Written by 0rpheus on 22.05.2011 at 03:43

No jokes baby!

شكرا. الله أكبر. That was quite an fine reading. In fact who ever said that evolutionary theory should deny the belief in God and vice versa... in fact, nobody can be 100% sure how the life on Earth actually came to be as it is...

Written by Yasmine on 22.05.2011 at 04:10

I'm not even gonna argue because of what we perviously said.

I agree. No need to argue! we have different thoughts/beliefs, we share 'em and not impose 'em on each others.

Quote:

Written by Ernis on 22.05.2011 at 09:47

شكرا. الله أكبر. That was quite an fine reading. In fact who ever said that evolutionary theory should deny the belief in God and vice versa... in fact, nobody can be 100% sure how the life on Earth actually came to be as it is...

...الشكر لله
That's what I'd say too.

Written by Ernis on 21.05.2011 at 22:37

Written by Ghostdancer on 21.05.2011 at 22:05

And let me guess...no real answer to the questions. At 6 years of age I asked a pastor why we didn't turn to mud in the bathtub if we were formed from the dust of the ground. He said God turned us into living dust which never turns to mud. And I remember thinking he was lying. lol

Today I'm waiting for The Rapture. lol

Well but our bodies are indeed made up from the same atoms that are in earth... and when we leave those bodies, then the bodies become one with the earth again and the atoms circulate onwards... literally... we turn to dust...

No rapture here... as Christ said that He Himself doesn't have any idea either about when the time comes... only Father does... and He won't tell it... It's supposed to happen when there is nobody expecting it... That's why predicting it is nonsensical. But I know US has lots of weird sects...

Let's see if I can be a little more coherent today.

I think my visceral and vitriolic response to Creationism is a direct influence of being overly exposed to some of the weird sects in the US. I grew up going to a Southern Baptist church, which is definitely not the weirdest sect. They would never make a prediction as to the day the rapture would take place. However, they are Evangelical Protestants and that in and of itself is weird enough. Besides that, I related a story about a weird uncle of mine and he came from a total whack job sect...to which I was exposed for three years.

I suppose my disbelief in religion is for another thread though.

My major problem with Creationism (or Intelligent Design) is that the version of it we have in the US is totally propagated by weird Evangelical Protestants. I don't know how Creationists in the rest of the world believe, but these guys are teaching that the Earth is 5000 to 6000 years old, that the dinosaurs existed at the same time as humanity and that Satan has confused the scientific community by giving them the theory of evolution. Some of these people will even have their children pulled out of biology courses when they touch on the subject of evolution. I think the whole idea is just absurd. I mean they even have a museum in Kentucky for this stuff...I saw something on television about this place and they believe that dinosaurs roamed the Garden of Eden.

The only concept of Creationism that I could remotely consider is one where a creator caused the Big Bang and things took a natural course from that point. I don't believe it, but it is not quite as far-fetched as what these Evangelicals are trying to say happened.

And I do believe that the US has the weirdest sects on Earth.

Written by Yasmine on 22.05.2011 at 02:46

Yes, I've experienced a number of these, both of my Bf's parents are pentecostal, and my step father is as well. His parents don't like me one bit. As for Mormons most start telling me how I'm really a lost Jew! lol (They believe native americans are Jews.) Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, all from the USA. I also do not believe in silly notions without verifible evidence. Sorry, my posts are short, not quite sober.....lol

I got the same thing from a Mormon co-worker after I told him my grandmother was half Dutch and half Choctaw.

Written by Ghostdancer on 22.05.2011 at 23:36

Besides that, I related a story about a weird uncle of mine and he came from a total whack job sect...to which I was exposed for three years.

And I do believe that the US has the weirdest sects on Earth.

