Evolution Is Not Atheism

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:12 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #92


What if its like this....

Consider human history before the invention of the microscope. If someone told you that some disease were caused by "animalcules" invisible to the naked eye, you probably would have thought he was a crackpot. Since he wouldn't be able to prove that claim, you would be within your rights to think so.

Wrong view of science again.  I would be very skeptical of his hypothesis but, wearing my scientific hat, I have no claim to his being a "crackpot" unless and until I can falsify his hypothesis. "Prove that claim" isn't how science works.  What is done is that we falsify all the alternative hypotheses that we can think of. Since we can't think of all possible alternatives, that is why science remains tentative.

We may be is a time before the invention of instrumentality that will allow us to access a reality in addition to this one (now know as the "supernatural" for a lack of a more descriptive term). Someone might develop a "theo-meter" for detecting the "divine". The irony here is that the "supernatural" would become the "natural" because we would be able to study and understand it.

That is possible, what you have here is not a test for the supernatural, but a way to test a material method you think the supernatural uses.  This is what has happened with the studies on intercessory prayer. We have detected that remote intercessory prayer has an effect on the health of people in certain circumstances. Since God has always been hypothesized to answer prayes, you might naively think that this is the detection you postulate. But it isn't, because all we are testing is intercessory prayer, not God.

The semantic games of "natural" and "supernatural" should be left in the garbage where they belong.

I suspect that if there is such a thing that "God(s?) isn't (aren't) going to be what anyone suspects.

I always remember a cartoon I saw.  Newspaper headline: Good news and bad news. Good news: science proves there is a god. Bad news: it's Woden.

Another question is why should we "worship" such a Being if Such exists?

Because such an immense being actually cares about the welfare of each of insignificant us? So maybe "worship" isn't the right word.  Maybe veneration or respect or affection might be better. Remember, theisms not only have a remote Creator but a deity that intervenes in history and is willing to share and advise the personal life of each individual -- sharing happiness, grief, consolation, advice, counsel, etc.  Maybe you don't "worship" a being that gets that intimate with you, but you have to do some kind of interacting.

 

[lucaspa]

[Today at 06:34 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #86


I don't think the Christian god exists (no evidence, the Bible gives a very self-contradictory portrait) and that is not taken on faith (belief without proof). In other words, what there is actually disproves the existence of this particular version IMO.

I deliberately said "deity".  If you stop and think about it, theists think that versions of deity have been disproved.  No more worshippers of the Babylonian pantheon.  So theists also sort thru versions of deity and have decided thru history that most are false.

Now, as to self-contradition in the Bible, why would you expect anything different? The Bible is a compilation of supposed individual encounters with deity. When humans experience other traumatic and overwhelming events, their accounts differ and are often contradictory in the details.  In reading about the Battle of Antietam, for instance, if you get into the regimental histories and After Action reports, you can't reconcile the Union accounts internally, much less with the Confederates.  All they agree on is that there was a battle there that day and it was terrible.  But which units were where, when, and what they did doesn't match.

If all the accounts within the Bible matched, then I would suspect a conspiracy.  As it is, it is just what you would expect from a bunch of people encountering something overwhelming.  Lots of contradictions on the details but agreement on the overarching concepts: a deity and only one deity.

Let me emphasize that the above isn't meant and won't show deity to exist. It only shows that your criteria -- Bible contradictory -- isn't a valid criteria.

There is no evidence for the existence of other type of supernatural entity either.

This is even worse. Remember your post about the correct tool? Well, science isn't the correct tool to get evidence.  Methodological materialism forbids directly testing for a deity.  It is like looking into a locked and windowless room and saying there is no evidence of a couch inside.  So what?  You can't get in and even start looking, much less search the whole room.

While I am well aware that this lack of evidence is not conclusive proof of "absence",

Worse than that: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In other words, with respect to all concepts of God(s?), the most reasonable stance to assume is one of agnosticism.

Lacking convincing personal experience of a deity, I agree that agnosticism is most reasonable.  Atheists have reasons, of course, but it is still a leap of faith.

However, I am only obliged to believe in the probable,

Whoa.  Now you are introducing  a new concept: "obliged".  I'm certainly not telling you that you are compelled in any way to believe in the existence of deity.  We are not nearly at the point where it is perverse to withold provisional assent. 

