In Defense of Evolution

[Al Moritz]

    The universe is not the sort of thing that can be created, since it's everything by definition.

Everything "by definition"? That sounds like materialistic dogmatism.

Drogulus,

At this point I am tired of pointing out the logical and other flaws in your argumentation, in this and the other statements in your last few posts. I will stop here. I have more fun things to do than this; life is too short. Have a good day, erm, night.

Al

[PSmith08]

Religious theories are scientific theories when they say anything at all about the world. They are bad theories because not enough sense can be made of them to falsify them. They shouldn't be treated as though they were true because of this. I can't prove the UFO isn't there. So it is, right? Isn't that a shabby way to think about it? Of course it is. So let's not make excuses for this sort of thing. The religious proponents must raise their game, and if we make allowances for them like this they'll never have to. That hurts all of us, as the ID controversy shows.

I don't see the point in making excuses for the position that because the existence of something cannot be proved, it, therefore, does not exist. It's no less shabby, and, to be entirely honest, it serves the same purpose for the proponents as the opposing position. Indeed, it's worse than shabby: it's intellectually lazy and sloppy work. While science can clarify points in the narrative, science must remain silent - either in an affirmative or negative way - on the big question undergirding those narratives. It is, as a sort of corollary for reasons I've outlined above, no answer at all to say that all fact questions are scientific and have that serve as a step in some argument.

[karlhenning]

Do you entertain the possibility that He might be She or some mix of the two?

I entertain the possibility that sex, as a feature of creatures who reproduce themselves over generations, may simply not apply to Supreme Being.

[Ten thumbs]

    The universe is not the sort of thing that can be created, since it's everything by definition. Everything can't be created by another thing except in a word game.

This implies that if we were to discover something that is outside of our universe then our universe is not the universe. Will we have to invent a new word for it? I've never been comfortable with the idea of an act of creation but the universe was probably derived from some other entity, unless you believe in spontaneous generation. In which case, what was it generated in, and why?

[drogulus]

Everything "by definition"? That sounds like materialistic dogmatism.

     No, it's a matter of definition. The universe doesn't have to be matter and energy. It could include anything, and in fact as a matter of definition it does. There's no such thing as everything plus everything else, the else has already been taken care of by the "everything". It's the idea that there must be something outside the universe that's dogmatic, given this definition. And why would you define otherwise? Isn't the universe supposed to be everything? Isn't that the plain meaning?

I don't see the point in making excuses for the position that because the existence of something cannot be proved, it, therefore, does not exist.

      You fell right into it. I said you can't assume that something like a god or UFO exists just because it can't be disproved, and you turned it around as though I'd said what can't be proved doesn't exist, a weaker argument for you to deal with, but not mine. Let's go to what I said again: Just because the existence of something can't be disproved is no reason to think it does exist.


     

    This implies that if we were to discover something that is outside of our universe then our universe is not the universe. Will we have to invent a new word for it? I've never been comfortable with the idea of an act of creation but the universe was probably derived from some other entity, unless you believe in spontaneous generation. In which case, what was it generated in, and why?

      I don't exactly get what you mean here. Why would we need a new word? If the universe is bigger or more complex than we previously thought, then what? We've had to adjust our idea of the universe in the past without abandoning the universe concept, so why would that change? So here's a question: What would have to be the case to cause us to abandon the idea that the universe is everything if we always expand our concept of it to conform to our observations?  _0:)

     As for derived from another entity: No. For a very good reason that should be obvious (why isn't it?): It ceases to be another entity the moment we find out about it. All other entities are internal to an entity that contains everything by definition. A sufficiently flexible naturalism can't be overthrown. It expands to fill all the available space. Everything really does mean everything.

[Don]

Everything "by definition"? That sounds like materialistic dogmatism.

Drogulus,

At this point I am tired of pointing out the logical and other flaws in your argumentation, in this and the other statements in your last few posts. I will stop here. I have more fun things to do than this; life is too short. Have a good day, erm, night.

Al

Instead of telling us every time you decide to bow out of a thread, you could just silently depart into the night.

[Philoctetes]

Instead of telling us every time you decide to bow out of a thread, you could just silently depart into the night.

But then you'd never know they were gone.

[orbital]

...In which case, what was it generated in, and why?

"in" assumes [a three dimensional] space. without universe there is no concept of space 
"why" is in the same wavelength, when you ask "why" you are presupposing a notion of 'before'. and without universe there is no concept of time either 

[drogulus]

     What does dogmatic materialism mean? Unless it means you're wedded to some concept of matter/energy that wouldn't allow for new phenomena to be observed and theorized about so that its behavior can be predicted, I don't see how materialism is dogmatic at all. One day perhaps our understanding of what exists will be so transformed by new discoveries that we'll want to invent a new terminology to describe it. Maybe we'll call it something else instead of materialism. It won't matter, though, because it will be the process that creates new knowledge that unites the new vision with the old, just as in the past with successive scientific revolutions. This is as far from dogmatism as the human mind can get.

