In Defense of Evolution

[Shrunk]

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?

It's more the rationale behind the position, rather than the position itself, that I'm talking about.  Someone may arise at a position on, say, abortion based on their religious beliefs and decide to model their personal behaviour based on those beliefs.  However, if they seek to ban abortion for others, then religious doctrine should hold no validity in public debate.  Rational, moral arguments can be made for both sides of the debate, but following the dictates of a being who may not even exist is not one of these.

[Norbeone]

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.


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

Most atheists are agnostics anyway. And, this agnostic position that you respectly so greatly is one that theists will never possess, or be willing to.

You say science has no decent explanatory theories on the origins of the universe, but you think christianity (i.e a SPECIFIC doctrine) has the answers. That seems much more deluded to me.

[Al Moritz]

Most atheists are agnostics anyway.

By lip service perhaps, in practice, no.

And, this agnostic position that you respectly so greatly is one that theists will never possess, or be willing to.

Obviously, you haven't paid much attention to what I said in my previous post.

You say science has no decent explanatory theories on the origins of the universe, but you think christianity (i.e a SPECIFIC doctrine) has the answers. That seems much more deluded to me.

Need I say more? This is a typical confirmation of the atheist attitude.

[DavidRoss]

In short, once again:

Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational.

Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold.

Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

[PSmith08]

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.

Now, hold on a minute. Both atheism and theism go beyond empirical scientific evidence and, to a greater or lesser degree, formal logic. Neither position is a necessary consequence of any quantity of empirical evidence. Somewhere in the creamy center of both positions is what I have called a deft move to get from a body of evidence, which implies certain conclusions, though none are the desired conclusion, to the desired conclusion itself. So, then, on some level, both positions require some belief that supersedes empirical scientific evidence, as that evidence won't get them where they want to go.

[drogulus]

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."

     My position is designed to deal properly with long term undecidablities of this type. I note that such long term unfalsifiables as those involving ghosts, trolls, and dragons (they still haven't been discovered) present no problem for the logician or the empiricist. They haven't been found and are therefore seen as unlikely to exist. There's no special case to fuss over regarding religious propositions because all such propositions are handled as a matter of routine in just this way, except for the monumental emotional and institution investment in keeping these dead propositions alive. Just as we only need to argue over bad philosophical viewpoints prophylactically to keep the underbrush clear, so to speak.

     We need to remember just what we've decided so these "how do you know it doesn't exist" questions don't assume the false importance the advocates claim for them: "It can't be disproven" takes you no more distance towards establishing the existence of a god than it does the existence of anything else. The argument is a general one about assumptions without supporting evidence and is always a loser in exactly the same way. Besides, how is such a general argument proof of anything specific? How is it an argument for A without being equally an argument for B, or even not-A? The argument that you don't need evidence would license belief in anything, or even everything, as has been pointed out many times before. You can't say: "Well, this argument is good for my god, but not for your god, and not for non-gods at all!". No, this is an argument with no limiting principle, so it should be rejected without limit as well. In fact, it has been. No one argues seriously for the existence of anything in this way except apologists, just about the worst thing you can say about an argument, I think.

[Don]

In short, once again:

Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational.

Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold.

Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

The last sentence is where we part ways.  I would replace "know" with "believe".

[PSmith08]

     My position is designed to deal properly with long term undecidablities of this type. I note that such long term unfalsifiables as those involving ghosts, trolls, and dragons (they still haven't been discovered) present no problem for the logician or the empiricist. They haven't been found and are therefore seen as unlikely to exist. There's no special case to fuss over regarding religious propositions because all such propositions are handled as a matter of routine in just this way, except for the monumental emotional and institution investment in keeping these dead propositions alive. Just as we only need to argue over bad philosophical viewpoints prophylactically to keep the underbrush clear, so to speak.

Well, treating a principle of vital importance to man's understanding of the universe like a ghost, troll, or dragon certainly meets the standards of the deft move I have discussed here, which gets both believers and unbelievers from a body of inconclusive evidence to their desired conclusion. You aren't making that claim manifest, but it's there. Your position does not, to be fair, deal properly with the undecidable proposition, either. Saying something is unlikely to exist doesn't answer the question. It's an interpretation of the evidence, and interpretation, while grounded in evidence and implication, is not the same as a necessary implication. So, then, a lack of evidence used to imply the unlikelihood of existence, while technically valid, doesn't really do much at all.

