|
Testing, Anyone?"Gee, that's complicated. God did it." This sentiment is representative of the many who are critical of anyone positing an intelligent designer. We've broached the subject repeatedly in this space, so it's nothing new, but when theistic explanations for natural phenomena come in the form of testing, a similar complaint arises. "Why do so many of you religious types think that you are sooooooo smart that you understand how God may have created the earth and life? Do you claim to understand everything he did? Seems pretty presumptuous to me." Both statements came from an online discussion on MSNBC in response to an article that was critical of EXPELLED. In considering the two comments, what's a believer to do? If you simply say God did it, you get hammered, but if you lead with a model that attempts to explain the natural realm (and even naturalistically, as much as possible) you get hammered for that too. Yet critical statements such as these often come from people who trumpet the success of science but also advocate that religion (rightly practiced) is generally good. It seems that those who want to keep religion and science in separate arenas offer only lip service to the notion that both are valuable and should occupy their place in educated society. Setting aside the ideas springing from the more rancorous new atheists, who unabashedly lay many of the world's ills at the feet of religion, many atheists appear to respect religion as a valid intellectual pursuit. But are they merely mollifying what they consider a gullible group? Skeptics know that Christians see the Bible as a God-breathed revelation, so wouldn't it show respect for the religion to allow the Christian to see the harmony between his holy book and the record of nature? When a Christian sits in church and reads passages like, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), and then he gains a greater appreciation of the universe through an organization like Reasons To Believe, why would a skeptic complain? And what's the purpose of a model anyway? Aren't scientists trying to plug holes in gaps of understanding? If RTB proposes a scientific model for creation, why is that presumptuous? Nobody's claiming to understand everything God did (we're his creatures after all), but believers are motivated by a God-given curiosity to learn as much as possible about the creation. That enhanced understanding should lead to more meaningful worship of the Creator, but also more-educated, well-rounded citizens. Is that a bad thing? |
Comments
Bob, I would urge you to
Bob,
I would urge you to check out the critiques that two philosophers have levelled against Hugh Ross and point you towards two quotes that are used by J.P.Moreland in his article. They can be found at:
Homepage>Hot Topics> "Panel Discussion on Hugh Ross' Contribution in Philosophy and Theology of Science"
It appears you may have more in common with Hugh Ross than I thought!
Dear Steve Gann, I
Dear Steve Gann,
I encourage you to take your argument and accompanying hubris into the world! Spread it not just through the chapels of religion, but also through the halls of academe (and I don't mean Bob Jones or Biola). For your understanding of the theory of evolution and its relevance to logic and reason is tantamount to none. Please write me a postcard on the great acceptance you receive.
Steve, On that last point,
Steve,
On that last point, "cell phones work", what Bob may be trying to say was:
Logical mind invents logically functioning device.
Logical mind sees no evidence for the divine.
Bob L. Sturm, Until you
Bob L. Sturm,
Until you back up your claims with something more than "I looked at it and find it laughably naive (paraphrase)" then I have to conclude you can't back up the claims.
Not only are my evolutionary premises sound, they were always sound in both arguments. It was you who became (was always?) confused. Evolution occurs to populations as individuals come and go. If atheism is true, then evolution is all there is to account for any biological trait as well as the destiny of that trait in a population. But environmental pressures change and those traits will change. To argue otherwise is clumsy at best and that is exactly what you have done.
You claimed that beliefs are barely connected to evolutionary processes (the doornail opening a door argument). I saw that this had some merit, because anyone can form beliefs against what the logical part of their brain is telling them. As a result I removed that part of the argument. However, logic itself is another matter. There is no way to separate logic from the processes in the brain that enable perception. Those processes (neurotransmitter production, nerve connections, data processing for example) are traits and are subject to evolutionary change as the human population continues to evolve. It would seem (i'm guessing) that you accept the idea that one's logic is not connected to those processes (otherwise you would agree with my premise...but i'm not sure which premise is wrong because you can't tell me).
