Slashdot Mirror

Though I agree with you, I personally feel that the birth of theism is based on an innate human trait of Anthropomorphism.

I'd suggest that this goes hand-in-hand with the development of the Human brain (and ego). Trying to understand the world based on understanding ourselves (we do this because we have that in mind as a goal).

A lot of people do this without thinking - talking to things as if they were human ("Come on, car, please start!") or inferring human traits ("This computer hates me!"), although amusing, seems a very natural thing to do.

--
onedotzero
thedigitalfeed.co.uk

I don't know of any scientist that is atheist because they are a scientist. Atheism is a belief, and has as little to do with science as does theism. No one I know asserts that God doesn't exist, unless they personally feel that he doesn't. Most scientists that I know consider themselves agnostic, or simply don't care, but more importantly, they know science has nothing to do with this. Science is just a process, and scientists are simply people just like anyone else who also have beliefs. I really don't know the people about whom you are talking, and if they indeed exist, then they unfortunately do not know the limits of science and are asserting something outside of that realm, though not outside the realm of their personal belief system (it's easy to get the 2 confused).

This is an extremely reasonable question, and one evolutionary science is obligated to answer.

This sentence sets you apart from many of the natural-material dogmatists out there.

Many opponents of theism act as if this was not a reasonable question at all, and any question that gives possible support to theistic arguments is an evil question to ask.

You make a good, un-ad-hominem case that Behe continues to change the IC goal posts in the face of new evidence. I applaud you for sticking to the substance of the arguments and refraining from impugning the perceived motives of those who disagree with you. Finding such arguments are becoming a rare, precious thing.

Thank you.

-jimbo

You cannot really "prove" there is a God. But you cannot "prove" there is no God. ... In fact, Atheism is a form of belief system. It starts with the presumption there is no God. But how can you scientifically conclude there is no God if you cannot prove there isn't a God?

This is the mother of all straw men.

First off, NOBODY makes the claim that all possible gods don't exist. One can certainly quibble about the existence of certain gods (I'd tend to focus on the extremely low credibility of so-called "prophets"), but that isn't saying that all possible gods don't exist.

Second, the term "god" is so poorly defined as to make the term almost meaningless, so saying "God does not exist". is the same thing as saying "Almost anything does not exist". It's a nonsense statement.

Atheism, note that "A", is the "lack of theism". Or the "lack of positive belief in the existence of one or more gods", sometimes (incorrectly) called agnosticism. Atheists don't believe in god(s) in the same way the (most) people don't believe in faeries or that that Elvis is still alive. That's it.

I suppose some people are anti-Jesus freaks in the same way that some people are anti-Barney freaks. They're both annoying fictional characters.

Thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood me with regard to Lamarckism - I was comparing the state of ID to him, not of evolution or origins science in general. In other words, I'm admitting that the science behind ID has serious problems, but I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction; just as Lamarckism was right (big picture - inherited characteristics, gradual changes etc.) but wrong in pretty much all the details, I think that the thrust of ID is right (looking for real evidence of design in biological systems) whilst many of the details (e.g. the human blood clotting cascade cannot have evolved) are wrong.

Where I differ from you is that I don't think "no supernatural influences allowed" is a reasonable criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. As an example, cosmology was held up for years because the 'Big Bang' implied a definite start to the universe, and a definite start was thought to imply a cause ('who lit the fuse?'). Only as the evidence became compelling was the thoery accepted. Attempts have been made to exclude the possibility of a first cause by postulating an expanding and eventually contracting universe ('big crunch') - but really there is no answer to this because we can't know what happened before the bang.

I understand your viewpoint that ID is just an attempt to discredit evolution, but I don't think that's true based on what the ID people are saying (i.e. those that have published real books and papers - not 'Creationists' jumping on the bandwagon). Both Behe and Dembski state frequently that they have no problem with evolution being the general mechanism of species development. Again, I think there's confusion between motivation and the actual ideas that are being thrown around. I'm quite certain that Dawkin's motivation is to eradicate theism (he recently made a TV show entitled The Root of all Evil that attemps to show that religion is just that). But this has nothing really to do with his scientific theories and research (although he was trading on his name and reputation as a scientist when he made that programme). As a theist, I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit.