[drogulus]

     Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm not omniscient, so my statement is of the normal empirical kind. When in doubt, it ain't there is the working assumption, revisable when new info shows up. Empiricists aren't absolutists with guaranteed truths (see Hume). They tend to doubt even the verifiable. A good thing, too, otherwise science wouldn't be possible. Scientific theories couldn't replace their predecessors, could they? The absolutists, whose views require the humility of other people (especially the humility of their bullshit detectors), operate differently. They are always completely right, which is easy since if you never say anything that can be disproved, you can always claim you're opponents have lost the argument. That makes me the cop on the beat, trying to keep the hustlers at bay.

Well, treating a principle of vital importance to man's understanding of the universe like a ghost, troll, or dragon certainly meets the standards of the deft move I have discussed here, which gets both believers and unbelievers from a body of inconclusive evidence to their desired conclusion. You aren't making that claim manifest, but it's there. Your position does not, to be fair, deal properly with the undecidable proposition, either. Saying something is unlikely to exist doesn't answer the question. It's an interpretation of the evidence, and interpretation, while grounded in evidence and implication, is not the same as a necessary implication. So, then, a lack of evidence used to imply the unlikelihood of existence, while technically valid, doesn't really do much at all.

    Sorry, I won't sit still for the "it's important" dodge. Such appeals to the gallery won't help you here. My argument is about the fact that importance doesn't improve a bad argument. I agree, trolls are unimportant. However, an argument that fails to establish their existence is not improved by applying it to important (culturally and emotionally at the individual level) entities. You can't cut slack for anybody, and in fact it works the other way, I would think. A god or an asteroid hurtling towards the earth, both being important, would require a tighter rather than a looser standard. Let's not hear any more about how I'm trivializing with this comparison. The comparison has substantive import, as I've shown: Arguments that are bogus for trivial matters do not improve when applied to matters we can all agree are of great importance.

[PSmith08]

Fine. I won't tell you that you're trivializing the comparison to bridge the gap between the point beyond which empirical evidence and logic fail and the point where your desired conclusion is a necessary consequence. That, however, doesn't really change anything, does it? The simple truth of the matter is that you can apply whatever standard you like, strict or permissive, and you still won't be able to decide the question. Your approach doesn't deal with such propositions by saying that the answer to an unanswerable question is "likely" this or that. Such an approach requires interpretation of a body of evidence, and interpretation, as I've said, doesn't count for much. Doubt as the default position is merely an interpretative choice, and it produces no more validity than does credulity, since both produce a "likely" answer. A "likely" answer is no answer at all, though, speaking strictly; either something has an answer, which can be shown or derived, or it doesn't have an answer. There's no middle ground here in a formal, logical sense. Indeed, any attempt to get around the undecidability of this proposition is doomed to fail in a vacuum, unsupported by neat tricks or logical leaps. Let's call a spade a spade and admit that both positions that deviate from a clear-eyed admission that there's no way to know one way or the other are guesses.

[Al Moritz]

Now, hold on a minute. Both atheism and theism go beyond empirical scientific evidence

Agreed.

So, then, on some level, both positions require some belief that supersedes empirical scientific evidence, as that evidence won't get them where they want to go.

Yes. However what Shrunk, to whom you responded, meant (I think) is that for some religious people their beliefs go beyond scientific evidence in the sense that: "if my religion says otherwise, science cannot be right". Both he and I have an issue with that.

[DavidRoss]

Now, hold on a minute. Both atheism and theism go beyond empirical scientific evidence and, to a greater or lesser degree, formal logic. Neither position is a necessary consequence of any quantity of empirical evidence. Somewhere in the creamy center of both positions is what I have called a deft move to get from a body of evidence, which implies certain conclusions, though none are the desired conclusion, to the desired conclusion itself. So, then, on some level, both positions require some belief that supersedes empirical scientific evidence, as that evidence won't get them where they want to go.

One noteworthy problem with this account, P, is that it neglects those inconvenient cases of epiphany despite unwillingness to believe.

Furthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

[PSmith08]

One noteworthy problem with this account, P, is that it neglects those inconvenient cases of epiphany despite unwillingness to believe.

