Why Can't God Be An Evolutionist?
Todd S. Greene
It is said that evolution implies atheism. If evolution is a fact, then
God does not exist. As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT
imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God
could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the
extensive evidence for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of
course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against
consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of
theism. Indeed, we see the former practiced intentionally by
creationists. Christians who are already prejudiced against evolution
heartily concur with the opinion that evolution implies atheism while
attempting to persuade other Christians to reject evolution for the
reason that their acceptance of evolution would logically require them
to reject God.
But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
If a Christian accepts the contention that evolution implies atheism,
then she or he will probably never be willing to give fair consideration
to the idea of evolution. Those who truly believe that evolution is a
"tool of Satan" to deceive true believers into unbelief will never
ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the
world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be
intellectually honest.
But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are
not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship
between God and our universe. Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated
theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical
antagonism between religion and science. Indeed, the antipathy that
exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of
scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology.
And, because of prejudices like this, there is a prevalent view among
conservative Christians that science is an enemy of religion. However, a
view's prevalence is not what determines its validity.
Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms
do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
exist."
Let's look at this presentation in another context: "The orbit of the
earth around the sun is due to natural processes. Thus, the earth's
orbit does not involve supernatural activity and does not require
supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist."
You may have received a forceful impression from the latter presentation
that the earth's orbit being a result of gravitational mechanisms has
nothing to do with whether or not God exits and that the whole
syllogism is a non sequiter. This impression is absolutely correct!
Moreover, it demonstrates that the former presentation is also a non
sequiter, for the two are logically equivalent.
The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural
process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes
evidence that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it does not even address the
question.
Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7
multiplied by 3 is 21 because God exists? Do we say that the
trigonometric tangent of a 45 degree angle is 1 if and only if God does
not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the
existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God?
These questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or
"atheistic," how about "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas
that make no reference to whether or not God exists. You can never say
of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists or
if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of
consideration of God's existence. Evolution, like the theory of
relativity, Goldbach's theorem, and the size of Proxima Centauri, is not
atheistic -- it is nontheistic.
Evolution does not imply atheism -- accepting the idea of evolution does
not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however,
nontheistic -- it is a description of events and processes that is
without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for
example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be,
performed without reference to supernatural activity.
So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important
to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming
that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in
God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his
statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she
or he provides for it will invariably contain flaws like those indicated
above.
___________________________________________
Todd S. Greene
<tgreeneSPAMOUT.usxchange.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.
-- Proverbs 18.15
Teresita
says...
> But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's
> existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
> assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
> as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural selection of
the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose to eat
the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental knowledge) in
the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from
it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
Either 1 or 2 is true.
Teresita
† ><((((º>
John Ings
Greene) wrote:
>It is said that evolution implies atheism. If evolution is a fact, then
>God does not exist. As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT
>imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
What it DOES imply though is that man is an animal randomly arrived
at. That if man had not evolved some other intelligent beastie might
have and God wouldn't care.
Your average fundamentalist treasures the conceit that mankind is
God's deliberate creation, in his own image too by gosh! He can't
stand the suggestion we arrived by chance.
## Man cannot make even a virus, but invents gods by the dozen
J. Thomas Ford
Teresita wrote:
>
> In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>, tgreene...@usxchange.net
> says...
>
> > But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's
> > existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
> > assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
> > as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
>
> 1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural selection of
> the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
Not really. One doesn't have to die to not reproduce.
> 2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose to eat
> the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental knowledge) in
> the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from
> it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
3. The 'death' referred to in Genesis is spiritual death, as many
Christians believe.
> Either 1 or 2 is true.
Or any of the other ten thousand (or ten billion) religions on this
planet.
Any particular reason you ignored theists that don't believe in a
literal reading of the Judeo-Xtian bible?
> Teresita
>
> † ><((((º>
Gregory Gyetko
> In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>, tgreene...@usxchange.net
> says...
>
> > But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's
> > existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
> > assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
> > as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
>
> 1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural selection of
> the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
No. Biology teaches that death is natural for all forms of life. Evolution builds
on the fact that there are more children born (of any species) than can possibly
survive. Therefore, a degree of selection must take place.
Evolution is about *all* lifeforms, not just "man". You arrogance is noted.
> 2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose to eat
> the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental knowledge) in
> the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from
> it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
Nice rewording on ya. What bible did you get that from?
The proper translation is "On the day that thou eat thereof, thou shalt surely
die". Which, of course, neither Adam nor Eve did. i.e. the character known as
"God" *lied*.
Ah well, retranslating for Jesus, eh?
Greg
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why bother?."
EAC Homepage: http://www.cactuscom.com/nuthouse/
Theophage
tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
[snip an excellent point, though a bit on the wordy side...]
> Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7
> multiplied by 3 is 21 because God exists?
Ummmm....actually, yes. There is a theistic argument known as the
Transcendental Argument for the Existance of God (TAG for short) that
argues that very thing. It's nonsense of course, but you asked...
--
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Director, EAC Snack Foods Division a.a #1203
[theophage at geocities dot com]
http://members.theglobe.com/theophage
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
<snip>
> These questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or
> "atheistic," how about "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas
> that make no reference to whether or not God exists. You can never say
> of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists
or
> if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent
of
> consideration of God's existence. Evolution, like the theory of
> relativity, Goldbach's theorem, and the size of Proxima Centauri, is
^^^^^^^^
Gee, has someone recently proven Goldbach's conjecture ? :-)
HRG.
Nitpicker Irrepressible
(Needless to say, I fully agree with the remaining 99.9%! of the post)
Chris C.
> > existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
> > assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
> > as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
Couldn't agree more.
> 1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural
selection of
> the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
HUh?
>
> 2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose
to eat
> the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental
knowledge) in
> the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat
from
> it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
The Bible says a lot of things. One thing it doesn't say is the fruit of the
tree of good and evil (I thought it was the tree of life or something but
ok) represents experimental knowledge whatever that is.
> Either 1 or 2 is true.
I'd have to choose c for none of the above.
> Teresita
>
> ? ><((((º>
This attitude really bothers me because all of my family except me are
Christians. They also are evolutionists in that they believe the theory.
They have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior but they don't take
the bible as the literal truth. They believe its a weak attempt by man to
describe the truth of god.
WorkerWorking
>
> --
> alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
> "I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
> so why bother?."
> EAC Homepage: http://www.cactuscom.com/nuthouse/
Can any of you people tell me what hell is? A better question
what is heaven????
James Veverka
said believing in evolution should not change anyones faith. That
evolution was god's way. The Fundies, who live in a culvert a light
year long in a 6000 year history, think the Catholic Church is the Whore
of Babylon in the apocalyse..So they wont listen.....................jim
Mark Isaak
>In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>, tgreene...@usxchange.net
>
>> But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's
>> existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
>> assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
>> as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
>
>selection of the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
Wrong. Evolution *observes* that death is natural. If you haven't
noticed that fact yourself, you're in denial.
>2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose
>to eat the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental
>knowledge) in the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the
>moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
That's not what my Bible says. Mine says that man ate from the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil (there was no Tree of Good and Evil), and was
expelled before they could eat also from the Tree of Life, because if they
ate from that tree too, they would become like gods themselves.
Presumably they started out mortal, or eating from the Tree of Life
wouldn't have meant anything.
But then, all this is irrelevant to the original question. The Bible has
no more to do with God than any of a million other books.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Mark Isaak
>Gregory Gyetko wrote:>>
> Can any of you people tell me what hell is? A better question
> what is heaven????
"Heaven is that old-fashioned house
We live in every day
Without assuming our abode
Until we move away."
- Emily Dickenson
Teresita
head...@webtv.net says...
>
> The Fundies, who live in a culvert a light year long in a 6000
> year history, think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon
> in the apocalyse..So they wont listen...
Whore of Babylon or not, at least my Church is *mentioned* in the apocalypse.
As far as scripture goes, God never heard of Five Corners Baptist Church of
Booger Holler, Arkansas.
Teresita
† ><((((º>
Teresita
says...
>
>In article <3759BA...@work.zzz>, WorkerWorking
<slee...@work.zzz> wrote:
>>Gregory Gyetko wrote:>>
>> Can any of you people tell me what hell is? A better question
>> what is heaven????
>
>"Heaven is that old-fashioned house
>We live in every day
>Without assuming our abode
>Until we move away."
> - Emily Dickenson
Heaven
Everyone is trying to get to the bar.
The name of the bar, the bar is called Heaven.
The band in Heaven plays my favorite song.
They play it once again, they play it all night long.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting, and so much fun.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly
the same.
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting, could be so much fun.
Heaven is a place where nothing every happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing every happens.
(Talking Heads, from "Fear of Music")
Teresita
† ><((((º>
Charlie the Tuna
Which comment of course begs the question of biblical accuracy.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point
than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The
happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- Preface to Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Bob White
>In article <6493-375...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>head...@webtv.net says...
>> The Fundies, who live in a culvert a light year long in a 6000
>> year history, think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon
>> in the apocalyse..So they wont listen...
>Whore of Babylon or not, at least my Church is *mentioned* in the apocalypse.
>As far as scripture goes, God never heard of Five Corners Baptist Church of
>Booger Holler, Arkansas.
Are they those snake handlers? I thought they were the real true
Christians, since they aren't afraid of a little snake bite.
--
Bob White
It would be, If I were. But I am not. But I bet you are.
Words of wisdom from Eddie Baby Croteau -- 1999/06/01
Death
Todd S. Greene <tgreene...@usxchange.net> wrote in message
news:375921fc....@news.usxchange.net...
>
> It is said that evolution implies atheism. If evolution is a fact, then
> God does not exist. As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT
> imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
It is said that evolution by implication doesn't require god myths
and is hence atheistic. Evolution is a scientific fact, as such science
cannot referance the non-existant which implies God myths are
not scientific facts. You can tack god/s onto evolution, but expect to
get laughed at, when no benefits arise (unscientific). In this sense
evolution doesn't imply a godless universe, it just makes them
redundant (so far). Remember God is not even a supernatural fact.
Pixies may eventually play a part in the physics of the universe,
it has yet to be proven though.
>
> If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God
> could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the
> extensive evidence for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of
> course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against
> consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of
> theism. Indeed, we see the former practiced intentionally by
> creationists. Christians who are already prejudiced against evolution
> heartily concur with the opinion that evolution implies atheism while
> attempting to persuade other Christians to reject evolution for the
> reason that their acceptance of evolution would logically require them
> to reject God.
No, Christians can rational believe in evolution and irrational
accept God as usual. Who says Christians have to be rational.
Christians can prejudice themselves however they please.
>
> But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is atheistic in nature.
(Gods taken out).
>
> If a Christian accepts the contention that evolution implies atheism,
> then she or he will probably never be willing to give fair consideration
> to the idea of evolution.
Like I care.
> Those who truly believe that evolution is a
> "tool of Satan" to deceive true believers into unbelief will never
> ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the
> world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be
> intellectually honest.
Which is already the case by irrationally believing in the supernatural.
>
> But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are
> not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
> conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship
> between God and our universe.
Only if you yourself have a irrational bent.
> Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated
> theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical
> antagonism between religion and science.
What the bent that sky-pixies must exist, whether or not an rational
basis can be found for them.
> Indeed, the antipathy that
> exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of
> scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology.
Darn right it does, and will continue to do so until rationality is
finally allow to inquire into all theologies whether primative or not.
> And, because of prejudices like this, there is a prevalent view among
> conservative Christians that science is an enemy of religion. However, a
> view's prevalence is not what determines its validity.
Nor, determines its invalidity.
>
> Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
> then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
> due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
> by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms
> do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
> exist."
Rubbish, science has yet to find a use for God myths and so
finds God myths irrelevant. When science has some objective
evidance of God then evolution and all sciences can have
a theistic nature.
>
> Let's look at this presentation in another context: "The orbit of the
> earth around the sun is due to natural processes. Thus, the earth's
> orbit does not involve supernatural activity and does not require
> supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist."
No, hence God myths are not required. God myths can only exist
if we have objective evidance for them. The burden of proof
is on the God claimants, science certainly does not make any
claims for God myths.
>
> You may have received a forceful impression from the latter presentation
> that the earth's orbit being a result of gravitational mechanisms has
> nothing to do with whether or not God exits and that the whole
> syllogism is a non sequiter. This impression is absolutely correct!
Yes, and as such logical cannot be used to make any conclusions
(whatever).
> Moreover, it demonstrates that the former presentation is also a non
> sequiter, for the two are logically equivalent.
No, The extended analogy fallacy.
>
> The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural
> process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes
> evidence that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it does not even address the
> question.
Equivocation fallacy, something that exists as a scientific fact is
not the same as something that exists as a proposed supernatural
fact.
>
> Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7
> multiplied by 3 is 21 because God exists? Do we say that the
> trigonometric tangent of a 45 degree angle is 1 if and only if God does
> not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the
> existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God?
>
> These questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or
> "atheistic," how about "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas
> that make no reference to whether or not God exists. You can never say
> of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists or
> if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of
> consideration of God's existence. Evolution, like the theory of
> relativity, Goldbach's theorem, and the size of Proxima Centauri, is not
> atheistic -- it is nontheistic.
Atheism is the lack of any god/s myths as such it is nontheistic.
>
> Evolution does not imply atheism -- accepting the idea of evolution does
> not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however,
> nontheistic -- it is a description of events and processes that is
> without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for
> example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be,
> performed without reference to supernatural activity.
So it all boils down to that evolution is a scientific fact and
it is irrational for Christians to believe in evolution and God,
so you must redefine atheism to not mean the lack of God myths
instead of dealing with the irrationality of God myths. Yes,
very rational NOT.
>
> So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important
> to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming
> that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in
> God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his
> statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she
> or he provides for it will invariably contain flaws like those indicated
> above.
Shifting the burden, an evolutionist doesn't need to prove your
non-existant sky fairy is irrelevant to evolution. You have to show
that it is relevant, for evolution has no referance to whatever pixy, nypth
or invisible pink unicorns that you faith believes. Science ontology is
an atheism. The burden of proof that Science can referance God
is on the theist not on the scientist to regard. You can believe
whatever sky idiot you like, I don't have to accept or reject
it.
Sprinkling God over science has be proven to be posionous
for science.The burden of proof of on you to prove
God can be an evolutionist, if of course you can prove
it exists at all. ;-)
maff91
>In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>, tgreene...@usxchange.net
>says...
>
>> But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's
>> existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
>> assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
>> as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
>
>1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural selection of
>the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
Death evolved much earlier.
http://www.newscientist.com/sciencebooks/reviews/sex.html
>
>2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose to eat
>the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental knowledge) in
>the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from
>it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
>
>Either 1 or 2 is true.
>
>Teresita
>
>† ><((((º>
jeff wiel
: In article <3759BA...@work.zzz>, WorkerWorking <slee...@work.zzz> wrote:
: >Gregory Gyetko wrote:>>
: > Can any of you people tell me what hell is? A better question
: > what is heaven????
Hell is a small town in Norway <www.gonorway.no/hell/>
Heaven is in London <www.heaven-london.com/>
Hope this helps
Joshua Lusion I
[...]
>Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
>then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
>due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
>by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms
>do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
>exist."
[...]
I agree with this assessment, but I don't think that this phrasing
represents the key reasons why many Christians don't believe
in evolution.
To me, it seems that God used to work as a complexity generator.
Before the theory of evolution, there seemed to be basically two
serious choices to explain complexity. One of these possibilities
was nasty chance, and the other was intelligent design. Now many
people who believe in a god do _not_ believe in one just to explain
the universe, so we can imagine that during the pre-evolutionary
times, theists used this as an intellectual edge. This agreed with
whatever reasons they had for wanting to believe in a god on the
emotional level, so naturally it seemed to them that things were
rigged--or set up--to give them this advantage. God was given the
job of cleaning up our understanding of the universe by removing
mindless probability--which he did very well by leaving the illusion
that the probability that would be necessary would be so astronomical
as to be intuitively insane. God was employed as the Probability
Janitor.
Once evolution came along, there was a secular explanation (or as
you describe, non-theistic) for complexity. Suddenly, everything
that derrived from the intelligent design argument was weakened.
If we're a result of mindless probability, that makes us pretty
pointless (of course it doesn't--humans are the same humans whether
they were created by a vast universal plan or whether they are
bi-products of a mechanistic process, but if you have leaned
heavily on intelligent design in order to justify human values,
and someone tries to remove intelligent design, you may erroneously
think that they're after removing the value as well). Now removing
the special place of humans in the universe is bad enough, but
evolution also predicts family relationships between us and animals.
This runs smack dab in the middle of a second crutch on which people
try to justify human values--that being our uniqueness among the
animals.
It seems these same people who have based our value on our role
in the universal play of God have also demeaned animals to "mere
animals". The logic goes something like this: the more animals
are demeaned, the more unique we humans are--the more unique we
humans are, the more value we have. As an example, a vast
number in our culture would define "instinct" as "automatic--
like an animal", where volition (making choices) is instead
"self-determined--like in humans". Suddenly evolution comes along
and establishes that our blood lines are shared with the animals.
Instead of viewing this as a mere removal of our unique status,
this is most likely viewed by anti-evolutionists as "making
humans nothing but a bunch of animals".
As for the equivalence between atheism and evolution, you were
right--they are not equivalent. However, evolution does provide
a good intellectual foundation for the existence of certain types
of complexity (mainly, the types we find in living things). Since
many people tend to want an explanation for everything, this fills
the void that "magic being with Make-It-So Power" once filled.
So yes, evolution doesn't imply atheism, but it does leaves God
the Probability Janitor unemployed.
--
><>>><>>><><>><><><>> | Joshua Lusion I
><><><>><>>>>><><><>> | Welcome to the world of free thought!
><>>><>>><><>>><><>>> | http://www.tiac.net/users/lusion/
Joshua Lusion I
>> existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
>> assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
>> as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
>
selection of
>the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
Evolution is not a person. Evolution is also not so specific
a doctrine as to "teach us that man dies because of X";
nevertheless, according to evolutionary thinking, your
explanation of why we die is completely incorrect.
First off, "natural unselection of the unfit", if it means
anything at all, is entirely equivalent to "natural selection",
as natural selection is a negative force that _works_ by
"unselecting" the "unfit". Second, you seem to demonstrate
that you have no clue what evolution means--you're ranting
more against "social Darwinism" than "evolution". "Fit"
in terms of natural selection doesn't mean bigger muscles,
longer life span, bigger brain, smarter, faster, eats less,
etc. "Fit" in natural selection means one and only one
thing--that the individual "selected" passed on its traits
to another generation.
That having been said, contemplate how natural selection
actually works in a sexual population. Those individuals
that do not have offspring just plane don't pass on their
traits. Those that do have offspring pass on their traits.
Once an individual has offspring, that individuals traits,
whatever they are (bad or good), _have_ been passed to the
next generation. Continuing along this line of thinking,
you see that not too long after the average reproduction
age of a species, natural selection works less and less
to select "survivability"--because there were offspring.
Summarizing this, here is what you get: According to the
best current theories of evolution, we die because the
major selecting force for survivability begins to not work
as well, and continues to not work at all, depending
roughly on the mathematically expected number of offspring
for the individual at a given age. Since most mutations
are destructive, but since they won't make it into a population
at all if the individual having the mutation never has a kid,
you can see that destructive aging is in fact predicted by
evolution.
Now, let's look at your part 2:
>2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose
to eat
>the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental
knowledge) in
>the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat
from
>it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
The bible says that we die because some guy long ago ate of a magical
fruit that gives him knowledge of good and evil, and God caused him
to die as a result. Hmmm... I think 1 sounds a lot better--this one
sounds like a myth.
>Either 1 or 2 is true.
Not true--this is a false dichotomy. It could be the case that we
die because God did not want to create immortals, for fear of losing
his power. Or it could be that everything dies because death is
inevitable for everything--everything works in cycles. Use your
imagination--or at least give evidential support for your claim
that "either 1 or 2 is true".
Matt Silberstein
<G1...@webtv.net>:
>In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>, tgreene...@usxchange.net
>says...
>
>> But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's
>> existence are not disjunctive), and those who make such an
>> assertion reveal a crude conception of the nature of existence
>> as it pertains to the relationship between God and our universe.
>
>1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural selection of
>the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
>
Evolution does not teach that any more that any other branch of
biology teaches it. Evolutionary biology simply accepts our
observations that death exists.
>2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose to eat
>the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental knowledge) in
>the Garden of Eden. "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from
>it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
>
>Either 1 or 2 is true.
>
What translation is that? It differs from what I remember.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, Our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
T.J.
Louann Miller
jeff wiel wrote in message ...
>Hell is a small town in Norway <www.gonorway.no/hell/>
There's a little silly-season sidebar story on the wire services most
winters, the first time that Hell freezes over.
Louann, who's heard that one.
Bill McHale
: It is said that evolution by implication doesn't require god myths
: and is hence atheistic. Evolution is a scientific fact, as such science
: cannot referance the non-existant which implies God myths are
: not scientific facts. You can tack god/s onto evolution, but expect to
: get laughed at, when no benefits arise (unscientific). In this sense
: evolution doesn't imply a godless universe, it just makes them
: redundant (so far). Remember God is not even a supernatural fact.
: Pixies may eventually play a part in the physics of the universe,
: it has yet to be proven though.
I would not say that no benefits result from tacking God into evolution,
rather I would say that no scientific benefits result from such an
addition. In other words it does not make any difference to the
evolutionary theory whether God exists or not and therefore has no basis
in the scientific construction of the theory.
On the other hand, Science and Theology are not fields of knowledge that
are completely divorced from the broader fields of knowledge. Both can
play important roles in the development of philosophy. In the realm of
philosophy adding some sort of god to the theory of evolution might serve
some purpose. Certainly the notion of a first cause... or an immovable
causer has been an important one at least since the Platonic and
Aristotilian schools were formed almost 2500 years ago.
Mind you this does not require a god that much resembles the God of the
Bible or Christianity. Nor will all philosophers agree that a first cause
is useful or necessary. On the other hand the possibility of such a union
of First Cause with Evolution in Philosophy does serve to allow sime
christians at least to accept evolution in the scientific realm.
: No, Christians can rational believe in evolution and irrational
: accept God as usual. Who says Christians have to be rational.
: Christians can prejudice themselves however they please.
On the other hand they can accept both rationally as well. I believe if
you were to have a discussion with the late Father Chardin de Teilhard
S.J. regarding evolution and God you would not be able to say that is
beliefs were irrational. He spent much of his career in Paleontology,
Philosophy and Theology trying to reconcile God and evolution.
: >
: > But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
: Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is atheistic in nature.
: (Gods taken out).
Perhaps a better term would be non-theistic. Using the concentional
definition of atheism an atheistic theory would reject that God had any
possible role. In Science I would argue that God's role (if any) is not
testable by science and therefore cannot be examined by science.
: > But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are
: > not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
: > conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship
: > between God and our universe.
: Only if you yourself have a irrational bent.
To argue that evolution implies atheism is to appropriate for science that
which it never was designed to do; to examine the supernatural world. God
by definition, if he exists, is not bound by this universe and trying to
get science to quantify him would be akin to getting science to answer the
question of "What happened before the big bang.
: > Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated
: > theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical
: > antagonism between religion and science.
: What the bent that sky-pixies must exist, whether or not an rational
: basis can be found for them.
Completely different. From a philosophical perspective, there is still
room for a first cause (Though it is granted that many dispute that there
is a need for one). Pixies as far as I know play no such similar roles.
: > Indeed, the antipathy that
: > exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of
: > scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology.
