Slashdot Mirror

you're reasoning is unfound and kind of ridiculous. theists have just as much well-founded reasoning to think the laws of physics won't change tomorrow as atheists do. just because you have *faith* it won't change is far from being a logical foundation for such a notion that the laws of physics won't change. There is absolutely NO reason that holds the laws of physics won't change tomorrow. Its just we've found that it seems most likely they haven't changed in the past million years that we're just gonna go on the notion thinking it won't change for a million more. Why? cause science would be nowhere if we believe otherwise. not because we think some God is holding it all together and laid the groundwork and foundation for us to discover it. granted, i'm no atheist, i believe in God. But its foolhardy to try to justify His existence. Religion is and always will be an illogical idea. Don't try to make it otherwise. Its ignorant and foolhardy.

I meant to say "borrow from theists."

It is the belief that there is a God who orders and sustains the universe which undergirded earlier scientific enterprises. People who didn't think the world was illusary. If it was orderly and imbued with reason, we can discover things about it.

Ever notice how physicists are always looking for beautiful and simple theories, like string theory. That doesn't make sense unless theism undergirds your worldview (even if you are unaware it is in the background).

Unfortunately, atheists have no reason for believing that the laws of physics won't change radically tomorrow. Theists do. And that's good for science even if atheists borrow from atheists.

As an atheist, you offer the position that there is no all-powerful god. Lack of belief still makes you a believer. Atheism and theism are right up there alongside one another -- there's no difference between them whatsoever.

You rely on the same flawed argument that many logic-impaired Christian debators do. You are imposing upon me a belief that I do not hold. I am not a positive atheist ("I believe there is no god."). I am a negative athiest ("I do not believe in a god.")

Likewise, I do not believe in gods. Or godessess. Or lephrechauns. Or Santa Claus. Or in humans living on Jupiter. This is not to say that none of these things exist. It is only that I have not seen sufficient evidence in order to make me belief.

Your god may very well be real. In which case, I say: PROVE IT!

And that's when you reply, "Oh, but you have to have faith!"

I am a gay man and an atheist who has no intention of following any superstitious belief, Islam included.

As an atheist, you offer the position that there is no all-powerful god. Lack of belief still makes you a believer. Atheism and theism are right up there alongside one another -- there's no difference between them whatsoever.

- IP

Hitler was baptised Catholic and objectively ruled as a pagan, creating a nazi-aryan mythology that has no place in christianity.

Stalin, otoh, was an atheist, as was Mao and Pol Pot. Read the Black Book of Communism. It puts the atheist death toll at >100 million peacetime dead. That's not counting soldiers falling in conflict from the enemy.

Atheism is better than theism? Pull the other one.

In the west, its okay to make fun of Jesus. Here is one I heard while living here in the west - "Q: Never ask yourself What would jesus do? Answer: Coz He'd Get crucified and DIE!" I am willing to bet that any practicing christian who reads this might be amused, but would more likely find it unfunny. Some would find it offensive. This is in a culture that is quite tolerant about making fun of people who are in a position of respect.

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I disagree with you. I don't think that the cartoons made fun of religious figures, and I don't think that your analogy with a crude joke about Jesus is accurate.

Full disclosure: I'm an atheist. I live in and grew up in America, which is largely Christian, but I think that I'm far enough removed from theism in general that the differences between all the various monotheistic religions seem very petty to me. I don't really identify with Christians, so I think I can play the part of an unbiased observer. Of course, it's difficult for one to identify one's own biases, so take that with a grain of salt.

Here's my take on the situation. A newspaper in Denmark believed (correctly, I think) that the media was engaging in self-censorship on the topic of Islam, probably out of fear of violent extremists. They commissioned cartoons of Mohammad to explore this self-censorship. I believe they were interested in the public's reaction to the cartoons, but they were just as interested to see what cartoons would be drawn in the first place. The idea here is that the newspaper saw a story that seemed to be "covered up", namely that people are reticent to discuss topics that deal with Islam, and they tried to find a way to display that story in a sensational way (as newspapers tend to do).

I think the cartoons they received proved their point. Look at all the timid cartoons in that bunch. One of them has the cartoonist with a turban with the words "PR Stunt" holding a picture of a stick figure that presumably represents Mohammad. One of the other cartoons has "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs" written on the chalkboard. Another cartoon has a cartoonist sweating nervously while drawing Mohammad. Yet another cartoon shows Mohammad saying "Relax, folks, it's just a sketch made by a Dane from the south-west Denmark".

