In Defense of Evolution

[karlhenning]

ALMOST HALF OF AMERICANS, ACCORDING TO RECENT GALLUP POLLS, SAY THAT EVOLUTION AND RELIGION CANNOT COEXIST.

I am aghast.

[karlhenning]

Materialism is a philosophical position, affirming that nothing exists beyond "matter," that which we can experience with our senses. I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs.

But, many people are ignorant of science and just assume it is contrary to their religion. Of course, the proponents of intelligent design and creationism are also spreading a lot of propaganda. The only way to deal with the problem is education and specifically science education, which is unfortunately lacking, by and large, and not only in this country.

The Voice of Reason! Hallelujah!

[mahler10th]

Incorrect. Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that *). Thus, atheism is based on faith.

*) the working of the world according to laws of nature is an entirely different matter; this would also be expected from as theistic perspective -- in fact, this was the perspective of the scientists who started the scientific revolution and who all were theists.

There is not a atheist in the World who would stand up and say "I am an atheist because I have certain assumptions."  Why don't people get it?  The only thing athesits 'know' for themselves is that God does not exist.  It is really that simple.
No assumptions, beliefs or other, need be heaped upon an atheist because he does not believe in God.  These things get heaped upon the faithless by the faithful because they do not understand the simplicity of "God does not exist."
Why bombard them with what you think is their 'assumptions' etc?  They say deity does not exist.  Period.  They don't have to back that up with posits and theories because they have no concept or mindest
of the God they're supposed to think doesn't exist.
"You must assume this because you think that - and that is wrong."  This is nonsense.  Atheists don't believe anyhing about God - they spend their time trying to figure out what the hell thy're supposed to be arguing against because for them it doesn't exist anyway.
Why do the faithful want to complicate this by saying atheists must assume or believe something else because they don't believe in deity?

It is so simple, complicated only by the idea from the 'faithful' that:  "You must think this because you think that - and that is wrong." 

I am now away to say a prayer.   0:)

[mahler10th]

As for evolution, here is a neat little software that is good for passing time, above everything else 
www.swimbots.com

This is a superb little piece of software.  I love it!

[Al Moritz]

Why do the faithful want to complicate this by saying atheists must assume or believe something else because they don't believe in deity?

No complication, just simple logic.

As I said: "Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that. Thus, atheism is based on faith."

[mahler10th]

No complication, just simple logic.

As I said: "Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that. Thus, atheism is based on faith."

Logic which arises out of ones own assumptions, perfectly valid.

[mahler10th]

My swimbots current status.   

[Ten thumbs]

Science is based on skepticism, the notion is that you don't believe something unless there is evidence for it.  The notion is not that you believe something unless you can prove it is wrong.  There is no empirical for the existence of "god"  so the scientific attitude would be to assume it does not exist, pending further evidence.  That is closer to the attitude of what is commonly called an agnostic, rather than an atheist.  On the other hand,

As I pointed out earlier, science has fallen away from these ideals in some areas. Although I am not an atheist that standpoint seems to me to be perfectly valid. In mathematics there are theorems that are believed to be true but not only are they unprovable but we have proved them to be unprovable. In real life proof is not quite as clear-cut.

[drogulus]

Quote from: Francisco Ayala

Materialism is a philosophical position, affirming that nothing exists beyond "matter," that which we can experience with our senses. I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs.

But, many people are ignorant of science and just assume it is contrary to their religion. Of course, the proponents of intelligent design and creationism are also spreading a lot of propaganda. The only way to deal with the problem is education and specifically science education, which is unfortunately lacking, by and large, and not only in this country.

The Voice of Reason! Hallelujah!

     Ayala doesn't explain materialism here correctly, at least the kind I define operationally as anything that's found. When scientists find something new they don't cease to become materialists, they make room for the new phenomenon in their framework, altering it to accommodate what they've found. Open-architecture processes are not exposed to the kind of dichotomizing that Ayala attempts here, and I've pointed out that the anti-empirical prejudice which splits the world preemptively produces this blind spot.

     So materialists aren't "affirming that nothing exists beyond "matter,". They behave, properly in my view, as though "nothing" was itself a far-fetched philosophical posit which they don't need to be concerned about. From the point of view of the open minded investigator, materialism contains the only options that matter, the ones that can in principle be detected. They see, even if they don't say it like this, that nothing isn't a different kind of something, and giving it a name doesn't change that.

