In Defense of Evolution

[Norbeone]

Except that atheism, unlike theism and agnosticim, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

You mean (i know you don't mean) strict atheism and theism, unlike agnosticism, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

Also, like i've said before, most atheists don't claim to be omniscient, since they are usually agnostics anyway. The word atheist is used more for handiness.

Theism is an extrememly arrogant stance to take, on the other hand.

[drogulus]

Somehow you, like other atheists, still suffer from the mistaken assumption that your position is somehow "the more scientific one". Yet, how can your position be "more scientific" when it is not a scientific one in the first place? Again: it is a philosophical position, just like the theists'.

    It is a philosophical position. It's also the most conservative position to take which preserves the truth of empiricism as asymptotic modeling and grants a sort of quasi-realist status to abstractions that perform useful work. Anything whose function and definition can be fused in this way will survive. I don't, for instance, question a "center of gravity" What's that? Of course if some hardcore realist tried to convince me they were objects and not just abstractions I'd be a bit leery. So we can accept abstractions precisely on the grounds that it's only the use made of them that's really being invoked and not some puzzling existence in some other unspecifiable (but somehow worshipful) way. So until the other shoe drops and the killer affirmative argument comes along, I'll keep to my old fashioned scepticism and let the entities prove themselves.

[DavidRoss]

You mean (i know you don't mean) strict atheism and theism, unlike agnosticism, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

Also, like i've said before, most atheists don't claim to be omniscient, since they are usually agnostics anyway. The word atheist is used more for handiness.

Theism is an extrememly arrogant stance to take, on the other hand.

Again, your thinking is completely upside down.  The atheist claims that God does not exist.  To be valid, such a claim would require omniscience--knowledge of everything that exists, in and out of the universe.  The preposterousness of the claim is self-evident.  This is something quite different from a claim not to believe in God's existence, which is a reasonable position for one to take who does not know whether God exists--as is belief. Those who do not know--agnostics--may choose to believe, not to believe, or to disbelieve, whatever makes them feel most comfortable.

Most people in my experience who describe themselves as atheists fall into this class.  They are really agnostics who find it hard to believe that God exists as presented according their understanding of one or more religious traditions.  Rather than rejecting the idea of God as The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or recognizing that Quetzalcoatl is but a metaphor to describe one aspect of something the totality of which is beyond comprehension, they simply reject the notion of God altogether and close their minds tight.  On the other hand, there are a significant number of agnostics who truly don't know, but who accept not knowing and then choose to believe because it makes more sense to them than disbelief. 

Omniscience is not implicit in the theist's claim to know that God exists.  He hardly need know everything, but only that God exists.  He doesn't have to know everything (or even anything) about the various theological systems developed by different cultures, doesn't have to know what color of socks God wears or even if he wears socks.  He need only know that God exists.  Such knowledge is relatively commonplace, as are reports of epiphanic experiences, which you are free to believe, to investigate with skepticism, or to reject out of hand due to unreasoning bigotry, whichever you wish.

The fact remains, regardless of your beliefs, that both agnosticism and theism are reasonable and logically supportable positions, but atheism is not. 

[drogulus]

     

You mean (i know you don't mean) strict atheism and theism, unlike agnosticism, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

     What a wild goose chase this is! Why would omniscient persons need to make arguments for the existence of anything? And why would an empiricist claim an impossible attribute? It's ridiculous, and it drags us away from arguments back to the character of persons. Sticking to arguments, is it possible to make existence claims without perfect evidence? Yes, it is, and arguments don't even make sense otherwise. An argument goes from imperfect evidence to the adequate or otherwise grounds for accepting the premise it supports. I don't know why "logically supportable" would matter except as a bottom of the barrel standard any proposition would have to meet. Theistic propositions which involve omniscient and/or omnipotent beings don't meet even this dreadfully low standard. The claim is made that the empiricist who disdains these notions must be claiming omniscience instead of consistency about the meaning of what is said, which we should all respect.

[Ten thumbs]

As we are addressing evolution and we have seen it in action, with new species created in our time, the argument is surely not so much with God as with those diehards who cannot accept that there may be more to learn about Him. Paradoxically, by believing that the Bible or some other religious book is the final arbiter on every matter, one is really expressing the view that God is dead and has nothing further to say. I cannot accept this and believe new revelations are constantly being made through our pursuit of science.