The peer review issue is often cited as a reason for regarding ID as pseudoscience; I think there's a chicken and egg issue there. It's worth noting that The Origin of Species was published as a book. There are plenty of ID books in print that can be pulled apart and tested - as many biochemists have done with Behe's work. Papers that are explicit about ID will not get published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals until the ideas that are proposed are acceptable to the peer reviewers. I think this is a shame, because the sort of work that Dembski is doing (is it possible to determine if there is design in biological systems?) is important - the answer might be 'yes it is, and there isn't any'. I believe science can both ask and answer this question (but that is just a belief) and I hope that the forum to do that will emerge and all the nonsense of young-earth creationists bashing evolution will stop.

I do understand and appreciate that ID is distasteful for a number of reasons. I've just read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and if that is all I had read I would agree with you 100%. But I've also just read Dembski's The Design Revolution and it's really, really good stuff. If you've enjoyed this discussion then I would really recommend reading Dembski's book. You probably won't agree with its conclusions, but I think you will find that it does give some promise of adding to our understanding of the world, and I would put it in that category of books that give a stimulating intellectual experience even if many would disagree with it overall.

This thread is falling off the bottom of my comments page, but I'll try to keep up.

""Christianity" no more purports to be an ideology than a brick purports to be a suitable material for building."

You're just dancing around the basic issue here: Christianity at least IS some collection of views on the world, convictions, whatever. That means that those views are open for criticism, and not all criticism is automatically illegitimate.

"After all, there's no reason for any atheist to give a fig that someone believes in one God, versus believing in one million deities, or none at all; and, even if there was such a reason, there's no atheistic directive to "preach the gospel", try to "convert" others, etc."

This account of things is narrating a boxing match by only describing the punches being thrown by one guy. We live in a culture that is constantly denying that atheists can be good, worthwhile people and citiznes. Athiests are denying parental rights because of their lack of beliefs. They are the most hated miniority in the U.S. Why _wouldn't_ atheists have a chip on their shoulder? Not long ago going to a public school meant mandatory secretarian prayer, even if you were Jewish, and there are many people that still think it should be there, teacher led.

Your mileage may vary, but by and large, I don't find that there are many atheists at all advocating for the same thing in return: mandated atheism.

I'm pretty darn respectful of religion and religious people. I agree there are some atheists that aren't, and I find myself correcting them from time to time. But really, assholes are found in every group, so I don't see the point of trying to blame a particular group for assholes.

"Does that not mean those atheists are basically acting as if they are a religion? "

I dunno: are Democrats that spend their time attacking Republicans engaing in religion? Are all people that disagree with something automatically religious? What's the point of demanding that they be called religious anyway? So you can go "ha ha, you're just like me?!" What does that add to anything. So what?

"But the utter lack of response by atheists to their "own kind" speaking improperly on their behalf, and with disrespect, to and about others, suggests that this subculture is, in practice if not precisely, representative of atheists in general"

Again, you're working off the logic that atheists are a "kind." But atheists have nothing in common other than they DON'T have theism in common. Your insistence atheists are responsible for each other's behavior is no different than me insisting that Christians answer for Hitler, or that all non-football fans answer for what basketball fans do. You are focusing so hard on theism that you forget that people who are not theists are not all the same.

"If they are, then you define religion purely as a matter of what a belief system affirms (in that it promotes the idea that a deity exists), in which case it is quite clear, by that definition, that Christianity does not affirm the appropriateness of killing others (and the Bible in fact commands, allegedly in God's own words, "Thou shalt not murder")."

But since many sorts of killings are not defined by God as murder (if, for instance, committing genocide, bashing kids out of their mother's wombs, and sparing all the virgins for the use of God's people is not understood as "murder," then murder is a pretty vauge concept to begin with). But I'm not blaming you for that view, because there is no one "true" vision of Christianity. I'm just pointing out that it's very slippery to deny that all Christianity is free from criticism, and that whenever someone does something bad in its name, you can simply write them off as getting it wrong. Well, according to YOU, maybe.

"If they are not, then how can you believe atheism's denials are not essentially religious in nature?"

Because that makes no sense. I was born an atheist. I never had god beliefs to begin with, at

Sera

I think the meaning of the word is becoming corrupted in pop culture. There are lots of reasons to not believe in God - ignorance (not realistic), apathy, skepticism, etc. Atheism is only one of many "don't believe in God" types - and it certainly does mean one who espouses the belief that God does not exist (as opposed to simply not believing that God exists).

Sadly a word that had clear and distinct philosophical purpose is being hijacked by those who aren't satisfied with less-sensationalist labels. Still, I think that if you're going to engage in a discussion about theology and philosophy you should stick to the technical definition and not the corrupted pop definition.

