We've got another troll in the comments — she wouldn't necessarily be a troll, except for the dead giveaway of asking the same question a dozen times and running away from any answer any of the non-troll commenters might give. The question is, "Does evolution imply atheism?", and I'm going to have to disagree with most of the people who have already answered it by giving a conditional yes.
First, let's clear up the incoherence of the question. I understand it as, "Does understanding science [it's not just biologists who exhibit this phenomenon!] lead to an abandonment of religious beliefs?", and that's the question to which I think an affirmative is the correct answer. It ought to; scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief. However, it is a messier answer than just a "yes" or "no" can properly address, because most people don't accept a religion for rational reasons, because people are obdurate animals who don't easily change preconceptions, and because people have different religious backgrounds that can shape their response to science. Here's why I think that a general yes is the best answer, though.
First, there is the easy case of individuals coming from a fundamentalist background that hysterically asserts a whole barrage of counterfactual claims: that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that there is an afterlife in which you will be afflicted with hellfire if you don't obey their particular and peculiar dogma, that there is a god who cares about your penis and who will take requests for miraculous intervention, etc. Science smashes that kind of faith. I know many people who have left such religions specifically because a little dose of scientific knowledge exposes the fact that their preachers have been lying to them for years. There is a good reason that St Augustine cautioned against the common, standard practice of the biblical literalists:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Augustine isn't concerned about the validity of science, of course — he's concerned that saying materially and obviously false things about the natural world will lead to souls being lost to Christianity. And he's right. All it takes is knocking out a few of the props holding up religious belief, and the whole house of cards can come tumbling down, with much attendant trauma. The people I know who have experienced the most anguish about evolution and leaving the church come from this kind of background, where the threats to apostates are the most dire and the claims about the world most absurd.
But what of more moderate religious belief? Is that also eroded by science? That's been my personal experience. I did not come out of a fundamentalist background at all — to the contrary, the church of my youth was relatively liberal about science, and never said a negative word about evolution (or any word, for that matter). Yet at the same time, they made a whole series of strange claims that they insisted were the very foundation of their special religious belief: the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, salvation, original sin, etc. Thinking scientifically means that you question assumptions and that you ask epistemological questions and you try to rationally justify the acceptance of ideas, and that's the antithesis of religious thinking. If you apply scientific reasoning to even that moderate version of religion, it crumbles — there is simply no evidence for any of their claims.
Of course, some people avoid that problem by simply never thinking scientifically about their beliefs. That's an easy out, because most beliefs aren't the product of rational thought, anyway…but it's a cheat, and it doesn't negate the idea that science is in conflict with religion.
Does science lead inevitably to atheism? No, because individuals can choose to not think scientifically, but also because what it really does is simply destroy the underpinnings of organized religion — the body of dogma that represents assailable claims of fact. That still leaves a few alternatives, with some refuge left untouched in agnosticism and a kind of mushy deism. Of course, to most people who object to godlessness anyway, those are functionally equivalent to atheism.
- Log in to post comments
Sorry if I am just repeating or getting to far off base (I don't always read all the comments to every post!) but IMO reality implies atheism. Atheism is the default position. That theism is learned.
Geez, why is this so complicated for people? When "creation" was inexplicable, people were obligate creationists, or at least that's how most folks viewed it. Evolution kicked the last big prop out from under the usefulness of God as an explanation. He was remaindered. Not necessary. Belief is now something apart from explanatory. It's a security blanket. Occam suggests that God should just go away (because he was never really there). Linus Van Pelt might, of course, disagree. But he has his blanket.
To each their own, I suppose.
Well, I'd repeat that science gives no support for God, but something like cosmological ID is separate from evolution itself. Which means that if it supported ID, evolution's lack of support of the "designer" wouldn't matter to the god question.
But cosmological ID, biological ID, and real science fail to support religion. And intellectually, religion needs meaningful support. Thus science undercuts religion, by offering no support through any of the possible lines of evidence, from miracles to "God's signature" on the microwave background.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
It ought to; scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief.
Not so. Many in the religious community subscribe to an evolutionary take. Evolution, as a science, does not provide an answer to the question "does God exist?"
"Does evolution imply atheism?", [answer] conditional yes."
Agreed, as the most visible and vocal proponents of the negative answer, "No" to the question "does God exist?" are evolutionists.
If I were a believer in a supernatural deity I'd take the position that the nights and days referred to in the Genesis creation myth were meant to represent the five major extinction periods and the evolutionary explosion between each disaster.
Cain and Abel would represent humans and neanderthals.
Odd. My 13 year old son asked me - basically - this very same question last night. My answer was "No". I did however give the qualification that Creationism isn't at all required, it just makes some folks happier.
JC
I can only find myself thinking of the 'agnostics' I've found myself arguing against as of late; I use quotes because I am under the impression that they are anti-atheist theists who try to protect their magical thinking with a supposedly neutral position.
It is rather tiring though; people claim over and over that you can't DISPROVE their superstition and therefore it must be real/potentially possible. (Right now I'm just waiting for the current argument to turn toward 'the divine as the source of morality' -- that's the place where I find myself most angry and most willing to argue with passion)
Rounding back to the post -- Does scientific thinking imply atheism... no, I don't think so. It's the lack of evidence of theistic and superstitious claims that scientific thinking demands that implies atheism.
Salt... did you even read the rest of the entry or did you just rush to make this statement before getting through another word? The quote you used to derive this response wasn't even about evolution, per se. Yes, some in the religious community may subscribe to an evolutionary take, but only insofar as they can assign the magic sky fairy to its attributes. This is not scientific thinking, it's cognitive dissonance...
There simply is no logical way to go from a field of scientific study/research ( like biology ) and conclude 'atheism'. I feel that the implication that there is a connection is a crucial element of any intelligent design/creationist argument, practically required to first make that implication before attempting to justify their position.
I disagree with the comment above that theism is learned. We're not philosophically neutral beings at birth. A lot about religion is deeply connected to our social dynamics and is instinctive. Whether or not supernatura is all hooey, it doesn't mean that atheism is a "natural" position for human being and that religion is learned any more than we learn how to breed.
In fact I take it a step further than most and argue that religion is more appropriately defined as a social organizing principle related to group identity- and is thus shared by all people (including atheists). The supernatural elements are extraneous by-products of the thought processes we use, and are ultimately secondary to this dynamic.
Though I do admit that my definition is based on a few unconfirmed hypotheticals, but I genuinely would like to see those hypotheticals tested. Then there is the inevitable question of whether it's just a matter of semantics.
However, I'm not alone in this. Many anthropologists argue that religion is universal among all groups of people.
I guess Asa Gray didn't help this question much. But I'd say Yes/Always.
@#8
Agnosticism is often thought of as a neutral or middle ground between theism and atheism, but does it really excludes either position? I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist, but even before I let go of theism, I thought of myself as an agnostic. For me, which of the two I "am" depends a bit on how the questions is phrased. If you as me if God/gods exists, the most intellectually honest answer I can provide is "I don't know." If you ask me if I *believe* God/gods exist, my answer would be no.
Evolution doesn't imply atheism, though if you act Victor Stenger, he would certainly say that metaphysics implies atheism (and I find that his take on Hawking's theories is, at the very least, interesting, if not revolutionary).
It does, however, establish a worldview independent of god, and that's what important.
As P.Z. pointed out, people can (and do) suspend critical thinking in order to believe in god, but critical thinking does lead, in large degree, to atheism, as it requires people to search for evidence, and they quickly realize that there is none.
Evolution is atheistic in the same sense that gravity is; no religion is required. It only "attacks religion" to the extent that false proof, rather than faith, is the basis for those religious beliefs. The incredible success and power of science was, historically, expected to support religion (faith told that the beliefs were true--if science was a powerful way to explore reality, how could it help but verify those beliefs?), so interpretations of science and of religion which allowed the two to coexist were selected for. To the extent that religion came to depend on these misunderstandings of empirical evidence, a clearer understanding does come to undercut that aspect of religion.
Both religion and science grew out of our attempts to make sense of our environment; science has done so more successfully in less time. It is not that science attacks religion, but rather that it more capably serves that particular function, and that without the ability to make sense of the world, there is precious little reason for religion to exist. It cannot compete in the "bigger, stronger" categories, so resorts to the "sneakier, more devious" reproductive strategy. Sadly, as we know from comparative biology, that strategy can also be successful.
To me, the question seemed to be more about whether or not evolution, itself, is related to atheism. My answer to that would be no. They're completely different and separate things.
@#9. Absolutely. Cognitive dissonance. Amazing how otherwise intelligent people suffer from (or submit to) it. Like my parents. Not having visited Pharyngula since Saturday, I did not know of this post, but got into a long discussion with my parent about the exact same topic. They (both Hindus, by religion) feel - though they don't say it out loud - that my training in science has made me an atheist. They can't argue against my points, but they effectively stonewall me by saying, "Well... we don't know as much as you do now... That's why we have tried to give you a good education so that you can think for yourself... but we are too old..." AAAAAAAAARGHH! It frustrates me so much!
They seem to dissociate the so-called 'religion' from 'spirituality', and say that, to them, 'True Religion' ("the way it should be", whatever that means) essentially means discharging your duties well, honoring your responsibilities, and living with kindness and justice towards fellow beings. I despair of telling them that these are essential human qualities, and religion only serves to corrupt them, to wedge a divide between people, but I can't shake their belief in the 'True Religion'... I guess they are old, after all.
The way i see it, science has nothing to say on the existence or nonexistence of god. It's simply not in its scope.
From a theist's POV, all that's happening now is that science is discovering HOW god created the world.
What i dont understand is why this is such a problem for so many theists.
I disagree. God is either observable or it isn't. If it is, then science can answer the questions as to its nature, including its existence. If it isn't, then no one, including those who claim they do, can know anything about it.
Guy Harrison, author of 50 Reasons Why People Give for Believing in God, traveled the world interviewing people on the street about why they are theists. He found that among all the various world religions people believe their deity or deities exist for the same reasons. The three most commonly cited reasons irrespective of one's religion are respectively: My parents reared me that way; the orderliness of the universe makes it obviously true; and believing in Allah/Jesus/etc. (my deity or deities) makes me happy.
I am currently co-authoring a book on religious belief concentrating on the third reason cited above. My coauthor and I are drawing on cognitive psychology, rational choice theory (Weberian, and others), history and archeology, biology, philosophy, sociology, etc. Religious practice is very important in many people's lives. Religious institutions often provide social benefits. There is a high correlation, worldwide, between degree of "religious belief" (which is really religious practice) and a lack of social benefits provided by secular institutions such as the State. In the end, social well-being (quality education, healthcare, positive socio-economic status) derived from non-religious sources is highly positively correlated with lower rates of religious practice.
Notice I am emphasing "practice". Italians, for example, highly self-identify as Catholic but have some of the lowest rates of religious practice. This can be explained by the fact that being Catholic is part of a cultural identity but religious practice is not contributing (positively at least) to their daily lives.
My research is finding that if one's goal is to reduce religious practice (and subsequently religious incursions into politics and science) then we ought to be promoting social well-being from secular sources.
@ The Chemist
While this might be a difficult position to prove, I won't argue the validity of your point. More to the point, however, is that theism in its modern, practiced forms, with its contradictions to scientific methodology, IS learned... or more appropriately stated: indoctrinated.
Until we all agree on the definition of "atheism", the question can't be answered and to agree on that, we have to be clear about what it is that atheists reject. If the God I am supposed to be rejecting is any of the Gods in the Bible or Koran (jealous and sadisitic or merciful and loving), then I am an unbeliever, since either of these is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent as well. Logical contradictions abound. No dice.
Any God that answers prayer as in Matthew "when 2 or three are gathered...whatever they ask will be done..." does not exist.Every three seconds or so this God's existence is repudiated empirically. During winter here in the Great White North, appeals for "snow days" reduce the interval between divine petitions to picoseconds. Sorry Matt, you were wrong.
But an undetetcable, unconscious, impotent God? There, I'm agnostic.
I was one of the active particpants in yesterdays kerfluffle with the troll. I gave the troll sufficient evidence to conclude that science is an atheistic endeavor. But the troll wanted me to state that, and I didn't take the bait, even though I would have said yes.
Actually, all science implies atheism. There is no need for god anywhere in science. Does science lead to atheism? Depends on the person. In my case, it was part of mix leading to disbelief in god.
The question: Does evolution imply atheism?
The answer: NO
Evolution is limited to explaining the diversity on earth by natural means. I agree that there is no need to invoke a higher power, and for that matter, in the origins of life as well.
However, flipping the question around is bad logic, as A implies B does not equate to therefore B implies A, which is the general error made by fundamentalist/evangelical atheists.
An other issue is that many creationist fighters conflate the absurd christian/islamic/.... ideas of the fundamentalists to believe in a higher power. Most people worldwide do NOT fall in that fundamentalist category, and their ideas about the natural and supernatural world are surprisingly diverse and nuanced, without invoking direct action of god on everything.
@Doug, #13
I would say then that you are not an agnostic. A willingness to be wrong isn't the same as wondering 'maybe' indefinitely.
I would assume that the intellectually honest atheists would all fall to the position: "There is no evidence god exists; until such a time that convincing evidence for this case arises, I will have to presume it false." A lot of people call this 'soft Atheism' but I don't think that's a good term for it, and I don't think it qualifies as agnosticism.
Clarification:
The goal of our book is not to "reduce religious practice". Ultimately our goal is to promote social well-being but in a manner that is truth bearing.
This was true for me, although it came via feminism, not science. As I sat there in my pew listening to the male emissary from God tell me about my place in the world, I knew he was wrong, and it was not too difficult to then take the next logical step, "If he's wrong about that, what else might he be wrong about?" And I was lost to them. St. Augustine was right to worry about this phenomenon, although I doubt he included women's experiences in his equation.
Doug@13 - Nice to hear someone ELSE saying what I have for years. Generally, to a receptive audience, I will state "An honest person must state they are Agnostic, whether religious or not. This applies universally. To the extent Theism is claimed by my opponent, I claim Atheism."
I have had many good discussions (not "arguments") with theists who have openly admitted they "did not know".
I now identify myself publicly as Atheist - simply because the theistic side appears to me to be so much more prevalent than in my youth.
I still freely admit that I don't, and cannot, "know with certainty" - implying I have proof.
JC
There's an article in the Journal of Religion and Society that discusses this very thing. Whether or not one necessarily implies the other, the fact of the matter is that they do. There's an inescapable correlation between secularism and belief in evolution.
The article was "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Huzzah!
You don't step up to the pulpit often PZ - but every time you do, your sermon is worth hearing.
This Bud's fer you.
Bravo! Bravo!
mmm, mushy deism.
I think scientific literacy, including understanding of evolution precludes all but a very vague, unexamined sort of theism, unless a person is tremendously good at compartmentalizing disparate views.
At least that's how the dominos fell for me, I couldn't stop from turning the stones over and seeing the bugs underneath.
If you are being truly "honest", then you must also apply that statement to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and any other idea for which there is no evidence of its existence.
Shifting the burden. No proof is needed for the null hypothesis "god does not exist". The proof is needed for the hypothesis "god does exist."
@ The Chemist
Your earlier point got me thinking... I've always supposed that religion, in its simplest form, over the eons, has been the human response to explaining the unknown, which offers a level of comfort and empowers a person to not live in fear of unknowns... which has an evolutionary benefit. I know I'm simplifying, here... but you get my drift.
So... with that as a starting point, let's hypothesize that a group of people were born into this world in this day, and given all of the knowledge we have, scientifically, about the world around us. And they are given no introduction, in any way, to any religious doctrine, teaching, or other history. Do you still suppose that group would ultimately, in some fashion, embrace a religious component of their own design?
Salt: they may subscribe to some kind of evolutionary take, but that how does that refute the point that scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief?
like he said, you can choose not to apply scientific thinking to your beliefs, but it's just cheating
Evolution did not imply atheism for me or anyone in my church. We all accepted evolution as the mechanism God used to create life on this planet. I think this is true in many liberal churches. Heck, even Catholics can now accept evolution.
Of course, like most people, we really had only a superficial understanding of evolution and our place in the universe. We really didn't investigate science or our religious beliefs deeply. Or at least, I assume that is so for everyone in my "group"...because when I finally DID, I became an atheist within a short time. Much as I wished to believe otherwise, I had to accept where the evidence led.
I am certain acceptance of evolution makes the journey to atheism shorter at least because of its reliance on science and reason rather than faith in an old set of books.
Evolution does not imply atheism at all. There is no way existence of a deity in general and evolution could be mutually exclusive.
But particular gods and particular religions that is completely another matter. Evolution rules out virtually all faiths older than a century or so. So it could be used inductively as ( rather weak ) argument along the lines "all traditional religions are wrong, so, why do you think your one is not".
[A]ssign[ing] the magic sky fairy to its [science/evolution] attributes... is not scientific thinking, it's cognitive dissonance...
From a purely scientific point of view, I agree; belief in God is not scientific. As such, cognitive dissonance is inapplicable except from a solely scientific point of view (which is the only one atheists apparently subscribe to). The question would seem to be, is science (perhaps hard-science would be apropos) the only measure one should subscribe to or by? If so, why?
Yes, some in the religious community may subscribe to an evolutionary take, but only insofar as they can assign the magic sky fairy to its attributes.
Cognitive dissonance seems to be quite applicable to such as yourself when viewed from a God-faith point of view. Some people of God-faith have a much better grasp of you than you of them. Naturally you find that laughable, but that is to be expected from one who is myopic in their subscriptions.
My gut tells me that truly understanding science does not necessarily lead to atheism, although it certainly can (as PZ has explained). I can't eloquently prove my gut feeling, though. However, I can give my own personal example. I am a scientist, and I am also an atheist, but I believe that I became an atheist not through studying science, but through studying human nature, anthropology, and the history of how Christianity spread through Europe (I took several courses relating to these topics in college, and these topics have always interested me). The more I learned about the religious beliefs of other cultures, and about how Christianity changed as it spread through Europe, the more I came to see all religions as artifacts of the human mind (i.e., completely made up). So I stopped believing in a god not because such beliefs are contradicted by science, but rather because god and religions in general are obviously made up by humans.
This question is consistent with Harrison's finding although it is harder to tease indoctrination out of the real-life situation. In other words, Harrison, as I stated, found that teleology is intuitive; it just seems obvious that even if evolution is true it required a jump start from an intelligent designer. So, evolution without an intelligent designer behind it is literally psychologically disturbing for some people, especially people with a poor science education. Hume put it this way, the intuitive appeal of teleology relies upon an underlying assumption--complicated things/processes require an explanation. Evolution disturbs our intuitions.
Evolution opens more questions: what is my place (existentially, morally, etc.) in the wold? Of course the intuitive appeal of teleology does not immediately answer these questions but a framework is created by which these questions can be answered. (Incidentally this is how my Jewish friends view the creation story. The function of the story is to provide a framework for the laws not to explain the origins of the universe.) Science needs to provide that framework as well. This is how I teach my Applied Ethics course and is part of the book I am coauthoring.
Evolution doesn't imply atheism, but it certainly does rule out the empirical claims of many Christian faiths.
Science in general doesn't imply atheism, but it does rule out the empirical claims of any faith, leaving only a watered down Deism as impervious to its weapons. In other words, for all practical purposes, science does mean atheism.
I noticed the more people know about science, the less likely they have a childish belief in a magic fairy. Only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in Mr. God, and I doubt any of them are very religious.
The Genesis 1 creation account has marijuana appearing before the Sun comes into existence. It's a pretty crappy allegory for, well, anything.
@ Salt
You never fail to amuse.
No... it's the only one applicable to THIS discussion / question. Trying to change the subject doesn't make your point any more valid.
Really? Which question is that? I don't remember anyone but you re-phrasing the original question in such a completely bastardized way.
I've re-read this paragraph 3 times. It's complete, incoherent babble. So, is it my cognitive dissonance that keeps me from riding the back of a unicorn? Is it my cognitive dissonance that has kept that damned leprechaun's pot of gold eluding me?
That you think, for an instant, that people of god-faith have a better understanding of me than I of them (especially considering the fact that I was indoctrinated as a "god-faither") tells me more about you than it does about anything else. Tell me, how long were you absent belief before you became a believer, from which you can attest this understanding?
Acceptance of evolution wipes out a lot of gaps that theists used to hold sacred.
It proves many beliefs out there wrong, but it doesn't prove atheism right. It is impossible to prove atheism right (because you would need to disprove every type of God ever thought up).
Dr. Ken Miller is a Catholic yet he supports evolution 100%. Many God believers in fact, accept evolution.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 11:42 AM
If you are being truly "honest", then you must also apply that statement to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and any other idea for which there is no evidence of its existence.
What is evidence to one jury to convict could well be lack of evidence to another to acquit.
Science has just taught me one thing: the God I was shown to believe in (by society, not by my parents.) is non-existent. However, I can't just go ahead and say this proves there is no god. It just proves that the catholic god and every other god available to me as the "truth" are pure BS.
And I feel pretty safe in my lack of worship of the unknown and possibly existing god.
I would tend to express things (or the way I understand them) as follows:
Science doesn't destroy religious belief directly. It kicks its most time-honored supports from under it, such as the Argument from Design.
Then religion should tumble down. But it has a way of seemingly floating in the air by itself.
What I mean is that, if believers can't use the old "arguments" in favor of religion, they still can hold on to it for purely subjective reasons: "I believe because I believe, I have no argument to try and convince you, but that's how it is for me." They have even been known to argue that the fact there's no reason for them to believe makes their faith all the stronger ("credo quia absurdum").
Anyway, most people behave as atheists most of the time. When they cross the street, they look both sides. When their care breaks down, the have it repaired. They don't pray for it to work again, unlike the characters in a chapter of Philip K. Dick's novel "The Eye in the Sky".
Does evolution imply (involve by logical necessity; entail) atheism (disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods)? Logically no, because it is possible, easy in fact, to define a god whose existence does not conflict with evolution. Does evolution often lead to atheism? Yes, for all the reasons others have given.
Prof MTH
I will look for your book with interest.
My father believed the setting up of the Welfare State in Britain in 1948 would result in a reduction of religious practice. As a socialist and unionist (and atheist) he'd already witnessed the reduction of male church attendance in mining areas once the union began to take social responsibility for the miners' welfare.
The women went to church and most of the men went to the 'Institute' on Sunday. The former to pray and receive divine guidance, the latter to talk politics,educate themselves in its wonderful library and drink. It was an interesting time (I was born in 1948).
I have only anecdotal evidence to say that wholesale closure of chapels and churches occurred after the instigation of the 'cradle to the grave' care system in 1948, but in my small town (16,000) the number of Methodist chapels fell from 10 to 2 by 1965.
Meaning what, exactly?
Of course a scientific outlook implies atheism but I would say that the question is largely academic and not worth discussing!
Working in science and engineering I am continually amazed at how many people who apply the scientific method at work then go home and believe in 1001 meta-physical ones! The human brain does seem remarkably plastic in allowing rational thinking for practical issues and then allowing fantasy beliefs on non-life and death issues. And these co-exist in the same brain.
So science and evolution should imply atheism - but most people are two dumb to realise this and allow the two sides to co-exist!
Your point? People will believe what they want, but that doesn't make it true. Creationists are prime examples of this. You can pile up the evidence against a young earth but they'll still say 6000 years. You can demonstrate exactly how they are distorting the data yet.... 6000 years.
Just because people don't see it the same way does not give both sides equal weight.
Salt @#38
Cognitive dissonance is not dependent on one's point of view. It simply means that an individual is holding two conflicting cognitions (thoughts, beliefs) in their mind at the same time.
For example, the belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is dissonant with the knowledge of the fossil record, geology, etc. In order to avoid the stress induced by this dissonance an individual can choose to argue the validity of one or the other, depending on a variety of factors.