: Darn right it does, and will continue to do so until rationality is
: finally allow to inquire into all theologies whether primative or not.
You seem to think that theology is be definition non-rational. While I
will agree that theology does require assumptions that often are not in
their basis rational, many theologies then proceed to extrapolate
rationally from these basis.
: >
: > Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
: > then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
: > due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
: > by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms
: > do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
: > exist."
: Rubbish, science has yet to find a use for God myths and so
: finds God myths irrelevant. When science has some objective
: evidance of God then evolution and all sciences can have
: a theistic nature.
I doubt that there will ever be a role for God in Science. Science is
interested in the Natural causes of events, not their super natural
causes. If God exists, he might work in the realms that may be forever
denied science like the moment of creation or on scales so small that even
quantum mechanics cannot predict them.
: No, hence God myths are not required. God myths can only exist
: if we have objective evidance for them. The burden of proof
: is on the God claimants, science certainly does not make any
: claims for God myths.
Only if we want God to be accepted as a scientific principle. I for one
see no need to bring God into science and I think his roll and existence
is much better established by philosophers and Theologians than
Scientists.
: Atheism is the lack of any god/s myths as such it is nontheistic.
Actually in modern usage Atheism is much stronger than nontheistic, it is
more properly anti-theistic.
: So it all boils down to that evolution is a scientific fact and
: it is irrational for Christians to believe in evolution and God,
: so you must redefine atheism to not mean the lack of God myths
: instead of dealing with the irrationality of God myths. Yes,
: very rational NOT.
Not at all. Yes Evolution is scientific fact but more importantly it is
scientific fact that does not say anything about the supernatural world
(If any exists). It can certainly be used to attack specific myths
regarding creation, but not necessarily the need for a prime mover. Again
though this stretches beyond what science can currently examine and is
more properly dealt with by theologians and philosophers.
: Shifting the burden, an evolutionist doesn't need to prove your
: non-existant sky fairy is irrelevant to evolution. You have to show
: that it is relevant, for evolution has no referance to whatever pixy, nypth
: or invisible pink unicorns that you faith believes. Science ontology is
: an atheism. The burden of proof that Science can referance God
: is on the theist not on the scientist to regard. You can believe
: whatever sky idiot you like, I don't have to accept or reject
: it.
Nor can science reject God because it is incapable of dealing with God.
: Sprinkling God over science has be proven to be posionous
: for science.The burden of proof of on you to prove
: God can be an evolutionist, if of course you can prove
: it exists at all. ;-)
Actually I doubt that sprinkling religion over science has been poisonous
to science, rather it is the mixing of pseoudo-science and religion that
has caused the problems. There have been a number of serious scientists
who have also been theists (Gregor Mendel and the priest who came up with
the Big Bang Theory are notable examples).
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What's Heaven? (was: Why Can't God Be An Evolutionist?)
Followup-To: talk.origins,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism
Date: 6 Jun 1999 17:12:20 -0400
Mark Isaak (at...@best.comNOSPAM) wrote:
: In article <3759BA...@work.zzz>, WorkerWorking <slee...@work.zzz> wrote:
: >Gregory Gyetko wrote:>>
: > Can any of you people tell me what hell is? A better question
: > what is heaven????
[snip]
Jeff Wiel noted:
:Hell is a small town in Norway <www.gonorway.no/hell/>
:Heaven is in London <www.heaven-london.com/>
****** Hell is also an area on Grand Cayman island composed of
"ironshore" (an extremely hard form of calcium carbonate) which has formed
spires and ridges. Walking on it can be, well, hell.
Actually, some of the research assistants at the Aquatic
Ape Research Facility recently collaborated on an expedition with the
University of Hell.
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
Elf Sternberg
Teresita <G1...@webtv.net> writes:
>1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural selection of
>the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
>2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he chose to eat
>the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental knowledge) in
>the Garden of Eden.
Yes, and I'm always inclined to believe the evidenco of my own
eyes over the claims found in some book. I certainly don't take
Aristotle's The History of Animals seriously; why should I take the
Bible at face value?
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Aramida
>: > what is heaven????
>[snip]
>
>Jeff Wiel noted:
>:Hell is a small town in Norway <www.gonorway.no/hell/>
>:Heaven is in London <www.heaven-london.com/>
>
> ****** Hell is also an area on Grand Cayman island composed of
>"ironshore" (an extremely hard form of calcium carbonate) which has formed
>spires and ridges. Walking on it can be, well, hell.
>
> Actually, some of the research assistants at the Aquatic
>Ape Research Facility recently collaborated on an expedition with the
>University of Hell.
Hell is also a small town somewhere in Michegan or Minnesota.
My friends were planning a road trip there. I heard the skiing is good.
- the Apostate
~~~~~~~~~
"You do believe: you believe that you have to believe. This belief, like most,
is false. Destroy this belief, and you will be free" -Rainer Deyke
DC2.?(D)Gfad++ah-L+++/L*w--LWLBFfrsFr++^Ui!h+++!m-e++++!C(changes)
Vexen UK
> > 1. Evolution teaches that for man death is natural because natural
> selection of
> > the fittest implies natural unselection of the unfit.
> > 2. The Bible teaches that man was immortal, without death, until he
chose
> to eat
> > the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (representing experimental
> knowledge) in
you eat
> from
> > it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:17)
> This attitude really bothers me because all of my family except me are
> Christians. They also are evolutionists in that they believe the
theory.
> They have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior but they
don't take
> the bible as the literal truth. They believe its a weak attempt by
man to
> describe the truth of god.
Good, that you makes your family a lot more sensible than many people!
People who can justify the Bible's atrocities are simply scarey!
http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/religion/rr.html
http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/satanism/index.html
Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
geek with shades (of course).
my main page: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK
religion pages: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/religion
Peter Lamb
>jeff wiel wrote in message ...
>>Hell is a small town in Norway <www.gonorway.no/hell/>
>There's a little silly-season sidebar story on the wire services most
>winters, the first time that Hell freezes over.
Hell's also on a small mountain near Zurich. On clear winter days,
the trams that take you to the mountain railway have "Uetliberg Hell"
signs on them.
--
Peter Lamb <peter...@no.spam.for.me.cmis.csiro.au>
Remove spamstopper to reply by email.
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of CSIRO Australia.
Death
Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:7jgsi3$9dt$1...@news.umbc.edu...
> Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
>
> : It is said that evolution by implication doesn't require god myths
> : and is hence atheistic. Evolution is a scientific fact, as such science
> : cannot referance the non-existant which implies God myths are
> : not scientific facts. You can tack god/s onto evolution, but expect to
> : get laughed at, when no benefits arise (unscientific). In this sense
> : evolution doesn't imply a godless universe, it just makes them
> : redundant (so far). Remember God is not even a supernatural fact.
> : Pixies may eventually play a part in the physics of the universe,
> : it has yet to be proven though.
>
> I would not say that no benefits result from tacking God into evolution,
> rather I would say that no scientific benefits result from such an
> addition. In other words it does not make any difference to the
> evolutionary theory whether God exists or not and therefore has no basis
> in the scientific construction of the theory.
Any benefits that arise from tacking God into evolution
can be analysis by science. Also, there most certainly is a
differance to evolution theory with a God myth present,
as they would be in any science, if one were to do an
experiment who's answer is contraversial one could then
argue it's was God that did it and further analysis is not
warrented. Science can not work with non-objectively
based knowledge in it's theories, it however may explain
the workings of peoples minds that leads them to their
subjective realities. Science has been so sucessful
in explaining our reality to us that it naturally will displace
God myths (and is doing) as an explanation to reality
by the the sheer weight of usable evidance and theory.
God myths redundancy to Science is often sited as
proof of God myths as a irrelevant delusional human creation.
The lack of a god belief within science gives scientificism
the atheism labeling. It is self-evidant that science has
not found a use for god myths, and the principles
of science itself are unlikely to ever substantially change
to encompass them intrinsically, science will continue
to try to explain and analysis all the phenomia
that humankind exhibits.
>
> On the other hand, Science and Theology are not fields of knowledge that
> are completely divorced from the broader fields of knowledge. Both can
> play important roles in the development of philosophy. In the realm of
> philosophy adding some sort of god to the theory of evolution might serve
> some purpose. Certainly the notion of a first cause... or an immovable
> causer has been an important one at least since the Platonic and
> Aristotilian schools were formed almost 2500 years ago.
Yes, sky-hooks can have this purpose to philosophy but to
gravitate straight from the abstract to reality without
some reality check, would natural bring cries of derision from
not only the scientific community but many philosophers.
This derision has some well founded history in the numerous
revolutions of science that have tacked with the ever more
burdensome empirialically derived knowledge each successive
generation has generated to the well known detriment of
followers of god myths.
>
> Mind you this does not require a god that much resembles the God of the
> Bible or Christianity. Nor will all philosophers agree that a first cause
> is useful or necessary. On the other hand the possibility of such a union
> of First Cause with Evolution in Philosophy does serve to allow sime
> christians at least to accept evolution in the scientific realm.
If Christians wish to accept evolution then that there business,
I however would attach a warning. Evolution is a changing
theory and likely to become even more expressive and
is unlikely to take any stock of their beliefs (as it has not done so far)
which may inevitable take them someplace they don't won't to go.
Evolution is but one theory of science.
>
>
> : No, Christians can rational believe in evolution and irrational
> : accept God as usual. Who says Christians have to be rational.
> : Christians can prejudice themselves however they please.
>
> On the other hand they can accept both rationally as well. I believe if
> you were to have a discussion with the late Father Chardin de Teilhard
> S.J. regarding evolution and God you would not be able to say that is
> beliefs were irrational. He spent much of his career in Paleontology,
> Philosophy and Theology trying to reconcile God and evolution.
Since I have never heard of his attempted reconciling, I might
hazard the guess that it hasn't gain a wider forum amongst
Christians. Althought, not being a Christian myself I probably
wouldn't even regarded it highly anyway, I reiterate I have
yet to hear a rational objective explanation for God or
any god myths.
>
> : >
> : > But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
>
> : Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is atheistic in nature.
> : (Gods taken out).
>
> Perhaps a better term would be non-theistic. Using the concentional
> definition of atheism an atheistic theory would reject that God had any
> possible role. In Science I would argue that God's role (if any) is not
> testable by science and therefore cannot be examined by science.
No, remember for common understanding we have to have
common definitions. You must remove your own tendancy
to burden us with you own subjective theistic opinion on
what atheism is or is not. Would you ask me, an atheist for
a definition of what theism is, I could easily make a similar
case that there are no true theists because each god myth
are false to one another. Atheism is A-theism all the
-ism that relate to onotologies that don't have god myths.
Where theism are all the ontologies that do have god/s.
My onotology rejects God myths on the argument of
relevance and is an atheism, Science has found in all
it's searching for objective truths no relevance for God myths.
Any reasonable observer who raises the question if
science is an ontology will then call it an atheism.
The best theists can do, is hope one day science
finds a God/s or avoid casting science as more than
a epistemology journey (and refrain from arguing implications).
But, just to go with the flow for a second, if science
is non-theism, then I am a non-theist or rather a
nonbeliever as all theists are believers.
>
> : > But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence
are
> : > not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
> : > conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the
relationship
> : > between God and our universe.
>
> : Only if you yourself have a irrational bent.
>
> To argue that evolution implies atheism is to appropriate for science that
> which it never was designed to do; to examine the supernatural world. God
> by definition, if he exists, is not bound by this universe and trying to
> get science to quantify him would be akin to getting science to answer the
> question of "What happened before the big bang.
Science was designed to ask questions per se, it does question
the supernatural world and has found no objective evidance for
said places. Science does not regard all questions equally, it
build upon structures that have gone before (much like evolution),
what happened before the big bang is answerable by science
as there was no time before the big bang, so nothing
could have happened!
Quantum fluctuations are believed to have caused the big-bang.
>
> : > Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated
> : > theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical
> : > antagonism between religion and science.
>
> : What the bent that sky-pixies must exist, whether or not an rational
> : basis can be found for them.
>
> Completely different. From a philosophical perspective, there is still
> room for a first cause (Though it is granted that many dispute that there
> is a need for one). Pixies as far as I know play no such similar roles.
Replace Pixies with Gods and tell me have I differentiate?
>
> : > Indeed, the antipathy that
> : > exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of
> : > scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology.
>
> : Darn right it does, and will continue to do so until rationality is
> : finally allow to inquire into all theologies whether primative or not.
>
> You seem to think that theology is be definition non-rational. While I
> will agree that theology does require assumptions that often are not in
> their basis rational, many theologies then proceed to extrapolate
> rationally from these basis.
Assumption, 1 = 2, God = 1, Death = 2
Rational implication...God = Death
Assumptions gain credability by providing useful theories.
It is not rational to hold onto assumption that do not
provide corroborating empiricial explanations. I am
not God (I could be in denial), so the weight of
objective evidance makes me question my assumptions.
It is irrational to make an assumption a conclusion.
>
> : >
> : > Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no
God,
> : > then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
> : > due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
> : > by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's
organisms
> : > do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
> : > exist."
>
> : Rubbish, science has yet to find a use for God myths and so
> : finds God myths irrelevant. When science has some objective
> : evidance of God then evolution and all sciences can have
> : a theistic nature.
>
> I doubt that there will ever be a role for God in Science. Science is
> interested in the Natural causes of events, not their super natural
> causes. If God exists, he might work in the realms that may be forever
> denied science like the moment of creation or on scales so small that even
> quantum mechanics cannot predict them.
You said earlier...
"""On the other hand, Science and Theology are not fields of knowledge that
are completely divorced from the broader fields of knowledge. """
Our own knowledge is the only basis on which we can judge
the truthfulness of knowledge, settingup walls between sets
of knowledge (if you can call the supernatural that) also
requires some distinguish reasoning. I regard the supernatural
as just another facet of human abstract mind how am I
to distinguish between seperate abstract fields of knowledge?
Waiting for an explanation from a supernaturalist......
>
> : No, hence God myths are not required. God myths can only exist
> : if we have objective evidance for them. The burden of proof
> : is on the God claimants, science certainly does not make any
> : claims for God myths.
>
> Only if we want God to be accepted as a scientific principle. I for one
> see no need to bring God into science and I think his roll and existence
> is much better established by philosophers and Theologians than
> Scientists.
Yeh, keep it an muddled abstraction that the founding fathers
of american had to defend us against in case any shallow
theist wished to use the power of the state against other
theists. An atheistic act if there were any.
>
> : Atheism is the lack of any god/s myths as such it is nontheistic.
>
> Actually in modern usage Atheism is much stronger than nontheistic, it is
> more properly anti-theistic.
No, nontheism (evolution (you)) when imposed upon by theism is like
to be counter proportionally. Evolution is not about God. Evolution
can be seen as providing a ontology of existance that
natural conflicts with other ontologies, not by non-theist
(who couldn't care less what theists think) but by theists
who can see the implication it has for they faith. You can
first off deny the implication that atheisms and atheistic acts
are required to temper religious zealotry, then try to make
atheism and atheistics acts irrelevant. I suppose I should
be grateful you have got that far.
>
> : So it all boils down to that evolution is a scientific fact and
> : it is irrational for Christians to believe in evolution and God,
> : so you must redefine atheism to not mean the lack of God myths
> : instead of dealing with the irrationality of God myths. Yes,
> : very rational NOT.
>
> Not at all. Yes Evolution is scientific fact but more importantly it is
> scientific fact that does not say anything about the supernatural world
> (If any exists). It can certainly be used to attack specific myths
> regarding creation, but not necessarily the need for a prime mover. Again
> though this stretches beyond what science can currently examine and is
> more properly dealt with by theologians and philosophers.
Science can and will eventually explain and explorer the mind
and provide explanation for all delusional myths. Ok, your
probably still get the irrational types that don't what their
god myths exposed and do everything to avoid mindscanners.
There must be a rational reason for that.
>
> : Shifting the burden, an evolutionist doesn't need to prove your
> : non-existant sky fairy is irrelevant to evolution. You have to show
> : that it is relevant, for evolution has no referance to whatever pixy,
nypth
> : or invisible pink unicorns that you faith believes. Science ontology is
> : an atheism. The burden of proof that Science can referance God
> : is on the theist not on the scientist to regard. You can believe
> : whatever sky idiot you like, I don't have to accept or reject
> : it.
>
> Nor can science reject God because it is incapable of dealing with God.
Science ask questions, if science cannot ask questions then yes
it is incapable of providing answers.
>
> : Sprinkling God over science has be proven to be posionous
> : for science.The burden of proof of on you to prove
> : God can be an evolutionist, if of course you can prove
> : it exists at all. ;-)
>
> Actually I doubt that sprinkling religion over science has been poisonous
> to science, rather it is the mixing of pseoudo-science and religion that
> has caused the problems. There have been a number of serious scientists
> who have also been theists (Gregor Mendel and the priest who came up with
> the Big Bang Theory are notable examples).
The start of the universe happen right here, right now. Think about it.
A nontheism implies a nontheist implies a nonbeliever implies an atheist.
Any ontology without a god myth is an atheism.
Todd S. Greene
On 5 Jun 1999 12:49:16 -0400 Theophage <theo...@my-deja.com> wrote
(msg-id <7jbkgb$b2k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>,
> tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
>[snip an excellent point, though a bit on the wordy side...]
>
>> Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7
>> multiplied by 3 is 21 because God exists?
>
>Ummmm....actually, yes. There is a theistic argument known as the
>Transcendental Argument for the Existance of God (TAG for short) that
>argues that very thing. It's nonsense of course, but you asked...
>
>--
>Daniel "Theophage" Clark
>Director, EAC Snack Foods Division a.a #1203
>[theophage at geocities dot com]
>http://members.theglobe.com/theophage
I'm not familiar with the terminology of "TAG." Are you referring to C.
S. Lewis' (another wordy writer!) argument, which I quote the sense of
here:
...acts of reasoning are not interlocked with the total
interlocking system of Nature as all its other items are
interlocked with one another. They are connected with it
in a different way; as the understanding of a machine is
certainly connected with the machine but not in the way
the parts of the machine are connected with each other.
The knowledge of a thing is not one of the thing's parts.
In this sense something beyond Nature [transcendental -
TSG] operates whenever we reason.
(*Miracles*, C. S. Lewis, 1947, beginning
of chapter 4)
Lewis' *Miracles* book is actually a theistic discussion of
Supernaturalism versus Naturalism. He anchors his entire discussion on
the primary contention that reasoning itself makes no sense from a
naturalistic perspective. A good naturalist can blow his argument, at
least the way he formulated it, sky high.
Of course, I'm not talking about this topic in my discussion of
evolution and God. I'm simply pointing out that evolution does not
preclude believing in God any more than accepting gravity as a natural
phenomenon does.
Dr. Howard Van Till, an astrophysicist teaching at Calvin College in
Grand Rapids, Michigan (an evangelical Christian school), along with
other evangelical Christians like Dr. Davis A. Young, has developed a
more sophisticated theistic perspective that goes much further in trying
to integrate theism with naturalism. I'm sorry, but Lewis just doesn't
cut it. (Recall that evangelicals support a "strong" concept of biblical
inspiration. Well, these two guys, among other evangelical Christians,
accept the ancient ages of the earth and the universe and accept
biological evolution, and they have been working on integrating these
ideas. Check out my website's links page for more info on this.)
___________________________________________
Todd S. Greene
<tgr...@usxchange.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755
A Pagano
"Todd S. Greene" wrote:
I'm not familiar with the terminology of "TAG." Are you referring to C.
S. Lewis' (another wordy writer!) argument, which I quote the sense of
here: ...acts of reasoning are not interlocked with the total
interlocking system of Nature as all its other items are interlocked
with one another. They are connected with it in a different way; as the
understanding of a machine is certainly connected with the machine but
not in the way the parts of the machine are connected with each other.
The knowledge of a thing is not one of the thing's parts. In this sense
something beyond Nature [transcendental - TSG] operates whenever we
reason. (*Miracles*, C. S. Lewis, 1947, beginning of chapter 4)
Lewis' *Miracles* book is actually a theistic discussion of
Supernaturalism versus Naturalism. He anchors his entire discussion on
the primary contention that reasoning itself makes no sense from a
naturalistic perspective. A good naturalist can blow his argument, at
least the way he formulated it, sky high.
Pagano replies:
One is inclined to believe after reading Greene's synopsis of "Miracles"
that he never bothered to read "Miracles" in its entirety. I suggest he
read again or perhaps read for the first time Chapter I (titled, "Scope
of this Book," only 3 pages in my edition) and Chapter IV in its
entirety. It would disabuse him and anyone else for that matter that
"Miracles" was simply a theistic discussion or that arguments which
presupposed the truth of Naturalism were capable of providing any
serious criticism to the discussion of miracles in our world. It would
be interesting to see an example of a good naturalist argument "blowing
away" Lewis. Perhaps Greene could do that...
While Naturalism stands as a necessary presupposition to modern secular
cosmological and evolutionary theories few have been able to defend
Naturalism or argue for its truth. Some evolutionists in this forum are
shocked to discover that their modern "scientific" framework MUST
presuppose the truth of unscientific empirically untestable metaphysical
principles like Naturalism.
Perhaps they think to themselves, "how could this be; we have ridiculed
the creation framework for precisely this reason." You see their
secular educators (who rarely require their students receive training in
philosophy) quietly folded many (or maybe all) necessary metaphysical
concepts into the definition of science. And there those metaphysical
unscientific concepts have remained hidden to students K thru graduate
level. This is one of several dirtly little secrets.
********************************
Greene continues:
Of course, I'm not talking about this topic in my discussion of
evolution and God. I'm simply pointing out that evolution does not
preclude believing in God any more than accepting gravity as a natural
phenomenon does.
Pagano replies:
Perhaps Greene speaks about some god of his own making, but he's
certainly not speaking about the christian God. As formulated by modern
secular theorists big bang cosmologies and neoDarwinian evolutionary
frameworks render a Creator unnecessary. As far as many christians are
concerned this is equivalent to saying that the Creator doesn't exist.
Modern secular theorists presuppose that matter and its properties are
BOTH NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT (Naturalism) for the creation of the
universe, the creation of biological life, and the diversity of life in
it. I should make perfectly clear that this is a metaphysical
presupposition and NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE. These theorists do not claim
that matter has any inherent properties for the creation of complex
stars, galaxies, planets, or for the creation of life. Some like
Hawking try to do away with the necessity of a beginning implied by
Einstein's theories, some like Guth try to suggest that matter and
energy winked itself into existence. Others wave their hands at how a
homogeneous scattering of atoms after the big bang could coalesce to
form complex stars and most assume into existence the first
self-replicating molecule.
All of these creative events are explained by modern secular theoriests
as accidents and random mistakes. Consistent with this reasoning Gould
has described all of these creative events as not only random mistakes
but random fortuitious mistakes that would not recur. No one has been
able to harmonize such an intellectual framework with the Creator of the
bible, the Creator revealed to the Apostles, and as described in 2000
years of christian theology.
****************************************
Greene wrote:
Dr. Howard Van Till, an astrophysicist teaching at Calvin College in
Grand Rapids, Michigan (an evangelical Christian school), along with
other evangelical Christians like Dr. Davis A. Young, has developed a
more sophisticated theistic perspective that goes much further in trying
to integrate theism with naturalism.
Pagano replies:
Van Till has attempted to show that theological concepts (like
supernaturalism) are outside the boundaries of scientific inquiry and
then goes through machinations to smuggle in metaphysical concepts like
naturalism. Once at this point Van Till's harmonization collapses when
left to explain miracles in history like the virgin birth, the
resurrection, the feeding of the thousands with a few loaves and fish,
and all the others.