[mahler10th]

How would the following statement fit into that scheme of arguments and counter arguments?
.

Another translation reads:
Things hoped for may be real or imaginary or simply conceptual ("eternal bliss"). Then things not seen ... How can they appear as evidence or produce certainty in the believer?

Are we not in the realm of the unprovable and undisprovable?

Faith is when you visit the Doctor with an ailment and he prescribes a remedy - you leave with a prescription and no question in your mind that the Doctor has prescribed something that will make you better.  You then take your medication in FAITH.

[mahler10th]

Happy 1000 posts David.
Keep the faith.

[Lilas Pastia]

Thanks, Mahler 10th!

It was my naive belief that the concept of faith had something to do in a discussion about evolution vs ID, theism and all other isms, so I'm glad to see there is indeed a theory (of sorts) for that concept. But you're right: if I go to the doctor I want to believe he can and will cure me!

From which I derive a theory: is there a predetermined state of mind that predisposes one to believe ? Does a happy, untroubled mind have any need to believe? Are believers only abnormal, sick, troubled souls? Are unbelievers (atheists) the only normal, untroubled, healthy and sane minds around? Then obviously only an atheist can lead the US ? Err... for some reason this last bit doesn't seem to fly...

[Shrunk]

As we are addressing evolution and we have seen it in action, with new species created in our time, the argument is surely not so much with God as with those diehards who cannot accept that there may be more to learn about Him. Paradoxically, by believing that the Bible or some other religious book is the final arbiter on every matter, one is really expressing the view that God is dead and has nothing further to say. I cannot accept this and believe new revelations are constantly being made through our pursuit of science.

Excellent point. It's always seemed to me that creationism was as indefensible on theological grounds as it is on scientific ones.

[Joe_Campbell]

From which I derive a theory: is there a predetermined state of mind that predisposes one to believe ? Does a happy, untroubled mind have any need to believe? Are believers only abnormal, sick, troubled souls? Are unbelievers (atheists) the only normal, untroubled, healthy and sane minds around? Then obviously only an atheist can lead the US ? Err... for some reason this last bit doesn't seem to fly...

If you are an atheist, and you believe in the theory you propose, then you can't have the mind that qualifies you for atheism.

[Lilas Pastia]

I'm not an atheist. But I don't have set answers on most subjects. I'm not a doubter, but I feel that questions need to be asked. Everybody has to make their own mind about what's important to them. And keep it at that (IOW no proselytising, one way or another).

[M forever]

Lilas: a lot of people never get the chance to make up their own minds because they grow up in environments which seek to indoctrinate them. Like Mr Campbell, who is awfully young to have found all the answers to the cosmic questions but who has never had the chance to arrive at his own conclusions because he has been thoroughly indoctrinated at an early age. So the intelligence he no doubt displays goes to waste for making smartipants remarks like

If you are an atheist, and you believe in the theory you propose, then you can't have the mind that qualifies you for atheism.

because it is not free to actually reflect the raised questions. Or even really raise them.

[Norbeone]

Again, your thinking is completely upside down.  The atheist claims that God does not exist.  To be valid, such a claim would require omniscience--knowledge of everything that exists, in and out of the universe.  The preposterousness of the claim is self-evident.  This is something quite different from a claim not to believe in God's existence, which is a reasonable position for one to take who does not know whether God exists--as is belief. Those who do not know--agnostics--may choose to believe, not to believe, or to disbelieve, whatever makes them feel most comfortable.

Most people in my experience who describe themselves as atheists fall into this class.  They are really agnostics who find it hard to believe that God exists as presented according their understanding of one or more religious traditions.  Rather than rejecting the idea of God as The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or recognizing that Quetzalcoatl is but a metaphor to describe one aspect of something the totality of which is beyond comprehension, they simply reject the notion of God altogether and close their minds tight.  On the other hand, there are a significant number of agnostics who truly don't know, but who accept not knowing and then choose to believe because it makes more sense to them than disbelief. 