A more "apropos" (appropriate) example would be the dissonant cognitions of natural causation vs. supernatural causation.
"I disagree with the comment above that theism is learned. We're not philosophically neutral beings at birth. "
I would have to disagree. Theism is learned. I think your confusion lies in that it does not necessarily need to be taught.
If one takes a child and a cookie jar, and secretly records them on video, and catches and stops them most of the time, but doesn't if they spin three times before opening the jar, the child will start to develop superstitions around this. In fact, children will often develop spontaneous superstitions around all sorts of things. This doesn't mean they're not learned.
Conversely, if you put a raccoon on a reinforcement task, but put his water dish far away from the food reinforcers, he'll take time (and possibly miss reinforcements) washing the food. This was noted in Skinner's article "Misbehavior of Organisms". This sort of thing is, as far as can be determined, not learned.
The difficulty in the original question is around what it really means by "implies". Does evolution serve as an explanatory force that would reduce the tendency for people to feel they need to resort to a deific explanation? Yes. Does the fact of evolution mean it's impossible for a deity to exist? No.
Personally, I don't need evolution to be an atheist, but many do.
PZ, I expect you'll have a lot of criticism for essentially changing the question -- to which you'll be right to point out that the original question is not particularly well-formed, but will make it harder to stick your point with those who are resistant.
It can be natural to come to a conclusion, based on our experiences, without that conclusion being rational or correct. I think theism falls into this category.
I disapprove of using "counterfactual" to mean "false". This is because I am a pedant. A counterfactual belief would be "If the Bible were true then evolution by natural selection would not have happened".
I would also like to designate "If you care about a cause don't say demonstrably false things in its name" as "Augustine's law". It really isn't a bad rule.
My vote is "intellectual dishonesty".
I'm a devout atheist, but I cannot state that evolution implies atheism.
If my understanding of the Discovery and History channel shows on St. Augustine is correct, one of his greatest contributions to Western thought at the time was the idea that scientists were discovering how their god made things work, not disproving their god existed. Well, that and helping forestall said scientists getting burned at the stake for heresy....
For believers, what is to say that evolution isn't their god's way of creation? No - I don't mean ID, that spewage is pure BS. My mother, who grew up in a Protestant (not thumper) household, used to say "the 7 days of creation? How can man know what a day is to god? god's day might be a billion years..."
So, if a believer wishes to follow science and still believe that evolution is their god's way of doing things, they should have no problems with that.
In my opinion scientific thinking does not do well in explaining changed lives. There are many genuine accounts of people who made drastic changes in the direction of their lives and attribute it all to an encounter of some sort with the living god. People who are never the same again and whose outlook is forever altered. What has happened? Can scientific thinking lead one down a path to agnosticism and atheism, yes, but that is not the end of the story. One has to also explain away things that there are no good scientific explanations for that happen all around us. No one has all the answers. I am a believer, but I find science fascinating.
Yet you attribute this to something otherworldly when it could be as simple as "group therapy" via the church. I know people who's lives were changed after a good and a some after a bad drug experience. The human mind has ways of dealing with stress. Again, sometimes good sometimes bad. I don't see any reason to attribute that to some higher power.
Posted by: SocPsych11 | October 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Salt @#38
Cognitive dissonance is not dependent on one's point of view. It simply means that an individual is holding two conflicting cognitions (thoughts, beliefs) in their mind at the same time.
I understand that. Many, perhaps only some, believers find no conflicting cognitions in juxtaposing science with their faith in God.
My cognitive dissonance remark was a bit tongue in cheek, musing mirthfully that there are those who hold so adamantly to science, the be all end all of all that there is, despite all the non-scientific? evidence (yes there is such) to the contrary.
Naturally, one may define science in such a way at any given moment as to make my above incorrect, but you know what I mean.
Give an example and we will analyze it. Don't just claim outright that "there is no good scientific explanation". First, science is not complete as your dismissal seems to imply. Secondly, what were the "radical changes"? What may be responsible for them. Religious practice is a social support structure. Maybe having that social support structure is what is responsible for those changes.
"One has to also explain away things that there are no good scientific explanations for that happen all around us."
No, one doesn't have to explain away things. One searches for answers, not fall back to the supernatural to explain things.
And some attribute great change and improvement to learning that god is a sham.
Lives change for many reasons. It isn't god when people take up religion, and it's not the devil when people abandon religion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Y = a cartoon character created by Abrahamic religions.
If Y = 'god', evolution implies atheism.
X = A force, or combination of forces, which caused the universe to come into being and sustains its existence.
If X = 'god', few people here are atheists.
You have to define god before you can talk about believing in it.
"Not at all. It just means that god is an impotent nothing from nowhere with even less power than the Secretary for Agriculture ..."
@Greg #25
"I would say then that you are not an agnostic. A willingness to be wrong isn't the same as wondering 'maybe' indefinitely."
I think functionally I am an atheist, but formally I will continue to self-identify as being both atheist and agnostic.
It defines how one defines "god". If god was a creative agency that underpins reality, then god would be the Eisniteinian kind, above and beyond physical reality, therefore infinitely incomprehensible, and beyond science, and no scientific discoveries could negate him/her/it.
Science by definition only deals with the physical universe: it can in principle explain the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to now, but not why anything exists to be studied at all...
By that definition, science doesn't imply atheism. Science doesn't require gods, but it doesn't rule them out either.
But if you define god in the traditional naive, invisible man in he sky way, then of course science implies atheism.
Quite right, Tulse, as Salt has now demonstrated for us. I've heard this before, countless times. Vox Day prattles on about it frequently. For Salt and Vox, this isn't about lack of evidence...it's about the fundamental definitions of "evidence" and "science." Our so-called "scientific evidence" is at least equivalent to, if not weaker than, their revealed knowledge and warm fuzzies.
It was defined a long time ago. Everyone knows god is a fairy who performs magic tricks. That's why only brainwashed children and extremely stupid adults believe in it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2008 12:33 PM
It isn't god when people take up religion, and it's not the devil when people abandon religion.
Interesting statement. It's an old saying that the greatest feat the Devil ever did was to convince people he does not exist. If he doesn't, neither too would God. Biblically, a case may be made that secularism is his playground, and atheism one of his greatest achievements.
[stirs pot... awaiting the flames]
The Chemist: You're confusing "theism" with "religion." Religion is the set of social practices you describe, and may well be a nearly-universal human trait. Theism is a belief in deities, and certainly is not a universal human trait, nor is theism a universal or required trait of religion, either. Since we're talking about theism specifically, your taking issue with the statement that "theism is learned" is decidedly off-base. Religion itself may arise out of natural human impulses, but theism is almost certainly entirely cultural.
For what it's worth, I don't think there is a universal human impulse toward religion. I think there's a set of universal human impulses (such as the need for group identity, narrative construction, and explanation-seeking about the world) that give rise to religion, and/or that religion exploits, depending on how you want to look at it.
Salt, you keep talking about god, and now the devil. Please show some phyisical evidence for their existence. Otherwise, how do we separate between you being a bullshitter and truth teller. Phyical evidence, or its lack, will tell us which category to put you into.
This is just another way of saying the Devil's non-existence is indistinguishable from its existence.
In other words, it doesn't exist.
I have a problem with it. I don't much care for the idea that a magic fairy had anything to do with my favorite branch of science. If a person accepts the facts of evolution and invokes God for any part of it (inventing it, guiding it, using it as a way of doing things), then that person is a childish idiot.
The more science you know, the more likely you're going to run into this corrosion problem. If all you've studied is evolution, then you can imagine your favourite deity "working through" evolution in some appropriately vague fashion, while all the real fingerprints of the divine are off in some other field, which you don't have time to study in detail because, hey, you're a busy biologist. But when you're tolerably familiar with cosmology and genetics and archaeology and neuroscience. . . .
Salt wrote:
despite all the non-scientific? evidence (yes there is such) to the contrary.
You have examples of this non-scientific evidence? Examples that someone other than a True Believer might accept?
As far as the agnostic/atheist debate goes...
I can see how the term 'agnostic' would be compelling to anyone who wants to distance themselves from the "militant" connotation of atheism (if there's one thing the religious side has done well, it's that they've very effectively tarred us with the "shrill, militant" brush in the public consciousness), but in practical terms, it seems a pretty useless label. Given the nature of knowledge, and the inability to truly know anything with "absolute certainty" (outside of math or formal logic), it seems to me that a large portion of the theist population would also call themselves agnostic, if you pinned them down.
As for theism and atheism, there's a pretty simple test: when asked "do you believe in the existence of a god or gods?", if you respond with anything other than "yes" then congratulations! You're an atheist.
That being said, I have friends and family who identify themselves as agnostic, and that's fine with me -- I wouldn't presume to tell them what labels they apply to themselves. I went with the agnostic label myself for many years. I think it was Asimov who convinced me to 'come out':
Ah, this time I was quicker in answering this question. :)
In short: I agree with everything PZ wrote, of course. To me, while evolution doesn't "disprove" religion, it does two very important things:
1) shows the holy books can't be literally true (as someone said, since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?), and
2) removes one of the major "needs" for a creator, showing how things could have happened naturally.
Where are you going with that one, Salt? Biblically you can make the case that atheism is the work of the Invisible Bad Guy? I'll take your word for it. Why should I, as an atheist, care? Are you segueing into Pascal's Wager? Don't be an atheist 'cause you need to hedge your bets against Satanic manipulation?
And as I recall, there's a biblical case that the entire natural world is the Invisible Bad Guy's playground. Which brings us back to the idea of science (as the study of the natural world) and religion in conflict.
PeteK: hey now, none of that! Religion = moronic fundamentalist Christianity. Period. This goes for both sides of the argument in equal measure.
I mean... pantheism? Only a few billion people believe in that crazy shit.
Posted by: rrt | October 27, 2008 12:51 PM
this isn't about lack of evidence...it's about the fundamental definitions of "evidence" and "science." Our so-called "scientific evidence" is at least equivalent to, if not weaker than, their revealed knowledge and warm fuzzies.
Your scientific evidence is but part of the whole body of evidence, not singular as in the ONLY evidence. How myopic.
@Doug, #67
Certainly. I can't deny you your affiliations, even if I don't agree. :)
So long as inquiry is alive and people wonder and ask questions, ultimately, I think we're ok regardless of differences of opinion.
What other evidence then? Please enlighten us.
PZ has given an excellent response. But he has failed to answer the underlying question. Let us suppose that this "troll" is not a troll, but a genuinely concerned person trying to make a point or even to actually learn something. I believe what is happening here is that our "troll" is engaged in "judging evolution by its fruits". This person considers atheism to be, de facto, evil. In her mind, if evolution leads to atheism, then evolution itself must be evil and false.
Understanding this, the correct answer clearly is "no", because it is entirely possible to believe in evolution and to accept science in general, and yet still rationalize some supernatural beliefs which do not contradict evidence and reason (after all, an omnipotent God could always manipulate things in such a way that there is never any conclusive evidence -- perhaps specifically as a "test of faith").
Aside from this direct response, we should also address the underlying assumption that atheism is an evil fruit (whether or not evolution leads to it). To this end, we might respond with questions of our own: "Why are you concerned? Do you believe that atheism is evil?" Then shift the discussion to the persons fears about the evil of atheism. This, for example, might ultimately lead to a their fear of hell and how non-belief will get them or their love ones a one-way ticket to eternal flame. Then challenge them on why they actually believe such a place and such a fate awaits them.
Discussion with such persons will generally be much more fruitful if you try to answer their questions in the way that they intend the question, and their underlying reasons for asking it, rather than answering the question at face-value as you would mean it if you had asked it.
Posted by: tomh | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
Salt wrote:
despite all the non-scientific? evidence (yes there is such) to the contrary.
You have examples of this non-scientific evidence? Examples that someone other than a True Believer might accept?
I assume that you really mean non-scientific evidence which one who views all evidence through the lens of science would accept. Non-scientific evidence acceptable to Pharyngulians. An oxymoron in search of cognitive dissonance.
.
I didn't read through the comments, but I don't understand how evolution would preclude a god.
Salt @ # 86
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It obviates the need for it, which calls into question where people got the idea for it in the first place.
Now don't be silly, Salt. You're playing with semantics and shell-gaming your terms. Whether we call it a kind of evidence, false evidence, pseudoscience or differing lenses, the evidence, lens or whatever you care to call it that you're neglecting to explain is rejected by the scientific community. You just don't want to look at why. Much easier to mutter "none so blind..."
I keep forgetting that I can't see the Emperor's clothes with my eyes...
It's an old saying that the greatest feat the Devil ever did was to convince people he does not exist.
And it's a new saying that indefensible ideologies based on false and ludicrous premises often include such an anodyne against disconfirmation. When the paucity of evidence for something becomes the best evidence for it, you're in Kool-Aid Kountry.
A created, evolved world is not impossible, but very unlikely. I skimmed the posts, so I might've missed something, but it seems that the insistence of the noisier theists on a created, young earth is more about secular power on earth than anything spiritual. If they admit to origins that do not require divine intervention, their churches become social clubs with eccentric beliefs.
Does evolution implies atheism?
Not here, in France. Perhaps due to Catholicism, perhaps due to the fact that Frenches are different from Americans, I don't know. But a lot of believers, including practicing ones, admit all what science says, evolution included. And since they believe in Heaven, but no more in Hell, everything is "soft".
We are not a so religious country, but I am not sure that religion will be so easy to make disappear here. They put religion in "another universe", not submitted to the law of "this universe". What can you answer to that?
Errr, I don't know if I'm a bit late, but in response to comment number 1. There's quite a cool article about Paul Bloom about children being "inherently dualist" Whilst dualism isn't itself a theistic belief (obviously) it remains to be seen that atheism is the so called "default position" despite it being, as well all know, the only correct one!
:) I hope you don't mind my little piece of bigotry at the end there.
Salt wrote:
I assume that you really mean ...
You could have simply said, I have no evidence.
Sarcastro: hey now! I agree fundamentalist religion is guff. I was referring to eminently sensible philsophy. The difference between philsophy and religion is that philsophy encourages debate and challenge, unlike religion...
Really? Emperical evidence of your God? Please share with us what that would be?
P.S. I (heart) Celtic_Evolution.
What a load of bullshit. We have your number Salt. Another Liar for JebusTM. Time to go home and stay there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 12:57 PM
Salt, you keep talking about god, and now the devil. Please show some phyisical [sic] evidence for their existence. bullshitter [or] truth teller. Phyical [sic] evidence, or its lack, will tell us which category to put you into.
Sagan's book (I will use the the film though) Contact had a scene -
The not quite Rev. Jost - "Tell me something, did you love your father?"
Why do you think Sagan had that in there (within its context)?
If you have a point to make, make it.
Salt, if you think a quote from a fiction novel is physical evidence, you are a very deluded man. Time to go home and take your meds.
Salt
Funny thing is, Salt... most of us "godless atheists" understand fully the reason for that line, by that character, in that context...
The question is, why do you think he had that in there? I'm pretty sure it's not the reason you think it is.
Again, what other evidence do you have? Please be aware that non scientific evidence is an oxymoron. Much like the face you see in the mirror. Your arrogance is the telltale sign that you have no argument. Now thats a sign of a true believer.
I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I can make music, play sports, practice politics, and pick apples without any need for a God-concept: do they imply atheism too? Come to think of it I can do science, music, politics, sports, and apple-picking without morality, so I guess those things lead to amorality too? Uh, no. Before you subscrbe to the idea that "I don't need x to do science" deductively leads to "science means x does not exist," think of all the possible X's out there.
OTOH the Pew survey and other surveys seem to support the emprical conclusion that higher education correlates with atheism. A causing B is one possible hypothesis (but so are B causing A, or unknown C causing both A and B, or...)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 1:36 PM
What a load of bullshit. We have your number Salt. Another Liar for JebusTM. Time to go home and stay there.
SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE. This has been so much fun. You guys have been owned in less comments by me than ever before.
Whether we call it a kind of evidence, false evidence, pseudoscience or differing lenses, the evidence, lens or whatever you care to call it that you're neglecting to explain is rejected by the scientific community.
SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE.
As I said, myopia at its best here.
PWNED!
Salt,
Your scientific evidence God is but part of the whole body of evidence pantheon of gods, not singular as in the ONLY evidence god. How myopic.
There, fixed that for you.
May his noodly appendage touch you...
Great comment salt.
Now please enlighten me to the other ways of knowing that you consider evidence?
Non-scientific evidence acceptable to Pharyngulians.
No, the same kind of evidence you demand for everything in your life *except* your religious beliefs. Unless you're extremely gullible, that is.
You've dodged questions, refused to clarify your vague and empty comments, made nothing even resembling an argument, and are now declaring victory.
How typical.
Salt, still delusional. Go home and take your meds.
Eric, there is no need to posit god for anything but religion. Morality has nothing to do with god or religion either. The god of the bible is a very amoral construction. Why to people keep trying to make out like that amoral construction is something to emulate?
Damn; Salt is a marvel to behold. He never makes anything remotely like an argument or even a coherent statement, he merely throws out smug handfuls of semi-random non sequitirs interspersed with vague attempts at sneering. Sometimes paragraphs full of them. All those words, yet no actual content.
Most people are subjected to religious indoctrination long before they have a chance to become familiar with the principles of scientific methodology (if ever). Science demands the full use of our observational faculties as well as our ability to integrate our observations onto a coherent view of the world. Religion, OTOH, teaches us to negate these very human abilities and to simply believe what we are told. In this way, science and religion distinguish themselves very clearly from one another and should prompt any sensible person with knowledge of both to choose atheism.
Posted by: Schmeer | October 27, 2008 1:49 PM
Salt, Your scientific evidence God is but part of the whole body of evidence pantheon of gods, not singular as in the ONLY evidence god. How myopic.
There, fixed that for you.
May his noodly appendage touch you...
I happen to ~agree with what you saying, though I have no idea if God, or any other god, has a noodly appendage.
Oooh! I am so frightened! There's Salt and his imaginary friend, whuppin everyone again.
Wow... that's a new low even for you, Salt...
Have your very premise torn to shreds, be called out for changing the subject and re-formatting the question, refuse to address direct questions, and then ignorantly declare victory.
HEY! It appears you DO understand cognitive dissonance after all! Who said you can't teach an old fundament new tricks?
Note, too, Salt's convenient truncation of my quote. Like I said...he doesn't want to confront why science rejects his approach. Much better to run away when challenged for his evidence and insist we Will Not See(tm).
You guys have been owned in less comments by me than ever before.
*snickers* I love it when the 15-year-olds reveal themselves. get back to use once you've matured a bit and learned a lot.
Salt,
What other ways of knowing do you consider evidence to be considered with the same weight as scientific evidence?
"Get back to us", even.
You've made no statement of any kind of discernible position -- in fact, you've deliberately avoided making one to the point of ignoring questions to clarify it -- don't get all huffy because no one knows what the hell you are talking about.
Make your point or shut the hell up.
Posted by: eric | October 27, 2008 1:48 PM [kill][hide comment]
I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I can make music, play sports, practice politics, and pick apples without any need for a God-concept: do they imply atheism too? Come to think of it I can do science, music, politics, sports, and apple-picking without morality, so I guess those things lead to amorality too? Uh, no. Before you subscrbe to the idea that "I don't need x to do science" deductively leads to "science means x does not exist," think of all the possible X's out there.
Eric, you need to keep this point in mind, the theory of evolution presents ideas that stresses that no deity is needed. The example you brought up does not, in of themselves, challenge the necessity of a deity. Evolution does. That is why fundamentalists of all religions continuously attack evolution. That is part of the reason why Charles Darwin sat on his ideas for so long.
All religions attempts to answer why we are here and not can give proof for their assertions. The theory of evolution contradicts everyone of them. Plus it has the benefit of having evidence to back it up.
Evolution implies atheism for the simple reason that all religious beliefs become difficult to hold in the light of those facts. The same cannot be said about apple picking.
tsg@33 (how is it that all my responses today seem to be to poses ending in 3?)
I agree on all points. I do not, however, interface with Society that way. Well, usually.
If someone asks me "Does God exist?" I reply "No." unequivocally. When they say "Prove it." I say "Prove that your god DOES exist." Bottom line, neither of us can either way, or we all wouldn't be here chatting away. But yes, I agree - the Null Hypothesis requries no proof.
Society as I am familiar with it does not operate this way. We pick a side. I pick the side of no god. If my sparring partner picks the side of yes god, then we know where we stand and we proceed thus.
If my partner of religious bent is able (nearly impossible to find, btw) to say "I could be wrong.", then I freely admit that I may be as well - but our positions are each closest to the sense we have of how the Universe works - mine closest to Atheism, my partners closest to Theism. We are more able to gain a convert in that manner. We can then present our position and counter the other position and have a reasonably good discussion.
But yes - absolutely. The default position is Atheism. No, the Null Hypothesis requires no proof. It does, however, require substantiation for those who have fallen out of it to - hopefully - return.
JC
Just received the November, 2008 edition of Scientific American. By an amusing coincidence, there is an article on Francisco J. Ayala, geneticist and ordained Dominican priest. He seems to agree that scientific knowledge is erosive of faith, but (naturally enough!) denies that it either ought to, or need to, be. As for evolution, Ayala treats it as the answer to the question "If God is all-loving and omnipotent why evil?" Ah well: your mileage may vary.
Dammit Celtic Evolution, you've started me cackling so hard I may lay an egg!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 2:01 PM
Salt,
What other ways of knowing do you consider evidence to be considered with the same weight as scientific evidence?
Now, that is a question worthy of answer. Well done. I'll take a stab at it.
I'd have to say 'that evidence necessary to formulate an opinion, or establish a presumptive fact, necessary where such opinion is not capable of being considered by scientific inquiry'.
As Eugenie Scott explains in Evolution Vs. Creationism, science is strictly methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism, and therefore science does not 'imply' any philosophy whatsoever. While there is considerable arguments that atheism, the state of non-belief, is not a philosophy at all, philosophical naturalism certainly is. I don't think evolution leads to atheism, I think methodological naturalism 'most of the time' leads to philosophical naturalism, and philosophical naturalism DOES imply atheism. So the question becomes whether a transition from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism is justified, and many will argue, that for a serious scientist, this transition CAN NOT be justified. This is the controversy as I see it, and I would be delighted to read the thoughts of some smart folks on this issue.
Salt, did you just say that a way of knowing other than scientific evidence is a way of knowing without scientific evidence?
I see that Salt has used the tried and true Chess Playing Pigeon gambit...
The problem with the "philosophical naturalism" business is the same as the problem with NOMA before it: the only religion it safeguards is one which has jack to do with the real world.
Non-scientific evidence is evidence that isn't scientific? How profound, Wizard!
Talk about worthy questions and unworthy answers...
sigh
Such as?
I'd have to say 'that evidence necessary to formulate an opinion, or establish a presumptive fact, necessary where such opinion is not capable of being considered by scientific inquiry'.
Unanswered question remainz unanswered.
I see Salt is stringing words together in a way that makes no sense except to those with cognative dissonance.
Salt, can't you point to Moses' burning bush somewhere in the Dead Sea? That would be good proof for your imaginary god. Oh, but you are too lazy to find it. Time to go home and take your meds.
So only 7% of the National Academy of Science members are theistic. What I am interested in knowing is what percentage of those were reared in a theistic household. My guess is that the number is high. Where I can find that statistic?
Science is probably not entirely incompatible with some weak form of Deism, sort of like what Jefferson was reputed to have held to. Then again, Deism itself is kinda pointless - except for fundies, who can use the "oh, you accept Deism?" opportunity to bootstrap in their God.
Cos, after all, if you think there could have been some sort of being who might have been behind the creation of the universe, then obviously the only possible candidate is the war-God of the ancient Hebrews.
