Question for Intellectually Fulfilled Atheists
Steve B.
intellectually
fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck? Why not the person
to who next revolutionizes evolution theory? Darwin's may be a good explanation
for much, but it will surely continue to be improved on as it already has been.
Was it not so much the theory itself but that we finally learned the lesson that
things which seem impossible to explain can indeed be explained? What about your
atheists before Darwin, were not they intellectually fulfilled?
Steve
Bobby D. Bryant
Yes, that seems like an odd claim to me as well. Both atheists and
theists have to live with "I don't know" as the answer to *most* of life's
questions. Why should intellectual fulfillment for _anyone_ depend on
knowing the origin of our species?
Given an XOR choice, I'd rather know whether there are intelligent species
elsewhere in the universe over knowing how my particular species came
about.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Average Conrad
rigorous.
Bill Rogers
I agree with your question. Darwin provided enough mechanistic detail
to provide a satisfying account of "why we are here," at least on a
biological level. But I think that on the one hand Lucretius had long
ago made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, even
without getting many of the mechanistic details of anything
particularly right, and on the other hand total intellectual
fulfillment as an atheist will depend on whoever comes up with the
other TOE (theory of everything, rather than of evolution). Google on
Max Tegmark and you will find links to a paper describing a future TOE
as the ultimate ensemble theory. If he turns out to be right, the
ancient world will have scooped him, too, since his ideas are a sort
of super, revved up Platonism.
Darwin closed a big gap which God had been hiding in. Lucretius just
had the confidence that there were ways to close the gaps, even if he
didn't fill in all the blanks. A real physical TOE, would close a lot
more gaps and maybe be even more intellectually fulfilling.
Bill
stew dean
> intellectually
> fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck? Why not the person
> to who next revolutionizes evolution theory?
It's very unlikely evolution theory will be revolutionised again. It
is fairly well understood at this point. It is more likely our
understanding of gravity will be revolutionised - yet we can still use
what we know to hurl satalites into orbit and do other complex tasks.
> Darwin's may be a good explanation
> for much, but it will surely continue to be improved on as it already has been.
Yep. Darwin's theory has been much updated and improved and will
continue to do so. The 50th anaversery of the discovery of DNA was, in
it's self, a major improvement and helped explain many observations
previous to that event. It helped to explain how evolution works even
though we knew, like gravity, it does definitly work.
> Was it not so much the theory itself but that we finally learned the lesson that
> things which seem impossible to explain can indeed be explained? What about your
> atheists before Darwin, were not they intellectually fulfilled?
It's debatable if an intellectual can ever be fulfilled. If you truly
are an intellectual you will always be wanting more. You may be
confident about somethings but there is always more detail you can
explore things to.
Accepting that there are no absolutes, just a bunch of very likelies,
is hard for some people. I personaly find it refreshing.
Cheers
Stew Dean
John Baker
be an
> intellectually
> fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck?
In the first place, Dawkins was merely stating his own opinion. He wasn't
speaking, and doesn't speak, for all atheists. In the second place,
Lamarck's theories are easily refuted and weren't highly regarded by most
scientists even during his lifetime.
Wade Hines
> I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it possible
> to be an intellectually
> fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck? Why not
> the person to who next revolutionizes evolution theory?
If one presumes you actually want answers to these question,
one is puzzled by your asking them here. Do you own books
or have access to a public library?
But the obvious meaning would be that Darwin's theory explained
something that needed explaining and specifically so to one who
did't have a magic wand alternative. The obvious reason that
Lamarck didn't work (as well) was that his explaining was not
complete enough and didn't meet the challenge of experimental
testing. Of course comparing Darwinism to Lamarckianism isn't
comparing apples to apples, more like engine design to automotive
design.
These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
atheists who preach their atheism.
> Darwin's may be
> a good explanation for much, but it will surely continue to be improved
> on as it already has been. Was it not so much the theory itself but
> that we finally learned the lesson that things which seem impossible to
> explain can indeed be explained? What about your atheists before
> Darwin, were not they intellectually fulfilled?
Dawkins is unlikely to answer you here. I'd suggest, again, that
you read what he has already written.
Lane Lewis
"Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
snip
>
> These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
> want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
> cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> atheists who preach their atheism.
>
No you have a problem with people speaking of truths that don't agree
with your prejudices.
Lane
Nathan Urban
> I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it
> possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Whenever I read this quote, I imagine a creationist thinking, "So if I
just disprove evolution, I'll kill atheism in one stroke!"
John Wilkins
A few points here. First of all, atheists always had to contend with the
rather self-evident fact of complexity and goal-directedness in biology.
After Laplace, atheists could account for the stability and formation of
the solar system, but they couldn't account for life - that was a
promissory note for atheism from the Epicureans onwards until two things
happened. One was that Wöhler synthesised urea from an inorganic
chemical (cyanammonium) in 1828 - now it was shown that organic material
was not "vital" - Bernard later showed that glycogen was a source of
energy in digestion and various other things in a chemicomechanical
manner.
The other was that Darwin finally resolved Hume's problem of adaptation.
Hume had said that there was no need to require a designer for
adaptations, but was unable himself to come up with the solution for it.
Paley, who wrote *after* Hume, was thereby able to use the design
argument for God's existence, and hence the Bridgewater Treatises, and
so on. Darwin showed how designlikeness could occur simply as a matter
of the unintended outcomes of limited resources and overproduction of
variations.
Why was Lamarck not a solution here? Well, although Lamarck was a
materialist, his "solution" was the internal drive of a vital force -
physical all right, but somehow striving to advance complexity. This was
not a solution - it is not the mere existence of change over time - the
Goetheans (Oken and his followers) were working towards that in any
case; but more the fact that before Darwin, no actual process was
proposed.
Once he had done that, many refused to accept his mechanism as
sufficient, but all were forced to take transmutation seriously. Even
so, those who rejected selection did so purely because they wanted to
"save the theology" rather than because they had shown selection to be
inadequate.
The second point is that, while *Dawkins* thinks that Darwin makes
atheism possible, it does not make it mandatory, no matter what he
thinks. I have often said that if theism is true (and this is known only
through revelation, not through science) then God is the creator of all
things, whether they exhibit design apparent to us or not. Hence the
gravitational process is as much designed as evolution (with about the
same amount of positive and negative outcomes, as the villagers in El
Salvador this week discovered).
The third point, and one often made here, is that if you locate God in
the failure of science to explain some aspect of life, then when
something is later explained, you remove all the surety that was founded
on those gaps. Charlie's insistence here on the "magic" in DNA is a case
in point. Biochemists, molecular biologists, cytologists and
embryologists are slowly and inexorably removing those gaps. Already
what *he* thinks is magic is known to be the outcome of simple facts of
atomic valencies and weights, thermodynamics, and the known conditions
in organisms. One less place for God to work? Surely God works in *all*
instances of the world, or he works in none, and the deists are correct,
and in either case science is no basis for knowledge of the existence on
anything not physical.
So advances in science may make it subjectively easier for someone to be
an atheist honestly, but in the end once Wöhler and Darwin had kicked
out the two main struts underlying the argument from Life to God,
everything else is just detailing. From a theological and philosophical
perspective, of course. There is still a lot of *science* to learn...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Steve B.
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:mL8qa.153477$JI.35...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> wrote in message
> news:b8aj32$vbo$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> > I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it possible to
> be an
> > intellectually
> > fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck?
>
> In the first place, Dawkins was merely stating his own opinion. He wasn't
> speaking, and doesn't speak, for all atheists.
Ahh... I see.
> In the second place,
> Lamarck's theories are easily refuted and weren't highly regarded by most
> scientists even during his lifetime.
Why were Lamarck's theories easily refuted?
Steve
Daniel Harper
I always thought that quote really meant, "Darwin made it possible _for
me_ to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist." Dawkins, although an
obviously great scientist and popularizer of science, makes one of the
same mistakes that his opponents (creationists) make, in that he makes
assumptions from what "ought-to-be" based on what "is". The truth is that
while modern science has made it impossible to accept a literal view of
many parts of the bible, and certainly Genesis 1, Christians have been
taking their bibles non-literally virtually since the time there was a
bible to begin with. (e.g. The early church knew that despite the
references to the "foundations of the earth" that the planet was, in fact,
round as measured by the ancient Greeks.)
The study of nature is a wonderful thing, allowing us great leaps in
understanding of the world around us, as well as practical benefits in
technology and engineering. But the study of nature, whether it be
biology, astrophysics, geology, or even psychology, will not give us a
basis for a moral system.
For that we need philosophy, or theology if you're so inclined. :->
--
"Creation science" isn't science.
It's not really theology.
It's barely even an "-ism".
--Daniel Harper
Richard Harter
wrote:
One thought to consider is that in Lamarck's theory lineages of life
evolved through a predefined sequence towards a final goal (oddly
enough, very much like us.) The innate predefinition bespeaks the
hand of a creator; the brownian motion of Darwinian evolution does
not.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
Today is the last day of the mistakes you've already made.
Mark VandeWettering
> I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it
> possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Why is that?
Darwin finally put to rest the notion of special creation by providing a
theory which described how all the diversity of nature could have formed
via purely natural, lawlike processes.
> Why Darwin?
Because Darwin proved to be largely correct.
> Why not Lamarck?
Because Lamarck didn't prove to be largely correct.
> Why not the person to who next revolutionizes evolution theory?
We really can't be fufilled by events which haven't occurred, can we?
> Darwin's may be a good explanation for much, but
> it will surely continue to be improved on as it already has been.
Yes, undoubtably.
> Was it not so much the theory itself but that we finally learned
> the lesson that things which seem impossible to explain can indeed
> be explained? What about your atheists before Darwin, were not they
> intellectually fulfilled?
Not in the sense of having explanations for features of the biological
world.
Mark
> Steve
Mark VandeWettering
Because lopping tails off of mice didn't make them stop growing them.