Humanity will continue to evolve. 1 million years from now, whatever humanity has become (if it is not extinct), will undoubtedly have a different brain and brain processes. That is unless you think humanity has reached some sort of evolutionary stasis; however, when I look at how Hardy-Weinberg would apply I don't see any case for stasis. What guarantee can an atheist give that they will view logic the same way (remember, atheism views logic as something our mind's impose on nature, it is not discovered)? None. That means that any argument you use today to prove the "truth" of atheism is only for the moment. You have no idea if it is grounded on anything lasting.
You could argue that evolution will just make our understanding of logic even better than it is now. But that means the logic we use today is still adequate if atheism is to be considered true for the present. Hmmmmm. I wonder how you would demonstrate that your mind's perception of logic today is adequate? Would you infer that induction works? Would you deduce that deduction works? We have been there before! An atheist's best evidence for the adequacy of their logic would become something lamely circular like "cell phones work". Incoherence at its finest.
Dear Steve Gann, How mature
Dear Steve Gann,
How mature of a thinker you are! Are you really resorting to the mind games of a child? I can hear you say, "But you can't. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo."
I have looked at your "improved" argument and have found its premises still laughably naive of an understanding of the process of natural selection and the propositions of the theory of evolution. And indeed it was easier to reduce to tatters than your previous one. I am not going to waste time repeating what I have said before.
Bob L. Sturm, I will take
Bob L. Sturm,
I will take your post as an admission that this argument is more of a problem for you than it is for me.
Such a flimsy argument should be easy and take little effort for one such as you to tear apart.
But you can't.
Dear Steve Gann, Different
Dear Steve Gann,
Different language, same problems and more; and now I think you have made your argument much more weak. I leave it as an exercise for you to find and highlight its flaws and weaknesses.
1. Traits exist and variety
1. Traits exist and variety within a trait exists (from here on this variety is referred to as "versions" or "a version" of a trait).
2. The process of evolution results in some versions of a trait persisting (and possibly improving) and some versions of a trait diminishing (and possibly even lost) within a population.
3. Versions of traits that persist do so because individuals having them have a survival advantage under environmental pressures and presumably are able to reproduce more successfully.
4. The parts of the brain as well as the processes of the brain are traits and are subject to evolutionary changes.
5. Determining what is true and corresponds to reality (logic) is dependent on the processes of the brain. (for an atheist, this does not include the discovery and application of any universal, transcendent logic.)
6. Most people believe that some form of a supernatural reality exists, but if they would or could use the logic that comes from the processes of their brains, they would see that those beliefs are wrong and that atheism is true.
7. Using the processes of the brain, atheism has been shown to be logically true.
8. The processes of the brain will most likely change as environmental pressures change.
9. What is logical will most likely change as the processes of the brain change.
10. The logical truth of atheism is dependent on a changing concept of logic. This leaves the atheist not knowing if their thinking at this point along the evolutionary path actually corresponds to reality.
Bob, Do you accept that
Bob,
Do you accept that beliefs modify behaviour? And if so, do you accept that there is an evolution of behaviour depending on the evolution of beliefs?
Dear Steve Gann, The
Dear Steve Gann,
The problem of your argument does not rely on how "bring" is defined.
I look forward to seeing how you will try to prop it back up.
Bob L. Sturm, As I reread
Bob L. Sturm,
As I reread my last post I regret the way it came off. My fault. What I was trying to communicate was that I did NOT think you made a strawman but that you were confused on your understanding of evolution (I'm pretty sure I even said that in there). I tried to evidence this by showing that you defined the term "brings" in the worst possible way...a way that I thought you understood. Your reduction is "accurate" as long as we have the same meanings for the words. I will do better to clarify next time.
I also should have thanked you for pointing out the flaws so that I can improve the argument. I can now tweak the evolution parts to make them better represent evolution. Also, I can see that I need to distinguish between the metaphysics (logic and rationality are things that exist) and the epistemology (that people differ in their ability to use logic and be rational).
