Evolution and atheism

[lucaspa]

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!!!  The actual relationship of evolution and atheism is more complicated.

The old top-down philosophy of the 18th and early 19th century had deity on top. Deity made intelligence, which made Design, below Design was Order and below Order was Chaos.  In 1802 Paley wrote his famous Natural History:  Significantly the subtitle was or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature.  In this Paley gave the Argument from Design as proof of the existence of deity.  That is, you can't have the design in biological organisms without a Designer.  At the time, this argument for the designs in organisms was unanswerable.  David Hume, as staunch an atheist as ever lived, had conceded this 20 years earlier in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.  Hume was able to logically demolish  all the other logical "proofs" for the existence of deity, but he had to cave in the face of the Argument from Design. Basically, Hume has to admit that his atheism is a faith.

Now along comes Darwin and Wallace and they discover an unintelligent process -- natural selection -- that gives the design in biological organisms.  Suddenly the Argument from Design as "proof" of deity disappears.  So, for the first time, atheists can pretend that their faith isn't a faith. Dawkins makes his famous statement "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."  Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg 6.

Without natural selection, atheists have no good answer to the Argument from Design. Now, does evolution falsify a Creator?  Of course not. Darwin realized this. Even Phillip Johnson realizes this:  "The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story.  It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a creator who works through natural selection." Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance, pg. 73 

The continued insistence by creationists that "natural selection can't account for ...." is an attempt to restore the old Argument from Design and take away the intellectual prop for atheism. But that isn't necessary, because atheism remains a faith even with natural selection in place.

 

[TheBear]

Hmmmm...... This does not speak to Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design and other Theists.... All of which believe in an evolutionary process.

 

[ocean]

This only talks about young-earth creationists, not Christians or other theists who believe in evolution.

Atheism is not a faith, it is the lack of faith.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by TheBear
Hmmmm...... This does not speak to Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design and other Theists.... All of which believe in an evolutionary process.

Theistic evolutionists simply accept that deity created by evolution.  Darwin was a theistic evolutionist.

However, it does address OEC and IDers. Both of those use the Argument from Design. Particularly the IDers.  After all, that is the only argument they use, and Behe does refer back to Paley, after all, in his Darwin's Black Box.  "Irreducible complexity" is simply Paley's argument taken to the biochemical level.

Dembski's "complex, specified information" and "explanatory filter" are attempt to reintroduce the Argument from Design.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ocean
This only talks about young-earth creationists, not Christians or other theists who believe in evolution.

Atheism is not a faith, it is the lack of faith.

It also addresses IDers.  Nor was it intended to talk about Christians who believe in evolution.  Why should it? The title of the thread is "evolution and atheism". Remember, even Phillip Johnson acknowledges that it is possible to have a deity that creates through natural selection.

Atheism is the belief/faith that deity does not exist. The necessary basic statement of faith of atheism is "natural = without deity".  I submit that saying "it is the lack of faith" is simply self-deception on the atheist's part.

 

[Morat]

  I submit that you know nothing of atheists. *shrug*.

  I lack belief in God. That doesn't mean I believe there is no God. Feel free to dig for a nugget of faith there.

  I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Angry Clown Gods orbiting Saturn. I don't have a reason to. I'll let you know when it changes.

 

 

[Doubting Thomas]

lucaspa writes: "The necessary basic statement of faith of atheism is 'natural=without deity'. I submit that saying 'it is the lack of faith' is simply self-deception on the atheist's part."

What twaddle! Theism is the belief in a deity or deities. A-theism ("a" as in "without") designates the absence of such belief. Period. A little basic etymology goes a long way toward dispelling self-deception.

 

[WinAce]

Hume formally demolished the argument from design way before Darwin turned up, but the best single refutation is a question any 5-year old can ask, embarrasing the Sunday School teacher: "you're telling me to believe life couldn't just exist, but a being complex and magical enough to create life could?!".

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by WinAce
Hume formally demolished the argument from design way before Darwin turned up, but the best single refutation is a question any 5-year old can ask, embarrasing the Sunday School teacher: "you're telling me to believe life couldn't just exist, but a being complex and magical enough to create life could?!".

Yes, Hume destroyed all the arguments for God. And so did Kant, in a different way, and he was a Christian.

And Aquinas did not think that there was proof of God - there were reasons to believe but no definite proof, either logical or empirical. (although I am unsure if the formal design from argument was around in his day - he is most famous for destroying Anselem's ontological argument for God, although Kant did that in a better way later on.)

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
 

  I lack belief in God. That doesn't mean I believe there is no God. Feel free to dig for a nugget of faith there. 

   

What's the basic question?  The question is: Does a deity exist?  There are 3 possible answers:
1. I believe deity exists.  This is theism, deism, polytheism.
2. I believe a deity does not exist. This is atheism.
3. I don't know whether a deity exists or not.  This is agnosticism.