Mark
> Steve
John Harshman
Steve B. wrote:
I don't know the history (perhaps John Wilkins can explain), but today
they are easily refuted because his scheme does not create expectations
of a nested hierarchy. Each species is an independent lineage, evolving
through time.
Steve B.
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbaikvu.7...@keck.vandewettering.net...
So if you were to apply a descriptor to an adherent of Lamarckism, what might it
be? Perhaps, "nuts"?
Steve
Steve B.
To me, to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist would mean one that is content
with his position rationally. Thanks to philosophers like Hume, this would seem
possible well before Darwin. If intellectually fulfilled means to have
explanations for order and complexity, then it's still not possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist. For one, we have the glaring problem of DNA to
deal with. It's hard to get much more complex than that. And that problem hasn't
even been explained in *principle*. It's just not in our face in the way bird
feathers, eye balls, and bat sonar are.
Steve
Lane Lewis
Darwin's theory helped but the reason for the big bang and the how life
began are probably more compelling for the Atheist or the Buddhist.
Christians, Muslims have the problem with where God came from since they
credit God with creating the big bang and life.
Lane
K-Man
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote:
[snip rest of _excellent_ post]
> So advances in science may make it subjectively easier for someone to be
> an atheist honestly, but in the end once Wohler and Darwin had kicked
> out the two main struts underlying the argument from Life to God,
> everything else is just detailing. From a theological and philosophical
> perspective, of course. There is still a lot of *science* to learn...
Another point is that, by the middle of the 19th century, the Church had
pretty much put all of its eggs in the Natural Theology basket. Along
comes Darwin who kicks the legs out from under the table that basket was
resting on, and the reaction was predictable...
Ken
Laurence A. Moran
Daniel Harper <daniel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:57:14 +0000, Steve B. wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it possible
>> to be an intellectually
>> fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck? Why not the
>> person to who next revolutionizes evolution theory? Darwin's may be a
>> good explanation for much, but it will surely continue to be improved on
>> as it already has been. Was it not so much the theory itself but that we
>> finally learned the lesson that things which seem impossible to explain
>> can indeed be explained? What about your atheists before Darwin, were
>> not they intellectually fulfilled?
>>
>> Steve
>
>I always thought that quote really meant, "Darwin made it possible _for
>me_ to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist."
No, that's not exactly what he meant. Here's part of a transcript from an
interview with Dawkins ...
"MR. WATTENBERG: You have written that being an atheist allows you
to become intellectually fulfilled.
MR. DAWKINS: No, I haven't quite written that. What I have written is
that before Darwin, it was difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist and that Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually -- and
it's more. It's more. If you wanted to be an atheist, it would have
been hard to be an atheist before Darwin came along. But once Darwin
came along, the argument from design, which has always been to me the
only powerful argument --even that isn’t a very powerful argument, but
I used to think it was the only powerful argument for the existence of
a creator.
Darwin destroyed the argument from design, at least as far as biology
is concerned, which has always been the happiest hunting ground for
argument from design. Thereafter -- whereas before Darwin came along,
you could have been an atheist, but you'd have been a bit worried,
after Darwin you can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. You can
feel, really, now I understand how living things have acquired the
illusion of design, I understand why they look as though they've been
designed, whereas before Darwin came along, you'd have said, well, I
can see that the theory of a divine creator isn’t agood theory, but
I'm damned if I can think of a better one. After Darwin, you can think
of a better one."
originally aired on PBS: November 7, 1996
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_410.html
>Dawkins, although an
>obviously great scientist and popularizer of science, makes one of the
>same mistakes that his opponents (creationists) make, in that he makes
>assumptions from what "ought-to-be" based on what "is".
He isn't making this mistake. What he's saying is that before Darwin the
atheists didn't have a good answer to the argument from design. Now they do.
He is NOT saying that belief in evolution compels you to be an atheist.
He's saying that if you choose, for all kinds of other reasons, to avoid
believing in supernatural beings then this is an intellectually fulfilling
position because Darwin destroyed the main argument against atheism.
Larry Moran
AC
To be honest, while I think Dawkins is a brilliant man, there are times when
he, like Sagan, crosses the silly line.
--
A. Clausen
AC
Yes, I believe that is so. Dawkins is a bit of a lightning rod for
Fundementalists, since he (intentionally or unintentionally) plays the role
of outspoken atheist evolutionist. Of course, some of his colleagues have
taken umbrage at what he has said as well. Dawkins is a very outspoken
person. Sometimes I personally think he goes too far and I get the feeling
that he has promoted himself to Grand Poobah of the Atheists.
--
A. Clausen
Laurence A. Moran
I'd like to recommend an essay by Stephen J. Gould entitled "A Tree Grows in
Paris: Lamarck's Division of Worms and Revision of Nature." The essay is
republished in the anthology "The Living Stones of Marrakech" (pp. 115-143).
The hint in the title may be enough to send you scurrying to the library.
If not, here's another teaser ....
"In one of the great injustices of our conventional history, Lamarck's
disfavor has persisted to our times, and most people still know him
only as the foil to Darwin's greatness - as the man who invented a
silly theory about giraffes stretching their necks to reach the
leaves on tall trees, and then passing the fruits of their efforts
to their offspring by 'inheritance of acquired characters,' otherwise
known as the hypothesis of 'use and disuse,' in contrast with Darwin's
proper theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest."
Larry Moran
P.S. The same essay contains one of my favorite Gouldian insights - one
of those trivial bits of information that you probably knew but
just didn't think about. Once brought to your attention, however,
the insight will haunt you forever.
"I have always considered it odd (and redolent either of arrogance
or parochiality) when a small minority divides the world into two
wildly unbalanced categories of itself versus all others - and
then defines the large category as an absence of the small, as in
my gradmother's taxonomy for Homo sapiens: Jews and non-Jews. Yet
our conventional classification of animals follows the same strategy
by drawing a basic distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates
- when only about forty thousand of more than a million named
species belong to the relatively small lineage of vertebrates."
C. Thompson
From "The Origin of Species":
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many
plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects
flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to
reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each
other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been
produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense,
being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by
reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the
external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so
high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural
Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of
less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death,
the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the
production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in
this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless
forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Chris
Richard Uhrich
How about 'uninformed'? E.g.., unaware that Jewish boys are still born
uncircumcised.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Richard Uhrich
DNA is complex and gods are not?
Frank J
> intellectually
> to who next revolutionizes evolution theory? Darwin's may be a good explanation
> for much, but it will surely continue to be improved on as it already has been.
> things which seem impossible to explain can indeed be explained? What about your
> atheists before Darwin, were not they intellectually fulfilled?
>
In so many words, John Haught says that Darwin made it possible to be
an intellectually fulfilled theist. I see you point, though, and I
always wondered why "Darwin," the concept, is such a "lightning rod."
I think it has to do at least in part with America's fascination with
everything British and Victorian. If anti-evolutionists really object
to the apparent "randomness" and "purposelessness" of life, one would
think that they would base their strawman aruments on "Kimurism." I'm
convinced that they would were it not for the plain fact that "Darwin"
sells.
Frank J
Professional anti-evolutionists know that they can't "disprove"
evolution, and they also know that they cannot come up with a better
theory (why else are they not falling over each other to defend
Schwabe or Senapathy?). What they really are silently saying is "So if
I just MISREPRESENT evolution, I'll kill atheism in one stroke!"
Steve B.
"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3EA96EE6...@san.rr.com...
It's nice to know one of founding fathers of evolution was 'uninformed'. Science
makes perfect sense to me. It's the science supporters I don't understand. It
makes perfect sense how an idea like 'use and disuse' might be suggested as an
evolutionary mechinism. It makes no sense how anyone could accept it as *the*
mechinism. It makes sense how natural selection might be suggested as an
evolutionary mechinism. It makes no sense how anyone could accept it as *the*
mechinism. Whatever the current best explanation is - that *is* how it happened.
Or so the story seems to go - regardless of what supporting evidence there is.
The same thing with neo-Darwinism. Natural selection *is* how biological
complexity developed - but there's not a shred of evidence (that's I've ever
read about) to support that view and tommorrow it could be overturned. I don't
understand why the best explanations can be taught as the best explanations and
not, The Way It Happened.
Steve
Steve B.
Life forms are complex and gods are not?
The Solar System is complex and gods are not?
Lighting is complex and gods are not?
Fire is complex and gods are not?
Steve
Mark VandeWettering
Currently, perhaps. In Darwin's time, "wrong" would probably have been
the more appropriate adjective.
> Steve
Richard Uhrich
Why do you find this nice to know? Lamarck didn't think it through like
Dawrin, which is why Darwin is considered the father of modern evolution
theory.
> Science
> makes perfect sense to me.
Oh?
> It's the science supporters I don't understand. It
> makes perfect sense how an idea like 'use and disuse' might be suggested as an
> evolutionary mechinism.
Why does this make sense to you, Steve? How does this information get
transformed into sperm or egg DNA?
> It makes no sense how anyone could accept it as *the*
> mechinism. It makes sense how natural selection might be suggested as an
> evolutionary mechinism. It makes no sense how anyone could accept it as *the*
> mechinism.
It is the *primary* but not only accepted mechanism. Surely you've heard
of genetic drift? But what is your objection if it were the *only*
explanation for evlution?
> Whatever the current best explanation is - that *is* how it happened.
> Or so the story seems to go - regardless of what supporting evidence there is.
> The same thing with neo-Darwinism. Natural selection *is* how biological
> complexity developed - but there's not a shred of evidence (that's I've ever
> read about) to support that view and tommorrow it could be overturned. I don't
> understand why the best explanations can be taught as the best explanations and
> not, The Way It Happened.
You seem not to understand science. That's what science does, provides
the best explanation. But it is always open to new and better
explanations. Consider Newton and Einstein.
>
> Steve
Richard Uhrich
Is that a yes or a no? After all, DNA is made up of a long string of
sugar pairs. Each sugar is made up of simple atoms. What are gods made
up of?