Sorry to hear that. In fact, there are so many sects and branches of Christianity that are often the exact opposite of Christianity itself. That's why I only honour and support the Eastern and Western Catholic church, especially because they are for me the closest to the original Christianity. The eastern and western church do have their differences but the core is the same. Now if you think of the protestant religions (I'd even call them separate religions) then these broke off from Christianity and often opposed it openly and completely redid everything, some even discarded all the Christ's teaching and only take the Old Testament as the main source of information. Example: If in Christianity God loves everyone and everyone has a chance to get to heaven then in one of the new protestant ideology the heaven was like a hotel already "booked" for "chosen people". You may be good and virtuous but without the booking, you'll go to hell... and you may be a murderous maniac but if you are among the "chosen one" you'll get to heaven anyway... If in Christianity the material life is not so important, love and friendship count as the main thing, then in that same protestant movement they had the conception that "If you earn lots of money, that means you work hard and God blesses you. If you have low income, then it means God hates you/If your life is great, God loves you, if your life is bad, God hates you."

I do not know if you knew but the witch hunts and burnings of innocent people started with protestantism. Catholic church was a lot more tolerant towards different older religions as it had many pagan traditions itself. In Estonia many men were burnt on the stake by protestants because here the "village healers" were mostly men.

There was a family acquaintance who was a baptist. I didn't speak with her about my religion but I heard she had a profound hatred towards Catholics... Me, by the way, I do not hate baptists. But I have heard they and several other protestant sects from the US are very violent and very elitist and wish to exterminate other religions. This particular acquaintance admired the US and constantly said that the US will save the world etc. If you criticised the US, she became so angry that she seemed psychotic. Plus their ideology: "I know that what I do is wrong. But this shows that God wants me to do this. He created me like this. I would be contradicting his will by trying to be better."

And the evolution... Earth is most likely not 5000 years old, and Catholic church doesn't claim that... but yes... I know some protestant sects in the US read the OLD Testament literally... at the same time they do not follow the teachings of Christ at all... If Christ ever appeared to these people, they'd crucify Him again...

Written by 0rpheus on 22.05.2011 at 03:43

Written by Yasmine on 22.05.2011 at 03:20

Written by 0rpheus on 22.05.2011 at 03:06

Evolution doesn't contradict with the Qur'an
One of Darwin's faults; he thought that species have evolved through internal factors! While it's through God's will.

Oh boy.......hope that's joke.

No jokes baby!

The whole beauty of religious scriptures, is that you can always cut & paste (take out of context, texturally and historically), and make it sound so vague - so it will fit anything wanted, in hindsight (even better after translation).
Monotheistic religions are mostly devoid of actual content (they are opportunistic & populist), it is a practice more then anything & a force of resistant to progress (in knowledge, ethics, etc).
Islam makes it even harder....
Luckily for us, we have earthly messengers of god who can clear up there holly texts for a special social class, respect, power and sometimes money.

Written by Ernis on 23.05.2011 at 12:42

If Christ ever appeared to these people, they'd crucify Him again...

Brilliantly pointed out. This also applies to the Catholic church up to the Second Vaticanum ( and certain individuals up to this day ). I find it ironic that some of the more open thinkers I have met come from the ranks of Catholic clergy, and I often find the ideas of protestants just silly ( in lack of a better expression, and not intending to insult anyone's beliefs), and all we here about is the backward ideas of the Catholic church.

As tho whole Evolution vs. Creationism go my views are: Using the biblical ( Genesis ) story as a valid account of the origin of man today is wrong, and is a classic case of too literal interpretation of the Bible among some protestant pastors. Any serious bible scholar today will claim that the text in question is not a part of actual biblical history, and therefore is not a accurate historical report to any extent. As such, offering it as an alternative to Evolutionism is not acceptable.

On the other hand, as a man who believes in God, I can not just put Him out of the picture, nor does the idea of evolution as I understand it exclude Him. Why couldn't evolution be led by a superior guiding force. Also, in the evolution of man, a professor of mine talked about a moment he called hominisation. In short, the idea is that during the evolution of man, God intervened declaring "You are man from now on", thus differentiating him from his ancestors.

Thank you for your attention if you made it to the end of my little typing tantrum ( my head hurts now )

When is the bible should be taken "literally" and when not?
Is there any standard or when the bible turns out to be shameful, you simply say "Oh, that's not to be taken literally! My religion fits with the achievements of human reason!"
Biblical studies have a different take on this. Genesis in historical context, very clearly, supports a cosmological view of the ancients around there (mostly Babylonians & Egyptians), and not anything close to even Greek philosophical notions (like a round world).
So that is "too literal" since it conflicts with you're system of beliefs which you defend on for guidance?

