But I think people just aren't suited to philosophizing. As a species, I mean – just a little too dumb for it. — The Great Whatever

Is it that we're too dumb, or that we're motivated by something other than being good philosophers? I can't recall which radio program it was, maybe Science Friday on NPR, but there was a show claiming that maybe reason isn't about finding the truth, but rather winning arguments.

If so, then humans are more interested in sophistry.

I generally think now that philosophy doesn't have the tools to help people in life. My main philosophical interest now is sort of meta-philosophical, why people are so bad at reasoning, why they are generally intellectually dishonest, incapable of distinguishing fine-grained positions, convinced by bad arguments, drawn to implausible platitudes, etc. and why intelligence seems to be no help in guarding against any of these. — The Great Whatever

Have you started a thread on this before? Because I think you're probably right. I've seen in myself and plenty of others, not just in online forums, but in general across the board.

I read an argument about G's supposed foreknowledge a while back. It went along the lines that God sees all of time: past, presence and future, but it is all past to him, and since he is perfect he can't change what he remembers, therefore we are free to act any way we want. — Cavacava

That is an interesting and a bit unusual argument.

I recall a Christian explaining to me in college how the Garden of Eden was a setup. God wanted Adam and Evil to fall, because that was the only way to work out the potential of evil in creation, and deal with it.

I thought that explanation was better than most Christian explanations regarding free will and evil, but it would probably be considered heretical by many denominations.

so therefore interprets 'omniscience' to mean 'anything I think is possible'. — Wayfarer

Omniscience means to know everything. What exactly is meant by knowing all things is debateable, but non-believers did not' invent the term.

The break you're looking for is to actually be God. — Wayfarer

Wouldn't this apply to believers as well?

In doing so we're forgetting a salient point - that the understanding is corrupted, we don't see the nature of the situation we're in, but instead hypothesise about something we could never know. — Wayfarer

And this all came about because believers claimed that God was so and so. Atheists didn't invent omniscience or the perfectly good. The FWD exists because some believers wish to defend God's omnibenevolence.

The point is that if God is real, then "perfectly good" is whatever He is. If that turns out to be different than what we humans define as "perfectly good," then we are the ones who have it wrong, not God. — aletheist

In that case, we wouldn't call God perfectly good, would we? God could be perfectly evil from our point of view, but perfectly good from God's. Maybe we have it all backwards?

If God is real, then who has the authority to define "perfectly good" as anything other than whatever God is? — aletheist

I don't know. Did God say he was perfect, or did human beings come up with that?

If God is real, then whatever He is, is perfectly good. Who are we to judge otherwise? — aletheist

Why suppose he is perfectly good, though?

Imagine an argument justifying war is that although lots of evil comes about, some people show incredible bravery and sacrifice.

The courage and love of these individuals outweighs the evil of war.

Now, I don't think that works as a moral argument. I think the evil of war is what matters, not whether some individuals managed to be super good. So, a thousand people were incredibly brave, but 10 thousand died, including civilians, children, etc. What sort of moral calculus is that?

Again, that explains why you are having so much difficulty with the free will defense. — aletheist

I don't think free will justifies the existence of evil, regardless. Not for a perfectly good God. A different sort of God, sure.

Basically, you have to argue that a perfectly good being is willing to put up with evil to achieve higher goods, such as love. I'm not sure that works. The higher good is worth any evil that comes about as a result. Sounds like the ends justifies the means for God.

Second, there is always the possible world that J.L. Mackie describes: beings who, through their own free will, always choose to do good. If Mackie's world is possible and God can create this possible world, then the free will defense fails. — Chany

Which goes to the question of why God created Lucifer in the first place.

now the response is to say God cannot actually create this world and that it is up to the agents within the world to make it happen, but I do not see how, without claiming that God cannot have foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures, one can avoid God's ability to foresee which possible world contains no moral evil and create that world. — Chany

Is free will supposed to be something that God cannot know about in advance? That would seem to place a limit on omniscience, and God knowing or existing through all points in time. That God is subject to time like created beings are.

here is an interesting discussion, one that I have never personally seen discussed, about God's responsibilities and morality if God cannot know the actions of free agents ahead of time, as God effectively would be creating the world blind. — Chany

That is an interesting question. So God plays dice with free will?

My point here is not to argue for intelligent design, just to highlight a philosophical curiosity. — aletheist

Agreed. There should be a way to tell whether a life form or biosphere was intelligently designed or the result of natural processes.