Simply because the argument needs improvement does not leave it in "tatters". That is an overstatement. It will not be too difficult to improve.
Bob, "This forum should not
Bob,
"This forum should not be focused on what I believe."
You brought it up.
"Should I not assume that you know how to use a library?"
Is this supposed to be a "brush off"? and...No, you should not. There are hundreds of books on the topic. I want to know which ones you have found to stand above the rest, or which ones backup your claims more thoroughly than the rest. I'm trying to narrow down my research to the ones that support your argument, so that I can understand your argument more thoroughly.
"There is no natural selection of the human species because of beliefs, and the theory of evolution makes no such prediction. So how do you expect me to give you reliable resources that specifically discuss this?"
It may not specifically predict it, but it does imply it. I can't be the first person to come up with this challenge; I'm sure that there is something written on it (for or against the claim). I thought that maybe you knew of a resource off the top of your head. I'll search for that one.
"I will see your sarcasm, and raise you an ability to provide coherent argumentation and not stream of consciousness ramblings."
"Rambling" from dictionary.com:
...and I raise you to provide evidence that my arguments are "discursive", "aimless", "random", or even "illogical". Show me the flaws in my logic. Bob, you have attempted to tear apart the other arguments in this forum. Why not mine?
Bob, I believe that my arguments are logical and consistent. You believe that your arguments are logical and consistent. I have stated and shown you where I see flaws and inconsistencies in your arguments. You have only stated, not shown where, you see flaws and inconsistencies in my arguments. You are leaving your claims with no foundations to stand.
Not only that, you have not defended your arguments against my critiques or even acknowledged my critiques. If you are not willing to even acknowledge a good argument, how do you expect anyone (even outside this forum) to take you seriously in a debate about anything?
If anyone here is rambling, its you. You are the one who is not staying on the topic the you chose (once again, you did not have to answer, just acknowledge the initial challenge). I, on the other hand, instead of dodging, have responded to your arguments directly.
Once again...I raise you to provide evidence that my arguments are "discursive", "aimless", "random", or even "illogical".
Dear Luke, This forum
Dear Luke,
This forum should not be focused on what I believe.
"Also, you didn’t provide any resources for further research to us."
Should I not assume that you know how to use a library?
"Do you know of any resources that specifically discuss the relationship between evolution and the formation of beliefs?"
I repeat what I said before: There is no natural selection of the human species because of beliefs, and the theory of evolution makes no such prediction. So how do you expect me to give you reliable resources that specifically discuss this?
"Sarcasm has no place in a logical argument. It only diverts attention from the real issue. If this is all you have left, you must concede defeat and dismiss yourself from the table of ideas."
I will see your sarcasm, and raise you an ability to provide coherent argumentation and not stream of consciousness ramblings.
Bob, So true. You can't be
Bob,
So true. You can't be expected to provide a huge dissertation on every challenge, point for point.
Something I have begrudgingly accepted, is that I won't trust my opinion on what evolution can and cannot do by armchair theorizing and intuition. Unless I am familiar with the evolutionary biologists and philosophers who are doing the difficult work on Naturalized Epistemology, and the Evolution of Morality, Rationality, etc., then I am not going to propose a thought experiment willy nilly and assume to have taken down the whole establishment. As much as I might not agree with the evolutionary explanations, they exist and must be reckoned with.
LOL, Bob, I like that line.
LOL, Bob, I like that line. I'll have to use it next time I want to side-step a logical argument. :)
Seriously, though, if you are willing to take the time to speak, I am willing to take the time to listen. I mean, we've spent over two weeks debating this, so what's another couple days?
Also, you didn't provide any resources for further research to us. I'm starting to wonder if you don't WANT us to understand your worldview. Any thoughts?
Dear Luke, There are not
Dear Luke,
There are not enough hours in the day -- however you interpret "day."