In the final analysis, however, the point remains no matter whether we call it "atheism" or "anti-theism" or "fruit loops". Belief that there is no God is no more scientific than belief that there is a God.

-stormin

Ah, I see where you're coming from. This is usually called antitheism or militant atheism. It's actually pretty rare. As I said, most atheists come to their beliefs by Occam's Razor, not by claiming to have disproven the existence of God. Even most people regarded as militant atheists are actually just strong opponents of religion, not of belief in God per se, as hierarchical religion is usually the cause of the more virulent and dangerous types of theism.

1. I'm sorry if you think quoting a definition out of the dictionary is "pathetic". But in this case it was necessary because you don't know what the word you are using means. Is there a faster way you know of to demonstrate to some one that they are using a word incorrectly?

2. the onus of proof is on the person advancing the theory.

I agree. And if you are saying "I do not believe in God" then you have no theory to defend. But that's not being an atheist. Being an atheist means you have a theory "God does not exist" and therefore atheists need to defend their position on God just as much as religious people.

3. all attempts to prove the existence or efficacy of God have failed

I'm perfectly willing to concede this. I can't prove to you that God exist. I've never read a proof for God that I felt really worked. What you seem to fail to grasp, however, is that all attempts to prove the non-existence or non-efficacy of God have also failed. The one who needs the lesson in the scientific method and in logic is you.

It's just a fact of logic that if I can not prove X that does NOT mean that not X is true. If science can NEVER prove that God exists that is NOT the same thing as saying science has proved that god does not exist!

It's the most basic failure to properly negate an if-then statement you could imagine. In gneral the hypothesis is:
If science can prove God exists, God exists. Symbollically this is S -> G
You are negating this and getting
If science can not prove God exists, God does not exist. Symbollically that is ~S -> ~G
But that is NOT the way to negate an implication! The negation of S -> G is ~G -> ~S or (back to English) if God does not exist, science can not prove He exists.

Conclusion: The fact of the matter is that your casual dismissal of my quotation from the dictionary as "pathetic" is the key to unravelling your entire argument. You embraced the concept that disbelieving God is atheism (which it is not) and pointed out that it is unscientific to believe what is not falsifiable. Very well - it's unscientific to believe in God. But then, because you were confused about the definition of atheism, you concluded that atheism is scientifically justified - meaning that it is scientific to believe God doesn't exist. But that logical connection hinges on using the incorrect definition of atheism. Without that incorrect definition the logic falls apart.

This isn't about semantics. It's this simple: Proving the non-existence of God is ALSO non-falsifiable and therefore atheism is no more substantiated by science that theism is.

-stormin

Quoting a definition from Miriam-Webster? That's pathetic. Your argument is a play on semantics; pure sophistry. I'm disppointed. I was going to let your last post go, but since you're so insistent on it...

Science and rationalism are about making and defending assertions about reality. You do not propose a theory about the world by announcing it without evidence and then challenging everyone to disprove it. Unless you have strong body of evidence, and the theory can add something to our understanding of the world, it is not considered. Never mind disproven, it doesn't even get into the journals, and is never considered as a serious proposition.

There are literally billions of stories which have been told by human beings which could be considered as theories of reality, not just religious, but fairy tales, science fiction, fantasy, as well as alternate scienctific theories. All of these are false by default until supported by a strong weight of evidence. It is not the business of science to seek out and address every single story ever told (whether there is any evidence for it or not) and disprove it. If that were the job of science, we would still be waiting for the theory of gravity.

I say again: the onus of proof is on the person advancing the theory. This is a principle both of rhetoric and of science. And again, all attempts to prove the existence or efficacy of God have failed. I don't have to disprove the existence of God, any more than I have to disprove the existence of the fairies in Arcadia, or the spirits in the Dreaming, or Zeus, Odin, etc. As a naturalist, I don't believe in any supernatural creatures. My disbelief in God is just part of that. Atheists don't set out to disbelieve in God, they just realize one day that they don't. God is just another casualty of Occam's Razor.

Atheism isn't religion, but the absence of religion, the reverse of theism. It becomes a philosophical position only because it is so often challenged, and because, like you, most believers don't really understand the naturalist position and take the absence of God to be the central feature. Those who are neither theists or atheists have that luxury because they are not constantly challenged to choose sides. Atheism seems like a major positive position simply because it is relatively rare in America, and you consider believing the norm. This is a cognitive error; the predominant color or feature is taken as background, while the exception is taken as foreground. But atheism isn't a religion--in fact, it's really not even about God at all. There is no God-shaped hole in my universe; in fact, I don't know where I would put him if I were to try to add him. He got pushed out by because the places he used to be got filled in.

