Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[David Sklansky]

Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species? Why do they need to believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo? Including all those millions of species of bugs, worms, etc that have no effect on us and have maybe been extinct for millions of years. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think God created DNA and let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being with enough brainpower that God could bestow consciousness on it along with revealing his existence to it.

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[im a model]

the bible is madd specific, yo. and it dont say a thing about dna and stuff. so what youre saying wouldnt be christian. if you want to start a new religion where you say god created the universe and let it run, ok, but your religion would be too boring. you would have to spice it up with dumb crap like messiahs and you cant eat pigs and stuff. then you would have to kill a bunch or people and invade new lands and convert them. you cant just revise religion in the face of scientific developments. christianity is fixed into its place of being retarded ever since the bible was printed for all to see. it says that god created everything like six thousand years ago. there is no room for revision or compromise. and if you cant deal with that, david, then youre going to hell.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
the bible is madd specific, yo. and it dont say a thing about dna and stuff. so what youre saying wouldnt be christian. if you want to start a new religion where you say god created the universe and let it run, ok, but your religion would be too boring. you would have to spice it up with dumb crap like messiahs and you cant eat pigs and stuff. then you would have to kill a bunch or people and invade new lands and convert them. you cant just revise religion in the face of scientific developments. christianity is fixed into its place of being retarded ever since the bible was printed for all to see. it says that god created everything like six thousand years ago. there is no room for revision or compromise. and if you cant deal with that, david, then youre going to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brilliant. And I officially rescind the claim that Darwin wouldn't want you to reproduce.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species? Why do they need to believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo? Including all those millions of species of bugs, worms, etc that have no effect on us and have maybe been extinct for millions of years. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think God created DNA and let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being with enough brainpower that God could bestow consciousness on it along with revealing his existence to it.

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put, David. My faith requires me to believe that God is the author of all life. The "how He did it" portion is immaterial to any key tenets of Catholic Faith. For those curious enough about the "How," there is scientific reason, understanding, and observation that can yield important clues. I'm inclined to believe that the scenerio you described above is a strong favorite to be correct.

[almostbusto]

David-

i think it IS enough for MOST Christians. but there are some really stupid people out there, so you are never going to have everyone on the 'right' side of the fence. there are still people that believe that the earth is flat, or hollow, or run by cyborgs.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your question essentially reduces to a tautological one: Why do total morons believe moronic things?

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what is reasonable is dependant on your level of understanding. So that if you do not have a grasp of how evolution and DNA works it might well appear simpler to “believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo”. This is especially true if you know your opinion is just as good if not better than anyone else, you can not understand what the ‘scientists’ are going on about, so clearly nether can they and your much simpler vision is clearly the better one. “These so called clever scientist tend to outthink themselves and loose touch with reality.”

I suspect by the end of the century we will have both determined all the steps in the evolution of life, and isolated the mechanism that creates the sensation of consciousness in humans, however that wont change fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

[chezlaw]

politics

[spaceman Bryce]

David, are you going to watch Evan Almighty? Maybe Steve Carell will change your mind

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?


[/ QUOTE ]

I started a thread a while back about the Christian who was Darwin's biggest promoter in the U.S. at the time. I made the suggestion that the reason Christians began to oppose Darwinism was because of the atheism that quickly became attached to Darwinism, especially through people like Huxley and now morons like Dawkins. Many Christians are really opposing the atheism which is poured down their throat with glee by Darwinists, and not speaking to the science involved.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Many Christians are really opposing the atheism which is poured down their throat with glee by Darwinists, and not speaking to the science involved.


[/ QUOTE ]
politics

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

politics


[/ QUOTE ]

worldview

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?


[/ QUOTE ]

I started a thread a while back about the Christian who was Darwin's biggest promoter in the U.S. at the time. I made the suggestion that the reason Christians began to oppose Darwinism was because of the atheism that quickly became attached to Darwinism, especially through people like Huxley and now morons like Dawkins. Many Christians are really opposing the atheism which is poured down their throat with glee by Darwinists, and not speaking to the science involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

NR,

This is a fantastic point. For example, while growing up I knew a certain extremely holy and pious priest who, as part of a series of talks, would give a strong repudiation of evolution as a "religion of the Godless." Looking back, my understanding is that he didn't have a problem with evolution per se, but much moreso people's inclination to completely remove God's role in creation. So I think there is much to be said for fundamentalist "backlash" because some of evolution's most vocal cheerleaders deny God's existence entirely, and wish to forge an inextricable tie between evolution and atheism.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

politics


[/ QUOTE ]

worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
call it what you like its a dishonest stance to further their own ends.

Sometimes its a retreat into self-deception but for some of the brighter leaders its just pure dishonesty.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So I think there is much to be said for fundamentalist "backlash" because some of evolution's most vocal cheerleaders deny God's existence entirely, and wish to forge an inextricable tie between evolution and atheism.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the purpose of the thread. I think it's easy to see how it developed that way. Unfortunately the thread didn't get very far because atheists won't admit to the facts.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

call it what you like its a dishonest stance to further their own ends.

Sometimes its a retreat into self-deception but for some of the brighter leaders its just pure dishonesty.


[/ QUOTE ]

Baloney.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

call it what you like its a dishonest stance to further their own ends.

Sometimes its a retreat into self-deception but for some of the brighter leaders its just pure dishonesty.


[/ QUOTE ]

Baloney.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, purposfully claiming things are the case when you don't really believe them because you want to oppose something else is pure dishonesty.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?


[/ QUOTE ]

I started a thread a while back about the Christian who was Darwin's biggest promoter in the U.S. at the time. I made the suggestion that the reason Christians began to oppose Darwinism was because of the atheism that quickly became attached to Darwinism, especially through people like Huxley and now morons like Dawkins. Many Christians are really opposing the atheism which is poured down their throat with glee by Darwinists, and not speaking to the science involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

NR,

This is a fantastic point. For example, while growing up I knew a certain extremely holy and pious priest who, as part of a series of talks, would give a strong repudiation of evolution as a "religion of the Godless." Looking back, my understanding is that he didn't have a problem with evolution per se, but much moreso people's inclination to completely remove God's role in creation. So I think there is much to be said for fundamentalist "backlash" because some of evolution's most vocal cheerleaders deny God's existence entirely, and wish to forge an inextricable tie between evolution and atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both NR and now you have made this point as if it gives an excuse to the anti-evolution Christians. Don't you see how much of a condemnation of religion your two points really are?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So I think there is much to be said for fundamentalist "backlash" because some of evolution's most vocal cheerleaders deny God's existence entirely, and wish to forge an inextricable tie between evolution and atheism.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the purpose of the thread. I think it's easy to see how it developed that way. Unfortunately the thread didn't get very far because atheists won't admit to the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hey, are you trying to inextricably link atheism and evolution?"

"Nope, don't think so."

"Thats exactly what a lying, godless atheist would say."

Cool argument.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

call it what you like its a dishonest stance to further their own ends.

Sometimes its a retreat into self-deception but for some of the brighter leaders its just pure dishonesty.


[/ QUOTE ]

Baloney.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, purposfully claiming things are the case when you don't really believe them because you want to oppose something else is pure dishonesty.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And par for the course for religion and yet STILL there are people in this thread defending this practice as if its history wasn't tragic and embarrassing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"Hey, are you trying to inextricably link atheism and evolution?"

"Nope, don't think so."

"Thats exactly what a lying, godless atheist would say."

Cool argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

See? Waste of good cyber ink and paper.

[Sisyphus' Rock]

Many take a literal translation of the Bible as their explanation of 'what is'. God made man in his own image, on this day he made the heaven & earth, the next day he made the animals, the next day he made a cheese sandwich (I might be fuzzy on the last one there). It is taken as things are now as they were when created. Evolution disproves this & therefore invalidates the creationist notion.

Even if one goes a bit beyond a literal translation & theorizes that God made our early ancestors (the primordial soup) & put the wheels of evolution in motion, it creates doubt about the Bible. If it isn't word-for-word true, how do we know anything in there is true? It at the least calls the validity of the Bible in question. Also, most belive that God is an active entity, pulling on our strings & guiding us along the way, not some passive sit & watch guy like this theory would dictate.

Bottom line - science at the least questions, at the most invalidates religious doctrine.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line - science at the least questions, at the most invalidates religious doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey chez, vhawk, you're right, atheists never use evolution to attack religion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line - science at the least questions, at the most invalidates religious doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey chez, vhawk, you're right, atheists never use evolution to attack religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "God made man as is and the Earth is 6,000 years old" is a religious and not a scientific statement?

At least in his post, science isn't attacking religion, religion just got in the way of the charging bull.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line - science at the least questions, at the most invalidates religious doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey chez, vhawk, you're right, atheists never use evolution to attack religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a justificastion for the dishonesty?

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So "God made man as is and the Earth is 6,000 years old" is a religious and not a scientific statement?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that if someone makes that statement it proves God doesn't exist?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this a justificastion for the dishonesty?


[/ QUOTE ]


Just proof of it - for atheists.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So "God made man as is and the Earth is 6,000 years old" is a religious and not a scientific statement?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that if someone makes that statement it proves God doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, and as far as I can tell, neither did the person you quoted as support for your claims. "Invalidates religious doctrine" and "Proves God doesn't exist" are laughably different statements.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Nope, and as far as I can tell, neither did the person you quoted as support for your claims.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really think, I mean honestly, he wasn't trying to add to the case for atheism? I mean really? That's what you really think? Honestly?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nope, and as far as I can tell, neither did the person you quoted as support for your claims.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really think, I mean honestly, he wasn't trying to add to the case for atheism? I mean really? That's what you really think? Honestly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anti-religion != atheism, right? I 'honestly' have no idea what his intentions were. But nothing in any of his posts has anything to do with atheism. He is talking about creationism and other forms of Biblical literalism. Surely you don't think the majority of Catholics are atheists, do you?

If I had to guess, I'd say that he is an atheist or an agnostic, yes. So? Is it really your MO to just attribute anything that an atheist or an agnostic says to some global anti-God agenda? We can't all agree creationism is the dumbest thing going without being accused of 'recruiting evolution for our insidious plan to wipe God off the face of the planet?'

[vhawk01]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We can't all agree creationism is the dumbest thing going without being accused of 'recruiting evolution for our insidious plan to wipe God off the face of the planet?'


[/ QUOTE ]

I give up. You guys are too honest for my blood.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nope, and as far as I can tell, neither did the person you quoted as support for your claims.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really think, I mean honestly, he wasn't trying to add to the case for atheism? I mean really? That's what you really think? Honestly?

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm just going to go ahead and translate the subtext to this leading post:

"Haha, got you, now you HAVE to agree with me because I said honestly enough times that you will look like a fool if you say anything besides exactly what I want you to say. Checkmate!" with some twirling of your mustache, I'd imagine.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We can't all agree creationism is the dumbest thing going without being accused of 'recruiting evolution for our insidious plan to wipe God off the face of the planet?'


[/ QUOTE ]

I give up. You guys are too honest for my blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

More of the same. I thought you had me on ignore? Mind putting me back?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

More of the same. I thought you had me on ignore? Mind putting me back?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't put anyone on ignore, I just ignore some people. Believe me, you've never been off that list.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, thats all you are waiting for? No problem. Its ludicrous to assume science proves God doesn't exist.

EDIT: If it helps for future debates, its incorrect to imply science proves anything. Can I use my subjective, personal experience to prove God doesn't exist?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The act of "pretending" is generally incorrect by its very nature.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The act of "pretending" is generally incorrect by its very nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats just more NR poisoning the well. He's done it at least half a dozen times in this thread alone.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, thats all you are waiting for? No problem. Its ludicrous to assume science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. I doubt you'll find a single atheist on here who believes that science is capable of proving the non-existence of an imaginary being.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

LOL, thats all you are waiting for? No problem. Its ludicrous to assume science proves God doesn't exist.

EDIT: If it helps for future debates, its incorrect to imply science proves anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do a smell a major equivocation? Could it be that sneaky little word "proof"?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Thats just more NR poisoning the well. He's done it at least half a dozen times in this thread alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Word. I doubt you'll find a single atheist on here who believes that science is capable of proving the non-existence of an imaginary being


[/ QUOTE ]

You and vhawk are just playing semantics. Ho-hum.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

LOL, thats all you are waiting for? No problem. Its ludicrous to assume science proves God doesn't exist.

EDIT: If it helps for future debates, its incorrect to imply science proves anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do a smell a major equivocation? Could it be that sneaky little word "proof"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your word not mine, but if it makes you feel any better, I'll amend it.

Science has nothing to say about things that are by definition outside of science. Most Gods fit this bill.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thats just more NR poisoning the well. He's done it at least half a dozen times in this thread alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I give up. You guys are too honest for my blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

You really think, I mean honestly, he wasn't trying to add to the case for atheism? I mean really? That's what you really think? Honestly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want more?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science has nothing to say about things that are by definition outside of science. Most Gods fit this bill.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a scientific statement:

"The cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science has nothing to say about things that are by definition outside of science. Most Gods fit this bill.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a scientific statement:

"The cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how but then I'm not an astrophysicist NOR really an expert on the philosophy of science. To my understanding, no.

[Lestat]

So you view even the "truth" as a form of attack? Do you deny any of what sisyphus' main points were?

Evolution DID call into question the literal word of the bible. This is not an attack! There's just no denying the point. This in turn, caused Christians (who were intelligent enough to realize that this Darwinian stuff wasn't just some passing fad), to hurry up and find ways to reconcile this theory with the bible. They had to come up with things that were NOT to be taken literally, etc.

And I'm sure you can easily see through what David is doing here. He knowingly gives up a few inches (or in some cases even miles), here and there, in order to lead you guys up the logical thinking ladder. Don't for a minute think that at the top of this ladder is anything but a big sign that reads, "Christianity is almost certainly WRONG!"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you want more?


[/ QUOTE ]

How about one? None of those qualify.

Hint: Criticism, sarcasm and disagreement are not PTW.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you want more?


[/ QUOTE ]

How about one? None of those qualify.

Hint: Criticism, sarcasm and disagreement are not PTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those were all examples of poisoning the well. You set up a situation where only 'dishonest' people disagreed with you. So, anyone who says anything besides what you want them to say is by definition being 'dishonest.' All of those are good examples. Sarcasm and criticism are entirely different from what you were doing. Only a Nazi would disagree with THAT.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You set up a situation where only 'dishonest' people disagreed with you


[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]

All of those are good examples.


[/ QUOTE ]

No they aren't.

[ QUOTE ]

Only a Nazi would disagree with THAT.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you would.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You set up a situation where only 'dishonest' people disagreed with you


[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]

All of those are good examples.


[/ QUOTE ]

No they aren't.

[ QUOTE ]

Only a Nazi would disagree with THAT.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you would.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif The last one doesn't even make sense, man. Why would I disagree with my own statement? Maybe you meant "I know you are but what am I?" You are starting to lose your grip I think.

Back on track a little, still waiting on your condemnation of the intellectual dishonesty of the religious types. I think I've met your ridiculous terms. How many other hoops have you got for me before you will speak up?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how but then I'm not an astrophysicist NOR really an expert on the philosophy of science. To my understanding, no.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Sagan should have qualified his statement. It's the dogmatic arrogance of people like him that has caused most of the hostility, at least initially. DS wanted to know why many Christians don't accept evolution. It's easy to show that historically the reason was because of the unscientific use made of evolution by atheists. A post in this thread hints that if we try to adjust our understanding of Scripture because of new science we are only doing so to save religion. So we can't win. If we adjust, we're just twising Scripture. If we don't, we're obscurantist dummies. So many opt to stick with what they understand from a literal reading of Genesis.