Robin Levett
news:if9qa.5602$l81....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
> snip
> >
> > These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If
you
> > want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote
you
> > cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> > atheists who preach their atheism.
> >
>
> No you have a problem with people speaking of truths
that don't agree
> with your prejudices.
Speaking as an atheist who has a problem with atheists who
preach their atheism in talk.origins, I think I prefer
Wade's version to yours.
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)
Steve B.
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EA96EE6...@san.rr.com...
....
> > Whatever the current best explanation is - that *is* how it happened.
> > Or so the story seems to go - regardless of what supporting evidence there
is.
> > The same thing with neo-Darwinism. Natural selection *is* how biological
> > complexity developed - but there's not a shred of evidence (that's I've ever
> > read about) to support that view and tommorrow it could be overturned. I
don't
> > understand why the best explanations can be taught as the best explanations
and
> > not, The Way It Happened.
>
>
> You seem not to understand science. That's what science does, provides
> the best explanation. But it is always open to new and better
> explanations. Consider Newton and Einstein.
I agree - that was precisely my point. My beef is with the advocators of
scientific theories who present the current theory as The Way It Happened, not
as the best explanation, as they should. This leads people who are uninformed
about science, like I was, to adopt of a highly distorted image of how science
actually works.
Steve
Steve B.
I know nothing of gods, and quite frankly it's not too relevant. I'm saying your
line of reasoning was just as valid before Darwin as it is now. Darwin added a
lot to science but he didn't he shatter the mystery of life's complexity, he
just took a great step in the right direction. We still have many mysteries of
life staring us in the face, begging for explanation. Natural selection is not
the magic wand for explaining all of life's complexity but it does give a much
us a clearer picture than we had before Darwin.
Steve
rich hammett
> "Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> allegedly scribed
>> I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it possible
>> to be an intellectually
>> fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck? Why not
>> the person to who next revolutionizes evolution theory?
> If one presumes you actually want answers to these question,
> one is puzzled by your asking them here. Do you own books
> or have access to a public library?
Yes. In fact, any question having to do with evolution that
could be answered from a book or journal article should not
be asked nor answered here.
That's all in the FAQs, I'm sure.
rich
> But the obvious meaning would be that Darwin's theory explained
> something that needed explaining and specifically so to one who
> did't have a magic wand alternative. The obvious reason that
> Lamarck didn't work (as well) was that his explaining was not
> complete enough and didn't meet the challenge of experimental
> testing. Of course comparing Darwinism to Lamarckianism isn't
> comparing apples to apples, more like engine design to automotive
> design.
> These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
> want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
> cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> atheists who preach their atheism.
>> Darwin's may be
>> a good explanation for much, but it will surely continue to be improved
>> on as it already has been. Was it not so much the theory itself but
>> that we finally learned the lesson that things which seem impossible to
>> explain can indeed be explained? What about your atheists before
>> Darwin, were not they intellectually fulfilled?
> Dawkins is unlikely to answer you here. I'd suggest, again, that
> you read what he has already written.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
(BigDiscusser)
true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. God bless, Jo Jean
I am an 81 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY
Richard Uhrich
As Mark said above, "Darwin finally put to rest the notion of special
creation by providing a theory which described how all the diversity of
nature could have formed via purely natural, lawlike processes." To me,
this *did* "shatter the mystery of life's complexity." You underestimate
the significance of Darwin's theory.
Richard Uhrich
> Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end.
were you there?
Richard Uhrich
Who do you think is at fault? How can people be better informed about
science, especially Creationists?
AC
> Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end.
I suppose you knew him as well as you did Freud.
>Anyway,
> true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
> knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. God bless, Jo Jean
I'd be scared of the day I reached intellectual fulfillment. There's still
too much to learn and understand.
What does seem odd to me is that you have never answered my question as to
how you define "kinds". In fact, Jo Jean, you appear to be ignoring my
question. Why is that, Jo Jean? Why won't you answer the question?
--
A. Clausen
Wade Hines
> Wade Hines sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
>> "Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> allegedly scribed
>
>>> I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it possible
>>> to be an intellectually
>>> fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck? Why not
>>> the person to who next revolutionizes evolution theory?
>
>> If one presumes you actually want answers to these question, one is
>> puzzled by your asking them here. Do you own books or have access to a
>> public library?
>
> Yes. In fact, any question having to do with evolution that
> could be answered from a book or journal article should not
> be asked nor answered here.
>
> That's all in the FAQs, I'm sure.
>
> rich
You will please note I also answered his question. The introductory
salvo is because Dawkins is the best source for what Dawkins
means as should be obvious. If the question is rhetorical in
nature, as is rather obvious, my response is appropriate. If
it were genuine, your comeback would be on point.
Steve B.
You have to point the finger partly at the school system. At least small-town
school systems like the ones I'm familiar with. What I learned about evolution
in school was that the teacher didn't know why were not "still evolving" or why
there were no ape-men around today so evolution must be a pretty weak theory.
I suppose most of the problem is misinformed people spreading misinformed ideas.
Most all of my misconceptions about evolution and science came from creationist
sources and misinformed people. I imagine televised education programs could
help to alleviate this. I would always hear things on nature programs like,
"such and such evolved this or that", and I would just get infuriated at how
they could just say it as if it was fact. They would not even say "scientists
believe" or "according to evolution theory", it was always This is The Way It
Happened and Damn Your God to Hell. Well, maybe not so direct on that last part.
Eventually I couldn't take it any more and starting looking up information on
the Internet. You have to remember that anti-evolution Christians just don't
read about evolution. You "know" it's all lies so you don't touch it. Bringing
home a book about evolution is almost like bringing home a book about Satanism.
If education channels just started saying it like it is - and directly
addressing evolution - it could get a lot of people informed about science.
Steve
Steve B.
"(BigDiscusser)" <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2431-3EA...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end. Anyway,
> true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
> knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. God bless, Jo Jean
... evidence would suggest that any sufficiently mysterious deity will work.
Just add faith and you've got yourself a recipe for instant personal
satisfaction.
Steve
Steve B.
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EA98716...@san.rr.com...
....
> > I know nothing of gods, and quite frankly it's not too relevant. I'm saying
your
> > line of reasoning was just as valid before Darwin as it is now. Darwin added
a
> > lot to science but he didn't he shatter the mystery of life's complexity, he
> > just took a great step in the right direction. We still have many mysteries
of
> > life staring us in the face, begging for explanation. Natural selection is
not
> > the magic wand for explaining all of life's complexity but it does give a
much
> > us a clearer picture than we had before Darwin.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> As Mark said above, "Darwin finally put to rest the notion of special
> creation by providing a theory which described how all the diversity of
> nature could have formed via purely natural, lawlike processes." To me,
> this *did* "shatter the mystery of life's complexity." You underestimate
> the significance of Darwin's theory.
Not at all, I just don't overestimate it. Do we have even the slightest
inclination that new features can get started through random mutations? Why
can't fruit fly experiments generate the beginning of new features? Evolution
theory hasn't really explained the actual complexity we see. It's only
guestimated it - the best guestimation so far, but still a guestimation.
Evolution theory currently doesn't even have anything substantial to contribute
to the development of the code-like DNA system. Of course it's a huge and vastly
important theory but the complexity has really not been explained.
Steve
Wade Hines
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> snip
>> These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
>> want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
>> cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
>> atheists who preach their atheism.
> No you have a problem with people speaking of truths that don't
> agree
> with your prejudices.
>
> Lane
Which "truths" would these be?
I have problems with people claiming TRVTH and preaching
IT as an absolute for everyone else, where it is theistic,
atheistic or politic. I've got as much problem with these
absolutes when they agree with my prejudices as when they
don't. I'm biased towards environmentalism, certainly in
contrast to aggressive consumerism, but don't see that
pushing such revealed or deduced truths down other peoples
throats is moral, intelligent or practical. I'm also biased
towards atheism over theism but frankly find militant
atheists to be more hypocritical then militant theists.
One group has been seduced by a scheme that appeals to
human weaknesses and fears and the other is simply hornery.
I dislike the hornery ones more even though that word
might well describe me. But I don't expect you to have
the mental capacity to understand this. Enjoy your alternative
interpretation.
John Wilkins
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbaikvu.7...@keck.vandewettering.net...
> > In article <b8bhtp$81q$1...@ins22.netins.net>, Steve B. wrote:
> > >
> > > "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> > > news:mL8qa.153477$JI.35...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> > >>
> > >> "Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:b8aj32$vbo$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> > >> > I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it
> > >> > possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Why is that?
> > >> > Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck?
> > >>
> > >> In the first place, Dawkins was merely stating his own opinion. He
> > >> wasn't speaking, and doesn't speak, for all atheists.
> > >
> > > Ahh... I see.
> > >
> > >> In the second place, Lamarck's theories are easily refuted and
> > >> weren't highly regarded by most scientists even during his lifetime.
> > >
> > > Why were Lamarck's theories easily refuted?
> >
> > Because lopping tails off of mice didn't make them stop growing them.
>
> So if you were to apply a descriptor to an adherent of Lamarckism, what
> might it be? Perhaps, "nuts"?
>
Lamarck had several theories, this was only "his" theory of inheritance,
and shall we note that it was shared by one Charles Darwin, again?
That's right, Darwin thought that acquired bodily experience was
reinserted into the "pangenes" as he called them. In fact it was
commonly held to be true until 1900. Darwin also thought that things
which were used were more likely to be inherited than things which were
not.
And the mousetails thing was done by Weismann over 60 years after
Lamarck's death. Also, this is not necessary for Lamarck's conception of
evolution.
If we are going to bag the dead, let us do it for the right reasons.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
John Wilkins
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> > news:mL8qa.153477$JI.35...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> >
> >>"Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b8aj32$vbo$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> >>
> >>>I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it possible to
> >>>
> >>be an
> >>
> >>>intellectually
> >>>fulfilled atheist. Why is that? Why Darwin? Why not Lamarck?
> >>>
> >>In the first place, Dawkins was merely stating his own opinion. He wasn't
> >>speaking, and doesn't speak, for all atheists.