I agree with the part on the cosmological view of the world. The book of Genesis is filled with ( among other things ) etiological and etymological tales ( not sure about the exact English spelling, sorry ) that try to explain the origin of various nations, places, and religious practices. The first person in the Bible than can be put in ( a more or less accurate ) historical context is Abraham ( Gen 12 ), thus using the events described prior to that point as exact historical/anthropological/biological/whatever evidence is not recommended ( but that does not diminish their value for other fields of study, nor their [ at least from my point ] status as inspired scripture.)

And as far as your "that's shameful, so don't take that literally" accusations: The Bible is probably the most context sensitive piece of literature, and also the one most suitable for abuse. Taking any single verse out of context can lead to intentional/unintentional misuse. That is one of the reason why the Bible should be considered inerrant as a whole. Otherwise I could just take any verse from it and use it to make my own conclusions, or, what is more often today, bash religions that base their beliefs and practices on it or worse, attack the idea of God which is portrayed in it ( my personal favorite Ps 136, 10 ). I don't advocate a "this verse doesn't sound right, don't take it seriously" approach, I was trying to point out the misuse ( in lack of a better expression ) of the Bible, which some use to explain the origin of man, and the rest of the created ( used intentionally ) universe, which is clearly does not agree with the conclusions of science. I have maybe expressed myself wrongly with the phrase "taking it literally."

This is the most fun/meaningful "conversation" I had in days. Thank you good Sir

I'm happy to hear
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "etiological and etymological tales"...
If the scriptures are divine (the deity gets things always right) doesn't it follow the tales of scripture should be perfect (I\ll settle for correct)?
I think it poses a serious problem for the view that scripture is inspired by such deities.

Also, as far as we know, biological Evolution is guided by natural selection and not a deity's will. We have no reason to believe god somehow toke hand in it, more then any other pseudo-explanation.
Not only that, but, what does God explain exactly? Darwin put it nicely;

"The explanation of types of structure in classes?as resulting from the
will of the deity, to create animals on certain plans,?is no explanation?it has not the character of a physical law & is therefore utterly
useless.?it foretells nothing because we know nothing of the will of
the Deity, how it acts & whether constant or inconstant like that of
man.?the cause given we know not the effect". - Charles Darwin, Essay on Theology and Natural Selection.

Etiological and etymological tales are tales that try to explain for example why a certain place or person is called the way it is ( for example the origin of the name of Bet-El in Gen 28, 16-19 ), origins of certain occupations ( blacksmiths and musicians in Gen 4, 20-22), nations and differences between them ( the tower of Babylon that explains the origin of different languages). They are not written to be an accurate historical report, but to try to give an explanation of the world around them. Not having the luxury of the scientific findings of our time, like other ancient cultures, the people of the Old Testament tried to give meaning to the existence of things they encountered as best as they could.

By the term "divine inspiration" I did not mean, to quote you, "the deity getting things always right", but to the way ( a long debated issue trough the history of Christianity ) God inspires the human authors ( literal writers ) of the Bible to write it as such, an in what extent it should be considered inerrant ( without mistake ).

I have no issues with natural selection, nor why itself should not be led/stared/overseen by a absolute being. Also knowing nothing of Gods will does not give ground to exclude him a priori , IMO. True, God is not a subject to physical law, or any law for that matter, or else he could not be God as he would be limited by them. Natural selection, from a philosophical point of view, can be described as movement, and nothing that is subject to natural laws can start moving from itself ( think of knocking over dominoes ) . In the case of evolution, creation of the universe etc. one can not point to a physical start ( the finger that knocked down the first domino ) as it leads to a absurd contrasting natural laws. But by this I don't claim that God led evolution step by step, I personally agree with the idea of God allowing the universe to work ( relatively ) autonomously under the governing of natural law.