When vocal apes like Dawkins continually attack us why should atheists be surprised at the return fire?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how but then I'm not an astrophysicist NOR really an expert on the philosophy of science. To my understanding, no.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Sagan should have qualified his statement. It's the dogmatic arrogance of people like him that has caused most of the hostility, at least initially. DS wanted to know why many Christians don't accept evolution. It's easy to show that historically the reason was because of the unscientific use made of evolution by atheists. A post in this thread hints that if we try to adjust our understanding of Scripture because of new science we are only doing so to save religion. So we can't win. If we adjust, we're just twising Scripture. If we don't, we're obscurantist dummies. So many opt to stick with what they understand from a literal reading of Genesis.

When vocal apes like Dawkins continually attack us why should atheists be surprised at the return fire?

[/ QUOTE ]

And....you left out a statement. All of that....and that means we are all being very dishonest. Just because you might have some excuse for your dishonesty doesn't mean you should be rejoicing in it.

I think its a little hilarious to claim that its the arrogance of people like Sagan who have caused the hostility, at least initially. You honestly believe that the origins of the hostility between religion and science were started by people like Sagan?

FWIW, I agree with your no-win complaint. You really are in a no-win situation, IMHO. But you have only yourself to blame, for choosing a religion that decided to make claims about the real world. At the time I bet it seemed like a great idea, since everyone else was ignorant and there was no reason to expect that any of those mysteries would ever be solved. Forgive me for not shedding a tear that you now are forced to reap what your forebears have sown.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The last one doesn't even make sense, man.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a response in kind. What do Nazis have to do with anything we're discussing?

[ QUOTE ]

I think I've met your ridiculous terms. How many other hoops have you got for me before you will speak up?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I can ignore your fallacious use of PTW.

As to their dishonesty, I suspect some are intentionally. I suspect most, when they are wrong, are not being dishonest anymore than Sagan was - they just don't always distinguish between established fact, theory, theology and wishful thinking. In other words, they're human. But I do condemn any and all intentional dishonesy. I'm guessing you do the same re atheist scientists - and there's plenty of dishonesty on their side. Ever hear of Haeckel?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The last one doesn't even make sense, man.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a response in kind. What do Nazis have to do with anything we're discussing?

[ QUOTE ]

I think I've met your ridiculous terms. How many other hoops have you got for me before you will speak up?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I can ignore your fallacious use of PTW.

As to their dishonesty, I suspect some are intentionally. I suspect most, when they are wrong, are not being dishonest anymore than Sagan was - they just don't always distinguish between established fact, theory, theology and wishful thinking. In other words, they're human. But I do condemn any and all intentional dishonesy. I'm guessing you do the same re atheist scientists - and there's plenty of dishonesty on their side. Ever hear of Haeckel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets be specific here. You've defended several times now the religious folks who intentionally deceive about evolution as a backlash against what they perceive as some atheist agenda. Clearly, rejecting knowledge that they know is true simply to support their OWN religious agenda is the height of dishonesty, right? This is the exact point that chez was trying to get at. Regardless of any excuse you might think you have, this is plainly wrong, plainly dishonest, and plainly unChristian. Do you still defend these actions?

I think most scientists everywhere have no problem exposing what Haeckel did was wrong. The problem comes from the fact that he happened to be right, he was just a liar.

And the Nazi thing was what I HOPED would be an exaggerated, ridiculous example of PTW to demonstrate it for you. Since you seem to not know what it means.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I agree with your no-win complaint. You really are in a no-win situation, IMHO. But you have only yourself to blame, for choosing a religion that decided to make claims about the real world. At the time I bet it seemed like a great idea, since everyone else was ignorant and there was no reason to expect that any of those mysteries would ever be solved. Forgive me for not shedding a tear that you now are forced to reap what your forebears have sown.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're not dishonest, just ignorant. Go read some history and get back to me.

[Subfallen]

People who believe science and religion are disjoint domains are either delusional or uneducated in evolutionary psychology. Religion is, by far, best explained as a purely natural phenomenon.

[ QUOTE ]
When vocal apes like Dawkins...

[/ QUOTE ]

It intrigues me that the man you consider the "ape" voice of atheism is a more articulate writer, compassionate thinker, and accomplished scientist than just about anyone in Christendom. Heaven protect you if you accidentally expose yourself to one of the truly great enemies of religion like, say, Nietzsche. You might have to actually take a serious look in the mirror.

But I'm sure that will never happen, you're much too careful. Back to the Institutes for you!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You've defended several times now the religious folks who intentionally deceive about evolution as a backlash against what they perceive as some atheist agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explanation isn't defense.

[ QUOTE ]

I think most scientists everywhere have no problem exposing what Haeckel did was wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - he was still used in textbooks at least until the 1990's.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem comes from the fact that he happened to be right, he was just a liar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is ok for atheists?

[ QUOTE ]

And the Nazi thing was what I HOPED would be an exaggerated, ridiculous example of PTW to demonstrate it for you. Since you seem to not know what it means.


[/ QUOTE ]

But your example isn't analogous to anything I've said. If I had said "What he says is false because he's an atheist" you would have a case. But I didn't say that. Atheists are sometimes right, and sometimes even honest. You are now remanded to Logic 101.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I'm still waiting for you to address chez' point about how you apparently seem to think that your anti-atheism is grounds for the coverup and acceptance of rampant dishonesty among the religious.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for any atheist to admit it's incorrect to pretend that science proves God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do I count as an atheist? Science definitely doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

Anyone who claims different is dishonest or stupid.

Your turn.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science definitely doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

Anyone who claims different is dishonest or stupid.

Your turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Super. Way to go. I'm glad we both agree that Dawkins is dishonest or stupid.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species? Why do they need to believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo? Including all those millions of species of bugs, worms, etc that have no effect on us and have maybe been extinct for millions of years. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think God created DNA and let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being with enough brainpower that God could bestow consciousness on it along with revealing his existence to it.

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why keep asking the same question over and over again as if it hasn't already been answered? Do you think the answers are going to change?

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species? Why do they need to believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo? Including all those millions of species of bugs, worms, etc that have no effect on us and have maybe been extinct for millions of years. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think God created DNA and let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being with enough brainpower that God could bestow consciousness on it along with revealing his existence to it.

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why keep asking the same question over and over again as if it hasn't already been answered? Do you think the answers are going to change?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the methodology is a good one. I'm just guessing, but it seems to me he is slowly but surely leading up the ladder of logical thinking.

As it is, NR has no comment to the claim that evolution led to common sense changes in many previous literal interpretations of the bible. These changes are important, because they are in the same direction (but stop short), of what David is suggesting. So the question becomes, why stop short?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science definitely doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

Anyone who claims different is dishonest or stupid.

Your turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Super. Way to go. I'm glad we both agree that Dawkins is dishonest or stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't follow and I don't agree with it.

is that your justification for dishonesty ?

chez

[surftheiop]

Im a christian and I agree with your sentiment except for

"let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being"

I would say that God knew we were coming but wanted certain physical rules to apply to the world so just choose the method you desribed to make us, seeing as God doesnt care about time its not like he got bored waiting

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science definitely doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

Anyone who claims different is dishonest or stupid.

Your turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Super. Way to go. I'm glad we both agree that Dawkins is dishonest or stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed unlikely your inference was correct but I don't own his latest book. I googled it and it appears you are completely wrong. here's what the wiki entry says:

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins further argues, following Bertrand Russell, that although "you cannot disprove the existence of God"[13] it is also impossible to disprove the existence of an orbiting teapot - and also cites unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and tooth fairies. Hence the inability to disprove the existence of God provides no positive reason to believe. Rather, Dawkins argues that the burden of proof is on the advocates of the existence of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

[13] references The God Delusion, pages 53-54

perhaps you or someone else with the book can confirm.

chez

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

perhaps you or someone else with the book can confirm.


[/ QUOTE ]

On more than one ocassion, NR has admitted to not having read any of Dawkins' books. However, that doesn't seem to deter him in passing judgement on Dawkins' work.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

perhaps you or someone else with the book can confirm.


[/ QUOTE ]

On more than one ocassion, NR has admitted to not having read any of Dawkins' books. However, that doesn't seem to deter him in passing judgement on Dawkins' work.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope he will have the decency to clear this up.


Otherwise it seems another example of the dishonesty tactic.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since even fundamentalists believe that microevolution occurs within species, why do they fight so hard to deny that DNA mutations could also cause new species? Why do they need to believe that all species were created by God from the gitgo? Including all those millions of species of bugs, worms, etc that have no effect on us and have maybe been extinct for millions of years. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think God created DNA and let the chips fall where they may? Until that time that an animal came into being with enough brainpower that God could bestow consciousness on it along with revealing his existence to it.

Why stick to much more controversial beliefs that all scientists think are silly, when the more reasonable scenario I outlined above, does not, to my knowledge contradict the basics of Christian thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why keep asking the same question over and over again as if it hasn't already been answered? Do you think the answers are going to change?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the methodology is a good one. I'm just guessing, but it seems to me he is slowly but surely leading up the ladder of logical thinking.

As it is, NR has no comment to the claim that evolution led to common sense changes in many previous literal interpretations of the bible. These changes are important, because they are in the same direction (but stop short), of what David is suggesting. So the question becomes, why stop short?

[/ QUOTE ]

DS has been applying this "methodology" for years now. I don't see how he ever gets to the first rung of the ladder. It's essentially the same methodology as a Troll.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As it is, NR has no comment to the claim that evolution led to common sense changes in many previous literal interpretations of the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agreed some time ago to the possibility of theistic evolution. Augustine in the 4th century, you will notice long before Darwin, said the days of Genesis are not literal 24 hour periods - and he wasn't trying to please you or Dawkins.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow and I don't agree with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I should have realized that.

[ QUOTE ]

is that your justification for dishonesty ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow and I don't agree with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I should have realized that.

[ QUOTE ]

is that your justification for dishonesty ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[/ QUOTE ]
No I haven't stopped beating my wife.

Now do you have it in you to address my post above.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

perhaps you or someone else with the book can confirm.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be an idiot to compare the claim of God to that of unicorn, etc., which I've stated and shown before.

But it's dishonest on his part anyway. He does claim that science makes God unnecessary. If he had any understanding about the religion he so blindly attacks he would know that God is almost uniformly defined as necessary. To state that science makes God unnecssary is the same as saying it has proven He doesn't exist.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Otherwise it seems another example of the dishonesty tactic.


[/ QUOTE ]


You're a liar when you intimate I've been dishonest.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now do you have it in you to address my post above.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have it in you to ever admit a mistake?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

perhaps you or someone else with the book can confirm.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be an idiot to compare the claim of God to that of unicorn, etc., which I've stated and shown before.

But it's dishonest on his part anyway. He does claim that science makes God unnecessary. If he had any understanding about the religion he so blindly attacks he would know that God is almost uniformly defined as necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you agree Dawkins not only never claimed science can disprove god exists but that he explicitley states that it can't.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you agree Dawkins not only never claimed science can disprove god exists but that he explicitley states that it can't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does the word "up" look like "down" to you?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you agree Dawkins not only never claimed science can disprove god exists but that he explicitley states that it can't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does the word "up" look like "down" to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you agree Dawkins not only never claimed science can disprove god exists but that he explicitley states that it can't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does the word "up" look like "down" to you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I provided a reference that says he claims science doesn't disprove the existence of god. Your response contained no rebuttal to this.

So do yu have you any reference for your claim at all?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you agree Dawkins not only never claimed science can disprove god exists but that he explicitley states that it can't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does the word "up" look like "down" to you?

[/ QUOTE ] Are you tying to make the case that the presumption "God is necessary" is obviously true. And if so, Then Dawkins is unwittingly making the logical equivalent statement God does not exist, by stating that God is unnecessary? If that is the case you are making I could possible rebut it or look further into the logic of it.

Dawkins is very careful not to make the statement god does not exist as proving a negative is impossible. He does state that god is ridiculously unlikely. Are you, as you appear to be, making the case, that Dawkins is making a logical error, that negatives can be proven, or just including an unknown presumption about the necessity of god?

As far as dawkins most recent book, I wouldn't spend my time reading it. Everything that it contains has been discussed numbers of times on this board. Except for that dawkins attemps to make the case that parents teaching their children religion, or reffering to kids as "christian" kids. Is supposedly child abuse, and wants to raise consciousness regarding the epidemic. I'm not sure I'm that highly moral.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As it is, NR has no comment to the claim that evolution led to common sense changes in many previous literal interpretations of the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agreed some time ago to the possibility of theistic evolution. Augustine in the 4th century, you will notice long before Darwin, said the days of Genesis are not literal 24 hour periods - and he wasn't trying to please you or Dawkins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've missed that, but I think it's great you agreed. And also try to understand that Darwin is not by any means my God. The point is, that whether it's the 4th century, or the 21st, Augustine, or Darwin, it doesn't matter who or when advancing notions or theories come to light. Only that they do. And will continue to do so as we learnn more about our universe.

[Lestat]

Well, you have to admit this is a very difficult subject to debate. And I mean no offense by this, but especially when dealing with people so accustomed to circular thinking (i.e. they see nothing wrong with it).

So it becomes a matter of finding different ways to say the same thing and steer your point across. I'm not familiar with any other debates on this subject other than 2p2, but I think David has been pretty creative in trying to get people to think logically. Maybe similar analogies have been used before, but I haven't seen them.

And I'm not trying to blow smoke here. I'm the first to speak up when I think DS crosses the line or is too full of himself with all that "intelligence is everything" talk.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you, as you appear to be, making the case, that Dawkins is making a logical error, that negatives can be disproven, or just including an unknown presumption about the necessity of god?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist because theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - though the Bible doesn't state it that way it's a valid conclusion that it is saying the same thing about God.

Dawkins may not say the words "Science has proved that God doesn't exist. But he says things like:

[ QUOTE ]

Dawkins, perhaps best known for his much-cited comment that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist,"


[/ QUOTE ]

That's tantamount to saying that science has proved that God isn't necessary, otherwise the quote makes no sense.

I believe he has also said specifically that God isn't necessary to explain the universe, biology, etc.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what I'm talking about.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your response contained no rebuttal to this.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes it did. But if you didn't get it, see my response to DougShrapnel.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist </font>

Not true. Because for one thing....

<font color="blue">theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - </font>

Theologians can certainly be wrong (even though they can't in your mind).

Surely you know that proving something is unnecessary does not prove its non-existence. A blue shirt is not necessary for me to be able to type this. Yet, you can't prove one way or the other, whether I'm wearing one or not. I think we've been down this road before...

You ask me to prove that an apple does not fall, but for the grace of God. Do you REALLY expect me to be able to prove this any more than I can expect you to prove that I'm not wearing a blue shirt?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we do, you're attributing claimsto people who never made them and then attempting to justify your actions with loads of assertions that that person doesn't agree with.

You're saying that if they agreed with you about the rest then some of what they claimed would be equivalent to the claim that science can prove god doesn't exist. As they have explicitey denied that science can disprove godthey clearly don't agree with the rest of your stuff (no big suprise).

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god. You may think he is mistaken (or even dishonest) in this view but that's a different matter.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Surely you know that proving something is unnecessary does not prove its non-existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it does in the case of God because it's part of how He is defined. A being with a lot of power but who isn't necessary isn't God. Also, if you can prove that something happened outside the will or power of God, you also prove He doesn't exist, because omnipotence and omniscience are also part of God's definition, His attributes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't make that clear. It might be unintentional on his part because of his ignorance of theology.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't make that clear. It might be unintentional on his part because of his ignorance of theology.

[/ QUOTE ]
He makes it absolutely clear that in his view its impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. I even gave you the reference.

There were no weasal words on his part its a plain statement of his view. If you do a quick google you can see he has made similar very clear statements on several occasions.

So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't make that clear. It might be unintentional on his part because of his ignorance of theology.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, he has explicitly stated that theology is not a subject/academic discipline. Yet the history of religion is.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I'm not as I've amply demonstrated.