I don't know exactly what to make of some of the cartoons (perhaps I'm not sophisticated enough), but I do think the cartoons I just mentioned are essentially preemptive apologies. And, in truth, the cartoon with the "we've run out of virgins" quote is kind of similar to your joke about Jesus- it's got very little context and meaning aside from the intention of producing a guffaw. But no one really cares about them, do they? All they care about is the cartoon with the bomb.

I *REALLY* like the cartoon with the bomb. I don't think it's intended as a mere insult or a trivial joke like your Jesus example. I think the cartoonist responsible for that cartoon has a set of really enormous balls (or really enormous ovaries if she's a woman), and a keen insight into the problems facing Islam today, albeit he/she clearly isn't burdened by an over-abundance of tact.

No, really.

Think about it. The bomb is on Mohammad's HEAD. When the bomb goes off, it's going to hurt Mohammad more than anyone else. Thus: the cartoonist isn't trying to say that Mohammad is a terrorist! He's trying to say "Mohammad (or, rather, Mohammad's religion) is in danger. The bomb (terrorism) is going to seriously wound or kill Islam."

IMHO, This cartoon is an extraordinarily heroic attempt to try to warn people in the Middle East that their religion has a serious PR problem in the rest of the world. I don't think that any serious Westerner believes that all Muslims are terrorists,

Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?

Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator? I don't believe you gave an honest answer. Theism as a generic philosophical paradigm is not more religious than atheism as a generic philosophical paradigm. Besides, have you not realized that agnosticism is also consistent with someone who might be interested in studying certain aspects of ID? As you know, agnostics generally consider themselves undecided about religious matters. I honestly believe there is a group of people that you aren't being fair with.


The people who came up with ID are the religious folks

You didn't seem to give any attention to my original point. It's a bit more complicated than that, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the origin of ID was completely based upon advancing a religious agenda. Even so, the origin of ID is irrelevant and religious disposition of those who support it is irrelevant. It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit rather than looking at the followers. This is why: What if you are overlooking something important just because you have been turned off by people who support it? Having said that, I contend that there are agnostics who find the study of ID fascinating and important.


Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of?

Are there ANY cache of grants available to pro-ID scientists that you are aware of? Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition, funding those who would study ID is considered by mainstream to be 'religious' and 'unscientific'. In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance evolution.


Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere.

Without PR movies, as you put it, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'? I don't think you are being unfair on purpose, but you certainly aren't applying the same objective way of thinking toward this group that you normally would any other group. Then again, I don't know you very well. Perhaps you are unfair with everyone. ;D

I challenge you to watch the film that I mentioned in my penultimate post in this thread.

let's pretend that quantum mechanics allows god to exist

Gah!! Don't DO that!
You're making the exact same invalid argument that the religious fundies are making, except from the exact opposite religious fundie position. You are making the dangerous - and invalid - claim that science and religion are in conflict.

Would you say "let's pretend that quantum mechanics allows invisible pink unicorns to exist"?

No, that's silly. Quantum mechanics does not - and cannot - say that invisible pink unicorns do or do not exist.

I agree that believing is some invisible man in the sky is silly, but trying to claim that science rejects or somehow disprooves god amounts to "atheist fundamentalism", and it only plays into the hands of religious fundamentalists trying to manufacture a conflict between science and religion.

If you want to engange in evangelical atheism (which to be fair *is* what you were doing), fine, I wish you the best of luck. However do us all a favor and don't do it anywhere in the vicinity of evolution debates. The LAST thing we need is anyone fueling the anti-evolution nonsense evolution somehow equals atheism, that evolution is some atheist conspiracy to banish god, and that they are somehow being oppressed by atheists when highschools teach evolution.

Do not alienate the reasonable PRO-SCIENCE religious majority.

I agree with you that any foolish "god of the gaps" theism is going to constantly run into conflict with science as science squeezes and eliminates various gaps. However not all theism is "god of the gaps" theism.

The reasonable non fundie pro-science people on both sides need to be allies against the unreasonable fundie anti-science cranks trying to manufacture a conflict between science and religion.

-

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

I'm not sure whether you're trying to prove a point or just offering some information, but I can "prove" either side to you based on my own point of view.

Assuming evolution directly contradicts the Bible, it would be very easy for a scientist to claim that the Bible is just a collection of myths. Bam! Science wins!
It would also be easy for a Christian to claim that all evidence for evolution was planted by Satan. Bam! Religion wins!