Omniscience is not implicit in the theist's claim to know that God exists.  He hardly need know everything, but only that God exists.  He doesn't have to know everything (or even anything) about the various theological systems developed by different cultures, doesn't have to know what color of socks God wears or even if he wears socks.  He need only know that God exists.  Such knowledge is relatively commonplace, as are reports of epiphanic experiences, which you are free to believe, to investigate with skepticism, or to reject out of hand due to unreasoning bigotry, whichever you wish.

The fact remains, regardless of your beliefs, that both agnosticism and theism are reasonable and logically supportable positions, but atheism is not. 

Your first two paragraphs show that you misunderstand what I said in my post.

The last one shows once again your insistent advocation of the ridiculous notion that anyone can KNOW that God exists. How can anyone know, when there has been no good, testable evidence? Apparent 'epiphanic experiences' certainly aren't good evidence. Even if someone really did have such an experience (a real one, not a deluded one), it still cannot be used as good evidence, or evidence at all, since it cannot be subjected to any testable experiment or empirical analysis.

So once again (and I know [sorry....believe] this will annoy you), I say that anyone who claims actual knowledge (and not just humble belief) of God's existence is, in doing so, also claiming omniscience. No matter how much apparent experience someone has with their 'God', they can still merely believe in it, and not know it, the way I know i'm alive, or that evolution is a good explanation for life as we 'know' it.

0:)

[DavidRoss]

Norby--

Apparently I understood the post you refer to better than you, for I took the time to correct your fundamental error in logic.  Yet you've chosen to repeat the error directly above.  Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of omniscience?  Obviously you want to think your prejudices are rational.  They are not--and claiming otherwise does not make it so.  There's nothing extraordinary, however, in your effort to rationalize your beliefs—that is, after all, what most people do.  Few have what it takes to critically examine their own most basic assumptions.

BTW, I enjoyed your self-correction above, changing "know" to "believe."  That shows you're on the right track.  You're wrong again, however, about the particulars.    I'm not annoyed but rather sympathetic and sad yet bemused.  You simply don't know what you don't know.  And when you're hostage to the god of your own intellect, it's very hard to understand that intellectualism condemns you to learning slowly, if at all.

[Shrunk]

Here is a goup of people who also know that God exists and, in fact, have met him directly:



http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-388901/Is-Prince-Philip-god.html

The people of the Yaohnanen tribe on the Pacific island of Tanna worship HRH Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, as a god.  They seem as certain of this as any Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc. theist is of his belief. The people of Yaohnanen, however, seem to have an advantage in that there is little debate over whether their object of worship exists.

Is the Yoahnanens' belief rational?  If not, why is it less so than that of any other theist?

[Al Moritz]

Excellent point. It's always seemed to me that creationism was as indefensible on theological grounds as it is on scientific ones.

Yes, Ten thumbs made an excellent point indeed, and I agree with what you say as well.

[Al Moritz]

Knowing God? Depends on what you mean by "knowing". I prefer to be conservative and simply say that I believe in God.

[Shrunk]

Knowing God? Depends on what you mean by "knowing". I prefer to be conservative and simply say that I believe in God.

I agree, that seems more sensible.  I was responding more to DavidRoss, who said:

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

EDIT: I should probably add that I draw a distinction between the belief in the existence of a god as a concept (I believe, Al, you've referred to this as "the god of philosophy") and the belief in a specific religious doctrine regarding the nature of that god.

[orbital]

Is the Yoahnanens' belief rational?  If not, why is it less so than that of any other theist?

Perhaps because we really are omniscient in that particular matter  0:)

[karlhenning]

Knowing God? Depends on what you mean by "knowing". I prefer to be conservative and simply say that I believe in God.

I agree, that seems more sensible.  I was responding more to DavidRoss, who said:

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

Well, but your response appears actually to misuse what Dave said.  I don't find it at all difficult to harmonize Al's remark (preferring to speak of belief in God, rather than knowing God — for it is plain to me that both Al and Dave understand that one's knowledge of God has its limitations and imperfections) with Dave's remark that some of us know that God exists.

It seems that you're trying to construct a strawman by ignoring the distinction between knowledge of God, and knowledge that He exists.