I'd agree with the argument that scientific thinking, if consistently applied, does contradict religion. But that's moving quite a distance from the question that was asked: whether evolution specifically implies atheism, to which the correct answer is an unconditional "no".
It is perfectly possible to draw a line between physical and metaphysical reality, and say "yes, scientific thinking is good for physical reality, but we need something else for metaphysical". This is definitely not a scientific approach, and you may well consider it a cheat - I do too. But it is at least internally consistent.
I suppose it's worth noting that there is sound evidence aside from scientific evidence. There are eyewitness accounts, historical acounts, letters, financial records, objects on exhibit, etc.
Of course the problem is what we're talking about when we bring up "science." In some sense, we'd include everything sensible as at least being in the realm of science, and we consider "non-scientific evidence" to be sound only if it is treated "like scientific evidence." Furthermore, we do not consider financial records and eyewitness accounts to be much other than place holders for more fundamental scientific matters (and both can be analyzed scientifically).
So it's mostly a semantic issue to say that there is "non-scientific evidence." However the theists who come on and argue here are not above semantic games. Hence this attempt at clarification.
And of course we know about the "non-scientific evidence" that people like Salt want us to accept, which are "eyewitness accounts" by people completely unknown to us, which were passed down in a chain of receivership which cannot be verified, and which is absurd on the face of it. Not only is it not scientific evidence, it cannot be counted as historical evidence as such (except that it is evidence of what people historically believed).
Oh, there might be fragmentary evidence in, say, the first 12 chapters of Genesis, although we can only accept it as such if it correlates with other ancient sources. But as a whole, it is evidence for the belief of some Jews at various times, and little else.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Vague troll iz vague.
Salt, since you have answered not one of our questions I think you have lost your flavor.
"that evidence necessary to formulate an opinion..." is not evidence. Its just an acceptance of the 'facsts' which support your opinion. Now thats myopic.
I see a lesson in in non-scientific evidence is necessary here. Here is an example. The King did not have Sir Thomas More's signature as physical evidence to his assent to the Kings demand(s). Though repeatable with same result, as More steadfastly refused to give physical evidence (testimony of some sort or a signature), such [scientific] inquiry could produce no tangible result.
More's silence, being not physical, was nevertheless evidence.
By law, silence is assent, therefore one must construe that More assented. This was More's defense, and rightly so under the law. Interestingly enough, it took perjured testimony (false evidence) to bring More down.
Exactly Glen. All of the above are not derived by scientific method but are verifiable by different fields' use of it.
Hmm, I have no time to read all the comments, so I don't know what views have so far been expressed. All I can say is that I disagree with many of Dr. Myers' claims. Religion (rather, Christianity, as I am in no position and possess no desire to defend all religion) and science are not antithetical.
I will keep my testimony brief, as I doubt it will be much read or considered, and any one curious is welcome to communicate their inquiries to me. Growing up, I was taught very conservative Christian beliefs; we thought of Baptists as theologically liberal. (I would also add that, despite caricatures, we were not in the slightest bit politically active - it was not our place to impose our beliefs on the government.) I was also a most ardent and vociferous young earth creationist, as is my family. However, beginning late in high school and developing throughout my undergraduate studies in biology, I've become an evolutionist (i.e. a scientist.) However, my faith has not changed (though I have become more politically-active, with a definite leftward lean.) Evolution is simply a part of God's work in the world, and something that I will continue to study (not as a particular focus - I am anticipating entry into the dual PhD program in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Evolution at Michigan State).
Why do I believe in God? Why do I believe in these fairy tales? Because it makes sense of the whole of reality, not just the parts I can put in a test tube. The scientist says "Let us constrain are studies to only that which can be measured" and then mistakes this for an ontological proof.
Most of all, God explains "explainability." Why does science work? Why are the little sacs of protoplasm that comprise our brains able to even ask, much less explore, such grand questions as the development of life on earth, the size of the universe, and the fine subatomic structure of matter? Why is it all so beautiful?
I have not fully articulated my beliefs here - I have merely summarized them. Bear that in mind as you pan this post.
BTW, do not think for a moment that people are necessarily thinking scientifically when they think atheistically. I have not found this to be the case. It is quite often the very opposite.
Sorry for the length, and any issues of incoherence. I was quite distracted writing this.
Chad #10:[QUOTE]There simply is no logical way to go from a field of scientific study/research ( like biology ) and conclude 'atheism'.[/QUOTE]
huf #18:[QUOTE]The way i see it, science has nothing to say on the existence or nonexistence of god. It's simply not in its scope.[/QUOTE]
How so? This is a cheap one: "your methods can't say anything about this (because I say so)". The main (and convincingly argued) point in Dawkin's The God Delusion, and a secondary one in Dennett's Breaking the Spell, for instance, is that no, religious claims such as the existence of a supreme being are very factual --- if they can ever be pinned down to some precise statement. These claims have [I]implications[/I] that can be checked out against reality. Or if they don't have consequences for reality, then why in the world should they be entertained? Moreover, science deals with whatever it wants. To claim that some "domain of experience" lies beyond science is gratuitous: one should give very good reasons for believing that (not just some word-play ending with "... and so, by definition, God lies outside of the material universe"), given that scientific thinking has a very good score wherever it has been applied so far.
Sorry, but this pisses me off.
God's silence is evidence that he feels he is unnecessary.
... so much so, that I've lost my little html-skills :-)
Y'know, speaking of worthy questions, it's interesting that Salt only now notices the Rev's worthy question. How many times was that some form of this challenge made in this thread?
#51, TSG: "What is evidence to one jury to convict could well be lack of evidence to another to acquit"
Meaning what, exactly?
#53, Rev. BDC: Your point? [...] Just because people don't see it the same way does not give both sides equal weight.
#69, me: For Salt and Vox, this isn't about lack of evidence...it's about the fundamental definitions of "evidence" and "science." Our so-called "scientific evidence" is at least equivalent to, if not weaker than, their revealed knowledge and warm fuzzies.
#73, Nerd of Redhead: Otherwise, how do we separate between you being a bullshitter and truth teller.
#77, tomh: You have examples of this non-scientific evidence? Examples that someone other than a True Believer might accept?
#84, Rev. BDC: What other evidence then? Please enlighten us.
#90, me: [Your evidence...] is rejected by the scientific community. You just don't want to look at why. Much easier to mutter "none so blind..."
#95, tomh: You could have simply said, I have no evidence.
#97, druidbros: Really? Emperical evidence of your God? Please share with us what that would be?
#103, druidbros: Again, what other evidence do you have?
#107, Rev. BDC: Now please enlighten me to the other ways of knowing that you consider evidence?
#108, Naked Bunny: No, the same kind of evidence you demand for everything in your life *except* your religious beliefs.
#109, tsg: You've dodged questions, refused to clarify your vague and empty comments...
#111, Eric Saveau: Damn; Salt is a marvel to behold. He never makes anything remotely like an argument...
#115, Celtic_Evolution: Have your very premise torn to shreds, be called out for changing the subject and re-formatting the question, refuse to address direct questions...
#116, me: Like I said...he doesn't want to confront why science rejects his approach. Much better to run away when challenged for his evidence and insist we Will Not See(tm).
I see you are not able to answer a simple question without engaging in condescension.
Equivocation, nothing more. The word "evidence" has a different meaning in a legal context than it does in this discussion. This is a non-answer.
In the other thread, I also gave a qualified 'yes' to the question of whether evolution implies atheism. I think it depends on how far you're going to follow the implications of evolution, and how you're going to classify God. If you approach the existence of God like you would approach any other hypothesis, then it fails for the same sorts of reasons that vitalism, dualism, and magic fail.
As theories, they all "feel" right. Life is a special invisible force which gets into inanimate matter in order to make it move. Minds are immaterial entities which exist in a realm which is higher than the physical, and they can move our body through the direct force of their wishes. Everything in the universe is connected by their underlying meanings, resemblances, and similarities. Children tend to naturally fall into this kind of egocentric thinking. It's how our brains evolved to make sense of things. They don't seem like hypotheses: they seem like ordinary observations. The entire universe is very mind-like and person-centered.
Scientific thinking is corrosive of religious belief because scientific thinking is bottom-up thinking, and religious belief is top-down thinking. In religion, you explain mind by claiming that it's always existed as a kind of consciousness power, and our minds come out of that. Life comes from a life source; reason comes from a reason force; morals come from a moral source; creativity is performed by Creative Power; emotions are reflections of Emotion. It's all irreducible and eternal and there's no need for any explanation above brute fact. Like comes from like. That's religious thinking in a nutshell.
In science, you try to build up to complicated things by breaking them down into less complicated things, in order to see how and why they work. Evolution (and chemistry and astronomy and all the sciences) demonstrate that new things come out of things that aren't like them at all. Creativity GROWS out of processes that have no intention. Life is built up of non-living components. And there is no special, significant, central place for humans or their consciousness.
The specific religious beliefs are learned, but "like comes from like" is intuitively reasonable. God is intuitively reasonable. A disciplined, bottom-up approach to understanding reality shows us, however, that our intuitions are wrong. God is not an experience; it's an inference from experience. And our inferences can be wrong.
So the way to protect the idea of God is to pretend that it's not a fact claim: it's more like a feeling. Or an attitude. Or a value. Or -- look out the window, isn't that sunset pretty! God. Religious belief makes us feel so good. And it works so well, for so many.
That little dialogue from Contact is a perfect example of the subtle switch.
"Did you love your father? Prove it!"
See, believing in God is like believing you love your father. If you feel it, you know ... but only you can know. It's not scientifically demonstrable to others.
But that's a terrible analogy. Loving God is like loving your father -- or loving an invisible pretend person. Believing in God's existence is like believing in your father's existence. Apples are being compared to oranges, in that emotions are being compared to the thing you're emotional about.
Hey, B. Evan Carlson.
That's nice. But at least admit there's no evidence for your particular god.
I want to point out that there are numerous ways of of going after the "does evolution imply atheism"? I had to become an atheist and let the logical implications work through my head before I could get comfortable with evolution.
In my early teens, I was the strange mix of christian fundamentalism and liberal ideals. Needless to say, I felt very uncomfortable in social studies classes whentalking about prehistoric humanity and natural sciences when Darwin came up. By the time I was seventeen, I stopped believing in any sort of deity. (In essence, for me the idea of deities made no sense and was inherently unfair.)
But the attitudes I built up, I had to work through. For example, during my freshman year in college, I was in my militant stage of atheism. So much so that students I barely knew would confront me about my lack of belief. Yet at the same time, I had a difficult time reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene because of my left over belief that humans were meant for more then being just an other by product of life.
Now I feel comfort and wonderment in humanity's part of nature. But at that time I thought humans were apart from nature. And that was the lingering aftermath of the god belief I had. And it effected how easily I accepted the ideas of the theory of evolution.
While science does not directly disprove god, it just makes it harder and harder to justify a believe in him.
In the early days, just about every stupid thing was attributed to god: Thunder, Lightning, Rainbows, Floods, Jupiter, Mars, Neptune.
When physics kicked in, the celestial bodies, thunder, lightning and rainbows were taken away from god. When evolution came up, the origin of species was taken away from him. And wherever he hides now, science will hunt him down.
Salt explain to me how legal evidence like you've posted above can be used to support a notion on the supernatural. Then once you are done explain to me how evidence like you've posted above can be used in science along side research that produces hard data and makes predictions.
I think we've been asking Salt the wrong questions. Here's one for you, Salt: Which came first, the salt or the potato chip, or did they arise simultaneously through divine ordination? Go ahead, ruminate on that one for a while.
Equivocation, nothing more. The word "evidence" has a different meaning in a legal context than it does in this discussion. This is a non-answer.
Legalism is a favorite misdirection tactic of lying creotards. They know they're going apples-to-oranges with their use of the terms, they're just hoping they can skate by without being called on it. Obviously, that doesn't work here.
Depends on the exact definitions for "evolution", "imply", and "atheism". Understanding the process of formal inference and accumulated evidence which leads the validation of evolution, also leads to weakening acceptance of the usual arguments affirming existence of arbitrary particular deities from present evidence.
More or less the same thing as PZ said, but with bigger words.
Or, we could just say that we need "sound empirical evidence," and avoid the issue of "scientific evidence" and how it can be used to equivocate.
We lack empirical evidence for god, whether it is meaningful eyewitness evidence, historical evidence, or scientific evidence. That's the issue. And we'd need empirical evidence if we were to accept God's existence.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Heavens, don't do that... the last thing we need is to get in to the whole "which came first, the slut or the egg" conversation...
Personally, I think that the vast distances between stars, most of which are unsuitable for the existence of life (at least as far as we know), is far more compelling evidence for atheism. I see nothing in the vastness of the geologic time scale or the evolution of species from a common ancestor that would by itself suggest the non-existence of a creator-deity.
That's just my opinion of course. But, to be honest, if an evangelical Christian were going to succeed in bringing me to Jesus by disproving contemporary science, she would have better luck if she were to argue that the earth is really a flat disc under a solid dome than to argue that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
@B Evan Carlson, #142
"God explains "explainability.""
That is one of the problems with theism in general. Once you come up against a question that is fundamentally difficult to answer, you'll rest it on THE answer. There is no question you can't answer with 'god'; because the supernatural is unobservable and unprovable, there is no way to question it as an answer (assuming belief, at least).
THIS is why we have such issues arguing against creationists and their ilk; they've decided that there is a question that CAN'T be answered, and so they've answered it with their ultimate answer, and find all manner of excuses to dismiss any other answer to the question.
You might believe that things are ordered because of your god, and that he allows an explanation for things outside your understanding, but that means that you'll never try to explore for better answers to the same problem. Most of the time when science answers a difficult question, it ends up creating several new questions. (Where did we come from? We evolved. From what? Some Common Ancestor. Where did it come from? Single celled Organisms. Where'd they come from? Abiogenesis (presumably). What created that? A chemical reaction on early Earth. What caused that? The big bang. What came before that? That's a very7 good question!)
At any step, we can stop and insert god, and the line of questions stops. We stop learning. And that's bad. While you may answer something with 'god' now, days, months, years, decades, centuries or longer from now, someone will answer it with science. Why be so sure of a bad answer now? Why not try and answer it better?
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2008 2:42 PM
See, believing in God is like believing you love your father. If you feel it, you know ... but only you can know. It's not scientifically demonstrable to others.
I like that. I really do.
But that's a terrible analogy. Loving God is like loving your father -- or loving an invisible pretend person. Believing in God's existence is like believing in your father's existence. Apples are being compared to oranges, in that emotions are being compared to the thing you're emotional about.
The bolded part is slight of hand as it conflates the spiritual with the physical, equating apples to oranges so to speak. 'Loving' both apples and oranges is absolutely possible without such false comparison. It's not the nature of either the apples or the oranges that is the issue, but the nature of love, and I quote -
See, believing in God is like believing you love your father. If you feel it, you know ... but only you can know. It's not scientifically demonstrable to others.
I believe there are evidences that make it more likely that the faith I have accepted is true and that others are not, and that these evidences are significant enough to compel me to commit myself to my faith. For instance, it would appear that a polytheistic universe of embattled gods is difficult to belief in a world of natural law, orderliness, and regularity. We would then have to go down a long rabbit hole and begin discussing historical evidences, but this is hardly the time or place, and though I can proffer some evidences, I am hardly one qualified to discuss historiography and archaeology.
Most of all, God explains "explainability." Why does science work?
Hephaestus.
Why are the little sacs of protoplasm that comprise our brains able to even ask, much less explore, such grand questions as the development of life on earth, the size of the universe, and the fine subatomic structure of matter?
Athena.
Why is it all so beautiful?
Aphrodite.
Bullshit. You can observe a person's behavior over time, see if they behave in a matter that is consistent with love. Do they act as if their father is important to them? Or do they consistently ignore him? Indeed, in principle, it may be possible one day to put electrodes in someone's skull and directly detect emotions, such as love.
More to the point, you can prove that their father exists. It is, however, possible to like, or love, an imaginary entity. Just because you "love God" doesn't make God real.
Salt babbles on...
Right... and this makes total sense as long as you conveniently forget to contextually define "love". Loving "apples and oranges" in not at all the same thing as "loving your father", or "loving your spouse"... umm... well, for those of us who aren't physically aroused by fruit anyhow...
"Loving" an apple is totally scientifically explainable. Therefor, your clever attempt at turning the "apples and oranges" statement into something it was never intended to convey is totally flawed, and utterly fails.
"Evolution kicked the last big prop out from under the usefulness of God as an explanation. He was remaindered. Not necessary."
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This god is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GOD!!
(And yeah, I'm fully aware of the irony of the "meet 'is maker" bit here... ^^)
Salt translation.....I have evidence and you dont. Na nanana na na.
Sorry but that's opinion not evidence.
I'd have to agree PZ. When it came out that I was an atheist among my family and friends, a close friend of mine - whom I'd almost nearly convinced of evolution - switched in defense to Kent Hovind-ish YEC-ism. We talked about the issue at length one evening and I'll say the same thing now as I did then as I find it still to be true: evolution isn't the reason that I don't believe in a god.
And obviously many smart people agree. Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and William Phillips among them. One can understand evolution completely and still hold to theism. But what they don't do - and what you are right on about here PZ - is that they aren't thinking scientifically about the issue. They obfuscate the issue to death and call anyone who doesn't agree with them unsophisticated but they are doing exactly what Dawkins is talking about when he describes cordoning off areas of the mind.
When one rationally and scientifically considers all of religious belief and experience, one comes up with the common denominator of human psychology as any supernatural explanation is logically inconsistent. When one rationally thinks about and looks at the studies of prayer one realizes that it is confirmation bias and ad hoc attribution. And when one really gets down to the nitty gritty way that people think "god" acts in the world, one realizes that it is simply interpreting mindless natural occurrences as the acts of intentional agency - a product of our thinking that was shaped by evolution.
And the nature of belief, but not the nature of god.
No one's asking you to prove you believe in god.
The argument is whether or not god exists.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 2:48 PM
Equivocation, nothing more. The word "evidence" has a different meaning in a legal context than it does in this discussion. This is a non-answer.
The question was about non-scientific evidence.
Your's is an example of a fighting retreat back into the womb of science.
I think that it is worth reminding people of this:
"[Thomas Henry] Huxley describes how he came to originate the term "agnostic" as follows:"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html - a definition I rather like: "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
To me, that definition of agnosticism sounds much more like (weak) atheism than it does the wishy-washy fence-sitting definition of 'agnosticism' that is so often seen nowadays.
I'd say that the fact and theory of evolution certainly eliminates religions that insist on a creation myth, but that it doesn't invalidate deism (name your god!) at all. I regard myself as an agnostic (tendence Huxley) and a weak atheist, and spend no time worrying about whether a god or gods exist.
OK... and his response is wrong how?
For Christ's sake. There is altogether too much agnostic-bashing here. It makes me wonder why I come to hang out here at all.
33 wrote:
"If you are being truly 'honest', then you must also apply that statement to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and any other idea for which there is no evidence of its existence."
YES!!! I am *perfectly* happy to be unsure about the Easter Bunny. I know every anti-agnostic loves to trot that out and say oh haha, you aren't even content to not believe in that?
There is nothing wrong with knowing that I can't know any truth to what exists. I am perfectly willing to refrain from judgement on the Easter Bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all the rest of those thought experiments.
It's just fine to me. They don't impact my life in the end anyway, so why *shouldn't* I grant that it is possible they exist? It doesn't leave me strung up in the air indecisive. You know what *would* bother me and keep me up at nights? If I flat-out denied they could not exist. I would have a hard time living that way, because it would not be philosophically correct.
As we all know, the Great Dawkins himself only wrote that "Darwin made it possible [my emphasis] to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist". Even he did not claim that the theory of evolution compelled atheism - neither did Darwin, come to that.
Does knowledge of science erode religious belief? It can, although it depends on the nature of the belief. If a faith allows itself to be framed by the gaps in our scientific knowledge then it avoids an epistemological conflict that it is bound to lose. If a god is banished by definition to a supernatural realm beyond the reach of science then it is unassailable.
But, does science disprove the existence of any and all gods? No, it doesn't, nor does it make such a claim. What it says is that, thus far, it has been able to construct hypotheses and theories which successfully explain various aspects of the natural world without having to invoke the concept of a deity. It makes sense to carry on doing just that until there is a good reason to do otherwise.
On the old agnostic/atheist head-butting contest, obviously there is considerable overlap between what is usually meant by the two words. I am happy to concede that for all practical purposes I am atheist. I call myself agnostic for one simple reason: I want to emphasize doubt. To me, the real danger from either religious belief or political ideology stems from the conviction that we have access to some sort of Absolute Truth - an Absolute Truth which justifies anything done to further it. Agnosticism is a claim about such knowledge or the possibility thereof. It is a position of doubt, a recognition of the provisional nature of our knowledge. It's not an easy position to hold nor does it have much appeal. Most people want the security of certainty and are instinctively drawn to whatever or whoever promises it and therein lies the problem with the more assertive style of atheism. When confronting claims that a god certainly exists, it is all too easy to be drawn into making the counter-claim that 'no it most certainly does not' - to give way to the temptation to counter-balance one certainty with another. And while it may be what some people believe - that the chances of a particular god existing are so small that we can safely ignore them - it goes beyond what we can claim as being scientifically justified.
So, no, neither the theory of evolution nor any other in science implies atheism. There is nothing in them which precludes the possibility of a being which created the universe in which they operate, neither are they dependent in any way on assuming the existence of such a being. We simply don't know and, as far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly acceptable to say so.
Why should I give time to the easter bunny when there is exactly zero evidence of it actually being real?
I have no problem saying there is no easter bunny. But I leave open the possibility that if someone can bring me evidence of said jovial basket carrying Sylvilagus that I would change my mind.
Until there. There is no such thing as the easter bunny.
Why should I think differently?
OK I'll bite. Salt what legal evidence do you have for the existence of your 'God'?
And at 78:
"Given the nature of knowledge, and the inability to truly know anything with 'absolute certainty' (outside of math or formal logic), it seems to me that a large portion of the theist population would also call themselves agnostic, if you pinned them down."
... I was going to quote this to say yes, exactly, but then I realized you wrote "theist" rather than "atheist". I would reckon that with that emphasis on what it is possible to know, a large portion of the "atheist" population would call themselves agnostic, if you pinned them down.
I'm sick of atheists telling me I'm not agnostic, I'm atheist -- it would be just as right for me to tell atheists they're not atheist, they're agnostic.
Agnosticism is not something warm and fuzzy and quasi-religious to hide behind. Those are slurs that you can maybe apply elsewhere in the world but it's ridiculous to apply to agnostics who happen to hang out in atheist joints, as it were. It's not that the agnostics you like are atheist and the rest are theist, though. Some people are indeed well and truly agnostic, not atheist, and not religious fuzzy.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 3:23 PM
And the nature of belief, but not the nature of god.
No one's asking you to prove you believe in god.
The argument is whether or not god exists.
I'm going to be snide here a sec and say "argument"? An argument would seemingly be improper within the context of scientific inquiry, excepting possibly math (if math is truly considered a science). Actually, "argument" is more readily applicable to law than scientific inquiry (gets a dig in on Eric Saveau).
Scientifically proving the spiritual; evidence of God. Is science, applied science of whatever bent, which deals (correct me if I'm wrong) solely within the realm of the physical universe, capable of such?
If I didn't know better, I would say Salt is Baba in godbot disguise. He has the same qualities. PZ, if you wander by, could you give us a laugh by disemvoweling Salt? It may even make his rants more coherent.
Wow. Militant Agnosticism is as bad as christian fundamentalism!
*wink*
I was not asked to give evidence, I was only asked to admit that there was none. I stated that I do no concede that point. It did not behoove me to elaborate any more on the issue. If you would like to do that in such depth, the comments thread on a single post of a blog is not the site for constructive discussion.