Even though God(s?) is (are) possible, is such really probable? Given the evidence, IMO, No.

Your assesement of the probability is entirely intuitive.  I don't mind you reaching your opinion (you said, "IMO"), but if you are going to claim "probability" I can ask for the calculations.  I doubut you can give them to me.  So yes, you can reasonably believe as you do. 

I don't see this as a matter of "faith" in its' incarnation as simply "having confidence in something",

But it is.  You have no empirical evidence for your belief and, what is worse, you are ignoring or dismissing the evidence from personal experience of others. So yes, you are making a leap of faith and believing where you cannot prove.  Are you wrong?  No one knows for sure. 

So, at this point in time, there is no evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists. If I had to take a "side" (many regard agnosticism as a self-serving way to escape censure for non-belief) I would have to come down on the atheist side of there being no God(s?). Atheism is simply NO belief in God(s?), based on the lack of evidence at this time. 

I'm sorry, but atheism is more than "no belief".  It eventually entails a positive statement of faith.  Back to Butler again:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Now, how do you react to Butler. If you agree with him you are obviously a theist.  If you react to his hypothesis by "I don't know" you are an agnostic.  However, if you disagree you must do so be having faith -- without evidence -- that natural processes proceed without the requirement of a deity or supernatural. Science can't help due to methodological materialism.  If you decide that natural happens by itself, it is a statement of faith.

Now, again, your faith may be correct, but the ultimate accuracy doesn't change its status of faith at this time.

The very fact that we are communicating is evidence of this reality (my existence).

I'm afraid it's not. This communication might be an hallucination of yours. Same with all your memories, records, experiences of the existence of others. In science this is called the ten-second paradox.  There is no way to tell the universe was not created 10 seconds ago with all our memories intact.   I have memories, records, and experience the existences of others. Can I "prove" to a virtual certainty that what I now believe to be reality it the "truth"? No, but there is enough evidence for me to think so. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears. 

Could I be mistaken and this is just a "Matrix" reality?

You just stated the refutation that you could "prove" you exist. 

As far as I am concerned, the answer is NO and I'm not going let it worry or distract me.

Fine, but your answer is faith.  It is a faith shared by nearly everyone on the planet, but that doesn't change that it is a faith.

I have often found the notion that because I can't prove to a virtual certainty the "truth" of my existence/reality that this is somehow an argument that God(s?) must also exists (God is necessary to create reality/thought).

I'm not using it that way. I'm simply demonstrating that everyone has faith, while you claimed not to have any.  In every search for truth, there are statements that we believe are true without the ability to prove they are true. That I exist and that I am sane are the two basic statements of faith. But they are not the only ones.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:39 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #87



Please, not another debate on whether or atheism is a "belief" or not. Couldn't you just agree to disagree? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Sorry, Pete, but no.  The problem here is that we have clash of two faiths -- atheism vs theism.  But one of those worldviews is claiming knowledge that it doesn't have.  This has profound implications for the evolution vs creationism discussion and why it exists at all.

Atheists claim that atheism isn't a faith.  Therefore, that puts atheism at a more reliable level of knowledge than theism.  Gladiatrix said it herself: probably.  Notice that there are no probability calculations involved. This is exacerbated when theists are said to have "no evidence". What this amounts to is that atheism is claiming a level of rationality and believability it doesn't have.  Don't you think that fosters resentment and a little fear among theists if they accept that there is an imbalance in believability?  So what do some theists try to do?  Gain scientific backing for their beliefs, what else? And voila!  We have a powerful motivating force for creationism.

If I'm going to reject creationist claims because science doesn't back them, then to be consistent I also have to reject atheist claims when science doesn't back them.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:15 PM Arikay said this in Post #89

Well, really its an agnostic that takes everything on evidence.

And guess what science is?

 

[Cantuar]

The Argument from Design was proof of God.

It was? I thought David Hume had pretty well dismantled that one before Darwin ever came on the scene. I just don't remember the details - guess I'm going to have to go back and read up on it again.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:41 PM Micaiah said this in Post #90
Lucaspa quoting Micaiah


Again you have quoted me out of context,... The context of the discussion was that if you claim to only accept that which may be verified by science, then it is inconsistent to believe the gospel.

