Atheism

[DaneaFL]

ya I think all empirical rationalists don't believe in spirits or afterlives... Granted, most atheists probably don't believe in them either but some do.

Again, 'atheist' is just a label for a specific position on a specific topic: the existence of gods.

 

[Davian]

you can even be an athiest and be into (ID) intelligent design

see Bradley Monton's book...

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design [Paperback]

Does Monton refer to himself as the 'atheist' in the title of his book?

Here is his paper on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:

Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision - PhilSci-Archive

Why would an atheist attempt to make a case for the Christian god?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

ya I think all empirical rationalists don't believe in spirits or afterlives... Granted, most atheists probably don't believe in them either but some do.

Actually, I recall a thread someone made a while back where a study revealed that atheists are more likely to believe in paranormal things like ghosts and UFOs than theists. Peculiar.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually, I recall a thread someone made a while back where a study revealed that atheists are more likely to believe in paranormal things like ghosts and UFOs than theists. Peculiar.

There's nothing peculiar about that. Why would Christians believe in UFOs and ghosts? They have their own "paranormal" things that they believe in.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DaneaFL]

Actually, I recall a thread someone made a while back where a study revealed that atheists are more likely to believe in paranormal things like ghosts and UFOs than theists. Peculiar.

That actually makes sense because when i was a christian i thought there was no way aliens could exist since i belived earth and man were special creations of god.

Now i realize that we could be just 1 of many intelligent civilizations out there.

Still, im talking about spirits and afterlifes, not ufos and aliens.

I think one is much more plausible than the other and so id expect more atheists to belive in aliens over ghosts.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Actually, I recall a thread someone made a while back where a study revealed that atheists are more likely to believe in paranormal things like ghosts and UFOs than theists. Peculiar.

This is not surprising. People belonging to a specific religion likely have some restrictions or alternate explanations for the same phenomena that the non-religious might call ghosts or monsters etc.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There's nothing peculiar about that. Why would Christians believe in UFOs and ghosts? They have their own "paranormal" things that they believe in.

This is not surprising. People belonging to a specific religion likely have some restrictions or alternate explanations for the same phenomena that the non-religious might call ghosts or monsters etc.

That's true, I never thought of that.

That actually makes sense because when i was a christian i thought there was no way aliens could exist since i belived earth and man were special creations of god.

Now i realize that we could be just 1 of many intelligent civilizations out there.

Still, im talking about spirits and afterlifes, not ufos and aliens.

I think one is much more plausible than the other and so id expect more atheists to belive in aliens over ghosts.

Well, UFOs aren't - actual visitations by intelligent life from another world, abdustions and anal probing, Greys and Reptilians, that's on par with belief in poltergeists and demonic possession.

And, atheists still believed more in things like Nessie, Bigfoot, and ghosts, than their theistic counterparts.

 

[jayem]

Still, im talking about spirits and afterlifes, not ufos and aliens.

The term I use is naturalism. Meaning a viewpoint that rejects the existence of anything supernatural. Which I'd further define as any entity outside the realm of matter and the 4 known fundamental forces of nature. So I label myself as a naturalist. This means I don't believe in the existence of any kind of gods, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, afterlife, or anything that's not a function of particles in motion as described by the laws of physics. Naturalist includes atheist in my case. I admit that I can't prove this with absolute certainty. But I prefer the term presumptive naturalist (or atheist.) I think terms like weak atheist, or agnostic atheist are confusing, and unecessarily complicate the issue.

BTW: I think it's quite probable that extraterrestrial life does exist in the universe, and some of it may exhibit intelligence. But I doubt that any such life has ever visited our planet with the same degree of certainty that I doubt the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The term I use is naturalism. Meaning a viewpoint that rejects the existence of anything supernatural.

Why have you adopted that viewpoint?

 

[createdtoworship]

Does Monton refer to himself as the 'atheist' in the title of his book?

Here is his paper on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:

Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision - PhilSci-Archive

Why would an atheist attempt to make a case for the Christian god?

yeah He says He is an athiest.

And just FYI ID isn't creationism (which is probably what Monton says in His article, reading it now....)

here is the latest event in the Stream of ID in the public schools... (teaching the controversy of Evolution rather than straight ID in public schools)

Tennessee Passes 'Monkey Bill' To Teach The 'Controversy' On Evolution And Climate Science | ThinkProgress



actually many IDer's don't want ID in public school, just the controversy:

here is an interview from Reuters toward an advocate of ID saying they didn't want ID in public schools, just the controversy....