You can now admit you're wrong. Come on, be a real man.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, he has explicitly stated that theology is not a subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

What a genius. 2cuteby1/2.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> But it does in the case of God because it's part of how He is defined. </font>

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently.

There are many different definitions for God, depending on what part of the planet you were taught to believe in God.

As an aside: What if you were to meet God after you died and found out He was everthing you thought He was with one caveat... He had nothing to do with the 17 year locust. That one just formed on it's own somehow. Would you denounce Him on the spot over the technicality that you found something He wasn't necessary for?

Or am I misunderstanding you? Why can't a very powerful being who created heaven and earth, but isn't necessary for every for every single thing, be called God?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist because theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - though the Bible doesn't state it that way it's a valid conclusion that it is saying the same thing about God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree and I'm sure many theists do as well. I think Dawkins, as arrogant and rude as he is, is trying to prove that God is unnecessary to explain the physical world around us. He does a pretty good job of that. He doesn't claim that God is unnecessary for salvation, a happy life on Earth, etc.

May I ask what you claim that God is necessary for? I think you will find that we are not arguing against your answer to this question.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

There are many different definitions for God


[/ QUOTE ]

Are there a lot of definitions for every word? If so, how is communication possible?

[ QUOTE ]

What if you were to meet God


[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the God I believed in didn't exist and the Bible is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't a very powerful being who created heaven and earth, but isn't necessary for every for every single thing be called God?


[/ QUOTE ]

If He created everything that isn't Him, how could He not be necessary for everything? If He didn't create everything, He isn't the God of the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think Dawkins, as arrogant and rude as he is, is trying to prove that God is unnecessary to explain the physical world around us


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said to Lestat, at the very least, God is necessary to explain existence. It goes much further than that, but at least that far. How can an atheist be intellectually satisfied unless he thinks science (evolution) explains things completely without God?

I do understand the idea of natural law, and working with science without making God part of the equation. If that's all Dawkins meant, fine. But that's nothing new. Newton discovered the laws of gravity but never stopped believing that God causes gravity. But Dawkins ties science to atheism. Big difference.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I'm not as I've amply demonstrated.


[/ QUOTE ]
This thread can stand in testiment to what has been amply demonstrated. It isn't pretty.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This thread can stand in testiment to what has been amply demonstrated. It isn't pretty.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's never pretty debating you.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I'm not as I've amply demonstrated.

You can now admit you're wrong. Come on, be a real man.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, it did appear that you were making the claim that Dawkins is making a logical fallacy. And laying claims to him that he did not make. I do however see your implication of statements he makes. I am certain that he does disagree with the statement "God is necessary", so he isn't making the statement you claim he is.

In particular this "God is necessary" statement is more of a Cassanova rationalization, then a statement that deserves any respect or consideration, if it's truth that you seek. However if you wish to find comfort and completely dismiss the unknown unknowns, I can see why a "theologian" might make such a statement, it's very similar to the statements Cassonova makes. Because he was so lucky, and always bounced back from diversity in adventurous and high-risk situation, it was easy for him to make the mistake that a supernatural force is necessarily guarding his life. So we can easily see how people can make the mistake, of being ridiculously lucky then assigning a necessary supernatural cause.

It is this understandable desire that evolution thoroughly decimates. We have a compulsion to tell stories, to theorize, to insist on causality. So much so that we unconsciously theorized God into the picture of creation of life. There was simply nothing better to explain our existence, much as Cassonova had nothing better to explain his good fortune as the failures rarely find a willing ear, and the really big failures can't post humously give us any benefit. A possible reason why DNA and Human Consciousness isn't enough is for the simple reason that evolution takes away too much of the reasons why people are unknowingly theorizing about the nature that brought about their existence and everything else. If we fill our knowledge gap about how we are created, and it's a more parsimonious explanation it becomes a direct threat to religion. And catering to the scientific concensus would inflict great damage on the religion. It's possible that the market place for religion is delivering an effective solution to providing it's services. The utter denial is possibly simply the effective and effiecent invisible hand of the market. People don't need the alternative explanation that God exists, created them, and cares about them. If it's shown that a simple process can do the work more elegantly. The freedom and complete lack of regulation is the reason why the major religion factions in the US dismiss evolution. It destroys the ability to effectively peddle their wares.

Evolution doesn't really damage the existence of gods, just merely takes away a major reason why we have subconsciously theorized him into being.

[Lestat]

Maybe we're just splitting hairs, but I'm trying to pin you down to see if you have any room for leeway.

If God only created DNA and its properties, then He created all that is life. If God created a single atom and it's properties, then He created everything. So in that sense, God is necessary for everthing insofar as nothing would be as it is if it weren't for God.

But why must we then supplant the very unnecessary step in logic, that suggests God personally attends to every apple that falls? Or every beetle that gets caught in a spider's web? Or every plant that gets pollinated by every breeze that carries every bee, and so on?

I understand your belief necessitates a personal relationship with God. So ok, make the exception for humans if you must. But you accuse Dawkins (and presumably myself), of using science (of which evolution is but one of many branches), as a weapon to shed hatred upon God. When in fact, all that is being said is that many things which were once mysteries and accredited to God, have been explained through science. And there is every reason to expect this trend to continue. Why does that scare you so?

Just because God isn't necessary for every event, doesn't mean God isn't an underlying necessity or very important. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that. The only thing I can think of is that you assume it goes against what the bible says. But then, so does carbon dating and that doesn't seem to bother you. Why does this?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God only created DNA and its properties, etc..
But why must we then supplant the very unnecessary step in logic..


[/ QUOTE ]

From the standpoint of human reason alone some kind of deism would be sufficient - the unmoved mover, etc. And God would be necessary in that sense. But again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

And, yes, the Bible does seem to indicate that God is in some way involved in everything about His creation. As I said somewhere else in this thread, as Newton explained gravity through natural law but still believed God causes gravity, natural law doesn't remove the necessity of God, especially in light of the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]

But then, so does carbon dating and that doesn't seem to bother you.


[/ QUOTE ]

This completely stumps me.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said to Lestat, at the very least, God is necessary to explain existence. It goes much further than that, but at least that far. How can an atheist be intellectually satisfied unless he thinks science (evolution) explains things completely without God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would an atheist need things completely explained to be intellectually satisfied?

Why does intellectual satisfaction matter to an atheist, or you, for that matter?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Word. I doubt you'll find a single atheist on here who believes that science is capable of proving the non-existence of an imaginary being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Mathematics has the potential to.

[ QUOTE ]
Or am I misunderstanding you? Why can't a very powerful being who created heaven and earth, but isn't necessary for every for every single thing, be called God?

[/ QUOTE ]

The full potential of omnipotentce looms far larger in scope in the 21st century than it ever did in the 4th century. Such a God thought to be all-powerful then now is in competition with several increasingly plausible explanations. Just because a theory is older and the question has been asked longer and a organization formulated does not mean it's immortal.

Christianity's been fumbling every since the Universe got much, much bigger in size. If our pace of growth was several orders faster than it is now, Christianity would have suffered the fate of being crunched into a historical footnote.

It is also an magnificent organizational leech, no doubt, and it has done many wonderful things in accord with bad things. So in that, unless it is truthful within and without about its mistakes, it cannot evolve.

Does the religion itself have enough potential to evolve past its misassumptions based on fastly receding history and retain its core ethos without the disease of hypocrisy at its core and top?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In particular this "God is necessary" statement is more of a Cassanova rationalization, then a statement that deserves any respect or consideration, if it's truth that you seek


[/ QUOTE ]

Your whole analogy to Cassanova is misplaced. The theological position that God is necessary isn't some stop gap, off the cuff explanation. If the Bible is true, that God created everything, His necessity is obvious.

[ QUOTE ]

It is this understandable desire that evolution thoroughly decimates.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type statement Dawkins makes and proves my point. Evolution proves God doesn't exist. Case closed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does intellectual satisfaction matter to an atheist, or you, for that matter?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because God made us that way. The curiosity, awe and intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins worships is a gift of God. Another example of the creature worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why does intellectual satisfaction matter to an atheist, or you, for that matter?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because God made us that way. The curiosity, awe and intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins worships is a gift of God. Another example of the creature worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

How do you know God wants us to be intellectually curios or satisfied?

Why are some of the seemingly most intellectually satisfied people atheists?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

It is this understandable desire that evolution thoroughly decimates.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type statement Dawkins makes and proves my point. Evolution proves God doesn't exist. Case closed.

[/ QUOTE ]Again neither I nor dawkins states that. It just fulfills the desire we have to understand how we got here. The answer to which, was previously, is God. No one is saying that Dawkins doesn't make these types of statements, we merely take issue with the words proof and does not exist. Evolution makes your God less likely to exist, but more importantly to the reasons for the religion to backlash against possibly is, it takes away the human need to theorize about the process of our existence, and the long odds against it.

The theological position holds no special place, apart from being part of the human psychology. My opinion is that the Cassonova analogy fits well, although not perfectly.

You have done this to me once before. There is no a-ha here. I am not stating what you attribute to evolutionists. I am stating that evolution destroys a reason why people believe in god. A very difficult question indeed. So difficult a question that you can understand why people have posited and accepted the most ridiculous and nearly impossible answer, God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why are some of the seemingly most intellectually satisfied people atheist s?


[/ QUOTE ]

If they really are intellectually satisfied with atheism they have very small minds.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">But again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean? </font>

You have to understand that many, many people (probably many more than you think), have some very personal doubts about God. On any given Sunday, there are no doubt a number of them kneeling beside you in church!

Putting things like consciousness and morality aside for a moment...

Few people would disagree that something like the human eye is an amazing apparatus. Heck, even the eye of a horned toad is amazing. If you don't understand how something so complex can come about through a natural evolutionary process, you've got a problem... How else could the eye have came to be? Must be God.

So what I take Dawkins' statement to mean, is that you can be intellectually satisfied that things like the eye have evolved through hundreds of millions of years through a process called evolution. It is not necessary for even something as complex as the human eye to have been hand-made all at once by a deity. Not much different than the 4th century Augustine perhaps arriving at a conclusion that it's not necessary to believe God personaly lowers the moon and ascends the sun every day.

When looked at in this way, do you still find it so insulting of a statement? I'm the first to admit that Dawkins has an abrasive and arrogant edge that I myself do not care for. But the gist of what he's getting at is usually correct, so I look past it.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
ut again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution and science in the minds of SOME as answers to worldly creation is akin to a tailor explaining creation. The tailor knows the cut, type of cloth, ,may even offer the latest style and know fashion.

He then jumps to the universe and tailors the "universal garment" according to his abilities to tailor. Not creation but another suit. This is the world of scientists positing illusions based upon their trade. No breadth, and the man on the street knows this, but at present and in the future is pretty much in a hopeless position for the pantaloons of scientists and their long robes fool the children. Shameful and dark.

The dark thoughts of materialistic science are stronger than the people and envelope them as a clouded presence of mind. What they think becomes their home, a pathological darkness in cities of light.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You've defended several times now the religious folks who intentionally deceive about evolution as a backlash against what they perceive as some atheist agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explanation isn't defense.

[ QUOTE ]

I think most scientists everywhere have no problem exposing what Haeckel did was wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - he was still used in textbooks at least until the 1990's.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem comes from the fact that he happened to be right, he was just a liar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is ok for atheists?

[ QUOTE ]

And the Nazi thing was what I HOPED would be an exaggerated, ridiculous example of PTW to demonstrate it for you. Since you seem to not know what it means.


[/ QUOTE ]

But your example isn't analogous to anything I've said. If I had said "What he says is false because he's an atheist" you would have a case. But I didn't say that. Atheists are sometimes right, and sometimes even honest. You are now remanded to Logic 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two quick points since I'm just coming back to this thread. Of COURSE it is ok for scientists that Haeckel was right but also a liar. I don't know why you asked if its ok for ATHEISTS, since I dont know whether Haeckel was an atheist or not, but he is certainly no champion of the cause of atheism. As far as his science goes, it ONLY matters that he was right. It is unfortunate that he was a liar, and that of course means his work must come under far greater scrutiny. But as long as he is still correct, who cares? Are you trying to force us into revering our scientists as prophets or gods and then denigrating us for revering them?

One last time about the Poisoning the Well thing, since you obviously do not understand. All of your 'dishonesty' nonsense had nothing to do with atheists or their sometimes honesty. It had to do with ME. You were trying to imply that if I said anything besides what you wanted that *I* was being dishonest. So, the example I used was that you would have to be a Nazi to disagree with me. See how those are the same? I would have to be a liar to argue with you, you'd have to be a Nazi to argue with me. Those are both ridiculous and lazy forms of discussion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you, as you appear to be, making the case, that Dawkins is making a logical error, that negatives can be disproven, or just including an unknown presumption about the necessity of god?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist because theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - though the Bible doesn't state it that way it's a valid conclusion that it is saying the same thing about God.

Dawkins may not say the words "Science has proved that God doesn't exist. But he says things like:

[ QUOTE ]

Dawkins, perhaps best known for his much-cited comment that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist,"


[/ QUOTE ]

That's tantamount to saying that science has proved that God isn't necessary, otherwise the quote makes no sense.

I believe he has also said specifically that God isn't necessary to explain the universe, biology, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absurdly thin skin, it appears, and the fact that you can find bogeymen in any shadow is no attack on Dawkins or anyone else.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
If he had any understanding about the religion he so blindly attacks he would know that God is almost uniformly defined as necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHHAHA.

No, wait, that's not fair.

Never mind, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You were trying to imply that if I said anything besides what you wanted that *I* was being dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

You gave 3 quotes you claimed were PTW. Take any one of them and demonstrate how it's PTW.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as his science goes, it ONLY matters that he was right. It is unfortunate that he was a liar, and that of course means his work must come under far greater scrutiny. But as long as he is still correct, who cares?


[/ QUOTE ]


Correct about what? My understanding is that he was Lamarckian. Also that he maintained that developing embryos passed through stages representative of adults of lower life forms, a view no longer considered valid. Gould said Haeckel was wrong, I think.

BTW, is it ok for creationists to lie so long as they are right? If so, why bother calling them dishonest? Why not just focus on whether or not they are correct?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, is it ok for creationists to lie so long as they are right? If so, why bother calling them dishonest? Why not just focus on whether or not they are correct?


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it is okay for them to lie. If they believe they save souls by being dishonest then they may believe its a good thing to be dishonest.

What's more important, saving souls or the truth?

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If they believe they save souls by being dishonest then they may believe its a good thing to be dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if they lie for them they're telling the truth, even if for you it's a lie, but why should what's a lie for you matter to them when to them it's the truth?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If they believe they save souls by being dishonest then they may believe its a good thing to be dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if they lie for them they're telling the truth, even if for you it's a lie, but why should what's a lie for you matter to them when to them it's the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]
u what?

chez

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why are some of the seemingly most intellectually satisfied people atheist s?


[/ QUOTE ]

If they really are intellectually satisfied with atheism they have very small minds.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is still based on your presumption that God is a necessary being, which you have yet to demonstrate.

Note: Saying God has been theologically defined as being necessary does not prove, in fact, He is necessary.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't matter. Just because the 3 major faiths on this planet have a similar concept of God does not mean that He cannot be completely dissimilar from that description.

You continually harp on science "disproving" God. Well, as many have told you, it certainly doesn't. What science does tell us is that the current Earthly concepts of God are ridiculously improbable. Not to mention that a God that routinely intervenes in worldly affairs makes the results of the most tested hypothesis in human history completely unreliable (contrary to what we have observed).

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

From the standpoint of human reason alone some kind of deism would be sufficient - the unmoved mover, etc. And God would be necessary in that sense. But again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it means that it gives you an alternative rather than actually proving or disproving anything. If you believe in evolution, all that would really need to be explained is a first cause. What is intellectually satisfying is that you can understand how we got all life on Earth from the first cell.