Bob, I followed your
Bob,
I followed your suggestion and looked up some researchers in evolution and found something interesting written about one prominent couple:
“…They have demonstrated how very rapid changes in body and beak size in response to changes in the food supply are driven by natural selection. They have also elucidated the mechanisms by which new species arise and how genetic diversity is maintained in natural populations. [Their work] has had a seminal influence in the fields of population biology, evolution and ecology.”
So research into MICRO-evolution has real life PRACTICAL implications for biology, ecology, wild life conservation, population genetics, and other allied fields. It also leads to avenues for further research.
The essential characteristics of modern science are the following:
It is guided by natural law
It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law
It is testable against the empirical world
Its conclusions are tentative i.e are not necessarily the final word
It is falsifiable (meaning that is has the potential to be proved wrong by testing)
Atheists hold onto the first three while ignoring the last two. An explanation using natural law is not necessarily the same as a purely materialistic explanation.
Support for good evolution science is not necessarily support for Atheism.
Bob, I agree that you did
Bob, I agree that you did take the care you needed to make sure you understood Steve's argument before rebutting it. That is what a responsible apologist does. It was Steve's fault that he did not point out that you misunderstood him.
If we are misunderstanding the theory of evolution, what resources would you recommend for us to understand it more accurately? Do you know of any resources that specifically discuss the relationship between evolution and the formation of beliefs?
In the mean time, I would appreciate responses to my arguments. I don't understand why you are not rebutting my arguments or answering my questions. At least critique my arguments. If you don't, we all must assume that you are running away from them; and if that is true, I believe that we deserve an explanation.
Dear all, I tried to be
Dear all,
I tried to be extremely careful in reducing Steve Gann's argument as best as I could, and even delayed a full criticism of it until I received Steve Gann's approval. This apparently was extremely unfair, as now I am accused of trickery, setting fire to strawmen, and leading poor helpless Steve Gann into a trap without his say on the matter.
Steve Gann did say (June 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm): "Your reduction accurately reflects my ideas. Show me how to improve it."
Notice Steve Gann's use of the word "accurately." He stamped my reduction with his approval and emphasized how accurate it reflected his ideas. So, in the words of Steve Gann (May 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm): "You must not be used to someone converting your arguments into premise/conclusion form and then analyzing them. I understand. It can be pretty intimidating. Getting critical feedback is difficult to hear, especially when your arguments turn out to be unsound. Put up some good arguments next time and maybe you won’t feel so intimidated."
Steve Gann, your second major mistake is not that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Please read what I said with as much care as you read the words of Moses. (Also note that I am writing in modern English.) Your major mistake is that your argument is built upon a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You might understand the theory of evolution extremely well; but your argument is built upon a misunderstanding. In other words, your argument is independent of you.
Dear all, please take your "excellent" argument out into the wild to elicit responses from those who specialize in evolutionary biology. Get a second and third opinion. Natural selection produces beliefs like a doornail opens a door. There is no natural selection based on beliefs.
Bob L. Sturm, Here I was
Bob L. Sturm,
Here I was all nervous this weekend thinking I had made some huge mistakes in my argument. As it turns out, I should have known that your bark is usually worse than your bite.
My "mistakes" are: 1. Atheism is in no way connected to evolution. 2. I don't understand evolution.
I do not have to worry about number one. Atheism is an idea DEPENDENT on evolution. I did not say evolution was DEPENDENT on atheism. (once again, not yelling just emphasis because I don’t know how to do the bold or italics thing on this site.) As of now, there is no explanation for where living things came from other than chemical and macroevolutionary processes, if you are an atheist. That means they are connected inside a woldview that has both atheism and evolution within it. It is that worldview whose coherence I am questioning. Your argument on this point is really an inappropriate "reductio ad absurdum" because you have forgotten that it is your worldview that connects both atheism and evolution.