Furthermore, I did give an example of an evidence that bears on the issue (the consistency of natural law), and my opinion of it. And it bears noting that the presentation of the difference between opinion and evidence suggests an outdated and simplistic view of science: the early inductivist philosophy of science made the same error, suggesting that theories (explanatory principles) arose naturally from the data. This is rejected today by (I believe) all philosophers of science - human minds interpret data and create theories. It doesn't mean they are untrue, but it creates a fuzzy distinction between the facts and the opinions we are to draw from them. This is why I state that it is my opinion (perhaps you would have preferred "interpretation" or "conclusion").
As I ponder this issue, it occurs to me that perhaps evidence only becomes evidence by how we think about. There are various facts about the world, and how we use these facts determines whether they are evidence. To me, someone stating the origin of species through variation, mutation and selection as an evidence against God is as logical as the statement that bluegrass mandolin music is evidence of fusion in the sun.
Again, I don't see the two belief systems (agnosticism and atheism) as mutually exclusive. I think one is about belief and the other is about knowledge. I don't know if god (or santa, or the easter bunny, of the FSM) exist or not, but I don't believe in him/her/it/them. I heard once that the reason why we we so frequently organize knowledge into mutually exclusive dichotomies has to do with the cultural roots of our philosophy, and that on other cultures 'fuzzy' philosophy is much more common. I don't know if that is true or not but it's an interesting idea and one that I would like to know more about. If anyone has a source for that line of thought, I would be appreciate enlightenment.
There is nothing wrong with knowing that I can't know any truth to what exists.
Except that the very expression is logically contradictory.
it would not be philosophically correct.
I hate these fundamentalist agnostics. They're so... militant.
It's evidence that no creator is necessary. God is superfluous and pointless.
For the record, that is my comment, not Eric's.
The question was in response to your comment @#61:
and was:
What evidence (scientific or otherwise) is there that science is not the "end all of all that there is"?
Your response is an equivocation on the meaning of the word "evidence" and not an indictment of the scientific method. In other words, a dodge.
Re: "Why should I give time to the easter bunny when there is exactly zero evidence of it actually being real?"
But I don't give time to it (heck, whoever brought it into this discussion in the first place is the real culprit in us all ending up giving some time to it -- normally, I don't even post here because I think it's a big fat waste of time, in itself). I just don't deny it is possible it could exist.
Why should you think it not even possible for it to be real? It's just not a philosophically tenable conclusion. There's not exactly zero *chance* that it's real. Epsilon, but not zero, and this is a statement about possibilities.
Most atheists would like to label me atheist. Sorry, they should be labelled agnostic. It's not fuzzy. It's not that I fear a label of "militant" atheism. I just don't think atheism is exactly correct.
Well it seemed like you did..
Unless you miss typed. I do it frequently.
Yes of course human minds use data to create theories. But it's much more than an opinion on what that data means. Theories do more than just organize data in to a thought, they also explain how that data is relevant and also make predictions on what that data will mean in the future.
"philosophically correct."
Wow... now there's a whole NEW topic of conversation... what the hell does that even mean?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 3:28 PM
OK... and his response is wrong how?
Because "in a legal sense" is is not the point, as I did what was asked, even provided an example of non-scientific evidence. Lets get up to speed please.
I come to this website to read about what's going on in religious imperialism, and what happens? I get attacked even when most atheists don't disagree with my opinions. What's the goddamn point in being a community of any sort when you're going to turn your side away? If you're so concerned about the practical, real world that you see in front of you, you'd think you wouldn't be so stupid as to lose yourself allies.
No Salt, you MADE it the point when you equivocated with a non-sequitur... You just don't like being called on it. YOU keep up, please...
B. Evan Carlson:
Thanks for fully participating in the debate, and respecting the participation of others. I'm sure your comments will be given similar consideration.
Is the notion of "God" explicable? If not, how does it explain "explainability"?
Why are the little sacs of protoplasm moored on a infinitesimally small dot in a universe that is trillions of cubic light years of vacuum at a little above absolute zero?
If there is nothing else one can say for your god, it is that he is incredibly inefficient.
Salt's only "victory" is in managing to waste a whole lot of smart people's time. And that's it.
Eva:
Atheism is not a claim of absolute certainty.
Who attacked you?
If you think we need to have absolute certainty before arguing for atheism or any other position, maybe you are not a very good ally.
And what exactly does it mean to "lose" you as an ally? You will become a theist if someone's mean to you on the internet? You will stop supporting science or some other goal that we have in common? What?
Attack of an idea is not an attack of a person. If you can't make that distinction than you probably shouldn't be hanging out here, especially if you think my comment you quoted is a personal attack.
All you are describing is "all knowledge is conditional" which is what most rationalists believe anyway. There's nothing anti-agnostic about it. Short of mathematics and logic, the only thing that can be proven with 100% certainty is that you exist, and you can only prove that to yourself. All other knowledge is conditional based on what we can observe, and is subject to modification as more information is presented.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible to make judgments on the likelihood of a claim based on the evidence. Do you think the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are likely to exist? I don't. I think they are extremely unlikely and thus, I say "they don't exist" with the implied understanding that I could be wrong even if I think it is extremely unlikely that I am. In other words, my position is that they don't exist and I will only be convinced that they do by sufficient evidence to the contrary. I hold the same position with god.
If, on the other hand, your position is that because we can't know one way or the other that either is just as likely to be true, then I disagree entirely.
And if your position is that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. are very unlikely to be true but god is 50/50, then I think you are being intellectually dishonest because you are making a special case for a claim even more extraordinary than any of the other examples given.
I can say that god doesn't exist with the same certainty I say that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, leprechauns and unicorns don't exist, and it is not intellectually dishonest in the least.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 3:49 PM
Your response is an equivocation on the meaning of the word "evidence" and not an indictment of the scientific method. In other words, a dodge.
I have not, nor do I, indict the scientific method. I have no rational basis to do so. So, what would I be dodging? The problem here seems to be that, again, the only evidence acceptable here is that generated by scientific inquiry.
You seem quite willing to make statements and/or inquiry ~i.e. concerning the existence of God/god(s) from a foundation, science, completely non-equipped to make such inquiry. I find this most amusing.
BEC, you can believe in your god. I think most of us here will give you that. But we don't have to believe in your god, and that is where the problem usually starts. People of faith don't like non-believers, so they try impose their belief on us. We fight back, so we are the militant ones?
On science per se, since it ignores god in all things, it is atheistic (I would really prefer adeistic, which doesn't appear to be a word) in methodology. Individual scientists can be and are believers in god. Some of us find this strange, but it makes them happy, and if it doesn't affect their work we can live with it. You don't need to be defensive about your belief. Best though, if you quit trying to explain it.
Eva. We just like busting on agnostics. They're usually not so defensive. :D
It is weird that you claim to be agnostic about the easter bunny. Some agnostics seem to fly that agnostic banner as if it's some honor... that leaving open the possibility is somehow more logical than the atheistic "the likelyhood is so silly that it's impossible therefor nonexistent".
I mean really? Ohhhh, but we "don't know"!
Eva - You haven't seen anything yet. Wait till the witching hour when the trollops, sluts, man-whores, strumpets, lesbians, gays, drunks, bikers, fornicator's and old goats come out.
Many of the Maenads and followers of Pan and Bacchus are still sleeping it off at this point.
I look at a cloud and see the shape of an elephant. I know that it is not an elephant, but in fact, a visible grouping of ice crystals in the sky. But it still resembles the shape of an elephant. Religion is a way to see things, usually an ignorant way, but a way none the less. I can believe in the message of Jesus, even though I don't believe in the historical existence of Jesus. In that way only, I am a Christian.
Religion, I think, was a way to learn life lessons. An uneducated, illiterate farmer might not have all the answers to the questions that his child might ask, or that he may even pose to himself. A weekly gathering of people from the countryside to learn and discuss these life questions was important in advancing civilization. But, religion was a tool, a way to share a message. And like any tool, some found other uses for it. Religion became power, and authority, and generated great wealth for some. And with power, wealth and authority, corruption and greed soon take over.
And that is basically what we're left with now. The people preaching, know that the bible isn't literal. But their profession is based on the continuation of some of the literal myths. We've seen a rise in fundamental religions in the world in the last 60 to 70 years. People who will believe in the literal, in face of reason and evidence have become a huge voting bloc. Leaders pander to that bloc, and create policies to enable and perpetuate that voting bloc because it is in their interests.
Today, the messages and teachings of Jesus/Mohamed/Moses/FSM do not need the structure of a Church/Mosque/Temple/Italian Restaurant. The important messages and life lessons can be learned in a myriad of different ways. Religion was the message, not a deity or afterlife. Those were, and are, only scare tactics to put asses in the pews.
I do not believe in a supreme being, but I do believe in the teachings of Christ.
So sayeth the Newf... with a dash of Gandhi.
(A)gnosticism is about knowledge.
(A)theism is about belief.
Agnosticism isn't the midpoint on a scale where atheism and theism are on opposite ends.
One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. To just say that you are an agnostic doesn't tell me anything about what you believe..."ok so you don't know but what do you believe?"
Again, sorry if I am repeating what others have said.
"What's the goddamn point in being a community of any sort when you're going to turn your side away? If you're so concerned about the practical, real world that you see in front of you, you'd think you wouldn't be so stupid as to lose yourself allies."
I'll start by pointing out that I agree with you general position, but I think we have some key differences which are at this point irrelevant.
But to answer your point -- The key thing that causes my most major distaste for religion isn't its incorrectness, but rather its tendency to cause large groups of people to nod their heads and agree for no reason.
I don't think I would be comfortable in any group that didn't argue within the ranks. It gives you tough skin, and it sharpens your ideas. We may have common ideas and principals, but we're open to dissent -- the key thing is that dissenters need to defend their ideas if they want to challenge the accepted balance. You may be talking semantics here, but you're still upsetting what the majority of us think of as Atheism. You're welcome (and I'd even say encouraged!) to dissent, but it doesn't mean it's an easy trip.
The "evidence" I offered wasn't intended to be presented rigorously for discussion and analysis, however; I was merely trying to give an example of the type of evidences that I've considered and not actually present my case. Apparently in my perception it a rather superficial statement, but I can see how others would read that as me stating evidence.
I understand what you are saying. The problem is that I am operating under a definition of opinion that I feel you introduced. I started a statement with "I believe ..." and you declared that to be opinion (implying, of course, MERE opinion.) I tried (I think, though I may have lost consistency, which is easy to do when distracted)to stick with that definition of opinion (=belief). Belief is relevant to discussion of theory. One must believe a theory (def. of believe = accept as true), one must believe that the data means one thing and not another, etc. Very intelligent men and women, within communities and between, often do not believe the same theories. There is a judgment call required - the evidence doesn't necessarily present a single indisputable theory. My statement then about what I believe is a statement of belief and of evidence - I accept one interpretation of the evidence, because my analysis indicates that it is better. I may be presented with evidence in the future that would cause me to reject my present analysis, but it has not been shown to me.
This is what I was thinking, they I most likely did not relate it well.
P.S. Enjoying the discussion, but will likely be unable to respond. As it so happens, I'm off to a seminar course on the relation between evolution and Christianity.
Why is it that all trolls find logic amusing?
Why is it that what they FEEL to be the truth, makes them think they are superior?
My irony meter exploded.
Dodge, dodge, dodge, red herring, unmitigated bullshit. I'm not taking the bait.
Yes. If god is observable, then science can tell whether or not it exists. If it isn't, then nobody can know, including those who think they do. If it isn't observable, where did they get the idea in the first place? If it can't be known, how did they get the idea there was anything to know anything about?
this is a statement about possibilities.
Okay. So, you believe there is a non-zero probability that you will be subjected to eternal torment after you die, but you have no qualms whatsoever about simply ignoring this possibility and going merrily about your sinning ways?
It's all fun and games when we're talking about trivial shit like the EB: who over the age of eight cares where their Cadbury Egg or whatever comes from, right? Gimme the goods! But, taken at face value, religious claims are serious, and horrific. That you don't care about them implies that you're not as agnostic about them as you'd like to claim; or you're not taking them at face value, implying that you're bringing a "philosophically incorrect" level of prior knowledge to the matter.
For what it is worth, I'm with you 100% on this issue, Dr Myers.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 4:07 PM
we don't have to believe in your god, and that is where the problem usually starts. People of faith don't like non-believers, so they try impose their belief on us. We fight back, so we are the militant ones?
Oh, there are some very militant believers. Anyway, the problem is the seemingly competing belief structures found within the public sphere.
Just my opinion here, but many, even most, believers do not have a problem with evolution being taught in schools. The science/evidence supports it enough to its inclusion. The problem arises when evolution intrudes into abiogenesis, which I interpret here as "first cause"; unanswerable (that the universe could be without God/god(s) as postulated by science is not the final word on "does He exist").
It is your assertion that there are other ways of knowing besides the scientific method. You were asked to provide examples and did not. You are dodging.
What makes science non-equipped to make this judgment?
I come to this website to read about what's going on in religious imperialism, and what happens? I get attacked even when most atheists don't disagree with my opinions. What's the goddamn point in being a community of any sort when you're going to turn your side away? If you're so concerned about the practical, real world that you see in front of you, you'd think you wouldn't be so stupid as to lose yourself allies.
I sure hope you we're referring to me? If you were please explain how i was attacking you.
bah. blockquote fail
I sure hope you we're referring to me? If you were please explain how i was attacking you.
Salt -
Which was done in this thread by whom, at what point?
Evolution has zero to say about abiogenesis... and most of us here repeat that quite often...
Don't worry Salt, science will eventually solve the abiogenesis problem, and your alleged god will have to retreat to an even finer gap. Just what you need, a god that has to duck and hide. Eventually he will get so small that he doesn't exist.
There is nothing wrong with science investigating abiogenesis. It's quite answerable. Look at Urey-Miller. It's scientific, it's possible, it's a hot topic of study.
Here's the thing, nothing Jesus said was all that new or revolutionary. It had all been said before. Much of what he said was either wrong or immoral. Keep the good stuff, acknowledge it didn't come from Jesus, and drop the guy.
If Eva really is *unsure* about whether the Easter Bunny exists, like she claims, mysterious eggs could potentially settle the issue. (Unless hare eggs miraculously transsubstantiate to chocolate?)
Come on Salt, do try to be a bit more entertaining.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:18 PM
If [God} isn't [observable], then nobody can know, including those who think they do.
Do we need to revisit the 'love' discussion we just had?
If it isn't observable, where did they get the idea in the first place? If it can't be known, how did they get the idea there was anything to know anything about?
Sounds like a non-scientific inquiry to me, suggesting seeking evidence outside of the realm of science. Be very careful, as your head might explode.
Do you really think it has anything to do with what we're discussing?
In what way?
Lose the self-righteousness, Salt. It's a sure sign you've got no argument.
Again salt.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
One last word ...
If this is a response to me, than you have failed to understand me.
Nothing that I feel makes me think I am superior. I am responding to the superiority complex of others by explicitly couching my statements in a fair amount of uncertainty. Two people discuss evidence, each comes do different conclusions (what they believe to be right), and either one or neither of them are correct. This is the framework I am working in here. Where is the problem?
Furthermore, do you FEEL that you are correct about some things? You may "know" them as well, but that necessarily means that your beliefs about them are that they are correct. How are we different? Where have I faltered?
Give me an intelligent response and I might renege on my promise to not post any more.
P.S. I wasn't aware that this was considered trolling. I don't frequent blogs much but have started reading Pharyngula. I thought I commented on the content of the initial posting and then dialogued about the topic with other interested readers. Where am I mistaken?
Jeez. just saw a typo that totally changes what i meant in #210 and #211
That should be "weren't referring about me"
Well, you are the King of Typo's after all. ;o)
Salt, dear boy, it's really quite simple. If it's not scientific, it's not evidence. Analysis and correlation of evidence is what science does, you ass. You can define your so-called "non-scientific evidence" however you like, but in the end what you're waffling about is an empty set.
@Pillar of salt for brains
The question was about non-scientific evidence. Your's is an example of a fighting retreat back into the womb of science.
"The womb of science"? No such thing, and there is no "retreat" here, fighting or otherwise; there is merely the ongoing illustration that you are throwing unscientific ranting into a discussion about a scientific question.
I'm reminded of the old holiday classic "Miracle on 34th Street" where the existence of Santa Claus was "proven" in a court of by the existence of letters to Santa written by children. Of course, the film was fantasy; in the real world such fervent displays of faith have no bearing on whether there is an old man at the north pole whose elves make toys all year and then delivers them all around the world on one night in a flying sled pulled by eight flying reindeer. Yet that is precisely the kind of illogical argument you are making with your statement about non-scientific evidence in a court of law.
Also, the historical example you used at #140 is very revealing; More, cast in later centuries as a man of conscience, was an uncompromising idealogue who burned people at the stake for heresy. His trial was over issues that were not merely unscientific, but anti-scientific. The scientific tools used to gather and weigh courtroom evidence today not only didn't exist in More's time, they would have been violently rejected as ungodly.
@ B. Evan Carlson
The problem is that if you are arguing from the position of religion, then you enter the argument lacking evidence in the first place... and if you come to any conclusion that includes "god" based on a discussion of actual "evidence", then evaluating evidence is not your strong suit in the first place. I'm not trying to be snide, here, B. Evan. If you disagree with that premise, tell me how it is wrong.
Oh, and FWIW, I'm not sure the "Troll" comment was directed at you, necessarily... now Salt, on the other hand...
Of necessity the position of religion lacks evidence, or I didn't bring evidence? If it is the first case, then you have ruled out religion a priori and there is nothing I can do to argue with you. If the second, than I clarify again that I am not trying to make my argument, just present my opinion.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 4:40 PM
Lose the self-righteousness, Salt. It's a sure sign you've got no argument.
Coming from one who said "If it isn't observable... If it can't be known..."
Now, that is scientific inquiry at its finest - inquiry into the self described unobservable / unknowable. If it's unobservable / unknowable, by definition, science cannot confirm its existence, only speculate. All one need do is read your comments here to see your dancing.
Oh, please! You want self-righteous? Go look in a mirror.
"I assume that you really mean non-scientific evidence which one who views all evidence through the lens of science would accept. Non-scientific evidence acceptable to Pharyngulians. An oxymoron in search of cognitive dissonance"
Salt,
I would really like to prove to you that Hinduism is the one true faith, but that would require me to present you with some evidence. However, since you are a Christian, you would view this evidence through the prism of Christianity and reject it off hand. Therefore, I will not waste my time.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I hope you get the point.
By the way, if a particular type of evidence (for instance anecdotal evidence) is not good enough for you, don't expect it to be any better for someone else. A case in point: if you're a Christian, don't expect an Atheist to accept God exists because you felt his presence if you're not willing to accept the existence of the Great Godess because some pagan says she felt her presence.
There is such a thing as double standard.
Nice dodge. Answer the question.
How is abiogenesis "first cause"? First cause would presumably be the Big Bang, or perhaps something that preceded it. Abiogenesis was a result of chemistry, of processes that existed even before the Earth formed. It was just one more event in the history of the universe, one which, in all likelihood, has been repeated countless times on other planets around other stars.
Eva, perhaps the terminology used here would be clearer if we ran the arguments the other way: Are you, for example, agnostic about the existence of your mother? It is certainly possible that she is just a figment of your imagination, and that you are actually a brain in a vat, or a butterfly dreaming she is a person, or a replicant given synthetic memories, any other such scenario. Sure, those possibilities are unlikely, but you can't rule them out, so do you consider yourself a "mother agnostic"?
I would argue that the likelihood that there is a god is much less than the likelihood that you don't actually have a mother (given that we can come up with purely non-supernatural explanations as to how that might be). I for one wouldn't describe myself as agnostic about the existence of my mother, nor would I describe myself as agnostic about the non-existence of god. I think that, if I am intellectually honest, I can't be one and not the other. What about you?
Blockquote fail in post 226. *headdesk*
Celtic, I'm sure the troll reference is for sodium chloride. We should throw some water on him and watch him "melt" like the wicked witch.
BEC hasn't reached troll stage yet. He will if he continues his godbotting though. BEC, this means keeping your faith to yourself.
You are one pretentious little shit, aren't you? You clearly are making up your own meaning for the word "science"; you don't even seem to know what it means. Then you purport to understand atheists better than they understand you? Get over yourself.
Scientific evidence is any evidence that can be corroborated by independent observers making similar observations. If you have any evidence that doesn't meet that criterion, then it is not evidence at all. Why not? Because the only thing that fits the bill is personal experience, insight, intuition or any of that wishy-washy stuff. And all of that is notoriously prone to error. You can't even trust your own eyes -- optical illusions are quite common. Worse than that, most optical illusions are really cognitive illusions -- the illusion happens in your brain.
This would imply that everything that happens in your brain that can't be corroborated by an independent observer is suspect. Not patently false, but certainly not verifiably true.
But you don't really care. You just want to be a self-righteous asshole and tell us all that we're short-sighted for recognizing your useless claptrap for what it is. This is evidenced by the fact that even when people ask you to clarify your assertions as to our ignorance in a relatively snarkless manner, you refuse.
So one more time: what is this "non-scientific evidence" you're talking about? If you can't answer it, then I have to assume that a) you don't have an answer or b) you're a crapscreamer or c) both.
Well said PZ.
@ B. Evan Carlson
You are catching on... although I don't think you meant the statement the way I'm going to take it. :)
When discussing matters of evidence centering around this topic, yes... religion is ruled out a priori... there is no evidence, save for anecdotal experience. And as has been said here before, the plural of anecdote is not "data".
Again, if I am mistaken, and there is some concrete, clear evidence that I and the rest of us have somehow missed, I'm willing to listen. Don't confuse my refusal to hear arguments for religion with my ability to listen intently if actual, real evidence supporting it is presented.
B,Evan,
I was referring to Salt. I don't see you as a troll.
Everything begins with feeling. A theist proceeds to search for reasons to verify his feeling. An scientist questions whether or not that feeling has merit. (generally speaking)
Salt #160 wrote:
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 27, 2008 4:49 PM
Two people discuss evidence, each comes do different conclusions (what they believe to be right), and either one or neither of them are correct.
Yes, either one is correct or both are wrong.
and if you come to any conclusion that includes "god" based on a discussion of actual "evidence", then evaluating evidence is not your strong suit in the first place
There you go again. Tainting by implication your own bias as to what constitutes "actual evidence"; evidence by science inquiry. You couldn't have been more glaring had you put it in neon lights.
Again, again salt.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
You've been asked repeatedly to support the assertion that this bias is not justified and have yet to do so. I can only conclude that you can't.
I wrote a lengthy comment on this topic on the original thread so I won't bother going into that much detail again. But to sum up, I'll say that science can cast doubt on religion when religion makes claims that can be tested by scientific methods.
'There is a god who created the earth and all the animals on it, ex nihilio; it and they are the same now as they were then and evolution is a myth' is testable by science, and science has shown that to be untrue - unless, of course, the god involved is a lying sack of shit.
Whatever I said in the last thread still applies, no I don't think that evolution implies atheism but it does change the role of humanity from being the one species created in the image of God to just one of 6 million living species that are all related. This does take the need away for God because it answers one of the most fundamental questions: "where do we come from?"
Salt -
First, I know accuracy in quoting isn't your strong suit, but read the posts more carefully... I didn't make the first statement you attributed to me.
And second,
Unless and until you can come up with an answer to the question posed to you SEVERAL times that you have dodged as many times, namely (and I will quote the good Rev. BDC for conciseness), "Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?", please consider this a priori to all your future posts on the subject: shut the hell up.
Oh... and that quip I made about "evaluating evidence is probably not your strong suit"... well... to quote Adam Sandler from "Wedding Singer"... in a sweet, breathy voice... "I wrote that about you".
Rev, I don't think magnesium hydroxide wants to answer. After all, once we pin him down there goes his fun. But this constant shifting just makes him look stupid. An intelligent man would have stated his case by now, clearly and succinctly.