What's the counter argument? That intelligent design is meaningless or impossible? What if we found a world terraformed by aliens in which they continuously modified the organisms instead of letting them evolve on their own? Can we not distinguish between the two?

Precisely by choosing to act well toward that person, despite your negative feelings about him/her, rather than simply acting in accordance with the latter. — aletheist

I don't consider that to be love, but it's a semantic disagreement. I don't think something can be love if it's absent the feeling. I understand that people don't always feel love toward each other, but can still act in a loving way. I would consider that faking it to keep the relationship going, because the bond exists from a feeling of love enough of the time.

Humans are imperfect lovers. We don't always love the people we're friends, family, lovers with.

I think Jesus had to command that because humans don't always love. Otherwise, it would just happen.

Choosing to act humanely toward them is choosing to love them - especially if we do so not because we want them to do the same to us, but simply because they are our fellow human beings. — aletheist

So I act well toward person A because I really like them and enjoy their company and value them as a person. But I act well toward person B (okay maybe just passably well) because they are human, and I wish them to do the same for me, but I can't stand them.

How is it that I love person B?

"Dams, nests, webs, cities, and genetic engineering are not evolution" - as though this sentence was even sensical to begin with - well, I'm sorry, but it's clear that you don't have the terms of evolutionary science down well enough for this discussion to be productive. — StreetlightX

Also, I'm like 99.9% certain that cities and genetic engineering are not topics of biological evolution.

Also, I'm like 99.98% certain that nests and webs are not evolution, since evolution is a process that life forms undergo, not things like dams or nests.

It seems like you want to import your own philosophical views on how natural and artifical should be used (or not used) into science, when you know well that genetic engineering and cities are not a topic of study for evolutionary biologists.

think the claim that we can choose who to love is as mistaken as the claim that we can choose who to be attracted to. — Michael

It would be nice if we could will ourselves to love the people we don't love. But it seems the best we can do is choose to act humanely toward them, despite not loving them, because we want them to do the same to us.

Maybe the Buddhists have gone a bit farther here with cultivating empathy?

Right, so what about spider interference? Is that natural selection, or artificial selection (or spiderficial selection)? — Michael

So humans are naturally selected to manufacture medicine to prevent natural selection from selecting against some of us, just like spiders are naturally selected to produce webs that give them a survival advantage?

I think there's an important distinction somewhere along the line. At least when you get to the point of directly manipulating DNA in a manner that nature never would.

So with that in mind, does making medicine to aid survival prevent natural selection? Or is the ability to make medicine a naturally selected trait? — Michael

It doesn't prevent natural selection, but it does change the outcome from what natural selection would have selected. Human interference isn't natural selection, it's artificial selection. We wish to artificially select for as many people surviving as opposed to lots dying to improve genetic resistance.

But sure, natural selection still acts on the result of our interference. In order to completely be rid of evolution, we would have to engineer life forms whose genetic copying was bullet proof. I don't know whether that's doable.

What other abilities would you grant and deny the creatures living in your world? I am looking for a comprehensive response. If that seems unreasonable, maybe creating a better world than the one we have is harder than you think. — aletheist

No doubt it's beyond my limited ability. But giving birth to more empathetic humans is only part of it. Another part of it is having an environment that prevents the most serious crimes, like murder. We humans can't manage that, but God could.

I think that if humans could manage it, we would, or most of us would (excepting those who wish to commit murder).

I'll simply request, by way of being constructive, that you take a read of the paper I cited on page 3. — StreetlightX

It's fine to want me to read a paper, but this is a philosophy forum, and you should be able to spell out the argument. I can link to papers and videos, too, and hope that posters read/watch them, even though odds are they won't.

As to the usefulness of distinguishing between natural and artificial, consider SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. If SETI detects a non-terrestrial signal broadcasting primes, they will know it's of alien origin. It makes no difference if someone points out that aliens are a natural part of the cosmos. Obliterating that distinction for SETI is of no help to them whatsoever, since they're trying to distinguish intelligent signals from radiation given off by other sources.

Similarly, it's not helpful to collapse the distinction between biological evolution and other meanings of the term.

I don't really understand this claim. What do you even mean by saying that webs are not evolution? — Michael

Webs are byproduct of evolution, not the life forms that evolve. But we're playing rather loose with terms in this thread. It's true that webs and damns and even concrete impact evolution, since the environment is being modified.

It's similar to noting that a cosmic ray isn't evolution, even if it flips a gene that gets passed on. Neither was the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, but evolution worked on the resulting life forms that were fit enough to survive the changes in the environment.