Most attempts at harmonization like Van Till's invariably assume that
man's conjectural knowledge is either superior to the knowledge revealed
by a Creator with authority over the truth or that such revealed truths
NEVER overlap with man's conjectural knowledge. Such attempts then
modify, ignore, or abandon that part of the faith which is inconvenient.
********************************************
Greene continued:
I'm sorry, but Lewis just doesn't cut it. (Recall that evangelicals
support a "strong" concept of biblical inspiration.
Pagano replies:
Evangelicals don't stand alone in this. The bible is considered by most
christians as the revealed Word of God not some inspired fanciful
allegorical fairy tale.
************************************
Greene finishes:
Well, these two guys, among other evangelical Christians, accept the
ancient ages of the earth and the universe and accept biological
evolution, and they have been working on integrating these ideas. Check
out my website's links page for more info on this.)
Pagano replies:
Many accepted the phlogiston theory, but they were wrong; many accepted
Kepler's theory, but they were wrong; many accepted Newton's theory, but
they were wrong; and Einstein never believed that his theory was true.
The history of science has shown that man's theories are often accepted
by the majority, and more often then not abandoned as false. In other
words the argument from authority with which Greene attempts to justify
modern secular theories is almost always weak and wrong. What else is
new?
Regards,
T Pagano
Bill McHale
: Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
: > I would not say that no benefits result from tacking God into evolution,
: > rather I would say that no scientific benefits result from such an
: > addition. In other words it does not make any difference to the
: > evolutionary theory whether God exists or not and therefore has no basis
: > in the scientific construction of the theory.
: Any benefits that arise from tacking God into evolution
: can be analysis by science.
Not at all, if this were the case all human knowledge could be reduced to
science and that is very definitely not the case. Science can only
explain observable phenomena, and can't stretch beyond that. For example
science might be able to explain all the mechanisms of the brain, indeed
it might even be able to tell us how to make a working copy, but it cannot
explain why we are self aware... what allows us to reason and be aware of
ourself. Heck, science cannot even prove that we are self aware, only
that we appear to be, yet few would argue against the notion that people
are indeed self aware. It is a similar case with the interaction with God
and science. Certainly God has no role in the pursuit of science, but
science is not the limit of human knowledge. The different fields of
knowledge to meet and interact at some level. At the level of philosophy
or theology, it is certainly acceptable to try and fit evolution to the
concept of a prime mover.
: Also, there most certainly is a
: differance to evolution theory with a God myth present,
: as they would be in any science, if one were to do an
: experiment who's answer is contraversial one could then
: argue it's was God that did it and further analysis is not
: warrented.
Which is why any integration of the knowledge that science gives us with
the notion of the divine. Remember I have consistently stated that such
integration is the realm of philosophy and theology, not the realm of
science.
: Science can not work with non-objectively
: based knowledge in it's theories, it however may explain
: the workings of peoples minds that leads them to their
: subjective realities.
This is an epistomological issue. Many would object to the notion that
science deals with objective knowledge. While I certainly would not claim
that objective knowledge and facts do not exist, I can definitely state
that scientists are often influenced by philosophical concerns as much as
others. Einstein's inclusion of a cosmological constant in GR and Hoyle's
development of Steady State Theory are both examples of science motivated
by philosophy. While scientific method will eventually root out theories
that fail to make the grade, we have no proof that those with a different
view of reality might come up with alternative theories that explain the
universe just as well. In other words, while science certainly has come
up with the best explinations of reality at least in terms of being
predictive, that is no proof that it is not subjective as well.
: Science has been so sucessful
: in explaining our reality to us that it naturally will displace
: God myths (and is doing) as an explanation to reality
: by the the sheer weight of usable evidance and theory.
: God myths redundancy to Science is often sited as
: proof of God myths as a irrelevant delusional human creation.
Well it forces a reexamination of those God Myths, and certainly strips
away the obvious myth elements (i.e. 7 day world creation). But that does
not mean that the notion of the divine or of a prime mover is itself
irrational or delusional.
: The lack of a god belief within science gives scientificism
: the atheism labeling. It is self-evidant that science has
: not found a use for god myths, and the principles
: of science itself are unlikely to ever substantially change
: to encompass them intrinsically, science will continue
: to try to explain and analysis all the phenomia
: that humankind exhibits.
The problem is that there are many things that will remain opague to
science, almost by definition. Sure science can explain why the physical
and some science can even explain aspects of the mental realms, but what
about outside those realms... will science ever be able to answer what
caused the Big Bang, or why are brains allow us to be self aware rather
than just sophisticated biological computers?
: >
: > On the other hand, Science and Theology are not fields of knowledge that
: > are completely divorced from the broader fields of knowledge. Both can
: > play important roles in the development of philosophy. In the realm of
: > philosophy adding some sort of god to the theory of evolution might serve
: > some purpose. Certainly the notion of a first cause... or an immovable
: > causer has been an important one at least since the Platonic and
: > Aristotilian schools were formed almost 2500 years ago.
: Yes, sky-hooks can have this purpose to philosophy but to
: gravitate straight from the abstract to reality without
: some reality check, would natural bring cries of derision from
: not only the scientific community but many philosophers.
I am not sure if I understand your point here. Are you arguing that
philosophy is abstract?
: This derision has some well founded history in the numerous
: revolutions of science that have tacked with the ever more
: burdensome empirialically derived knowledge each successive
: generation has generated to the well known detriment of
: followers of god myths.
The question is, where is the next revolution? There are certain areas
where I just cannot imagine science will ever be able to go for the very
fact that it is impossible to collect any empirical evidence. To return
to the question of self awareness; this is a major issue in artificial
intelligence and the best test was the Turing test. This test says that
true artificial intelligence has been achieved if a person can carry on a
conversation (such as in a chat room) and be unable to tell whether or not
the responses are coming from a person or a computer. This is hardly the
sort of objective test that science normally requires.
: >
: > Mind you this does not require a god that much resembles the God of the
: > Bible or Christianity. Nor will all philosophers agree that a first cause
: > is useful or necessary. On the other hand the possibility of such a union
: > of First Cause with Evolution in Philosophy does serve to allow sime
: > christians at least to accept evolution in the scientific realm.
: If Christians wish to accept evolution then that there business,
: I however would attach a warning. Evolution is a changing
: theory and likely to become even more expressive and
: is unlikely to take any stock of their beliefs (as it has not done so far)
: which may inevitable take them someplace they don't won't to go.
: Evolution is but one theory of science.
Frankly I doubt any particular developments in evolution is going to have
a major impact on the mainline theologies of Christianity. Unlike the
fundamentalists, most theologians long ago have worked out that all the
processes that lead to the development of life and its evolution can be
explained by scientific means. The actual details of such explinations
are frankly unimportant once the theology has been divorced from the
specific mechanisms involved. In other words, despite all of the evidence
and advances in Evolutionary theory over the past century, none of it had
any significant impact after Darwin's initial work was accepted.
: >
: > On the other hand they can accept both rationally as well. I believe if
: > you were to have a discussion with the late Father Chardin de Teilhard
: > S.J. regarding evolution and God you would not be able to say that is
: > beliefs were irrational. He spent much of his career in Paleontology,
: > Philosophy and Theology trying to reconcile God and evolution.
: Since I have never heard of his attempted reconciling, I might
: hazard the guess that it hasn't gain a wider forum amongst
: Christians. Althought, not being a Christian myself I probably
: wouldn't even regarded it highly anyway, I reiterate I have
: yet to hear a rational objective explanation for God or
: any god myths.
Actually Teilhard's work is considered rather important in this regard.
He is hardly an obscure figure in terms of 20th century theology, indeed
his work can probably be found in your local Border's books. I will
happily agree to throw out the god myths because they are just that,
however that does not by itself invalidate the notion of a prime mover,
only the common human pictures of that prime mover. Recall that Plato and
Aristotle both arrived at the idea of a first cause/prime mover/uncaused
cause. Granted their conception was very different than what most people
would view as god, but it was close enough that their views became very
important to theologians.
: > : Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is atheistic in nature.
: > : (Gods taken out).
: >
: > Perhaps a better term would be non-theistic. Using the concentional
: > definition of atheism an atheistic theory would reject that God had any
: > possible role. In Science I would argue that God's role (if any) is not
: > testable by science and therefore cannot be examined by science.
: No, remember for common understanding we have to have
: common definitions. You must remove your own tendancy
: to burden us with you own subjective theistic opinion on
: what atheism is or is not.
I am not burdening you with a subjective theistic defition of what atheism
is or is not, but rather asserting what its common definition is. The
single most common definition of atheism is that it is the disbelief in
god or gods. As such stating that science is atheistic strongly implies
that science and the scientific process is anti-god (i.e. actively
concerned with proving the non-existence of God) rather than being
unconcerned with God.
Would you ask me, an atheist for
: a definition of what theism is, I could easily make a similar
: case that there are no true theists because each god myth
: are false to one another.
Again, we aren't using my definition of atheism, but rather the common use
definition (as documented by Webster's). As for your argument regarding
theism that doesn't hold either. The specific structure of the belief in
a god or gods has nothing to do with whether someone is theistic or not.
theism is a more general term, and their are specific labels for the
specific belief systems that fall under it (monotheism, pantheism,
polytheism, and then more specifically for the specific religions).
: Atheism is A-theism all the
: -ism that relate to onotologies that don't have god myths.
Note not all theists have myths (i.e. deists) and not all belief systems
that lack even the notion of a god are atheistic. I would certainly say
that Zen Buddhism is not atheistic, rather it is unconcerned with whether
God exists or not.
: Where theism are all the ontologies that do have god/s.
: My onotology rejects God myths on the argument of
: relevance and is an atheism, Science has found in all
: it's searching for objective truths no relevance for God myths.
But again that assumes that science is capable of examining everything,
which it is not. Science by nature cannot find God's relevence because
science is not equipped to look for God's relevance. Asking for God to
have relevance in science is akin to asking for the relevance of amoeba's
to physics.
: Any reasonable observer who raises the question if
: science is an ontology will then call it an atheism.
In other words one has to agree with you to be right. By your statement,
the only fields of knowledge that are not atheistic are philosophy and
theology. Even the field of auto mechanics is atheistic by your
definition (i.e. God is not relevant to car repair). When in fact you are
taking the fact that science is replacing the man made myths of God as
proof that science has something to say about God itself.
: The best theists can do, is hope one day science
: finds a God/s or avoid casting science as more than
: a epistemology journey (and refrain from arguing implications).
Science can never find God, because God is not what science is looking
for nor is it what should be looked for.
: But, just to go with the flow for a second, if science
: is non-theism, then I am a non-theist or rather a
: nonbeliever as all theists are believers.
Ah, but not all nonbelievers are atheists, agnostics are nonbelievers as
well, which is my point. You believe there is no god, therefore you are
an atheist, and agnostic simply says the case has not been proven and
refuses to take a position. Science is more akin to the agnostic
viewpoint than the atheistic (except of course science is not equipped to
ever answer the question).
: > To argue that evolution implies atheism is to appropriate for science that
: > which it never was designed to do; to examine the supernatural world. God
: > by definition, if he exists, is not bound by this universe and trying to
: > get science to quantify him would be akin to getting science to answer the
: > question of "What happened before the big bang.
: Science was designed to ask questions per se, it does question
: the supernatural world and has found no objective evidance for
: said places. Science does not regard all questions equally, it
: build upon structures that have gone before (much like evolution),
: what happened before the big bang is answerable by science
: as there was no time before the big bang, so nothing
: could have happened!
Some scientists have attempted to examine the supernatural world, but
their lack of data is not really cause for claiming it necessarily will
not exist. For one thing many seem to precede from the approach that it
will follow the same sorts of laws that our world has. Even more
appropriate, perhaps we lack the equipment to perceive it just as until
this century we lacked the equipment to tell us that galaxies outside our
own existed.
Sure current theories suggest that there was no time before the Big Bang,
but that wasn't always the case, only 30 years ago it was believed that
the Universed oscillated between periods of expansion and contraction, and
that the Big Bang merely signaled the next cycle. Indeed to some degree
that position was maintained even as late as Stephen Hawking's A Brief
History of Time (though granted with the no time before clause.) However
recent astronomical data seriously casts doubt on the theory.
: Quantum fluctuations are believed to have caused the big-bang.
Quantum fluctuations in what when? Afterall if the Big-bang created time
and space, where and when could the flucuations have occured. And that is
also not the only theory, another theory is that our Universe's inflation
simply occurred out of a fractal field when some critical value was
reached and that the same fractal field continues to expand and spawn new
Universes infanitely.
: > : What the bent that sky-pixies must exist, whether or not an rational
: > : basis can be found for them.
: >
: > Completely different. From a philosophical perspective, there is still
: > room for a first cause (Though it is granted that many dispute that there
: > is a need for one). Pixies as far as I know play no such similar roles.
: Replace Pixies with Gods and tell me have I differentiate?
Yes you have. Go read Plato and Aristotle and come back and tell me that
their prime mover plays the same role that pixies do?
: >
: > : Darn right it does, and will continue to do so until rationality is
: > : finally allow to inquire into all theologies whether primative or not.
: >
: > You seem to think that theology is be definition non-rational. While I
: > will agree that theology does require assumptions that often are not in
: > their basis rational, many theologies then proceed to extrapolate
: > rationally from these basis.
: Assumption, 1 = 2, God = 1, Death = 2
: Rational implication...God = Death
Except your Assumption is not an assumption but something that can be
proven false (i.e. 1 != 2). Lets procede from a different direction.
1. Everything in the Universe has a cause (i.e. it got here by some
conglomeration of processes and material).
2. Each of those causes has a cause, and this relationship can be traced
backwards through time.
3. If time is finite, then at some point there must have been a first
cause that itself was not caused that itself is the cause of all following
causes.
The Assumption is then that that cause is God.
: Assumptions gain credability by providing useful theories.
: It is not rational to hold onto assumption that do not
: provide corroborating empiricial explanations. I am
: not God (I could be in denial), so the weight of
: objective evidance makes me question my assumptions.
You are equating rationality with science, not necessarily the same thing.
: It is irrational to make an assumption a conclusion.
Not so much a conclusion but a way of making the world make a certain
amount of sense, of explaining the essential why.
: > I doubt that there will ever be a role for God in Science. Science is
: > interested in the Natural causes of events, not their super natural
: > causes. If God exists, he might work in the realms that may be forever
: > denied science like the moment of creation or on scales so small that even
: > quantum mechanics cannot predict them.
: You said earlier...
: """On the other hand, Science and Theology are not fields of knowledge that
: are completely divorced from the broader fields of knowledge. """
: Our own knowledge is the only basis on which we can judge
: the truthfulness of knowledge, settingup walls between sets
: of knowledge (if you can call the supernatural that) also
: requires some distinguish reasoning. I regard the supernatural
: as just another facet of human abstract mind how am I
: to distinguish between seperate abstract fields of knowledge?
: Waiting for an explanation from a supernaturalist......
My point is that science is not designed to evaluate the supernatural any
more than it is designed to examine the relevance of 17th century poets.
While the knowledge science gains will contribute to the whole, it is not
always possible to apply science to specific cases. While Science and
modern Historical research might result in the removal of the early books
of the bible as history or science, it does not remove their validity as
literature, or some of the things it says about human nature.
: > Only if we want God to be accepted as a scientific principle. I for one
: > see no need to bring God into science and I think his roll and existence
: > is much better established by philosophers and Theologians than
: > Scientists.
: Yeh, keep it an muddled abstraction that the founding fathers
: of american had to defend us against in case any shallow
: theist wished to use the power of the state against other
: theists. An atheistic act if there were any.
It was not an atheistic act, rather one that protected those who believe
in a different manner. Certainly many modern christians have remarked at
how unchristian the wars of religion were. The founding fathers were not
defending us against the representations of God that different religions
hold but rather the attempt by those who are narrow minded to impose their
views on others. Similarly horrific acts have been perpetrated by the
adherents of decidedly secular and self proclaimed scientic and rational
belief systems (can anyone say communism). Indeed the last century has
demonstrated that man needs protection from indoctrination, not from the
belief systems themselves.
: >
: > : Atheism is the lack of any god/s myths as such it is nontheistic.
: >
: > Actually in modern usage Atheism is much stronger than nontheistic, it is
: > more properly anti-theistic.
: No, nontheism (evolution (you)) when imposed upon by theism is like
: to be counter proportionally. Evolution is not about God.
Thats was what my point about god not playing a roll in science is about.
: Evolution
: can be seen as providing a ontology of existance that
: natural conflicts with other ontologies, not by non-theist
: (who couldn't care less what theists think) but by theists
: who can see the implication it has for they faith.
If I understand what you are saying here (not sure as this sentence is a
little unclear), you keep assuming that theists by definition have some
rigid belief system regarding human origins in place. Indeed many theists
have only a loosely constructed notion of the specifics of creation, one
quite flexible enough to account for the information that science will
bring before the equation. The above mentioned Chardin de Teilhard was
not just a Jesuit and a Theologian but also a working paleontologist whose
scientific work was certainly non-theistic (i.e. he didn't try to claim
any roll for God in it, and was a Darwinist) but rather than see a
conflict between evolution and theism he found a way to reconcile them (he
had the conception of a Noo-sphere... but that is getting a bit specific
for this discussion).
: You can
: first off deny the implication that atheisms and atheistic acts
: are required to temper religious zealotry, then try to make
: atheism and atheistics acts irrelevant. I suppose I should
: be grateful you have got that far.
How exactly did you get here? Atheism certainly is not required to temper
religious zealotry or religion to temper atheistic zealotry (yes it
exists). Rather such zealotry is a self destroying force, dieing when
natural enthusiasm for the movement dies. Atheism is certainly not
irrelevant, it is as valid a belief system as a theistic system.
: > Not at all. Yes Evolution is scientific fact but more importantly it is
: > scientific fact that does not say anything about the supernatural world
: > (If any exists). It can certainly be used to attack specific myths
: > regarding creation, but not necessarily the need for a prime mover. Again
: > though this stretches beyond what science can currently examine and is
: > more properly dealt with by theologians and philosophers.
: Science can and will eventually explain and explorer the mind
: and provide explanation for all delusional myths. Ok, your
: probably still get the irrational types that don't what their
: god myths exposed and do everything to avoid mindscanners.
: There must be a rational reason for that.
You realize now that you are getting doctrinal about science don't you?
You are claiming that science will do this and it will do that. That is
silly arrogance. Yes it might do all the things you claim, but you have
no way of knowing whether it will or not. All science can do is explain
what it can and look for ways to explain what it can't; you have no way of
knowing whether it will be successful in finding those ways.
: >
: > Nor can science reject God because it is incapable of dealing with God.
: Science ask questions, if science cannot ask questions then yes
: it is incapable of providing answers.
Science can ask all the questions it wants, but asking the questions is
not enough. To use my previous analogy science can ask questions about
17th century English poets, but I doubt it would get any useful answers.
Science is not some magic system by which all things may be understood, it
is good for explaining natural processes, which is a wonderful thing, but
it will never be able to take the place of philosophy, history,
literature, etc.
: > Actually I doubt that sprinkling religion over science has been poisonous
: > to science, rather it is the mixing of pseoudo-science and religion that
: > has caused the problems. There have been a number of serious scientists
: > who have also been theists (Gregor Mendel and the priest who came up with
: > the Big Bang Theory are notable examples).
: The start of the universe happen right here, right now. Think about it.
Huh? There is nothing to think about here, just a nonsensical statement
that directly contradicts perceived reality.
: A nontheism implies a nontheist implies a nonbeliever implies an atheist.
: Any ontology without a god myth is an atheism.
Nope, sorry, your chain of implications is flawed. Non-theism and atheism
are not the same things. An agnostic does not believe in god, but he is
not an atheist. Further the simple fact that the founders of two
scientific theories which are alive and well today were also Catholic
religion certainly shows that theists can produce non-theistic theories.
Elmer Bataitis
(snip)
> While Naturalism stands as a necessary presupposition to modern secular
> cosmological and evolutionary theories few have been able to defend
> Naturalism or argue for its truth.
And yet you continue to use all its assumptions within every argument
you post. Why do you do this if it is false?
(snip)
> Many accepted the phlogiston theory, but they were wrong;...
Exactly why were they are wrong and how wrong were they?
> many accepted
> Kepler's theory, but they were wrong;...
Exactly why were they are wrong and how wrong were they?
> many accepted Newton's theory, but
> they were wrong;
Exactly why were they are wrong and how wrong were they?
> and Einstein never believed that his theory was true.
But it certainly describes the operation of the universe to a high
degree of accuracy, now doesn't it? ;-)
> The history of science has shown that man's theories are often accepted
> by the majority, and more often then not abandoned as false.
Theories are never "true" as they are just ways of describing reality. A
better description will replace a poorer description. Sort of a
scientific evolution ;-)
(snip)
Say, when are you going to present us an argument which *DOES NOT* use
the assumptions of naturalism??
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
William
>Not at all, if this were the case all human knowledge could be reduced to
>science and that is very definitely not the case. Science can only
>explain observable phenomena, and can't stretch beyond that. For example
>science might be able to explain all the mechanisms of the brain, indeed
>it might even be able to tell us how to make a working copy, but it cannot
>explain why we are self aware... what allows us to reason and be aware of
>ourself. Heck, science cannot even prove that we are self aware, only
>that we appear to be, yet few would argue against the notion that people
>are indeed self aware.
Few people would argue with it because we have a perfectly scientific
method of determining it - namely analogy. I know I am self aware; I
then look at other humans and see them exhibit the same
characteristics and responses that I do and I deduce from that that
they are also self aware. The thousands of signals of one sort or
another which I observe in other people and for which I see a
correlation in myself give me more than adequate evidence that they
share similar experiences. No deduction by analogy can be 100% proof
but it is perfectly adequate.
>It is a similar case with the interaction with God and science.
I cannot be similar because we have nothing analogous to work on.
William
Death
Bill McHale I disagree with almost all you said, I do
not feel the need to reiterate my views.
But maybe when you get a bit older you might
learn about the False Authority Syndrome, it's
where in this instant a theologist thinks he's an
expert on science and atheism. You can't even
get the definitions right, I tell you why I am an
atheist and you are not. I have been living the
life of an atheist for a very long time and I have
never harbour a disbelief/faith in something
I cannot even question. My faith unfortuately
is based on things I can question, that why
I am an atheist. Get it.
Atheisms are all the other -isms that give
ontologies that are not base in god myths.
aka A-theism.
Ed. Stoebenau
Greene) wrote:
>I'm not familiar with the terminology of "TAG." Are you referring to C.
>S. Lewis' (another wordy writer!) argument, which I quote the sense of
>here:
Yes, Lewis' argument in _Miracles_ is a TAGish one. Similar ones can
be found in Richard Taylor's _Metaphysics_ and in Alvin Plantinga's
_Warrant and Proper Function_. The first two are definitely instances
of TAG arguments which are not influenced by a Kuyperian Dutch
Calvinism. Plantinga's probably is so influenced (he is a Dutch
Calvinist, and has certainly read Kuyper, along with Dooyeweerd). but
there is no evidence in his argument itself that it is influenced by
this tradition. Interestingly, Howard J Van Till whom you also
mentioned is also a Kuyperian.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Todd S. Greene
<7jble5$b9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>In article <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>,
> tgreene...@usxchange.net (Todd S. Greene) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>These questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or
>>"atheistic," how about "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas
>>that make no reference to whether or not God exists. You can never say
>>of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists
>>or if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent
>>of consideration of God's existence. Evolution, like the theory of
>>relativity, Goldbach's theorem, and the size of Proxima Centauri, is
> ^^^^^^^^
>Gee, has someone recently proven Goldbach's conjecture ? :-)
>
>HRG.