Reuters (Probably) Going to Falsely Link Academic Freedom Bill to "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" (Updated) - Evolution News & Views

and while ID'ers don't want to force ID on the public school, they don't want teachers persecuted for using their constitutional right to teach "the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner."

The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the individual teacher’s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was unconstitutional, “…teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

 

[createdtoworship]

Does Monton refer to himself as the 'atheist' in the title of his book?

Here is his paper on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:

Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision - PhilSci-Archive

Why would an atheist attempt to make a case for the Christian god?

here is a quote from His paper on ID

ID is Not Inherently Theistic. Let’s suppose that the above arguments are incorrect, and that in fact methodological naturalism is a demarcation criterion for science. I will now argue that this does not entail that ID is unscientific, since ID is not inherently supernatural.
It is true that most – perhaps all – proponents of ID are theists, and it’s true that they sometimes say things that imply that ID has supernatural consequences. For example, Jones, in his decision (2005, 67), quotes defense witness Steve Fuller, who referred in his expert report to “ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism”. Pennock (2005a, 25) emphasizes in his expert report that “ID is inherently theistic”, and the bulk of Barbara Forrest’s lengthy expert report is devoted to arguing that “Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID” (Forrest 2005, 1). Jones agrees with these assessments, and that it why he maintains that ID fails the methodological naturalism demarcation criterion.
“ID” means different things to different people, and while some view it as essentially committed to supernaturalism, others do not. What this really boils down to is a terminological issue. In the official formulations of ID that proponents give nowadays, they are careful to avoid any commitment to the supernatural. For example, the Discovery Institute definition I cited in Section 1 simply says that “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause” , without specifying whether that intelligent cause is natural or supernatural. If opponents of ID insist that that definition is a misrepresentation of ID, since ID is inherently theistic, then the natural response is to put a new doctrine on the table, ID*: “The theory of intelligent design* holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.”
It should be clear that ID* is not inherently theistic. The intelligent cause could be God, but it need not be. It may be that living things on Earth were created by a highly intelligent alien civilization, as Raelians believe. It may be that the whole universe we experience is really just a computer simulation being run by highly intelligent non-supernatural beings, as Nick Bostrom (2003) argues is plausible. It takes just a bit of creativity to come up with other possibilities as well.
Proponents of ID (construed supernaturalistically) are also proponents of ID*. It follows that the vast majority of proponents of ID* are theistic – they maintain that the intelligent cause is a supernatural God. But it in no way follows that ID* itself is committed to supernaturalism. ID* can be true in two interestingly different ways – one possibility is that the intelligent cause is supernatural, but the other possibility is that the intelligent cause is natural. Just because most proponents of ID* endorse one of the possibilities, it in no way follows that the theory itself could not be made true via the other possibility.
I have introduced this ‘ID*’ terminology to placate those who say that ID is inherently theistic. But my definition of ‘ID*’ is the same as the definition of ‘ID’ that for example the Discovery Institute endorses. I recommend that, to avoid terminological messiness, we simply take proponents of ID at their word that the doctrine they are endorsing is the doctrine that I’ve called ‘ID*’. It follows that ID is not inherently theistic.

 

[Davian]

yeah He says He is an athiest.

Where does he say that?

And just FYI ID isn't creationism (which is probably what Monton says in His article, reading it now....)

You should have read it first.

For it not being creationism, there are a lot of references to "God".

here is the latest event in the Stream of ID in the public schools... (teaching the controversy of Evolution rather than straight ID in public schools)

Tennessee Passes 'Monkey Bill' To Teach The 'Controversy' On Evolution And Climate Science | ThinkProgress



actually many IDer's don't want ID in public school, just the controversy:

here is an interview from Reuters toward an advocate of ID saying they didn't want ID in public schools, just the controversy....

Reuters (Probably) Going to Falsely Link Academic Freedom Bill to "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" (Updated) - Evolution News & Views

and while ID'ers don't want to force ID on the public school, they don't want teachers persecuted for using their constitutional right to teach "the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner."

The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the individual teacher’s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was unconstitutional, “…teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

What controversy?

To quote from Monton's paper: "ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there."