There is something missing from your understanding of evolution. The traits that have persisted to this day in living organisms are the ones that MUST HAVE given survival advantages. If these traits did not increase survivability, they would have only been passed on a short while until they disappeared completely or environmental pressures changed so that they did give survival advantages. This is the origin of terms like "evolutionary dead-end" and "evolutionary side branch". Often this type of mistake is made by people who lack much formal training in evolutionary mechanisms. In simple terms, our brain structure and function are traits. These traits exist today because they MUST HAVE increased our ancestors' ability to survive. They will continue to change as environmental pressures change. For you to argue that "evolution does not claim that the human mind was forged for survival" demonstrates a deficiency of your own, not mine. I am being charitable here, because the other option is that you created a strawman and then claimed it was my idea. For example, "...'There is no direction in the process of natural selection; no thoughts of, “I need to increase my survival advantages, so I am going to become immune to DDT.'..." This is what I mean by strawman. You took the word "bring" and defined it in the worst possible meaning, then attributed this to me. Because I would rather like to think you were confused instead of deceitful, I will clarify my understanding of evolution: There exists diversity within the offspring of a set of parents. Often more offspring are born than can be sustained within a species' niche of an ecosystem. Competition ensues among the members of the species (both old and young) as well as with other organisms that might share the same niche. Those members who compete the best (for whatever reason) are more likely to survive. Surviving members are the ones who have a chance to mate and pass on their genetic information to the next generation. Survival is the RESULT of the evolutionary process. Survivability is the measure, sort of speak, of whether an organism WILL MOST LIKELY survive. Since we were not around eons ago to see the process take place, we have to look at what exists in the present (fossils included), and conclude that if it persisted it must have increased survivability. We have brains now because somewhere along the way being able to process sensory data MUST HAVE increased survivability. To “process sensory data” the brain uses various neurological processes to compute and classify data. Part of that computation and classification process is what we call our “mind”. Those whose “mind” worked in such a way so that they were able to find food better, avoid danger better, care for their young better, and find a mate better were more likely to survive. Those whose brains did not work as well did not survive as well. It is those better neurological processes that make up the mind that I am calling rationality.
IF all that is true, then rationality is the end result of SURVIVAL of the fittest. Those with the best rationality survived the best. Believing in a supernatural power came from this rationality and had to have increased survivability in some way. There is no other way it could be.
Bob, You stated, "...some
Bob,
You stated, "...some atheists may claim to be rational, but I do not know of any person that can coherently claim to be mostly rational." Are you one who does claim to be rational? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice, since there is no middle ground.
I don't think that anyone here is trying to ascribe purpose or mindfulness to Evolution or Natural Selection. What we are ascribing is a pattern. I believe that most Evolutionists would argue that Natural Selection unintelligently discriminates against mutations that provide no advantage to survival (correct me if I'm wrong). If I were to toss in the air 27 blocks of the English alphabet and three came to rest on the ground, displaying the pattern "C A T"; I would not argue against the existence of the pattern, just because it was the product of chance. Similarly, the pattern of promoting survival should not be denied of Natural Selection just because it is the result of random processes.
Bob, Do you hold to Atheism or Evolution stronger than the other (since they must be disconnected- claimed by you above)?
Atheism depends on Evolution to explain the origin of everything in this universe. Unless atheists have developed another theory describing how we got here, Atheism cannot be separated from Evolution.
However, Evolution does not depend on Atheism. There's three options: God exists and directed Evolution; God exists and did not direct evolution; and God does not exist, so Evolution could not have been directed. Evolution can be separated from Atheism.
By showing that you are a staunch Atheist, you are contradicting your own claim that Atheism and Evolution cannot and should not be discussed together. As shown above, Atheism depends on Evolution being true.
Your conclusion that Evolution has not produced human beliefs is seriously flawed (granted you hold to Atheism). Your own world view requires that everything came from natural processes. The human brain came from natural processes (evolution). The human brain observes all the products of Evolution via the sensory organs, which also resulted from Evolution. Using an evolved "computer" to interpret evolved information gained through evolved organs, how can the beliefs not be the result of the process of Evolution? Is there another factor in forming a belief, not originating ultimately from Evolution, that allows the Atheist to slip away from acknowledging that Evolution is ultimately responsible for human beliefs?