>Nitpicker Irrepressible
>
>(Needless to say, I fully agree with the remaining 99.9%! of the post)
<grin>I concede your point.</grin> Technically, the idea should be
referred to as Goldbach's conjecture. Note that it is also often
referred to as Goldbach's theorem, even though it has never been proved.
>>not atheistic -- it is nontheistic.
>>
>>Evolution does not imply atheism -- accepting the idea of evolution
>>does not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is,
>>however, nontheistic -- it is a description of events and processes
>>that is without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and
>>chemistry, for example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and
>>must be, performed without reference to supernatural activity.
>>
>>So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is
>>important to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he
>>claiming that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject
>>belief in God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or
>>his statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification
>>she or he provides for it will invariably contain flaws like those
>>indicated above.
>>
Todd S. Greene
(msg-id <7jfagp$k...@news-central.tiac.net>):
>Todd S. Greene wrote in message <375921fc....@news.usxchange.net>...
>[...]
>>Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
>>then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
>>due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
>>by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms
>>do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
>>exist."
>
>[...]
>
>I agree with this assessment, but I don't think that this phrasing
>represents the key reasons why many Christians don't believe
>in evolution.
>
>To me, it seems that God used to work as a complexity generator.
>Before the theory of evolution, there seemed to be basically two
>serious choices to explain complexity. One of these possibilities
>was nasty chance, and the other was intelligent design. Now many
>people who believe in a god do _not_ believe in one just to explain
>the universe, so we can imagine that during the pre-evolutionary
>times, theists used this as an intellectual edge. This agreed with
>whatever reasons they had for wanting to believe in a god on the
>emotional level, so naturally it seemed to them that things were
>rigged--or set up--to give them this advantage. God was given the
>job of cleaning up our understanding of the universe by removing
>mindless probability--which he did very well by leaving the illusion
>that the probability that would be necessary would be so astronomical
>as to be intuitively insane. God was employed as the Probability
>Janitor.
Richard Dawkins calls this "the argument from personal incredulity." I
call it the argument from ignorance. "We don't know," therefore "God."
There is no logical implication here, and I have never seen why others
think there is.
I believe your assessment, however, is quite right, that God is proposed
as an "explanation" of the order we see in, for example, biological
organisms. However, please note that with regard to my point that the
concept of evolution does not preclude God, this argument is not
relevant. Indeed, even the contemporary "intelligent design" (Johnson,
Behe, and so on) accept evolution as God's method.
>Once evolution came along, there was a secular explanation (or as
>you describe, non-theistic) for complexity. Suddenly, everything
>that derived from the intelligent design argument was weakened.
>--
>><>>><>>><><>><><><>> | Joshua Lusion I
>><><><>><>>>>><><><>> | Welcome to the world of free thought!
>><>>><>>><><>>><><>>> | http://www.tiac.net/users/lusion/
However, note that this only applies to certain concepts of God, for
example, "God as Probability Janitor." There are other concepts of God
in which it does not apply.
My claim is that those who attack evolution for being atheistic are
truly being inconsistent. "Evolution as a natural process" has no more
relevance to (or has equal relevance to) such things as human values
(morality) as do other "X as a natural process" ideas. Yet those other
ideas are not attacked as atheistic, while evolution is.
(There is a lesson here in the historical religious attack against
heliocentrism as atheistic, but I won't get into that here.)
___________________________________________
Todd S. Greene
<tgreen...@usxchange.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755
H-G-S
;-)
It's amusing to think of an omnipotent and omniscient power, perfectly
capable of creation through evolution, watching creationists and
evolutionists ripping each other to threads.
H-G-S
=====
H-G-S
Sorry - make that 'shreds' not 'threads' :)
H-G-S
======
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: ;-)
: It's amusing to think of an omnipotent and omniscient power, perfectly
: capable of creation through evolution, watching creationists and
: evolutionists ripping each other to threads.
Funny, though, how this "power", having such attributes as you say,
is such a piss-poor engineer.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
H-G-S
----------
H-G-S (h-...@nex.net.au) wrote:
;-)
[It's amusing to think of an omnipotent and omniscient power, perfectly
capable of creation through evolution, watching creationists and
evolutionists ripping each other to shreds.]
------------------------------
<czar>
Funny, though, how this "power", having such attributes as you say, is such
a piss-poor engineer.
<H-G-S>
The remark I made is not a statement, but a *speculating* 'IF ... Then'
thought on my part.)
Cheers :)
==============================
Death
to reply in a more concrete form. Our
discussion had degenerated into a discussion
of definitions which we where never going
to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
that I am I need to express the reason for this
misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
The human-centric evolution interpretation.
Evolutionists that fail to account for their own observer
status when creating their theories are no better than
our earth-centric forefathers and human-centric special
cases pleader (fuddys). When a evolutionist fails to
account that we are not the first builders of machines,
just the like one cellular friends that organise themselves
to create us, just like termites build mounds in africa
to create air-flow through their cities, just like viruses
mimic their hosts to effect their parasitical survival.
When we see a bee's ability to tract nector and communicate
this to it's colony as a form of a human programmed
"software", we miss the real evolutionary process underlying
cells, viruses, insects and us (by seeing it in human terms,
is useful but self-deceptive). What's is more surprising
is that we then go on to use the process of evolution to
solve mathematically and engineering problems (we
couldn't as easily with all our maths and logic) , we
continue to take our ape like mimicing to new heights not based
on something that we created alone, but created us
without a thought. When we accept the evolutionist
or fuddy before them that allows "design was required"
arguments without considering this most obviously
human centric argument we see again the same
special case pleaders. A evolutionists that sees the
universe as have been presprung whether by sky
pixies or straight out of nothing deserve no less
than the criticism that science gave to the catholic
church. The universe is continually bubbling new
forms and structures right here and right now,
as well as right over there and right back then
at the start of the universe. Just as the first star was
formed from matter and is something unlike anything
before yet still made of matter, so this universe formed
from fluctuations and is something unlike anything before
yet still made of fluctuations. Creation is dynamic and
irrelevent to humans (humans are only relevent to humans).
God and evolution are unreconcilable for God makes
humans relevent and the universe shows nothing could be
further from the truth. This on the face of it may seem
to be a trifle realignment, but in light of our forefathers
problems with human-centric ideas holding us back they
may again do so. We may again by accepting some
special pleading relevance turn are attention away from
the ever more danagerous world we are creating, just
as the plague brought about the renaissance, so the
church brought about the dark-ages that led to it (the
burning of ancient texts that the arabs luckily respected).
Human centric views create a inertia that clouds
more worthy environmental, social and economic
concerns, how many times do we have to learn
that spending time reconciling our very real concerns
about pollution, drug abuse and poverty whilst
waiting for human centric views to interprete them.
How many times do we have to point out that
teaching science to the third world is a solution to
it's poverty, drugs are not a sin but a disease,
that pollution is not a call to return to mud huts.
The concept of relevance is applicable to
God myths, it is the burden of believer to
make a case for it's relevance past it's
self-creating prophesy.
Bill if you do reply could you please
sum up your criticisms below, your
last post exploded some what (by
pickup on every point you disagreed
with). Like the faqs say, keep it short
and sweet (effective), although I was
equally guilty of this offense.
>
>
William
>Bill, after some thought I felt I did need
>to reply in a more concrete form. Our
>discussion had degenerated into a discussion
>of definitions which we where never going
>to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
>was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
>naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
>that I am I need to express the reason for this
>misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
[snip]
Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
contradictory position
By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
hook'
However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
of a divine 'designer'.
The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
deceivers, thieves and killers. Integrated and relatively stable
societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
for so many people today.
It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
evolutionary process would not be needed.
William
Electro
I read this post with great interest. It underscores the reasons I am neither a
creationist or an evolutionist. Other philosophers may have called the concept
something else, but I call the concept "comfortable imprecision."
Comfortable imprecision is not exactly a self-fulfilling prophecy or a
tautological argument, though it does set its foundation in these. Concrete
imprecision is the self-imposed boundary of reason and rationality, the fence
around innocence we build to keep insanity out.
Comfortable imprecision marks itself different from endless tautologies by
stressing that "truth" itself is a tautology - The truth is nothing more,
nothing less than true. Comfortable imprecision is the "tao that CAN be
written" which, is precisely why it isn't the tao. Comfortable imprecision is
the point from where the line of inquiry extends, leading infinitely into
nothingness.
One finds patterns where one looks. One also finds a cacophony. Innocence and
insanity are the same thing. Comfortable imprecision is the point where one
makes an arbitrary distinction between the two, ignoring both the loss of
innocence and embrace of insanity it ultimately brings.
Rationality - that cheap whore of arbitrary thought, is nothing but comfortable
imprecision. It allows the zealous environmentalist screaming about the need to
curb the population growth to recoil in horror at the suggestion that he kill
himself to free up space. It allows a government to dictate what one can smoke
and how old they have to be to smoke it. It allows the churches to debase the
human spirit under a superior creator. It allows the atheist to create darkness
with the light of his conclusions. It is the rejection of non-existence because
we desire to believe we do despite no objective way of determining it.
Comfortable imprecision is the unwarranted satisfaction with the answer to a
flawed question.
-Electro-
"I hear the sound of gunfire at the prison gate. Are the liberators here? Do I
hope or do I fear? For my father and my brother it's too late, but I must help
my mother stand up straight!" - Rush, "Red Sector A"
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>
>However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
>I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
>them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>of a divine 'designer'.
>
>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
>deceivers, thieves and killers. Integrated and relatively stable
>societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
>still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
>cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
>to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>
The evidence of death and suffering is there whether you accept or
reject evolution. The problem of Evil remains whether or not someone
accepts evolution as an explanation while holding that God is behind
things. Rejecting evolution would not make all that death go away.
>If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
>firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
>without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
>ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
>it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
>messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
>for so many people today.
>
>It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
>solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
>about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
>in it's finished state?
How is that theologically different from the question of evil?
[snip]
William
>ta...@mail.clara.net (William):
>>However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
>>I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
>>them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>>of a divine 'designer'.
>>
>>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
>>deceivers, thieves and killers. Integrated and relatively stable
>>societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
>>still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
>>cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
>>to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>>
>The evidence of death and suffering is there whether you accept or
>reject evolution. The problem of Evil remains whether or not someone
>accepts evolution as an explanation while holding that God is behind
>things. Rejecting evolution would not make all that death go away.
My point wasn't about rejecting evolution. In my view, evolution can't
be rejected; all the evidence is that it happened, and that natural
selection was the mechanism by which it happened. My point is that
in an impersonal universe - such as the one we seem to be in -
evolution is a perfectly rational explanation of how we (sentient
creatures) came to arrive here.
But for those who believe in a benevolent creator God who has
unlimited resources it seems pretty absurd for them to claim he chose
this method to create humanity when some sort of 'special' creation
route would have avoided all the pain, fear and suffering -
particularly to us and our immediate predecessors. Maybe even in the
case of death, the 'process of dying' would not have needed to involve
the fear, pain and anguish it so obviously does now.
>>If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
>>firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
>>without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
>>ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
>>it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
>>messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
>>for so many people today.
>>
>>It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
>>solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
>>about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
>>in it's finished state?
>
>How is that theologically different from the question of evil?
Theologically the question of evil is very confused and, as far as I
can see, the theological answers are quite contradictory. However,
the one element of the theological definition of evil is that it is
always due to someone else's choices - not God's. The problem with
God having chosen evolution as his 'design method' is that he chose it
himself; he had other options, but chose that one.
I see no evidence for a God or any creator and I have no problem with
the evidence that pretty conclusively points to evolution by natural
selection having been the means of us arriving on the scene. I do,
however, see very big problem for christians claiming that their God
used evolution to achieve these ends.
So, going back to your question, the question of evil is a very
different one. Evil is supposed to be the result of wrong choices
made by entities other than God.
(Of course, the question of evil is still a huge problem which
theology has not yet presented a non-contradictory answer to - but
that's been (and will be) hammered out in other threads)
William
Dick C.
ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
snip
> Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
> evolution and those who accept it.
Actually, christians fall into many catagories, and simply dividing them
at that point only leads to a lot of problems. And the division is more
on the lines of those who insist on a young earth, literal
interpretation of genesis and those who don't.
Those who accept it seem to feel
> that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
> they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
> contradictory position
Well, those who accept evolution are willing to accept the evidence of
the world, those who reject evolution put more faith in one particular
interpretation of an ancient holy book than they do in the world.
>
> By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
> humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
> hook'
More like they reconcile their religious beliefs with the real world.
>
> However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
> I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
> them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
> that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
> reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
> facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
> of a divine 'designer'.
>
> The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
> over the weak,
No, it favors the organism that is more successful at reproducing. The
strong may be very good at being strong, but that does not mean that
they will make more babies.
the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
> deceivers, thieves and killers.
How does it reward those who do this? Form what I have seen, tbose
tactics are usually not selected for, as they do harm to the population.
Integrated and relatively stable
> societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
> still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
> cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
> to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
I agree.
>
> If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
> firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
> without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
> ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity.
What is the final state of humanity?
And secondly
> it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
> messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
> for so many people today.
>
> It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
> solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
> about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
> in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
> population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
> so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
> The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
> sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
> evolutionary process would not be needed.
You seem to think that there is some goal that humanity is reaching for,
what is that and why do you think that?
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
acker james
: "Death" <some...@other.than.here> wrote:
: >Bill, after some thought I felt I did need
: >to reply in a more concrete form. Our
: >discussion had degenerated into a discussion
: >of definitions which we where never going
: >to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
: >was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
: >naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
: >that I am I need to express the reason for this
: >misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
: [snip]
: Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
: subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
: different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
: Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
: evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
: that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
: they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
: contradictory position
: By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
: humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
: hook'
***** One of the aspects that I have added to this is that
we learn about nature via an understanding of evolution. We learn
that we are dependent on, not independent of, the Universe and nature.
We therefore learn that we are dependent on, not independent of,
the works of the Creator God.
: However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
: I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
: them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
: that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
: reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
: facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
: of a divine 'designer'.
: The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
: over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
: deceivers, thieves and killers. Integrated and relatively stable
: societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
: still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
: cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
: to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
***** Actually and statistically, luck has nothing to do
with it. Evolution always confers a statistical advantage to the
stronger, eventually. Thus, for something to be outside of nature,
for "the meek to inherit the Earth", God must intervene directly.
For example, little rodent-sized mammals were less likely to "inherit the
Earth" than the immense dinosaurs until conditions changed (both somewhat
gradually and finally in an abrupt conclusion) such that they were
favored. Likewise, a "turn the other cheek" philosophy isn't
likely to be rewarded with power and prestige in a human society unless
it is somehow favored by God.
: If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
: firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
: without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
: ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
: it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
: messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
: for so many people today.
***** This is not our final state. This is our human state.
Pain and sufferering are part of this existence, but not part of
our final existence.
I.e., humanity is flawed and is need of direct intervention from
God.
: It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
: solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
: about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
: in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
: population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
: so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
: The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
: sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
: evolutionary process would not be needed.
***** I'll wait for your next comments.
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
William
> ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>> Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
>> evolution and those who accept it.
>
>Actually, christians fall into many catagories, and simply dividing them
>at that point only leads to a lot of problems. And the division is more
>on the lines of those who insist on a young earth, literal
>interpretation of genesis and those who don't.
Quite. I think that is what I am saying.
> Those who accept it seem to feel
>> that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
>> they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
>> contradictory position
>
>Well, those who accept evolution are willing to accept the evidence of
>the world, those who reject evolution put more faith in one particular
>interpretation of an ancient holy book than they do in the world.
That's also what I am saying
>> By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
>> humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
>> hook'
>
>More like they reconcile their religious beliefs with the real world.
I'm saying that too - except that I haven't yet seen the beliefs
anywhere near successfully reconciled with the real world. That's
been my point.
>> However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
>> I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
>> them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>> that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>> reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>> facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>> of a divine 'designer'.
>>
>> The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>> over the weak,
>
>No, it favors the organism that is more successful at reproducing. The
>strong may be very good at being strong, but that does not mean that
>they will make more babies.
It's cruel and ruthless. Ever seen a lion bring down a terrified
zebra and tear it apart? A weak zebra gets caught; an injured lion
will not do the catching and will not survive. Dead zebras and dead
lions don't pass their genes on - or if they already have done so,
their offspring our more vulnerable. That's how it works - and always
has done.
> the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
>> deceivers, thieves and killers.
>
>How does it reward those who do this? Form what I have seen, tbose
>tactics are usually not selected for, as they do harm to the population.
The unlucky zebra was in the wrong place - it got caught. The lucky
one was in the right place - it escaped (this time). The lion spends
15 minutes on it's belly, trying to deceive the zebra into believing
it is not under threat. Thieving? Many predators survive solely by
stealing the kill or habitat of others. Many of these creatures are
sentient mammals and primates, very similar to us. That's how it
works; that's the fact of the evolutionary process. We observe it now
and we have ample evidence that that is how it happened in the past.
> Integrated and relatively stable
>> societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
>> still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
>> cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
>> to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>
>I agree.
>
>> If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
>> firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
>> without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
>> ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity.
>
>What is the final state of humanity?
I have no idea at all. Hopefully it will hop from this solar system
to another one long before this one becomes uninhabitable in a few
billion years time.
> And secondly
>> it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
>> messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
>> for so many people today.
>>
>> It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
>> solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
>> about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
>> in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
>> population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
>> so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
>> The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
>> sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
>> evolutionary process would not be needed.
>
>You seem to think that there is some goal that humanity is reaching for,
>what is that and why do you think that?
I hope I didn't give that impression - I don't think it is reaching
for any ultimate goal. I'm just responding to the christian view
that there can be a benevolent creator who would choose to use such an
inhumane process as evolution to design humanity.
Evolution happened. In an inhospitable universe it is par for the
course. I have no problem with that. But to introduce a beneovolent
creator who has unlimited resources at his disposal and claim he chose
to use evolution as his design tool seems to me to be quite ludicrous.
William
Bill McHale
: Bill McHale I disagree with almost all you said, I do
I have no doubt that you are an atheist, and that is fine, the choice of
one's beliefs is a personal matter. However, I must dispute your idea
that I got the definition of atheism wrong. I can only be wrong if the
common definition for atheism (as indicated by the Webster's dictionary)
is wrong; since the definition of words is determined by use that cannot
be the case. A dictionary is not a false authority, only the thing that
documents word usage.
You deny the existence of God and that makes you an atheist. Science
neither affirms nor denys the existence of God, nor can it. Science is
nothing more than a tool for examining and explaining the natural world
and is no more capable of being used to examine God than the authorial
intent of Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet.
Indeed if anything, you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me
of. You somehow believe that being an atheist makes you an expert on the
philosophical implications of science. I am certainly not an expert in
such, but rather rather firmly believe that the book is still open
regarding whether scientific discoveries affirm or deny the existence of a
supernatural prime mover.
Bill McHale
: Bill, after some thought I felt I did need
: to reply in a more concrete form. Our
: discussion had degenerated into a discussion
: of definitions which we where never going
: to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
: was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
: naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
: that I am I need to express the reason for this
: misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
: The human-centric evolution interpretation.
: that spending time reconciling our very real concerns
: about pollution, drug abuse and poverty whilst
: waiting for human centric views to interprete them.
: How many times do we have to point out that
: teaching science to the third world is a solution to
: it's poverty, drugs are not a sin but a disease,
: that pollution is not a call to return to mud huts.
: The concept of relevance is applicable to
: God myths, it is the burden of believer to
: make a case for it's relevance past it's
: self-creating prophesy.
: Bill if you do reply could you please
: sum up your criticisms below, your
: last post exploded some what (by
: pickup on every point you disagreed
: with). Like the faqs say, keep it short
: and sweet (effective), although I was
: equally guilty of this offense.
Well personally I believe that a point by point answer is a perfectly
valid method of philosophical debate, however I will try to make my
counter points below as opposed to above to make you happy.
1. You seem to be under the impression that a Theist by definition is an
adherent of a humancentric world view. Indeed that is often the case, but
it is also often the case of many scientists. However, I am not willing
to limit theism or God to that role. Making God a personal deity who
seems supremely concerned with the spiritual welfare of humans is
certainly a common viewpoint, but Deism and other philosophical positions
put man in a much less important position. Imagine instead of a God
interested in man a God that simply is trying to create a complex system
for some purpose that we have yet to divine, one that may have no
particular concern about humans, except for that small part they play in
the Universe, a role which is more or less important than that of
bacteria, stars, lions, etc.
2. All human thought systems are by their very nature human centric, this
is the same regardless of whether it is a philosophy, theology or science.
All our observations and intuitions are colored by our own experience. It
is very possible, perhaps even likely that an alien intelligence would
look at things in a very different way, one that we would not even think
of or possibly could think of.
3. Again and again you equate the idea of theism with God-myths, yet that
only covers part of the picture. Certainly many, indeed most theists
accept God myths, but that does not mean it is a requirement for being a
theist. There are many theists out there who reject the concept of a God
like that described in the Bible. While they believe that there is an
architect to the universe, they are unwilling to accept any particular
definitions of that architect without some sort of proof.
4. I believe the creation of the Universe is a key point in all this. We
both agree that evolution exists, and that it was responsible for the
development of all but the simplest forms of life, as to the actual
creation of life itself, well that is a subject so murkey, yet
theoretically solvable that it is incapable of shedding any light onto the
subject of a prime mover or not.
You try to draw an analogy between the creation of the first star and the
creation of the universe, yet the analogy is fundamentally flawed. The
star, however different from the matter that existed prior to its
formation is still made out of matter. The Universe's creation is much
murkier. You argue that it was caused by fluctuations... yet you failed
to answer my question regarding what the fluctuations occurred in. The
reason of course is that there is no known answer and very likely there
never will be one. Time and space were created with the big bang, from
our perspective, external to those referents the idea of fluctuations
makes no sense. Indeed it is even somewhat mistaken for you to suggest
that fluctuations are the answer because they are only one possible
answer. Even a casual examination of the state of modern cosmology shows
a field still filled with questions. All the theories of what occured
prior to a small fraction of second after the Big Bang are merely untested
hypothesises. While I dearly hope that the opposite is the case, there is
a very real possibility that science will never be able to take a real
look back to very moment of creation itself.
5. My ultimate position is not regarding whether God myths and evolution
are compatible, in this regard I agree with you, they are not. The real
issue is whether evolution is compatible with the idea of God, any god,
not necessarily a god that sees us as having any special relevance, or
even a God that would be recognizable to the vast majority of theists
around the world. My main position is that the concept of a Prime Mover
is a perfectlly defendable philosophical position and one that does not
necessitate any contraditictions with evolution or science.
POST SCRIPT.
The following bear no direct relevance to my above argument, but are
simply certain points about the post that I wish to respond to.
1. Science has never criticized the Catholic Church rather scientists have
and their research has refusted certain Church teachings.
2. You need to catch up on your late classical through early modern
history.
A. The Black Death was not responsible for the Renissance, though it was
a major factor in the decline of fuedalism. Rather the Renissance
was merely the last of several premodern recoveries of classical
knowledge and art. There were at least two other major renissances
between the 8th and the 16th centuries. The Black Death did however
play a roll in the break down of fuedalism (But by no means was it
the sole cause; the reintroduction of money into the economy also
played a major roll.
B. The Church and the burning of books was not the cause of the Dark
Ages. Rather it was caused by the economic and military decline of
the Western Empire and specifically refers to the first 2-3 centuries
following the final collapse of Rome. Indeed the Arabs could only
save those texts that they had access to and since the spread of
Islam did not start until the 7th century, there had already been
plenty of time to destroy all of the works. In reality many of the
works were never lost to the Eastern Empire which continued until the
Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453.