>So... with that as a starting point, let's hypothesize that a group of people were born into this world in this day, and given all of the knowledge we have, scientifically, about the world around us. And they are given no introduction, in any way, to any religious doctrine, teaching, or other history. Do you still suppose that group would ultimately, in some fashion, embrace a religious component of their own design?
That would be my brother and I.
The answer is no.
Oh, hey, Salt!
I see you never returned to finish this other discussion concerning evidence back in August:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/we_dont_need_teleology_so_wh…
How 'bout it?
Wow. An intelligently written blog entry quickly reduced to a reactive, angry pissing contest in the comments. How sad, yet so familiar...
Given that the theory of evolution is still a THEORY and cannot be proven without a doubt through the process of scientific method, I think it is amazing that Darwin's theory, for which he was commissioned to write, as so many scientists do in order to eat, is still being taught and accepted by so many as fact.
Given that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, has been rewritten so many times and so many ancient texts omitted by those in organized religion who prefer to keep things as irrational as possible, it is amazing to me that there are still so many people who completely ignore the brilliant words of Jesus Christ and how they apply to living in this world, and would rather be superstitious and ignorant.
The point is, blind belief in either extreme means you aren't thinking for yourself, and therefore not evolving as a human being.
Zero to FAIL in three sentences.
I dislike Asimov's appeal to emotion for declaring himself an atheist, because it reduces the argument to two emotional factions, and eliminates the rational, objective arguments. Among other things, this bolsters the religious man's claim that atheism is merely an unproveable belief, of the same stripe as religion itself.
Does one need to appeal to some sense of emotional disbelief in the idea that "Hurk-Hurk the Cosmic Hairball" in order for dismissal of it as abject fiction to be intellectually respectible?
Is a Christian's gut-feeling rejection of Odin and Zeus more intellectually respectible than an atheist's logic-based rejection of YHVH? What about when a Christian says there is zero evidence for Odin?
Personally, I like tsg's argument above, which boils down to: You have zero observable evidence on your side, and admit as much; it therefore follows that anything that you affirmatively claim is something that you have made up out of your own imagination.
We "believe in" evolution because it has tremendous evidence in its favor, not because we're mindless followers of Darwin.
And how is following Jesus' words "thinking for yourself"?
And of course the old "it's only a theory" bullshit. Yeah, so is the germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. etc. etc. Look up the meaning of "theory" in the scientific sense.
These trolls remind me of this webcomic:
http://cectic.com/069.html
FAIL
fact - the evidence
hypothesis - an explanation that explains said evidence
theory - an explanation that is very well supported by fact
law - a mathematical representation of a theory
It's not a scale, theory is the highest evolution can go. It won't change from being a theory, just like gravity.
HAHAHA. Wow. Deb. Truly moronic. Nice one.
@ Deborah Hill
Quick, Deborah... name me 4 other scientific theories... any 4... go on.
Next... name my 5 scientific principles that have been "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".
OK... still with me? Good... now, show me how lack of "proof beyond the shadow of a doubt" = god did it.
Last one... please explain to me how accepting widely accepted scientific theory based on mountains of evidence, years of testing and observation, predictive powers and independent confirmation is in any way, shape or form comparative to blind religious indoctrination.
I humbly await a response as demeaning and authoritative as your last post.
We have religions because humans have always wanted explanations, answers to questions.
The sun and the moon were considered gods until our ancestors realised what they were. People thought the gods gave us rain, thunder and lightning until someone worked out how moisture collects in clouds and electricity discharges in the atmosphere.
'God' was once the answer to pretty much everything. Science can't 'prove' there's no god, but it can prove that every claim made about him - pertaining to the physical world - is false.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 5:21 PM
You've been asked repeatedly to support the assertion that this bias is not justified and have yet to do so. I can only conclude that you can't.
"asked repeatedly to support the assertion that this bias is not justified"? Repeatedly? As this is the first mention of this one can hardly say "repeatedly".
Next.
Salt -
please refer to post #244.
Again, again, again, again salt.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
Repeatedly. And you still haven't answered because you can't.
@Salt, #257
I'm not sure if you're blind, insane, or a truly lame troll. Virtually every comment that's been directed at you for the last 100 comments or so has been asking you for your methods of how you KNOW the UNKNOWABLE and what para-scientific method you use to know these things.
It's not a hard question Salt, in the absence of empiricism how do you verify your beliefs? How do you know that what you believe is true?
The above paragraph does make complete sense if you read it as sarcasm...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 5:29 PM
Rev, I don't think magnesium hydroxide wants to answer. After all, once we pin him down there goes his fun. But this constant shifting just makes him look stupid. An intelligent man would have stated his case by now, clearly and succinctly.
The case is not to be made utilizing only that evidence deemed admissible here at Pharyngula. Would be like casting pearls before swine.
For the record:
#73,77,97,107,118,152,218,219,240, and 244 just to name a few.
You have not answered because you can't.
Dodge.
You have not answered because you can't.
Blind belief?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
As well as several in the August thread I linked to @ #247, and I'm sure others before that. Salt's a useless troll.
Total dodge.
Posted by: tsg | October 27, 2008 6:01 PM
Repeatedly? As this is the first mention of this one can hardly say "repeatedly".
For the record:
#73,77,97,107,118,152,218,219,240, and 244 just to name a few.
You have not answered because you can't.
LMAO! Each # you mention coupled with corresponding answers proves my point.
You guys are really fun, really. You remind me of listening to the talking heads on CNN.
Even more. You just need to tell us how you come to this evidence and how you check yourself on this evidence.
I'm not even asking for the evidence.
Goodbye, troll.
personally, gave up on gawd less than a year after shedding santa belief. had no idea what evolution was at the time. science has merely reinforced logic.
Dance, Salt, dance!
Whee-hee!
Salt, I'm sure you think you're showing your wit but you have yet to answer these question further proving that you can't.
Please explain to me the other way of knowing that will allow you to garner proof and evidence from seeking outside the realm of science when dealing with non-observable and non-testable things such as the supernatural? What rules do you use?
Come on salt, stop avoiding. How do you know something is true without using empiricism? What do you use to support it?
"The point is, blind belief in either extreme means you aren't thinking for yourself"
Sometimes one of the "extremes" is right. Really. You calling it "blind" belief is just projection on your part.
Deb claimed:
1. Can you see your own logical contradictions? I doubt it.
2. You cannot "prove" either with or by any other means A. that the Biblical Jesus is a real person; B. That "his words" are really his words. The OT and NT are so cribbed from other religions--Jesus' birth story is nearly identical to Horus's birth story.
3. No one knows anything with the certainty you demand. That includes your belief that you are sitting in front of a computer as there will always be some proposition that if not a logical contradiction will undermine that certainty; for example, that we are all in pods connected to a massive computer running Unix (or maybe Windows given all the evil in the world).
If this is an attempt at an exercise in POE's Law it is not a very good one.
I think you guys are being a little hard on poor Salt.
Keep up the good work!
Ladies and gentleman, your attention! For his next trick, Salt will become completely invisible. You won't see him at all. Now, if you just turn your backs, he'll get straight to it.
What's that? Oh, he can't do it if you're watching.
You want your money back? Why? He can become invisible. I promise. It's just he can't do it while anyone's watching. Don't you understand? Just turn your backs. It all makes perfect sense.
All we are doing is asking for intellectual honesty...
Keep up the good work!
I would have replied sooner to the replies, but I've been in a line at City Hall for hours to vote early- Totally worth it.
I'm not really going to argue with anyone since as I stated earlier, I have no proof for my assertions (yet).
However I think that it's important to have a definition of religion that focuses on it's most significant common aspects cross-culturally, and in my opinion, belief in the supernatural is more of a parlor trick and a side effect, and that everything else that comes with religion: The devotion, the fear, the loathing, millenarianism, love, conceptions of morality- that all of that is a more significant effect of religion. My postulate (and if by now you get it, I apologize for restating it) is belief in weird things is subservient to social and other psychological needs.
After all, picking on Bill Maher as a convenient example, he's a complete loon by so many standards regarding vaccines and "toxins" and abortion, etc. However it's enough for some people to accept him into a broader community of critical thinkers just because he's a vocal Atheist. Why? If he espoused critical thinking on every issue except for 9/11 conspiracies then the broader community of critical thinkers would want nothing to do with him.
I'm not saying that people have to be perfect on every single frakkin' thing, but I am pointing out that failures of critical thought exist independently enough from religion that it should effectively bear only a secondary impact on how we think of religion as a social dynamic. In other words, correlation does not indicate causation, and out thinking should reflect that.
That's going to be my last word on this because the whole thing is very difficult to discuss without chasing our tails semantically and to be completely frank, it's still a germinal idea in my head that I wanted to put out there to see what other people might think.
And with "pearls before swine," Salt mockingly acknowledges that he never intended to put up in the first place. What a nice person.
Interesting topic, too bad I'm a few hours late. I may as well put in my two cents anyway. I call myself agnostic, but functionally I'm an atheist. Here's why:
The question of the existence of an all-powerful supreme being is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. These questions we can leave to the philosophers, along with other time wasters such as "what if the world popped into existence, exactly as it is, two seconds ago?" The scientific method cannot be applied to such a question because no experiment can be designed that will support one side over the other.
The same is true for God - no experiment can be designed to test for the existence of a being that can manipulate reality. In fact, here we come to the "failure" of scientific reasoning. Science is based on empiricism, which is itself based on inductive logic. We all know that science cannot be used to "prove" an argument, only to support it, since there is always a finite probability that the results will be completely different the next time an experiment is run.
I find these sorts of unscientific questions to be interesting, but ultimately unproductive, and it's foolish to even attempt to take one side or the other based on science. (However, science vs. religion is a different matter entirely.) Better to limit oneself to scientific questions. Hence, I call myself an agnostic, although functionally I behave as if I dont' believe there is a God.
Meh, methinks Salt's gone for now.
Anyway, one of the other conflicts I see between religion and science is that religion has always involved setting limits on the questions you can and can't ask, particularly when it's started looking like science was going to point out that something 'inerrant' was, in fact, far from it. And that's inherently anti-science.
Fortunately for humanity, science hasn't - for the most part - let that stop it. Unfortunately, the religulous are still managing to use their fantasies to try and hinder science; stem-cell research being the best example.
Poor old Salt. He bravely turned and ran away.
But he always comes back.
First, the question actually posed in the OP:
Yes, an understanding of evolution leads, though not inexorably, toward atheism. No, however, it isn't inevitable. I imagine, though, the deeper a person gets into evolution, as a researcher, the more likely that person is to turn to atheism.
Second, regarding the fairly rampant discussion on how we define ourselves: I'm an agnostic. Here's why. Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. I don't define myself by what I believe, but by what I know. Therefore, I consider myself agnostic.
Third: A two panel comic:
1) An agnostic chimes in ...
Atheist: "There is no god."
Theist: "Yes there is."
Agnostic: "I don't have the evidence to support either side."
2) A militant agnostic adds his $0.02 ...
Atheist: "There is no god."
Theist: "Yes there is."
Agnostic: "I don't have the evidence to support either side, and neither do either of you."
John B. Sandlin
Sometimes I wish PZ wasn't so patient with trolls like potassium hydroxide (he who shall not be named, but alluded to). I would love to see the slimy troll disemvoweled until he agrees to clean up his act.
He'd probably wet his pants if PZ threw him in the gulag for six months.
I don't know about that - for those of us (relatively) new to this whole blog-based debate thing it's handy to have an example of the different kinds of sophistry the religulous will use in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Yeah, it's boring for those who've seen it a thousand times before, but some of us are a little further back on the learning curve and can appreciate the chance to gain a few XP - for want of a better term.
If he does come back, I've got a dollar it's for a drama queen exit.
I'll give three to two he says something like "dogmatic devotion to scientism" as the reason he's abandoning the conversation.
John B., to help answer the first of your questions, there is a well known inverse correlation between education/intelligence and religious belief. So by the time you get to practicing scientists, most of whom have a PhD, and are out there intelligence wise on the IQ bell curve, the odds of them being a believer in god/religion is greatly diminished. Those that do believe tend to be religious lite. Then if you take the cream of the working scientists, you obtain the NAS figure of only, IIRC, of 7% believing in god. Essentially natural selection for atheism at work.
Taner Edis wrote that the encroachment of modern science has turned God into a "cosmic Santa Claus." It sounds a bit as if he's saying that people use God to ask for things, but his point is more subtle than that.
When we no longer believe in a literal Santa Claus, we often say we still believe in Santa Claus, but in a different sense. Santa doesn't give presents: the "spirit" of Santa is what inspires parents to buy the presents and give them to their kids. We believe in what Santa is: charity, benevolence, and fun. Those things are real, and that is how we know Santa. He works through people, in the ideas, as they become real. You can't understand Santa unless you understand the whole cultural baggage and benefits of Christmas. When you see the smile of a child when they get their heart's desire, you believe.
And so forth.
You can dance around the issue of Santa's existence in interesting ways. Ditto with God.
You've got to wonder about how these trolls see themselves. They come on here, dump whatever they can on empiricism, but when asked for what alternative they use, they shut up shop. There's no putting their beliefs under the same scrutiny as they do to others, there's no discussion about the pros and cons of their belief system. Time and time again these hacks come here just to shit on a system which from their words is something they don't understand beyond a theoretical level. They are cowards, intellectually dishonest timewasters who do not know how to converse. They have no interesting in discussion, they just want to preach and are under the delusion that people will see their intelligence and see them in awe.
It's frustrating because a few of them actually have some half-decent ideas that are well worth discussion. It's just impossible to do so.
The Chemist @ 11,
And what specifically were your philosophical leanings at the time of your birth?
For the record I don't believe I had any.
Aren't social dynamics learned behavior?
Religion is instinctive? You're kidding right?
If what you say is true, why do you supposed that most newborns grow up to profess the faith of their own parents and tend to follow the social norms of the culture in which they grow up and not some arbitrarily contrived religious beliefs of their own.
Belief in Santa Claus is more rational, in a sense, than belief in God. At least the existence of Santa Clause is testable. We can potentially track him on radar as he flies around the world and try to watch him with our satellites.
Personally, I would rather meet Krampus.
Surely the case could be made that some of the thought processes that lead to religious thinking are encoded in our genes and arise when the brain develops. These thought processes would have non-religious use as well, but it's those same processes that give rise to religious thought: gossip as a means of transfer of information, active imaginations, the ability to make causal links, etc. All of which have practical uses are the same building blocks of religious thought.i.e. we are born to think in the way the religion meme propagates because the meme has to survive by transmission on what was there beforehand. So we aren't born with religious knowledge, but we are all capable of being victims of the religious chain of thought.
You might want to rethink that. Pointing out that children speak the language of their parents does not argue against the thesis that language is instinctive.
The point is, humans are mimics. Linguistically, and socially. And social mimicry leads to the propagation of religion.
Also, there's this:
Being human: Religion
Atheism will always be a harder sell than religion, Pascal Boyer explains, because a slew of cognitive traits predispose us to faith.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/full/4551038a.html
Hm. I think I was a bit too terse.
Children (and adults) are also magical thinkers (where "magical thinking" is a less negative way of saying "superstitious").
So instinctive magical thinking and instinctive social mimicry leads to propagation of religion.
Oh, and children creating "some arbitrarily contrived religious beliefs of their own" does happen as well, now I think of it.
One could argue that religion (in its organized forms, at the very least) is more broadly harmful than 9/11 conspiracy theories, and therefore on some utilitarian basis Maher does more good than harm. I think this point of view would have some merit; however, by my personal reckoning, Maher's loonball attitudes are odious enough to make me steer clear of him. (Like Alan Sokal, I suspect that "credulity in minor matters prepares the mind for credulity in matters of greater import".) Were he the keynote speaker at a conference, let's say, I'd probably not go.
I mean, I'm just an angry guy with a website, so it doesn't really matter what I do, but that's what I'd do, anyway.
Deborah said,
That sentence is a FAIL on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin; however most of your ridiculousness has already been refuted so I will address the only one which hasn't. Darwin was a country gentleman with a nice estate and married a cousin, who was also rich in her own right. He was not obliged to write for a living and actually sat on his discoveries for 20 years, knowing full well what a shitstorm they were going to cause.
Seriously, you need to get a proper education and stop regurgitating the crap being fed to you by goebots.
There's a simple answer as to what constitutes "non-scientific evidence".
The scientific method is an approach to understanding things that tries to avoid our preconceptions and prejudices, so among other things, scientific evidence is evidence that can be independently verified. Therefore, non-scientific evidence would be evidence that cannot be verified.
The best example of such would be "revealed knowledge". It doesn't matter how someone claims they received it -- visions, dreams, apparitions, visitations -- only the recipient knows their knowledge is "true". They might claim this as evidence of something greater, but for everyone else, their "knowledge" is utterly indistinguishable from delusion.
When I was about 7, I asked my dad about why the Bible said the earth was created in 7 days, when NOVA and Carl Sagan clearly showed that it took a *lot* longer than 7 days.
My dad had a really interesting answer: If you were God, how long would one of your days be? A simple rotation of the planet you hadn't even created yet (because you started with light?)
I'm not a deist now that I'm an adult, but it seems that fundamentalism and creationism suffer from the same affliction - a lack of mental elasticity.
Exactly. That to me is why they won't dare to put it forward here, it's something they hold as absolutely true because it feels right - and how could it not be true if it feels so true? If the facts don't match the feeling, then the facts must be wrong because those feelings are more truthful than the facts are... of course this means of thinking doesn't get us anywhere, and it really doesn't do much more than highlight the flaws in human cognition. So it all gets rationalised away by attacking the methods that are very good at understanding fact in order to facilitate their own mental shortcomings. In short, they won't answer because they know they'll be mocked for doing so.
Owlmirror @299,
While I agree that all normal children have the innate ability to learn a language I don't think there are too many cases of children learning a language that they have not been exposed to. They still have to learn it.
Maybe I'm having a bit of a problem with the meaning of the word "instinct".
For example an infant placed in the water is able to swim by instinct. No teaching necessary.
I'm not quite sure if Magical thinking and innate linguistic ability fall into the same category.
I think it's quite telling that, whenever it is attempted to reconcile religion with science, it's always religion that has to give way, and never the other way around.
Salt for the chronic, epic fail.
Deb for the silver medal.
(shakes head)
Where do they find them and why do they send them here?
As for the original topic...I think some d'orcs need to read some Hume and stop trying to derive 'ought' conclusions from 'is' statements. Acceptance of MET does not imply atheism any more than studying electrical engineering implies Zeus, Thor, or Raiden.
The MadPanda, FCD
There are two ways to think about this.
1) In a strictly logical sense, evolution does not imply atheism. The existence of god cannot be disproven. If you say, "Ha! There's no way god could have orchestrated this worldly phenomenon", I say, "He's god, he can do whatever he wants."
2) On the other hand, if you accept the scientific method (which you probably do if you accept evolution), then you would probably agree that god is a pretty useless answer to any scientific question. The basic premise of most gods is that they are unknowable (except to the extent they choose to explain themselves), and therefore they can't be dealt with using the scientific method. God is the most boring answer to any question about how the world works or how it got the way it is today.
So if you accept the scientific method as the best way to understand how the world works, I think you have to either (a) reject belief in a supernatural deity or (b) compartmentalize it tightly, along the lines of "I wish this were true and it comforts me to imagine it but I'm never going to use it to make any decisions or explain anything in real life". The latter seems a bit difficult to me.
Um, whoops, my scroll bar is acting weird and I jumped past all the comments after about #10. So what I said has probably been said umpteen times over. *blush*
Gods are a null statement. Until they can be proven to exist, they don't. And why your god, and not the thousand or so others invented by humans over the years. You J, are an atheist. You disbelieve all those thousand gods except your on god. We just remove the final step to obtain true rationality.
Kel, That is an interesting subject, I too wonder many times just what the trolls find so motivating to come here and get their cyber fannies kicked around. Perhaps there's some pastoral newsletter sending them to to crusade.
I wonder what happens to them over on Dawkins site? His regulars don't see to be as feisty as PZ's barracudas.
Here's one possible answer for you, Patricia:
They're earning brownie points with their magic man by taking a few hits for the team. In fact, the harder we wallop them, the more brownie points they earn for suffering the slings and arrows of us wicked atheist scientific satan-worshiping types. So not only do they have no incentive to learn, they have a strong selective prejudice toward embracing what ought to be a negative experience.
In brief, it's masochism.
Since that implies Teh Kinky, of course, they can't admit this and instead insist that they're only ministering and witnessing the truth.
Since IANAPsychologist, I could very well be off the table and into someone's pint of lager, but I think that covers the bases well enough.
The MadPanda, FCD
Some think they have the ultimate argument against evolution, mostly because they've never heard it challenged. Some can't see how badly they're being beaten, because it would mean thinking about their position.
And then we have Salt who, in two successive posts, claimed we only asked the question once and that he answered it every time it was asked. "I didn't borrow your plate, it was broken when you gave it to me, and it wasn't broken when I gave it back." I can't begin to speculate what goes through his mind.
Salt, you have claimed that there is some evidence regarding God that we are overlooking, and called us myopic because of this. And yet, when questioned about it repeatedly, you consistently refuse to explain what any of this evidence actually is. You say we will simply reject it, but how can we reject or accept something, when you won't tell us what it is?
Why do you insist on hiding 'the Truth' from us??!?
While I was at the store and making enchiladas chile verde I notice that salt slithered off with out ever answering the question that he so proudly spawned. He just can't answer what other way of knowing he uses to confirm his supernatural beliefs.
Pathetic.
There are many reasons, of course, but I think a lot of them have problems dealing with intellectual matters and with people, so intend to sabotage threads and to cause disruptions. That many naive people simply believe what their pastors tell them I don't doubt at all. I just don't think many of these relatively harmless folk would be willing to subject themselves to such dens of "wicked atheism."
What we get are the JADs, Charlie Wagners, and FTKs, fairly incompetent folk (JAD once had talent, but clearly had problems that landed him in exile) who only feel competent when they're taking over a thread with their gibberish. They even know that what they're stating is pretty lame stuff, they just want the egoistic satisfaction of trolling that are the only triumphs of the troll-sort.
They're not really serving "the Lord" or the cause, even if they try to think that they are. Clearly they're not going to convince anybody by blithering on without answering anything, so your more intelligent religionists would not favor their trolling. It's just the way that they can feel important, no matter how dull and unconvincing they really are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I like slithered off. I don't think poor lithium iodide has any idea on the way to confirm supernatural beliefs. He just gets fun out of pretending he does and getting us all riled up. His performance today reminded me of Baba, who PZ didn't put up with for long. We'll see if he suffers the same fate.
I see your pathetic, and raise you an unhinged.
It was pathetic Rev., his answer was that he wouldn't answer because we weren't worthy of seeing his pearls of wisdom. What a stunning revelation. *snort*
I really want to hear him try and give an answer to that. Seriously.
It should be good.
And By good I mean hilarious.
Next time he shows up in another thread, and you know he will, he needs to be hammered until he answers.
he's the one that made the claim, so he has to support it.
"...bravely, bravely ran away...when knowledge reared it's awesome head, he bravely turned his tail and fled...valiantly he turned about and gallantly he chickened out...bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat..."
(with all due apologies to Sir Robin's Minstrels)
The MadPanda, FCD
"Given that the theory of evolution is still a THEORY and cannot be proven without a doubt through the process of scientific method, I think it is amazing that Darwin's theory, for which he was commissioned to write, as so many scientists do in order to eat, is still being taught and accepted by so many as fact."