You stated that the "Flight or Fight" response is "essential to survival". So I will assume that you are implying that "Flight or Fight" comes up numerous times before and after reproduction in the life of an organism. The "Flight or Fight" response has everything to do with beliefs. How do you make the choice? If you believe that you can take on the stimulant (say, a bull), but are wrong, you could die. If you do die, then Natural Selection has acted on you as a result of what you believed. And if this happens before you can reproduce, Natural Selection has acted on your genes, taking all new mutations down with you. If you were the first generation that contained the mutation that allowed you to believe that you could take on a bull, Natural Selection eliminates it. But if you were one of many that contained it, Natural Selection did still act; it just was not effective (this is one way the "mindlessness" of Natural Selection can be supported).
Let me take the "Flight or Fight" response to a more personal level. Bob, when you read that people in this forum were challenging your beliefs, you, no doubt, had an adrenaline rush. You had the options to either argue for your beliefs (fight) or ignore (run away) them. You believe that you could take us on, so you decided to fight. You go through this every time a new post is made, and you decide to fight every time you make a new post. I'm not trying to connect "flight or fight" or beliefs to Natural Selection in this paragraph, only connecting "Flight or Fight" TO beliefs.
It sounds like you are saying that rationality is something that is learned, like math. My question is, if that is true, who taught the first rational human to be rational? I do agree that rationality and math can be compared. However, I would argue that rationality, like math, was discovered. Do you believe that math was discovered or invented? Since "discovery" would imply that math exists beyond nature, and atheism maintains that nothing exists beyond nature, and you are an Atheist, I must assume that you believe that math was invented. In that case (disregarding the fundamental problems with using an invented system- math- to explain how evolution and natural selection work and eventually lead to the invention of math) your argument is fine.
One more thing on that argument: If you want to claim that math is discovered (to avoid a circular relationship, but disregard the need to appeal to something beyond nature), and still hold that rationality was invented, they cannot be compared. And not only that, you must explain how natural processes produced a system (math) that is beyond itself.
Bob, your claims about me and the two "Books": "The Mighty Almanac of All that is True" and "The Even Mightier Tome of All that is Not True" made me think a bit harder. Here's what I have to say:
I claimed that I know the things that Steve said were true. There is vastly much more truth to be found than just what Steve said. I only claim to know SOME truth, not ALL truth; I will also claim that I know SOME non-truth, not ALL non-truth. So, how could I have access to either "book"?
You imply that YOU also have access to these "books". How could you claim that anyone else knew all truth or non-truth if you did not know them yourself? Is this supposed to be an argument for or against me? An argument that supports or denies both parties at the same time cancels itself out, and does not even need to be presented.
Sarcasm has no place in a logical argument. It only diverts attention from the real issue. If this is all you have left, you must concede defeat and dismiss yourself from the table of ideas.
Once again, Bob, it is decision time...flight or fight? What do you believe? Do you believe that it is true that you can fight and win? Or do you believe that it is false that you can fight and win? After you have made your decision (but before you post), ask yourself why you should trust the thought process that led you to your decision. Bob, if you cannot convince people that your worldview can explain the "here and now", how do you expect to convince them that it can explain the past or the future? Once you have figured this all out, post your rebuttal.
Bob, Steve actually said,
Bob,
Steve actually said, "You say your natural inductivist mind is due to the survival of your evolutionary ancestors. So, evolution is the process that brought about this rational function in you."
Then you responded, "Dear Steve Gann, Is this a fair reduction of your argument? 1) Evolution is claimed to bring survival advantages to species, including humans.
You were leading Steve into agreeing with your false statment. What would have made it true was for him to stick with his wording "brought about" instead of your "bring." Evolution is claimed to "bring about" survival advantages. Just not in a directional or purposeful way. So you dropped the word "about" in order to build a strawman argument that could be torn down.