William
>William (ta...@mail.clara.net) wrote:
>: By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
>: humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
>: hook'
>
>One of the aspects that I have added to this is that
>we learn about nature via an understanding of evolution. We learn
>that we are dependent on, not independent of, the Universe and nature.
>We therefore learn that we are dependent on, not independent of,
>the works of the Creator God.
[snip]
> I'll wait for your next comments.
>Jim Acker
I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I have no
problem with evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that it
happened and that natural selection was the predominate means by which
it happened. We can certainly learn a lot by observing it. For us,
who see no evidence for any deities, the hard fact of evolution is no
problem - it's about what you would expect from a hard and impersonal
universe.
The problem I have is with christians who claim that their benevolent,
all powerful and omniscient God chose to use such an appalling design
tool for creating sentient creatures leading up to and including
ourselves. (We still have to live with all the resultant baggage such
as the misery of back and hip disorders, genetic problems etc - and
even the scourge of deadly viruses and parasites).
William
Christopher A. Lee
>I have no doubt that you are an atheist, and that is fine, the choice of
>one's beliefs is a personal matter. However, I must dispute your idea
Why do you think there's any choice involved? We can no more choose
to believe in your dfeity than you can choose to believe in Zeus.
>that I got the definition of atheism wrong. I can only be wrong if the
>common definition for atheism (as indicated by the Webster's dictionary)
>is wrong; since the definition of words is determined by use that cannot
Dictionaries only give common use. And often common use gets it
wrong especially in a society where 90% are theist and use a
strawman based on their presuppositions which don't even apply
to us.
>be the case. A dictionary is not a false authority, only the thing that
>documents word usage.
And other dictionaries give definitions which actually get
atheists right when they describe us.
I should point out that even though it's thoughtless and
unintended, telling atheists that you know their position better
than WE ATHEISTS DO OURSELVES, is extremely arrogant and rude.
>You deny the existence of God and that makes you an atheist. Science
No. That's a ridiculous thing to say. "Deny" is a loaded word
that presumes what is being denied. UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT
THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING TO DENY then there's nothing being
denied.
>neither affirms nor denys the existence of God, nor can it. Science is
And it can neither affirm nor deny a whole slew of other
mythical beliefs either.. In fact it's got nothing to say
about any of them other than the obvious: people believe in
all sorts of things including gods of which one god-belief
object is called "God".
>nothing more than a tool for examining and explaining the natural world
>and is no more capable of being used to examine God than the authorial
>intent of Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet.
So what? It's got nothing to with either science or atheists. It's
up to believers to provide support for their claims. Instead of
making up strawmen and telling us they describe us.
>Indeed if anything, you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me
>of. You somehow believe that being an atheist makes you an expert on the
>philosophical implications of science. I am certainly not an expert in
>such, but rather rather firmly believe that the book is still open
>regarding whether scientific discoveries affirm or deny the existence of a
>supernatural prime mover.
You show your ignorance. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about
this per se - but too many believers make doctriunally based claims
about reality which are easily falsified and fall by the wayside.
Which is their own fault for making them in a place where they become
subject to the methods used to investigate reality.
For instance, *I*F* they insist on a deity that caused Noah's flood
then the flood is a big zero because there has been no such world-wide
flood. Logically *and* this zero with the deity they insist did it
and the result is zero. So that deity is disproved.
Dick C.
ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
> "Dick C." <di...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
> >> Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
> >> evolution and those who accept it.
> >
> >Actually, christians fall into many catagories, and simply dividing
them
> >at that point only leads to a lot of problems. And the division is
more
> >on the lines of those who insist on a young earth, literal
> >interpretation of genesis and those who don't.
>
> Quite. I think that is what I am saying.
Not really, there are old earth creationists who do not accept some or
even all evolution, and many YEC's accept limited evolution. And there
are a lot of Christians who do not view the either the age of the earth,
nor even evolution as being something to worry about. The difference is
not evolution per se, rather it is whether the book of Genesis is to be
interpreted literally or metaphorically.
>
> > Those who accept it seem to feel
> >> that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
> >> they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
> >> contradictory position
> >
> >Well, those who accept evolution are willing to accept the evidence
of
> >the world, those who reject evolution put more faith in one
particular
> >interpretation of an ancient holy book than they do in the world.
>
> That's also what I am saying
No it isn't. You are saying that there is a problem with christianity
and evolution, I said that the non fundamentalists do not see a problem.
The problem is all in your head.
>
> >> By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
> >> humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
> >> hook'
> >
> >More like they reconcile their religious beliefs with the real world.
>
> I'm saying that too -
No you are not. You are saying that the the non fundies still have a
problem, and that there is a debate about it. I am saying that most non
fundies do not have a problem and are not even interested in any debate
that you care to bring up.
except that I haven't yet seen the beliefs
> anywhere near successfully reconciled with the real world. That's
> been my point.
Whether Paul Presbyterian or Morris Methodist has reconciled his faith
or not is up to them. Whether you have reconciled yours is up to you.
That is an entirely personal decision. And the vast, vast majority of
christians never even look in the newsgroups, or other places where they
are argued.
>
> >> However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread,
so
> >> I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
> >> them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
> >> that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
> >> reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
> >> facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the
notion
> >> of a divine 'designer'.
> >>
> >> The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the
strong
> >> over the weak,
> >
> >No, it favors the organism that is more successful at reproducing.
The
> >strong may be very good at being strong, but that does not mean that
> >they will make more babies.
>
> It's cruel and ruthless.
The only people who say it isn't are the religiously blind.
Ever seen a lion bring down a terrified
> zebra and tear it apart? A weak zebra gets caught; an injured lion
> will not do the catching and will not survive.
Actually, the pride quite possibly will help the injured lion.
Dead zebras and dead
> lions don't pass their genes on - or if they already have done so,
> their offspring our more vulnerable.
Why? Injuries, illness, and old age happens to both populations, but do
nothing to harm the genes of the populations. However, a zebra that has
a genetic defect that prevents it from keeping up will quickly be
culled. Quite often while it is still a colt. A lion that for some
genetic reason is unable to hunt properly will die. That is life.
>That's how it works - and always
> has done.
>
> > the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
> >> deceivers, thieves and killers.
> >
> >How does it reward those who do this? Form what I have seen, tbose
> >tactics are usually not selected for, as they do harm to the
population.
>
> The unlucky zebra was in the wrong place - it got caught. The lucky
> one was in the right place - it escaped (this time). The lion spends
> 15 minutes on it's belly, trying to deceive the zebra into believing
> it is not under threat. Thieving? Many predators survive solely by
> stealing the kill or habitat of others. Many of these creatures are
> sentient mammals and primates, very similar to us. That's how it
> works; that's the fact of the evolutionary process. We observe it now
> and we have ample evidence that that is how it happened in the past.
I find it interesting that you are attempting to put human morals on non
humans.
All that aside, I will admit that there are some animals that do as you
say. But that does not equate with all the nasty things you claim,
because I do not think the rest of the animal world operates by your
rules.
>
> > Integrated and relatively stable
> >> societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which
is
> >> still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in
a
> >> cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)).
But
> >> to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >> If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
> >> firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
> >> without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
> >> ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity.
> >
> >What is the final state of humanity?
>
> I have no idea at all. Hopefully it will hop from this solar system
> to another one long before this one becomes uninhabitable in a few
> billion years time.
Then why do you claim there is one? Do you think that we are evolving
towards some goal? The only goal in evolution is maintaining some kind
of fitness regarding the environment. There is no ultimate end to
evoulution except extinction.
So? Along with this benevolent creator is also a fall from his grace and
a chance at redemption. According to the fundies, the fall of man from
god's grace caused the red in tooth and claw bit in nature. When I was a
believer I believed that god guided evolution, and never really worried
about nature.
You may see a problem but to most theists there is no problem. It is, if
you recall, a matter of faith.
>
> Evolution happened. In an inhospitable universe it is par for the
> course. I have no problem with that. But to introduce a beneovolent
> creator who has unlimited resources at his disposal and claim he chose
> to use evolution as his design tool seems to me to be quite ludicrous.
I agree, however, I tend to think that most religious beliefs are rather
pointless anyways.
maff91
> "Death" <some...@other.than.here> wrote:
>
>>Bill, after some thought I felt I did need
>>to reply in a more concrete form. Our
>>discussion had degenerated into a discussion
>>of definitions which we where never going
>>to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
>>was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
>>naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
>>that I am I need to express the reason for this
>>misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
>
>[snip]
>
>Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
>subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
>different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
>
>Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
>evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
>that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
>they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
>contradictory position
>
>By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
>humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
>hook'
>
>However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
>I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
>them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>of a divine 'designer'.
>
>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs7.html
>deceivers, thieves and killers. Integrated and relatively stable
>societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
>still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
>cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
>to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>
>If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
>firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
>without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
>ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
>it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
>messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
>for so many people today.
>
>It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
>solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
>about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
>in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
>population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
>so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
>The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
>sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
>evolutionary process would not be needed.
>
>William
--
L.P.#0000000001
William
wrote:
I've just visited each of the above sites. Interesting stuff. I've
been to the first one before.
But I can't find anything in them particularly relevant to my post.
Have I missed something?
William
Death
acker james <jac...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:7k3b4q$kkg$2...@news.umbc.edu...
> William (ta...@mail.clara.net) wrote:
> : "Death" <some...@other.than.here> wrote:
>
> : >Bill, after some thought I felt I did need
> : >to reply in a more concrete form. Our
> : >discussion had degenerated into a discussion
> : >of definitions which we where never going
> : >to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
> : >was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
> : >naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
> : >that I am I need to express the reason for this
> : >misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
>
> : [snip]
>
> : Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
> : subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
> : different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
>
> : Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
> : evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
> : that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
> : they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
> : contradictory position
>
> : By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
> : humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
> : hook'
>
> we learn about nature via an understanding of evolution. We learn
> that we are dependent on, not independent of, the Universe and nature.
> We therefore learn that we are dependent on, not independent of,
> the works of the Creator God.
>
>
> : I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
> : them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
> : that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
> : reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
> : facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
> : of a divine 'designer'.
>
> : The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
> : over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
> : societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
> : still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
> : cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
> : to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>
> with it. Evolution always confers a statistical advantage to the
> stronger, eventually. Thus, for something to be outside of nature,
> for "the meek to inherit the Earth", God must intervene directly.
> For example, little rodent-sized mammals were less likely to "inherit the
> Earth" than the immense dinosaurs until conditions changed (both somewhat
> gradually and finally in an abrupt conclusion) such that they were
> favored. Likewise, a "turn the other cheek" philosophy isn't
> likely to be rewarded with power and prestige in a human society unless
> it is somehow favored by God.
>
>
> : firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
> : without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
> : ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
> : it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
> : messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
> : for so many people today.
>
> Pain and sufferering are part of this existence, but not part of
> our final existence.
> I.e., humanity is flawed and is need of direct intervention from
> God.
>
> : solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
> : about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
> : in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
> : population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
> : so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
> : The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
> : sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
> : evolutionary process would not be needed.
>
Trash in trash out. The universe was created by pixies,
we are all dependant on them, ergo they must play a part.
Any idiot can reinvent first cause and create nonentities
that effect yet cannot be effected, but just like any
human imagining only you really know. Your needs
are not mine, you beliefs are not mine, because your
life is not mine.
Death
Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:7k3f3p$mv2$1...@news.umbc.edu...
> Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
>
> : Bill McHale I disagree with almost all you said, I do
> : not feel the need to reiterate my views.
>
> : But maybe when you get a bit older you might
> : learn about the False Authority Syndrome, it's
> : where in this instant a theologist thinks he's an
> : expert on science and atheism. You can't even
> : get the definitions right, I tell you why I am an
> : atheist and you are not. I have been living the
> : life of an atheist for a very long time and I have
> : never harbour a disbelief/faith in something
> : I cannot even question. My faith unfortuately
> : is based on things I can question, that why
> : I am an atheist. Get it.
>
> : Atheisms are all the other -isms that give
> : ontologies that are not base in god myths.
> : aka A-theism.
>
> one's beliefs is a personal matter. However, I must dispute your idea
> common definition for atheism (as indicated by the Webster's dictionary)
> is wrong; since the definition of words is determined by use that cannot
> documents word usage.
>
> nothing more than a tool for examining and explaining the natural world
> and is no more capable of being used to examine God than the authorial
> intent of Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet.
>
> of. You somehow believe that being an atheist makes you an expert on the
> philosophical implications of science. I am certainly not an expert in
> such, but rather rather firmly believe that the book is still open
> regarding whether scientific discoveries affirm or deny the existence of a
> supernatural prime mover.
>
> Bill
Thank you, Chris. I think you cover most of the
ground of Bill's continual False Authority Syndrome.
But I am so aggrieved that Bill should continue do so,
that I must again enter the fray.
There are many definitions for words, even each dictionary
has slight rewording, BUT oh no bill has to stick religiously
by the first he comes across....
Snip from previous post of Bill.
"""I am not burdening you with a subjective theistic defition of what
atheism
is or is not, but rather asserting what its common definition is. The
single most common definition of atheism is that it is the disbelief in
god or gods."""
The common definition implies uncommon definitions, the singular
definition implys other definitions. Any idiot can pick on a word and
find a different meaning in a different dictionary and demand we
use it. E.g. Pot. Penny out the pot on the stove, Penny is the
Authority figure (most able to know what sort of Pot she put
on the stove). Bill tell's us she put a fisherman's crab catcher
pot on the stove and that it's likely to start a fire. I how would
ask the Authority figure what sort of Pot it is.
It, however aggrieving to me, still no surprise that a theist
would take the dictionary in a literal rather than liberal
manner, nor that a theist would demand his interpretation
is singualarly correct, nor even when shown example
of how catholics that might call protestants faith unworthy
because of their use of religious language by catholic
standards is errorous. It is no surprise than religion
is dying when their supporters cannot remove their
biases even when talking of the most simplestic of
definitions.
I don't deny the existance of God, how can I, Bill!
I can't even tell the differance between Gods and
sky-pixies. Just as Science has nothing more than a
tool for examining and explaining the natural world
and is no more capable of being used to examine God
nor have I, for my ontology is so dependant on science.
I don't accept knowledge that appears, poof out of
nothing, I only see knowledge emerging from the
our substantive reality. My ontology does not regard
the supernatural for it's existance and so is a atheism.
Death
I doubt a deist would find the need to incorporate God and evolution,
but I leave that up to the deists in the audiance. However, I go back to
my point above what relevance does evolution have with God myths and
do we again have to wait for human centric views to interprete them.
It is the burden of believer to make a case for it's relevance with God,
If God myths are unconcerned then why the concerned title of this thread?
>
> 2. All human thought systems are by their very nature human centric, this
> is the same regardless of whether it is a philosophy, theology or science.
> All our observations and intuitions are colored by our own experience. It
> is very possible, perhaps even likely that an alien intelligence would
> look at things in a very different way, one that we would not even think
> of or possibly could think of.
Yes, but barring first contact with aliens and what they might see
or not see. Science purpose has found those biases to be problematic
and takes many steps to minimise them which has lead us directly to
the "dynamic indecision" of evolution.
>
> 3. Again and again you equate the idea of theism with God-myths, yet that
> only covers part of the picture. Certainly many, indeed most theists
> accept God myths, but that does not mean it is a requirement for being a
> theist. There are many theists out there who reject the concept of a God
> like that described in the Bible. While they believe that there is an
> architect to the universe, they are unwilling to accept any particular
> definitions of that architect without some sort of proof.
The discussion, <looks up again at the title> is very much in regards
of theists that accept god-myths
>
> 4. I believe the creation of the Universe is a key point in all this. We
> both agree that evolution exists, and that it was responsible for the
> development of all but the simplest forms of life, as to the actual
> creation of life itself, well that is a subject so murkey, yet
> theoretically solvable that it is incapable of shedding any light onto the
> subject of a prime mover or not.
Evolution is "dynamic indecision", when widened the prime mover
is not necessaily affixed to one edge of the universe or other but
leads to the possibility movers are continually remoulding, creating
and destroying. aka Popper's emergence philosophy of science.
>
> You try to draw an analogy between the creation of the first star and the
> creation of the universe, yet the analogy is fundamentally flawed. The
> star, however different from the matter that existed prior to its
> formation is still made out of matter. The Universe's creation is much
> murkier. You argue that it was caused by fluctuations... yet you failed
> to answer my question regarding what the fluctuations occurred in. The
> reason of course is that there is no known answer and very likely there
> never will be one. Time and space were created with the big bang, from
> our perspective, external to those referents the idea of fluctuations
> makes no sense. Indeed it is even somewhat mistaken for you to suggest
> that fluctuations are the answer because they are only one possible
> answer. Even a casual examination of the state of modern cosmology shows
> a field still filled with questions. All the theories of what occured
> prior to a small fraction of second after the Big Bang are merely untested
> hypothesises. While I dearly hope that the opposite is the case, there is
> a very real possibility that science will never be able to take a real
> look back to very moment of creation itself.
The plausable "comfortable inprecision" explanation that science gives
is only as comfortable as it's inprecision is accepted. I however
continue to be surprised how out of content nonscientisms can be
added to scientism to make points. If you want to talk about essences
then why don't you just come out and say so, but science does
regard at this present moment the idea of fluctuations in the
something-nothing interior and exterior of this universe to be
primoral to the universe's initial bang. As Feynmann once said
beware the questions you ask. Science is predictated on finding
the useful, it is our mistake to think that what is useful is right, but
a nice mistake if there were one, far better than pondering
unanswerable questions that aren't useful or ever likely to be given
the long history of pondering them.
>
> 5. My ultimate position is not regarding whether God myths and evolution
> are compatible, in this regard I agree with you, they are not. The real
> issue is whether evolution is compatible with the idea of God, any god,
> not necessarily a god that sees us as having any special relevance, or
> even a God that would be recognizable to the vast majority of theists
> around the world. My main position is that the concept of a Prime Mover
> is a perfectlly defendable philosophical position and one that does not
> necessitate any contraditictions with evolution or science.
I agree that Science mixed with God are irrelevant, but I go on and say
because God myths are irrelevant, time and resource consuming
non-arguments. For example, the prime mover, yes this was once
and is a historical philosophical position (not always so, but near the
beginning of ancient philosophy, yes), each generation of philosophers
learns their historical groundings, each weighs up their comfort zones
in this well known subject of inprecision. The prime mover
argument is predicated on aleast two assumptions that there was a
pivotable point, and that causal link back to it. I have yet to find
any direct causal event that was not unencumbered by an ensemble
of other causes, nor that there is one pivotable point but a continuum
of pivotable points. Boundary conditions are nice when you can't
test them, only non-scientists seem to get away with them for any
length of time.
>
> POST SCRIPT.
>
> The following bear no direct relevance to my above argument, but are
> simply certain points about the post that I wish to respond to.
>
> 1. Science has never criticized the Catholic Church rather scientists have
> and their research has refusted certain Church teachings.
Never is a big word, Astronomy a big subject and conflict forever
critical to some.
>
> 2. You need to catch up on your late classical through early modern
> history.
>
> A. The Black Death was not responsible for the Renissance, though it was
> a major factor in the decline of fuedalism. Rather the Renissance
> was merely the last of several premodern recoveries of classical
> knowledge and art. There were at least two other major renissances
> between the 8th and the 16th centuries. The Black Death did however
> play a roll in the break down of fuedalism (But by no means was it
> the sole cause; the reintroduction of money into the economy also
> played a major roll.
When the preists fail to save you dying child from a mysterious
killer that has killed your village you start looking else where
for guidance. When the whole of civilisation has dying
children, civilisations change direction.
>
> B. The Church and the burning of books was not the cause of the Dark
> Ages. Rather it was caused by the economic and military decline of
> the Western Empire and specifically refers to the first 2-3 centuries
> following the final collapse of Rome. Indeed the Arabs could only
> save those texts that they had access to and since the spread of
> Islam did not start until the 7th century, there had already been
> plenty of time to destroy all of the works. In reality many of the
> works were never lost to the Eastern Empire which continued until the
> Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453.
Questioning a Church Doctrine was unhealthy, books that
did so were also unhealthy and were also destroyed. The
Church characterised and perpetuated the Dark Ages by
there acts (threats). A authority that dominated an age, directly
effected that economic and military of the age. Communist
Russian dominanted the cold war (not singualarly),
whose doctrine lead to a declining economy and knock
on declining military, which eventual led it's leadership to
glasnost. History repeats itself, evolutionary processes
work similarly in different ages of humankind.
Death
Electro <elect...@aol.comeatspam> wrote in message
news:19990614083945...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
I have no love for lifeless terms like creator, non-existance, tao and
spirit.
There only ability is to serve us by pointing out what we are not, I am
not god, I do not non-exist, I am not tao and I am not spirit.
Other than that misgiving, I love the term "Comfortable imprecision",
but unlike you I am an proponent of evolution and coined the words
"dynamic indecision" to reinterate evolution without human centric
views after read your offering. Thank you.
I see the greatest threat to our comfortable imprecision is the
cannabilisation of our minds, those uncomfortable precise
terms of like, fallen from god, good and evil, etc. that get
used by those whose intent is control.
Yes, thank you again. The whole idea of moving from
the descriptive nature of science (it's imprecision) to the
intent of science (comfortable usefulness) is excellantly
applicable to our human condition.
Electro
If Lucifer reflected the glory of God, why did God throw away his mirror? How
did God make man in his image without a mirror?
The ugliness we see in Creation is the ugliness of a God who lost sight of who
He is, but remembered how vain His beauty made Him. The Universe, ultimately,
is the rock heavier than God lift, or even move. It strains God.... He saw that
it was good, and weeps that He could do no better.
What force threatens survival enough to ultimately evolve non-living matter
into
life?
Scratch the surface and see the flaws, pull back and see the flaw is the
scratch you made in the surface.
Did Diogenes roam the darkened streets with a lantern, searching for the face
of an honest man because he couldn't find one inside himself, or was he just a
self-righteous asshole?
Death
Electro <elect...@aol.comeatspam> wrote in message
God can do anything, or that's what I told.
>How did God make man in his image without a mirror?
God can do anything, or that's what I told.
> The ugliness we see in Creation is the ugliness of a God who lost sight of
who
> He is, but remembered how vain His beauty made Him.
God can believe anything he wishs, I'm told also we cannot know
his mind.
> The Universe, ultimately,
> is the rock heavier than God lift, or even move.
God can do anything, or that's what I told.
>It strains God.... He saw that
> it was good, and weeps that He could do no better.
God could even have emotions.
I still don't see the relevance.
>
> What force threatens survival enough to ultimately evolve non-living
matter
> into life?
Does a river banks emerge from the action of the river, or were
they there before it changed it course through that local. If a natural
non-living phenomena can emerge new forms, why can't non-living
chemicals do so. Or is that to hard for you to imagine. Survival
is the emergent phenomenon of living entities interaction.
>
> Scratch the surface and see the flaws, pull back and see the flaw is the
> scratch you made in the surface.
The flaw is not seeing the rest of the flawlessness around the flaw.
<snip for relevance>
> -Electro-
>
> "I hear the sound of gunfire at the prison gate. Are the liberators here?
Do I
> hope or do I fear? For my father and my brother it's too late, but I must
help
> my mother stand up straight!" - Rush, "Red Sector A"
>
A car backfires, you awaken screaming, your third world
cell is made real. Only you can release yourself from this
exile.
Death.