The court at the Dover trial did the mistake of excluding God (or in there words "the supernatural") from science (or tool for explaining the world and our-selves). It's rather arbitrary. I think we should examine how god explains anything, if at all.
And yet this still does not support any of you're arguments, I think mostly from ignorance. We have no reason to think this god, has anything to do with evolution at all.
You're assuming too much. Like that natural laws have a start in the first place, that there is a creation for starters. If you could clear up a little what you mean, we could develop a conversation concerning the issues.

Yes, using such arguments should be done carefully. Using Deus Ex Machina arguments can be inappropriate for the field of research the matter at hand is subjected to. Also such argumentation could be considered inappropriate in the context of correct speaking of God, from a theodicycal point of view.

Reading my earlier posts, I feel some of the things I wrote were slightly off topic or badly expressed ( stands I do agree with, but maybe a subject of different discussions.)

The issue of using the idea of an absolute being (God), as factor worth of at least considering, in these kinds of discussions is probably that people automatically associate it with certain religious views, and also the fact that not all people acknowledge the possibility of the existence of such a being from a metaphysical standpoint ( or the possibility of any metaphysical conclusion whatsoever).

True, we can not claim how or to what extend God interferes in evolution or anything else, if we choose to accept such a claim. But, if one holds the stand that the existence of God can be validly claimed from any of the classic arguments ( 5 ways of T. Aquinas, Anselmo's cosmological argument, Pascals wager etc. ), he also must claim that God is active in such processes, at "least" as its original effective cause. Claiming differently would be in contrast with the very argument the person used to prove God in the first place.

Yes, I know using such claims is difficult, as I realize not all (most) people agree with such possibilities. Such ideas are more in the realm of the speculative discussion, unlike the strictly empirical views dominating today. I don't negate empirical scientific discovery, nor do I submit natural laws to divine intervention in a Deus Ex Machina/Pantheist way. My goal is primarily to achieve a valid synthesis of science and my own philosophical/metaphysical views, primarily to help me get a better understanding of the universe, which is a ever-ongoing process. I have no pretensions to create a perfectly accurate explanation ( which I consider impossible by human means ), but faced with limitations I find in the physical world, I feel compelled to try to make step a beyond.

Yes, since "God" is a very ambiguous word (which is many times used manipulatively. You usually have a P(hilosophers)-God, and a A(nthropomorphic)-god).
If you accept let's say Maimonides's 'proof of god', there is no personal god to "intervene" with natural process (like biological evolution), you could say he is active, but it losses any meaning whatsoever. Since god has no intentions, you're just left with what we started with: natural 'random' process of selection.

I see little value in metaphysics, I share this opinion (great website by the way), and I think in order to understand the nature of (this big word) reality you must ask a physicist about it, and not analyze concepts or use (metaphysical) intuitions.

To each his own views then,I'm perfectly fine with that ... Considering our different views I fear we have hit a dead end. Not to mention that this has become slightly time consuming for me ( expressing myself in English in these kinds of discussions actually takes way more time than my actual thought process, thus the one post per day rhythm ). With impending college responsibilities that is time I cannot afford to spend on this, so I propose we leave this as is.
Once again, thanks for this, as I rarely can get any sort of discussion going on such topics in my regular circle of colleagues.

Written by Guest on 27.05.2011 at 17:01

To each his own views then,I'm perfectly fine with that ... Considering our different views I fear we have hit a dead end. Not to mention that this has become slightly time consuming for me ( expressing myself in English in these kinds of discussions actually takes way more time than my actual thought process, thus the one post per day rhythm ). With impending college responsibilities that is time I cannot afford to spend on this, so I propose we leave this as is.
Once again, thanks for this, as I rarely can get any sort of discussion going on such topics in my regular circle of colleagues.

I'm happy to hear!
What are you studying?

Written by Candlemass on 27.05.2011 at 23:44


I'm happy to hear!
What are you studying?

Apparently nothing you find great value in...
My philosophical anthropology exam is soon, it is interesting but its a full year ( 2 semester ) course, and covers a lot of ground ( freedom, emotion , social element etc. ).