Basically, science shows us that the creation stories in the Bible are probably not an accurate reflection of how life began on Earth. So it gives you some other mechanism to believe in. Instead of having to believe A, you can now rationally function believing in B instead. This doesn't mean either A or B are proven or disproven.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't matter. Just because the 3 major faiths on this planet have a similar concept of God does not mean that He cannot be completely dissimilar from that description.

You continually harp on science "disproving" God. Well, as many have told you, it certainly doesn't. What science does tell us is that the current Earthly concepts of God are ridiculously improbable. Not to mention that a God that routinely intervenes in worldly affairs makes the results of the most tested hypothesis in human history completely unreliable (contrary to what we have observed).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what you mean by major! Are you another one of those propagandists that claims their religion is about love and truth when it is contradicted bothy in its supposedly holy writings, and in what is being seen and experience in being alive with some sentience?

Non-religious are the third largest group,and Hinduism and other religions which have nothing in common with your view of an effectively tyrannical god come well before Judaism.

I guess you believe that repeating things often enough will convince everyone else. I love this, obviously, either lying or ignorant attitude, of so many christians, it is so obvious once you scrap the veneer.

As far as disproving your "benevolent" god, it only requires to look around you, or even read your bible with an open-mind, and you will see that however strange Hinduism is, at least its concept of gods reflects the every day experience as some are benevolent and some not.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

science shows us that the creation stories in the Bible are probably not an accurate reflection of how life began on Earth.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't a science text book and doesn't offer a "mechanism" for orgins, just that first cause you say yet needs explanation.

The problem with the quote is saying evolution is satisfying to an atheist - why specify atheist unless you mean to say evolution is relevant to your supernatural beliefs? If common ancestor evolution is true it will be just as satisfying to a theist, just as are heliocentrism and gravity. Even YECs would eventually see the beauty of God's plan and the might of His power displayed in the mechanism of evolution. As I stated in an earlier thread, Darwin's greatest promoter in America was a Calvinist.

When the quote specifies atheist it is drawing attention to the lack of God emphasizing that God isn't necessary. Are Newton's laws intellectually satisfiying to an atheist specifically? If the Bible said that God keeps people from flying off the earth, Dawkins would probably say yes.

[David Sklansky]

"Even YECs would eventually see the beauty of God's plan and the might of His power displayed in the mechanism of evolution."

Glad we finally got back to my original question.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with the quote is saying evolution is satisfying to an atheist - why specify atheist unless you mean to say evolution is relevant to your supernatural beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because previously the only way to explain any of these things were by appealing to a supernatural cause. I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.

I think it's one of a collection of reasons that you can use in favor of atheism even if the point itself doesn't support atheism. I know that sounds paradoxical, so I'll try to clarify it a bit. Let's say there is a list of 10 reasons why you find God necessary/compelling/true. I think the point is that one of those reasons can't be the fact that we don't know why life on Earth is the way it is.

Does this make any sense at all? It's like saying Jim is a great guy because of X, Y, and Z. And then I respond, "no actually Bob did Z." This doesn't mean that Jim isn't a great guy or that Jim didn't do X and Y. It just means that Z isn't a reason to think Jim is awesome.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is what we mean by necessary. It isn't necessary to include God in a scientific formula in order to understand how some natural phenomena work - E=Mc2 is sufficient for its purpose. But then you don't have to phrase it "The fact E=Mc2 satisfies me as an atheist", which implies that God isn't necessary for E=Mc2 to be true - that part is question begging at the least. To say that evolution provides a natural explanation for biological diversity is fine (assuming without admitting for the discussion that evolution is true), but then to add that it satisfies you as an atheist carries with it the same implication and question begging as above. I don't see how you can avoid the implication that evolution proves at the least that God isn't necessary in the theistic sense when phrased that way. If evolution is true it's just as satisfying to a theistic scientist as an atheistic one - it's the atheist who's making it into a theological polemic, just as was the case with Darwin's Origin. I read scientists who say science has nothing to say about God either way - then Dawkins pops up and people like Stenger write books claiming science proves God doesn't exist. No Christian layman is going to make a fine distinction between the fact that Dawkins never said the words and Stenger does - they stand for the same thing and their positions are exactly the same for theists. So the answer to DS' question is still as I stated.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is what we mean by necessary. It isn't necessary to include God in a scientific formula in order to understand how some natural phenomena work - E=Mc2 is sufficient for its purpose. But then you don't have to phrase it "The fact E=Mc2 satisfies me as an atheist", which implies that God isn't necessary for E=Mc2 to be true - that part is question begging at the least. To say that evolution provides a natural explanation for biological diversity is fine (assuming without admitting for the discussion that evolution is true), but then to add that it satisfies you as an atheist carries with it the same implication and question begging as above. I don't see how you can avoid the implication that evolution proves at the least that God isn't necessary in the theistic sense when phrased that way. If evolution is true it's just as satisfying to a theistic scientist as an atheistic one - it's the atheist who's making it into a theological polemic, just as was the case with Darwin's Origin. I read scientists who say science has nothing to say about God either way - then Dawkins pops up and people like Stenger write books claiming science proves God doesn't exist. No Christian layman is going to make a fine distinction between the fact that Dawkins never said the words and Stenger does - they stand for the same thing and their positions are exactly the same for theists. So the answer to DS' question is still as I stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read my entire post?

[ QUOTE ]

Does this make any sense at all? It's like saying Jim is a great guy because of X, Y, and Z. And then I respond, "no actually Bob did Z." This doesn't mean that Jim isn't a great guy or that Jim didn't do X and Y. It just means that Z isn't a reason to think Jim is awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying it's satisfying to an atheist is basically reiterating the fact that no supernatural forces aren't necessary to explain things.

I can see why you take issue with Dawkins. He goes too far in his claims. But I don't think this particular issue is one which you should have a bone to pick with him. He is obviously trying to convince people that atheism is correct. So he is always going to add in comments that point to the fact that his views on science comprise a consistent world view that don't require a God.

I really think the part that I quoted from my last post explains a lot of this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Because previously the only way to explain any of these things were by appealing to a supernatural cause. I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.


[/ QUOTE ]
I notice NotReady acknowledgies that it depneds what is meant by necessary but then his supposed case aginst Dawkins must dissolve even in his eyes as he relies on a particular meaning of necessary to put words in Dawkins mouth (and its pretty obviously not the use made by Dawkins).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
relies on a particular meaning of necessary to put words in Dawkins mouth (and its pretty obviously not the use made by Dawkins).


[/ QUOTE ]


If he has such a brilliant mind and is such a great writer he should have been able to figure out the ambiguity of his words (though I don't agree they are ambiguos). So he's either saying what I claim or he's a very poor writer. I'll take either.

Or, it may be he just doesn't have a clue what theists think and has no idea what Christianity is about - yeah, that could be it. So much for the brilliance of his mind.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
relies on a particular meaning of necessary to put words in Dawkins mouth (and its pretty obviously not the use made by Dawkins).


[/ QUOTE ]


If he has such a brilliant mind and is such a great writer he should have been able to figure out the ambiguity of his words (though I don't agree they are ambiguos). So he's either saying what I claim or he's a very poor writer. I'll take either.

Or, it may be he just doesn't have a clue what theists think and has no idea what Christianity is about - yeah, that could be it. So much for the brilliance of his mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
He writes very clearly in my experience but as with all writing it requires some effort by the reader to understand what is being said.

but I doubt anyone in the world could write so clearly that you couldn't misinterpret it. I sure can't /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you even read my entire post?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I think I get your point. But to be more accurate you have to say that you don't believe X and Y and that Z is enough for you, even though I tell you that Z isn't sufficiently explanatory and itself depends on X and Y.

Let me try a different analogy. Say I know someone who is fairly intelligent but uneducated. He tells me he thinks all that stuff about how chemical reactions in his body change the food he eats into energy, muscle, bone, etc, is a lot of bunk. He doesn't believe it and can't see it but admits he can't prove it doesn't exist. But he eats food when he's hungry and that fact satisfies all his curiosity about nutrition. Do you think he thinks the fact he eats and lives tends to prove the falsity of the biochemistry he denies? Do you think eating food is a sufficient explanation of why he lives?

I don't think you can read that quote from Dawkins and many others he makes without associating an inference that science tends to disprove God, religion, Christianity, however you want to define it. The whole idea permeates every word he says, directly and indirectly. How often has DS said directly and indirectly that science has proved Christianity isn't true, but never provided the argument? Why do you think he says no one in the last 150 years, oops I mean the last 50 years, who is an expert at science, believes in [a personal God? - not sure exactly what it is they don't believe, but you know what I mean].

But we don't need to argue it. If you really think Dawkins doesn't think science tends to disprove God, fine. My main point was that atheists use evolution(and science in general) to promote atheism. This has been true at least since Darwin and Huxley. If they don't do it for you, how about Stenger (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7890767-7446815?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1182658028&amp;sr=8-1) ?

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

[David Sklansky]

"How often has DS said directly and indirectly that science has proved Christianity isn't true, but never provided the argument?"

Not what I said. What I have said is that science, statistics, and knowledge of magic, show that any supernatural phenomena that have supposedly happened, are actually very unlikely to have actually happened. This includes the miracles of the bible. As well astrological predictions, most forms of ESP, and rushes in poker.

If anyone thinks I have meant more than that, they are mistaken.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not what I said. What I have said is that science, statistics, and knowledge of magic, show that any supernatural phenomena that have supposedly happened, are actually very unlikely to have actually happened. This includes the miracles of the bible. As well astrological predictions, most forms of ESP, and rushes in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I was pretty sure however I phrased it you would disagree with the content. But if the above is your real position what's the relevance of the last 50 years rather than 150 concerning Bible miracles? I also seem to remember you saying something about the probability of a personal God as being infinitesimally small, maybe 10 ^-10 or something, could be wrong. And since I've got your attention do you agree that science doesn't and/or can't prove/disprove the existence of a personal God? If so, why do you bring up the fact that so many "smart" people, espcially modern ones, don't believe in God? If your answer was yes it can't be because of science, correct?

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not what I said. What I have said is that science, statistics, and knowledge of magic, show that any supernatural phenomena that have supposedly happened, are actually very unlikely to have actually happened. This includes the miracles of the bible. As well astrological predictions, most forms of ESP, and rushes in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I was pretty sure however I phrased it you would disagree with the content. But if the above is your real position what's the relevance of the last 50 years rather than 150 concerning Bible miracles? I also seem to remember you saying something about the probability of a personal God as being infinitesimally small, maybe 10 ^-10 or something, could be wrong. And since I've got your attention do you agree that science doesn't and/or can't prove/disprove the existence of a personal God? If so, why do you bring up the fact that so many "smart" people, espcially modern ones, don't believe in God? If your answer was yes it can't be because of science, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]science can't disprove the existence of unicorns but many "smart" people don't believe in them anyway.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
When in fact, all that is being said is that many things which were once mysteries and accredited to God, have been explained through science. And there is every reason to expect this trend to continue. Why does that scare you so?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never understood this either. Do fundamentalists claim the overwhelming evidence we have is just a trick to test our faith? That seems kind of silly since in that case any of it could be a test.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

science can't disprove the existence of unicorns but many "smart" people don't believe in them anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did Newton believe in unicorns?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Newton believe in unicorns?



[/ QUOTE ]

Now days, Newton would not believe in Unicorns ( horses with feathered wings ) because it is now understood that under the phylogenetic tree, mammals and birds took entirely different evolutionary paths. To find a mammal with vestigial feathers would disprove the theory of evolution. And try as they will, nobody for 150 years has discovered any of the various trivial methods to discount the theory.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
And since I've got your attention do you agree that science doesn't and/or can't prove/disprove the existence of a personal God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this has been answered many many times now. Of course science can't prove or disprove God.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why do you bring up the fact that so many "smart" people, espcially modern ones, don't believe in God? If your answer was yes it can't be because of science, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's probably because smart people are better at thinking critically about reality. It is not about science per se, it's that what Christianity puts forth as being true is most likely not true. Smart people are more likely to find the overwhelming physical and scientific evidence compelling and reject the notion that the evidence is fake.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

nobody for 150 years has discovered any of the various trivial methods to discount the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

They obviously need to pay a visit to Hogwarts. And you need to pay a visit to the dictionary to find out what the word unicorn means.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is not about science per se, it's that what Christianity puts forth as being true is most likely not true.


[/ QUOTE ]


And that would be?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
science can't disprove the existence of unicorns but many "smart" people don't believe in them anyway[ QUOTE ]
Did Newton believe in unicorns?
[ QUOTE ]
Now days, Newton would not believe in Unicorns ( horses with feathered wings ) because it is now understood that under the phylogenetic tree, mammals and birds took entirely different evolutionary paths. To find a mammal with vestigial feathers would disprove the theory of evolution. And try as they will, nobody for 150 years has discovered any of the various trivial methods to discount the theory.
[ QUOTE ]
They obviously need to pay a visit to Hogwarts. And you need to pay a visit to the dictionary to find out what the word unicorn means.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point isn’t my definition of Unicorn, which I defined within my argument, but rather, that surly, Newton was smart enough that given a change in information, he would change his assessment of the probability of such things as unicorns and such.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not what I said. What I have said is that science, statistics, and knowledge of magic, show that any supernatural phenomena that have supposedly happened, are actually very unlikely to have actually happened. This includes the miracles of the bible. As well astrological predictions, most forms of ESP, and rushes in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I was pretty sure however I phrased it you would disagree with the content. But if the above is your real position what's the relevance of the last 50 years rather than 150 concerning Bible miracles? I also seem to remember you saying something about the probability of a personal God as being infinitesimally small, maybe 10 ^-10 or something, could be wrong. And since I've got your attention do you agree that science doesn't and/or can't prove/disprove the existence of a personal God? If so, why do you bring up the fact that so many "smart" people, espcially modern ones, don't believe in God? If your answer was yes it can't be because of science, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal God, miracles, rushes, astrology are all the same in my book. Science and statistics and magic indicate that none of this stuff is likely to be true. I am certain that Newton would agree if he lived today. On the other hand I am far from convinced the pure atheist position is correct either.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Personal God, miracles, rushes, astrology are all the same in my book. Science and statistics and magic indicate that none of this stuff is likely to be true.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't contradict what you just said? Aren't you now saying that science disproves a personal God? Which is what I attributed to you in the first post and which you said wasn't what you said?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Newton was smart enough that given a change in information, he would change his assessment of the probability of such things as unicorns and such.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your main point was that "smart" people today don't believe in unicorns or God. But Newton was smart and believed in God but not unicorns. So what's different now that would make Newton change his mind about God? Evolution? Which is the point I've been making. Dawkins says evolution disproves God. And it's that attitude, since Darwin and Huxley, that is one of the main reasons why Christians reject evolution. Which is the answer I gave to DS OP and which has taken us full circle through thousands of words of virtually useless posts.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Your main point was that "smart" people today don't believe in unicorns or God. But Newton was smart and believed in God but not unicorns. So what's different now that would make Newton change his mind about God? Evolution? Which is the point I've been making. Dawkins says evolution disproves God. And it's that attitude, since Darwin and Huxley, that is one of the main reasons why Christians reject evolution. Which is the answer I gave to DS OP and which has taken us full circle through thousands of words of virtually useless posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I believed in God, evolution wouldn’t change my mind, because my definition of God would be entirely different then yours. I find it impossible to accept an omniscient, just God that created us in his image 6000 years ago and loves us and answers our prayers. That’s all. Evolution has nothing to do with how I would define God. So I’m not saying, “smart people don’t believe in God.” That wasn’t my quote.

If Newton were alive today, evolution might change his idea about the specific God he believed in. But other things would as well, such as: an explanation as to why the sun keeps burning, why do plants open their petals in the morning, etc. All these things in Newton’s time were attributed to God. There was no other explanation.