> >>
> >
> > Ahh... I see.
> >
> >
> >>In the second place,
> >>Lamarck's theories are easily refuted and weren't highly regarded by most
> >>scientists even during his lifetime.
> >>
> >
> > Why were Lamarck's theories easily refuted?
>
>
> I don't know the history (perhaps John Wilkins can explain), but today
> they are easily refuted because his scheme does not create expectations
> of a nested hierarchy. Each species is an independent lineage, evolving
> through time.
Strictly speaking, Lamarck was not so much refuted as ridiculed. In his
funeral oration for Lamarck, Cuvier (rather improperly) spent about half
of it denigrating Lamarck's theory of evolution. He did point out that
there was no clear evidence for the sort of progressionism Lamarck
expected in the fossil record, but of course at that time that record
was rather shallow. Cuvier carried a lot of weight, and apart from
Geoffroy, who was Lamarck's main defender, and a radical movement in
Britain, evolution was dead. Even Chamber's version in the Vestiges was
not taken seriously by many (interestingly, one who did take it
seriously was A R Wallace) due to scientific inaacuracies and the
obvious amateurishness of the overall account. The Vestiges had no
mechanism, and neither did Lamarck, not really.
Steve B.
I was just provoking Wilkins. It appears it worked. 8~)
Steve
Lane Lewis
"Robin Levett" <rnle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p52c8b...@grendel.hayesway...
> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:if9qa.5602$l81....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
> > snip
> > >
> > > These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If
> you
> > > want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote
> you
> > > cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> > > atheists who preach their atheism.
> > >
> >
> > No you have a problem with people speaking of truths
> that don't agree
> > with your prejudices.
>
> Speaking as an atheist who has a problem with atheists who
> preach their atheism in talk.origins, I think I prefer
> Wade's version to yours.
>
Unfortunately you show the same prejudice as Wade.
Atheist cannot preach or proselytize.
Why - Atheism is not a religion or a doctrine
Lane
KelvynT
<snip>
>
>I'd like to recommend an essay by Stephen J. Gould entitled "A Tree Grows in
>Paris: Lamarck's Division of Worms and Revision of Nature." The essay is
>republished in the anthology "The Living Stones of Marrakech" (pp. 115-143).
>The hint in the title may be enough to send you scurrying to the library.
>If not, here's another teaser ....
Minor correction before you shoot off to the library, it's 'The
*Lying* Stones of Marrakech'. Great book.
Kelvyn
Laurence A. Moran
Right. Thanks. (I did a good job of copying the title of the essay,
though, didn't I?)
Larry Moran
Lane Lewis
> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> allegedly scribed
>
> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > snip
>
> >> These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
> >> want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
> >> cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> >> atheists who preach their atheism.
>
> > No you have a problem with people speaking of truths that don't
> > agree
> > with your prejudices.
> >
> > Lane
>
> Which "truths" would these be?
For one Dawkin's statement from the first post.
>
> I have problems with people claiming TRVTH and preaching
> IT as an absolute for everyone else, where it is theistic,
> atheistic or politic. I've got as much problem with these
> absolutes when they agree with my prejudices as when they
> don't. I'm biased towards environmentalism, certainly in
> contrast to aggressive consumerism, but don't see that
> pushing such revealed or deduced truths down other peoples
> throats is moral, intelligent or practical. I'm also biased
> towards atheism over theism but frankly find militant
> atheists to be more hypocritical then militant theists.
> One group has been seduced by a scheme that appeals to
> human weaknesses and fears and the other is simply hornery.
> I dislike the hornery ones more even though that word
> might well describe me. But I don't expect you to have
> the mental capacity to understand this. Enjoy your alternative
> interpretation.
>
Atheist cannot preach atheism its an impossibility, the fact that you
insist they do shows a prejudice against them not to mention the paragraph
above which also shows a prejudice against atheist.
Lane
David Sienkiewicz
> Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end.
Was he, now?
It's true that Darwin spent some time with respect to his theories
because he considered how they would upset the reigning paradigm,
IIRC.
But is this a reference to the "Lady Hope" story, Jo Jean, or
something else?
That reminds me of...but, no...I'll bring that to sheldon's attention.
> Anyway,
> true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
> knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Frankly, I find that many of those who "know" Jesus in this way are
the least intellectual of all.
And no, Jo Jean, I won't allow for "present company excepted."
< snip >
Krista M.
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3EA9AFD3...@san.rr.com...
> > Steve B. wrote:
> > > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3EA983D...@san.rr.com...
> > >>Steve B. wrote:
> > >>>"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:3EA96EE6...@san.rr.com...
[SNIP]
> > >>>The same thing with neo-Darwinism. Natural selection *is* how biological
> > >>>complexity developed - but there's not a shred of evidence (that's I've
> ever
> > >>>read about) to support that view and tommorrow it could be overturned. I
> > >>>
> > > don't
> > >
> > >>>understand why the best explanations can be taught as the best explanations
> > >>>
> > > and
> > >
> > >>>not, The Way It Happened.
If you don't mind me jumping in here, the problem with this sort of explanation IS
with the layman. When you start saying "This Is Probably The Way It Happened,"
the layman fixes on the "probably." Personally, in the past six months, I have
debated the semantics of the use of the word "theory" in ToE a dozen times. I
mean, everyone on this list, even the evolutionary naysayers, at this point surely
realize the difference between a scientific theory and "theory" in the vernacular,
but the general public *does not*. To me, it's not even a point worth debating -
there is actual evidence out there to discuss - but so many people get caught on
this that they think they've won the debate on virtue of this point alone. When I
was in grade school, I WAS taught that scientific theories didn't get called a
"theory" until hundreds to thousands of bits of evidence supported it, but only
ONE piece of evidence was needed to "disprove" it. Maybe I went to a liberal
school system with a science teacher who actually understood the scientific
method - or maybe I just happened to *remember* this point of science - but it's
always been a given to me. It's sad to think that such a major point is lost
somewhere in the general population's education. Frankly, saying things like, "we
believe gravity exists - but it could be disproven any day now!" doesn't really do
justice to the, um, gravity of gravity.
Krista
Robin Levett
That being?
>
> Atheist cannot preach or proselytize.
I beg to differ.
> Why - Atheism is not a religion or a doctrine
I entirely agree that atheism is not a religion. Funnily
enough, I've been arguing exactly that point with John
Thomas Grisham in the "Fundy Textbook Disclaimer" thread. I
don't care for my position on the existence of god being
defined as a religion at the whim of a theist, any theist,
based upon a 90 year old dictionary definition.
That atheism is a doctrine, however, is undeniable - FWIW.
Trading dictionary definitions as if they are both
definitive and prescriptive is fruitless; they are neither.
In normal speech, both preach and proselytise are used with
reference to subjects that have no connection with religion
or religious doctrine.
Having said that, here's a definition that provides a
secular meaning for proselytise:-
"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or
faith to another."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/P0607100.html
Atheism is a (non-religious) belief, a doctrine and arguably
even a cause. I agree it isn't a faith.
and for preach:-
"1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the
gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or
compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful
coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon)."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/58/P0505800.html
(Definition 2 being relevant). Atheists can urge acceptance
of their position on the existence of a god. Some atheists
regularly do so on talk.origins, to the intense irritation
of those who see creationism specifically, and not religion
in general, as the issue on this newsgroup.
--
____________________________________________________________
____
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's
Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
386sx
> Wade Hines wrote:
[...]
>> I have problems with people claiming TRVTH and preaching IT as an
>> absolute for everyone else, where it is theistic, atheistic or politic.
>> I've got as much problem with these absolutes when they agree with my
>> prejudices as when they don't. I'm biased towards environmentalism,
>> certainly in contrast to aggressive consumerism, but don't see that
>> pushing such revealed or deduced truths down other peoples throats is
>> moral, intelligent or practical. I'm also biased towards atheism over
>> theism but frankly find militant atheists to be more hypocritical then
>> militant theists. One group has been seduced by a scheme that appeals
>> to human weaknesses and fears and the other is simply hornery. I
>> dislike the hornery ones more even though that word might well describe
>> me. But I don't expect you to have the mental capacity to understand
>> this. Enjoy your alternative interpretation.
>
> Atheist cannot preach atheism its an impossibility,
I suppose one cannot also have "preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence."
(Paste that quoted phrase into google.com search bar.)
> the fact that you insist they do shows a prejudice against them not to
> mention the paragraph above which also shows a prejudice against
> atheist.
Well yes he did practically admit as much, but one wonders if his
"environmentalism" is aimed only for the betterment of those with a
certain "mental capacity," or if it is also aimed for the improvement of
those unfortunate creatures who aren't quite as bright as he. All of us
have prejudices, for sure, but I think some of them might be less
"intelligent or practical" than others.
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
John Wilkins
> Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end. Anyway,
> true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
> knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. God bless, Jo Jean
Absolute tripe. Darwin was about as serene as it is possible for a
person to get. All the documentary evidence shows this, the Lady Hope
*hoax* notwithstanding (it was invented to give evangelicals comfort
that a non-believer didn't really die serenely, which is, in their
moronic lexicon, an impossibility).
Here's Janet Browne:
"He died on the afternoon of 19 April 1882, after sinking very low for
two or three days beforehand and suffering what Emma called "fatal
attack" at midnight on the 18th. There was no deathbed conversio, no
famous last words. "I am not the least afraid to die," he apparently
murmured to Emma. "Remember what a good wife you have been." Allfrey
signed the death certificate giving "Angina Pectoris Syncope" as the
cause of death, the gradual ceasing of the heart. He was seventy-three"
(vol 2: 495. Browne notes in the refs that the Lady Hope Story is faked,
citing James Moore's 1994 _The Darwin Legend_.)
Desmond and Moore add some more detail:
"The pain came on just before midnight. It was brutal, gripping him like
a vice, tightening by the minute. He woke Emma and begged her to fetch
the amyl [amyl nitrate - used for angina then and now] form the study.