Matt Silberstein
<some...@other.than.here>:
[snip]
>
>Evolutionists that fail to account for their own observer
>status when creating their theories are no better than
>our earth-centric forefathers and human-centric special
>cases pleader (fuddys). When a evolutionist fails to
>account that we are not the first builders of machines,
>just the like one cellular friends that organise themselves
>to create us, just like termites build mounds in africa
>to create air-flow through their cities, just like viruses
>mimic their hosts to effect their parasitical survival.
A rather broad definition of machine. However, do you have any
examples of "evolutionists" who have failed to account for this?
>When we see a bee's ability to tract nector and communicate
>this to it's colony as a form of a human programmed
>"software", we miss the real evolutionary process underlying
>cells, viruses, insects and us (by seeing it in human terms,
>is useful but self-deceptive).
Any examples? Without something specific here this seems like a
strawman.
>What's is more surprising
>is that we then go on to use the process of evolution to
>solve mathematically and engineering problems (we
>couldn't as easily with all our maths and logic) , we
>continue to take our ape like mimicing to new heights not based
>on something that we created alone, but created us
>without a thought.
What is surprising about this and is it wrong in any way?
> When we accept the evolutionist
>or fuddy before them that allows "design was required"
>arguments without considering this most obviously
>human centric argument we see again the same
>special case pleaders. A evolutionists that sees the
>universe as have been presprung whether by sky
>pixies or straight out of nothing deserve no less
>than the criticism that science gave to the catholic
>church.
Evolution says nothing about the origin of the Universe. Nor does it
particularly exclude God, no more than does astronomy or meteorology.
> The universe is continually bubbling new
>forms and structures right here and right now,
>as well as right over there and right back then
>at the start of the universe.
Huh?
> Just as the first star was
>formed from matter and is something unlike anything
>before yet still made of matter, so this universe formed
>from fluctuations and is something unlike anything before
>yet still made of fluctuations. Creation is dynamic and
>irrelevent to humans (humans are only relevent to humans).
>God and evolution are unreconcilable for God makes
>humans relevent and the universe shows nothing could be
>further from the truth.
Please tell me how the universe shows that humans are not relevant?
Bill McHale
: In article <7k3f3p$mv2$1...@news.umbc.edu> wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) writes:
: >I have no doubt that you are an atheist, and that is fine, the choice of
: >one's beliefs is a personal matter. However, I must dispute your idea
: Why do you think there's any choice involved? We can no more choose
: to believe in your dfeity than you can choose to believe in Zeus.
Sure there is choice involved, rational, irrational or subconscious, but
it is a choice. I could, given the right context of circumstances choose
to believe in Zues or choose to reject the idea of a Deity entirely.
: >that I got the definition of atheism wrong. I can only be wrong if the
: >common definition for atheism (as indicated by the Webster's dictionary)
: >is wrong; since the definition of words is determined by use that cannot
: Dictionaries only give common use. And often common use gets it
: wrong especially in a society where 90% are theist and use a
: strawman based on their presuppositions which don't even apply
: to us.
The common use by definition cannot be wrong because language is
determined by usage. By hanging onto definitions that the majority of
people do not recognize or understand forces misunderstandings. To insist
that that which does not deal with the idea of God is atheistic strongly
suggests something which is not true, which is why I stick to my
contention that science is more properly regarded as non-theistic rather
than atheistic.
: >be the case. A dictionary is not a false authority, only the thing that
: >documents word usage.
: And other dictionaries give definitions which actually get
: atheists right when they describe us.
But are those definitions the most common definition? I can find really
obscure definitions to almost any word I care to look at, but that does
not mean that just because there is an obscure definition of the word that
that makes it the best word to use.
: I should point out that even though it's thoughtless and
: unintended, telling atheists that you know their position better
: than WE ATHEISTS DO OURSELVES, is extremely arrogant and rude.
I am not claiming to know what anyone believes, what I am arguing is that
the way you define the word atheism differently than most people
(including many atheists) define it and then apply the word to science
gives a completely different impression of what science is than what it
actually is. To say science is atheistic implies to most people that
science is somehow opposed to the notion of God when in fact science has
nothing to say about God.
: >You deny the existence of God and that makes you an atheist. Science
: No. That's a ridiculous thing to say. "Deny" is a loaded word
: that presumes what is being denied. UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT
: THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING TO DENY then there's nothing being
: denied.
This is logical sophistry and in fact is silly on its very face. If I can
demonstrate that there is a God, then denying God becomes rationally
impossible (Just as it is rationally impossible to deny that 1 + 1 = 2 in
basic integer mathematics). Denying something does not presume
something's existence, only the idea of something's existence.
: >neither affirms nor denys the existence of God, nor can it. Science is
: And it can neither affirm nor deny a whole slew of other
: mythical beliefs either.. In fact it's got nothing to say
: about any of them other than the obvious: people believe in
: all sorts of things including gods of which one god-belief
: object is called "God".
: >nothing more than a tool for examining and explaining the natural world
: >and is no more capable of being used to examine God than the authorial
: >intent of Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet.
: So what? It's got nothing to with either science or atheists. It's
: up to believers to provide support for their claims. Instead of
: making up strawmen and telling us they describe us.
I am not trying to describe you, I am defining a term by its common
definition; allowing each person to use their own definition for any term
they feel like prevents clear communication.
: >Indeed if anything, you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me
: >of. You somehow believe that being an atheist makes you an expert on the
: >philosophical implications of science. I am certainly not an expert in
: >such, but rather rather firmly believe that the book is still open
: >regarding whether scientific discoveries affirm or deny the existence of a
: >supernatural prime mover.
: You show your ignorance. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about
: this per se - but too many believers make doctriunally based claims
: about reality which are easily falsified and fall by the wayside.
: Which is their own fault for making them in a place where they become
: subject to the methods used to investigate reality.
I didn't say science had anything to say about it.. indeed I have been
quite clear that it did not as you will see if I read my previous posts,
what I said was that scientific discoveries might have implications
regarding this issue just as scientific implications have deconstructed
large parts of the Old Testament, so they might at some point either
affirm or deny the existence of a creator.
: For instance, *I*F* they insist on a deity that caused Noah's flood
: then the flood is a big zero because there has been no such world-wide
: flood. Logically *and* this zero with the deity they insist did it
: and the result is zero. So that deity is disproved.
Actually thats not really a logical and because then if the flood had
occured God would exist, a position I am sure neither of us would find
satisfactory. Rather its more of a position of God might exists if and
only if there was a Global flood.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee (chri...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <7k3f3p$mv2$1...@news.umbc.edu> wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) writes:
>: >I have no doubt that you are an atheist, and that is fine, the choice of
>: >one's beliefs is a personal matter. However, I must dispute your idea
>
>: Why do you think there's any choice involved? We can no more choose
>: to believe in your dfeity than you can choose to believe in Zeus.
>
>Sure there is choice involved, rational, irrational or subconscious, but
>it is a choice. I could, given the right context of circumstances choose
>to believe in Zues or choose to reject the idea of a Deity entirely.
Then we're using different meanings of "choose". I choose a pizza
or a burger. I can no more choose to believe in God or Zeus that
I can choose to believe that a dropped brick will fall upwards.
If somebody were to show me proof of whichever deity then I would
accept its existence and there would be no need to "believe".
>: >that I got the definition of atheism wrong. I can only be wrong if the
>: >common definition for atheism (as indicated by the Webster's dictionary)
>: >is wrong; since the definition of words is determined by use that cannot
>
>: Dictionaries only give common use. And often common use gets it
>: wrong especially in a society where 90% are theist and use a
>: strawman based on their presuppositions which don't even apply
>: to us.
>
>The common use by definition cannot be wrong because language is
Of course it can be wrong. In this case your dictionary gets
atheists wrong.
Funny thing is, mine doesn't: some get it right; the way definitions
work if *any* of them describe an object then that word applies - the
converse doesn't work though. If someone is described by a word then
you can't pick and coose a different definition which is what you're
doing.
If it tells me that I believe something irrelevent to me doesn't
exist when it's too unimportant to have that belief about it, does
that mean the dictionary knows my mind better than I do myself?
The dictionary doesn't tell me what I do or don't believe. I
get to do that myself. Especially when the dictionary was
compiled by somebody who doesn't know what an atheist is because
he thinks there can only be three positions about their deity,
all based on the presumption is exists: believing it exists,
believing it doesn't and not knowing (spot the bait'n'switch
from belief to knowledge).
Even if we invent a new word to describe us (which we shouldn't
have to do: parse "atheist"; linguistically it's the same
construction as asymmetric. apolitical, asexual etc, just
another a- word showing the absence of the prefixed property)
theists will *still* redefine it because they do not understand
the very concept - it doesn't fit in with their presumptions
and we'd have to keep inventing new words.
>determined by usage. By hanging onto definitions that the majority of
>people do not recognize or understand forces misunderstandings. To insist
No. The problem is that the concept of what atheism actually is,
doen't even exist for most theists. And their definitions simply
don't describe the majority of atheists.
>that that which does not deal with the idea of God is atheistic strongly
>suggests something which is not true, which is why I stick to my
This makes no sense. When people tell the world what I believe and
get it wrong then I *correct* them. Are you telling me that my
correcting them somehow validates them because I feel strongly
enough that if they talk about me they should at least get it
right?
>contention that science is more properly regarded as non-theistic rather
Most theists, who represent over 90% of the US population, see the
rest of the world through the perspective of their beliefs and think
that there are only three possible positions anybody can have about
their deity. And the majority of atheists fall outside these. The
theists base their definitions on presumptions which don't even
apply to us.
>: >be the case. A dictionary is not a false authority, only the thing that
>: >documents word usage.
>
>: And other dictionaries give definitions which actually get
>: atheists right when they describe us.
>
>But are those definitions the most common definition? I can find really
That doesn't matter. If the most common definition of "cat" is
a feline domestic pet, does that meant twin-hulled boats are
really felines too?
>obscure definitions to almost any word I care to look at, but that does
>not mean that just because there is an obscure definition of the word that
>that makes it the best word to use.
But "not believing in any go or god" isn't obscure. It's the
primary or even only definition in some dictionaries.
>: I should point out that even though it's thoughtless and
>: unintended, telling atheists that you know their position better
>: than WE ATHEISTS DO OURSELVES, is extremely arrogant and rude.
>
>I am not claiming to know what anyone believes, what I am arguing is that
Yes you are - every time you use your definition.
>the way you define the word atheism differently than most people
>(including many atheists) define it and then apply the word to science
No. You're the one trying to apply it to science. Atheism is in fact
a non-event except in the specific context when somebody else brings
up their theism. The theism is irrelevent most of the time, and most
ost of the time we don't even realise we're atheist.
>gives a completely different impression of what science is than what it
>actually is. To say science is atheistic implies to most people that
>science is somehow opposed to the notion of God when in fact science has
>nothing to say about God.
AAAARGGGGHHHHH........
And it's got nothing to say about wibblies either. Why do so
many people want to make a special case of one specific god-belief
as though that were special. I've never heard anybody point out
that science has nothing to say about Zeus but on at least one
of these newsgroups there's no difference.
>: >You deny the existence of God and that makes you an atheist. Science
>
>: No. That's a ridiculous thing to say. "Deny" is a loaded word
>: that presumes what is being denied. UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT
>: THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING TO DENY then there's nothing being
>: denied.
>
>This is logical sophistry and in fact is silly on its very face. If I can
No, it's not. "Deny" *is* a loaded word which presumes what is
being denied. Do you "deny" Zeus? Or is is something that doesn't
even enter into it because you're not an ancient Greek whose god
it is?
I don't think you realise how utterly irrelevent the putative
object of somebody else's religious belief is, to those outside
that religion.
And a deity called "God" is only one of the hundreds of different
deity-beliefs we don't share. As somebody once put it, you are
atheist about thousands of deities - we're only atheist about one
more than you.
>demonstrate that there is a God, then denying God becomes rationally
>impossible (Just as it is rationally impossible to deny that 1 + 1 = 2 in
>basic integer mathematics). Denying something does not presume
>something's existence, only the idea of something's existence.
Nice twisting of words. With everything else it presumes something
to be denied. Like "he denied he robbed the 7-11 last night".
>: >neither affirms nor denys the existence of God, nor can it. Science is
>
>: And it can neither affirm nor deny a whole slew of other
>: mythical beliefs either.. In fact it's got nothing to say
>: about any of them other than the obvious: people believe in
>: all sorts of things including gods of which one god-belief
>: object is called "God".
>
>: >nothing more than a tool for examining and explaining the natural world
>: >and is no more capable of being used to examine God than the authorial
>: >intent of Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet.
>
>: So what? It's got nothing to with either science or atheists. It's
>: up to believers to provide support for their claims. Instead of
>: making up strawmen and telling us they describe us.
>
>I am not trying to describe you, I am defining a term by its common
>definition; allowing each person to use their own definition for any term
>they feel like prevents clear communication.
No. Every time you use your common definition you tell me that
it describes me. The common definition of atheist is a strawman.
Because those who use it don't understand what an atheist is, and
re-interpret it through their preseumptions which don't even apply.
>: >Indeed if anything, you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me
>: >of. You somehow believe that being an atheist makes you an expert on the
>: >philosophical implications of science. I am certainly not an expert in
>: >such, but rather rather firmly believe that the book is still open
>: >regarding whether scientific discoveries affirm or deny the existence of a
>: >supernatural prime mover.
>
>: You show your ignorance. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about
>: this per se - but too many believers make doctriunally based claims
>: about reality which are easily falsified and fall by the wayside.
>: Which is their own fault for making them in a place where they become
>: subject to the methods used to investigate reality.
>
>I didn't say science had anything to say about it.. indeed I have been
You just did: "...the book is still open regarding whether scientific
discoveries affirm or deny the existence of a supernatural prime mover".
>quite clear that it did not as you will see if I read my previous posts,
>what I said was that scientific discoveries might have implications
>regarding this issue just as scientific implications have deconstructed
>large parts of the Old Testament, so they might at some point either
>affirm or deny the existence of a creator.
Then it was badly phrased.
>: For instance, *I*F* they insist on a deity that caused Noah's flood
>: then the flood is a big zero because there has been no such world-wide
>: flood. Logically *and* this zero with the deity they insist did it
>: and the result is zero. So that deity is disproved.
>
>Actually thats not really a logical and because then if the flood had
>occured God would exist, a position I am sure neither of us would find
>satisfactory. Rather its more of a position of God might exists if and
>only if there was a Global flood.
You missed the bit about the insistence on a global flood: *I*F*
they insist on a god which caused a global flood that never happened
then *T*H*A*T* *P*A*R*T*I*C*U*L*A*R* deity disproves itself. I didn't
say anything about any other deities - including other versions of
the Christian one.
Bill McHale
Distribution:
Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
: Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
: >
: > 1. You seem to be under the impression that a Theist by definition is an
: > adherent of a humancentric world view. Indeed that is often the case, but
: > it is also often the case of many scientists. However, I am not willing
: > to limit theism or God to that role. Making God a personal deity who
: > seems supremely concerned with the spiritual welfare of humans is
: > certainly a common viewpoint, but Deism and other philosophical positions
: > put man in a much less important position. Imagine instead of a God
: > interested in man a God that simply is trying to create a complex system
: > for some purpose that we have yet to divine, one that may have no
: > particular concern about humans, except for that small part they play in
: > the Universe, a role which is more or less important than that of
: > bacteria, stars, lions, etc.
: I doubt a deist would find the need to incorporate God and evolution,
: but I leave that up to the deists in the audiance. However, I go back to
: my point above what relevance does evolution have with God myths and
: do we again have to wait for human centric views to interprete them.
: It is the burden of believer to make a case for it's relevance with God,
: If God myths are unconcerned then why the concerned title of this thread?
Why wouldn't a deist need to incorporate God and evolution? They would
both be part of his world view. And looking at the title of this thread I
don't see anyplace where it says God myths, it says God which may or may
not be the same God as represented most commonly in Western monotheism.
: >
: > 2. All human thought systems are by their very nature human centric, this
: > is the same regardless of whether it is a philosophy, theology or science.
: > All our observations and intuitions are colored by our own experience. It
: > is very possible, perhaps even likely that an alien intelligence would
: > look at things in a very different way, one that we would not even think
: > of or possibly could think of.
: Yes, but barring first contact with aliens and what they might see
: or not see. Science purpose has found those biases to be problematic
: and takes many steps to minimise them which has lead us directly to
: the "dynamic indecision" of evolution.
It takes steps that they believe eliminates the biases, but then again we
have no real proof that it has really accomplished its job. Many biases
may well have been simply traded for new biases. Please don't get me
wrong, I am not proposing that science has done a poor job, indeed it has
done a far better job at examining the natural world than any other belief
system.
: >
: > 3. Again and again you equate the idea of theism with God-myths, yet that
: > only covers part of the picture. Certainly many, indeed most theists
: > accept God myths, but that does not mean it is a requirement for being a
: > theist. There are many theists out there who reject the concept of a God
: > like that described in the Bible. While they believe that there is an
: > architect to the universe, they are unwilling to accept any particular
: > definitions of that architect without some sort of proof.
: The discussion, <looks up again at the title> is very much in regards
: of theists that accept god-myths
Let me think... Why can God be an evolutionist... I see no evidence of God
myths in that. It could apply to any religion or to a philosophical
position that admited the existence of a God, not just ones that try to
define God in a particular way.
: >
: > 4. I believe the creation of the Universe is a key point in all this. We
: > both agree that evolution exists, and that it was responsible for the
: > development of all but the simplest forms of life, as to the actual
: > creation of life itself, well that is a subject so murkey, yet
: > theoretically solvable that it is incapable of shedding any light onto the
: > subject of a prime mover or not.
: Evolution is "dynamic indecision", when widened the prime mover
: is not necessaily affixed to one edge of the universe or other but
: leads to the possibility movers are continually remoulding, creating
: and destroying. aka Popper's emergence philosophy of science.
Yes that is Popper's philosophy (Though I thought it was called
fallibalism?) however, I think it would be a mistake to take the process
by which science advancedces and apply that to the process of evolution
itself. Popper's philosophy was the description of how humans may come to
a closer understanding of objective reality. Evolution on the other hand
has no particular goal and is only a description of the forces that shape
species.
: >
: > You try to draw an analogy between the creation of the first star and the
If finding definite answers is what you want, then sure science is more
apt to give them than philosophy but despite Feynmann's authority as a
scientist (BTW weren't you the one complaining about my referring to
authority?) it doesn't make him right. Certainly scientists are going to
shy away from the questions. But to limit human knowledge and inquirey
simply to what science can answer would be folly; human society is
predicated on ideas and knowledge that are untestable by science, to
simply ignore them because they cannot be examined by science would have
prevented the formation of our society.
: >
: > 5. My ultimate position is not regarding whether God myths and evolution
: > are compatible, in this regard I agree with you, they are not. The real
: > issue is whether evolution is compatible with the idea of God, any god,
: > not necessarily a god that sees us as having any special relevance, or
: > even a God that would be recognizable to the vast majority of theists
: > around the world. My main position is that the concept of a Prime Mover
: > is a perfectlly defendable philosophical position and one that does not
: > necessitate any contraditictions with evolution or science.
: I agree that Science mixed with God are irrelevant, but I go on and say
: because God myths are irrelevant, time and resource consuming
: non-arguments. For example, the prime mover, yes this was once
: and is a historical philosophical position (not always so, but near the
: beginning of ancient philosophy, yes), each generation of philosophers
: learns their historical groundings, each weighs up their comfort zones
: in this well known subject of inprecision. The prime mover
: argument is predicated on aleast two assumptions that there was a
: pivotable point, and that causal link back to it. I have yet to find
: any direct causal event that was not unencumbered by an ensemble
: of other causes, nor that there is one pivotable point but a continuum
: of pivotable points. Boundary conditions are nice when you can't
: test them, only non-scientists seem to get away with them for any
: length of time.
Well mind you multiple causation is not in and of itself a refutation of
the prime mover hypothesis, it would only be a refutation if it could be
shown that those causes necessicarily diverge. As for a pivotal point...
well I think the Big Bang makes a dandy one. Indeed from one perspective,
the Big Bang could be viewed as the prime mover (And left in a decidedly
non-theistic manner as well).
: >
: > POST SCRIPT.
: >
: > The following bear no direct relevance to my above argument, but are
: > simply certain points about the post that I wish to respond to.
: >
: > 1. Science has never criticized the Catholic Church rather scientists have
: > and their research has refusted certain Church teachings.
: Never is a big word, Astronomy a big subject and conflict forever
: critical to some.
Never might be a big word but by the very nature of science and its
inability to deal with unanswerable questions, it is incapable of dealing
with a religious/moral authority. It can however undermine its authority
as a source of information on history and natural philosophy.
: >
: > 2. You need to catch up on your late classical through early modern
: > history.
: >
: > A. The Black Death was not responsible for the Renissance, though it was
: > a major factor in the decline of fuedalism. Rather the Renissance
: > was merely the last of several premodern recoveries of classical
: > knowledge and art. There were at least two other major renissances
: > between the 8th and the 16th centuries. The Black Death did however
: > play a roll in the break down of fuedalism (But by no means was it
: > the sole cause; the reintroduction of money into the economy also
: > played a major roll.
: When the preists fail to save you dying child from a mysterious
: killer that has killed your village you start looking else where
: for guidance. When the whole of civilisation has dying
: children, civilisations change direction.
Except that is not how it happened. The Renissance is entirely consistent
with the previous renissances that occured in the 8th and 12th centuries
and indeed it can be demonstrated rather conclusively that the latter
renissance was an important precondition for the Renissance that most
people know of. The Black Death if anything reinforced the power of the
Church as a moral authority not the reverse. the Black Death first
scourged Europe from 1347-50 but the Renissance did not begin for at least
another 50 years. The intervening period featured such progressive things
as the 100 years war, the strengthening of authoritarian power by the
kings of Europe. Further the Renissance hardly is evidence for the
turning away of the people from religion; the Reformation occured during
the same period and with it the wars of religion.
The prime result of the Black Death as a cause for the decline of Medieval
period had far less to do with art and learning and far more to do with
economics. It more than anything else resulted in the breakdown of the
feudal system that had dominated Europe for close to 500 years and helped
spawn the emergence of primative industrialism and capitalization.
If anything broke the power of religion it was nationalism, a force that
is arguably more destructive than religion even at its worst.
: >
: > B. The Church and the burning of books was not the cause of the Dark
: > Ages. Rather it was caused by the economic and military decline of
: > the Western Empire and specifically refers to the first 2-3 centuries
: > following the final collapse of Rome. Indeed the Arabs could only
: > save those texts that they had access to and since the spread of
: > Islam did not start until the 7th century, there had already been
: > plenty of time to destroy all of the works. In reality many of the
: > works were never lost to the Eastern Empire which continued until the
: > Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453.
: Questioning a Church Doctrine was unhealthy, books that
: did so were also unhealthy and were also destroyed. The
: Church characterised and perpetuated the Dark Ages by
: there acts (threats). A authority that dominated an age, directly
: effected that economic and military of the age. Communist
: Russian dominanted the cold war (not singualarly),
: whose doctrine lead to a declining economy and knock
: on declining military, which eventual led it's leadership to
: glasnost. History repeats itself, evolutionary processes
: work similarly in different ages of humankind.
Please reread my previous point. This particular intrepretation has been
all but completely discredited. Any medievalist or classicist who
presented this theory as the causes of the Dark Ages would be laughed at
and then instructed to examine the work of people who have actually
studied the period this century. In summation here are where your
interpretation of events is flawed.
1. The Western Empire was already in a serious state of decline by the
time that Constantine took power and made Christianity the de facto
official religion of the empire. Indeed the empire had already been
formally divided in an attempt to make it small enough to administer in an
age before modern communications.