Many things are explained today that may contradict Newton’s notion of God ( if only because science demonstrates that God isn’t as necessary as once thought ). All I’m saying is that today, if Newton persisted in believing, he would believe in a much different definition of God then what he believed in during his time, simply because he would observe that so many of the previous unexplainable wonders are now simply explained either through science, math, or magic tricks.

[Wolverine]

Sorry I got bored with a lot of this drivel after the first half-dozen pages so skipped ahead.

Why do anti-religious people attack the Bible because it is not factually accurate? The Bible isn't a book in itself but a collection of various documents written by men and subject to a few thousand years of editing and numerous translations. Of course it's not factually accurate. A lot of the teachings are metaphorical. If you're hanging on statements about the age of the World etc I think you're missing the point somewhat.

Note that there also a mass of other documents that were not included in the 'Bible'. I think the Gospel According to Thomas is pretty decent but I doubt hardly anyone has read it, or even knows it exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Heaven protect you if you accidentally expose yourself to one of the truly great enemies of religion like, say, Nietzsche.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is LOL. Nietzsche had a far greater understanding than probably 95% of Christians.

Carl Jung's 'Seven Sermons to The Dead' sums up my personal stance pretty well. Read that and you will realise that none of the evolution/creationism argument even matters (though I have a similar position to Sklansky in that one).

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]

The Second Sermon


During the night the dead stood along the walls and shouted: "We want to know about God! Where is God? Is God dead?"


-God is not dead; he is as much alive as ever. God is the created world, inasmuch as he is something definite and therefore he is differentiated from the Pleroma. God is a quality of the Pleroma and everything that I have stated in reference to the created world is equally true of him.


God is distinguished from the created world, however, inasmuch as he is less definite and less definable than the created world in general. He is less differentiated than the created world, because the ground of his being is effective fullness; and only to the extent that he is definite and differentiated is he identical with the created world; and thus he is the manifestation of the effective fullness of the Pleroma.


Everything we do not differentiate falls into the Pleroma and is cancelled out along with its opposite. Therefore if we do not discern God, then the effective fullness is cancelled out for us. God also is himself the Pleroma, even as the smallest point within the created world, as well as within the uncreated realm, is itself the Pleroma.


The effective emptiness is the being of the Devil. God and Devil are the first manifestations of the nothingness, which we call the Pleroma. It does not matter whether the Pleroma is or is not, for it cancels itself out in all things. The created world, however, is different. Inasmuch as God and Devil are created beings, they do not cancel each other out, rather they stand against each other as active opposites. We need no proof of their being; it is sufficient that we must always speak about them. Even if they did not exist, the created being would forever (because of its own differentiated nature) bring them forth out of the Pleroma.


All things which are brought forth from the Pleroma by differentiation are pairs of opposites; therefore God always has with him the Devil.

This interrelationship is so close, as you have learned, it is so indissoluble in your own lives, that it is even as the Pleroma itself. The reason for this is that these two stand very close to the Pleroma, in which all opposites are cancelled out and unified.


God and Devil are distinguished by fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction. Activity is common to both. Activity unites them. It is for this reason that activity stands above both, being God above God, for it unites fullness and emptiness in its working.

There is a God about whom you know nothing, because men have forgotten him. We call him by his name: ABRAXAS. He is less definite than God or Devil. In order to distinguish God from him we call God HELIOS, or the Sun.


Abraxas is activity; nothing can resist him but the unreal, and thus his active being freely unfolds. The unreal is not, and therefore cannot truly resist. Abraxas stands above the sun and above the devil. He is the unlikely likely one, who is powerful in the realm of unreality. If the Pleroma were capable of having a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation.


Although he is activity itself, he is not a particular result, but result in general.

He is still a created being, inasmuch as he is differentiated from the Pleroma.


The sun has a definite effect and so does the devil; therefore they appear to us more effective that the undefinable Abraxas.


For he is power, endurance, change.


-At this point the dead caused a great riot, because they were Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do anti-religious people attack the Bible because it is not factually accurate? The Bible isn't a book in itself but a collection of various documents written by men and subject to a few thousand years of editing and numerous translations. Of course it's not factually accurate. A lot of the teachings are metaphorical. If you're hanging on statements about the age of the World etc I think you're missing the point somewhat.


[/ QUOTE ]
They don't. They address themselves to people who insist it is factually accurate, especially those who wish to impose their views on others.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I got bored with a lot of this drivel after the first half-dozen pages so skipped ahead.

Why do anti-religious people attack the Bible because it is not factually accurate? The Bible isn't a book in itself but a collection of various documents written by men and subject to a few thousand years of editing and numerous translations. Of course it's not factually accurate. A lot of the teachings are metaphorical. If you're hanging on statements about the age of the World etc I think you're missing the point somewhat.

Note that there also a mass of other documents that were not included in the 'Bible'. I think the Gospel According to Thomas is pretty decent but I doubt hardly anyone has read it, or even knows it exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Heaven protect you if you accidentally expose yourself to one of the truly great enemies of religion like, say, Nietzsche.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is LOL. Nietzsche had a far greater understanding than probably 95% of Christians.

Carl Jung's 'Seven Sermons to The Dead' sums up my personal stance pretty well. Read that and you will realise that none of the evolution/creationism argument even matters (though I have a similar position to Sklansky in that one).

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that many religious fundamentalists actually do try to claim that the Bible is factually accurate. There is some debate about how big a subset of the religious population this is. I believe atheists think it's larger than it is and fundamentalist theists try to say that it's larger than it is because it supports their cause.

This makes matters worse for everyone because atheists ascribe this position to all religious people. It always goes something like this:

Atheist: "How can you believe that, you're dumb."

Moderate Theist: "I don't believe that, that is pretty dumb."

Atheist: "Oh, then you're not really a [Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.]"

Fundamentalist Theist: "He's right, you're not one of us."

Moderate Theist: "What are you talking about!?!? I most certainly am. I go to [Church, Temple, Mosque, etc.] all the time and half my congregation believes what I do.

Atheist: "You're just some weird deist guy I don't care about. You don't count . . . On with the attack!!!!"

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]
They address themselves to people who insist it is factually accurate, especially those who wish to impose their views on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like, say, every single atheist who has to mock religious people at every opportunity?

The above may be a slight exaggeration, but really it does work both ways. I find atheists unbearably ignorant. Though paradoxically I think that the path to understanding involves a trip through a long and dark period of atheism combined with nihilism.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They address themselves to people who insist it is factually accurate, especially those who wish to impose their views on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like, say, every single atheist who has to mock religious people at every opportunity?

The above may be a slight exaggeration, but really it does work both ways. I find atheists unbearably ignorant. Though paradoxically I think that the path to understanding involves a trip through a long and dark period of atheism combined with nihilism.

[/ QUOTE ]
If by atheist you mean someone who believes god doesn't exist then I've hardly ever met any and there's precious few here, so its hard to say.

but yes there is an tendency to mock silly beliefs, however its mainly when they start forcing themselves on others that we object.

chez

[Wolverine]

I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be quite a lot of people around who think that believing God doesn't exist demonstrates some sort of superior intelligence. I did a philosophy course and it was plagued with people like that, who would hijack every debate about anything and start trying to prove reasons why God doesn't exist. They did my head in.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be quite a lot of people around who think that believing God doesn't exist demonstrates some sort of superior intelligence. I did a philosophy course and it was plagued with people like that, who would hijack every debate about anything and start trying to prove reasons why God doesn't exist. They did my head in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you were unlucky. There's not many here and its a very very rare view for philosophers (though there are a few).


BTW what does a proof god doesn't exist look like?

chez

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW what does a proof god doesn't exist look like?

[/ QUOTE ]

Awfully tedious. Similar idea to any other argument where someone takes a fact from the Bible and then shows that it isn't true. Except they would do things even more absurd like attempt to prove that angels don't exist, and then claim that because they have apparently proved this, then somehow they have disproved the notion that God exists.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW what does a proof god doesn't exist look like?

[/ QUOTE ]

Awfully tedious. Similar idea to any other argument where someone takes a fact from the Bible and then shows that it isn't true. Except they would do things even more absurd like attempt to prove that angels don't exist, and then claim that because they have apparently proved this, then somehow they have disproved the notion that God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
you did a philosophy course where people kept trying to do stuff like prove angels don't exist??

bad beat.

chez

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be quite a lot of people around who think that believing God doesn't exist demonstrates some sort of superior intelligence. I did a philosophy course and it was plagued with people like that, who would hijack every debate about anything and start trying to prove reasons why God doesn't exist. They did my head in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the Ontological Argument?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do anti-religious people attack the Bible because it is not factually accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some people believe the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, or that its development was guided by God's hand. Others want to claim that parts are accurate, and parts are not, and that they know which is which. It is those people that are being addressed.

[ QUOTE ]
Read that and you will realise that none of the evolution/creationism argument even matters (though I have a similar position to Sklansky in that one).

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense does it not matter? I think questions like:

- Where we came from
- Does the universe have a purely naturalistic explanation?
- Should we teach kids creationism?
- Should evolution be banned from school?
- What is a human's true nature?

are important questions. Do you disagree?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If by atheist you mean someone who believes god doesn't exist then I've hardly ever met any and there's precious few here, so its hard to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think you are right, chez. I never met any either. OTOH I have met many people that can see the fact that their experience of reality does not confirms but denies the existence of a benevolent god. That being settled, it is a simple matter of morality as to whether you would worship such an entity or not, let alone follow its moral guidelines. Morality stems from your own being, imo, not from a turn of the dice, or the way you happened to have been indoctrinated.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Newton was smart enough that given a change in information, he would change his assessment of the probability of such things as unicorns and such.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your main point was that "smart" people today don't believe in unicorns or God. But Newton was smart and believed in God but not unicorns. So what's different now that would make Newton change his mind about God? Evolution? Which is the point I've been making. Dawkins says evolution disproves God. And it's that attitude, since Darwin and Huxley, that is one of the main reasons why Christians reject evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are claiming that if Darwin, Huxely, and their modern day popularizers had not (allegedly) connected evolution to atheism, then Christian fundamentalists would accept the science? In other words, it's all mean old Dawkins' fault; if only he would keep his mouth shut, then all those poor fundies would know they can accept common descent and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old without being an atheist.

At best, you've replaced one type of idiocy among those Christians (not accepting biology, chemistry, and geology) with another type (thinking because Dawkins or whoever says science disproves God, then science must be false).

Let's try to break this down to two possible premises:

Premise 1: Christian theology X contradicts the claims of modern science. They both cannot be true.

Premise 2: Christian theology X does not necessarily contradict the claims of modern science. They could both be true.

If premise 1 is true, then I claim Christians who believe in X are idiots for rejecting science to maintain their faith.

If premise 2 is true, then those Christians who still reject science because some people publicly (and incorrectly in this case) say premise 1 is true, are also idiots.

The bottom line is that it is profoundly irrational to reject science for non-scientific reasons.

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]

In what sense does it not matter? I think questions like:

- Where we came from
- Does the universe have a purely naturalistic explanation?
- Should we teach kids creationism?
- Should evolution be banned from school?
- What is a human's true nature?

are important questions. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with those questions, so no I don't disagree. I think I am just trying to say that there is a bigger picture that is often missed due to the evolution vs creationism argument bogging down every religious debate.

Education in England isn't so crazy as America anyway, at least when I was at school. We were read Bible stories in primary school but then we were taught evolution in secondary school. Perfectly fine. I don't see why you'd ever teach creationism in science, that just makes no sense.

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the Ontological Argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a little iffy. I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is that it is profoundly irrational to reject science for non-scientific reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim it's rational. It's an explanation. They are reacting to the viscious, ignorant, idiotic, irrational positions of people like Huxley and Dawkins.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is not about science per se, it's that what Christianity puts forth as being true is most likely not true.


[/ QUOTE ]

And that would be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Take your pick: Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, virgin birth, resurrection. If one wanted to have faith in these things, they would obviously be free to do so, and science can not touch them. That doesn't protect these beliefs from being extraordinarily unlikely to be true.

[Lestat]

But NotReady,

There was no good reason to believe in unicorns in Newton's day. There WERE good reasons to believe in God. There are STILL reasons to believe in God. This is off the point...

The point is, just because something that cannot be proved false, doesn't add to it's probability of being true. But if enough things surrounding the thing that cannot be proved false, are proved false, then this adds to its probability of not being true.

[Lestat]

I got a little lost in your deeply profound analogy. But if I get the gist of it...

It is not the job of science (or scientists), to posit the unexplainable. Their's is only to test, make predictions, and arrive at useful theories.

No great scientist would ever state, "There IS no God or creator!" At least not in the line of duty.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the job of science (or scientists), to posit the unexplainable. Their's is only to test, make predictions, and arrive at useful theories.

No great scientist would ever state, "There IS no God or creator!" At least not in the line of duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what do you call this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse)

Video (http://www.eyelube.vidiac.com/video/ca0988e8-ee36-4e18-8d33-98420079c9d7.htm)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But if enough things surrounding the thing that cannot be proved false, are proved false, then this adds to its probability of not being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

What things have been proved false?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Education in England isn't so crazy as America anyway, at least when I was at school. We were read Bible stories in primary school but then we were taught evolution in secondary school. Perfectly fine. I don't see why you'd ever teach creationism in science, that just makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you do your philosophy course? in England?

chez

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
he dark thoughts of materialistic science are stronger than the people and envelope them as a clouded presence of mind. What they think becomes their home, a pathological darkness in cities of light.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
got a little lost in your deeply profound analogy. But if I get the gist of it...

It is not the job of science (or scientists), to posit the unexplainable. Their's is only to test, make predictions, and arrive at useful theories.

No great scientist would ever state, "There IS no God or creator!" At least not in the line of duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Deeply profound"? Ok, today must be a day of sentimentality.I'm addressing what the modern scientist does directly and indirectly. The individual scientist can come in all flavors from deeply religious to anarcho-cynic.

Directly, for by having a materialistic base(not bias) to his work he lives in clouded vision. I don't believe that a research scientist can penetrate a peer reviewed journal if he didn't base his hypothesis on a material basis(weight,measure) no matter how abstract the words. He is truly trapped in the current scientific exegesis. That's why it is called scientific materialism. Would these peer review journal editors stand for "soul" or "spirit" in presented papers? Yet they allow photons(read, non material) or other particulate non entities(is this a contradiction?).

So what we have in this type of science is a purported basis on materiality but each and every time the research scientist approaches MATTER he reels back in incomprehension and spins abstractions that have left the earthly reality. The scientist leaves the earth in FEAR and lives in "high thinking" which doesn't reach to the object of his study.

We are left with the incongruity of a high spirituality(thinking) attempting to justify materialism. Make no mistake about it, materialism is also a spiritual thought process involved with thinking which is n not weighed or measured.

This is the cloud, the cloud of "there is only material" which darkens the sight. This is a true atheist(small, little,purp[orted,etc.-whatever the terms), immersed in dark matter(no pun intended). This is an illness which calls for remedy. Fortunately the words belie the difficulty and great trains of thought are brought to bear on this revulsion to "only matter".

So how about the "tailor". When these "great trains of thought" are brought to the religious exegesis or the theistic exegesis or any non material base of presentation the underlying "fear" will envelope the receiver and make his "twice the child of hell" as previously. The scientist carries the "observer mentality" and separates this observer from the world. Disassociation reigns supreme as Man has difficulty seeing himself as a "part of nature" as apposed to "outside of nature".

Man is quite capable of observing the earthly realm and his own "interior realm" and bringing to his fellow human beings the result of that study. This really is the realm where the "religious" and "scientist" come together and science becomes sacred work.