She darted form the bedroom and became confused, finally calling Bessy.
They took minutes to find the capsules. Charles, in agony, felt that he
was dying but unable to cry out. As he slumped unconscious across the
bed, Emma and Bessy returned. They rang for a servant and, propping him
up [Charles, not the servant], gave the brandy. It trickled through his
beard and down his nightdress on to the quilt. Struggling, they forced
his head back and pured it into him. Emma was distraught, thinking it
was the end.
Seconds later he spluttered and retched; his eyes flickered open. She
pressed close to him, searching his face for some sign of recognition.
'My love, my precious love,' he whispered, barely audible. 'Tell all my
children to remember how good they have always been to me.' He choked
and grimaced. Emma clasped his hand tightly - it was awful, words failed
her. He started again, fully conscious now, looking into her eyes, 'I am
not the least afraid to die.' He became calm."p661f
Darwin died after a painful series of heart attacks, but at all times he
was concerned for his family and expressed no fear of death. In no way
was he in "intellectual torment". He wrote in his autobiography a few
eeeks before that he was sorry for the trouble he had caused Emma for
not believing in God, but that was about it. Mostly, until the attack,
he was worried about having nothing much to do. He had finished his worm
book and his autobiography and was at a loose end.
I am totally sick of this evangelical crap about people being unable to
live happily knowing there is no afterlife, or in torment because they
are unabel to believe in God, or afraid to die for the same reason. I
have personally known people die happily althugh total atheists. Darwin
was never tormented by the things he is supposed to have been tormented
by - certainly not by a lack of conviction in his own theories or by a
lack of faith in God. Get over it. he was a great man, like David Hume
who also did not believe in your God but died well, no matter what lies
you have been told - no saint, but not the weak-kneed wanna-be Christian
you seem to think he was.
He had more conviction than you have faith, that is for sure.
Wade Hines
So, not only don't you understand the the meaning of the word
"preach", you also don't understand how the modifier "militant"
works (or perhaps simple don't understand English construction)
in the attached quote.
For what it's worth, I'm not biased against stupid people
but I am biased against stupid people who think they are
smart. This is another distinction you won't grasp.
And for what it's worth, Lane, you are the poster child
for how talk origins has changed since the advent of
cheaply available ISPs.
Mark Stahl
-snip-
> These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
> want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
> cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> atheists who preach their atheism.
>
this is a bizarre statement in light of the fact that most atheists are
agnostic as well.
Mark Stahl
-snip-
>
> Having said that, here's a definition that provides a
> secular meaning for proselytise:-
>
> "To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or
> faith to another."
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/P0607100.html
>
> Atheism is a (non-religious) belief, a doctrine and arguably
> even a cause. I agree it isn't a faith.
>
atheists may indeed "proselytise" after a fashion- i think i understand what
you're getting at- but atheism isn't a belief any more than "bald" is a hair
color. it's a lack of belief.
Lane Lewis
Atheism is a non-belief, non-doctrain, and non-cause and of course it's not
a faith.
And this is where the prejudice lies, religious people love to claim Atheism
is a belief system that is contrary to their own but Atheist don't believe
in anything. In fact if there weren't any theist there couldn't be any
athiest.
> and for preach:-
>
> "1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the
> gospel.
> 2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or
> compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful
> coexistence.
> 3. To deliver (a sermon)."
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/58/P0505800.html
>
> (Definition 2 being relevant). Atheists can urge acceptance
> of their position on the existence of a god. Some atheists
> regularly do so on talk.origins, to the intense irritation
> of those who see creationism specifically, and not religion
> in general, as the issue on this newsgroup.
>
What atheist probably do is argue against religion and that's what bothers
many on t.o. They cannot argue in favor of atheism only against religion
In the 1960s Madelyn Murray O' Hare became the most hated women in
America not because she argued for atheism but because she argued against
forced prayer in school. This is what I generally see in this newsgroup
during crosspost, an atheist will take a swipe at Christianity in general
for causing creationism but never do they "Preach" the virtues of Atheism.
Lane
Lane Lewis
snip
>
> And for what it's worth, Lane, you are the poster child
> for how talk origins has changed since the advent of
> cheaply available ISPs.
>
>
For attacking the tired prejudices of the status quo.
Lane
Mark Stahl
> > In article <b8aj32$vbo$1...@ins22.netins.net>, Steve B. wrote:
> >
> > > I'm reminded of the comment from Dawkins, that Darwin made it
> > > possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Why is that?
> >
> > theory which described how all the diversity of nature could have formed
> > via purely natural, lawlike processes.
> >
> >
> > Because Darwin proved to be largely correct.
> >
> > > Why not Lamarck?
> >
> > Because Lamarck didn't prove to be largely correct.
> >
> > > Why not the person to who next revolutionizes evolution theory?
> >
> >
> > > Darwin's may be a good explanation for much, but
> > > it will surely continue to be improved on as it already has been.
> >
> >
> > > Was it not so much the theory itself but that we finally learned
> > > the lesson that things which seem impossible to explain can indeed
> > > be explained? What about your atheists before Darwin, were not they
> > > intellectually fulfilled?
> >
> > world.
>
> To me, to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist would mean one that is
content
> with his position rationally. Thanks to philosophers like Hume, this would
seem
> possible well before Darwin. If intellectually fulfilled means to have
> explanations for order and complexity, then it's still not possible to be
an
> intellectually fulfilled atheist. For one, we have the glaring problem of
DNA to
> deal with. It's hard to get much more complex than that. And that problem
hasn't
> even been explained in *principle*. It's just not in our face in the way
bird
> feathers, eye balls, and bat sonar are.
>
> Steve
what "glaring problem of DNA" are you talking about?
Mark Stahl
yes.
> Why
> can't fruit fly experiments generate the beginning of new features?
they can, and have.
> Evolution
> theory hasn't really explained the actual complexity we see. It's only
> guestimated it - the best guestimation so far, but still a guestimation.
> Evolution theory currently doesn't even have anything substantial to
contribute
> to the development of the code-like DNA system.
sure it does.
> Of course it's a huge and vastly
> important theory but the complexity has really not been explained.
>
true, but that doesn't address the paradigm shift that not needing a
"special creator" involves.
Richard Uhrich
Good analysis, in my opinion. And this is why creationism is so
dangerous: it's advocates seek to weaken science education even further. f
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Richard Uhrich
Steve, you might want to qualify that entire last paragraph with an
honost "in my humble opinion." You are stating your admitted
not-well-informed opinions as facts.
Richard Uhrich
It would seem to me that arguing against forced prayer is not attacking
reilgion, it is defending freedom of religion. Atheism is not a
religion, so we don't preach... but we do defend science and ourselves
when religiou peoplee make infringing claims.
Steve B.
Do facts always end with question marks? The only thing I stated is that the
complex of life has not been fully explained and that science has quite a ways
to go. Was I wrong?
Steve
Steve B.
"Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:mhqdnUJeYtq...@giganews.com...
Perhaps the problem of explaining it...
Steve
Steve B.
>
> "Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> wrote in message
> news:b8cgoq$hn4$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> >
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EA9A9FF...@san.rr.com...
> > > Steve B. wrote:
....
> > > As Mark said above, "Darwin finally put to rest the notion of special
> > > creation by providing a theory which described how all the diversity of
> > > nature could have formed via purely natural, lawlike processes." To me,
> > > this *did* "shatter the mystery of life's complexity." You underestimate
> > > the significance of Darwin's theory.
> >
> > Not at all, I just don't overestimate it. Do we have even the slightest
> > inclination that new features can get started through random mutations?
>
> yes.
Please go on...
> > Why
> > can't fruit fly experiments generate the beginning of new features?
>
> they can, and have.
Really, where might I read about these new features?
> > Evolution
> > theory hasn't really explained the actual complexity we see. It's only
> > guestimated it - the best guestimation so far, but still a guestimation.
> > Evolution theory currently doesn't even have anything substantial to
> contribute
> > to the development of the code-like DNA system.
>
> sure it does.
What might these substantial contribution be?
> > Of course it's a huge and vastly
> > important theory but the complexity has really not been explained.
> >
>
> true, but that doesn't address the paradigm shift that not needing a
> "special creator" involves.
Who's talking about special creators?
Steve
Richard Uhrich
To a biochemist, or to you?
> Steve
Richard Uhrich
Statements are made within questions. For instance, "Why can't fruit fly
experiments generate the beginning of new features?" contains an
implicit and false assertion that no new features have been generated in
fruit fly experiments. "Evolution theory currently doesn't even have
anything substantial to contributebto the development of the code-like
DNA system," is both a bold and an ignorant assertion.
Let me quote your background in evolution:
"You have to point the finger partly at the school system. At least
small-town school systems like the ones I'm familiar with. What I
learned about evolution in school was that the teacher didn't know why
were not "still evolving" or why there were no ape-men around today so
evolution must be a pretty weak theory.
"I suppose most of the problem is misinformed people spreading
misinformed ideas. Most all of my misconceptions about evolution and
science came from creationist sources and misinformed people."
We are still evolving, and I hope your ] is. Don't let Creationist
background hold you from learning. Science has a long way to go, but
that is not a valid reason for criticism of what has been learned.
Mark Isaak
<st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>atheists may indeed "proselytise" after a fashion- i think i understand what
>you're getting at- but atheism isn't a belief any more than "bald" is a hair
>color. it's a lack of belief.
First, a lack of belief is, arguably, a belief itself, just as an
empty set is still a set.
Second, atheism means different things to different people. For some
of them, it is a positive belief in the nonexistence of god.
Third, all atheism hinges on the belief that evidence for god is not
compelling. I have no problem with calling that the belief of
atheism.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
Mark Isaak
(Pretend-Christian \(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end. Anyway,
>true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
>knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. God bless, Jo Jean
Jesus told me NOT to come to know him.
Anyway, I don't understand why anyone would want to live their lives
perfused by hate, as BigDiscusser does.
Steve B.
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EAAB8BB...@san.rr.com...
....