2. The strength of the Western Empire depended on the Wealth of the East.
Much the same way that 19th Century Empires depended on their colonies for
wealth, so did Rome. The most productive agricultural regions were in the
East and the division of the empire kept more and more of the wealth in
the East thus weakening the West even further. Mind you this division
predates Christianity's rise in the Empire.
3. The Military decline of the Empire had more to do with the
germanization of the military than it did Christianity. During the latter
days of the empire, all peoples living in its boundries were citizens. In
the earlier days of the empire, citizenship was one of the perks that came
with joining up. As a result the empire had to increasingly rely on the
Germanic tribes along its borders as sources of troops. Unfortunately
these troops did not respond well to the traditional discipline of the
Roman Army (during the late Republic and Early Empire the Legions were
subject to discipline that would make even a Green Beret turn pale with
horror) but the Army while loosening the discipline did not develop new
tactics (The tratitional Roman tactics depended on the soldiers being far
more disciplined than any of Rome's enemies).
The authority of the Church grew only after the authority of the emperor
declined and it is not until at least the early 5th century that we see
the Pope's become an important political force in their own right and then
only to fill the power vacum that by that time was engulfing the West
(After 410 there were no effective Emperors in the West). In contrast, in
the much more stable east, a series of moderately effective and powerful
emperors kept the power of the Patriach's in check (Note real Papal
authority over the whole of the Church is not an issue til after the fall
of the West).
Again as for burning books, who do you think the Arabs got them from? The
Islamic expansion into the boundries of the Empire (the primary source of
the books they saved) did not occur until well after the period when book
burning was a major activity. In the west, Irish Monks and to a lesser
extent monks on the Continent saved thousands of works from the Classical
age. Many of these works were then destroyed in the 9th and 10th
centuries by the Viking invasions.
There is no doubt that Christians burned books, and it is also clear that
this contributed somewhat to the dark ages, but these were more sympthoms
of the decline of civilization not its cause. The Roman empire had never
been particularly stable, even from its earliest days it was only as
strong as the emperor who ruled it. There were several points when the
Empire tore itself apart with civil wars and exteneded periods that the
only thing that saved the empire was the fact that it had no neighbors
strong enough to be a threat. If the Germanic invasions had not occurred
it is entirely possible that Empire might have survived and lived to
prosper again but such was not the case.
maff91
>On 14 Jun 1999 20:11:51 -0400, maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91)
>wrote:
>
>>On 14 Jun 1999 07:19:03 -0400, ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>>
>>> "Death" <some...@other.than.here> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill, after some thought I felt I did need
>>>>to reply in a more concrete form. Our
>>>>discussion had degenerated into a discussion
>>>>of definitions which we where never going
>>>>to agree. The real purpose of the thread however
>>>>was can God be an evolutionist. I found myself
>>>>naturally opposed to this idea, being the sceptic
>>>>that I am I need to express the reason for this
>>>>misgiving. What follows is that reason, enjoy.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
>>>subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
>>>different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
>>>
>>>Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
>>>evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
>>>that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
>>>they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
>>>contradictory position
>>>
>>>By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
>>>humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
>>>hook'
>>>
>>>However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
>>>I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
>>>them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>>>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>>>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>>>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>>>of a divine 'designer'.
>>>
>>>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>>>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs7.html
>
>I've just visited each of the above sites. Interesting stuff. I've
>been to the first one before.
>
>But I can't find anything in them particularly relevant to my post.
>Have I missed something?
Evolution is about reproductive fitness in an environmental niche.
That's all.
>
>William
>
>>>deceivers, thieves and killers. Integrated and relatively stable
>>>societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
>>>still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
>>>cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
>>>to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>>>
>>>If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
>>>firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
>>>without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
>>>ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity. And secondly
>>>it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
>>>messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
>>>for so many people today.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
>>>solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
>>>about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create humanity
>>>in it's finished state? Even if reproduction was used to increase the
>>>population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
>>>so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
>>>The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
>>>sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
>>>evolutionary process would not be needed.
>>>
>>>William
>>
>>--
>>L.P.#0000000001
>>
--
L.P.#0000000001
Bill McHale
Distribution:
Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
: Thank you, Chris. I think you cover most of the
: ground of Bill's continual False Authority Syndrome.
: But I am so aggrieved that Bill should continue do so,
: that I must again enter the fray.
If you are so agrieved by all this, then perhaps you should reconsider
posting on usenet.
: There are many definitions for words, even each dictionary
: has slight rewording, BUT oh no bill has to stick religiously
: by the first he comes across....
Not religious at all, however it is the most common English Usage of the
word. A slight rewording makes little difference.
: Snip from previous post of Bill.
: """I am not burdening you with a subjective theistic defition of what
: atheism
: is or is not, but rather asserting what its common definition is. The
: single most common definition of atheism is that it is the disbelief in
: god or gods."""
: The common definition implies uncommon definitions, the singular
: definition implys other definitions. Any idiot can pick on a word and
: find a different meaning in a different dictionary and demand we
: use it. E.g. Pot. Penny out the pot on the stove, Penny is the
: Authority figure (most able to know what sort of Pot she put
: on the stove). Bill tell's us she put a fisherman's crab catcher
: pot on the stove and that it's likely to start a fire. I how would
: ask the Authority figure what sort of Pot it is.
I think you are actually arguing my case here. Generally unless context
demands another definition, the common one should be assumed. In other
words above putting a pot on the stove clearly indicates something other
than a wicker vessel for catching fish. However in your case there is no
such clear context, indeed the difference between your definition of
atheism and the common one is one of degrees. As a result a common
defition should be used. In other words to take your example of 'pot'
from above. If I said that "Penny got the pot" then the sentance, by
itself expresses an incomplete thought as it lacks context. So to with
your use of atheism and atheistic. The obvious definition is not what you
meant and therefore by insisting on its usage you imply, whether
intentionally or not that science actually says something about the
existence of God.
: It, however aggrieving to me, still no surprise that a theist
: would take the dictionary in a literal rather than liberal
: manner, nor that a theist would demand his interpretation
: is singualarly correct, nor even when shown example
: of how catholics that might call protestants faith unworthy
: because of their use of religious language by catholic
: standards is errorous. It is no surprise than religion
: is dying when their supporters cannot remove their
: biases even when talking of the most simplestic of
: definitions.
It always shocks me when someone believes that in a philosophical debate
it is ok to leave terms undefined, indeed to allow anyone to bring any
interpretation they choose to the forum. Saying science is atheistic is
not clearly definable and its use should be avoided just as mathematicians
avoid doing mathematics in English. Indeed Science also shows the need to
name and define things. I somehow think that you would take a different
position if I was trying to redefine the word Quark or what quantum
mechanics is.
: I don't deny the existance of God, how can I, Bill!
: I can't even tell the differance between Gods and
: sky-pixies. Just as Science has nothing more than a
: tool for examining and explaining the natural world
: and is no more capable of being used to examine God
: nor have I, for my ontology is so dependant on science.
: I don't accept knowledge that appears, poof out of
: nothing, I only see knowledge emerging from the
: our substantive reality. My ontology does not regard
: the supernatural for it's existance and so is a atheism.
To not accept "knowledge that appears, poof..." is to deny it. To try and
define it in other terms is to resort to silly sophistry that is unworthy
of anyone trained in critical thought. You try to claim you don't deny
the existence of God by claiming that your ontology is dependent on
Science, but that is avoiding the question and ontology is a philosophical
not a scientific construct. Indeed if your ontology is so dependent on
science that it cannot encompass anything not explainable by science then
your ontology is limited to the point of not being useful. How can it
explain the nature of being when that is the very thing that science
cannot answer?
To not be able to tell the difference between the definition of a God and
these pseudo construct "sky-pixies" that you keep invoking either means
you are attempting to avoid the question or your philosophical background
is entirely too limited. The nature of God or at least its existence is
far too important a notion in Western Philosophy to simply ignore in any
ontology, indeed I cannot recall ever reading a philosophy that attempted
to actually deal with the nature of being that did not at least attempt to
deal with the idea of a god or gods.
David Johnston
> >>>Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
> >>>subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
> >>>different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
> >>>
> >>>Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
> >>>evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
> >>>that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
> >>>they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
> >>>contradictory position
> >>>
> >>>By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
> >>>humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
> >>>hook'
> >>>
> >>>However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
> >>>I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
> >>>them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
> >>>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
> >>>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
> >>>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
> >>>of a divine 'designer'.
> >>>
> >>>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
> >>>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
Things can't be cruel and ruthless. Only people can be cruel and
ruthless. If God designed a world in which feline mothers occasionally
abandon the runt of the litter because they have too many to take care
of...does that mean God is cruel and ruthless? The world is no more
"cruel and ruthless" because it grew more or less naturally, than it is
because it was designed to be that way.
Electro
>
>God can do anything, or that's what I told.
>
>>How did God make man in his image without a mirror?
>
>God can do anything, or that's what I told.
>
>> The ugliness we see in Creation is the ugliness of a God who lost sight of
>who
>> He is, but remembered how vain His beauty made Him.
>
>God can believe anything he wishs, I'm told also we cannot know
>his mind.
>
>> The Universe, ultimately,
>> is the rock heavier than God lift, or even move.
>
>God can do anything, or that's what I told.
>
>>It strains God.... He saw that
>> it was good, and weeps that He could do no better.
>
>God could even have emotions.
>
>I still don't see the relevance.
I was analyzing the psychology of the "External Creator" as an allegory. I'm
beginning to believe I'm a "pan-deist."
>> What force threatens survival enough to ultimately evolve non-living
>matter
>> into life?
>
>Does a river banks emerge from the action of the river, or were
>they there before it changed it course through that local. If a natural
>non-living phenomena can emerge new forms, why can't non-living
>chemicals do so. Or is that to hard for you to imagine. Survival
>is the emergent phenomenon of living entities interaction.
>
>>
>> Scratch the surface and see the flaws, pull back and see the flaw is the
>> scratch you made in the surface.
>
>The flaw is not seeing the rest of the flawlessness around the flaw.
>
><snip for relevance>
>
>> -Electro-
>>
>> "I hear the sound of gunfire at the prison gate. Are the liberators here?
>Do I
>> hope or do I fear? For my father and my brother it's too late, but I must
>help
>> my mother stand up straight!" - Rush, "Red Sector A"
>>
>
>A car backfires, you awaken screaming, your third world
>cell is made real. Only you can release yourself from this
>exile.
I like that. :)
What lying tongue coils behind that beautiful smile? The tragedy lies in the
fact that I must find truth in letting her break my heart.
William
>>ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>>>The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>>>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>>>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>>>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>>>of a divine 'designer'.
>>
>>>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>>>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
>
>Things can't be cruel and ruthless. Only people can be cruel and
>ruthless. If God designed a world in which feline mothers occasionally
>abandon the runt of the litter because they have too many to take care
>of...does that mean God is cruel and ruthless? The world is no more
>"cruel and ruthless" because it grew more or less naturally, than it is
>because it was designed to be that way.
If you had been able to see my other posts in this thread you will
have seen that I had no problem with evolution as a fact and a product
of this universe. As you say, it grew more or less naturally - cruel
and ruthless doesn't mean a lot in that context.
The problem arises when people propose the existence of a benevolent,
omniscient and omnipotent deity who sepecifically designed and created
it that way. Then one has to ask why he preferred a design method
that, inherently involves pain and suffering to sentient creatures -
particularly the weak and the unlucky (the weaker prey that gets
caught, or the unlucky offspring who happens to get the wrong genes).
But I note that a few people seem to have a problem with seeing
evolution as an unpleasant process.
William
William
wrote:
>On 14 Jun 1999 21:03:11 -0400, ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>
>>On 14 Jun 1999 20:11:51 -0400, maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 Jun 1999 07:19:03 -0400, ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>>>>Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
>>>>evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
>>>>that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
>>>>they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
>>>>contradictory position
>>>>
>>>>By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
>>>>humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
>>>>hook'
>>>>
>>>>However, the points you have made (I haven't followed this thread, so
>>>>I might not have picked it all up) seem valid so I won't comment on
>>>>them. The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
>>>>that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
>>>>reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
>>>>facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
>>>>of a divine 'designer'.
>>>>
>>>>The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
>>>>over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
>>>
>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs7.html
>>
>>I've just visited each of the above sites. Interesting stuff. I've
>>been to the first one before.
>>
>>But I can't find anything in them particularly relevant to my post.
>>Have I missed something?
>
>Evolution is about reproductive fitness in an environmental niche.
>That's all.
I'm quite happy with what it is 'about'. I have observed it.
I have also observed that a lion tearing apart an antelope is
reproductively fitted to it's envronmental niche. The antelope that
got caught was likely to be the weaker of the bunch - or just unlucky
(in the wrong place at the wrong time).
I don't know what point you are making. I think you may be
responding someone else's post. My post was about people who claim
that a deity exists and that he is benevolent, omniscient and
omnipotent. If they say he used evolution as his preferred design
method I simply ask why, when such a deity could have found other,
more humane methods, to produce sentient creatures.
William
Death
Matt Silberstein
>
> A rather broad definition of machine. However, do you have any
> examples of "evolutionists" who have failed to account for this?
>
> Any examples? Without something specific here this seems like a
> strawman.
>
>
> What is surprising about this and is it wrong in any way?
>
>
> Evolution says nothing about the origin of the Universe. Nor does it
> particularly exclude God, no more than does astronomy or meteorology.
>
>
> Huh?
>
>
> Please tell me how the universe shows that humans are not relevant?
>
Can't, won't, never, says nothing.
Denial that is so pleasently enlightening.
Death
> the-fly.zip.com.au>:
> Distribution:
>
> Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
>
> : Thank you, Chris. I think you cover most of the
> : ground of Bill's continual False Authority Syndrome.
> : But I am so aggrieved that Bill should continue do so,
> : that I must again enter the fray.
>
> If you are so agrieved by all this, then perhaps you should reconsider
> posting on usenet.
No, just my filter.
<plonk>
Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).
"Religion is all bunk."
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the
religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for
individuals, or of a personal God."
cats...@my-deja.com
> [snip]
>
> Since I have recently posted a comment (in another thread) on this
> subject I thought it not too out of place to make my slightly
> different point and add it to valid the one you are making.
>
> Christians clearly fall into the two categories of those who reject
> evolution and those who accept it. Those who accept it seem to feel
> that they have overcome the problem of christianity and evolution;
> they no longer have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend a
> contradictory position
>
> By saying that God could use evolution to achieve the creation of
> humanity they feel the whole debate is cooled and they are 'off the
> hook'
>
[small snip]
>The point I have made (and don't think I have seen here) is
> that although evolution (by natural selection) is a perfectly
> reasonable mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of the observed
> facts, it raises a great many problems when combined with the notion
> of a divine 'designer'.
>
> The evolutionary process is cruel and ruthless; it favours the strong
> over the weak, the lucky over the unlucky. It rewards the best
> deceivers, thieves and killers.
It isn't just evolution that does this, it is all of nature. Pick up an
encyclodedia and read about how wasps go about reproduction. If god
"designed" wasps, he, she or it is pretty cruel (by human standards) to begin
with!
> Integrated and relatively stable
> societies emerge after eons of conflict, pain and suffering - which is
> still always just under surface. (This is perfectly reasonable in a
> cold and hostile universe (which, of course, this one might be)). But
> to add the concept of a benevolent deity into the mix is ludicrous.
>
> If this deity has the resources to create anything, then it would,
> firstly, have the option of creating humanity in it's final state
> without the need for eons of pain and suffering for the sentient
> ancestors that led up to (and include) modern humanity.
Here may be the crux of your problem: you appear to assume that humans are in
their "final state", i.e. that *we* are the "Crowns of Creation". Maybe god
is just getting warmed up for something better or something completely
different. But neither does that mean that god doesn't cherish all the
stages, from bacteria to h. sapiens.
> And secondly
> it would not have had to include in it's creation all the inherited
> messed up physical and emotional baggage which produces so much misery
> for so many people today.
Or else god *deliberately* designed those things into us (since we so
obviously suffer from them anyway) when he could have, being omnipotent,
avoided the problem by ceating us perfect. Either way, by special creation or
by evolution, a creative god has condemned us and our ancestors to pain and
suffering in this life, at least. Which method he, she or it used doesn't
strike me as particularly important in a theological sense.
>
> It seems to me that the christian acceptance of evolution does not
> solve their problem at all. It raises even more profound questions
> about a creator God than it answers. Why did he not create >humanity
> in it's finished state?
Uh, you consider youself "finished", as in "perfect"?
>Even if reproduction was used to increase the
> population there would be no need for built in genetic mutation etc,
> so every human could have had a decent and equivalent start in life.
Uh, you consider that every human has a "decent and equivalent start" now?
> The more you think about it, the more you see that the ills and
> sources of misery that inevitably result from choosing the
> evolutionary process would not be needed.
>
> William
>
Well, what, exactly are the "unecessary" ills and misery that we suffered in
the past that we don't suffer now?
I should point out that I am not a Christian or any other form of theist and
am only submitting this post addressing the logical issues raised; I have no
intent of denigrating anyone's beliefs or religion and, most of all, I have
no intent or expectation of being taken seriously. );-D
--
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes."
- Robert Heinlein -
Bill McHale
: No, just my filter.
: <plonk>
In other words if someone doesn't agree with you, you will just avoid
listening to them so you don't have to answer their questions.
Death
> Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
>
> : No, just my filter.
>
> : <plonk>
>
> In other words if someone doesn't agree with you, you will just avoid
> listening to them so you don't have to answer their questions.
No, more assumptions, hey.
Bill anyone just has to look at the size of your answers
to warned off discussing didly with you. You prevaricate,
misconstrue and fail intrinsically to understand that short
answers are necessary consequence of the usenet. Your
a publisher Bill, your audiance doesn't have the time. Nor
would any reasonable person be expected to reply
to someone who continues to tell them what they think
about their most important beliefs. I do not regard the
supernatural as relevent, nor does science. That makes
my beliefs an atheism not the other way around (atheism
as my belief), just as theism is not the belief of a Jew.
To sum up our discussions, can god be an evolutionist,
well depends on the god myth and whether the particular
preisthood are ok about it. Should science and evolution
care, no, for caring about supernatural events is either
outside their remit (you), or outside their present state
of understanding of the human mind (me), but more
simplestically science and religion have a long history
of getting in each others way and is the detriment to
the clear purposes each has set for itself.
Any real benefits that arise from tacking God into evolution
can be analysis by science (the science of the real). Any
unreal benefits are always going to be the province of
mystics, go figure.
Todd S. Greene
<7jda32$3g4$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>):
>Todd S. Greene <tgreene...@usxchange.net> wrote in message
>news:375921fc....@news.usxchange.net...
>>
>>It is said that evolution implies atheism. If evolution is a fact, then
>>God does not exist. As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT
>>imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
>
>It is said that evolution by implication doesn't require god myths
>and is hence atheistic. Evolution is a scientific fact, as such science
>cannot referance the non-existant which implies God myths are
>not scientific facts. You can tack god/s onto evolution, but expect to
>get laughed at, when no benefits arise (unscientific). In this sense
>evolution doesn't imply a godless universe, it just makes them
>redundant (so far). Remember God is not even a supernatural fact.
>Pixies may eventually play a part in the physics of the universe,
>it has yet to be proven though.
You can certainly play a semantic game with the words non-theistic and
a-theistic. I have done it myself before. All I am pointing out in my
essay is that evolution is just as "atheistic" or "nontheistic" as
genetics, raindrop formation, or radioactive decay. Therefore, those who
use the claim "evolution is atheistic" are using it not as a
truth-seeking argument but as a prejudicial argument.
With regard to your specific point about "tacking God onto evolution"
being superfluous, this is embedded as an implication in my point. God
is either just as important or just as superfluous to evolution as He
(She, It) is to genetics, raindrop formation, and radioactive decay,
among other things. It depends on your particular conception of God.
(The pantheists, for example, do quite fine, thank you.)
Many Christians have a more sophisticated perspective than you might
think. But perspectives on God is a vexed area of discussion. Yet
without ever entering that vexed area, I think my main point stands that
whatever your conception of God is, evolution is just as "nontheistic"
as other well-accepted areas of science, so to try to prejudicially
reject is a misguided endeavor - at least from the perspective of
truth-seeking.
>>If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God
>>could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the
>>extensive evidence for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of
>>course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against
>>consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of
>>theism. Indeed, we see the former practiced intentionally by
>>creationists. Christians who are already prejudiced against evolution
>>heartily concur with the opinion that evolution implies atheism while
>>attempting to persuade other Christians to reject evolution for the
>>reason that their acceptance of evolution would logically require them
>>to reject God.
>
>No, Christians can rational believe in evolution and irrational
>accept God as usual. Who says Christians have to be rational.
>Christians can prejudice themselves however they please.
>
>
>>But let's properly analyze this claim of evolution's implied atheism.
>
>Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is atheistic in nature.
>(Gods taken out).
>
>
>> If a Christian accepts the contention that evolution implies atheism,
>> then she or he will probably never be willing to give fair consideration
>> to the idea of evolution.
>
>Like I care.
But *I* care. I have no axe to grind against Christians or Christianity
in general, but I certainly see something seriously wrong with those who
claim, as Christians, to be truth-seekers, while at the same time
arguing in a prejudicial manner against evolution (or even against the
great ages of the universe and the earth). To claim to be a truth-seeker
while spitting in the face of truth is a very hypocritical act.
>>Those who truly believe that evolution is a
>>"tool of Satan" to deceive true believers into unbelief will never
>>ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the
>>world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be
>>intellectually honest.
>
>Which is already the case by irrationally believing in the supernatural.
It is a matter of degree.
>>But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are
>>not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
>>conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship
>>between God and our universe.
>
>Only if you yourself have a irrational bent.
Read such writers as Dr. Howard J. Van Till, or Dr. Nahum M. Sarna. I
myself do not have what you call an "irrational bent." But I certainly
allow that people who believe in God can accept the fact of evolution
unhypocritically.
>>Furthermore, it is this unsophisticated
>>theological conception that has strongly contributed to the historical
>>antagonism between religion and science.
>
>What the bent that sky-pixies must exist, whether or not an rational
>basis can be found for them.
>
>>Indeed, the antipathy that
>>exists today among conservative religious people toward the methods of
>>scientific inquiry may have its very basis in this primitive theology.
>
>Darn right it does, and will continue to do so until rationality is
>finally allow to inquire into all theologies whether primative or not.
>
>>And, because of prejudices like this, there is a prevalent view among
>>conservative Christians that science is an enemy of religion. However, a
>>view's prevalence is not what determines its validity.
>
>Nor, determines its invalidity.
Granted. I agree.
>>Evolution's purported atheism can be stated simply: "If there is no God,
>>then our universe (and everything in it including life) has developed
>>due entirely to natural causes. Evolution is the development of life
>>by natural relationships. With evolution the events of earth's organisms
>>do not need to include supernatural activity. Hence, God does not
>>exist."
>
>Rubbish, science has yet to find a use for God myths and so
>finds God myths irrelevant. When science has some objective
>evidance of God then evolution and all sciences can have
>a theistic nature.
>
>
>>Let's look at this presentation in another context: "The orbit of the
>>earth around the sun is due to natural processes. Thus, the earth's
>>orbit does not involve supernatural activity and does not require
>>supernatural activity. Hence, God does not exist."
>
>No, hence God myths are not required. God myths can only exist
>if we have objective evidance for them. The burden of proof
>is on the God claimants, science certainly does not make any
>claims for God myths.
>
>
>>You may have received a forceful impression from the latter presentation
>>that the earth's orbit being a result of gravitational mechanisms has
>>nothing to do with whether or not God exits and that the whole
>>syllogism is a non sequiter. This impression is absolutely correct!