So one could argue (on a very twisted level of logic) that we've just "disproven" both theism and evolution. I hope atheistic spontaneous creation sounds plausible to everyone, because it seems like that's where we're headed!

I am a theist who believes that it would be morally wrong to force my beliefs on others, or to prefer members or practices of my own faith were I in government. I actually think that God would not want that, that it would be 'sin'. Some of the most oppressive regimes around in the world today (and throughout history) are atheist, think about China, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. The point I'm making is not that atheists are evil (we have a lot of evil people that claimed to be theists also), but that your stated position re theism/atheism is not relevant to whether you will try to force your beliefs on others through laws or violence, or to whether you will mess up the separation of Church and State, it is other personal beliefs that determine this. Both theists and atheists should be looking for humility in their leaders. People need to vote for humble leaders rather than leaders that share their own particualar beliefs.

>>has dedicated the last thirty years to showing that theism in general and Christianity in particular is provable.

There is a difference between "provable" and "falsifible". Science never *proves* something right. It only fails to prove something wrong. Only mathematics and philosophy prove anything, and even those proofs are founded on unproven axioms with unknown truth value. (Sure, 2+2=4 is true, but is 2 true? When's the last time you saw a free-range two?)

The current body of scientific theory at any given time is the simplest theory that has not yet been falsified by the observed data. Given Occam's Razor, this means that the current body of theory is the most likely to be true of any known theory. That is only a probablity, not a certainty.

"God exists" is unfalsifible, given most definitions of God. He's basically a benevolent version of Laplace's Demon, so could hide from any search we mere mortals could construct. However, "God does not exist" is falsifible. "God does not exist" is simpler than "God does exist" - you have fewer entities. What Creationists/ID "theorists" claim is that they *have* falsified the theory that "God does not exist". But I believe (and most Slashdotters would agree, methinks) that nobody has convincingly falsified the "God does not exist" theory to this date. So, the likelist theory to be true is that God does not exist.

However, faith allows us to believe in statements that are not likely to be true. This is called "prudential justification" in philosophical circles. One example of this is Pascal's Wager. Admittedly, it's a *bad* example, because Pascal screwed up the theology (it takes more than just belief to get into heaven, so an incorrect choice *will* cost you some). But you could resurrect it by saying that believing that God exists makes me *really* happy, while believing that God doesn't exist makes me *really* sad.

Just don't expect us to share your faith-based belief though. The existence of God might affect peoples' feelings in different ways...

Indeed, Richard Swinburne, Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at Oxford, has dedicated the last thirty years to showing that theism in general and Christianity in particular is provable. For instance, in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003), he uses a number of sources plus the Bayesian theorem to show that the traditional Christian teaching of Christ's return from death is overwhelmingly probable. Anyone with the slightest education in philosophy can enjoy his argument.

Responsiblity and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989), his first book on specifically Christian themes, is a bit more obscure for the layman but rewards attention.

Atheism theism is not "belief", it's "belief in God". I think anti belief would be something like aism, which is more along the lines of what Ferris Bueler is.

Athism covers those who are "anti belief in god", not those who are not believers. On the contrary, atheists are some of the most dogmatic religious people around, and one of the most annoying sects.

If you want the philosophy of "I really don't care or know" I think the term "agnostic" is what you are looking for. Atheists believe that they know for a fact that there is no God, which in my opinion is just blind faith.

Atheism theism is not "belief", it's "belief in God". I think anti belief would be something like aism, which is more along the lines of what Ferris Bueler is.

Athism covers those who are "anti belief in god", not those who are not believers. On the contrary, atheists are some of the most dogmatic religious people around, and one of the most annoying sects.

If you want the philosophy of "I really don't care or know" I think the term "agnostic" is what you are looking for. Atheists believe that they know for a fact that there is no God, which in my opinion is just blind faith.

For some people it is because they no longer feel safe letting it show. Many atheists are every bit as nasty as some fundamentalist. Instead of you declaring you an sinner and immoral they declare you an idiot, fool, and yes evil.

While it is okay in most work places to talk about getting drunk, going out and partying all night, or how much you lost playing poker. A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous and some will snub you.

And I might add that you reveal your bias in your statements: there is nothing wrong with getting drunk, playing poker for real money or going out and partying all night; as well, there is nothing wrong with teaching kids in Sunday school class, and I've never lived somewhere (even when I was in more atheist climes) where saying that out loud would get you snubbed. Where the hell are you living?