> >>Steve, you might want to qualify that entire last paragraph with an
> >>honost "in my humble opinion." You are stating your admitted
> >>not-well-informed opinions as facts.
> >>
> >
> > Do facts always end with question marks? The only thing I stated is that the
> > complex of life has not been fully explained and that science has quite a
ways
> > to go. Was I wrong?
>
>
> Statements are made within questions. For instance, "Why can't fruit fly
> experiments generate the beginning of new features?" contains an
> implicit and false assertion that no new features have been generated in
> fruit fly experiments. "Evolution theory currently doesn't even have
> anything substantial to contributebto the development of the code-like
> DNA system," is both a bold and an ignorant assertion.
From what I've read about fruit fly experiments, no new features have been
generated. This is an informed statement. If I'm wrong, and I've been reading
about fruit flies in all the wrong places, maybe you could correct me instead of
simply claiming I'm ignorant. The same with DNA.
> Let me quote your background in evolution:
>
> "You have to point the finger partly at the school system. At least
> small-town school systems like the ones I'm familiar with. What I
> learned about evolution in school was that the teacher didn't know why
> were not "still evolving" or why there were no ape-men around today so
> evolution must be a pretty weak theory.
That's a reference to what I remember learning about evolution from science
class. It's by far not representative of what I know now.
> "I suppose most of the problem is misinformed people spreading
> misinformed ideas. Most all of my misconceptions about evolution and
> science came from creationist sources and misinformed people."
I suppose this isn't quote mining, enough context is there, it's just a blatant
misapplication to theme. I said that most of my *misconceptions* about evolution
came from these sources -- not most of my knowledge about evolution.
> We are still evolving, and I hope your ] is. Don't let Creationist
> background hold you from learning. Science has a long way to go, but
> that is not a valid reason for criticism of what has been learned.
When did I criticize "what has been learned"? What I criticized was the attitude
of headstrong science supporters who tout theories as unquestionable and
absolute explanations. Especially with evolution.
Steve
Steve B.
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > "Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:mhqdnUJeYtq...@giganews.com...
> >
> >>"Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b8blin$7b$1...@ins22.netins.net...
....
> >>what "glaring problem of DNA" are you talking about?
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps the problem of explaining it...
> >
>
> To a biochemist, or to you?
It's common knowledge that the origin of DNA is not explained.
Steve
Wade Hines
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:13:02 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Stahl"
> <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>
>>atheists may indeed "proselytise" after a fashion- i think i understand
>>what you're getting at- but atheism isn't a belief any more than "bald"
>>is a hair color. it's a lack of belief.
>
> First, a lack of belief is, arguably, a belief itself, just as an
> empty set is still a set.
Rationally at least. But for some, it appears that "belief" is a
negatively connotated word approaching "irrational fantasy". Such
a twist requires a private and perverse lexicon but when has that
ever been preventative.
> Second, atheism means different things to different people. For some
> of them, it is a positive belief in the nonexistence of god.
There's clearly multiple zones of atheism. One zone transends from
a belief in some God and is arrived at when that belief stops. There's
another zone where there never was any such belief and perhaps never
much in the way of consideration of the question. I would tend to
call these passive atheism in the sense that they are closest to a
simple lack of belief in a God.
There's a further zone where the question of a God or gods is taken
head on and answered in the negative. To call that anything less
than a belief is an abuse of the English language.
Those who take this stance sometimes avoid calling their position
a belief under claims that theirs is a rational position or conclusion
reached upon examination of the facts and thus distinct from what
they consider to be the essense of "belief". It isn't their primary
conclusion I take issue with, it's the promotion of their own position
to something wholely distinct from belief. At a purely logical level,
a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack and thus an assertion
of the truth of a lack is a belief, however compelling further analysis
makes it. Calling ones atheism a truth and discounting that it is
a belief announces the contradiction to any rational analysis. Certain
individuals will fail to understand the role of the conjunction
"and" in the previous sentence.
> Third, all atheism hinges on the belief that evidence for god is not
> compelling. I have no problem with calling that the belief of
> atheism.
Perhaps your definition of atheist doesn't count those who don't
believe yet don't deny. To me, if one says "no, I don't believe
in God" but also doesn't affirm the non-existance of God is an
atheist though I recognize there's wide disagreement over these
more subtle distinctions.
Mark Stahl
>
>
> When did I criticize "what has been learned"? What I criticized was the
attitude
> of headstrong science supporters who tout theories as unquestionable and
> absolute explanations. Especially with evolution.
>
are there enough people like this that you find it to be a problem? i am
pretty sure i don't know anyone who touts scientific theories as
"unquestionable and absolute explanations"; most people who care enough to
comment on such things realize that's pretty much the opposite of how
science works, and that "absolute explanations" fall more withing the
purview of the theological.
Mark Stahl
>
> >
> > what "glaring problem of DNA" are you talking about?
>
> Perhaps the problem of explaining it...
>
what do you need explained?
Steve B.
This image is portrayed by science media, science television, and even by quite
a few regulars here. I can understand it in science books and at even at school
because the frameworks should already be known, but as far as the public
portrayal of science goes -- it confuses many. Don't claim it doesn't because
you yourself are not confused by it. I know for a fact how it's interpreted by
many people.
Steve
Steve B.
Origin of DNA systems.
Steve
Frank J
> In article <2431-3EA...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> > Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end.
>
If JJ is sincere about her age (born 1921 - same year as Duane Gish,
IIRC) then she could have met Freud (d. 1939) but not Darwin (d.
1882).
>
> >Anyway,
> > true intellectual fulfillment on this earth only can come from
> > knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. God bless, Jo Jean
>
> I'd be scared of the day I reached intellectual fulfillment. There's still
> too much to learn and understand.
>
> What does seem odd to me is that you have never answered my question as to
> how you define "kinds". In fact, Jo Jean, you appear to be ignoring my
> question. Why is that, Jo Jean? Why won't you answer the question?
You know the answer to that. What anti-evolutionist in their right
mind wants to risk having another one giving a contradictory answer?
Steve B.
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38c5d0dd.0304...@posting.google.com...
> AC <maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:<slrnbajg8v.8nf.m...@ts1.alberni.net>...
> > In article <2431-3EA...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> > (BigDiscusser) wrote:
> > > Even Darwin himself was intellectually tormented at the end.
> >
> > I suppose you knew him as well as you did Freud.
>
> If JJ is sincere about her age (born 1921 - same year as Duane Gish,
> IIRC) then she could have met Freud (d. 1939) but not Darwin (d.
> 1882).
I think she's mentioned reading Origin. So seeing how her only requirement for
knowing someone is reading their book, she might know lots of famous people.
Steve
John Wilkins
That's not my experience. Atheists declare in favour of a position of
knowledge on these matters - they declare it to be true and that they
know it to be true that there is no God, gods or mystical forces, &c.
Agnostics do not make such a declarative statement (on whatever the
topic is that one is agnostic about; one can be an atheist but be
agnostic over, say, cosmic inflation or quantum indeterminacy).
There is a small minority of atheists, at least in my country
(Australia) who feel it is their moral duty, nay, their calling, to
preach atheism. They attack not only the actual errors of religious
folk, but the very error of having any religion at all. They do so in a
militant fashion, as Wade notes, and they often will judge someone to be
stupid, immoral or blatantly ignorant if they say they have religious
beliefs. Agnsotics tend to shrug their shoulders and talk about sport,
or some other common religious belief...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Dick C
>
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3EAAD421...@san.rr.com...
>> Steve B. wrote:
>>
>> Statements are made within questions. For instance, "Why can't fruit
>> fly experiments generate the beginning of new features?" contains an
>> implicit and false assertion that no new features have been generated
>> in fruit fly experiments. "Evolution theory currently doesn't even
>> have anything substantial to contributebto the development of the
>> code-like DNA system," is both a bold and an ignorant assertion.
>
> From what I've read about fruit fly experiments, no new features have
> been generated. This is an informed statement. If I'm wrong, and I've
> been reading about fruit flies in all the wrong places, maybe you
> could correct me instead of simply claiming I'm ignorant. The same
> with DNA.
What was the purpose of the fruit fly experiments? What were the
experimenters trying to do? From what I have read the most talked
about experiments were not trying to demonstrate evolution, or
create new features. Rather the experiments were performed to learn
more about genetics by trying to see what would happen if you did
something to genetics.
>
>> Let me quote your background in evolution:
>>
>> "You have to point the finger partly at the school system. At least
>> small-town school systems like the ones I'm familiar with. What I
>> learned about evolution in school was that the teacher didn't know
>> why were not "still evolving" or why there were no ape-men around
>> today so evolution must be a pretty weak theory.
>
> That's a reference to what I remember learning about evolution from
> science class. It's by far not representative of what I know now.
From what you have written, it seems to be very representative.
>
>> "I suppose most of the problem is misinformed people spreading
>> misinformed ideas. Most all of my misconceptions about evolution and
>> science came from creationist sources and misinformed people."
>
> I suppose this isn't quote mining, enough context is there, it's just
> a blatant misapplication to theme. I said that most of my
> *misconceptions* about evolution came from these sources -- not most
> of my knowledge about evolution.
Steve, not to be insulting, but from what I have seen of your writing
all you have is misconceptions and very little knowledge. And it seems
to me that your questions and statements are not aimed at learning,
rather you are trying to argue against evolution.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Richard Uhrich
> Mark Stahl <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>"Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
>>
>>-snip-
>>
>>
>>>These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
>>>want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
>>>cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
>>>atheists who preach their atheism.
>>>
>>>
>>this is a bizarre statement in light of the fact that most atheists are
>>agnostic as well.
>>
>
> That's not my experience. Atheists declare in favour of a position of
> knowledge on these matters - they declare it to be true and that they
> know it to be true that there is no God, gods or mystical forces, &c.
> Agnostics do not make such a declarative statement (on whatever the
> topic is that one is agnostic about; one can be an atheist but be
> agnostic over, say, cosmic inflation or quantum indeterminacy).