It's not possible to make a world where only what is good can be chosen because in such a world there is no freedom. — Cavacava

There is no freedom to do what, though? No freedom over what I choose to eat for lunch, or whom I hang out with today, or no freedom to bludgeon someone over the head?

Must all freedom get lumped together, such that terrible evils can't be prohibited, while other freedoms can be permitted?

Look, I don't think you mean any of this maliciously, and I don't expect you to know the literature inside out - I certainly don't - but I do know that this 'strict definition' you keep citing is utterly contentious and it will not do for you to simply fall back upon it time after time - especially since it exists nowhere but in your head at this point. It doesn't even have the honour of being an argument from authority - you haven't citied a single one. Just please do better than this ignorance-spreading non-definition. — StreetlightX

To be clear, do you think there are strict separation between fields of science? Particularly the life and hard sciences, such that what physicists study is not what biologists study, even though at times there can be overlap, since life lives in physical environments.

I've never ever heard a single biologists say that genetic engineering was part of biological evolution, but maybe they have?

What would that world look like, if it were up to you? Would you prevent "all manner of evil," or only certain kinds of evil? What abilities would you grant and deny the creatures living there in order to achieve that end? How do you define evil in the first place? — aletheist

Let's say it's an Earth-like planet, and I was introducing humans to it, but I got to modify the potential human beings as I saw fit before doing so. And let's say one of the things I could do is change their genes so that sociopaths couldn't be born into that world.

I would do so, and moreover, I would increase the genes responsible for feeling empathy and experiencing love.

In that sense, I would act in a way to constrain their free will from behaving in a manner that is without consideration for others. But that's only as a start.

Why are beavers altering their environment to suit their needs natural while humans altering their environment to suit their needs unnatural? Humans produce much more complex results and mix their materials in much more novel ways, but the core principle is the same. The beaver just uses one medium to alter its environment and is more simple than a concrete dam. However, the human is much smarter than the beaver and uses its intelligence to create a vastly more complex dam. — Chany

I've had some time to think this over. What seems clear to me is the following:

Dams, nests, webs, cities, and genetic engineering are not evolution in the biological sense. They are the byproducts of evolution. Dams aren't alive and don't pass their genes on to succeeding generations. Neither does concrete. As such, technology is not evolution, nor is the use of it.

BUT, evolution can and does act on the result of organisms modifying their environment. So we humans could use CRISPR to modify the germ line of an embryo, allow it to mature and be born, and then that person could have children and pass those modified genes on. That's not evolution. HOWEVER, evolution can act on the genetic modifications we made.

I'm rather certain that evolutionary science does not include genetic engineering as biological mechanism. It's technology, and technology (and culture) are not considered aspects of biological evolution by scientists.

At least I've never seen that claim, until today.

ell as far as I can tell, Marchesk wants to limit the scope of evolution to - variously - that which is 'biological' (and not 'technological'), and 'natural' (rather than what I assume is 'cultural'). — StreetlightX

Well, to be accurate, evolution has different definitions. In the most broadest sense, it just means change over time, and can apply to anything that changes. But in the context of life, evolution has a more strict scientific definition, and that's the one I'm concerned with.

But why? What do these distinctions mean with respect to evolution? What motivates these claims? — StreetlightX

For me, I think it's very important to be clear on what a scientific field is and what it is not, and to not conflate that with other terminology. That doesn't help scientific discourse among the public at all, and it only leads to endless disputes like this one, which looks like a philosophical disagreement over how words should be used.

It's common enough in philosophy or religion or politics to import desired meanings into a scientific field, which can have bad consequences, or at the very least, muddy knowledge.

So this particular disagreement could easily take place in the context of GMO foods, and whether it's moral to do such a thing, where "natural" is considered good, and "unnatural" is considered bad, by some at least. Which would muddy the real issue, which is whether genetically modifying food might have undesirable side effects in a way that artificial or natural selection prevent, possibly. Or something along those lines.

And yet, it is an interesting discussion in it's own right. Where do we draw the line on natural and artificial (or cultural)?

'Intelligent design' is a religiously inspired pseudoscience. It doesn't figure in the debate raised in the OP. If conscious agents cause changes in the gene pool, which are passed on, they are causing evolution. — Baden

Generally speaking, yes it is, but we can't rule out the possibility that aliens can intelligently design life forms, just as we have been artificially selecting for, and recently, editing the genes of various species. It's nonsense when it comes to life on Earth (regarding aliens or gods), but not as a possibility.