Yes, you are correct if I understand you're subject at some level, I currently oppose essentialism
Good luck at you're exams!

I just came up with a brilliant idea for a game. It's called Defend Creationism. It's a brain teaser game. You can play it alone or with a friend (this way you can pick sides). Also there could be cards on which different means of defence and offence are written on (like modal logic or theory of relativity or the bible or the teachings of some certain philosopher like Plato or Leibniz). Each would pick a card and could use only those "weapons" one gets.
Fun, isn't it?

Written by therest on 22.07.2011 at 16:52

I just came up with a brilliant idea for a game. It's called Defend Creationism. It's a brain teaser game. You can play it alone or with a friend (this way you can pick sides). Also there could be cards on which different means of defence and offence are written on (like modal logic or theory of relativity or the bible or the teachings of some certain philosopher like Plato or Leibniz). Each would pick a card and could use only those "weapons" one gets.
Fun, isn't it?

That is vague as hell. Explain the rules better.

Written by Guest on 22.07.2011 at 21:26

Written by therest on 22.07.2011 at 16:52

I just came up with a brilliant idea for a game. It's called Defend Creationism. It's a brain teaser game. You can play it alone or with a friend (this way you can pick sides). Also there could be cards on which different means of defence and offence are written on (like modal logic or theory of relativity or the bible or the teachings of some certain philosopher like Plato or Leibniz). Each would pick a card and could use only those "weapons" one gets.
Fun, isn't it?

That is vague as hell. Explain the rules better.

The version that is played alone and without the cards has no rules, you just try to find a loop hole in your knowledge that would fit creationism. (That's for the pro's I guess.) But the one with the cards would go like this: first you flip a coin, one gets the creationist side, the other gets the common sense side. Then a card is drawn, it specifies the theme of the argument (let's say the bible card is drawn). Now the one who is against creationism tries to find an argument that relates to the bible to attack the creationist. Then the creationist has to reply (also with an argument related to the bible) and if the reply is succesful and destroys the attack, then the creationist can in return give an argument in support of creationism (the answer he gave before can also be that next argument). Then the ball is in the common sense guy's court. And it goes on until one side has nothing to say and so the other side wins.

Written by therest on 23.07.2011 at 00:30

Written by Guest on 22.07.2011 at 21:26

Written by therest on 22.07.2011 at 16:52

I just came up with a brilliant idea for a game. It's called Defend Creationism. It's a brain teaser game. You can play it alone or with a friend (this way you can pick sides). Also there could be cards on which different means of defence and offence are written on (like modal logic or theory of relativity or the bible or the teachings of some certain philosopher like Plato or Leibniz). Each would pick a card and could use only those "weapons" one gets.
Fun, isn't it?

That is vague as hell. Explain the rules better.

The version that is played alone and without the cards has no rules, you just try to find a loop hole in your knowledge that would fit creationism. (That's for the pro's I guess.) But the one with the cards would go like this: first you flip a coin, one gets the creationist side, the other gets the common sense side. Then a card is drawn, it specifies the theme of the argument (let's say the bible card is drawn). Now the one who is against creationism tries to find an argument that relates to the bible to attack the creationist. Then the creationist has to reply (also with an argument related to the bible) and if the reply is succesful and destroys the attack, then the creationist can in return give an argument in support of creationism (the answer he gave before can also be that next argument). Then the ball is in the common sense guy's court. And it goes on until one side has nothing to say and so the other side wins.

That sounds completely useless to be honest. If an atheist attacks creationism by criticizing the bible, then the creationist would inevitably have to defend the bible to defend against the argument, otherwise he/she is not responding to the same argument. I don't see why you need to draw a card for that. Seems like a good old fashioned debate to me, not a game.

Written by Guest on 23.07.2011 at 10:06

Written by therest on 23.07.2011 at 00:30

Written by Guest on 22.07.2011 at 21:26

Written by therest on 22.07.2011 at 16:52

I just came up with a brilliant idea for a game. It's called Defend Creationism. It's a brain teaser game. You can play it alone or with a friend (this way you can pick sides). Also there could be cards on which different means of defence and offence are written on (like modal logic or theory of relativity or the bible or the teachings of some certain philosopher like Plato or Leibniz). Each would pick a card and could use only those "weapons" one gets.
Fun, isn't it?