I'm sure lots of folks have commented on this one, but I still can't stop myself. Your statement is not just wrong, it's spherically wrong, which means it's wrong no matter how you look at it. In science, 'theory' means "a coordinated framework of explanation for a range of phenomena', it does NOT mean "an unproven conjecture." A theory is considerably higher on the scientific pecking order than a mere 'fact', which is "something generally believed to be true." Facts change all the time. Theories also change, but usually only after the accumulation of a lot of observation evidence. This has been explained time and again by patient, gentle people like Eugenie SCott, and not-so-patient, curmudgeonly people like Richard Dawkins. Why, or why do you persist in not getting it?
On your second point, Darwin did not write his works on commission. Darwin was the independently wealthy son of a very prominent family. Darwin self-financed his entire career, including paying his own way on the Beagle. As for modern scientists, there would be no better way to make a permanent mark on science than to overturn natural selection as a theory of evolution, so you bet people have tried/are trying to do just that. Problem is, the pesky 'theory' just keeps working!
I have been reset back to the factory default settings - atheism.
Reality looks so much better this way. The deluded still worry me though. Scientific thought rules!
Cheers
j (309): "1) In a strictly logical sense, evolution does not imply atheism. The existence of god cannot be disproven. "
I think understand the point you are attempting, j, but an implication need not depend upon proof. Your point 1) is either logically or semantically incorrect, because an implication can be arrived at from mere evidence, and there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god need not be believed in to get equally useful explanations.
In other words, although the existance of a god cannot be disproven, claims about the god can be discredited sufficently well with evidence, and the evidence for evolution does imply the absence of a god.
You probably have that right Glen, ego can make people do lots of stuff.
Some of them look like a college prank, to see how many posts it takes to get kicked off the blog, or many times they can get called a fucktard. That's probably ego based too.
Imagine what a funny book PZ could write about some of the fights he has archived.
Um, who doesn't accept the scientific method?
@Greg, all the way back at #83
"Certainly. I can't deny you your affiliations, even if I don't agree. :)
So long as inquiry is alive and people wonder and ask questions, ultimately, I think we're ok regardless of differences of opinion."
Agreed -- and well-said.
I think they come here out of a combination of ignorance and hubris.
Ignorance because they have no idea about atheism or what might lead a person to be an atheist; they can't comprehend that anyone here might be a deconvert and/or possess far more knowledge and understanding of philosophy, religious texts and apologetics than anyone they've ever met.
A Xian I know firmly believes that there's no such thing as atheism because it's 'so obvious' that god exists and we must all be in denial. I think i was actually at a loss for words when I heard that - and that doesn't happen often.
Hubris because they think they have an argument that no-one here's ever heard and it's going to blow us out of the water, or they're a regular visitor to Vox Day's or Ray Comfort's site, or can cut/paste whichever sophist apologist is popular on the web that week.
Why they stay is probably a little more complicated. Since I consider almost anyone religious to be a Pascal's Wagerer at heart - in that I can't imagine too many of them actually 'believe the hype' they're spouting - I suspect they're trying to convince themselves that we aren't right far more than they are trying to convince us.
That's an old rationalization, but it doesn't work. For one thing, the order is all wrong. For another, the Bible explicitly says "there was evening and there was morning, the first [second, third, etc.] day", which makes it pretty clear that a literal day was intended by the original authors. If you take the story as pure fiction, as I do, there's no problem. Within the story, 7 ordinary days passed. If you're a literalist, again there's no problem. The problem only comes when you try to reconcile the text with the facts.
Trolls like salt think they are demonstrating some superior intellect when they pull the stunts like he did. Unfortunately for him it only comes off like grade school taunting and "I know you are but what am I" styled games. He didn't put forth a single coherent point that followed the discussion. His little law gambit was such utter translucent bullshit that it was pathetic.
Really very lame.
It's standard philosophical debate behaviour - don't ever agree on definitions and you can't be shown to be wrong. He kept on making claims that he had 'ways of knowing the truth' without science, but, since we believe science is the only way of knowing, we couldn't possibly understand what he meant - and he therefore avoided having to present anything resembling an explanation or theory.
Paging Julie Westhues, Julie Westhues to the courtesy phone please...
Is there some sort of law to explain (or at least posit pithily) why trolls who provoke Prof. Myers enough to have a post specifically dedicated to their assertions rarely - if ever - participate in same?
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but most of the folks who come in to argue with us have never struck me as in need of evaluation, explanation, or serious help. They and their motivations seem pretty normal: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet. Red alert.
Perhaps it's because I used to hang out in debate forums -- chatrooms and listservs set up for the express purpose of arguing over religion. Everyone was kicking against the wall -- trying out different tactics, different approaches, different points and plans and apologetics. Or the same ones, over and over, world without end, amen. Some of the same adversaries would go on together for years, and end up like old married couples. The skill level, and intelligence level, pretty much ran the gamut. But we all respected the other person's willingness to engage - even if we thought their tactics were evasive.
From time to time outsiders would come in and play the "what's wrong with you guys why are you doing this" card and be kicked out. We never played it ourselves. It would have been like going to a Star Trek convention and saying it's a TV show get over it. And what then are you doing here?
I will note that the people doing the most bitching also seem to be having the most fun. Call me skeptical. ;)
JW popped by while our dainty ladies were off doing something else. JW thinks she can handle us boys, but Patricia and/or BoS scare her off.
Never having had teenage boys, or being around many, except in school, I have a hard time judging the ages of the bravado spouters.
What continues to surprise me is the utter lack of bible knowledge these people have.
Religion was invented to explain stuff that couldn't be explained otherwise. Or maybe it was invented so that some people could control other people.
Is there a god? Who knows. Maybe there is 100 of them. Or maybe the number of gods is equal to the square root of -1.
Yeah I think you pretty much nailed it.
It was a combination of "Grug no understand why moon go bye bye" and "Grug says moon go bye bye because you no give sacrifice".
Lots of people. Most IDers, all creationists, flat earthers, people who start with a conclusion and search for evidence to support that conclusion.
Too many comments to read so I may be redundant in pointing out an article at MSBC that may be germane: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27406062/
It is worth a look. For instance:
"Religion and its promotion of empathy get undue credit for our unselfish acts. Instead, it's our less-than-virtuous psychological perception that a moral authority is watching us that promotes altruism, a new review essay suggests."
snip
"To the extent that religion does promote altruism, it might actually be effective because adherents think that some authority figure is watching them to make sure they "do the right thing," or because they want to maintain their reputations as righteous followers of religious teachings. Also, studies that do show a link between altruism and religion are often based on self-reports -- subjects saying they did something unselfish, rather than direct observation of them doing so. This type of data is notoriously unreliable.
"We found little or no evidence that empathy plays any role in religious prosociality," said lead author Ara Norenzayan, a UBC social psychologist, adding that jury is still out. Religious types might engage in unselfish generosity coming from a place of empathy or compassion, but there is currently no data to support this, he said."
During my time in the church I observed people giving of themselves in the most heartwarming ways. I also saw them undermine and lie to each other. Same as in real life.
Now I gotta go back and find out what the hell salt has done. [Que sound of Heavy Breathing]
"Does science lead inevitably to atheism? No, because individuals can choose to not think scientifically, but also because what it really does is simply destroy the underpinnings of organized religion -- the body of dogma that represents assailable claims of fact."
The answer -- no -- is right, but for the wrong reason.
The reason science doesn't lead inevitably to atheism can be found in any logic 101 textbook: you can't get something into your conclusion if it isn't already in your premises. Now, there's not a single scientific conclusion that says anything whatsoever about god: that's simply a fact. If it's true that science, qua science, says nothing whatsoever about god, it follows that scientific premises *cannot* logically lead to any conclusion concerning god. It's really that simple, and it has nothing to do with arm-chair psychoanalysis.
exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxactly
I can only assume that those who come on here think that the evidence is on their side and they are smart enough to argue their case. Of course it's the same schitck over and over, recycled arguments with a different face put on them. Most of them don't even have teh rudimentary knowledge to understand the context of what they are saying, it's like Ken Ham talking about how the fossil record is proof of Noah's flood.Unfortunately for us, to get into that mindset of invincibility means that they are seldom ever receptive to any contrary statements and thus don't come away with anything other than thoughts of the evil atheist conspiracy. It's so hard to talk to these people, they are unwilling to learn, unwilling to compromise and unwilling to have a real dialogue.
What!?
Which thread is the sinner on?
The fact that science has never *needed* god to explain anything says quite a lot, however.
It may not say anything about the existence of God (nor does it say anything about the existence of the FSM), but it does have plenty to say on the way the universe works. God no longer is the cause of volcanos and earthquakes, that's plate tectonics. God is no longer the designer of humanity, the evolutionary process is. God is no longer the maker of the earth, that's gravity's job. So what does science do? It makes the concept of God redundant.There's no longer that necessity to have God in there to explain the unknown; praying to God will have no effect whatsoever on droughts and floods. So what does God do anymore? Morality, consciousness, intelligence - all are evolved traits. Our behavioural patterns are wholly explainable by natural causes, as is the gift of life.God is like the old guy at the mill who has been working there for 50 years. No-one wants to let him go because he's such a nice guy, but there's really no reason to keep him on anymore. It's time to put God in a retirement home and watch as his family visit him less and less. Eventually he'll die alone and will be nothing more than a footnote in history - alongside every other mythological deity that came before him.
"The fact that science has never *needed* god to explain anything says quite a lot, however."
Well, science works just as well on any number of mutually exclusive metaphysical assumptions, so I'm not sure how far that point gets you.
I'm going to take issue with one of your examples: IDers. They know full well the value of the scientific method or they wouldn't be trying so hard to dress their religious views up as science. If they were honest, they'd be trying to discredit science, not mimic it to support their claims.
eric #340 wrote:
Science may technically say nothing about "God" as such, but it picks apart the components which made it plausible in the first place. It can say something about dualism, magic, apparent design, and so forth. The people who believe in God do say a lot about God, and they usually believe that a universe with a God would look very different than a universe without one would look. They set up specific claims which are supposed to persuade others.
I suppose the implied premise needed to have science address the existence of God is that God ought to be derivable from evidence. Not made "consistent" with the evidence by being added on afterwards in vague and untestable ways by Premise Keepers, but indicated by it.
"Science may technically say nothing about "God" as such, but it picks apart the components which made it plausible in the first place."
"It may not say anything about the existence of God (nor does it say anything about the existence of the FSM), but it does have plenty to say on the way the universe works...It makes the concept of God redundant."
It only makes the concept of god redundant or implausible, logically, if you presuppose that all questions are scientific questions -- an extremely dubious assumption at best.
Only questions about reality are scientific ones, science can't comment on the make believe.
But I'll bite, what role does God play? And why can't science see this if we as material beings can?
Dammit, come on Nerd! I can't find her.
Do you think it's cheap flying this broom in a hovering pattern, with 500 flying monkeys howling for fresh troll?
Good science would never include god, but that does not mean it precludes god. The facts behind most biological and geological concepts disprove most creation myths.
Similarly we can slowly move from many gods to no god, but it'll be hard to leave no trace of religion. Look at how long Europe upheld the Roman/Greek culture, even as they scoff'd at the silly people with their pantheon.
This has been said many times before so I don't claim this to be any major revelation ...
If science deals with the natural physical world then if god can interact with the natural physical world, science should be able to deal with the questions.
If god does not interact with the natural physical world then... well... what good is she?
"Only questions about reality are scientific ones, science can't comment on the make believe."
You have to look at the converse of this proposition, though, to see the problem: It may be true that only questions about reality are scientific ones, but it's not the case that only scientific questions are about reality; that was the point I was making.
Does evolution imply atheism?
I dunno, but if you mother tells you while you are young that there are big guys "up there" and if you father and his pals stage events that are said to address big guys "up there" then there you go.
As the twig is bent . . .
eric #349 wrote:
All questions are science questions? No, not all questions are scientific questions.
It may, however, require presupposing that "God" is an entity.
I've noticed that the subject often gets shifted when the topic is the existence of God. It goes from whether or not God exists, to whether or not belief provides comfort, churches form communities, religious narratives give meaningful structures for understanding, commitments change lives, values and aesthetics are necessary to human flourishing, matters of taste are subjective, and so forth.
It seems you missed the point I was making, how can we know beyond our reality and know with such conviction on elements that can't be distinguished from making shit up. More to the point, when God is as theists believe an interactive force in the universe, then surely testing for those interactions is well within the bounds of science.
Patricia, Pierce tried calling her, but she won't show up even for a thread in her honor. Not much of a troll at the end of the day. You can land an breath easy. We'll have to find something to feed the monkeys in the meanwhile. I have a lot of left over halloween candy (T&T was Sunday in our area) leftover. I'll send some along as soon as I figure a way to get it through the intertoobs.
Time for bed. 'Night all.
Exactly. If god can interact with our universe then it should be fall into the realm of testability.
Awww. Dang.
I just asked Janine to take to the air too.
Waaah! (still can't find her though.)
Evolution does not imply atheism, it simply demolishes the validity (was there actually any to begin with?) of religions that talk about a god(s) as a creator.
Which wasn't my argument. Although, consider that kids (and adults) do also indulge in linguistic innovation and alteration.
Well, me too, and also others as well. I could always be wrong.
But consider instinct perhaps as meaning "evolved behavioral package", which in this case refers to learning itself, for several values of "learning". Or "bootstrapping", perhaps.
Yet both language and religion, in practice, arise from social consensus. Words have no inherent meaning; they are agreed-upon sounds. Religion has no inherent meaning; the various creeds are agreed-upon code phrases and gestures.
And, it occurred to me as I typed the above, while language and religion may not have any inherent meaning, certain words or phrases or gestures may have a larger-than-usual personal meaning for some individual or family group due to additional psychological causes, such as synaesthesia and/or OCD, etc. These may then feed back into the religion at large.
Obviously, this still needs careful thought, and perhaps some actual rigorous experiments. But I don't think it's particularly unlikely, given how prevalent religion is.
Oh, and speaking of psychology and religion:
Towards a neuropsychology of religion:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/10/towards_a_neuropsych.html
@Salt#217
[quote]If it isn't observable, where did they get the idea in the first place? If it can't be known, how did they get the idea there was anything to know anything about?
Sounds like a non-scientific inquiry to me, suggesting seeking evidence outside of the realm of science. Be very careful, as your head might explode.[/quote]
You seem to be dancing around what you mean by "non-scientific evidence" in this statement. I think what you mean is evidence that you can feel but can't prove. If I have this wrong then try to be more clear than in all your previous confusing posts.
Where did they get the idea? Um, they made it up; someone said it and they naively just believe what they're told; they has a bad dream; a drug induced vision? There are any number of answers to this that don't involve believing in god. That's understandable in an example like kids that are told by their parents the easter bunny is real, but not okay for adults that should have learned about what entails evidence and critical thinking. Kids get over the bunny fantasy, but some people never get over the sky fairy story.
Just because you, or even millions of people, want to believe in a made-up story, that doesn't make it true. And just because you have a feeling that something is true (which you call non-scientific evidence), doesn't make it true, or "real evidence".
Evolution implies atheism? That's the least of a creationist's worries, or should be. First they should worry: Does creationism imply idiocy, imbecility, lobotomy, or the need for lobotomy?
It's a silly question. It deserves an appropriately silly answer.
Does existence imply atheism? Does ability to read imply atheism? Does failure to drool uncontrollably imply atheism?
On the original question: Does evolution imply atheism?
Short answer: no. But it doesn't provide any evidence for a god either; nor does any other serious evidence-based field of study. It's the extremely successful scientific method and the total lack of evidence for the existence of god, that (strongly) implies atheism. Without evidence, any critical-thinking person must conclude that god is as likely as fairies, unicorns, easter bunnies, and orbiting teapots.
"Just because you, or even millions of people, want to believe in a made-up story, that doesn't make it true."
Reminds me of the George Carlin joke...'I have as much authority as the Pope, but not as many people believe it.'
As for the trolls who cruise by from time to time, I think its mostly their arrogance. They think they can convince us or cause us to get all teary eyed or slit our wrists.
@Doug #13: I too would say that my answers to questions like this vary with context. For example, to me "Intelligent Design" is impossible because evolution is the process by which intelligence comes to exist in the Universe. OTOH, I see "God" as a process of becoming that depends on the intellectual AND moral progress of intelligent beings like us (which helps explain where religions come from). Thus I have no problem with phrases like "In God We Trust" or "God bless America." They help us keep our eyes on the ball.
What were the 5 major extinction events? (Ibid comment #6). I sort of understand that there is a sort of major extinction event every 20 to 30 million years, because that is about the length of time it takes the non-specialised critters to evolve into the specialised species that are so prone to fail to adapt to changing conditions and die out leaving the generalists around. The Neanderthals going extinct to me does not sound like a major extinction event.
Personally, I became an atheist as a child when a Sunday school teacher told me that "the rainbow was God's promise to Noah that He wouldn't cause to rain again for at least 7 days" and I though "Yeah right..." (I think she didn't know about St Augustine's advice)>
Owlmirror,
If you still come back to read this.
I'll accept your definition of "Instinct" and agree with your caveat.
"Does science lead inevitably to atheism? No, because individuals can choose to not think scientifically..."
Thinking scientifically means asking questions and making statements which can be proved. Since it cannot be proved that a God does not exist, there is no conflict, in generality, between science and faith. We are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. This article presents a scientist's opinion; it does not make his views science. In my opinion, the author is wrong. Indeed, there are many esteemed scientists who represent negations of the hypothesis.
RE #369.
If we're talking about major extinction events, I can think of Permian and Cretaceous off the top of my head.
A quick check reveals that the Holocene event is a fancy way of saying "we're killing things right now", there was a Triassic event in between the two that I mentioned, and before that, in order of increasing age, the Devonian, a twin pair of Ordivician-Silurian events, and a chain of Cambrian-Ordivician events.
Courtesy of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events
of course.
Since it cannot be proved that a God does not exist, there is no conflict, in generality, between science and faith. We are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. This article presents a scientist's opinion; it does not make his views science. In my opinion, the author is wrong.
I completely agree. Science is concerned with the rules governing the material world, not with the possible existence of supernatural beings outside it. Someone who relied solely on established scientific fact in formulating his beliefs could not be anything other than an agnostic. Faith is perfectly compatible with science; it lies outside the realm of science and in the realm of speculation. (Albeit that, of course, certain claims of certain religions can be comprehensively debunked by science. We can be pretty damn sure that the Earth was not created in 4004 BC - unless, of course, one relies on the Omphalos argument, in which case it could have been created last week for all we know, and the question becomes meaningless.)
Of course, as I've said on another thread, in evaluating the claims of particular religions, the most useful thing to do is to apply normal historical methodology and source criticism. Most religions make a specific historical claim; mainstream Christianity, for instance, claims that a specific individual (Jesus of Nazareth), living in a defined time period in a specific Roman province under a named magistrate (Pontius Pilate, of whose existence we have some evidence from other sources) performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead. These are claims of fact, and they can be evaluated just like we would any other historical claim, based on the source materials available. Likewise, the Latter-Day Saint faith claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates given to him by the Angel Moroni, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim. Again, this is a specific historical claim, the plausibility of which can be evaluated by historians.
Most religions claim the intervention of the supernatural, at a specific time in history, in the material world. By definition, a miracle or other supernatural event is impossible according to the normal laws of physics. Thus, in determining whether it occurred or not, the laws of physics are useless. However, it is true that to claim that a miracle occurred is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and no religion can advance any such incontrovertible evidence that supernatural intervention has ever occurred.
So, in fact, although the scientific method can't be applied to the question of the existence of God - because such views are not falsifiable - it perhaps can be applied to the question of, for instance, whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This is a claim of material fact and is, therefore, hypothetically falsifiable; one could conceivably prove that it did not happen. As I've said, it is not helpful to say "it is impossible according to the laws of physics", because of course it is, by definition. But one can apply normal historical and scientific evaluative methods to determining whether or not it did happen.
This assumes the supernatural, in fact, exists. If it is detectable, science can understand it and it becomes "natural". If it isn't, then nobody can know anything about it. "Supernatural" is a lie.
You couldn't be more wrong. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. Until they can prove god, I remain unconvinced. I believe in no god. I am atheist and it is an entirely scientific viewpoint.
Provided that faith never makes a testable claim, yes.
Oh I agree with you and Nerd of Redhead there. Where I disagree is Nerd's contention that "is not needed" logically leads to "does not exist." There's no logical connection. The former leads to "may as well not exist for all intents and purposes of science" but I don't see how you can logically make any stronger statement than that.
All? That's quite a statement. I think its obviously wrong. Each religion is a collection of claims. Some of these claims are about the physical world. They'll be impacted by science. Other claims are not about the physical world. They won't be impacted by science. To say that "all religious belief" becomes more difficult to hold is to assume that either all religious belief is composed of physical world claims or that all religions must, by definition, include some required physical world claim contradicted by evolution. Neither of those things is true.
IMO you're falling into the same trap Gould fell in to with his NOMA concept, only you're reversing it - Gould wanted to exclude physical claims from being religious by definition, while you appear to exclude from "religion" any collection of (only) non-physical claims.
Eric:
The concept of "fairies" is not needed to explain plant pollenation. The concept of "elves" is not needed to explain how shoes or cookies get made. The concept of "Thor" is not needed to explain thunder. Are you suggesting that there is as much evidence for the Christian god as there is for these other entities? If so, then I think we're in agreement, and really just quibbling about terminology.
Let's see. I made two posts about science/atheism and spent most of the rest of the thread tussling with sodium chloride. I'm hardly the poster boy for the science is atheist linkage. I haven't studied philosophy, so I'm not hampered by its finer points.
My whole argument is this. Since science works so well without needing gods, it tends to imply (not prove) that gods don't exist. The implication may be weak philosophically to some or not significant at all to others. Their choice. But if I have to answer the question yes or no, I slightly favor yes due to the above implication. It's just my opinion, and I'm not going to keep trying to persuade anyone to agree with me. Now everybody else can keep arguing this as I've said my two cents.
"You couldn't be more wrong. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. Until they can prove god, I remain unconvinced. I believe in no god. I am atheist and it is an entirely scientific viewpoint."
Being an atheist (definition: belief in the non-existence of a God) is not a scientifically supportable position. Indeed, belief has nothing to do with science at all. Science is concerned with facts and there simply is no evidence (in generality) that a God either exists or does not exist. Both events are possible and therefore the previous poster was correct in that the only honest scientific answer (in generality) is that we do not know. And to anticipate the metronomic response, I am not stating that a God exists and therefore have nothing to prove. What I am saying is that until proven otherwise, believing in general terms in the existence of a God, to the extent that does not contravene known facts, is entirely rational and not at all unscientific. And of course, the fact that something has not been detected does not mean it does not exist. Indeed, the history of science is littered with new detections. Atheism, theism and science are perfectly happy bed fellows; the former are concerned with beliefs while the latter is concerned with facts. No contradiction here.
It is a lack of belief, in my case due to the non-existence of any evidence for god. It is entirely scientific. "God does not exist" is the null hypothesis which is true by default until shown otherwise.
Belief based on faith has nothing to do with science. Belief based on evidence has everything to do with science.
But not equally probable. In fact, based on the evidence, it's much, much more likely that god doesn't exist.
That isn't the point. The point is that anyone claiming there is a god has the burden of proof. There is no proof necessary to believe the claim is false when there is no evidence for it.
The existence of a god at all contravenes known facts.
But the fact that it has been looked for and never found is evidence against it.
Pierce @332 -
I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Seagull Troll" or "Seagull Commenter" (got the idea from "Seagull Manager")
They fly in, annoy people, squawk a bit, crap on everything, then fly away.
Yes same with the Cosmic Muffin.
Do you give weight to the possibility of the existence of the cosmic muffin absent of any evidence whatsoever of there being one?
"[Atheism] is a lack of belief"
-Is my definition of atheism wrong? In any case, a lack of belief is not scientific. A statement can either be proved or it cannot. Belief, or lack of it, is not relevant to science.