Well, I do not believe there exist any supernatural beings, although I'm
open to evidence to the contrary. I don't keep my opinion a secret, but
I tolerate other opinions, such as my wife's. In fact, I help her out
with her Bible study, and her friends in the group are disappointed if
I'm not home when they meet here. I do, however, speak up if someone
attacks science or separation of church and state. Am I a rarity among
atheists?
>
> There is a small minority of atheists, at least in my country
> (Australia) who feel it is their moral duty, nay, their calling, to
> preach atheism. They attack not only the actual errors of religious
> folk, but the very error of having any religion at all. They do so in a
> militant fashion, as Wade notes, and they often will judge someone to be
> stupid, immoral or blatantly ignorant if they say they have religious
> beliefs. Agnsotics tend to shrug their shoulders and talk about sport,
> or some other common religious belief...
>
--
Richard Uhrich
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3EAAD421...@san.rr.com...
>
>>Steve B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3EAAB8BB...@san.rr.com...
>>>
>
> ....
>
>
>>>>Steve, you might want to qualify that entire last paragraph with an
>>>>honost "in my humble opinion." You are stating your admitted
>>>>not-well-informed opinions as facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Do facts always end with question marks? The only thing I stated is that the
>>>complex of life has not been fully explained and that science has quite a
>>>
> ways
>
>>>to go. Was I wrong?
>>>
>>
>>Statements are made within questions. For instance, "Why can't fruit fly
>>experiments generate the beginning of new features?" contains an
>>implicit and false assertion that no new features have been generated in
>>fruit fly experiments. "Evolution theory currently doesn't even have
>>anything substantial to contributebto the development of the code-like
>>DNA system," is both a bold and an ignorant assertion.
>>
>
> From what I've read about fruit fly experiments, no new features have been
> generated. This is an informed statement. If I'm wrong, and I've been reading
> about fruit flies in all the wrong places, maybe you could correct me instead of
> simply claiming I'm ignorant. The same with DNA.
Whoa, big fella! You made the statement above ("Evolution theory
currently doesn't even have anything substantial to contributebto the
development of the code-like DNA system.") and it is ignorant. You are
making Creationist assertions, probably because of your fundie
background. My last biology classes were in the early '60s, but I
remember fruit fly research was producing inheritable genetic mutation
way before then: eye color, wing shape, body size, sexual behavior. See
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1996/5/96.05.01.x.html
or even better, read Futuyma's "Science on trial" before you claim
evolution theory has nothing substantial on any particular subject in
biology.
>
>>Let me quote your background in evolution:
>>
>>"You have to point the finger partly at the school system. At least
>>small-town school systems like the ones I'm familiar with. What I
>>learned about evolution in school was that the teacher didn't know why
>>were not "still evolving" or why there were no ape-men around today so
>>evolution must be a pretty weak theory.
>>
>
> That's a reference to what I remember learning about evolution from science
> class. It's by far not representative of what I know now.
>
So you know more than biologists? Do you think we are *not* still
evolving? Do you think a teacher who can't explain extinction is
evidence that evolution is a "pretty weak theory"?
>>"I suppose most of the problem is misinformed people spreading
>>misinformed ideas. Most all of my misconceptions about evolution and
>>science came from creationist sources and misinformed people."
>>
>
> I suppose this isn't quote mining, enough context is there, it's just a blatant
> misapplication to theme. I said that most of my *misconceptions* about evolution
> came from these sources -- not most of my knowledge about evolution.
You seem not to know much about evolution.
>
>
>>We are still evolving, and I hope your ] is. Don't let Creationist
>>background hold you from learning. Science has a long way to go, but
>>that is not a valid reason for criticism of what has been learned.
>>
>
> When did I criticize "what has been learned"?
When you make statements that theories shouldn't be taught as facts.
Newton's theory of gravity is "just a theory," huh?
> What I criticized was the attitude
> of headstrong science supporters who tout theories as unquestionable and
> absolute explanations. Especially with evolution.
Uh-huh! So you think text books need disclaimers on evolution!
>
> Steve
Wade Hines
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>> Mark Stahl <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
>>>
>>>-snip-
>>>
>>>
>>>>These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
>>>>want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
>>>>cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
>>>>atheists who preach their atheism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>this is a bizarre statement in light of the fact that most atheists are
>>>agnostic as well.
>> That's not my experience. Atheists declare in favour of a position of
>> knowledge on these matters - they declare it to be true and that they
>> know it to be true that there is no God, gods or mystical forces, &c.
>> Agnostics do not make such a declarative statement (on whatever the
>> topic is that one is agnostic about; one can be an atheist but be
>> agnostic over, say, cosmic inflation or quantum indeterminacy).
> Well, I do not believe there exist any supernatural beings, although I'm
> open to evidence to the contrary. I don't keep my opinion a secret, but
> I tolerate other opinions, such as my wife's. In fact, I help her out
> with her Bible study, and her friends in the group are disappointed if
> I'm not home when they meet here. I do, however, speak up if someone
> attacks science or separation of church and state. Am I a rarity among
> atheists?
No. Not in my experience. Very few atheists go around trying to convert
others to their disbelief in God, gods, magical puddy-tats or whatever.
Few atheists feel compelled to go shout it from the mountain but there
are some and they are more obnoxious than door to door evangilists.
>> There is a small minority of atheists, at least in my country
>> (Australia) who feel it is their moral duty, nay, their calling, to
>> preach atheism. They attack not only the actual errors of religious
>> folk, but the very error of having any religion at all. They do so in a
>> militant fashion, as Wade notes, and they often will judge someone to be
>> stupid, immoral or blatantly ignorant if they say they have religious
>> beliefs. Agnsotics tend to shrug their shoulders and talk about sport,
>> or some other common religious belief...
I believe you also mean that most atheists shrug their shoulders or ask
if the militant bloke has had too many beers, too few beers or perhaps
note that somebody really needs to get laid.
Richard Uhrich
For a possible explanation, read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." I don't know
if DNA can be built by biochemists, but I'm sure you are aware they have
synthesized polio virus. In any case, life was probably originally RNA
based. DNA or RNA, these are simply long chains of easy to describe
bases. Returning to an earlier discussion, do you think the concept of
origination of such molecules is harder to accept than a God or gods who
built them? There's a "glaring problem."
Ian
news:1fu2ngw.ynmvz8gd5xdqN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Mark Stahl <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > > These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
> > > want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
> > > cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> > > atheists who preach their atheism.
> > >
> >
> > this is a bizarre statement in light of the fact that most atheists are
> > agnostic as well.
>
> That's not my experience. Atheists declare in favour of a position of
> knowledge on these matters - they declare it to be true and that they
> know it to be true that there is no God, gods or mystical forces, &c.
Odd, my experience is pretty much the opposite. I've never met anyone in my
adult life who identified himself, or herself as an atheist (myself
included), and would make such authoritatitve, absolute statements. Such
statements are religious and that way of thinking is what's been rejected.
OTOH, my sample size is fairly small, so my experience may not be
representative
> Agnostics do not make such a declarative statement (on whatever the
> topic is that one is agnostic about; one can be an atheist but be
> agnostic over, say, cosmic inflation or quantum indeterminacy).
>
> There is a small minority of atheists, at least in my country
> (Australia) who feel it is their moral duty, nay, their calling, to
> preach atheism. They attack not only the actual errors of religious
> folk, but the very error of having any religion at all. They do so in a
> militant fashion, as Wade notes, and they often will judge someone to be
> stupid, immoral or blatantly ignorant if they say they have religious
> beliefs.
I've never encountered such a creature, though I have no doubt they exist.
They've merely traded one religion for another. They are Atheists, rather
than atheists.
> Agnsotics tend to shrug their shoulders and talk about sport,
> or some other common religious belief...
Hmmm, so they're no fun, but get to keep their friends*. Ok, perhaps that is
better
-Ian
* - unless your like those of us of Canuck descent, who get into more fights
with friends than enemies
John Wilkins
> Steve B. wrote:
>
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EAAD493...@san.rr.com...
> >
> >>Steve B. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:mhqdnUJeYtq...@giganews.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Steve B." <s...@ccp.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:b8blin$7b$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> >>>>
> >
> > ....
> >
> >
> >>>>what "glaring problem of DNA" are you talking about?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Perhaps the problem of explaining it...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>To a biochemist, or to you?
> >>
> >
> > It's common knowledge that the origin of DNA is not explained.
>
>
> For a possible explanation, read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." I don't know
> if DNA can be built by biochemists, but I'm sure you are aware they have
> synthesized polio virus. In any case, life was probably originally RNA
> based. DNA or RNA, these are simply long chains of easy to describe
> bases. Returning to an earlier discussion, do you think the concept of
> origination of such molecules is harder to accept than a God or gods who
> built them? There's a "glaring problem."
DNA is trivially easy to synthesise. There are machines now that do it -
you type in the sequence you want and they pump it out...
>
>
> >
> > Steve
Mark Stahl
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1fu2ngw.ynmvz8gd5xdqN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
>
> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9368491B7882...@199.184.165.241...
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > > These are only superficially obvious interpretations. If you
> > > want more, read Dawkins books. I disagree with the quote you
> > > cite but I'm militantly agnostic who has a problem with
> > > atheists who preach their atheism.
> > >
> >
> > this is a bizarre statement in light of the fact that most atheists are
> > agnostic as well.
>
> That's not my experience.
maybe you could check in at alt.atheism and get a wider response.
> Atheists declare in favour of a position of
> knowledge on these matters - they declare it to be true and that they
> know it to be true that there is no God,
many atheists, including the agnostic ones, will declare it to be true that
self-contradictory gods (like the omniscient, omnibenevolent judeo-christian
model) cannot exist. that's not the same as saying they know that no gods
exist with complete certainty. of course, the subleties of such positions
often get lost in a debate.
> gods or mystical forces, &c.
> Agnostics do not make such a declarative statement (on whatever the
> topic is that one is agnostic about; one can be an atheist but be
> agnostic over, say, cosmic inflation or quantum indeterminacy).