That is vague as hell. Explain the rules better.

The version that is played alone and without the cards has no rules, you just try to find a loop hole in your knowledge that would fit creationism. (That's for the pro's I guess.) But the one with the cards would go like this: first you flip a coin, one gets the creationist side, the other gets the common sense side. Then a card is drawn, it specifies the theme of the argument (let's say the bible card is drawn). Now the one who is against creationism tries to find an argument that relates to the bible to attack the creationist. Then the creationist has to reply (also with an argument related to the bible) and if the reply is succesful and destroys the attack, then the creationist can in return give an argument in support of creationism (the answer he gave before can also be that next argument). Then the ball is in the common sense guy's court. And it goes on until one side has nothing to say and so the other side wins.

That sounds completely useless to be honest. If an atheist attacks creationism by criticizing the bible, then the creationist would inevitably have to defend the bible to defend against the argument, otherwise he/she is not responding to the same argument. I don't see why you need to draw a card for that. Seems like a good old fashioned debate to me, not a game.

If the bible card is drawn, you can't criticize the bible, you must use the bible to attack creationism.

I am bored and I am disturbed by how quiet the serious discussions forum, including this topic's thread has become, so why not revitalize it by shredding apart some flawed arguments from both sides just for fun. After all, I have no respect for the so-called New Atheist movement, because nothing about them is new and I have no respect for the so-called Intelligent Design movement, because nothing about them is intelligent. Both movements contain far more error than truth and most of their publications are an insult to anyone and everyone who possesses even the slightest bit of philosophical competence and is aware of the discoveries of modern science. In fact, one doesn't even need to be incredibly educated to see the stupidity of most of their claims, as I will now demonstrate. So let's begin, shall I?


We'll start with ID.

THE ARGUMENT: "*Insert complex biological system* is much more complicated than *insert man-made machine*, so how can it not be the result of design?"

THE COUNTER: When looking at a man-made machine such as a computer or a watch or a vibrator, we do not infer that it is designed based on how complex it is, we infer design because of our previous knowledge about man-made objects. It is knowledge a posteriori, not knowledge a priori that tells us that man-made things are designed and complexity has nothing to do with it. For example: how many of us would ever look at something as simple as a spoon and think: that isn't complex at all, it couldn't have been designed. Not many of us. We know that the spoon has been designed for a reason that has nothing what's so ever to do with complexity or non-complexity (is that a word?). Furthermore, if Mowgli came across a watch (that famous fallacious analogy) in the forest, would he immediately infer that the watch must have been designed? Probably not, because he would have no previous knowledge about watches. We have no logical reason to think that complexity is always the result of design or that design always results in complex systems, but we do have evidence that contradicts those ideas such as a simple spoon. In order to understand this, one doesn't even need to know about computer simulations and various other experiments, where self-replicating and complex systems that give off the illusion of having been designed have been observed to arise naturally. University degree not required, common sense only.


Moving on to New Atheism.

THE ARGUMENT: "If something as complex as the universe demands a designer (God) then that designer must itself be at least as complicated and therefore also needs a designer, who also needs a designer ad infinitum. Therefore positing God as an explanation to complexity leads to an infinite regress and explains nothing."

THE COUNTER: The problem in this argument against design (which can be refuted easily as I demonstrated earlier) and against the existence of a designer lies in the assumption that the designer itself must be complex, when he/she/it doesn't. Positing complexity to explain complexity makes little or no sense, therefore if a designer is posited, that designer must itself be simple. In most cases, the designer posited is an immaterial designer and therefore exists in infinte simplicity. We judge the complexity of a system by the number of parts that the system has and by the manner in which those parts interact with one another. A non-material designer would have no parts. Therefore, if a non-material designer is posited, there's no reason to think that such a designer would need a designer of its own. In truth, it isn't even possible to design something non-material and to ask who designed the designer or who created the creator is a mistake.


