In Defense of Evolution

[mahler10th]

Please explain, Karl, the distinction between knowledge of God, and knowledge that He exists.  What is this distinction?  And what is it that makes you think God is a 'HE' - the Bible?
0:)

[Al Moritz]

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.

Important distinction, yes.

I would add that all the attributes of the God of philosophy are contained in the concepts of God of the three great monotheistic religions, but obviously, not the other way around.

[Shrunk]

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

I guess I don't understand the distinction.  Could you explain?

[karlhenning]

I guess I don't understand the distinction.  Could you explain?

You're serious?

And you're how old?

It's related to the distinction between knowing milk, and knowing that milk exists.

[Al Moritz]

And you're how old?

Hey, no need to unnecessarily insult one of the most reasonable atheists here.

[karlhenning]

Sorry.

And what is it that makes you think God is a 'HE' - the Bible?
0:)

What is it that makes you think that referring to God as He carries the same sexual information that referring to a man as he does?

[Shrunk]

You're serious?

And you're how old?

It's related to the distinction between knowing milk, and knowing that milk exists.

OK, so lets say I was abandoned at birth on an island that was inhabited only by a race of intelligent reptiles, who raise me as one of their own.  I have never encountered the legendary substance "milk", but I have heard tales describing what it is believed to look, feel and taste like.  I form an image in my mind of what it might be.  One day, a bottle washes ashore containing a white fluid.  I drink it, and it is exactly what I imagined milk would taste like.  I am now convinced that I not only know that milk exists, but that I "know" milk.  Problem is, the bottle was actually filled with sweetened water and white dye.  I have still never actually encountered milk, yet I am convinced that I have.  How would I ever know I was wrong?

Am I still not getting it? 

[karlhenning]

OK, so lets say I was abandoned at birth on an island that was inhabited only by a race of intelligent reptiles, who raise me as one of their own.  I have never encountered the legendary substance "milk", but I have heard tales describing what it is believed to look, feel and taste like.  I form an image in my mind of what it might be.  One day, a bottle washes ashore containing a white fluid.  I drink it, and it is exactly what I imagined milk would taste like.  I am now convinced that I not only know that milk exists, but that I "know" milk.  Problem is, the bottle was actually filled with sweetened water and white dye.  I have still never actually encountered milk, yet I am convinced that I have.  How would I ever know I was wrong?

Am I still not getting it? 

First: I'll say again that I'm sorry, but will add that perhaps if you were a little less derisive towards DavidRoss in this discussion, you might have inspired less scorn upon yourself.

Second:  I admit to finding the distinction between a thing (or a person) and knowledge of that thing (or person) so glaringly obvious, that that apparent gap in your knowledge, and your readiness to put DavidRoss down, suggested to me a degree of immaturity.

Third:  No, it appears that you still aren't getting it.  How about the difference between knowing Philip Glass, and knowing that he exists?  Don't get hung up on how you can make that a matter different to knowledge either of God or of His existence;  I may possibly be aware of those differences, too.  Reflect on the difference which I am here pointing out.

[Don]

Sorry.

What is it that makes you think that referring to God as He carries the same sexual information that referring to a man as he does?

My concern is that referring to God as He give additional ammunition to males to feel that they should be at the top of the chain while females receive the signal that they are on a lower rung.

[mahler10th]

There is no point in holding debate with Theists.  I do not know Philip Glass, nor do I have an intimate and full knowledge of milk.  It exists and I know it because it is palpable and I can see it and drink it.  Unfortuantely, no matter what, I have not met God in person, he has not manifest himself unto me in a way that I recognise as something I can 'know' or even believe in.  I have not heard him, seen him, saw a photograph, shook his hand - there is nothing but a cobbled up series of grossly edited books called the Bible to 'introduce me' to 'him'... (referring here mostly to the NT).  Instead of banging the drums of one known God out of so many thousands of 'known' Gods across the World, perhaps a better posit than mine against such nonsense will help.

NB:  I use the gender 'him' as that is how God is percieved by Christians, Jews, Musilims, et al.,

[DavidRoss]

First: I'll say again that I'm sorry, but will add that perhaps if you were a little less derisive towards DavidRoss in this discussion, you might have inspired less scorn upon yourself.