     Ayala says that science:

...is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses

     That's right. It does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we can experience. It doesn't imply that anything can exist that can't in principle be found. It's the dualist, not the materialist, that's making assumptions here, taking them for granted, and then puzzling over why materialists don't share their prejudices. That's a blind spot.

     If science could correctly be described as "philosophically materialist", it would be in the non-dichotomizing sense I describe, neither affirming nor denying philosophical posits the "truth" of which will never be put to the test. Is there something out there we'll never find? Put that way, the answer is yes, because we never find it, and no, because how much less "there" can it be? 

[orbital]

My swimbots current status.   

It is fun to subsidize two varieties in different areas of the space, increase the food supply somewhere in the middle of the field and then see which one is more fit to survive  0:)

[orbital]

Of course it is possible.  Religions and dogmas are created by humans.  The existence of God is independent of what humans are up to.

That God would be an irrelevant one. As long as it/he/she does not have human characteristics we would not have to worry about whether it existed or not, no?

[drogulus]

The existence of God is independent of what humans are up to.

    The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to. Until this changes, scientists and sensible people generally are entitled to consider such questions as non-questions. You have to give words stable meanings in order to decide if something exists. If you don't, then you won't even start looking. So statements like "whatever you think God is, He's not", in addition to being half-clever nonsense, are in fact a position chosen to obfuscate the vacuity hiding behind it. The puzzlement such statements produce is now portrayed as a lack of understanding. There's nothing to understand.

[Don]

That God would be an irrelevant one. As long as it/he/she does not have human characteristics we would not have to worry about whether it existed or not, no?

Why worry about God's existence?  It won't do you any good.

I don't really know where you're going with your above statement.  Why would a God without human traits be irrelevant?

[Don]

The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to.

That only applies if humans created God.

[mahler10th]

Quote from: drogulus on 27 August 2008, 22:58:47
The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to.

Well, as we know:
Theists who believe in God believe what you say here.
Deists who believe in God do not - they see God as the creator of all things, but that is all.  God for the Deist has no involvement in the care or affairs of humans.
Pantheists believe God is omniscient in everything and through everything (more naturalist) - they in particular do not believe God will intervene or even be interested in human affairs, or in punishing the wrong-doers, etc. 
Only one of these 'religious models' follow your statement drogulus.

[orbital]

Why worry about God's existence?  It won't do you any good.

I don't really know where you're going with your above statement.  Why would a God without human traits be irrelevant?

Don, I don't worry about God at all. Whether it exists or not, it flies right over my head for some reason 
But, I find it interesting to talk about people's beliefs. When mahler10th mentioned his version of God which was outside of religions' shaping, I was curious about how a God that has nothing to do with religion/dogmas could make a person 'believe' in it.

All versions of mainstream Gods have had human characteristics, that's how people are able to identify with them. If a God has no human characteristics at all, which means it is not about love, compassion, vengeance, punishment, rewards, etc.. his existence would be completely outside of us and would carry no relation to us whatsoever. The only reason to believe in it would be to feel good about oneself, which is not a small thing but then it would not be that much different from, say, yoga.

[scarpia]

The question is whether god is interested in people.  Does god care if you go into a building with stained glass windows and say a little poem every seven rotations of the earth?  Does god care if you have sex without going into a similar building and reciting another little poem?  Does god care if you touch yourself in the wrong place?  That is where the bronze age superstitions we call religions become absurd.  Of course the universe seems to be ordered and can be described by simple mathematical formulae.  If you define that as "god" then I have no argument.  If god says that if you follow a little book of rules you will live forever in some vaguely defined paradise, well they would put you in a mental hospital for that belief system, unless you say your god is called "Jesus."

[Don]

All versions of mainstream Gods have had human characteristics, that's how people are able to identify with them.

It's not surprising that humans give God human traits; whether God actually possesses those traits is up for grabs.  We humans like to think that we are the center of the universe (not surprising either).

[karlhenning]

The question is whether god is interested in people.  Does god care if you go into a building with stained glass windows and say a little poem every seven rotations of the earth?  Does god care if you have sex without going into a similar building and reciting another little poem?  Does god care if you touch yourself in the wrong place?  That is where the bronze age superstitions we call religions become absurd.  Of course the universe seems to be ordered and can be described by simple mathematical formulae.  If you define that as "god" then I have no argument.  If god says that if you follow a little book of rules you will live forever in some vaguely defined paradise, well they would put you in a mental hospital for that belief system, unless you say your god is called "Jesus."

The question is, who is interested in your puny caricature of religion?

[scarpia]

The question is, who is interested in your puny caricature of religion?

You are, evidently.