No, I didn't. I quoted the entire paragraph, which includes the last sentence which brings up your point.  It's all there.

What isn't there is that science has does not falsify the Resurrection.  You have said something about science which isn't true.  And you have repeated an atheist argument as tho it is true.

No hint here to support a claim of me denying the gospel,

I didn't say you denied the gospel. I said that you posted an atheist argument as tho it were valid. And you did.

TEV's to be consistent.

TEV's are consistent.  Your view of science is wrong.  That dead men don't rise is a theory, and you can never use theory to deny data.  The Resurrection is data.  What keeps the theory from being falsified is that the data is unconfirmed and is therefore viewed as an anomaly. TEVs simply correctly apply science.

I have demonstrated that to be a Christian logically means you accept the historicity of Genesis.

You haven't demonstrated that at all. In fact, you have consistently ignored my question of how a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and acceptance of evolution harms the basic theology of Christianity.  Perhaps you will finally address that issue now.

I do not suggest that you cannot be a Christian if you believe in evolution. I have stated this before.

This contradicts your above statement that to be a Christian means accepting the historicity of Genesis. Since all the data contradict that, you are saying that accepting the data (evolution) means you can't "logically" be a Christian.

Talk about being illogical and inconsistent!  You can't stay consistent within the space of a single paragraph!

 

[Praxiteles]

Today at 02:11 PM lucaspa said this in Post #103



Sorry, Pete, but no.  The problem here is that we have clash of two faiths -- atheism vs theism.  But one of those worldviews is claiming knowledge that it doesn't have.  This has profound implications for the evolution vs creationism discussion and why it exists at all.

Are you talking about atheism in all its forms here, or just strong atheism?

As a weak atheist, I do not see the connection between faith and my atheism.  I simply stopped believing in God/gods because I had no reason to continue to do so.  I am loath to get into an in-depth discussion about this with you, since you argue much more clearly than I do, but I do not believe that my (weak) atheism is based on anything other than my experience.

Atheists claim that atheism isn't a faith.  Therefore, that puts atheism at a more reliable level of knowledge than theism.  Gladiatrix said it herself: probably.  Notice that there are no probability calculations involved. This is exacerbated when theists are said to have "no evidence". What this amounts to is that atheism is claiming a level of rationality and believability it doesn't have.  Don't you think that fosters resentment and a little fear among theists if they accept that there is an imbalance in believability?  So what do some theists try to do?  Gain scientific backing for their beliefs, what else? And voila!  We have a powerful motivating force for creationism.

If I'm going to reject creationist claims because science doesn't back them, then to be consistent I also have to reject atheist claims when science doesn't back them.

You should only have to do that with atheist claims that are claimed to have scientific backing, shouldn't you?

To illustrate, how about my afraternal claims?  It's quite possible that I have a brother.  My mother could, conceivably, have given birth to a boy before my own birth, but have adopted him out.  My experience is that I don't have a brother, but I cannot say with absolute certainty that I do not. 

If that, as you say, is a faith statement, then every single belief and concept is held on faith, and I think that it renders the term ineffective.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:14 PM Cantuar said this in Post #105

It was? I thought David Hume had pretty well dismantled that one before Darwin ever came on the scene. I just don't remember the details - guess I'm going to have to go back and read up on it again.

Yes, you do. Because Hume surrendered to the Argument from Design. He saved face in his Dialogues on Natural Theology by calling deity "Mind", but it is the same thing.

 

[Arikay]

Um, a word?

I would assume science would be agnostic. Since there is the same amount of real evidence to support god as there is to support no god (zero evidence) so science cant trully take any stance on god.

but I may be wrong.

Today at 07:12 PM lucaspa said this in Post #104



And guess what science is?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:29 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #95 

One can't function if one is forced to believe in every possibility. 

There's that idea of "force" again.  You are saying that you have to have some answer, so you choose the most probable.

Gladiatrix, if science operated that way then none of the results would be worth anything because they would all be biased.

There is a third possibility: living with unanswered questions.  Witholding all judgement, opinions, "probabilities" , etc. until the requisite data is in.  If the requisite data is never found, then the question remains unanswered forever.

 

[Cantuar]

Yes, you do. Because Hume surrendered to the Argument from Design. He saved face in his Dialogues on Natural Theology by calling deity "Mind", but it is the same thing.