 

[Davian]

here is a quote from His paper on ID

ID is Not Inherently Theistic. Let’s suppose that the above arguments are incorrect, and that in fact methodological naturalism is a demarcation criterion for science. I will now argue that this does not entail that ID is unscientific, since ID is not inherently supernatural.
It is true that most – perhaps all – proponents of ID are theists, and it’s true that they sometimes say things that imply that ID has supernatural consequences. For example, Jones, in his decision (2005, 67), quotes defense witness Steve Fuller, who referred in his expert report to “ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism”. Pennock (2005a, 25) emphasizes in his expert report that “ID is inherently theistic”, and the bulk of Barbara Forrest’s lengthy expert report is devoted to arguing that “Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID” (Forrest 2005, 1). Jones agrees with these assessments, and that it why he maintains that ID fails the methodological naturalism demarcation criterion.
“ID” means different things to different people, and while some view it as essentially committed to supernaturalism, others do not. What this really boils down to is a terminological issue. In the official formulations of ID that proponents give nowadays, they are careful to avoid any commitment to the supernatural. For example, the Discovery Institute definition I cited in Section 1 simply says that “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause” , without specifying whether that intelligent cause is natural or supernatural. If opponents of ID insist that that definition is a misrepresentation of ID, since ID is inherently theistic, then the natural response is to put a new doctrine on the table, ID*: “The theory of intelligent design* holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.”
It should be clear that ID* is not inherently theistic. The intelligent cause could be God, but it need not be. It may be that living things on Earth were created by a highly intelligent alien civilization, as Raelians believe. It may be that the whole universe we experience is really just a computer simulation being run by highly intelligent non-supernatural beings, as Nick Bostrom (2003) argues is plausible. It takes just a bit of creativity to come up with other possibilities as well.
Proponents of ID (construed supernaturalistically) are also proponents of ID*. It follows that the vast majority of proponents of ID* are theistic – they maintain that the intelligent cause is a supernatural God. But it in no way follows that ID* itself is committed to supernaturalism. ID* can be true in two interestingly different ways – one possibility is that the intelligent cause is supernatural, but the other possibility is that the intelligent cause is natural. Just because most proponents of ID* endorse one of the possibilities, it in no way follows that the theory itself could not be made true via the other possibility.
I have introduced this ‘ID*’ terminology to placate those who say that ID is inherently theistic. But my definition of ‘ID*’ is the same as the definition of ‘ID’ that for example the Discovery Institute endorses. I recommend that, to avoid terminological messiness, we simply take proponents of ID at their word that the doctrine they are endorsing is the doctrine that I’ve called ‘ID*’. It follows that ID is not inherently theistic.

It looks like what you are missing is a testable definition of "ID". Try again.

 

[createdtoworship]

You should have read it first.




What controversy?

To quote from Monton's paper: "ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there."

quote mine city.

read the whole paragraph. he is not saying to dismiss it because it's not scientific, but because the evidence hasn't been yet found. and that is what the ruling was, Dover ruled it unscientific.

"Jones seems aware of the fact that his demarcation criteria entail that the aim of science is not truth. He writes that “while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science” (p. 64). But if science is not a pursuit of truth, science has the potential to be marginalized, as an irrelevant social practice. If lots of evidence comes in against naturalism, investigation of the world that assumes naturalism has the potential to become otiose. Given the commitment to methodological naturalism, the success of science hinges on the contingent fact that the evidence strongly suggests that naturalism is true.
I maintain that science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism. Our successful scientific theories are naturalistic simply because this is the way the evidence points; this leaves open the possibility that, on the basis of new evidence, there could be supernatural scientific theories. I conclude that ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there."

For it not being creationism, there are a lot of references to "God".

where?

Where does he say that?

the title of the book.


"Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design"

 

[Davian]

quote mine city.

Not really, as *I* was the one that provided the link to the paper.

read the whole paragraph. he is not saying to dismiss it because it's not scientific, but because the evidence hasn't been yet found. and that is what the ruling was, Dover ruled it unscientific.

"Jones seems aware of the fact that his demarcation criteria entail that the aim of science is not truth. He writes that “while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science” (p. 64). But if science is not a pursuit of truth, science has the potential to be marginalized, as an irrelevant social practice. If lots of evidence comes in against naturalism, investigation of the world that assumes naturalism has the potential to become otiose. Given the commitment to methodological naturalism, the success of science hinges on the contingent fact that the evidence strongly suggests that naturalism is true.
I maintain that science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism. Our successful scientific theories are naturalistic simply because this is the way the evidence points; this leaves open the possibility that, on the basis of new evidence, there could be supernatural scientific theories. I conclude that ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there."

How scientific is a hypothesis that lacks empirical evidence?

where?

Did you or did you not read the paper? *You* tell *me* how many times the word "god" occurs in it.

the title of the book.

"Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design"

Where does he state that the 'atheist' in the title of his book refers to himself? It may be that he is only attempting to write the book from an atheistic viewpoint.