There are always pathological cases for any system.

Furthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

I could be a real jerk and say that any mathematically based explanation or system of explanations is going eventually to show a knowable, rational order at its root. When you build on a rational foundation, you shouldn't be surprised when you find a rational foundation. I do, however, take your point and agree with it. For me, the big "moment" came in my distribution-requirement-fulfilling astronomy class junior year. The professor discussed, very briefly, the large-scale structure of the Universe, including some of the results from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. The fact that there are elements to form structures on the largest possible scale, with the indication that those elements are size-limited, gave me pause to think. Of course, the problem with scientific evidence, being the reportage of facts, is that anyone can interpret the data in a pleasing way.

[mahler10th]

In short, once again:

Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational.

Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold.

Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

"Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational."  
The argument of implicit omniscience presented here is an assumed and irrational one itself.  Claiming there is no God needs no grounds for presenting or implying an alternative.  If someone says there is no God, there is no reason at all for them to have any 'underlying' motive or claim.  They simply believe there is no God and do not have any construct other than their own physical and spiritual and living experience to think and state that there is no God.  It is you who, because of your own pattern of belief, think there is an implication being made. In fact, the only thing underlying their claim is what they think, and they don't really think: "Well, everything I know see and learn is omniscience (equiv. to L omni- omni- + scientia knowledge) so there must be no God."  It is quite simple.  They don't believe in deity - no underlying anything, no presumptions to be considered, not even a belief in omni-science.  Just...there is no God.  That's it.  No argument from them.  They just don't believe.  By doing so they do not also consider that they have "an underlying claim of omniscience" - you seem to be doing that for them for some reason.  Period.

"Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold."
Do not know what?  I am not sure whether this statement is a mistake in syntax or semantics.

"Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists."
This is the most 'irrational' claim of them all.  Those who know God exists?  Well, if they REALLY know God exists, which God is it from the multiple denominations of religious people who 'know' God exists?  The Muslim God?  The God of the Torah?  The Christian God?  The Hindu Gods?  Every denomination has people who 'know' God exists.  And if GOD(S) did truly and really exist, by default there would be only one World Religion because no other God would be known to exist.  But this is not and never has been the case.  There are Gods being worshipped in different forms all over the World.  To have a real and true knowledge that God or in some cases Gods exist is irrational through multiple dimensions of human conflict, spiritual and physical, which result from this 'knowledge' of Gods existence.
Well, I have not met a person yet who has said "Hello, come to my home, God has popped in for a cup of tea, you can meet together" or a World Leader who has said "Last night God came to me...and here he/she/it is...!"  The World and its ways would be completely different if the God who is 'known' was palpable to us all.  But as yet, no God or Gods have made themselves tangible unto the World, but many Gods have manifest in the minds of men.

However... ...I believe in something equally irrational.  I belive that the Universe is exactly that, the Universe, and no matter how many levels or dimensions, it is the Universe becuase that is what it is, everything that is different and everything that is the same, everwhere, at all times.  The Universe is power and motion and birth and death way beyond I will ever understand, but the creative power of birth and generation and death and regeneraton - therein is the power and existence of something I choose to call God, because I don't know what else to call it.

[Norbeone]

Furthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

And which God would that be then?

[Norbeone]

Mahler10th, I agree with basically everything you've just said, though I would always refrain from calling what you perceive to be the workings of the universe 'God.'



In reference to the title of the thread, we really are in a sad state of affairs when an article needs to be written defending evolution. It simply doesn't need any extra support on top of the amazingly vast amount of actual evidence it has.

[DavidRoss]

You are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief...and also about the difference between something--God, gravity, beauty--and concepts about the thing itself.

[Norbeone]

You are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief...and also about the difference between something--God, gravity, beauty--and concepts about the thing itself.

You can't tell me what i'm confused about, especially when it's you that's entirely confused about the difference between knowledge and belief. I've argued with you before that theists cannot 'know'. I know your views, and they're fundamentally flawed IMO.

[DavidRoss]

Sorry, Norbeone--I was responding to Mahler 10, not you.  Your posts got in-between.  I've paid no attention to them.

[Norbeone]

So you were 

Though, what I wrote still applies, I think. I don't want to speak for Mahler10 but I suspect that he may agree with what i wrote in reply to your comment.