Yeah.....your confusing a lot of things.....

Im sure it has been said a million times.....but Macroevolution has been witnessed and has been tested. The problem is that most people who do not believe in "Evolution" have very broad definitions for macroevolution. You want to see a mollusk turn into a fish. This wont happen in your life time, and no one is doing experiments that take 2,000 years just to prove something more thoroughly. We have witnessed Macroevolution though, so calm down.

The creation of life is known as abiogenesis. There is currently no scientific theory regarding abiogenesis. It has no connection with evolution....except that they both deal with ancient biology.

I believe in a creator and I believe that he doesnt manipulate the universe....Im a deist..

or I could be a pantheist....

Only in modern theisms do we see this obsession with God doing everything....Your God is very lazy
-PuckSR

First, the majority of people do not understand evolution by natural selection. As a result, most people are hesitant to put all of their chips in evolution's corner when the apparent consequences (burning in eternal hellfire) are so severe. Most people opt out of evolution because they subconsciously view that course as the safe bet. If they turn out to be wrong, so what? No consquences. But if it turns out the Bible bashers have it right, well, the idea of burning in hell forever kind of sucks.

Second, the swell in support for orthodox and conservative theism has very little to do with the facts on either side of the debate. It merely has to do with sides. People are tribal. People are not analyzing all of the available data and drawing the most logical conclusions, they are simply picking sides and defending their camp come hell or high water (pun fully intended). A recent study in the news (source, anyone?) said that the parts of the brain responsible for rational thought shut off when people are defending their 'side' - in this case it was political, but the point is made just the same.

Third, recognize religion for what it is: the opiate of the masses. That really does say it all. Religion provides a security blanket for people who are more concerned with comfort than with truth. The truth is that we evolve from amino acids, none of the details in any orthodox religion's doctrine could be considered accurate or correct by any stretch of the imagination, and there is certainly no bearded-guy-in-the-clouds-who-smites-sinners-God (or angels, demons, fairies, elves, or anything else supernatural) actively participating in our physical reality. It is also true that it is impossible to prove the negative corollory that some sort of entity did not create the cosmos, or that the cosmos does not have some purpose, because the assumptions involved (like the flow of time, cause and effect, etc) render definitions useless, making strict atheism a similarly baseless belief. The truth is that agnosticism (we don't know one way or the other) is the only view about God which makes any logical sense.

The truth is harsh; it hurts, its awesome and terrifying, and it doesn't give a shit whether you like it or believe it or not. The truth really will set you free (John:23). But people don't want to be free. They want to be safe. That's why we have the PATRIOT act. In short, the truth makes people uncomfortable, and there is definitely a profound movement in modern western society towards the supreme prioritization of comfort above all other considerations.

Lastly, the people that we should really be concerned about are not the people who are uninformed and apathetic - the majority of laymen - but rather the people who ARE inteligent and educated and who nevertheless staunchly defend the right-wing religious agenda. These are people who are so terrified of the truth, that they will do anything to make it go away. These are the Bin Ladens of the world, folks. These are the people who would blindly destroy our plante before accepting the painful truth; who would push the Button and blame/credit God before long before accepting responsibility for their own lives. These people are the problem, and that is where we should be focusing our efforts.

> The most crucial flaw in the notion of Intelligent Design (ID) - is that the justification "life is so complicated and perfect that it must be designed" is that it raises the question "who designed this designer!".

Your understanding of Theism seems to have halted somewhere around Sunday School level. Try reading Bertrand Russell on the subject: either God OR the Universe must be eternal and uncreated. Those are the options. He thought it was the universe ("Since at least I know the universe exists"). (Sorry, I have to reference for that quote off-hand.)

The question is what ultimately exists; an infinite regress of creators is unwieldly and may indeed be mathematically impossible (depends whether infinites can exist in reality; an infinitely old universe is philosophically equivalent to an infinitely long chain of causality; neither are in my opinion possible). Occam's Razor would suggest one, though more of course might be possible. But something 'just exists' without cause or design, whichever way you look at it.

If the universe shows evidence of contingency (not being simply a brute fact) then Russell's position is invalidated, although his dichotomy remains -- that's the discussion that's going on here, whether in Hawking's 'bounded universe' which tries to escape the point-of-cosmic-origin-without-physical-cause problem, or, at a different level, the ID movement (minus the young-earth creationist fringe).

It's not a simple question of science vs. superstition, but what kind of universe science reveals, and what its implications are for philosophy.