And again, what controversy?

 

[jayem]

Why have you adopted that viewpoint?

Primarily, I base it on history, not science. Everything that was once thought mystical and inexplicable has been shown to be a perfectly natural phenomenon once it's been understood. In fact, in the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been valid for anything. Therefore, by simple inductive logic, why should I not believe that everything--even that which we can't now explain--is also a totally natural process?

Secondarily, it's pretty obvious that the way the world operates is inconsistent with most religious doctrines. The qualities attributed to the Abrahamic God certainly don't logically conform with life as we actually know it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not really, as *I* was the one that provided the link to the paper.

so you are impervious to quote mining, as long as you provide the link? -err

How scientific is a hypothesis that lacks empirical evidence?

I believe there is lots of science for ID, but He doesn't.

Did you or did you not read the paper? *You* tell *me* how many times the word "god" occurs in it.

He uses the Term God, so He can sell a book. He obviously doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest! Can't you tell?

Where does he state that the 'atheist' in the title of his book refers to himself? It may be that he is only attempting to write the book from an atheistic viewpoint.

wouldn't that be lying? If He was a theist writing a book from an athiestic viewpoint. And then saying "from an atheist perspective"

And again, what controversy?

two words, cambrian explosion. But I suggest an evolution/creation forum if you want to discuss that topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not really, as *I* was the one that provided the link to the paper.

so you are impervious to quote mining, as long as you provide the link? -err

How scientific is a hypothesis that lacks empirical evidence?

quote-
"I could go on, but you get the picture. The evidence doesn’t prove that
God exists – maybe some advanced alien civilization is playing a trick on us;
maybe the scientists are undergoing some sort of mass hallucination; maybe all
this is happening due to some incredibly improbable quantum fluctuation. But the
evidence does provide some support for the hypothesis that God exists. It would
be close-minded for the scientists to refuse to countenance the hypothesis that
God exists, due to some commitment to methodological naturalism. Of course,
it is important to consider the naturalistic hypotheses, but one has to consider the
theistic hypothesis as well.
Note that the evidence is providing support for the existence of something
like the Christian God. While I have not given a definition of “supernatural”,
I take it that the Christian God counts as supernatural. The evidence for the
existence of this supernatural being is not conclusive, but that is how evidential
relations often work in science. For example, cloud chamber tracks give us
evidence for the existence of unobservable quarks (“unobservable” in the sense of
van Fraassen 1980), though this evidence is not conclusive."

Did you or did you not read the paper? *You* tell *me* how many times the word "god" occurs in it.

He uses the Term God, so He can sell a book. He obviously doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest! Can't you tell?

Where does he state that the 'atheist' in the title of his book refers to himself? It may be that he is only attempting to write the book from an atheistic viewpoint.

wouldn't that be lying? (If He was a theist writing a book from an athiestic viewpoint-"from an atheist perspective?)

besides read a review:

""Seeking God in Science is a refreshing and fair-minded exploration of intelligent design arguments. Unlike the many ideologically-driven detractors of intelligent design, Monton refuses to set up a straw man, poison the well, or dismiss it as unscientific. Bradley Monton writes as "a friendly atheist"—one who seriously and honestly considers claims that challenge atheism. As such, this book is a welcome breakthrough."– Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary"

And again, what controversy?

two words, cambrian explosion. But I suggest an evolution/creation forum if you want to discuss that topic.

 

[gods prophetess]

im a strong christian in the lord i dont blieve in athesism

 

[Davian]

so you are impervious to quote mining, as long as you provide the link? -err

I would say that the quote mining label does not really apply as I did not misrepresent his statement.

Again, how scientific is a hypothesis that lacks empirical evidence? If it is not scientific, then it is unscientific, no?

I believe there is lots of science for ID, but He doesn't.

And you both have provided the same number of examples for it.

He uses the Term God, so He can sell a book. He obviously doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest! Can't you tell?

Again, where does he say so? He may be like Lee Strobel. He does not clearly state his beliefs in the paper outside of a clear predilection for the Christian deity.

wouldn't that be lying? If He was a theist writing a book from an athiestic viewpoint. And then saying "from an atheist perspective"

Do you believe that the The Vampire Diaries were written by a vampire?

two words, cambrian explosion. But I suggest an evolution/creation forum if you want to discuss that topic.

Try again. The Cambrian explosion is only a problem for YECers.

Do you still have nothing of substance?

And why do you keep capitalizing "He" when refering to Monton? Do you respect him that much, even while disagreeing with him?