   

"in" assumes [a three dimensional] space. without universe there is no concept of space 
"why" is in the same wavelength, when you ask "why" you are presupposing a notion of 'before'. and without universe there is no concept of time either 

      This is why the idea of "something outside of everything" doesn't work. If it's something, it's not outside. There is no outside. _{(it follows that there's no inside either, right? Inside what? )}

[Don]

But then you'd never know they were gone.

Most folks on the board who say they're leaving don't go anywhere, so the proof is in the lack of posting.  One thing about Al is that when he tells us he's leaving a thread, he makes good on it (although starting a new thread that's very similar to the existing one isn't quite a 100% withdrawl).

[drogulus]

    I don't blame anyone for absenting themselves from this discussion. Sometimes you just might want to collect your thoughts, or think about something else. And then maybe you can come back with a slightly different perspective. And there really is a lot of repetition in the arguments. There should be repetition, I think, both because we're considering variations on a limited set of ideas, and because it's mostly a matter of how these ideas are expressed and refined, so the consequences of the different options can be clearly seen, that makes the conversation useful. I completely disagree with the idea that what's said here is useless because we don't see lots of eager converts proclaiming their allegiance to the opponents point of view. This is usually a slow process, and it may take years before the implications are worked through. That's how it is with me, and I have a theory that other people are like me in this respect.

[PSmith08]

You fell right into it. I said you can't assume that something like a god or UFO exists just because it can't be disproved, and you turned it around as though I'd said what can't be proved doesn't exist, a weaker argument for you to deal with, but not mine. Let's go to what I said again: Just because the existence of something can't be disproved is no reason to think it does exist.

I'll just say this, though I can gladly give you more, you can't think anything about an object, the existence of which is an undecidable proposition. If you're not trivially wrong in failing to disprove the existence of the object, then you're stuck with undecidability. Of course, that's rather more subtle than restating the axiom about a lack of a negative not proving a positive. There's no intellectual disgrace in admitting that a question cannot be answered one way or the other, which means that one cannot say anything about the object in question; when one cannot say anything and chooses the one thing that s/he cannot say from the lot, there's more of psychology there than anything "real."

All of that serves as a prelude to this: Any discussion on this subject that isn't a formal critique or pleasant exercise in logic and e-forensics is not altogether a productive exercise (to say nothing of absurdity), as it has an undecidable proposition as its object. There are no implications to consider, since there is nothing firm whence one can draw implications. There is only one logically sound position on the question, and that really isn't much of a position.

[Lilas Pastia]

Very well put, PSmith08.

For some reason those 'undecidable' propositions come up time and again, whether from the zealot lot or the heathen den. After a calm spell someone decides it's time to send a flare or two just to see if the other side is still alive. Then after a reasonable amount of huffing and puffing, both camps fall asleep again. They've been entrenched for centuries and figure it's only a matter of time plus another round of argument for the world to come to its senses and side with them.

[PSmith08]

Very well put, PSmith08.

For some reason those 'undecidable' propositions come up time and again, whether from the zealot lot or the heathen den. After a calm spell someone decides it's time to send a flare or two just to see if the other side is still alive. Then after a reasonable amount of huffing and puffing, both camps fall asleep again. They've been entrenched for centuries and figure it's only a matter of time plus another round of argument for the world to come to its senses and side with them.

Well, in this case, aside from a love of debate, the undecidable proposition in question is of tremendous importance, both in terms of our "real" understanding of the universe and in our personal understanding of the world. I should think that it's obvious in a very real way to all participants that there is no concrete answer to be had on this question; religion throws faith into the mix (though some thinkers have used logic to derive the result) to close the gap, and the opposing view has several methods - none quite as satisfying as faith - to do the same. To me, that's the whole problem with the debate: at some point, both participants are going to have make a deft move with something not entirely compliant with the rules of the game, so to speak, to arrive at their respective positions. That is, to my mind, like working out a mathematical proof until logic and the like can't carry you further and closing the door with "Assume that the preceding proposition necessarily implies the desired conclusion. QED" That's risible. Any debate that necessarily includes risibility as a needed step isn't much of a debate.

[Lilas Pastia]

That's the whole point. Invoking logic and science, or faith will yield nothing but dissent. There will never be agreement on the subject and that much should be clear to any with a grain of intelligence. Logic and science by no means represent the questing layman's baggage. And religion's dictates may be quite an encumbrance to the believer's train of thought. IOW only extremists of both persuasions will find food for thought or amusement in that kind of debate.