You should probably read up on the scientific method, and get better acquainted with the rules of logic. It's not up to me to teach you, it's up to you to learn. As it is, you're sounding more and more like the conspiracy theory guy.

1. They are correct and there is no God, Deity or spiritual presence
   
2. The universe came into being without a need for the aforementioned God, Deity or spiritual presence
   

>I have to agree that atheism is pretty much a religion

just like anti-fundamentalism is fundamentalism. I don't like fundamentalism, but if I don't like it I must be a fundamentalist about it. aaarrrggghghhh!!!!

seriously, get a clue. if you don't know the difference between believing something doesn't exist and not believing something does exist then I have a rock that wards off tigers to sell you.

while you're going to the clue-library to check out a clue-book, also look up the difference between religion and theism. the more you know!

Religion, like theism, entails belief in divinities or gods. Atheism literally means "without theism". So, saying atheism is a religion is like saying that people who are broke also have $100 in their pocket. It's a contradiction.

The idea that the universe was a big bit of clockwork, ultimately reducible and understandable, dates, in Western thought, from the Age of Enlightenment, which was most certainly not a religious movement.

Unfortunately, atheists have no reason for believing that the laws of physics won't change radically tomorrow. Theists do.

Why's that? If a superhero from outer space can change the rules whenever he feels like it, doesn't that make theism the viewpoint whose axioms sit on shaky ground?

Unfortunately, atheists have no reason for believing that the laws of physics won't change radically tomorrow.

Wow. For someone who claims to use critical thinking regarding faith, that has got to be the most poorly thought out argument you could have made on the topic. If the laws of physics radically changed tomorrow that would be a strong argument IN FAVOR of a deity. Where are you getting these whack arguments?

Theism has no relation to aesthetics, and most religions don't have much to say on the topic of beauty, generally considering aesthetic opinion to be rather subjective and not very important. Indeed, some religious traditions have an extremely antagonistic view towards beauty, considering it a distraction and temptation. Religious buildings tend to be beautiful for the same reason that palaces and banks do: they have the money to afford the artisans, and people are attracted to beautiful things.

There are no religious theories of beauty. There are a wide variety of philosophical and even scientific theories, but almost none of them depend upon the existence of God.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but I can tell you that my appreciation of beauty actually increased when I stopped believing in God.

I understand what it is to be a believer. I once made all the arguments you do. And I eventually had to be honest and admit that they were wrong. I don't really care whether you believe in God or not, but don't try to claim that you can't be human without believing in God. You've never seen the world as a non-believer, so don't tell me what it's like to be me.

Beauty is a meaningless category in an atheistic system. Just a subjective opinion held by a random bunch of atoms bouncing around which has no ultimate meaning.

Even with your correction, you are wrong.

Scientists, doing science, make predictions about the future based on observations of past behavior. Since radical changes in the behavior of the physical world have never been observed before, it is unlikely that they will occur.

On the other hand, believers in an omnipotent deity have to deal with the possibility that their deity will stop the sun in its trek across the sky, and other such radical violations of the laws of physics or astronomy.

The principles of simplicity, elegance, and order are aesthetic, not religious. The appreciation of beauty is not in any way dependent on belief in God. In fact, the primary rationale for atheism is Occam's Razor. God has never been proven to be required to explain anything, and therefore the assumption that he exists is unnecessarily complex and inelegant.

The belief that the world is illusory or unimportant is actually a common religious belief, probably the one that sceintific atheists despise the most. If you follow the arguments of religious conservatives these days, they are based on epistemological relativism. Fundamentalists have co-opted postmodernism to exploit its slippery evasions of logic and evidence. This is why Evolution is "just a theory" to them--there is no truth, only opinion. There is no reality. The inconsistency of such arguments, coming from the mouths of absolutists, is mind-boggling, but then, they don't hold reason in very high regard.

And the primary argument of supernaturalists (theists) is that God can change or suspend the laws of physics at will. So the laws of physics apply... except when they don't. Given this assumption, science becomes impossible. This is what the current war between science and religion is about--political religion is intent on eradicating the naturalistic world view, and science in the process.

Everything you said in your post was completely wrong.