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you do your philosophy course? in England?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, got me on that one. Owned. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But if enough things surrounding the thing that cannot be proved false, are proved false, then this adds to its probability of not being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

What things have been proved false?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Earth only being 6,000 years old has been proven false. I still have yet to hear a good explanation as to why the overwhelming physical and natural evidence should be ignored. And remember, "it's to test our faith" holds no water since for we would never be able to discern what is a test and what is not.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you even read my entire post?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I think I get your point. But to be more accurate you have to say that you don't believe X and Y and that Z is enough for you, even though I tell you that Z isn't sufficiently explanatory and itself depends on X and Y.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see where you're going with this. The only objection I would have is that it is a matter of faith that you believe that Z depends on X and Y. Either you believe it, or you don't. That's why it's "satisfying to an atheist". Z is enough for some people.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me try a different analogy. Say I know someone who is fairly intelligent but uneducated. He tells me he thinks all that stuff about how chemical reactions in his body change the food he eats into energy, muscle, bone, etc, is a lot of bunk. He doesn't believe it and can't see it but admits he can't prove it doesn't exist. But he eats food when he's hungry and that fact satisfies all his curiosity about nutrition. Do you think he thinks the fact he eats and lives tends to prove the falsity of the biochemistry he denies? Do you think eating food is a sufficient explanation of why he lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the analogy that you're trying to make, but I think it's a bit flawed. Let's say that nobody can show somebody else the biochemistry behind these processes. You either see it for yourself or you don't. You can explain why you believe in the biochemistry, but the evidence you have for these chemical reactions is in the form of ancient second hand documents and personal introspection.

Now lets say that one of these documents explains one of the chemical reactions incorrectly or incompletely. If somehow we discover a way to study that chemical reaction and discover the inaccuracy of the old documents, what do we do? Some people will claim that all the documents are bunk, some people will say that our new methods of study are flawed, and some will say that perhaps these documents have a lot to contribute but aren't perfect.

I think that Dawkins is one of the people who thinks that all the documents are wrong. He explains that as we learn more and more and find out that they are inaccurate, it suggests casts doubt that any of it is accurate. He tries to persuade you to believe as he believes. I agree wit h you on this point.

I think it's important to realize that the science isn't the problem, it's advocates like Dawkins. We shouldn't reject our new findings for fear that people will use them to throw out our entire old world view. It's much more reasonable to realize that these new findings let people hold disparate, but consistent views.

Just because a scientist uses his findings to suggest something that he fundamentally cannot know doesn't mean that the findings themselves are inaccurate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH I have met many people that can see the fact that their experience of reality does not confirms but denies the existence of a benevolent god.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not convinced they're correct, I won't rehash the cricket counter argument but rely on Sir Beefy to my left.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The Earth only being 6,000 years old has been proven false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it has, so what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to realize that the science isn't the problem, it's advocates like Dawkins.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the point I made in my answer to the OP - the reason some Christians reject evolution is because it is presented to them as either accept evolution and atheism or accept God and the Bible. When it's presented that way there should be no mystery why evolution is rejected.

Just look at some of the posts in this thread. Atheism and evolution are so closely tied together now the people who promote them don't even realize they are promoting atheism - often the words are interchangeable and virtually define one another.

One other point. The problem with trying to reconcile the Bible with science is that science changes almost daily. I can show you reputable scientists who reject the Big Bang, others who reject Darwinism, etc. Science is and always has been unsettled. Newton thought time was absolute. If Christians had tied the Bible to that belief, Einstein would have "proved" the Bible is false.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the point I made in my answer to the OP - the reason some Christians reject evolution is because it is presented to them as either accept evolution and atheism or accept God and the Bible. When it's presented that way there should be no mystery why evolution is rejected.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're in agreement on this point. I wish people on both sides would be less ridiculous about things.

[ QUOTE ]

One other point. The problem with trying to reconcile the life with religion is that what religoius people believe changes almost daily. I can show you reputable pastors/theists/theologians who reject the existence of Hell, others who reject the trinity, etc. Religion is and always has been unsettled.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[carlo]

Short notes. The science of evolution is dead bang false and the guy on the street knows this.

From molecules to amino acids to plants to animals to human, even if punctuated by OP's original point of DNA as the precursor is preposterous. This sweep of "evolution" cannot be addressed by the mutations of a few cells in the laboratory or transposition of beans in the garden.

Say hello to our "uncle beano amino acid" the next time he's around. All the bones in existance will not prove the modern concept of Darwin. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

FYP


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that Christian doctrine has changed in some points over the millenia - sometimes because it was erroneous, sometimes because it has been made more accurate, sometimes because of advances in other areas of knowledge. Jesus told His disciples before He ascended He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into the truth and the New Testament has many admonitions for Christians to continue to learn. Though we believe revelation is complete, i.e., no more written Scripture, that doesn't mean knowledge and understanding have been perfected - about either theology or secular things

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Earth only being 6,000 years old has been proven false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it has, so what?

[/ QUOTE ]
You asked about things that weren't true, this was my example. All of my fundamentalist friends think the earth is 6K years old because of the Bible. It quite clearly is much older than that. Is the fundamentalist position that the evidence is fake?

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and evolution are so closely tied together now the people who promote them don't even realize they are promoting atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Evolution being incompatible with a literal creation account does not make evolution atheistic. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the *origin* of life, it speaks only about the path from the origin to where we are now. God could very easily exist or not exist and the theory of evolution would still look the same unless we found some new evidence.

If accepting the facts about evolution means you have to reject parts of the Bible as being literally true that isn't the scientists problem. It is not their responsibility to tip-toe around whatever it is people decide to have faith in.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and evolution are so closely tied together now the people who promote them don't even realize they are promoting atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Evolution being incompatible with a literal creation account does not make evolution atheistic. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the *origin* of life, it speaks only about the path from the origin to where we are now. God could very easily exist or not exist and the theory of evolution would still look the same unless we found some new evidence.

If accepting the facts about evolution means you have to reject parts of the Bible as being literally true that isn't the scientists problem. It is not their responsibility to tip-toe around whatever it is people decide to have faith in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think people are not doing a very good job of reading NotReady's point. It's not that he considers evolution irreconcilable with theism (I think he considers that an open question). It's that people have pronounced evolution as a reason to abandon theism. This is obviously true if you have read Dawkins, etc. Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All of my fundamentalist friends think the earth is 6K years old because of the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ask them where the Bible states the age of the earth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution says absolutely nothing about the *origin* of life, it speaks only about the path from the origin to where we are now. God could very easily exist or not exist and the theory of evolution would still look the same unless we found some new evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please educate Dawkins, et. al. on this point.

[ QUOTE ]

If accepting the facts about evolution means you have to reject parts of the Bible as being literally true that isn't the scientists problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't mean that. Of course, some of it depends on what you mean by literal. Is the gene literally selfish?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think people are not doing a very good job of reading NotReady's point


[/ QUOTE ]

bunny to the rescue - again. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.

Unless they think the atheists are right.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand the difference between justify and explain, do you?

It's also inherently impossible for you to admit when someone else makes a valid point, isn't it? You're genetically incapable of admitting someone else is right, aren't you?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand the difference between justify and explain, do you?

It's also inherently impossible for you to admit when someone else makes a valid point, isn't it? You're genetically incapable of admitting someone else is right, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
oh don't be silly

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.

Unless they think the atheists are right.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If a prominent atheist explains how water flowing down hill without god sucking it down takes away evidence for god then theists will line up on the wrong end of the log ride and the wait times will shorten nicely.

Theism requires some deceit, self or overt, but to discard knowledge because you don't like what use another person is making of it is one of the historical unfortunate aspects of religion of any kind.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.

Unless they think the atheists are right.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If a prominent atheist explains how water flowing down hill without god sucking it down takes away evidence for god then theists will line up on the wrong end of the log ride and the wait times will shorten nicely.

Theism requires some deceit, self or overt, but to discard knowledge because you don't like what use another person is making of it is one of the historical unfortunate aspects of religion of any kind.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all theists have this problem, Catholics, Jews, C Of E spring to mind.

Its only a big problem for a few. The interesting question is why?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never argued that with him, as I said from the beginning its political.

I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god, and pointed out the dishonesty of people who claim evolution is false just because its convenient for their cause.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has he said they are lying when they say they don't accept evolutiion? Or are they lying to themselves, knowing that evolution is a valid theory yet forced to reject it since they think it does not help the god cause? Rather like a women who knows he's cheating on her.

What explanation has he given? Christians are pure overt liars or what?

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Theism requires some deceit, self or overt, but to discard knowledge because you don't like what use another person is making of it is one of the historical unfortunate aspects of religion of any kind.


[/ QUOTE ]


Get in line. You have the same complete blind spot bunny is talking about. Take a number.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready wins this one


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm making a print out of this post, sending it to you for autograph, then encasing it a frame of gold and diamonds.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has he said they are lying when they say they don't accept evolutiion? Or are they lying to themselves, knowing that evolution is a valid theory yet forced to reject it since they think it does not help the god cause? Rather like a women who knows he's cheating on her.

What explanation has he given? Christians are pure overt liars or what?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
There's little we can be certain of but we can be certain that NotReady will never seriously address this question.

I'd be very happy to overcome my genetic programing and admit I was wrong.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly not. I think NotReady was merely speculating that one reason some theists have rejected evolution is that some atheists with strong evolution credentials have suggested that if you accept evolution as fact, you should also reject God. I think he's right that a theist confident in their belief in God, but ignorant about science may well conclude from such a claim that evolution must be wrong.

This doesnt provide justification for their position, merely an explanation of why they have adopted it.

I dont think you ever missed the distinction, but several of the replies to NotReady followed the "Science cant disprove God" path - which doesnt have much relevance to what he was saying.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There's little we can be certain of but we can be certain that NotReady will never seriously address this question.


[/ QUOTE ]


I've got nothing else to say. DS has spoken.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I gave the reference above to where Dawkins makes explicitely clear that he believes science cannot disprove god.

He may well claim that the evolution means there's less reason to believe in god. I'd disagree with him but its sure a very good reason to believe creationists are wrong.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a world of difference between the claim, "Science disproves God", and "Science has given us less reason to believe in a personal God".

I would never claim the former, while I very much submit to the latter.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I gave the reference above to where Dawkins makes explicitely clear that he believes science cannot disprove god.

He may well claim that the evolution means there's less reason to believe in god. I'd disagree with him but its sure a very good reason to believe creationists are wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough - I think Dawkins does make the claim that evolution lends evidence to the claim that there is no God, although it doesnt disprove God's existence. I think this is enough to make NotReady's explanation of theistic opposition to evolution a likely explanation. If all we're disagreeing about is "disproof" vs "evidence against" then it's probably not very interesting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(I also agree that what we've learnt of evolution gives good reason for disputing creationists' claims).

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But if enough things surrounding the thing that cannot be proved false, are proved false, then this adds to its probability of not being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

What things have been proved false?

[/ QUOTE ]

*That there once lived a solitary human man, before a woman ever existed.

*That woman was created through the rib of a man.

*That the earth was created in 6 days.

*That the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And I believe we're still on the first page!

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a world of difference between the claim, "Science disproves God", and "Science has given us less reason to believe in a personal God".

I would never claim the former, while I very much submit to the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - although there are clearly atheists who do make the former claim. My point is that Dawkins doesnt have to have made the former claim for NotReady's explanation to be likely. Chezlaw reckons Dawkins has explicitly ruled out the "evolution disproves God" claim, which is good enough for me - I dont think anyone disputes that Dawkins claims "evolution makes God unlikely", which is all that is needed for some theists to adopt an antagonistic position to evolution (without being well justified in that opposition).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I gave the reference above to where Dawkins makes explicitely clear that he believes science cannot disprove god.

He may well claim that the evolution means there's less reason to believe in god. I'd disagree with him but its sure a very good reason to believe creationists are wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough - I think Dawkins does make the claim that evolution lends evidence to the claim that there is no God, although it doesnt disprove God's existence. I think this is enough to make NotReady's explanation of theistic opposition to evolution a likely explanation.

(I also agree that what we've learnt of evolution gives good reason for disputing creationists' claims).

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely and of course NotReady is right about why there is opposition to evolution, its an inconvenient theory to be opposed on principle not on merit.

but its still leaves the issue of the dishonesty of pretending to oppose something on merit.

[ QUOTE ]
If all we're disagreeing about is "disproof" vs "evidence against" then it's probably not very interesting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Highly un-interesting except when its used to demonise someone. That's pure politics - playing the man rather than the ball.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely and of course NotReady is right about why there is opposition to evolution, its an inconvenient theory to be opposed on principle not on merit.

but its still leaves the issue of the dishonesty of pretending to oppose something on merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there are many theists opposing it for the reason he gave who are not being dishonest, I think they are perhaps lazy or uneducated. I am not speaking (and I dont think he was either) of church leaders or "leading lights" of the creationist movement. I expect there are plenty of scientifically illiterate christians who have no idea of the merits or otherwise of any particular theory but who are convinced that God exists. Then they here an atheist say "If you believe in evolution, there's no longer any need to believe in God" and they think "Well that's just dumb, of course you need to believe in God! Evolution must be a load of codswallop."

It doesnt help that their ill-informed prejudice is played up and entrenched by dishonest, manipulative, creationist/politicians. However, it doesnt mean they were dishonest to adopt the view in the first place.

In this thread, people seem to have assumed NotReady was claiming they were justified in opposing evolution on the grounds that it was often linked to atheism. I dont think he was claiming justification at all, merely that it explained why they behaved the way they do.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that Dawkins doesnt have to have made the former claim for NotReady's explanation to be likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can somebody Please tell me what his explanation was ??

1) christians believe evolution is a valid theory but lie and tell us they don't think it is.
2) christians don't think evolution is a valid theory because a guy they don't like think it lessens god ( that'd be worse than #1 it's two stage deception)
3) something else that at least makes christians of that ilk a little less despicable.

thanks, luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that Dawkins doesnt have to have made the former claim for NotReady's explanation to be likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can somebody Please tell me what his explanation was ??

1) christians believe evolution is a valid theory but lie and tell us they don't think it is.
2) christians don't think evolution is a valid theory because a guy they don't like think it lessens god ( that'd be worse than #1 it's two stage deception)
3) something else that at least makes christians of that ilk a little less despicable.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
3)...

Scientifically illiterate christians have no idea how to evaluate the theory of evolution but are convinced God exists. Someone claims that evolution -&gt; no god, they therefore conclude that evolution is false.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that Dawkins doesnt have to have made the former claim for NotReady's explanation to be likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can somebody Please tell me what his explanation was ??

1) christians believe evolution is a valid theory but lie and tell us they don't think it is.
2) christians don't think evolution is a valid theory because a guy they don't like think it lessens god ( that'd be worse than #1 it's two stage deception)
3) something else that at least makes christians of that ilk a little less despicable.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
3)...

Scientifically illiterate christians have no idea how to evaluate the theory of evolution but are convinced God exists. Someone claims that evolution -&gt; no god, they therefore conclude that evolution is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet they claim it is false scientifically ... they know they aren't rocket scientists or neurosugeons and rarely claim knowledge in those areas. To claim, "I know it is scientifically false 'cause I can spell scientist" is overtly lying. Do they reject math that is over their head.
ok, nevermind. I won't quibble about the number of the explanation, it's must involve lying and knowing it. You're saying they're overtly lying about their knowledge of science, sortof.

thanks, luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely and of course NotReady is right about why there is opposition to evolution, its an inconvenient theory to be opposed on principle not on merit.

but its still leaves the issue of the dishonesty of pretending to oppose something on merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think there are many theists opposing it for the reason he gave who are not being dishonest, I think they are perhaps lazy or uneducated. I am not speaking (and I dont think he was either) of church leaders or "leading lights" of the creationist movement. I expect there are plenty of scientifically illiterate christians who have no idea of the merits or otherwise of any particular theory but who are convinced that God exists. Then they here an atheist say "If you believe in evolution, there's no longer any need to believe in God" and they think "Well that's just dumb, of course you need to believe in God! Evolution must be a load of codswallop."