Back To ID

This time I'll take two arguments down at the same time, 'cause I'm that good. OK, I confess: it's not that I am good, it's that the arguments are simply so easy to refute.

THE 1ST ARGUMENT: "The laws of physics are balanced on a razor's edge for life to evolve" or "the universe is fine-tuned for life to exist."

THE 2ND ARGUMENT: "Even the simplest living cell could not have arisen through natural processes."

THE COUNTER: Setting aside the fact that there is no way to prove that different kind of life couldn't have evolved with different laws, setting aside the fact that all observation confirms that life adapts to it's environment and not the other way round, setting aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of the known Universe, the overwhelming majority of our galaxy and the overwhelming majority of our own Solar System is completely lifeless, setting aside the 50/50 possibility that the Andromeda galaxy will "crash" into Milky Way*, setting aside the fact that the Sun in it's current form is not eternal and will evaporate all of the Earth's oceans in about 1 billion years from now, setting aside the fact that meteors have bombed our planet since the formation of the Solar System, setting aside all of the ways in which our own home planet's natural processes can and have wiped out entire spieces, setting aside all of that, let us just focus on what is most baffling about these two arguments. I am actually quite surprised that nobody (so far as I know) has pointed this out before, but these two statements (both of which are direct quotes from Lee Strobel's "A Case For A Creator") are in completele contradiction with one another. Either the Universe is indeed fine-tuned for life to evolve or the arrival of life is so unlikely that a creator is needed in order to have even simple living cells. One or the other, both of these statements cannot be true. A Universe where life cannot evolve is not a unviverse fine-tuned for life to evolve. And once again, you don't need a degree in science to understand just how ridiculous this is. Common sense is all that is requiered.


Back To New Atheism. And this is one of the biggest bones I have to pick with them.

THE ARGUMENT: "God is statistically improbable."

THE COUNTER: Well, this statement comes straight out of the mouth of the unofficial leader of the New Atheist movement, from Richard Dawkins. Let me explain what this means. To say that a cosmos with God is improbable is to say that one has observed a great number of physical realities and determined that God only exists in a few of them, after all, improbable doesn't mean impossible. And because of this, we can conclude that the existence of God in our cosmos or our physical reality is unlikely or improbable. To call this statement stupid is an insult to stupidity and yet it is a statement that Dawkins has made repeatedly. He's even compared the likelihood of God's existence to the likelihood of the existence of fairies and unicorns (more proof of his ignorance about what philosophers mean when they talk about God), even though there exists no method by which we can determine the probability of the existence of any of the things mentioned.


And now for something slightly different. Both movements have at times been guilty of what I as a lover of science and a wannabe philosopher consider an unforgivable sin: a gross violation of the philosophy of science.

Here's what Lee Strobel of the ID movement has said:

"I believe that by doing science, we find God."


And here again is Dawkins:

"A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific." and "The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."

Both men (of whom only Dawkins is considered a champion of science) claim that the question of the existence of God (someone/something supernatural) is a scientific question. The truth is that science makes no comment on the supernatural. Science is based on empiricism, which in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. All scientific theories and hypothesis must be testable against observations of the natural world in order to be considered properly scientific. Obviously you cannot test for or observe the supernatural in the natural world. Also, if Dawkins thinks that any claim can be scientific, so long as it - if it were true - would make the world different, then every claim ever made is scientific. A world where Dragonballs cure cancer would certainly be different from a world where they cured depression, therefore the claim that Dragonballs cure cancer (or depression ) is a valid scientific claim. Interestingly enough Dawkins has also called Intelligent Design s pseudo-scientific, religious idea, even though a world where ID was correct, would be different from a world where it was not correct. The question of the existence of God is in fact a purely philosophical one and every time somebody looks at scientific discoveries and draws conclusions for or against God's existence, that person is no longer doing science. Of course, to understand this is way too much to ask from either side.


