over creationism as opposed to evolutionism is a multifaceted and touchy undertaking. Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s Inherit the Wind examines this debate in the court case that is central to the work as well as in a short feud between two characters, Melinda and Howard. As this argument represents the trial that drives the work and is indicative of how the court case unfolds, it is a momentous interaction that furthers the message of the need for consideration of other points of view during debate.

another flaw in the belief of naturalism is that there is no real thought or soul. Because of this there would be no need for ethics or morals because if we have no control over our own thought because they are not real than we cant be responsible for our own actions. If this is true than we should not be sending criminals to prisons because they did not truly commit the crimes themselves.

One of the most contentious issues with evolution vs. creationism or intelligent design is the assumption that one’s personal beliefs cannot be compatible with science. “Today science and religion are more often felt to be in conflict rather than in harmony” and it is often believed that acceptance of one is a complete rejection of the other (Phy-Olsen, 2010). This either/or mentality can be damaging to those coming from religious backgrounds such as: Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, especially when evolution has become synonymous with atheism. But like the film and our textbook have expressed, evolution can be compatible with various religious groups (Stearns & Hoekstra, 2005). Of course, not everything in an individual’s religious beliefs will

Many are disconcerted by the idea that humans and Minds can be described as systems which operate based on interpretations of symbols, much like machines, computers, and robots: things that we have created yet do not think of as being “thinking,” themselves. We, as human beings, are comforted in the notion that we are born into this world with a fully capable Mind, a soul or spirit, and are, thereafter, free to choose our fate as we will. Although it seems plausible that we are born with Mind, I cannot subscribe to such a simplistic version of thinking about our true capacity for affecting outcome.

The article, “A Matter of Scale,” urges the audience to observe the small and extraordinary components of the biosphere and acknowledge its genetic variations as explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, Kelly’s essay, “Evolution: An Article of Faith,” considers Darwin’s theory as a “false religion” suppressing God’s ability to create the “work of intelligence.” (Evolution) The heated debate over the credibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to the division of scientific and religious groups. Devoted, religious people discover two major flaws with Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the inaccuracies of the fossil record and the contradicting phrase “survival of the fittest” that has passed on harmful mutations to next

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not interfere with the Judeo-Christian view of god as the creator, based on multiple sources including statements from the Pope himself. Although throughout history there are many instances of conflict between people, science, and the Catholic Church, there has recently been a widespread acceptance for science and many even say it does not interfere with the Judeo-Christian view of god as the creator. This essay will discuss the different types of views there are on evolution and creation, as well as go in depth to prove how evolution by natural selection does not interfere with the Judeo-Christian view on evolution.

The following part will be the discussion of the pros and cons of the three positions. For the pros of Naturalism, as this position is supported by scientific research and theory, this leads this position convincing. However, as the things that happened before the Big Bang is still a mystery in science, naturalism cannot provide us a thorough explanation of the origin of life. Moreover, as naturalism suggested that life is only an accident which leads life meaningless, this can be argued by the fact that most people living on the Earth say they are living in a meaningful life and also by the Frankenstein example.