It doesnt help that their ill-informed prejudice is played up and entrenched by dishonest, manipulative, creationist/politicians. However, it doesnt mean they were dishonest to adopt the view in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I was saying. Either they simply don't understand science or they are dishonest.

My attack was on the dishonest ones. I'm almost willing to accept that some of them might be dishonest for the best of motives i.e. that believe its a mistake to lose faith if taught evolution (or told its good science) but believe many will mistakenly lose their faith and be damned. Hence the question - which is more important honesty, or saving souls?

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I would never claim the former, while I very much submit to the latter.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a lot of Christians there's no significant difference. Especially when you can't substantiate the claim.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet they claim it is false scientifically ... they know they aren't rocket scientists or neurosugeons and rarely claim knowledge in those areas. To claim, "I know it is scientifically false 'cause I can spell scientist" is overtly lying. Do they reject math that is over their head.
ok, nevermind. I won't quibble about the number of the explanation, it's must involve lying and knowing it. You're saying they're overtly lying about their knowledge of science, sortof.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
No - I'm saying they are mistakenly placing their trust in the wrong people who claim scientific credentials (ie the dishonest creationist).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely and of course NotReady is right about why there is opposition to evolution, its an inconvenient theory to be opposed on principle not on merit.

but its still leaves the issue of the dishonesty of pretending to oppose something on merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think there are many theists opposing it for the reason he gave who are not being dishonest, I think they are perhaps lazy or uneducated. I am not speaking (and I dont think he was either) of church leaders or "leading lights" of the creationist movement. I expect there are plenty of scientifically illiterate christians who have no idea of the merits or otherwise of any particular theory but who are convinced that God exists. Then they here an atheist say "If you believe in evolution, there's no longer any need to believe in God" and they think "Well that's just dumb, of course you need to believe in God! Evolution must be a load of codswallop."

It doesnt help that their ill-informed prejudice is played up and entrenched by dishonest, manipulative, creationist/politicians. However, it doesnt mean they were dishonest to adopt the view in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I was saying. Either they simply don't understand science or they are dishonest.

My attack was on the dishonest ones. I'm almost willing to accept that some of them might be dishonest for the best of motives i.e. that believe its a mistake to lose faith if taught evolution (or told its good science) but believe many will mistakenly lose their faith and be damned. Hence the question - which is more important honesty, or saving souls?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then (typically) I agree with both you and NotReady (which seems strange given how diametrically opposed you two seem to think you are /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely and of course NotReady is right about why there is opposition to evolution, its an inconvenient theory to be opposed on principle not on merit.

but its still leaves the issue of the dishonesty of pretending to oppose something on merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think there are many theists opposing it for the reason he gave who are not being dishonest, I think they are perhaps lazy or uneducated. I am not speaking (and I dont think he was either) of church leaders or "leading lights" of the creationist movement. I expect there are plenty of scientifically illiterate christians who have no idea of the merits or otherwise of any particular theory but who are convinced that God exists. Then they here an atheist say "If you believe in evolution, there's no longer any need to believe in God" and they think "Well that's just dumb, of course you need to believe in God! Evolution must be a load of codswallop."

It doesnt help that their ill-informed prejudice is played up and entrenched by dishonest, manipulative, creationist/politicians. However, it doesnt mean they were dishonest to adopt the view in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I was saying. Either they simply don't understand science or they are dishonest.

My attack was on the dishonest ones. I'm almost willing to accept that some of them might be dishonest for the best of motives i.e. that believe its a mistake to lose faith if taught evolution (or told its good science) but believe many will mistakenly lose their faith and be damned. Hence the question - which is more important honesty, or saving souls?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then (typically) I agree with both you and NotReady (which seems strange given how diametrically opposed you two seem to think you are /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've said before I don't think NotReady and I disagree about most things and certainly not much in this thread.

My argument with him here has not been about why evolution is opposed, I think we all are pretty sure why its opposed. Its the methods used by those who do the opposing that needs exposing to fresh air.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet they claim it is false scientifically ... they know they aren't rocket scientists or neurosugeons and rarely claim knowledge in those areas. To claim, "I know it is scientifically false 'cause I can spell scientist" is overtly lying. Do they reject math that is over their head.
ok, nevermind. I won't quibble about the number of the explanation, it's must involve lying and knowing it. You're saying they're overtly lying about their knowledge of science, sortof.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
No - I'm saying they are mistakenly placing their trust in the wrong people who claim scientific credentials (ie the dishonest creationist).

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't seem to fit NR's 'explanation'. It has something to do with - there is a scientific theory. Some people claim it detracts from theistic claims, "therefore I will claim it is scientifically invalid even though I don't have clue about science."
Your explanation of NR's explanation seems to skip over that they are arguing a scientific point without a scientific basis, knowingly. The "they reject it because Dawkins claims Y about it" part.
They don't seem as ignorant as you make them out to be. Some have finished high school no doubt. In that case, no matter how they arrive at claiming invalid science it involves some heavy duty lying.

luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would never claim the former, while I very much submit to the latter.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a lot of Christians there's no significant difference. Especially when you can't substantiate the claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? There IS a significant difference. Look...

When a tsunami rises out the ocean, amid clear blue skies, on a calm tropical day, and kills tens of thousands of people along hundreds of miles of shoreline, there is VERY GOOD REASON to think someone upstairs must be mad at us!

Of course, this is provided that we can fathom no other reason for such an occurance. And until very recently, no one could. They could not imagine that tectonic plates shifted hundreds of miles out to sea and caused a massive shifting of seawater with enough energy to travel hundreds of miles inland and wreak such havoc.

Do you really not see how scientific knowledge may reduce the reasons to believe in a personal god by at least one, maybe two?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> 3)...

Scientifically illiterate christians have no idea how to evaluate the theory of evolution but are convinced God exists. Someone claims that evolution -&gt; no god, they therefore conclude that evolution is false. </font>

This is excellent and I couldn't agree more! The big question is, is it possible to get evolutionists and educated Christians on the same side regarding this point in order to educate the scientific illiterate Christians? That would be great!

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet they claim it is false scientifically ... they know they aren't rocket scientists or neurosugeons and rarely claim knowledge in those areas. To claim, "I know it is scientifically false 'cause I can spell scientist" is overtly lying. Do they reject math that is over their head.
ok, nevermind. I won't quibble about the number of the explanation, it's must involve lying and knowing it. You're saying they're overtly lying about their knowledge of science, sortof.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
No - I'm saying they are mistakenly placing their trust in the wrong people who claim scientific credentials (ie the dishonest creationist).

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't seem to fit NR's 'explanation'. It has something to do with - there is a scientific theory. Some people claim it detracts from theistic claims, "therefore I will claim it is scientifically invalid even though I don't have clue about science."
Your explanation of NR's explanation seems to skip over that they are arguing a scientific point without a scientific basis, knowingly. The "they reject it because Dawkins claims Y about it" part.
They don't seem as ignorant as you make them out to be. Some have finished high school no doubt. In that case, no matter how they arrive at claiming invalid science it involves some heavy duty lying.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you and I are talking about different "thems". I think there are at least two classes of theists who deny evolution. The class you are referring to includes the creationist propagandists, politically motivated christian leaders, etc etc. I agree that they are dishonest at some level and dont think NotReady's explanation is as good when applied to this group as Chezlaw's "It's political" explanation.

I also think there are another group who dont know a thing about science but who believe strongly in God and hear the claim that evolution -&gt; atheism. When they look around they see a whole bunch of people claiming scientific credentials and included in all this is a bunch who also believe in God. They think "Great - I can have science and religion too I'll go with these nice people. Oh btw, they say evolution is balderdash and they should know. After all it's only the theory of evolution, there's obviously some level of doubt about it being right....

They havent been dishonest, they've been duped (or perhaps lazy).

I'm sure there are other classes too - perhaps a bunch of "science isnt the only way to know the world" mystic-types. I found the explanation as it applies to the second group interesting - it also seemed to be quite clearly missing the point to respond to NotReady with "science doesnt claim to disprove God". He never said that it did, he claimed that some atheists claim that evolution -&gt; there is no God and that this leads to the two being linked in the lay-public's mind, which would contribute to some christian's reticence to accept evolution.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> 3)...

Scientifically illiterate christians have no idea how to evaluate the theory of evolution but are convinced God exists. Someone claims that evolution -&gt; no god, they therefore conclude that evolution is false. </font>

This is excellent and I couldn't agree more! The big question is, is it possible to get evolutionists and educated Christians on the same side regarding this point in order to educate the scientific illiterate Christians? That would be great!

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think scientists should stick to explaining the theory and trust that the truth will win out in the end. I think scientifically literate christians have a moral obligation to do the educating of their fellow theists. (Obviously there will be some overlap, but I dont think a political agenda should ever become part of scientist's doing science.)

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
he claimed that some atheists claim that evolution -&gt; there is no God

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
and that this leads to the two being linked in the lay-public's mind

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The evolution -&gt; no God thing comes directly out its contradicting the Christian bible and mainstream Christian theology.

For example, when Darwin first posited his theory, religious folk were in uproar. People have this idea that humans are somehow special, God created creatures. They find it abhorrent that we evolved from lemurs to monkeys to cave men to humans.

[m_the0ry]

A child is raised to believe that God is beautiful and nature is beautiful. But it is after these facts are seared in memory that one discovers the nature is best described by science. Consequently nature appears beautiful while science does not, although both concern the same phenomena. Any scientific evidence that nature conflicts with God always leads to rejection and disbelief due to a skewed view of aesthetics.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he claimed that some atheists claim that evolution -&gt; there is no God

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it destroys a literalist interpretation of the bible. If you view the bible as a spiritual text rather than a statement of historical/natural facts then it seems perfectly feasible to be a christian evolutionist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and that this leads to the two being linked in the lay-public's mind

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The evolution -&gt; no God thing comes directly out its contradicting the Christian bible and mainstream Christian theology.

For example, when Darwin first posited his theory, religious folk were in uproar. People have this idea that humans are somehow special, God created creatures. They find it abhorrent that we evolved from lemurs to monkeys to cave men to humans.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree this revulsion or "special status" view of humans is a big part of it too. To clarify my position, I think the linking of evolution to atheism has been partly responsible for some theists' aversion to embracing evolution but by no means the sole reason. Political motivations also have an effect and the "Human in the likeness of God" belief of theistic religions has had a psychological effect. In my theistic moods, I have to strain hard to accomodate that into my worldview - I do think it's possible, but for many I expect it's easier to follow the anti-evolution path.

[luckyme]

NR's explanation -
[ QUOTE ]
I made the suggestion that the reason Christians began to oppose Darwinism was because of the atheism that quickly became attached to Darwinism, especially through people like Huxley and now morons like Dawkins. Many Christians are really opposing the atheism which is poured down their throat with glee by Darwinists, and not speaking to the science involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

We're in one of those 'liar paradox' situations. Is NR a liar or a dupe using your two categories ( I'll concede he's not a mystic). Would his professed assessment have value in either case. I'm willing to take it at face value and see where it gets us-
If they are claiming flaws in the science supporting evolution then they are speaking to the science and if their motivation is really god-guarding then they are liars and not dupe's.
Note his use of " ...are REALLY opposing.." which seems to imply that they are aware rather than mere total dupes . Iow, they are making arguments against the science even though they know it's not what they are really basing their opposition on. It's hard to see how that isn't deceitful by NR's explanation.

"I really oppose it for reason Y but I'm going to argue reason X"


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you and I are talking about different "thems". I think there are at least two classes of theists who deny evolution. The class you are referring to includes the creationist propagandists, politically motivated christian leaders, etc etc. I agree that they are dishonest at some level and dont think NotReady's explanation is as good when applied to this group as Chezlaw's "It's political" explanation.

I also think there are another group who dont know a thing about science but who believe strongly in God and hear the claim that evolution -&gt; atheism. When they look around they see a whole bunch of people claiming scientific credentials and included in all this is a bunch who also believe in God. They think "Great - I can have science and religion too I'll go with these nice people. Oh btw, they say evolution is balderdash and they should know. After all it's only the theory of evolution, there's obviously some level of doubt about it being right....

They havent been dishonest, they've been duped (or perhaps lazy).

[/ QUOTE ]

NR's claim means they are dishonest, duped or not, since they are aware their science argument is a cover for the REAL reason they object.

You have morphed some cover for the illiterate ones but NR was referring to those who had REAL reasons for opposing evolution and professed reasons.

yes? no? maybe? luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it destroys a literalist interpretation of the bible. If you view the bible as a spiritual text rather than a statement of historical/natural facts then it seems perfectly feasible to be a christian evolutionist.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be a Christian you have to believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, and the backstory that made that the resurrection mean something. You also have to believe that some element of the bible is divinely inspired, and that the majority of its claims (afterlife, God-love, Salvation through Jesus) are based in fact.

The bible itself says:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

*That there once lived a solitary human man, before a woman ever existed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who disproved that?

[ QUOTE ]

*That woman was created through the rib of a man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who disproved that?

[ QUOTE ]

*That the earth was created in 6 days.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who disproved that? I include in this the fact that as long ago as Augustine (4th century A.D.) there has been no concensus as to the meaning of day in the creation account.

[ QUOTE ]

*That the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that relevant?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
NR's explanation -
[ QUOTE ]
I made the suggestion that the reason Christians began to oppose Darwinism was because of the atheism that quickly became attached to Darwinism, especially through people like Huxley and now morons like Dawkins. Many Christians are really opposing the atheism which is poured down their throat with glee by Darwinists, and not speaking to the science involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

We're in one of those 'liar paradox' situations. Is NR a liar or a dupe using your two categories ( I'll concede he's not a mystic). Would his professed assessment have value in either case. I'm willing to take it at face value and see where it gets us-
If they are claiming flaws in the science supporting evolution then they are speaking to the science and if their motivation is really god-guarding then they are liars and not dupe's.
Note his use of " ...are REALLY opposing.." which seems to imply that they are aware rather than mere total dupes . Iow, they are making arguments against the science even though they know it's not what they are really basing their opposition on. It's hard to see how that isn't deceitful by NR's explanation.

"I really oppose it for reason Y but I'm going to argue reason X"


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you and I are talking about different "thems". I think there are at least two classes of theists who deny evolution. The class you are referring to includes the creationist propagandists, politically motivated christian leaders, etc etc. I agree that they are dishonest at some level and dont think NotReady's explanation is as good when applied to this group as Chezlaw's "It's political" explanation.

I also think there are another group who dont know a thing about science but who believe strongly in God and hear the claim that evolution -&gt; atheism. When they look around they see a whole bunch of people claiming scientific credentials and included in all this is a bunch who also believe in God. They think "Great - I can have science and religion too I'll go with these nice people. Oh btw, they say evolution is balderdash and they should know. After all it's only the theory of evolution, there's obviously some level of doubt about it being right....

They havent been dishonest, they've been duped (or perhaps lazy).

[/ QUOTE ]

NR's claim means they are dishonest, duped or not, since they are aware their science argument is a cover for the REAL reason they object.

You have morphed some cover for the illiterate ones but NR was referring to those who had REAL reasons for opposing evolution and professed reasons.

yes? no? maybe? luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll go with maybe. Once again I have leapt into defending my interpretation of someone else's position - a character flaw, but one I am unlikely to rid myself of.

I was speaking about the duped (in my opinion a large class) and I found NotReady's explanation plausible and one I hadnt thought of before. The reason I jumped in was the number of responses to him which did not address his point - in my opinion he gets more of that than most, partly because he defends an unpopular position, partly because he often favors the terse, almost combative style of discussion.