Must admit I've never seen it portrayed like that before. Most of the time you see things along the lines that Hume helped show that the argument from design was a flawed argument and Darwin administered the coup de grace by providing an alternative.

 

[Smilin]

13th March 2003 at 06:52 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1

Now, can people stop equating the two? Please?

And if a frog had wings....

 

[Cantuar]

And if a frog had wings....

...it WOULDN'T be a transitional species! It'd be a frog! I mean it'd be a bird! It's an atheist plot, I tell you!

 

[lucaspa]

17th March 2003 at 12:09 AM Cantuar said this in Post #111



Must admit I've never seen it portrayed like that before. Most of the time you see things along the lines that Hume helped show that the argument from design was a flawed argument and Darwin administered the coup de grace by providing an alternative.

See Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea as well as reading the Dialogue.  Hume does destroy all the other logical "proofs". Or at least shows they are not proofs.  But Cleanthes (? it's been a while so I'm not sure I remember the characters correctly), who is Hume, does cave to the Argument from Design.  Perhaps the "flaw" you are thinking of is that the Argument from Design can only show a Designer/Manufacturer; it can't show that the D/M is Yahweh.  Which is where Hume has Cleanthes quibble about calling the D/M "Mind" instead of "God".  But that's mere semantics. At the time Hume was writing, no alternative "mind" was known that could accomplish the task.

It was up to Darwin to remove the AfD as a "proof" of deity by providing a process within the universe that yields Design.

 

[Freodin]

17th March 2003 at 04:27 AM lucaspa said this in Post #110



There's that idea of "force" again.  You are saying that you have to have some answer, so you choose the most probable.

Gladiatrix, if science operated that way then none of the results would be worth anything because they would all be biased.

There is a third possibility: living with unanswered questions.  Witholding all judgement, opinions, "probabilities" , etc. until the requisite data is in.  If the requisite data is never found, then the question remains unanswered forever.

But is this third possibility always, err, possible? The God-question requires you to take a position. The "if your are not for us..." problem.

Is this really "faith" if my position is "I don´t really know the answer, but as long as I do not have a reason for the opposite, I will act as if the answer is NO"?

I would say that this is the basic weak atheistic (or agnostic atheistic) position.

Is there a god? - I don´t know?
What is it like? - I cannot say?
What does it want? - How should I know?
How does it interact with us? - I have no way to know?

By stating that I cannot make any statements about this possible deity, for lack of knowledge, and lack of acquiring this knowledge, I must necessarily withdraw to the default position of "There is no god."

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:02 PM Freodin said this in Post #115

But is this third possibility always, err, possible? The God-question requires you to take a position. The "if your are not for us..." problem.

Why does it require you to take a position in the absence of sufficient data?  So what if they say "if you are not for us, you are against us"?  Does that make it true if someone says it?  In conflicts between two strong beliefs, the middle ground is often squeezed out because each side wants "victory".  That's too bad.  Of course, the middle ground is squeezed out because it is viable, and either extreme want to eliminate it as a rival.

However, I am going to fight for the middle ground here for the simple reasons that 1) it is correct and 2) science is doomed if either your style of atheists or creationists win.  Only if the middle ground prevails does science stand a chance.

Is this really "faith" if my position is "I don´t really know the answer, but as long as I do not have a reason for the opposite, I will act as if the answer is NO"?

This is confusing whether your position is faith and whether you go to a church or synagogue.  If you are witholding judgement

I would say that this is the basic weak atheistic (or agnostic atheistic) position.

That position is not stable.  Back we go to Butler again. 

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Now, Butler is making a statement about the "natural".  How do you respond to this? If you agree, you are obviously a theist.  If you say "I don't know" then you are agnostic. About Butler's statement and about the existence of the supernatural. But what if you disagree?  As an atheist you have to believe that natural means "without God" because, if you don't, you are either a theist or agnostic.  And it has to be a belief, because there is no evidence either way and science can't gather the evidence. So you have to say "I believe/have faith that natural processes don't require an intelligent agent and work without one." What's more, you will justify that by there not being any intelligent agent.  And there you are into faith and strong atheism.

By stating that I cannot make any statements about this possible deity, for lack of knowledge, and lack of acquiring this knowledge, I must necessarily withdraw to the default position of "There is no god."