>
>Yes, and as such logical cannot be used to make any conclusions
>(whatever).
>
>>Moreover, it demonstrates that the former presentation is also a non
>>sequiter, for the two are logically equivalent.
>
>No, The extended analogy fallacy.
Perhaps. They syllogisms as stated are logically equivalent. You are
correct that perhaps there are embedded concepts that when drawn out
would destroy the apparent equivalence.
I would like to see them. (Tony Pagano would make a claim like this, but
he, as usual, would be totally unable to communicate it or argue for it
effectively.)
>>The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural
>>process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes
>>evidence that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it does not even address the
>>question.
>
>Equivocation fallacy, something that exists as a scientific fact is
>not the same as something that exists as a proposed supernatural
>fact.
I think I agree with your statement here, but I don't see where it is
relevant to what I said. I am saying that evolution is, of course, a
natural process, just like all of the other natural processes in the
world around us. I am saying that this fact does not have any bearing on
whether or not God exists.
>>Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7
>>multiplied by 3 is 21 because God exists? Do we say that the
>>trigonometric tangent of a 45 degree angle is 1 if and only if God does
>>not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the
>>existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God?
>>
>>These questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or
>>"atheistic," how about "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas
>>that make no reference to whether or not God exists. You can never say
>>of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists or
>>if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of
>>consideration of God's existence. Evolution, like the theory of
>>relativity, Goldbach's theorem, and the size of Proxima Centauri, is not
>>atheistic -- it is nontheistic.
>
>Atheism is the lack of any god/s myths as such it is nontheistic.
I call this the "general sense" of the word "atheism." I agree with you.
There is also what I call the "special sense" of the word, which is for
those who actively espouse against belief in God, as opposed to those
who simply have no belief in God.
>>Evolution does not imply atheism -- accepting the idea of evolution does
>>not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however,
>>nontheistic -- it is a description of events and processes that is
>>without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for
>>example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be,
>>performed without reference to supernatural activity.
>
>So it all boils down to that evolution is a scientific fact and
>it is irrational for Christians to believe in evolution and God,
>so you must redefine atheism to not mean the lack of God myths
>instead of dealing with the irrationality of God myths. Yes,
>very rational NOT.
To tell you the truth, I think I very specifically did NOT discuss the
rationality or irrationality of believing in God, at all. That was not
the focus of my discussion. I carefully focused on whether believing in
God and accepting evolution was somehow hypocritical or irrational
itself. I simply claimed that, whether you think the combination of
believing in God AND accepting evolution is rational or irrational, it
is "just as rational" or "just as irrational" as believing in God and
accepting raindrop formation as a natural process.
Please note this specific distinction in what I am discussing and what I
am NOT discussing. I could certainly discuss theism vs. atheism in some
other discussion, but I am not doing it here.
>>So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important
>>to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming
>>that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in
>>God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his
>>statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she
>>or he provides for it will invariably contain flaws like those indicated
>>above.
>
>Shifting the burden, an evolutionist doesn't need to prove your
>non-existant sky fairy is irrelevant to evolution. You have to show
>that it is relevant, for evolution has no referance to whatever pixy, nypth
>or invisible pink unicorns that you faith believes. Science ontology is
>an atheism. The burden of proof that Science can referance God
>is on the theist not on the scientist to regard. You can believe
>whatever sky idiot you like, I don't have to accept or reject
>it.
>
>Sprinkling God over science has be proven to be posionous
>for science.The burden of proof of on you to prove
>God can be an evolutionist, if of course you can prove
>it exists at all. ;-)
As I said, I am not advocating theism or atheism. Neither am I
"sprinkling God over science."
__________________________________________________
Todd S. Greene <tgreene...@usxchange.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755
"Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
Death
> On 6 Jun 1999 "Death" <some...@other.than.here> wrote (msg-id
> <7jda32$3g4$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>):
>
> >Todd S. Greene <tgreene...@usxchange.net> wrote in message
> >news:375921fc....@news.usxchange.net...
> >>
> >>It is said that evolution implies atheism. If evolution is a fact, then
> >>God does not exist. As will become apparent, though, evolution does NOT
> >>imply atheism. The idea that it does is a misconception.
That is your characterisation of your misconception. Dream on.
> >
> >It is said that evolution by implication doesn't require god myths
> >and is hence atheistic. Evolution is a scientific fact, as such science
> >cannot referance the non-existant which implies God myths are
> >not scientific facts. You can tack god/s onto evolution, but expect to
> >get laughed at, when no benefits arise (unscientific). In this sense
> >evolution doesn't imply a godless universe, it just makes them
> >redundant (so far). Remember God is not even a supernatural fact.
> >Pixies may eventually play a part in the physics of the universe,
> >it has yet to be proven though.
>
> You can certainly play a semantic game with the words non-theistic and
> a-theistic. I have done it myself before. All I am pointing out in my
> essay is that evolution is just as "atheistic" or "nontheistic" as
> genetics, raindrop formation, or radioactive decay. Therefore, those who
> use the claim "evolution is atheistic" are using it not as a
> truth-seeking argument but as a prejudicial argument.
So when you use it "evolution implies atheism" your truth
seeking and when I use it, speaking as an atheist, I'm prejudical.
It's is irrelevent to the case whether we are atheists or not,
the point could be made that by defering to ad hominen, you
failing to directly to debate what you mean when you say
"evolution implies atheism".
>
> With regard to your specific point about "tacking God onto evolution"
> being superfluous, this is embedded as an implication in my point. God
> is either just as important or just as superfluous to evolution as He
> (She, It) is to genetics, raindrop formation, and radioactive decay,
> among other things. It depends on your particular conception of God.
> (The pantheists, for example, do quite fine, thank you.)
Very funny, "evolution implies atheism" is irrelevent or God's can
do and say what every they like; how are either of these points
anything more than restatements of your assumption that evolution
doesn't imply atheism. It's self-evident there are no
God myth's in evolution, that implication is clear. The
lack of God myths is atheistic.
>
> Many Christians have a more sophisticated perspective than you might
> think. But perspectives on God is a vexed area of discussion. Yet
> without ever entering that vexed area, I think my main point stands that
> whatever your conception of God is, evolution is just as "nontheistic"
> as other well-accepted areas of science, so to try to prejudicially
> reject is a misguided endeavor - at least from the perspective of
> truth-seeking.
Evolution like mathematics is nontheistic. So, what is your
definition of atheism that is seen to give rise to people
seeing evolution implied atheism. What point is there
being in bring up irrelevancy, to form a case on a non-starter.
How is evolution's implied athiesm a misconception?
Yes.
>
>
> >>Those who truly believe that evolution is a
> >>"tool of Satan" to deceive true believers into unbelief will never
> >>ponder the possibility that evolution might be the true state of the
> >>world -- and will have thus rendered impotent the responsibility to be
> >>intellectually honest.
> >
> >Which is already the case by irrationally believing in the supernatural.
>
> It is a matter of degree.
???
>
>
> >>But evolution does not imply atheism (evolution and God's existence are
> >>not disjunctive), and those who make such an assertion reveal a crude
> >>conception of the nature of existence as it pertains to the relationship
> >>between God and our universe.
> >
> >Only if you yourself have a irrational bent.
>
> Read such writers as Dr. Howard J. Van Till, or Dr. Nahum M. Sarna. I
> myself do not have what you call an "irrational bent." But I certainly
> allow that people who believe in God can accept the fact of evolution
> unhypocritically.
To make a critical comparision of evolutions implied atheism, you
must either raise evolution (and science) to diviner of meaning akin
to theisms, and/or lower theism to reality. If evolution is seen as
a possible explanation for the universe then in that light it is
a means to provide meaning and has no God myths. If then
theisms wish then to tack God myths on, they have to reconcile
their theology with science piecemeal, not an easy task.
It's rather obvious, who's Tony Pagano?
Evolution can explain God myths, Kepler's Law's cannot.
>
>
> >>The reason for this is that categorizing something as a "natural
> >>process," no matter what it is, does not mean that it then becomes
> >>evidence that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it does not even address the
> >>question.
> >
> >Equivocation fallacy, something that exists as a scientific fact is
> >not the same as something that exists as a proposed supernatural
> >fact.
>
> I think I agree with your statement here, but I don't see where it is
> relevant to what I said. I am saying that evolution is, of course, a
> natural process, just like all of the other natural processes in the
> world around us. I am saying that this fact does not have any bearing on
> whether or not God exists.
Evolution is the charactisation of a natural process, a conceptual
model, in the same way that God myths are. Otherwise
contrasting any supernatural existance and natural existance is
naturally vaccuous and any conclusions unwarrented even rather
silly ones that state nothing can be said and are the used to
conclude other quite logical comparsions could be. For example, on
comparsion I prefer evolution over christianity as a basis
for making claims of existance; yes, aliens could exist,
ghosts in a similar light could not; for I have
far more confidence in evolution (evidance) than for the
supernatural (it's lack of evidance despite all the searching).
There is more a case for yeti's than there is for ghosts.
Fuddies make a rather simplestic fallacy when in a
sentance they say one can't examine God, linguistically
they just have. The funny thing is they can't see the
hypocrisy of then defending God. (You could
call this the "Shutup already fallacy" ;-).
>
>
> >>Where would this leave mathematics, for example? Do we say that 7
> >>multiplied by 3 is 21 because God exists? Do we say that the
> >>trigonometric tangent of a 45 degree angle is 1 if and only if God does
> >>not exist? Rain has natural causes and natural effects; does the
> >>existence of rain therefore prove or disprove the existence of God?
> >>
> >>These questions appear absurd. Instead of being "theistic" or
> >>"atheistic," how about "nontheistic." In other words, what about ideas
> >>that make no reference to whether or not God exists. You can never say
> >>of nontheistic concepts that they are true if and only if God exists or
> >>if and only if God does not exist. Nontheistic ideas are independent of
> >>consideration of God's existence. Evolution, like the theory of
> >>relativity, Goldbach's theorem, and the size of Proxima Centauri, is not
> >>atheistic -- it is nontheistic.
> >
> >Atheism is the lack of any god/s myths as such it is nontheistic.
>
> I call this the "general sense" of the word "atheism." I agree with you.
> There is also what I call the "special sense" of the word, which is for
> those who actively espouse against belief in God, as opposed to those
> who simply have no belief in God.
That's rather too specific, atheism the general definition doesn't
contrast god or gods. Espousing against a singular God would be
more correctly a amonotheism, or even a more special case
eg achristianity, ajudism.
Faith has the annoying consequence that everything must be
about a believers faith. Atheism is not about fuddies specific beliefs,
but not about any god myths whatsoever.
>
>
> >>Evolution does not imply atheism -- accepting the idea of evolution does
> >>not imply that one must be without belief in God. Evolution is, however,
> >>nontheistic -- it is a description of events and processes that is
> >>without reference to God. Evolution, like astronomy and chemistry, for
> >>example, is an area of scientific inquiry that is, and must be,
> >>performed without reference to supernatural activity.
> >
> >So it all boils down to that evolution is a scientific fact and
> >it is irrational for Christians to believe in evolution and God,
> >so you must redefine atheism to not mean the lack of God myths
> >instead of dealing with the irrationality of God myths. Yes,
> >very rational NOT.
>
> To tell you the truth, I think I very specifically did NOT discuss the
> rationality or irrationality of believing in God, at all. That was not
> the focus of my discussion. I carefully focused on whether believing in
> God and accepting evolution was somehow hypocritical or irrational
> itself. I simply claimed that, whether you think the combination of
> believing in God AND accepting evolution is rational or irrational, it
> is "just as rational" or "just as irrational" as believing in God and
> accepting raindrop formation as a natural process.
My characterisation said no such thing, my point was quite
simple you must elaborate on what you mean by evolution
implies atheism, or explain how any logical argument can
conclude anything from a irrelevancy except irrelevancy.
It is said that formula one racing implies theism. If formula one racing
is a fact, then God does exist. As will become apparant, though,
formula one racing does NOT imply theism. The idea is a
misconception.
Formula one racing and evolution do not imply atheism or theism,
they are irrelevent, useless you can actually make a case that
evolution does imply atheism, and there in your blanket denials
would have some substantial to refute. You might start with explaining
how evolution does explain God myths.
>
> Please note this specific distinction in what I am discussing and what I
> am NOT discussing. I could certainly discuss theism vs. atheism in some
> other discussion, but I am not doing it here.
So your not even discussing God (a theism) vs evolution implied
atheism. Mmmm, this certainly would not exempt me from do so.
>
>
> >>So when you hear someone say that evolution is atheism, it is important
> >>to determine what that person is trying to say. Is she or he claiming
> >>that evolutionists must, in order to be consistent, reject belief in
> >>God? If so, then the speaker must be asked to justify her or his
> >>statement, and careful attention must be paid to the justification she
> >>or he provides for it will invariably contain flaws like those indicated
> >>above.
> >
> >Shifting the burden, an evolutionist doesn't need to prove your
> >non-existant sky fairy is irrelevant to evolution. You have to show
> >that it is relevant, for evolution has no referance to whatever pixy,
nypth
> >or invisible pink unicorns that you faith believes. Science ontology is
> >an atheism. The burden of proof that Science can referance God
> >is on the theist not on the scientist to regard. You can believe
> >whatever sky idiot you like, I don't have to accept or reject
> >it.
> >
> >Sprinkling God over science has be proven to be posionous
> >for science.The burden of proof of on you to prove
> >God can be an evolutionist, if of course you can prove
> >it exists at all. ;-)
>
Your title...
"Why can god be an evolutionist?"
Self-evident...
Any God myth is a theism.
Your starting proposition...
Evolution implies atheism.
Logically....
Why can (a theism) be an implied (athiest)?
Logically...
Why can God be an implied (scientist)?
> As I said, I am not advocating theism or atheism. Neither am I
> "sprinkling God over science."
No? Still denying a God's relevancy to a scientism?
> __________________________________________________
> Todd S. Greene <tgreene...@usxchange.net>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755
>
> "Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
> let us learn together what is good." (Job 34.4)
>
Implies objective science is good when freely entered
into, and subjective personal opinions that are undiscernable,
which then are demanded as fact are wrong and evil.
Bill McHale
<7kaqma$a8i$1...@news.umbc.edu> <7kc0k0$5vg$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>:
Distribution:
Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
: No, more assumptions, hey.
: Bill anyone just has to look at the size of your answers
: to warned off discussing didly with you. You prevaricate,
: misconstrue and fail intrinsically to understand that short
: answers are necessary consequence of the usenet. Your
: a publisher Bill, your audiance doesn't have the time. Nor
: would any reasonable person be expected to reply
: to someone who continues to tell them what they think
: about their most important beliefs. I do not regard the
: supernatural as relevent, nor does science. That makes
: my beliefs an atheism not the other way around (atheism
: as my belief), just as theism is not the belief of a Jew.
In the first place my posts are long because in simple terms the subject
is not reducable to short answers. While certainly not claiming any
special intellectual gifts, complaining about the length of my posts is
like complaining that Plato was too long. This is not a news group
dedicated to Star Wars or cars or anything that can be reduced to simple
answers. To do so gives inadequate coverage to some of the most essential
questions that we face. Further of course you usually make these
complaints in posts that are every bit as long as mine. Its almost as if
you want some fundy who states arguments you can shoot down by showing how
much you know that they don't.
As for my stating what you believe, well its simple, I call a spade a
spade. You claim that God is not relevant to your philosophy and use
comparisons to constructed sky-pixies and to make constant references to
God-myths while avoiding God itself is essentially saying that you do not
believe that any God exists. Indeed stating that God is not relevant to
any of the questions of existence is roughly equivalent since if a creator
god exists then that god would be relevant to the universe even if science
had not been able to document that relevence.
So maybe, perhaps you have managed to completely ignore the God question
(something I find hard to believe since you have taken the time to label
yourself with respect to it) but then you have ignored the implications of
that position. Certainly few great minds have avoided taking the final
step unless they were agnostics.
: To sum up our discussions, can god be an evolutionist,
: well depends on the god myth and whether the particular
: preisthood are ok about it. Should science and evolution
: care, no, for caring about supernatural events is either
: outside their remit (you), or outside their present state
: of understanding of the human mind (me), but more
: simplestically science and religion have a long history
: of getting in each others way and is the detriment to
: the clear purposes each has set for itself.
Should science care... no, should philosophy care absolutely. Please
remember that science barely scratches the surface of who we are or why we
are like we are. Science might be able to explain certain parts about the
human mind, but it can't really explain why we are self aware, nor may it
ever be able to do that. This indeed is the central question of any
philosophy that deals with the nature of being; not why our physical
selves are here but why we should be able to understand and care about
such. I am not saying that God is the answer, but in any ontology the
question of God must in some way be dealt with.
: Any real benefits that arise from tacking God into evolution
: can be analysis by science (the science of the real). Any
: unreal benefits are always going to be the province of
: mystics, go figure.
Again the question of God and evolution extends beyond science. Such a
god certainly does not need to be a personal god, but some philosophies do
find the notion of some sort of prime mover to be useful in explaining why
we are like we are above the level of evolution.
Goyra
<7ko7dc$rcc$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
> but some philosophies do
> find the notion of some sort of prime mover to be useful in explaining
why
> we are like we are above the level of evolution.
Two questions;
[1] What evidence have they that any part of
our being and personality is "above" the level of
evolution?
[2] If they explain a thing by non-scientific means,
i.e. without reference to the evidence, then where does
their explanation come from? As far as I can see it will
be guesswork, and thus likely to be a work of fiction.
Goyra
Chris C.
> In the first place my posts are long because in simple terms the subject
> special intellectual gifts, complaining about the length of my posts is
> like complaining that Plato was too long. This is not a news group
> dedicated to Star Wars or cars or anything that can be reduced to simple
> answers. To do so gives inadequate coverage to some of the most essential
> questions that we face. Further of course you usually make these
> complaints in posts that are every bit as long as mine. Its almost as if
> you want some fundy who states arguments you can shoot down by showing how
> much you know that they don't.
Could have been "cause I want to write long posts" or "cause I need to write
long posts"
You are an administrator aren't you?
Death
Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:7ko7dc$rcc$1...@news.umbc.edu...
> <7k612r$jm2$1...@news.umbc.edu> <7k8bur$t1$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>
> <7kaqma$a8i$1...@news.umbc.edu> <7kc0k0$5vg$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>:
> Distribution:
>
> Death (some...@other.than.here) wrote:
>
> : No, more assumptions, hey.
>
> : Bill anyone just has to look at the size of your answers
> : to warned off discussing didly with you. You prevaricate,
> : misconstrue and fail intrinsically to understand that short
> : answers are necessary consequence of the usenet. Your
> : a publisher Bill, your audiance doesn't have the time. Nor
> : would any reasonable person be expected to reply
> : to someone who continues to tell them what they think
> : about their most important beliefs. I do not regard the
> : supernatural as relevent, nor does science. That makes
> : my beliefs an atheism not the other way around (atheism
> : as my belief), just as theism is not the belief of a Jew.
>
> special intellectual gifts, complaining about the length of my posts is
> like complaining that Plato was too long. This is not a news group
> dedicated to Star Wars or cars or anything that can be reduced to simple
> answers. To do so gives inadequate coverage to some of the most essential
> questions that we face. Further of course you usually make these
> complaints in posts that are every bit as long as mine. Its almost as if
> you want some fundy who states arguments you can shoot down by showing how
> much you know that they don't.
No, I feel no need to shoot down your supposed sound arguments,
for the reader of alt.atheism have heard them time and again. Anyone
can spamolise an argument and take it off thread, you may have the
time to invent a new interpretation of history, it may be what you
are paid to do. That won't stop me and others from applying
evolution to ideas, concepts and social movements to do so
either. History changes every time it's reinterpreted, Go figure.
Sometimes it is unnecessary to reply for the clear underlining
intent of the writer shows through.
>
> As for my stating what you believe, well its simple, I call a spade a
> spade. You claim that God is not relevant to your philosophy and use
> comparisons to constructed sky-pixies and to make constant references to
> God-myths while avoiding God itself is essentially saying that you do not
> believe that any God exists. Indeed stating that God is not relevant to
> any of the questions of existence is roughly equivalent since if a creator
> god exists then that god would be relevant to the universe even if science
> had not been able to document that relevence.
Your characterisation is laughable in light of evolutionary explanation
for God-myths, as well as numerous other science examination
of such myths in numerous cultures around the world. Antropology
is not dead because you deny it's existance (well documented existance).
Please note antropologists are only making realistic claims, there
rigorous impartiality is probably why they are highly regarded,
even if not widely read.
Evolution is a scientific construct and as such a science in your
words considers such myths irrelevent by your characteristation
of it's undocumental inability, however wrong this position is,
you might have the answer to the question posed by the title of this
thread "Why can God be an evolutionists?", God myths can
be anything they like it is of little consequence to evolution.
On please feel free to make all the characterisations of my philosophy
you like, but don't jump to them as conclusions without my consent.
>
> So maybe, perhaps you have managed to completely ignore the God question
> (something I find hard to believe since you have taken the time to label
> yourself with respect to it) but then you have ignored the implications of
> that position. Certainly few great minds have avoided taking the final
> step unless they were agnostics.
Laughable, I supposedly label myself an atheist in respect to my lack
of some beliefs and you characterisation of that as a denial is supposed
to make me referance your irrelevant fantasies. Forgive me if
I offend you by calling a irrelevancy irrelevent whilst in a very
real unfront sense not ignoring them but clearly referance God
questions. Note AGAIN I am not ignoring God questions, I am
saying they are irrelevent IMHO and Yes I can explain why.
>
> : To sum up our discussions, can god be an evolutionist,
> : well depends on the god myth and whether the particular
> : preisthood are ok about it. Should science and evolution
> : care, no, for caring about supernatural events is either
> : outside their remit (you), or outside their present state
> : of understanding of the human mind (me), but more
> : simplestically science and religion have a long history
> : of getting in each others way and is the detriment to
> : the clear purposes each has set for itself.
>
> Should science care... no, should philosophy care absolutely. Please
> remember that science barely scratches the surface of who we are or why we
> are like we are. Science might be able to explain certain parts about the
> human mind, but it can't really explain why we are self aware, nor may it
> ever be able to do that. This indeed is the central question of any
> philosophy that deals with the nature of being; not why our physical
> selves are here but why we should be able to understand and care about
> such. I am not saying that God is the answer, but in any ontology the
> question of God must in some way be dealt with.
Forgive me again, science can't, won't or will never explain, but
can scratch, explain parts. Interesting characterisation. I do agree
however any ontology does need to explain God myths, and also
deal with the seperate question of our physical selves, the nature of
being, our ability to understand and care about that understanding.
I would say the subset of ontologies that derive there explanations
from supernatural Gods are theisms. That's not to say all
supernatural ontologies are theisms.
>
> : Any real benefits that arise from tacking God into evolution
> : can be analysis by science (the science of the real). Any
> : unreal benefits are always going to be the province of
> : mystics, go figure.
>
> Again the question of God and evolution extends beyond science. Such a
> god certainly does not need to be a personal god, but some philosophies do
> find the notion of some sort of prime mover to be useful in explaining why
> we are like we are above the level of evolution.
Yes, I should have said any unreal benefits are always going to be
the province of mystics, their believers and third party analysts.
Some persons of a philosophical bent may find any ideas and
concepts useful to explaining why we are like we are on some
level above or below evolution, but for them to do so consciously
they would have to do more than cast evolution as irrelevent,
castrated, or inapplicable to make comparisions because unless
evolution is relevent, able and applicable how can any reasoner
make a case for being below or above evolution in any sense.