[PSmith08]

That's the whole point. Invoking logic and science, or faith will yield nothing but dissent. There will never be agreement on the subject and that much should be clear to any with a grain of intelligence. Logic and science by no means represent the questing layman's baggage. And religion's dictates may be quite an encumbrance to the believer's train of thought. IOW only extremists of both persuasions will find food for thought or amusement in that kind of debate.

I suppose that, like I said above, looking at the debate in purely formal terms or as an exercise in debate for its own sake can change the tone. No one but the pathologically deluded could think (1) that the debate will affect any change in the hearts and minds of the opponents or (2) that the discussion will succeed where success is impossible from the outset. That having been said, while it's no topic for polite company, it's a fun discussion when approached without an attitude that tends toward that pathological delusion.

[Shrunk]

I suppose that, like I said above, looking at the debate in purely formal terms or as an exercise in debate for its own sake can change the tone. No one but the pathologically deluded could think (1) that the debate will affect any change in the hearts and minds of the opponents or (2) that the discussion will succeed where success is impossible from the outset. That having been said, while it's no topic for polite company, it's a fun discussion when approached without an attitude that tends toward that pathological delusion.

I'd agree to some extent, but for one thing.  Religion has specific, concrete consequences in terms of people's beliefs and actions in other realms.  I'll leave the hot-button issue of religiously inspired terrorism (which I'm not convinced could not also be happening for purely political reasons)  aside and concentrate on the example that prompted this thread: evolution and creationism.  There are large numbers of people who insist on compromising the education of their children, and those of others, solely in order to preserve a particularly ludicrous form of religious faith.  As well, many people have little hesitation to insist that others restrain their behaviour in order to comply with religious dictates.  I'm tallking about issues such as homosexuality, abortion, etc.  I think it is worth repeating the point that the existence of any god whatsoever, never mind that of the god of any particular religion, is something for which there is no evidence.  Therefore, while people can feel free to live their own lives according to what they believe the dictates of God to be, they have no right to expect that society as a whole should function in accordance with those dictates.

As Sam Harris has said, a politician who stands up and says he bases a position on what God wants should be given no more credibility than one who based his position on what Zeus wants.  That's why I still think this debate is an important and worthwhile one.  It's not so much about changing anyone's beliefs, as it is about influencing the way those beliefs intersect with the interests of society.

[Al Moritz]

Actually, I agree with quite a bit of what PSmith08 and Lilas Pastia say. I think agnosticism (the  undecided "I don't know", assigning *no* probability whatsoever in favor of either the God or no-God scenario^*)) should be the intellectual default position for non-believers. A position that I respect greatly. Faith adds something into the mix which allows for a decision in one direction, however, it cannot be proven by logic or science.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions, my or any theist's arguments are about credibility, not about proof, and the same is bound to hold for the atheist side. I just don't find the atheist scenarios for the origin of the world credible in any way (and I have thought through all of them more thoroughly than most atheists will ever do). And atheists have no scientific evidence for their position -- science is silent on those ultimate questions and will always be as I have repeatedly demonstrated before; I won't go over the arguments here again. Thus, atheism ultimately remains a philosophical position just like theism, not a scientific one (something that most atheists have a hard time conceding, among others, because they do not  properly know the demarcations between science and philosophy).

If atheists want to believe in their scenarios, fine, even though I don't think they can be shown to be credible. However, I cannot stay silent when atheists do not concede that theism is a rational choice, and when they claim that believers are "deluded" or suffer from self-deception.


^*) many atheists seem unwilling to concede that there is a significant difference between atheism and agnosticism, but obviously they are wrong

[Shrunk]

As I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions, my or any theist's arguments are about credibility, not about proof, and the same is bound to hold for the atheist side.

I understand and respect your position here.  However, I don't think it's accurate to say "any theist's arguments."  There are many theists who are convinced their arguments are about proof, and that their religious beliefs should supercede empirical scientific evidence.  I know that's not you, or anyone (now) on this board.  However, such people do unfortunately exist and somehow seem able to hold a disproportionate degree of influence over the policies of our society.

[DavidRoss]

I understand and respect your position here.  However, I don't think it's accurate to say "any theist's arguments."  There are many theists who are convinced their arguments are about proof, and that their religious beliefs should supercede empirical scientific evidence.  I know that's not you, or anyone (now) on this board.  However, such people do unfortunately exist and somehow seem able to hold a disproportionate degree of influence over the policies of our society.

What is the proper proportion of influence they should wield, do you think?  And how does that compare to the proportion of influence wielded by the nihilists who've dominated our cultural, social, political, and intellectual lives for the past 50 years?