Sorry, but that isn't the default position. You are making a judgement where you have no data to do so.  The default position is "I don't know."  There may be a deity or there may not be one. Until such time as the evidence one way or another is available, I withold judgement. 

If we used that "default" position in science, no science would get done.  Because we would never go out and see what the universe is actually like.

As just one example, name me the evidence for tachyons.  They are allowed by theory (so is deity) but there is "no reason to think they exist" (as you put it) because tachyons or effects of tachyons have never been observed.  If you take your "default" position "there are no tachyons" then we will never look for effects of tachyons, will we? Because, instead of being neutral, we have made a judgement.

The default position in science is "I don't know".  And it is elsewhere, too.

 

[Freodin]

No, I do not see it this way. The position "I don´t know" implies "I cannot make any statements about it" and that is, for practical purposes identical to "It does not exist".

Agreed, the point where these positions differ is the willingness to look for existence - but that is not necessarily excluded in the weak atheistic position. (or a-whatever position)

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:59 PM Freodin said this in Post #117

No, I do not see it this way. The position "I don´t know" implies "I cannot make any statements about it" and that is, for practical purposes identical to "It does not exist".

Agreed, the point where these positions differ is the willingness to look for existence - but that is not necessarily excluded in the weak atheistic position. (or a-whatever position)

I see Logical Positivism rearing its head in that first paragraph.  This was the position of the logical positivists.  If you couldn't make verifiable statements about an entity, then the entity didn't exist.  This, of course, was to get around the problem that science won't do for deity what science does: falsifies.  So you have to have some other way to say the entity you don't believe exists -- deity -- really doesn't exist.  And you just stated the way the logical positivists tried.  However, it turned out the logical positivism failed because verification itself couldn't be, ah, verified.  Also because science was considering all sorts of entities that statements couldn't be made about -- such as unseen dimensions and imaginary time.   

Your first paragraph doesn't allow for looking for existence.  After all, if something doesn't exist, why go look for it? That's foolish.

Look again at tachyons. 
1. They are allowed by theory.
2. They cannnot be seen, after all, they move faster than light.
3, They create problems if they do exist.
4. But they are not falsified.

So, what is the scientific attitutude? Is it one of "it does not exist"? Absolutely not!

"1.  Tachyons:  can we rule them out.

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable.  Yet tachyons are a problem.  Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties.  Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof.  Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't sudently be discovered."  Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

I notice that you didn't address the dilemma Butler poses, did you? Or the fact that "weak atheism" either goes to agnostic or strong atheism.

 

[Freodin]

I do not think it is such a clearly defined and limited position.

I do not have to chose between "x exists" and "x does not exist".

I can state: "I don´t know whether x exists, but as I can not say anything about x at all, I may verywell act as if it does not exist. I can keep looking for x if I want to, but I don´t have to. But nothing keeps me from looking either."

The important point here is "...as I can not say anything about x...".

If I do not have any verifiably information, x is as good as non-existent. It does not matter, for anything, if I assume x as non-existent. I can ignore it.

So it is with tachyons. (Perhaps I am wrong, but I have to admit, I am not so deep in tachyon research, or physics at all)
As far as I know, there is no field in physics that has to deal with tachyons. They are possible, true - but as yet, no field in physics would change if we assume tachyons would not exist.

For any practicle reasons, we can ignore tachyons.

Now that does not keep scientists from searching. There are reasons to look for tachyons - basically curiosity. But as long as there is no reasons to assume that they exist, we can act as if they don´t - and nothing would change.

 

[Cantuar]

But Cleanthes (? it's been a while so I'm not sure I remember the characters correctly), who is Hume, does cave to the Argument from Design._ Perhaps the "flaw" you are thinking of is that the Argument from Design can only show a Designer/Manufacturer; it can't show that the D/M is Yahweh._ Which is where Hume has Cleanthes quibble about calling the D/M "Mind" instead of "God"._ But that's mere semantics. At the time Hume was writing, no alternative "mind" was known that could accomplish the task.

Interesting. Most of the sources I've read have pegged Philo (who was arguing against the mind/design position) as being Hume's own voice. I should have another look at Dennett, I suppose; the last time I read it was when I was in bed with a bout of pneumonia and a temperature of 104, which was considerably less than optimal for trying to assimilate that particular book.