What you wrote above seems quite different from "Science doesnt disprove God" I dont agree that "what they really oppose" means they are aware. I think it means they are nominally attacking evolution but only because it has become a proxy for atheism. Whatever his intention, I wont try and defend it for him - I usually understand what he says but dont always agree. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it destroys a literalist interpretation of the bible. If you view the bible as a spiritual text rather than a statement of historical/natural facts then it seems perfectly feasible to be a christian evolutionist.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be a Christian you have to believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, and the backstory that made that the resurrection mean something. You also have to believe that some element of the bible is divinely inspired, and that the majority of its claims (afterlife, God-love, Salvation through Jesus) are based in fact.


[/ QUOTE ]
I dont feel as confident as you are in saying what you have to believe in to be a christian. I agree about the divinity of jesus - I think a christian has to ultimately believe in the jesus miracles, if nothing else - especially the resurrection. But I dont see that this contradicts evolution, since if "God did it with evolution" is true, presumably he can pop in looking like he evolved without having really done it.

For the rest, I have certainly spent some time calling myself a christian who didnt believe in an afterlife, for instance. (I've certainly never believed in Hell). I think a figurative interpretation of the bible leaves a lot of latitude - the weakness of the position, of course.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute rot. And I say that without even requiring you to define evolution.

I will say thank you though for once again proving my thesis.

[Phil153]

Allow me to break it down for you. Here are the claims of Christianity through the ages:

- The world began with Adam and Eve in a single Garden of Eden. They ate the forbidden fruit and fell out of favor with God.
- People generally did stuff to piss God off, so he drowned the whole world, and saved one family + an ark. This was less than 10000 years ago.
- Eventually God decided not to be pissed off, and sent a messenger to die so that others might be saved. That messenger did stuff like walk on water, change water into wine, instantly heal the sick, and was physically resurrected after dying. He preached that the only way to a magic afterlife was through him, that we would die an eternal death if we didn't find salvation through him. This is because we're all born dirty sinners due to Original Sin, which gave us the knowledge of good and evil.

If the mainstream scientific account of evolution was true:

- The Adam and Eve story is patent nonsense, however you look at it.
- The ark story is a flat out fabrication with zero truth
- Original Sin does not exist
- The bible is clearly not divinely inspired, unless God enjoys pulling people's leg and having innocent people stoned to death.
And a final point (not related to evolution):
- The scale of universe makes Armageddon a sad joke.

Do you see why this makes the bible and the God/Jesus story a massive underdog to be true? Especially in light of other, similar stories found around the world and in ancient cultures.

[ QUOTE ]
I will say thank you though for once again proving my thesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seek and ye shall find, dear bigot.

Evolution does NOT - does NOT - I repeat again - DOES NOT - disprove God. It does disprove (or make extremely unlikely to be true) your "God flooded the world/we're all sinners/stone your neighbor if he works on Sunday/do not eat pork/Hero born of virgin &amp; walked on water" religion, which is as strange as Scientology. What is so hard to grasp about that?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute rot. And I say that without even requiring you to define evolution.

I will say thank you though for once again proving my thesis.

[/ QUOTE ]If I am understanding you correctly in addition to your point that atheists think evolution removes the need for God. It appears that your entire defense is built upon that theists also believe that evolution makes God unnecessary, else they would not deny it, instead only denying the part about evolution making God obsolete. It's nearly universal theists and atheists alike think that evolution makes God unnecessary. They only disagree about if God is necessary. But such concensus about the nature of evolution making god unneeded is worth note.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he claimed that some atheists claim that evolution -&gt; there is no God

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't destroy God, but it destroys the Christian God, the veracity of the bible, and the divinity of Jesus pretty convincingly IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
and that this leads to the two being linked in the lay-public's mind

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The evolution -&gt; no God thing comes directly out its contradicting the Christian bible and mainstream Christian theology.

For example, when Darwin first posited his theory, religious folk were in uproar. People have this idea that humans are somehow special, God created creatures. They find it abhorrent that we evolved from lemurs to monkeys to cave men to humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive been following this conversation with interest. NR has acquitted himself well (even DS thinks so apparently) and so I'll only point that you provided a shining example of the exact attitude that NR was referring to in the original post.

[Phil153]

Fair enough. Let me ask you this (and feel free to respond to my other points above, as well):

Do you believe the probability of the Christian religion being true is the same now as it was before the discovery of evolution and geology?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Let me ask you this (and feel free to respond to my other points above, as well):

Do you believe the probability of the Christian religion being true is the same now as it was before the discovery of evolution and geology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do. To put it very simply, the Bible isnt science and science isnt the Bible. My church (the Roman Catholic for those who care), teaches that truth is revealed to us from science and revelation.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
To put it very simply, the Bible isnt science and science isnt the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church disagreed for 1800 years, to the point of murdering many people. And their acceptance of Common Descent only happened about 10 years ago in the face of overwhelming evidence reviewed by their expert panel. It is still debated by many clergy.

[ QUOTE ]
My church (the Roman Catholic for those who care), teaches that truth is revealed to us from science and revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a commendable philosophy, but what about when science conflicts with revelation? If you start from the premise that the revelation is correct, then you end up with all kinds of evils. Like killing people who say the Earth isn't the center of the universe. Like ridiculing and censuring people who claim that humans evolved from other life forms. Like believing that demons possess the mentally ill and trying to exorcise them.

We now know that the flood didn't happen, yet for 2000 years people thought it did. Believed in it with their heart and soul, and oppressed those who said otherwise. What other things that are currently "revelation" will turn out to be blatantly false? At what point do you start saying "Dianetics was wrong on this point, this point, and this point, and this point seems silly - it's probably just a book written by men."

Just because the church has taken a smart and progressive turn by claiming "no conflict with science", doesn't mean that what they teach you is true, or that their interpretation of "revelation" is now out of range of science and rational thought.

I realize this falls on deaf ears. And that makes me geniunely sad.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I do. To put it very simply, the Bible isnt science and science isnt the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't be said often enough!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The church disagreed for 1800 years, to the point of murdering many people. And their acceptance of Common Descent only happened about 10 years ago in the face of overwhelming evidence reviewed by their expert panel. It is still debated by many clergy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the Church has long been a supporter of science. Look at how many of the early scientists were members of the clergy. There are plenty of lists available through a quick Google search, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader. I could actually go on about this point for quite some time but I'll leave it at that for now. Secondly Id like to point out that the Church doesnt require a belief on the matter on evolution one way or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a commendable philosophy, but what about when science conflicts with revelation? If you start from the premise that the revelation is correct, then you end up with all kinds of evils. Like killing people who say the Earth isn't the center of the universe. Like ridiculing and censuring people who claim that humans evolved from other life forms. Like believing that demons possess the mentally ill and trying to exorcise them.

We now know that the flood didn't happen, yet for 2000 years people thought it did. Believed in it with their heart and soul, and oppressed those who said otherwise. What other things that are currently "revelation" will turn out to be blatantly false? At what point do you start saying "Dianetics was wrong on this point, this point, and this point, and this point seems silly - it's probably just a book written by men."

Just because the church has taken a smart and progressive turn by claiming "no conflict with science", doesn't mean that what they teach you is true, or that their interpretation of "revelation" is now out of range of science and rational thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

And nor does it mean it isnt true.

[ QUOTE ]
I realize this falls on deaf ears. And that makes me geniunely sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, and I will add you to my prayers.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the Church has long been a supporter of science

[/ QUOTE ]
Science that didn't conflict with "revelation". They have never been a supported of open scientific enquiry - in fact quite the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
And nor does it mean it isnt true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Religious folk are the ones claiming that their interpretation of the world is correct. Scientists claim it's open to investigation. See the difference?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I realize this falls on deaf ears. And that makes me geniunely sad.


[/ QUOTE ]


Likewise, and I will add you to my prayers.

[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly is your point that's falling on deaf ears? I agree that God/faith/belief are separate from science. I don't agree that incredible claims about the actual world are separate from science, especially when those claims conflicts with the evidence that exists.

To go back to an earlier topic:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe the probability of the Christian religion being true is the same now as it was before the discovery of evolution and geology?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is unequivocal proof that your mind and heart are closed.

Your arguments come from the position that Catholicism/the bible is correct. A man with a wider worldview would indeed concede that the discovery of massive falsehoods in an ancient religious book - claimed to be divinely inspired - would make that book (and the religion that came from it) less likely to be correct. I'm amazed that you disagree.

Perhaps Sklansky can elaborate?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But if enough things surrounding the thing that cannot be proved false, are proved false, then this adds to its probability of not being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

What things have been proved false?

[/ QUOTE ]

*That there once lived a solitary human man, before a woman ever existed.

*That woman was created through the rib of a man.

*That the earth was created in 6 days.

*That the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And I believe we're still on the first page!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that NotReady will reply that none of these things have been "proven" to his satisfaction.

Edit: I should have read the rest of the thread. He replied exactly how I thought he would.

[Neuge]

This whole debate is absurd. No qualified scientist would ever claim that science disproves God, but that in no way means that it doesn't decimate the Christian God. The evidence is so overwhelming that either the concept of the Christian God is either incorrect of severely mistaken. The only counter-argument to this position is that previous literal interpretations of the Bible should be observed in a metaphorical sense, which raises serious consistency issues.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Science that didn't conflict with "revelation". They have never been a supported of open scientific enquiry - in fact quite the opposite.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're quite wrong but its a common enough myth. Perhaps fodder for another post.

[ QUOTE ]
Religious folk are the ones claiming that their interpretation of the world is correct. Scientists claim it's open to investigation. See the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Religious people" is a pretty large group. Care to be a bit more specific? Most people have an interpretation of the world that they are convinced is correct. And scientists are hardly immune to that.

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly is your point that's falling on deaf ears? I agree that God/faith/belief are separate from science. I don't agree that incredible claims about the actual world are separate from science, especially when those claims conflicts with the evidence that exists.

To go back to an earlier topic:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe the probability of the Christian religion being true is the same now as it was before the discovery of evolution and geology?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes I do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is unequivocal proof that your mind and heart are closed.

Your arguments come from the position that Catholicism/the bible is correct. A man with a wider worldview would indeed concede that the discovery of massive falsehoods in an ancient religious book - claimed to be divinely inspired - would make that book (and the religion that came from it) less likely to be correct. I'm amazed that you disagree.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem here (and I could be wrong) is that you are ascribing to me a literalist interpretation of the Bible, to which I most certainly dont adhere. I follow the Catholic method of biblical exegesis, which basically states that you have to examine each book on the basis of the context of the time, the manner it was written, etc.


And as for the point that you are missing, I concede on that, I was being a bit snarky and I apologize. But I am saddened because it seems to me that in spite of your protestations of understanding that science and God are separate, you seem to have closed your mind and heart to the possibility of God, because of your faith in science. I could be wrong though. And I was quite serious about praying for you.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't matter. Just because the 3 major faiths on this planet have a similar concept of God does not mean that He cannot be completely dissimilar from that description.

You continually harp on science "disproving" God. Well, as many have told you, it certainly doesn't. What science does tell us is that the current Earthly concepts of God are ridiculously improbable. Not to mention that a God that routinely intervenes in worldly affairs makes the results of the most tested hypothesis in human history completely unreliable (contrary to what we have observed).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what you mean by major! Are you another one of those propagandists that claims their religion is about love and truth when it is contradicted bothy in its supposedly holy writings, and in what is being seen and experience in being alive with some sentience?

Non-religious are the third largest group,and Hinduism and other religions which have nothing in common with your view of an effectively tyrannical god come well before Judaism.

I guess you believe that repeating things often enough will convince everyone else. I love this, obviously, either lying or ignorant attitude, of so many christians, it is so obvious once you scrap the veneer.

As far as disproving your "benevolent" god, it only requires to look around you, or even read your bible with an open-mind, and you will see that however strange Hinduism is, at least its concept of gods reflects the every day experience as some are benevolent and some not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Am I getting leveled here? Half your post seems to sarcastically agree with my sentiments while the other half seems to completely dismiss them.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the Church has long been a supporter of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...give me a break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy).

[Lestat]

Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin.

Whoever figured out at what rate certain carbons decay and how to apply this knowledge to determine the age of things.

Because it shows that the bible contains incorrect information.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But I am saddened because it seems to me that in spite of your protestations of understanding that science and God are separate, you seem to have closed your mind and heart to the possibility of God, because of your faith in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion and science aren't in conflict then 'faith in science' would not be any type of bar to religion, in fact it would provide a good basis for it because the would both be describing the same world.

Naturally they don't, so in that sense this last claim of yours has some merit but it completely discredits your original one.

luckyme

[Phil153]

I think the argument is that science, "properly understood", and faith, "properly understood", are not in conflict.

That's exactly the position the Catholics have adopted, and it's quite clever. They stamp every conflict these days with "Science and Revelation cannot be in conflict", since both are a priori correct. Of course, they have no method for discovering "true" revelation as opposed to "fake" revelation, which has led to 1800 years of embarrassing and evil blunders, which would still be continuing today if not for science.

The great big flood that formed the basis of the OT was once "truth" and "revelation" (and still is to many), as was a lot of the other nonsense. People like vulturesrow once murdered people for disbelieving in said flood and other nonsense. And probably prayed for their souls after they burned alive. I wonder if one day, we will discover that the Jews and Muslims are correct, and Jesus is neither divine nor the Messiah. It's in the same class of absurdity as Noah's story.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you really not see how scientific knowledge may reduce the reasons to believe in a personal god by at least one, maybe two?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try this again. When you give a natural explanation for something, you haven't shown that God hasn't been involved, nor that He isn't necessary for the event. Once again, Newton, who discovered the natural law of gravity, believed that gravity was caused by God. No one has shown he was wrong. No one can show he was wrong.

I think this is a good example of why atheists don't realize that the way they present science includes atheism. The atheist says, "There is a natural explanation, God isn't necessary, God doesn't exist". To a theist, God is necessary, the atheist hasn't shown He isn't.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

in order to educate the scientific illiterate Christians?


[/ QUOTE ]

While you're at it you could educate the theology, history, philosophy illiterate atheists.

[luckyme]

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that’s all."

[ QUOTE ]
I think the argument is that science, "properly understood", and faith, "properly understood", are not in conflict.

That's exactly the position the Catholics have adopted, and it's quite clever. They stamp every conflict these days with "Science and Revelation cannot be in conflict", since both are a priori correct. Of course, they have no method for discovering "true" revelation as opposed to "fake" revelation, which has led to 1800 years of embarrassing and evil blunders, which would still be continuing today if not for science.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only corner left for religion is the roll-your-own ones such as we see on here, where a person makes a broad vague claim that is unattached, "god is a ham sandwich", "god is love", where the best response is "yawn, yeah, ok" since nothing is being claimed for her to do.

"Do" is where science kicks in. If something has no interaction in the universe then it is indistinguishable from non-existence. A religion based on an intervening god, past or present, will bump into the empiricism of science unless it sticks to the unobservable, which opens the door to all 'roll-your-own' claims, since they are all equally valid by requiring no evidence.

Unfortunately for the roll-your-own's, by moving into the 'different realms' guise they take away any relevance because they are reduced to 'proof by claim' which leaves them immune to attack but the same as non-existence because of the non-interaction they need for the immunity to hold.

Xtrianity, based on intercession on request, is obviously scientific toast.

luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
"Do" is where science kicks in. If something has no interaction in the universe then it is indistinguishable from non-existence. A religion based on an intervening god, past or present, will bump into the empiricism of science unless it sticks to the unobservable, which opens the door to all 'roll-your-own' claims, since they are all equally valid by requiring no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why can't theists grasp this simple concept?

[NotReady]

Proving evolution, which Darwin didn't do, of course, wouldn't disprove Adam.

Basically same argument.

I don't see how carbon-14 proves anything about the length of time God took to create, nor about what the word "day" means in Genesis.

What Bible information is shown incorrect?