>
well, that is true to some extent, but it's pretty rare that one truly has
no opinion whatsoever on the matter once one has been exposed to an idea.
once faced with the question of whether there are gods, most people decide
what they think about it one way or the other (while acknowledging that
their knowledge isn't- and will most likely never be- perfect). this is why
many atheists say that "agnosticism" is an incomplete position with regard
to gods- they'll ask, "an agnostic what?" (ie, agnostic atheist or agnostic
theist).
> There is a small minority of atheists, at least in my country
> (Australia) who feel it is their moral duty, nay, their calling, to
> preach atheism. They attack not only the actual errors of religious
> folk, but the very error of having any religion at all. They do so in a
> militant fashion, as Wade notes, and they often will judge someone to be
> stupid, immoral or blatantly ignorant if they say they have religious
> beliefs. Agnsotics tend to shrug their shoulders and talk about sport,
> or some other common religious belief...
sounds like they're quite anti-religion. while i sympathize with that
position, i'm sure it mostly comes off as rude...
Mark Stahl
wouldn't that tend to be more of a shortcoming in the understanding and
interpretation of those people, who have failed to absorb the appropriate
framework from basic education?
Mark Stahl
besides the interest in the subject matter, why would you need that
explained to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist"?
Richard Uhrich
> Richard Uhrich <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve B. wrote:
>>
.......
>>>>
>>>It's common knowledge that the origin of DNA is not explained.
>>>
>>
>>For a possible explanation, read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." I don't know
>>if DNA can be built by biochemists, but I'm sure you are aware they have
>>synthesized polio virus. In any case, life was probably originally RNA
>>based. DNA or RNA, these are simply long chains of easy to describe
>>bases. Returning to an earlier discussion, do you think the concept of
>>origination of such molecules is harder to accept than a God or gods who
>>built them? There's a "glaring problem."
>>
>
> DNA is trivially easy to synthesise. There are machines now that do it -
> you type in the sequence you want and they pump it out...
>
Thanks. I suspected this, but could not find a reference to reassure myself.
Floyd
[snip]
> > Who do you think is at fault? How can people be better informed about
> > science, especially Creationists?
>
> You have to point the finger partly at the school system. At least small-town
> school systems like the ones I'm familiar with. What I learned about evolution
> in school was that the teacher didn't know why were not "still evolving" or why
> there were no ape-men around today so evolution must be a pretty weak theory.
That strikes me as misplaced blame, to be honest. If I had a math
teacher that didn't know 2+2=4, I wouldn't assume that _math_ was
weak, but that the teacher was incompetent. Your experience hints at
a much deeper societal problem, IMO. Public school teachers are paid
wages that, in most other professions, would be considered insulting,
and yet we are supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to teach at
all. The guys who pick up our garbage earn more than the people we
entrust with shaping our children's minds. What's more, the children
know it. Is it any wonder that we've raised millions of kids who
don't value education?
A PhD will, if you're lucky, get you a job basically babysitting 30 or
more adolescents for about the same money as a McDonalds manager
earns. As a result, most of the really bright researchers get jobs in
industry, and the public schools are left with the dregs who can't get
better positions. As a result, our schools are staffed with people
who think "humans are not still evolving" or that evolution predicts
that there should be "ape men" walking the streets. As a result, our
kids get crap for education, and as a result, they realise that it's
not worth what it costs. As a result, when they get to be adults,
they don't approve increases in teacher salaries, and the cycle is
perpetuated for another generation.
>
> I suppose most of the problem is misinformed people spreading misinformed ideas.
> Most all of my misconceptions about evolution and science came from creationist
> sources and misinformed people. I imagine televised education programs could
> help to alleviate this.
I would tend to agree, but there are a few problems there too. (1)
Most programs, even on PBS, have 60 minutes to get across information
that takes researchers years to truly understand. (2) Viewership of
PBS is minimal, most folks watch commercial stations, where for a 60
minute slot, there is at most 40-45 minutes of actual airtime for the
show. (3) Advertisers are hesitant to promote any program that might
offend or confuse an inbred trailer-bound 12 year old, since their
goal is not to inform but to sell dishwashing soap, and smart folks
aren't as likely to be convinced by ads as stupid folks. If the
program is "too challenging" (i.e. remotely interesting to those of us
who aren't total mouth-breathers) most folks change the channel.
After all, "the game is on." (4) In order to make the information
"entertaining," the producers need to bypass a lot of the technical
stuff that makes the information comprehensable. Think of the recent
popularity of forensics shows. Would the shows be so popular if they
actually spent the time explaining gel electrophoresis or discussing
the mathematics behind Principle Components Analysis in mtDNA
identification, rather than catching the bad guy? (Think of the
amount of time in your average crime show that is spent watching two
guys driving in a car, rather than actually explaining lab procedures;
there's a reason for that. The viewer can identify with driving in a
car, and it gives him/her a sense that some sort of action is taking
place. Watching blue dye spread across a test sheet doesn't.)
> I would always hear things on nature programs like,
> "such and such evolved this or that", and I would just get infuriated at how
> they could just say it as if it was fact. They would not even say "scientists
> believe" or "according to evolution theory", it was always This is The Way It
> Happened
Yeah, as mentioned, there's (1) the time constraint, and (2) the
"boredom factor." Remember, one channel over, Arnold is blowing up
stuff. Competing with that is not easy, and the more time they spend
discussing the subtle intricacies of science, the more viewers switch,
and the less washing powder they sell. Perhaps I'm being too cynical,
but that's how it looks from over here.
> and Damn Your God to Hell. Well, maybe not so direct on that last part.
Well, even as an atheist, I would protest any "science" show that said
such a thing. Scientists have no business discussing theology on TV,
since the viewers are almost certain to assume that they are speaking
_as scientists_ and on behalf of the scientific community. Dawkins'
off-the-cuff remarks about religion tick me off as much as Jerry
Fallwell's comments about science. Both are well outside their sphere
of professional expertise, so their comments are simply irrelevant, at
best. However, they do cause damage. Dawkins' comments make some
theists believe that evolution is antithetical to faith, and
Fallwell's (and others) comments about evolution make some
non-Christians think that Christianity is a bunch of ignorant
superstition. Both are charicatures, but the practicioners who
perpetuate these stereotypes (or by inaction allow them to be
perpetuated) do more damage than good.
>
> Eventually I couldn't take it any more and starting looking up information on
> the Internet.
Aha! That's a mark of great intelligence! In your research, you
probably learned things about evolution that many of its supporters
don't know. Good for you.
> You have to remember that anti-evolution Christians just don't
> read about evolution. You "know" it's all lies so you don't touch it. Bringing
> home a book about evolution is almost like bringing home a book about Satanism.
> If education channels just started saying it like it is - and directly
> addressing evolution - it could get a lot of people informed about science.
>
> Steve
We can hope, although as I said, it's difficult at best. When we say
things like "scientists believe..." the creationists jump on the word
"believe" and claim that evolution is a religion. When we use the
term "theory" creationists misinterpret this to mean "wild guess."
When we admit that all knowledge is provisional and open to revision
in light of further evidence, they complain that we "can't get our
story straight" or some such. It's frustrating, but there it is. If
we could find a way to produce a program that actually explained, in
detail, precisely what was going on, but was still entertaining enough
to keep people's interest, I'd be really excited; but of course since
knowledge *is* provisional, the show would be out-dated in a few years
anyway! ;-) Cheers, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to
vent.
-Floyd
TomS
<54522494.03042...@posting.google.com>, far...@u.washington.edu
stated..."
[...snip...]
>I would tend to agree, but there are a few problems there too. (1)
>Most programs, even on PBS, have 60 minutes to get across information
>that takes researchers years to truly understand. (2) Viewership of
>PBS is minimal, most folks watch commercial stations, where for a 60
>minute slot, there is at most 40-45 minutes of actual airtime for the
>show. (3) Advertisers are hesitant to promote any program that might
>offend or confuse an inbred trailer-bound 12 year old, since their
>goal is not to inform but to sell dishwashing soap, and smart folks
>aren't as likely to be convinced by ads as stupid folks. If the
>program is "too challenging" (i.e. remotely interesting to those of us
>who aren't total mouth-breathers) most folks change the channel.
>After all, "the game is on." (4) In order to make the information
>"entertaining," the producers need to bypass a lot of the technical
>stuff that makes the information comprehensable. Think of the recent
>popularity of forensics shows. Would the shows be so popular if they
>actually spent the time explaining gel electrophoresis or discussing
>the mathematics behind Principle Components Analysis in mtDNA
>identification, rather than catching the bad guy? (Think of the
>amount of time in your average crime show that is spent watching two
>guys driving in a car, rather than actually explaining lab procedures;
>there's a reason for that. The viewer can identify with driving in a
>car, and it gives him/her a sense that some sort of action is taking
>place. Watching blue dye spread across a test sheet doesn't.)
This raises one of my pet peeves.
What is the last time you saw any equation in a popular presentation
of science? Forget commercial TV. Forget even public TV in the USA.
Try the print media, where we can assume a certain attention span, and
a certain prior interest in the subject. Think the most sophisticated
general audience medium you can think of. Maybe the New York Review of
Books or the Times Literary Supplement? What's the chance of seeing
any equation, something on the level of middle school algebra? Zero.
(I can recall one time, when channel surfing, I saw some equations
on a TV program. I was amazed at the level of sophistication that this
showed. It took me a while to realize that this was a program directed
toward people getting the GED. That is, it was for adults who haven't
graduated from high school, but are planning on getting a certificate
for the equivalent. The equivalent of a high school education is far
beyond the best that TV has to offer.)
(The other exception that I can think of is in the financial press.
On occasion. The Economist doesn't give apologies for giving equations
in its discussion of economics. It has, from time to time, a "Schools
Brief".)
Consider how much science you can understand without ever seeing
an equation. That's how much science, at the best, you can get from
any popular science presentation. In brief, next to nothing.
Tom S.