Thanks for the defense, Karl, but I don't take any of the derision personally, but recognize it for what it is.  Many contributors here--at least, if the interest implied by their participation is sincere--might better be able to grasp some of the issues and their implications were they to complete at least an introductory course in epistemology. 

[DavidRoss]

...milk...exists and I know it because it is palpable and I can see it and drink it.  Unfortuantely, no matter what, I have not met God in person, he has not manifest himself unto me in a way that I recognise as something I can 'know' or even believe in.  I have not heard him, seen him, saw a photograph, shook his hand -

Thus you can reasonably and honestly say that you do not know whether God exists, and have not yet examined evidence compelling your belief in God's existence.  To go beyond that and say that therefore God does not exist, or that no one can know God or whether God exists, is to move beyond reason and into the realm of logically insupportable speculation every bit as irrational as some of the peculiar religious pronouncements about God's nature that distress you so much.

And note, before I take my leave here, that this thread started as a discussion about evolution, and that there is no incompatibility whatsoever between evolution and most rational concepts of God that I'm acquainted with.

Cheers, all!

[Joe_Campbell]

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).

I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Btw, sorry if I unintentionally pigeon-holed you; perhaps you can understand my reaction to your idea?

[Don]

I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Agreed, and it is equally unfair to suggest that all atheists are thinking irrationally and in a close-minded fashion.

As I've stated before, the important thing here is for individuals to feel free to possess and practice their particular beliefs without being belittled by those of different beliefs.  In this respect, a few of the posters here are behaving badly.

[scarpia]

However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Even if it is true?

It has certainly been demonstrated from an anthropological point of view that man has an instinctive need to believe in god.  Every aboriginal culture on every isolated Pacific atoll believes in a god that made the world.  Now you must convince yourself that the religion your mommy taught you is the one true religion, and the other million distinct religions believed by the other 4 billion people in the world are delusions.   How much intelligence does it take to realize that the religion your mommy taught you is no different than the others.  If you are a Christian, you have to figure out why god decided that most of the human beings he created have never even heard that Jesus lived, and are therefore denied the possibility of salvation.  If you god exists, he is either evil or incompetent.

[karlhenning]

My concern is that referring to God as He give additional ammunition to males to feel that they should be at the top of the chain while females receive the signal that they are on a lower rung.

A valid concern.  Without disregarding the fact that there've been patches of Christendom which imperfectly grasped the idea that the Supreme Being is 'asexual', I think that history speaks for Christianity having been (again) a force for the fostering of intellect, the cradle of an unprecendentedly widespread environment of intellectual inquiry, and the source for centuries of the betterment of woman's condition.  This has not been the case in cultures where (what seems to be more "woman-friendly") there are female gods as well as male;  today's Washington Post on-line has the timely headline: In India, Opportunities for Women Draw Anger

A powerful male backlash has accompanied women's revolution, an upwelling of resentment that has expressed itself in sexual violence and harassment.

To be sure, the 'women's revolution' has not always been a peaceable affair in the West (in significant part, it has);  but one might justifiably question whether there would be anything like a women's revolution in India today, were it not for the West.  And again, the West would not be the West as we know it, without Christianity.

Even if it is true?

Oh, that really is funny, especially on the heels of Don's remark:

As I've stated before, the important thing here is for individuals to feel free to possess and practice their particular beliefs without being belittled by those of different beliefs.  In this respect, a few of the posters here are behaving badly.

But the scarpster is nothing, if not a belittler of those of different beliefs.

[Don]

But the scarpster is nothing, if not a belittler of those of different beliefs.

But he's just one of the members doing it, and it's coming from both sides of the aisle as it always does regarding religious discussions on the board.

Then again, insults appear to inform just about every thread on the board.  Humans are wonderful creatures.

[karlhenning]

A most even-handed appeal, Don.

[Ten thumbs]

It is certainly true that I cannot know that God exists. I believe in Him as a matter of faith. It seems likely that we cannot know whether or not strings exist although many scientists believe in them as a matter of faith even though their is not a shred of evidence for their existence.

[scarpia]

But the scarpster is nothing, if not a belittler of those of different beliefs.

I have no desire to belittle anyone's beliefs.  In fact, if someone tells me that they believe in the Easter Bunny, I will give their beliefs just as much respect as I would yours.