Now, the "lack of belief" stated "I do not believe a deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe a deity does not exist."  The only purpose in using the former "don't believe" or "lack of belief" is to hide the fact that you are making a statement of belief/faith.

The situation is the same for the Clown Gods of Saturn.  You believe they do not exist.

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

Originally posted by ocean
This only talks about young-earth creationists, not Christians or other theists who believe in evolution.

Atheism is not a faith, it is the lack of faith.

So what's new?

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

It sounds like every post is a repeat of the last. No one's arguing with y'all. Just curious what this thread was about...

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
lucaspa writes: "The necessary basic statement of faith of atheism is 'natural=without deity'. I submit that saying 'it is the lack of faith' is simply self-deception on the atheist's part."

What twaddle! Theism is the belief in a deity or deities. A-theism ("a" as in "without") designates the absence of such belief. Period. A little basic etymology goes a long way toward dispelling self-deception.

This is not the entymology of atheism but is a newly invented one to support the cover-up that atheism is not a faith.

Your method of determining a word's meaning works best when one is talking about an English word that has been created by using words and or particles from other languages.  When and where there are no direct cognates in that other language, the meaning of the new word is entirely open to interpretation based upon that kind of analysis.  Where, however, the word has a direct cognate and, indeed, where the word is a pure transliteration from another language, generally the original language's meaning takes precedence in determining the meaning of the word as it is adopted into the secondary language.  This is the case here.

The word "atheism" comes straight from the Greek Language, where it is the word "atheos" (here written with English letters).  The meaning of the word in Greek is demonstrated best in the writings of Aeschylus and Diogenese Laertius, and is (in its linguistic essence): "one who disdains or denies God or the gods and their laws." (See Bauer, Walter Greek-English Lexicon. 2nd Ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. p.20).

The linguistic usage of the particle "a" can certainly mean "without" or "lacking" in the passive sense, but in the case of the Greek word "atheos," from which "atheism" is transliterated into English, "a" conveys the active sense of "reversal of motion" or "opposite of direction" or "inversion of meaning."  Hence, in this case, it means the bipolar opposite of "theism."  If "theism" is the belief that deities exist, "atheism" is the belief that
deities do not exist.  (The effect of the negation should be kept linked to that which is believed IN, not the act of believing itself.)  In its usage in Greek literature, the word is rarely understood in the passive sense of a simple failure to acknowledge deities, but rather is always found in the active sense of direct opposition to such beliefs, or (most often)  a particular expression of such beliefs. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
It sounds like every post is a repeat of the last. No one's arguing with y'all. Just curious what this thread was about...

The thread was originally about the relationship of evolution to atheism.  In short, evolution is not atheism but without evolution, particularly Darwinian selection, atheism has no answer to the Argument from Design. So evolution is essential for atheism. Which explains why IDers and other creationists are so eager to eliminate it.  Without evolution, theists win the theism vs atheism debate.

With evolution, atheists do not win the atheism vs theism debate because evolution can be looked at simply as the secondary cause by which deity creates.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by WinAce
Hume formally demolished the argument from design way before Darwin turned up, but the best single refutation is a question any 5-year old can ask, embarrasing the Sunday School teacher: "you're telling me to believe life couldn't just exist, but a being complex and magical enough to create life could?!".

That's interesting, since Hume conceded the existence of deity (he saved face by calling it "Mind") in Dialogues Concerning Natural Theology.  Dialogues was set up to argue against the "logical proofs" of the existence of deity. And Hume did very well.  Until ...  Until he came up against the Argument from Design.  Hume has the skeptic Philo (who is his mouthpiece) say "Stone, and mortar, and wood, without an architect, never erect a house. But the ideas in a human mind, we see, by an unknown, inexplicable economy, arrange themselves so as to form the plan of a watch or house. Experience, therefore, proves, that there is an original principle of order in mind, not in matter."  Notice that this is an inductive argument, based on observation.  Philo says "Therefore the universe could not originally attain its order and arrangement, without simething similar to human art."   In the end, although Philo fights hard on the other "proofs" of deity, Philo ends up saying "the legitimate conclusion is that ... if we are not contented with calling the first and supreme cause a God or Deity, but desire to vary the expresssion, what can we call him but Mind or Thought to which he is justly supposed to bear a considerable resemblance?"

The question is irrelevant because you are applying it to First Cause, not the design noted in biological organisms.  It's not the existence of life, but the designs in biological organisms.  The inability to find a way other than deity to account for those designs is why evolution never went anywhere before Darwin.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by David Gould
Yes, Hume destroyed all the arguments for God. And so did Kant, in a different way, and he was a Christian.