"'God does not exist' is the null hypothesis which is true"
-This null hypothesis is not testable. Indeed, it is not even measurable. It is a completely meaningless statement.
"But not equally probable. In fact, based on the evidence, it's much, much more likely that god doesn't exist."
-In order to make this statement you must have calculated a probability or at least a bound. How did you do that? Or perhaps you have a direct proof.
"The point is that anyone claiming there is a god has the burden of proof."
-But I am not claiming there is a God.
"The existence of a god at all contravenes known facts."
-Really? How does an undefined object contravene known facts?
"But the fact that it has been looked for and never found is evidence against it."
-Perhaps, but it is unequivocally not proof. It is an opinion.
"Do you give weight to the possibility of the existence of the cosmic muffin absent of any evidence whatsoever of there being one?"
I cannot say a cosmic muffin does not exist. I do not know what the probability that it might exists is and, as a scientist, I do not have the right to assume, in generality, that it does not. But there are at least two important differences.
1.In principle the existence of a cosmic muffin is a measurable event.
2.But more importantly, I, and I suspect the rest of mankind could not care less about its existence.
Do you give much weight to things you have no evidence for? Which do you consider strong. Lack of evidence for something existing or lack of evidence against something existing?
Do you automatically think that because there isn't evidence against something that just means we aren't looking hard enough of don't have the ability to yet? Or is it just about the god question?
Is it? Is god?
So the importance of something weighs on whether it exists or not despite a total absence of evidence for?
"Is it? Is god?"
Yes, in the sense that a muffin is a well defined 3-dimensional object and we have well defined methods to detect it. The same, sadly, cannot be said of a God.
"So the importance of something weighs on whether it exists or not despite a total absence of evidence for?"
No, the importance of an object does not mean that is more likely to exist. But it does mean that we are likely to spend more time thinking about it. I do not deny there is a lack of evidence, I just state the fact that the lack of evidence does not mean that it does not exist.
"Do you give much weight to things you have no evidence for?"
On the contrary, I only give weight to things for which I have evidence. Hence, as a scientist, I cannot honestly say that a God exists or does not exist. I (try and) restrict myself to making statements that I can prove and humbly accept those which I cannot.
"Or is it just about the god question?"
No, there are enumerable unanswerable questions. The existence of God is just one of them. Again, on the contrary, I do not make an exception for the God question.
Why can it not be said of god. Do you believe that god can and does interact with the physical world? Did god create the universe?
Yes I got that. The lack of evidence doesn't mean that the Great Gazoo doesn't exist either. My questions is do you give every possible non existing thing, as far as the lack of evidence points, the same weight?
If the belief, or lack thereof, is based on evidence, or lack thereof, it is scientific. That's what science is: confirming or refuting hypotheses (beliefs) with experimentation (evidence).
It doesn't have to be. It doesn't even come into existence until the hypothesis ("god exists") is made. It is the hypothesis which requires proof.
There is no evidence that a god is even necessary. The idea of a god contradicts everything we know. It is incredibly unlikely on the face of it.
I didn't say you were. The point is it is not up to me to prove there isn't. My position requires no support.
How does it not?
Prove your car keys are not on the coffee table. Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. It's an informed opinion based on evidence. That's all we can get about anything.
"Why can it not be said of god. Do you believe that god can and does interact with the physical world? Did god create the universe?"
I did not reveal my beliefs. I do not know if a God created the universe. If you know a way of testing this hypothesis or providing a direct proof, I would be glad to alleviate the uncertainty.
"My questions is do you give every possible non existing thing, as far as the lack of evidence points, the same weight?"
As a scientist, I do give non-existent objects any weight. But equally, I cannot assume that they do not exist. I am sorry, I did not make the rules.
Sorry there was a bit of me asking a question before you got a chance to answer it.
Ok let me rephrase that. If god exists and if god interacts with the physical world would we not be able to test for that? If god created the universe wouldn't there be a way to test for it?
"That's what science is: confirming or refuting hypotheses (beliefs) with experimentation (evidence)."
So what is the experiment that you have conducted to verify your belief as a fact?
"It doesn't have to be. It doesn't even come into existence until the hypothesis ("god exists") is made. It is the hypothesis which requires proof."
Sadly this is not true. Of course it does not have to be testable, but it is meaningless if it is not. And, I am not suggesting the hypothesis. I am simply stating that it is rational to believe that a God exists until proven otherwise.
"The idea of a god contradicts everything we know. It is incredibly unlikely on the face of it."
Why? What God? How did you calculate the likelihood?
"I didn't say you were. The point is it is not up to me to prove there isn't."
I didn't ask you to. You are within your rights to believe in the non-existence of a deity. It's just not scientifically supportable.
"How does it not?"
I don't know. It was your statement. You tell me how an undefined object contravenes known facts.
"Prove your car keys are not on the coffee table." - Measurable event.
"Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist." - I am Santa.
"Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter." - Measurable event.
Prove a God does not exist - er, stuck.
"Ok let me rephrase that. If god exists and if god interacts with the physical world would we not be able to test for that? If god created the universe wouldn't there be a way to test for it?"
I do not know. If you know a way to test whether the universe was created, mankind is all ears. Until we know, any view taken is a matter of faith. Once again, I am sorry if you do not like it, but rules is rules.
I read your blog. I have it bookmarked. I enjoy it tremendously. But that's a fallacy as it presupposes atheism needs to disprove every grain of sand that is a possible faith when we can see there is no beach.
Atheism does not need to be proved. It is the first state of all creatures and is, well, the fundamental neutral state of human existence prior to any indoctrination by the members of our family/culture.
Unfortunately, as humans are pretty much bat-shit-crazy and indoctrinate themselves into the woo of theism because they can't stand not knowing how the universe works and/or being afraid of/incapable of accepting non-existence of of our unique consciousness we kind of forget that, naturally, we're atheists. And that we have accepted the "reality" of "God(s)," spirits, ghosts, etc. from our cultural indoctrination as if it was factual, proven and/or required to be disproved.
What must be proven is theism. Theism makes the positive claim -- there are supernatural events/entities that have done whatever it is they are supposed to have done.
Fortunately, some of us escape and revert back to our natural state. Often times this is with the help of science (anthropology, biology, physics, etc.) which has provided counter-indoctrinal arguments to the claims of religion (typically obliquely, but sometimes directly).
You don't have evidence for literally an infinite number of entities. Not just the usual list of fairies, unicorns, orbiting unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, but literally an infinite number of entities: twelve-legged dogs, invisible corn, hexagonal galaxies, etc. etc. etc. All of these things are possible. So does this mean that you have a similar attitude toward them as you do toward God?
And how is that a scientific criterion? You refuse to be pragmatic about your scientific criteria for things without evidence, except that social considerations should be given weight?
"All of these things are possible. So does this mean that you have a similar attitude toward them as you do toward God?"
- I have a similar attitude in the sense I cannot honestly say they do not exist. Although I repeat, most of the examples that you refer to are measurable events. The difference is that, unfortunately, I care more about some than others.
"And how is that a scientific criterion?"
- It isn't, and wasn't intended to be, a scientific criterion.
Your logic is truly dizzying, Rich...
but, you fail here:
"Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist." - I am Santa.
Why can't I make the same statement here:
Prove a god does not exist: I am god.
Point is, as has been pointed out to you before several times, you can't make your value statement that "god" carries more weight where burden of proof is concerned than "unicorn", "elf", or "flying spaghetti monster"... why do you believe simply saying "god" gives it added credibility than any of the other infinite invented suppositions?
By the way... your reflexive capitalization of "god" everywhere you write it is a dead giveaway to your thoughts on this subject... I think we're being baited...
Rich is an atheist. He is an atheist toward all the thousand plus gods imagined by humans except for his personal one. Time for Rich to give up the last imaginary god and become rational.
Yes... I agree... but the rules aren't what you think they are, I'm afraid. More accurately, until we find a way to determine the nature of the universe and it's coming into being, ALL possibilities are equally valid, but equally unfounded. Science has not yet tried to make a valid truth-claim on the nature of genesis of the universe... religion has, but "the rules" don't give it any more weight in fact than ANY other supposition.
In other words, not knowing the answer does not, by default, equal "god did it".
"Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist." - I am Santa.
I apologize, I was being fecicious. Of course, I cannot prove that Santa does not exist.
"you can't make your value statement that "god" carries more weight"
I did not say it did.
"By the way... your reflexive capitalization of "god" everywhere you write it is a dead giveaway to your thoughts on this subject... I think we're being baited..."
I am not baiting anyone. I am merely stating facts. To be honest, I do not know what I believe. I capitalize the word "God" out of respect to those for whom it matters.
I should amend that to say "beyond the 'big bang', in other words, what came before that".
So, Rich, is it unscientific, or irrational, to believe in leprachauns? If not, then it is hard to see how any belief can be assigned that status, since I can always believe that the leprachauns have hidden the evidence for any particular belief I care to hold - and no-one can prove otherwise. If belief in leprachauns is unscientific and irrational, in what relevant respect does it differ from belief in God?
"In other words, not knowing the answer does not, by default, equal "god did it"."
- I didn't say it did. I simply said that believing that a God "did it" is not irrational or unscientific unless it can be proven otherwise. That's all.
It doesn't matter to anybody here. Maybe in your world, but not ours.
"He is an atheist toward all the thousand plus gods imagined by humans except for his personal one."
Paraphrasing Dawkins without citation eh? Of course if I believed in just one God, I could not be an atheist now could I?
"It doesn't matter to anybody here. Maybe in your world, but not ours. "
- In my world, respect for others is a universal concept.
Rich, Rich, you have such a problem. What is your attitude toward Odin? Does he exist in your mind as a god equal to the christian one? That would make you a polythesist. Or just a myth? If just a myth, you are an atheist toward Odin.
And if you don't believe in any god, why the argument to be able to include one?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008
"In other words, not knowing the answer does not, by default, equal "god did it"."
- I didn't say it did. I simply said that believing that a God "did it" is not irrational or unscientific unless it can be proven otherwise. That's all.
So before Pasture, it was rational for people to blame communicable diseases on god's will?
"So, Rich, is it unscientific, or irrational, to believe in leprachauns?"
To believe in them, no, but to state that they existed without evidence, yes.
Huh?
Posted by: rich | October 28, 2008 1:14 PM [
"He is an atheist toward all the thousand plus gods imagined by humans except for his personal one."
Paraphrasing Dawkins without citation eh? Of course if I believed in just one God, I could not be an atheist now could I?
That idea was hardly new with Dawkins. Robert Ingersoll and various british freethinkers said the same thing in the nineteenth century.
"So before Pasture, it was rational for people to blame communicable diseases on god's will?"
I assume that you mean Pasteur. And again, believing it to be the case would have been quite rational. Knowing would have required evidence. But there are enumerable comments like this. Was mankind irrational for believing that the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth etc....They prove nothing (sadly).
Not my claim, not my burden to disprove it.
Sorry, wrong. Believing a preposterous claim for which there is no evidence is not rational. It's pretty much the definition of the word.
Not my claim. You tell me which god you're talking about and I'll tell you how likely it is. I'm not claiming god is impossible, just non-existent.
You tell me which god we're talking about and I'll answer the question. I'm not going to be sucked into a game of theological whack-a-mole.
How is that?
How is that?
So you can believe in leprachauns without being irrational, but you mustn't admit it?
And you didn't answer my follow-up question. If it's not irrational to believe in them, it's not irrational to believe that the mischievous little chaps are distorting the evidence in every scientific study undertaken, so it's not irrational to refuse to accept any type or amount of evidence for or against anything. Right?
Rich, I think you need to do a bit of thinking about what "irrational" means.
I assume you mean innumerable.
"If just a myth, you are an atheist toward Odin."
I cannot be an atheist towards one God by definition. I do not state that a God exists and I am uncertain of my own beliefs. I am honest enough to admit that science does not yet provide the answer.
"And if you don't believe in any god, why the argument to be able to include one?"
I am in support of the right of those who choose to believe. Just as I support the right of those who choose not to. Both are equally valid position to take. Science does not, and cannot (yet) validate either. The assertion that science can is my problem (as a scientist).
Wow! Your attitude is the death of curiosity. Why bother, it is rational to pass it off as god's will.
By the way, mankind did not think that the earth was flat. There were some people that did, but not mankind. Besides at the time of Columbus, most educated people and sailors knew it was round. And let us talk about the use of force to try to keep the idea of an earth centered universe the "rational" believe.
"I assume you mean innumerable."
- No I meant enumerable, as in countable.
Sorry, you've just lost any credibility you may have had.
Believing in them is precisely the same as saying they exist.
Bertrand Russell was a self-professed agnostic. Yet he's the guy who came up with the teapot around Mars allegory, because he knew that his "agnosticism" was practically the same as saying that there is no god.
Philosophically some suppose that you can't rule out god, leprechauns, etc., because empirical falsification isn't really an option for these.
But a lot of continental philosophy sees it more the other way, that god isn't an issue unless and until you have some reason to begin to infer such a being. That's why I don't really like the term "atheist" for myself, because it makes no sense to deny (which is how "atheist" is generally understood, contrary to the etymology) that which has had no observations to suggest that it does, or ever did, exist.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, had no qualms about denying what is clearly a mistake--theism. The history of philosophy does give us something to deny (one reason I don't reject the "atheist" term when it's just easier to go along), which are the mistakes that gave us the "god" concept in the first place, so in that sense one rejects the "god hypothesis." It goes back to the idea that there is no entity within view to deny or reject, but there is a bunch of tripe to be denied and rejected.
To be agnostic, in my view, is really to paper over the problems that all "god concepts" have.
The foregoing is about philosophy. Scientifically it's different, at least in practice (not that scientists don't philosophize, often becoming pedantic in the process), in which you consider as non-existent whatever concept has been brought up but for which the evidence is missing. Nothing is absolutely rejected, including the teapot around Mars, but to say that something "doesn't exist" usually is understood as a contingent statement in science, and even in more intelligent adult conversation.
So of course god doesn't exist, in normal parlance. In philosophy, it matters that we can't say that abolutely, yet for most of us, that's implicit in all statements regarding "nonexistence".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Then the statement makes no sense in context. What was the point?
Rich, if Odin is a myth, your are atheistic toward Odin. My dictionary (Webster's collegiate) does not specify gods, just god. You just wish it all or nothing. Yes, the word has the common conception of being the christian god, but it can apply to any god.
You can believe if you wish. But why do we have to?
"Believing in them is precisely the same as saying they exist."
No it isn't. I can believe that the Black Cats will win the league. But I do not know they will.
Apples and oranges ric.
Belief in an entity is not the same thing as belief in one outcome of an event.
Now you are just playing with semantics.
Equivocation.
"You can believe if you wish. But why do we have to?"
I didn't say you do. It's up to you. And, I stand corrected on the definition of atheism. My understanding was a belief that no Gods exists, but I confess that I am no expert in that regard.
Like I said, the generalised concept of "god" (as opposed to specific claims about the material activities of a particular God or gods) cannot be proven or disproven by science alone; I think we're all in agreement there. And it is fair to say that, since there is no evidence supporting the existence of any God or gods, the claim need not be accepted. Since one cannot prove a negative, clearly the existence of a god can never be disproven either. Thus, prima facie, the most rational position is agnosticism, or perhaps "pragmatic atheism". In the absence of evidence for a strong claim, the ordinary presumption would be that the claim is false.
So, from a strictly rational perspective, all the atheists and agnostics here are entirely correct.
However, this does not eliminate the possibility of faith. Let's look specifically at the central claim of Christianity - the claim that Christ was a divine being who was physically resurrected from the grave.
Clearly, none of us were there to witness the resurrection of Christ (if it occurred), so none of us have the benefit of incontrovertible visual evidence. And as we discussed earlier, there is no concrete historical evidence either to support the claim - just a number of source documents, all of which are dated to some decades after the events which they purport to describe, and none of which have any guarantee of accuracy or external corroboration.
So, in other words, from a strictly rational perspective there is no reason for us today to believe in the divinity or resurrection of Christ, any more than there is to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
But, strangely enough, the Gospel account itself faces this particular issue head on. The character of Thomas, in John chapter 20, refused to believe in the resurrection of Christ until he was shown incontrovertible evidence - just like everyone here refuses to believe it without incontrovertible evidence. But according to the story, Jesus appeared to Thomas, resurrected from the grave. Thomas then, just as any rational person would when faced with direct physical evidence of the claim, accepted the truth of the resurrection. And Jesus said to him: "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
In other words, Christianity rests on these premises:
(1) It is claimed that a particular purported historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, was a divine being who died and was physically resurrected before ascending into heaven.
(2) There is no incontrovertible, or indeed hugely persuasive, evidence to support this claim.
(3) But, despite this, you are expected to believe it anyway; and we are, according to the Gospel writer, fortunate that we don't have any direct evidence, because this gives the people of today the opportunity to show their faith by believing in something despite the lack of evidence.
(I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to argue here... it'll become clear eventually, I hope.)
Walton, if you don't know what you are arguing, don't post.
"Equivocation."
I accept the ambiguity of semantics which is why I chose mathematics as a profession. But my logic is clear, unless something can be proven to be false; it is perfectly rational to believe that it might be true. If it is known to be false, it is not.
"Then the statement makes no sense in context. What was the point?"
A countable number of 'comments', possibly countably infinite.
I am sorry, I have to go. If I havn't responded I'll try later.
Rich, Occams Razor says if something might be true or not true,the simplest explanation is not true.
A countable number of 'comments', possibly countably infinite.
All of the markings of intellectual dishonesty on display.
But my logic is clear,
Your logic is nonexistent.
I try to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
@ Walton
I believe you meant, "this does not eliminate the possibility of the existence of god.
And to that, I would say, our point is, you can make this statement and replace "god" with just about any invented supposition. The point is, none of those suppositions should be given any amount of credulity unless some observable evidence for them is proffered, and equally, not one of those infinite number of suppositions deserves any more weight than any other.
You are deliberately engaging in semantic ambiguity to try to prove your point.
Or to put the atheist/agnostic debate into another perspective, most of today's "atheists" consider god to be non-existent on epistemological grounds, not on ontological grounds.
Ontology is pretty much BS anyhow.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
ummm... credibility even...
(headdesk)
If I had a guess, Rich is just another Liar for JebusTM, who got in over his head. The amount of dodging and weaving was almost up to our old friend NaCl.
Aw, come on, Nerd... comparing rich to our little troll is just pouring... ummm... something... in the wound...
what is the word I'm looking for...
I'm not sure I'd go that far. I see the point he was trying to make, I just find it utterly ridiculous.
I see no need to give space to the possible existence of something despite the complete absence of evidence.
Therefor I do not believe in gods the same way I don't believe in the Great Gazoo. But I am willing to be proven wrong should some evidence make it self apparent. I'm going to bet that that fits into what Rich was trying to say.
Celtic, your are right. Rich has be a lot more persistant to be compared the other one.
I agree.
It's possible his background in mathematics has him arguing from a mathematical view of "proof". I don't disagree god *might* exist. I just find it incredibly unlikely and, until shown otherwise, I'm going to continue on the assumption that it just ain't so. No, I'm not 100% certain, but you can't be 100% certain about anything outside math and logic. I am 99.9999999999999997% certain, though.
And just so there's no confusion, that 0.0000000000000003% is not a crack for the religious to try to wedge open. It's going to take considerably more than your specious arguments to get me to even consider the possibility.
Chad said:
If you are "going from" somewhere trying to end up at atheism, you've already run off the road into the ditch.
Atheism is simply not-belief in the supernatural. It's the only logical place to start from, unless you've already decided to begin with belief in something on the basis of faith or indoctrination.
Late to the party I know, but I actually think the answer to the question should be much more generalized, namely that Science itself implies Atheism, not just evolutionary biology.
It is easy to see how Evolutionary Biology leads you to reject religion (since it cuts closer to home) but I would argue that so does the rest of Biology (which has Evolution as the skeleton on which everything else hangs), as well as Physics, Cosmology, Geology, and Chemistry if you follow their discoveries to their logical conclusions.
And as far as all the comments about "Science can never prove anything, so you can't rule out some sort of god" are concerned... remember, while that statement is true, the flip side of it is that Science is really, really good at demonstrating that other claims are impossible and therefore must be rejected as false. You can, in fact, turn an ampulla of water into wine -- but the only way to do it requires the intervention of grapes and yeast along with lots of other materials. Going directly from one to the other violates the laws of the atomic theory and thermodynamics, just for starters, and therefore the fable recounted in the bible cannot be true.
If you're going to argue that you believe in god because he hasn't been proven to not exist, then you also need to stay open to the possibility that we don't really exist and we're all living inside a perfectly-accurate computer simulation of a world instead. Because we can't rule it out. However, since there's no evidence for that either, I'm going to continue to assume that this is the real world, and it was created solely by the unfolding of entirely material natural forces.
(If Lawrence Fishburne comes up and offers me the choice of Dayquil or Nyquil, I'll reconsider.)
@ Walton #429:
The "Doubting Thomas" argument carries no weight with me. If Jeebus or YHWH the Wind God or the Sta-Puft Muffin Man appear before me and tell me I'm going to Hell unless I bow down before them and acknowledge them as my Lord and Master, which is more likely: that it's actually happening, or that I've gone crazy?
There are a lot of crazy people in the world, isn't the fact that I've just become one of them MUCH more likely than that these fantasy figures actually exist? I'd check into the hospital for a CAT scan, not a church to pray for forgiveness.
Sorry, no time to read 434 comments, I've only read to 135. Just in case it hasn't been answered -- it needs to be --, here's number 6:
Doesn't work. Birds being created at the same time as "fish" and before all land animals simply isn't compatible with reality.
We don't really know anything about interactions between our ancestors and the Neandertalers. There's no evidence of conflict. I once read a review paper in Nature or Science that said both died out due to the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum, and then Europe was resettled by Homo sapiens sapiens from elsewhere, but I can't find that paper anymore... More importantly, the whole background of the Cain & Abel story looks like a 3rd-millennium-BCE conflict between farmers and shepherds.
Comment 38:
How else could you ever find out if you're wrong?
Comment 126:
Guess what, as far as I can tell, I don't have any such opinions -- and I think neither should you.
Remember: If you were wrong, how would you know?
...and because I happened to come across comment 180 while scrolling:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition to be deployed by the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!eleventyone!!!
I know I said I was abandoning this thread, and I will after I just state my closing point in response to a couple comments.
Religion, of necessity, cannot be ruled out a priori on the basis of it lacking evidence. If this is an argument from experience (i.e. never before seeing evidences), then I do not believe this is justified - our experiences often lead us astray. One may say there are probably no evidences but to say that there can't be evidences on these grounds is clearly bunk. If one is saying that religion inherently doesn't possess any relation to evidence, then I have to disagreee. First of all, we can't confuse evidence with either the terms "proof" or "physical evidence." Evidence is, the way I am using it(which may legitimately vary from others), facts which support a conclusion. They don't necessarily prove it indisputably. Just as there is no instant proof of evolution in the rigorous philosophical sense, so is there no proof of God in that sense either. Instead there are evidences for and against. Evidence for God - such things as the sudden existence of the universe. Doesn't prove God; there are other possibilities, but it is very conducive to a theistic view. Evidence against God - the existence of evil. Likewise, it is entirely possible for God to exist along with evil, but it becomes less likely. Evidences that weigh on these issues include scientific evidences (though not as much as many would think), historical evidences, personal experiential evidences, and philosophical evidences. This is neither the time nor the place to debate these in detail.
How is God inefficient? There is no limit to supplies, nothing for Him to be efficient or inefficient with. Why would He do it then? It appears that it is to put us in a position of awe and humility. Also, it allows us to view the history of the universe by looking at the light from progressively further away regions of the universe.