If conscious agents cause changes in the gene pool, which are passed on, they are causing evolution. — Baden

Agreed in the broad sense. I doubt it's strictly the biological definition, though.

And an organism is? Or rather, again, don't just give me another distinction, give me the difference this difference makes. You could have said 'because biology is the study of gufflefloomps' - the question is - so what? — StreetlightX

You want me to define life for you? Can't you look it up? Is it enough to note that biology isn't geology, even though both are natural sciences? Human beings find it extremely useful to distinguish life from non-life, although both are made up of the same physical stuff.

But you can argue it's all the same, if you want. That it's all just a dance of atoms. I won't find it useful, and neither will science, but okay.

Pretty much, and it can happen by 'natural' means including natural selection and lots of other stuff and various 'artificial' means. It's all equally evolution. — Baden

I don't think it is, thus the debates over intelligent design.

That being said, I don't think there is any evidence for intelligent design on Earth, just that it's possible somewhere, and we might do it ourselves one day.

I was talking about the adjective 'biological' in the phrase 'biological evolution' - just like before — Baden

Philosophical thought experiment. Aliens at some point came down and messed with hominid DNA leading to homo sapiens.

Upon discovering this, would biologists consider that evolution, or some form of intelligent design? Or is it completely useless to be able to make such a distinction in science?

And what utility do such distinctions have when it come to evolution? In other words, what difference do these differences make, as far as evolution is concerned? — StreetlightX

Because biology is the study of organisms, not technology or society.

(I didn't btw claim mechanisms aren't an important part of science or anything remotely close to that). — Baden

So what you're saying is that biological evolution is defined as heritable changes over time, full stop?

Suppose that G had no choice, he had to create evil to justify his creation, to create the best possible world, even though we may question how it can be the best. — Cavacava

Say you were granted the power to create your own world of your choosing (just another planet). Would you grant the creatures living there the ability to freely will all manner of evil?

You're conflating the 'what' and 'how' again. Anyway, what I've been saying is straightforward scientific orthodoxy. 'Biological' is about the 'what' not the how. — Baden

I don't think that's accurate. Mechanisms are an important part of science. Darwin needed to give an account for how evolution happened in order for it to become accepted science, not just note that species changed over time.

How could someone have genuine free will to love, while having no genuine free will in any other respect? — aletheist

I didn't say we couldn't have free will in other aspects, just not free will to do terrible things like murder. But I don't think that love has much to do with free will.

However, that's a different discussion.

Really? It seems obvious to me that love, hate, or indifference is always a choice that we make. — aletheist

It's not a choice I make.

Jesus taught that we should choose to love everyone - even our enemies. — aletheist

He did, and it's noble and all, but I don't see how it works in the real world. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to love everyone.

is a mistake to treat love as merely an emotion that comes and goes; in fact, it is an explicit commandment: — aletheist

I don't know how you can choose to love anyone. You either do your you don't. It can be a process, but it's not something you can force. Sure, I can act as if I love someone, out of duty, or because I think society requires it, or because my religion demands it, but that doesn't mean I actually love them.

I don't see how you can divorce love and hate from feeling. Imaging telling a loved one that you brought them a gift because it was your duty.

As I've indicated, my objection is purely empirical: my point is that by defining evolution as narrowly as you do, its you who is 'telling scientists how to define their fields'. — StreetlightX

I didn't come up with that definition of evolution. It's one I've absorbed. If I'm wrong, I'll change my mind on this. But it has to be accepted scientific terminology, not philosophical preference.

Personally, I think it's useful to make distinctions between natural and artificial, technological and biological, although there will be blurring of the lines at different points. I don't see that plastic is remotely natural, even though it's made up of natural elements. I also don't think that splicing fish genes into plants is natural either, or something that biological organisms do.

The term "biological" might be misleading you. It refers to the what not the how. — Baden

Are we just having a philosophical discussion over terms, or are we going by how the biologists use such words?

And what makes you think 'the scientific sense' of evolution is so narrowly defined? What empirical fact would sanction such an artificial definition other than pure prejudice? — StreetlightX

Just everything I've heard and read about evolution. Biologists get to say what's biological evolution and what's not. I could be wrong or ignorant. Maybe biologists agree with you? I didn't think they did, but again, I could be wrong about that.

If you're objecting on philosophical grounds about use of terminology amongst the general public, that's fine, but philosophers can't tell scientists how to define their fields.