And this pretty much sums up why I take no side in this particular war, if you can call it a war. Both sides of the argument are mostly philosophically incompetent and scientifically ignorant and while some members of the New Atheist movement do at least possess a certain amount of scientific knowledge, they still go too far in interpreting that knowledge. Both side offer up half-witted arguments, create awful mis-characterizations of their opponents actual views, present half-truths and flat out lies to support their case and all the while make loads of money off of their books and videos, which are an insult to all thinking human beings. However, despite everything I have said, I still recommend for people to follow this ongoing battle and learn about the beliefs and arguments from both sides and to think about them, because it is a good exercise in developing one's own ability to think critically. Aristotle once said that it is the mark of the educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it and even though New Atheists and ID supporters are by his definitions anything but educated, that doesn't mean that we also have to be.

* - Actual collisions between objects like stars and planets will most likely not take place, due to the huge distances between them. The two galaxies will simply merge into one galaxy.

Written by Guest on 01.08.2011 at 22:30

Back To New Atheism. And this is one of the biggest bones I have to pick with them.

THE ARGUMENT: "God is statistically improbable."

THE COUNTER: Well, this statement comes straight out of the mouth of the unofficial leader of the New Atheist movement, from Richard Dawkins. Let me explain what this means. To say that a cosmos with God is improbable is to say that one has observed a great number of physical realities and determined that God only exists in a few of them, after all, improbable doesn't mean impossible. And because of this, we can conclude that the existence of God in our cosmos or our physical reality is unlikely or improbable. To call this statement stupid is an insult to stupidity and yet it is a statement that Dawkins has made repeatedly. He's even compared the likelihood of God's existence to the likelihood of the existence of fairies and unicorns (more proof of his ignorance about what philosophers mean when they talk about God), even though there exists no method by which we can determine the probability of the existence of any of the things mentioned.

Can't say I've read Dawkins' work but surely isn't what he means by 'improbable' simply that given one's observation of a number of physical realities it seems unlikely that a God could be physically real?

Written by R'Vannith on 02.08.2011 at 12:09

Can't say I've read Dawkins' work but surely isn't what he means by 'improbable' simply that given one's observation of a number of physical realities it seems unlikely that a God could be physically real?

That's just it. We cannot observe any physical reality other than the one we exist in. And even in this one, we cannot determine whether God exists by observation (the supernatural doesn't manifest itself in the natural world). Likelihood doesn't enter into the question of God's existence. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand this.

Written by Guest on 02.08.2011 at 14:52

Written by R'Vannith on 02.08.2011 at 12:09

Can't say I've read Dawkins' work but surely isn't what he means by 'improbable' simply that given one's observation of a number of physical realities it seems unlikely that a God could be physically real?

That's just it. We cannot observe any physical reality other than the one we exist in. And even in this one, we cannot determine whether God exists by observation (the supernatural doesn't manifest itself in the natural world). Likelihood doesn't enter into the question of God's existence. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand this.

Hmmm, not sure I understand. By 'physical reality' what do you mean exactly? As I haven't read Dawkins I can't say for sure but wouldn't he be arguing in terms of a single physical reality, that is there is only one physical reality and given the way that such a reality operates it seems unlikely that God could exist?

Written by R'Vannith on 05.08.2011 at 16:33

Written by Guest on 02.08.2011 at 14:52

Written by R'Vannith on 02.08.2011 at 12:09

Can't say I've read Dawkins' work but surely isn't what he means by 'improbable' simply that given one's observation of a number of physical realities it seems unlikely that a God could be physically real?

That's just it. We cannot observe any physical reality other than the one we exist in. And even in this one, we cannot determine whether God exists by observation (the supernatural doesn't manifest itself in the natural world). Likelihood doesn't enter into the question of God's existence. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand this.

Hmmm, not sure I understand. By 'physical reality' what do you mean exactly? As I haven't read Dawkins I can't say for sure but wouldn't he be arguing in terms of a single physical reality, that is there is only one physical reality and given the way that such a reality operates it seems unlikely that God could exist?

We cannot talk about likelihood and probability when talking about just one physical cosmos. Dawkins confuses what he considers a lack of evidence with evidence of improbability, but probability doesn't enter into it.

How can it be a working theory, when everyone I've argued with can't agree what we "came from."