And Aquinas did not think that there was proof of God - there were reasons to believe but no definite proof, either logical or empirical. (although I am unsure if the formal design from argument was around in his day - he is most famous for destroying Anselem's ontological argument for God, although Kant did that in a better way later on.) 
 

I addressed the misconception about Hume above.  What were destroyed were not the "arguments" but the "proofs". The proofs didn't prove.  They were good arguments, just not proofs.

That you mention Aquinas is interesting.  Since Aquinas, after he wrote his book discussing the logical proofs, had a personal experience that, according to him, blew away all the logical arguments and absolutely convinced him of the existence of deity.

It should be obvious that the logical arguments in the atheism vs theism debate are pointless.  Deity either exists or does not exist independent  of any logical arguments.  Even if all the logical arguments for the existence of deity are flawed, that isn't going to make a deity disappear if one exists. Similarly, even if all the logical arguments for atheism are flawed (and I think they are), that isn't going to make a deity appear if there isn't one.

 

[Morat]

What's the basic question?  The question is: Does a deity exist?  There are 3 possible answers:
1. I believe deity exists.  This is theism, deism, polytheism.
2. I believe a deity does not exist. This is atheism.
3. I don't know whether a deity exists or not.  This is agnosticism.

   Agnosticism is the philosophical position that evidence (or even, strictly speaking, knowledge) of Diety is unknowable. That is, a position on the existance or non-existance of God is a faith based statement alone. Thus, you can have agnostic Atheists and agnostic Christians.

  You are, however, missing an answer. Let me add it for you:

4. I have no evidence a diety exists. Until such time as I do, I will not believe.

   Notice the important difference? I do not claim God does not exist. I do not claim God cannot exist. I merely claim I do not believe in God because I have no reason to.  

Now, the "lack of belief" stated "I do not believe a deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe a deity does not exist."  The only purpose in using the former "don't believe" or "lack of belief" is to hide the fact that you are making a statement of belief/faith.

   Ah, I see. You didn't address what I said, instead you told me what I was thinking, accused me of attempting to decieve you, and then defined yourself correct. Bravo.

    There's a word for that. Straw-something. You know, when you refuse to address the actual argument made, in favor of one you made up instead? Straw...Straw...what is it again? 

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat   Agnosticism is the philosophical position that evidence (or even, strictly speaking, knowledge) of Diety is unknowable.

Boy, you do like trying to change definitions.  Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic.  As Huxley used the word: "An agnostic did not deny or affirm God's existence; he did not pretend to know whether the world is made of matter, spirit, or whatever."  Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pg 568.A

Later, some agnostics added the faith that deity is unknowable.

Thus, you can have agnostic Atheists and agnostic Christians.

No, you can't.  Only by misusing the word. 

  You are, however, missing an answer. Let me add it for you:

4. I have no evidence a diety exists. Until such time as I do, I will not believe.

This is not a fourth position. This is #2.  I do not believe a deity exists and I do not have any evidence I will accept to change that belief. 

   I merely claim I do not believe in God because I have no reason to.

Semantic deception again.  "I do not believe in God" is the same as "I do not believe deity exists"  

The deception is inferred from the language and words that you use.  Those words form a deception.  If you want to deceive yourself, that's fine, but don't ask me to share that deception.  There's another phrase that atheists use a lot -- "critical thinking". Try using it on what you post.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
  
4. I have no evidence a diety exists. Until such time as I do, I will not believe. 

   I do not claim God does not exist. I do not claim God cannot exist. I merely claim I do not believe in God because I have no reason to.  

Thank you for stating your belief so well.  You claim you believe "God" does not exist because you have no reason that convinces you that one exists.

Fair enough. I certainly wasn't trying to convince you that a deity does exist or get you to change your belief. I was merely pointing out that it is a belief.

Let me point out one other corollary of your statement, one lost on many atheists but that you correctly stated:

"I have no reason to"

Many atheists will claim evidence for deity doesn't exist at all.  You correctly put this into personal terms that you don't have evidence ("reason to") you accept.  Nicely done.

However, now you and I have an epistemological question we have to personally address: what level of evidence should be enough to convince us? I bring this up because we keep presenting evidence to creationists that evolution by natural selection happened. They don't accept the evidence. We say they should.

Now the shoe is on the other foot: what evidence for the existence of deity would be sufficient to convince us we had a "reason to" believe a deity exists?

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by lucaspa

Now the shoe is on the other foot: what evidence for the existence of deity would be sufficient to convince us we had a "reason to" believe a deity exists?

I don´t know - but I solved that embarassing personal question a long time ago (and I know others did that, too)

If there was an omniscient God who wanted me to know him, HE would know what arguments would convince me, and would present me with them.

The fact that I am still unconvinced is evidence for the non-existance of this God.