That's a rather self-serving caricature. Would you accept it if a Christian apologist said "A theist responds honestly to the evidence for God. An atheist fears the truth and wants to be his own god, so he makes up excuses for the evidence." What you said is not universally true. Scientists are not purely objective - I don't know how anyone can hold such a view. And many theists are very analytical; additionally, many have come from atheist backgrounds. Furthermore, I am constantly analyzing my ideas; I have been near atheism at points but have been persuaded towards Christianity. One need only view my podcast library - the majority are atheist and freethinker discussions and lectures. If what I believe is true, I should be willing to test it against other ideas.
Just a pointer on efficiency when reading a brutally long thread such as this one; and prompted by B. Evan Carlsons's comment above:
There is no such word in English as "evidences." It exists only in Christian apologetics. If any one thought they had EVIDENCE they would say so. So when you encounter the word "evidences" you can with good conscience quit reading. You know at that point that you are being subjected to a Christian screed.
Oh, stop bloody posturing. If you want to discuss it, discuss it. If you don't, don't. Stop telling us it's "my last one, I promise this time."
Yes, it can, precisely because there is no evidence. Without evidence, there is no reason to think you didn't just make it up.
B. Evan Carlson
Wow... lot's of problems with that statement, but the biggest and most obvious is your complete lack of understanding for how an atheist would approach things.
So, as for a theist responding honestly to evidence for god... just point me to that evidence and show me how it's testable... there's the failure point in that argument. And strip the "honestly" from that statement, frankly.
As an atheist... why would I hold "truth" in any sort of fear? That's a sentiment that is exclusively in the domain of the theist... fear of your belief system being exposed as falsehood is the root of this position, and as the atheist holds no belief system (from a deity standpoint), what is there to fear? Unless you're going to push Pascal's wager on me. And I assure you, no atheist is really worried about that.
And your last sentence "he makes up excuses for the evidence" simply ignores the very point that there is no evidence.
Very good... so go ahead and put what you believe to the scientific test...
Oh... wait...
You were persuaded? Read that again, closely, and see if you can find the problem with that statement... and frankly, using the entire basis of your argument, why weren't you pushed towards Buddhism? Or any other religion? If the core of your argument is that "religion can not be ruled out simply because there is no evidence for it", why settle on Christianity? Find the honest answer to that question, then ask yourself a few other tough questions... and you might find yourself coming to the same conclusions that I and many, many other of us "former theists" have come to. And it is freeing, I assure you.
WTF? Honestly, how is this not just post hoc justification?
Really? Why not? These kind of statements really sound like weaselling to me -- "I have a list of truly remarkable evidences which this thread is too small to contain". I think the term the kids use these days is "put up or shut up".
The problem is, the only logical conclusion that we can draw from such lack of experience, and from human fallibility in general, is that religion must be false.
Note that this does not automatically mean atheism, but it does mean that the religious characterization of a powerful, knowing, loving God cannot possibly be true. This, for the simple reason that such a God would be aware of the epistemological problems that humans have, and would not insist on faith, but would rather provide empirical demonstrations of its existence.
I've had that above argument called a version of the problem of evil, but note that it has a much weaker requirement -- God demonstrating his existence; God speaking for himself -- than removing all evil from the world. Because the requirements that God has to fulfill are weaker, it is in fact more obvious that any God that exists is in violation of the usual traits claimed for it (or him, if you insist).
I am indeed agnostic about any putative weak Gods, or nonbenevolent Gods, or ignorant Gods. But that said, I don't consider them particularly likely, and worship is almost certainly useless.
Especially given that science does provide better explanations of the universe, and better methods of finding out better explanations than any putative actions of any putative entity that might or might not be out there.
A variant of He-who-shall-not-be-named's "perls before swine" comment.
s/perls/pearls
I'll give you three guesses what I was doing all day.
Rich, you should read up on the null hypothesis. Just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so in that sense no-one can ever have evidence that something does exist. This is where the burden of proof comes into it. Positive claims require positive evidence. If I were to say "there's a dragon in my garage", it would be on me to prove there is one. Of course the dragon can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelt, and the only way I know of his presence is that he has revealed himself in my mind.This is the God problem, you can't prove the dragon isn't there, but you have nothing other than my revealed word that the dragon is. Surely scepticism dictates that the concept of the intangible indivisible dragon requires more than my personal belief for credulity. But that's what people essentially do with God. So we can't have evidence against God's existence because there's no falsifiable evidence out there. Since there is no evidence for God, there's no reason to believe in God. Hence being atheist. Do I believe in God? No. The question of knowledge however...
It cannot be ruled out, there's just no reason to rule it in. How is the concept of God any more credulous than the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
It seems to me that there is one glaringly false assumption under-girding the whole 'science leads to atheism' claim, i.e. the assumption that mechanism precludes agency, or that mechanism and agency are mutually exclusive. Now, one can perhaps dismiss the *need* for agency on pragmatic or Ockhamian grounds, but there are two problems with this: First, it's not a scientifically grounded dismissal, and so it cannot be claimed that 'science' supports it; and second, pragmatic or Ockhamian considerations don't provide any support for the sort of ontological conclusions atheism would entail.
Now, it may be the case that science can rule out natural claims about specific gods, or the 'how' questions of theism, it cannot rule out theism itself, i.e. the 'that' claims of theism. Again, we're lead logically to the conclusion that science doesn't logically lead to atheism.
So, while it may be the case that a scientific *worldview* leads to atheism, science, qua science, decidedly does not -- at least not *logically*. However, this conclusion does open us up to one way in which science can lead to atheism, viz. psychologically. In this sense, the question was ambiguous, and the answer is both yes and no: no, science doesn't in any way logically entail atheism; but yes, it often does, insofar as it influences one's worldview, lead one psychologically to atheism.
Of course, we can always look at the data if we want to understand the question trivially, i.e. as 'does science, in the real world (as opposed to logically), lead to atheism?' Most doctors are religious, and close to half of all scientists in the U.S. believe in a personal god (if you include deists, the number is much higher). Some of our most distinguished scientists are religious, though there is an inverse relationship between religious belief and scientific distinction. Therefore, even if we understand the question trivially, the answer is still no, science doesn't lead to atheism.
You're missing the point again.
I think my point has been much misunderstood. I'll state it as clearly and coherently as I can, step-by-step:
(1) It seems to be agreed here that the generic concept of a God or gods, being by its nature empirically untestable and unfalsifiable and outside the observed material world, is outside the scope of science.
(2) From a strictly rational perspective, this means the most logical position is agnosticism, since there's no reason to believe in any particular God or gods.
(3) Specific religions do, however, make historical claims (e.g. the Christian claim of the death and resurrection of Jesus) which relate to material reality. These claims are in theory testable and falsifiable, and can be evaluated through normal historical methods.
(4) No religion is, however, able at present to submit incontrovertible or compelling evidence in support of any of its historical claims. For instance, there is no strong evidence that the Gospels' account of Jesus' resurrection is accurate.
(5) Therefore, from a strictly rational and logical perspective, the most logical position must be unbelief, unless and until any evidence is adduced in favour of a particular religious belief.
(6) However... religion rests on faith, not on reason. In the case of Christianity, the Gospel account itself addresses this question in John 20:21 (cited supra). Hence why it is possible to subscribe to religious beliefs.
Actually, it's both agnosticism and atheism. If there's no way of knowing, then there's no reason to believe.
Which makes religion a fruitless endeavour and there's no point in believing other than for belief's sake.
"You're missing the point again."
No, it is you who have been consistently missing the point by your apparent inability to grasp the meaning of the term 'atheism.' The question, 'Does science lead to atheism?' *can't* be identified with the question, 'Does science rule out a god who interacts with the world?' *Even if* it could rule out such a god (which it decidedly cannot; if you don't see why, then you didn't understand my point about mechanism and agency on the one hand, and my point about scientific reasons versus pragmatic or Ockhamian reasons on the other), it cannot rule out *any* possible god, which is precisely what atheism, *by definition,* entails.
What is it about you people that you can't even bother to find out anything before you splatter your ignorance around? It took me a few seconds to find this:
Your lack of concern for rectifying your ignorance is noted.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Would you actually go back and read what people have wrote Eric, no-one is claiming unequivocally that evolution implies atheism, rather that science is replacing many a role that religion played. This is why PZ said a "conditional yes". Of course atheism can't rule out God, but that's not the point. It's like you've just read the thread title, then rallying against that regardless of what was actually discussed. No evolution doesn't necessarily stop religious belief, but it does eliminate the need for a supernatural explanation for our origins and replaces the need for God. That, in effect can lead to atheism.
Atheism doesn't rule out God, atheism is just simply not believing in any God. It's a question of belief, not knowledge. I see no reason to believe in God so I'm an atheist - end of story.
Eric, you are confused. The question was what science implies, not what it logically entails. Rational conclusions based on science are generally not done by logical deduction from a priori premises. Does smoking logically entail lung cancer?
Atheism does not "entail" that we definitely need to rule out any possibility of gods. Science hasn't "disproved" or "ruled out" Bigfoot, either. Science doesn't logically entail that there's no Bigfoot. Science implies (or suggests even more strongly) that there's no Bigfoot and that it's reasonable to be a Bigfoot atheist.
OK. Here we go. Please excuse the grammar - there was quite a lot to deal with.
"Rich, Occams Razor says if something might be true or not true,the simplest explanation is not true"
Yes, but in order to apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation must be agreed. It is my casual observation that the disagreement is about precisely that. .
"I try to believe six impossible things before breakfast."
But that is illogical. It would be irrational to believe in something that is impossible.
"You are deliberately engaging in semantic ambiguity to try to prove your point."
On the contrary, I abhor ambiguity. Consider the following; It is my understanding that the commonly accepted interpretation of the term 'to believe' is not the same as the term 'to know'. I can believe without evidence but I cannot know without evidence. And it is clearly illogical to believe in or to 'have faith' about a fact. However, one is entitled to believe that something might be true so long as it is not only possible to be false. For example, I can rationally believe that my football team will avoid relegation until it is mathematically impossible for them to do so. I could not rationally believe that relegation could be avoided if it were no longer possible. I would then know relegation was inevitable; a fact. Substitute the event = {relegation} for the event = {a God exists}.
"I am 99.9999999999999997% certain, though."
Sadly, plucking a number out of a hat does not represent a proof and certainly does not afford you the right to assume that it is. And I do not deny you the right to believe that a God does not exist.
"Rich, you should read up on the null hypothesis"
I am perfectly well versed in the Null Hypothesis. Well enough to know that a useful application requires a well defined measure space. Indeed we can measure whether a dragon exists in your garage. We cannot however measure whether an undefined object is in your garage. Unsatisfactory I know, but a fact nevertheless. On the contrary sir, it is your knowledge of measure theory which needs to be scrubbed up!
"who got in over his head. The amount of dodging and weaving was almost up to our old friend NaCl."
My head is where it has always been and I am perfectly in control of it. If you call stating facts dodging and weaving I plead guilty.
"Your logic is nonexistent."
In that case you will have little trouble in refuting it. In fact I would be grateful to you would do so. As I have said, I would welcome the removal of uncertainty.
"All of the markings of intellectual dishonesty on display."
That comment is offensive, uncalled for and without foundation. I am fastidiously honest.
"Not my claim, not my burden to disprove it."
Excellent! The neither of us are making claims. We neither have anything to prove and we are both entitled to believe what we want to believe. But of course, we must accept that the other might be right. I do, do you?
"Sorry, wrong. Believing a preposterous claim for which there is no evidence is not rational. It's pretty much the definition of the word."
No, you are wrong. That the claim is preposterous is your opinion. It is not a fact. And I do not need evidence to 'believe'. I need evidence to know. I do not claim to know.
"I'm not claiming god is impossible, just non-existent."
That statement however requires proof. And non-detection is not sufficient.
"You tell me which god we're talking about and I'll answer the question. I'm not going to be sucked into a game of theological whack-a-mole."
No, you claimed that the existence of a God contradicts known facts, not me. I am merely asking you to substantiate this claim. Are you retracting your claim?
"Prove your car keys are not on the coffee table." - Measurable event.
How is that? - By direct observation of course.
"Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter." - Measurable event.
How is that? I am no NASA scientist but a teapot is a 3d object in a measurable space, so what is the problem?
"Your attitude is the death of curiosity. Why bother, it is rational to pass it off as god's will."
Why? I did not say it was Gods will and I am a scientist and naturally curious. I am just honest about what I know and what I do not. In the context of your example, it was not known that it was not God's will.
"By the way, mankind did not think that the earth was flat. There were some people that did, but not mankind. Besides at the time of Columbus, most educated people and sailors knew it was round. And let us talk about the use of force to try to keep the idea of an earth centered universe the "rational" believe."
Whatever. The specific example was not the point being made, of course.
"you can believe in leprachauns without being irrational, but you mustn't admit it?"
I didn't say that.
"And you didn't answer my follow-up question. If it's not irrational to believe in them, it's not irrational to believe that the mischievous little chaps are distorting the evidence in every scientific study undertaken, so it's not irrational to refuse to accept any type or amount of evidence for or against anything. Right?"
Wrong. We accept facts in the context in which they have been proved. We just don't use them for anything else!
I think that is all.
You mean, John 20:29.
But addressing the question does not resolve the problem.
What are people supposed to have faith in, according to that verse? In a story utterly counter to all experience and sanity related without empirical evidence by humans of known problematic reliability.
And that sort of behavior is sufficiently similar to that of a confidence man or other fraud as makes no difference.
Of course it's possible. But so what?
And it is clearly illogical to believe in or to 'have faith' about a fact. - Rich
Utter nonsense, so far as belief is concerned. I believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I believe 5 is a prime number. I believe London is the capital of the UK. You cannot know anything without at the same time believing it.
Rich, I didn't read your last post since I have a rule of not reading any post much longer than my screen. If you want us to read your posts, break it down into at most screen size pieces. You don't need to respond to everybody at once.
I'll give you three guesses what I was doing all day.
Casting Perl scripts before swine?
Bummer. In my expeience, the pigs, they just don't appreciate elegant code.
ah...the atheist / agnostic debate.
okay, right, i can't actually disprove gawd, yet call myself an atheist...how can this be?
yes, there may be a gawd, however, a chicken may someday win the kentucky derby, but not only am i not putting money on either one, i find it rather silly to bother mentioning such improbabilities in the first place.
1) You have already argued that nothing should be discounted as impossible ("As a scientist, I do give non-existent objects any weight. But equally, I cannot assume that they do not exist. I am sorry, I did not make the rules."). Please try to be consistent at least.
2) Religion posits claims that would otherwise be considered 'impossible' - resurrection, reincarnation, miracles, etc. Are you now doing a 180 to agree that religious belief that rests on the hypotheses of impossible events are both irrational and illogical? Or is it possible that you hold religious views to a different standard than any other claim?
/delurk
Probably because there is no SQL to it...
Exactly, I find it odd that people define "atheist" in the most explicit narrow sense of the word. Though it's no surprise then when they come to misundertand the question at hand.
How can we measure the dragon if it's an intangible object? You've missed the point of the argument, the dragon can't be measured, I only know it's there because it revealed itself to me in my mind. This is where the burden of proof comes in. You can't say the dragon doesn't exist, but you have no reason to believe it does other than taking my word for it.
Claiming Evolution => atheism is a plot to deny any non-atheist (not only the full blown Xians, but even those who are simply not discounting the possibility) a claim to be serious intellectuals/scientists/educated people. I can "know" my science, from the big bang on, and still be a traditionalist who takes his kids to church (not religiously, pun intended)for the moral value. I find it much easier to believe in God given morals than some abstract philosophy that introduces morality as a natural development. That doesn't cloud my trust in evolution, it just supplements it with a certain other book for how to conduct my affairs.
Just curious, how can you believe that morality is God-given when everything else about us has evolved? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of evolution if there's a necessity for God to intervene?
In order for me to refute it, I would have to have evidence that it exists.
You most certainly are not. "But there are enumerable comments like this. Was mankind irrational for believing that the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth etc...." The only word that makes sense here - particularly give the (redundant) etc./ellipsis combo - is "innumerable." "Enumerable" would serve no function in this context, or in the context of your # 388 for that matter. Either you recognize this, and are being intellectually dishonest, or you are a very confused thinker. I believe it is the former. There are no other options.
I don't recall seeing it in this thread, but it comes up from time to time: the claim that god won't prove his existence, because we wants humans to have faith, and they won't have faith in something that's proven.
Can someone tell me where that comes from? I've always felt it's an extremely slippery piece of evasion to try and cover the lack of evidence for god's existence. Plus the bible is full of god's interaction with humans; why are we suddenly to believe that god was fine with proof back then but changed his mind on the idea somewhere along the way?
So God killing the vast proportion of life on the planet is "moral"?
God lying to his created offspring and condemning them and all their descendants is "moral"?
God forgiving a man who murdered his brother out of jealousy is "moral"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Glen: "Your lack of concern for rectifying your ignorance is noted."
Please, Glen. If the claim is that science leads to atheism, and that it's corrosive of religious beliefs, and that it *ought* to be so, then it's clear to anyone with a properly functioning brain that we'e not talking about the mere 'absence or lack of belief in god(s)' of weak atheism. Hence, your utter inability to grasp *and to apply properly* subtle conceptual distinctions is noted.
Windy: "Eric, you are confused. The question was what science implies, not what it logically entails."
Windy, the *original* question is what evolution implies, but as PZ reformulated it, it's *clearly* much stronger than that:
"First, let's clear up the incoherence of the question [i.e. the question, 'Does evolution imply atheism?']. I understand it as, "Does understanding science [it's not just biologists who exhibit this phenomenon!] lead to an abandonment of religious beliefs?", and that's the question to which I think an affirmative is the correct answer. It ought to; scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief. However, it is a messier answer than just a "yes" or "no" can properly address, because most people don't accept a religion for rational reasons..."
Note the shift from 'evolution' to 'science'; note the shift from 'implies' to 'leads to'; note the shift from 'a conditional yes' to 'it ought to'; note the unambiguous, vigorous declarative sentence, "Scientific thinking is corrosive to religious belief"; and, finally, note that it's "messier than just a yes or no" *not* because we're talking about implication instead of entailment, but because "most people don't accept a religion for rational reasons."
Except that virtually everyone arguing atheism is arguing exactly that, lying fucktard.
Not only are you a stupid liar, and eager to reveal that fact, you are incapable of understanding the plain meaning of the commenters here. Believe me, moron, I can grasp subtle distinctions, while you can't even understand the blatant expository statements of the posters here.
Now go screw yourself, mindless babbler, and don't expect me to respond to (or most likely, even to read) any more of your tawdry, retarded lies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Almost everyone here is and is arguing for weak atheism. We are not talking about the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that we don't need her anymore. Without a need for God, there is no reason to belive in God, and hence it implies atheism.
Glen D, in fact, if you actually tried thinking critically about the definitions you use rather than simply cutting and pasting them, you'd see that they're incoherent:
"Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, *without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities*. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is *the belief that no deities exist*, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one deity."
Note that these definitions don't effectively distinguish weak from strong atheism, since one could be a strong atheist by 'believing that no deities exist' and still claim to be 'without a commitment to the *necessary* non-existence of deities.' The 'lack of belief' requirement is obviously entailed by not believing, so even though the two are conceptually distinct in themselves, the definitions don't allow you to make any use of the distinction (given the 'without a commitment to the necessary non-existence' criterion)! Way to go: you just posted a completely incoherent set of definitions in an attempt to illustrate your intellectual fastidiousness and to demonstrate my ignorance!
"What is it about you people that you can't even bother to find out anything before you splatter your ignorance around? It took me a few seconds to find this."
Next time, try *at least* a few minutes.
Say it ain't so! You're just getting on a roll, and it's been so long since I last read a good series of Glen D rants! (I'm not being sarcastic - I really have missed them. ...I'm not proud.)
Eric, your ideas were expressed earlier in this thread. You aren't changing any minds, certainly not mine. You have had your say, so time to let things drop as I did.
Rich -
you said:
This, above all else, is where my frustration with you stems... because it is this completely false premise that you continuously fail to grasp, and from which you base all the rest of your assertions.
The statement that god is non-existent does NOT require proof. It is EXACTLY the other way around. The statement that god, (or the easter bunny, unicorns, fsm, etc etc etc) does exist requires proof. Period.
And, as a result, you are not in a position to dictate what methods of proof are acceptable to you... "non-detection" or other. If you can not grasp this basic concept, and understand why your entire argument fails from there, then I'm not sure how else to continue the discussion.
"Almost everyone here is and is arguing for weak atheism. We are not talking about the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that we don't need her anymore."
Note that 'strong atheism' *doesn't* require 'absolute certainty' that god doesn't exist; rather, it only requires that one believe that god doesn't exist (as opposed to not believing that god exists, or 'weak atheism'). The proponent of weak atheism only claims to lack belief in god, while the proponent of strong atheism claims to believe it's the case that god doesn't exist. Now, when you say that 'science leads to atheism, that science is corrosive to religious beliefs, and that science ought to do so,' you're *not* a weak atheist. You're confusing whether one can prove god doesn't exist with whether one asserts that god doesn't exist; a strong atheist need only do the latter to qualify as a strong atheist.
Bio-Science is another religion, just replace god/s commandments with gene/s coding. Thou shalt multiply/mutate upon the earth...
IMO biology is natural hardware, religion is supernatural software.
I can't be an atheist, cuz I don't believe there is a god that doesn't exist. I'm just a naturalist.
Atta boy Glen!
No, you aren't! You're just trying to define what level of atheism people are talking about to suit your own argument!
Quite simply, if the universe is mechanistic what role does an interventionalist God play? If people don't see a need to believe in God they won't believe God exists. They will, therefore be, atheist.
That's your opinion, but nevertheless nobody is claiming any logical necessity, since that's not the way scientific evidence works. You and the other commenters who felt compelled to start talking about logical entailment display a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge in general.
eric,
All that implies is that a strong atheist can also be a weak atheist. Which is stated by the very article Glen cited, if you bothered to read it--it defines "strong atheist" as a subcategory of "weak atheist". It also clears up your confusion over the word "necessary" above; the author means that weak atheists do not necessarily commit themselves to the non-existence of deities, not that they do not consider the non-existence of deities logically necessary.
But you didn't read the article, did you?
That makes no sense. If science is corrosive to religious beliefs, then science tends to remove a belief in god. It doesn't follow that science tends to instill a positive belief in god's nonexistence.
Kel's argument is perfectly consistent with weak atheism.
"You and the other commenters who felt compelled to start talking about logical entailment display a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge in general."
Absolutely not. In fact, I have criticized others on these boards or speaking about 'scientific proofs'; I understand perfectly well that science deals with evidence, not proof, and that all scientific conclusions are provisional. In fact, this is implicit in my argument: science can't 'lead to' atheism *because* of this inadequacy. Personally, I agree with Alister Mcgrath here: logically, the most one can say is that science leads to agnosticism.
No, silly. It can lead to PROVISIONAL atheism (it doesn't have to). Since all conclusions are provisional, this is not a special handicap for atheism.
There's that word again. If you require logical entailment, we have to be agnostic about all conclusions based on scientific evidence. If you just require a provisional conclusion based on evidence, there is no reason to say that atheism can never be such a conclusion.
A better (even more accurate) question would be...does evolution (or science) imply AGNOSTICISM?
The biggest issue with evolution among many religious people, and this statement could rightly be generalized to any debate over science vs. religion, is that scientific theories invalidate a fundamental reading of Scriptures. Once CAN be religious and believe in evolution...IF one does not subscribe to a fundamentalist belief that the Bible is the infallible and literal explanation for the world rather than a metaphorical.
So let's reframe the issue. Its not science vs. religion. It is science vs. fundamentalism and Biblical literalism.
That depends on what one means by "proof" - as PZ wrote in the post, counterfactual claims can certainly be scientifically disproven. To the extent that such claims are bases for theism, science renders them fatuous.