This is obviously what Steve meant (brought about or bring about), because this is what he originally said. Nice trick Bob.
I do not see the problem of linking evolution with atheism. Both are based in naturalism and therefore for an atheist evolution has to be correct.
You have not dealt with the evidence against the molecular clocks and animal phyla. Molecular clocks make predictions about evolution that can and in many ways have been falsified.
"....with the theory of evolution (the scientific explanation and its preponderance of solid evidence of the enormous diversity of species)"
Yes there is a preponderance of evidence for the enormous diversity of species. You would have to close your eyes not to see different species all around. There just is not the same preponderance of evidence for evolution as the explanation for this diversity.
Dear Steve Gann, Your
Dear Steve Gann,
Your first, but not critical, error is conflating atheism (a general disbelief in God) with the theory of evolution (the scientific explanation and its preponderance of solid evidence of the enormous diversity of species). Though they are often linked, the two have nothing to do with each other, i.e., one makes no stipulations for the other. Thus, the said consequences of statement (4) applies to theists as well, and all people no matter their beliefs.
Your second, and most major, error is in constructing the argument on (1a,b,c). These premises reveal a naive and erroneous understanding of the theory of evolution and what it implies. (The recent 5-part "Evolution is a myth" post was similarly naive, but in a much more embarrassing way.) I like Luke's comment about your argument: "All that you stated is true." It seems, metaphorically, you two believe God keeps two books: The Mighty Almanac of All that is True, and The Even Mightier Tome of All that is Not True. It is in that second, infinitely larger compendium, that your statements about the theory of evolution belong, though Luke claims to have unprecedented access to the first of God's books.
The theory of evolution does not claim that natural selection brings survival advantages to species. Natural selection does not "bring" anything. There is no direction in the process of natural selection; no thoughts of, "I need to increase my survival advantages, so I am going to become immune to DDT." A species does not adapt in order to survive. The best adapted species survive with a higher probability. Throw off those shackles of teleology! So there goes (1a); and (1b) evaporates as well. The theory of evolution does not say that the human mind was "forged" by natural selection so that humans could survive better. Thus, your attempt to link human beliefs to an evolutionary process in (1c) is unpersuasive, and this seriously cripples the rest of your argument... but I will continue.
Now consider (2). Natural selection is as responsible for human beliefs as proton-proton fusion in the sun is responsible for Mayan human sacrifice. Get it? Try this one: Natural selection produces beliefs like a doornail opens a door. There is no natural selection of the human species because of beliefs, and the theory of evolution makes no such prediction. Of course, having a brain with an ability to memorize, analyze, synthesize, and empathize, provides great advantages to surviving and actively adapting to a hostile environment; but many species have these. (Remember, the theory of evolution makes no claim that the human brain was forged in order to do this.) Beliefs are quite independent of these, i.e., the human species does not survive based on what its members believe. Consider the "flight or fight response", which we inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. (Mine goes haywire all the time.) This response, associated with no set of beliefs, is essential to survival. Once an external danger is perceived by our senses, our nervous system buckles down, diverts blood to the head, produces adrenalin, constricts our stomach, tenses our muscles, etc., preparing our body to fight or flee. It doesn't matter if the spider was only 1/2 inch big. Humans are not the only ones with such a defense system. Many, if not all, of our cousins have it as well. Thus (2) is rotten: natural selection does not produce beliefs any more than a doornail opens a door.
Onto (3), some atheists may claim to be rational, but I do not know of any person that can coherently claim to be mostly rational. By and large, and I think everyone here has to agree, humans tend to be incredibly irrational most of the time. Just look at how incapable the human mind is at embodying an intuition of probability and randomness. No one is born knowing the apparent consistency of the world, such as, "If I leave my keys here today, I will find them there tomorrow." Some of these things are easy to learn; but what about finding the derivative of 1/sin(x) at x = 0? What about properly designing an experiment, and formulating good questions? It takes a concentrated effort to learn how to be rational, and it takes even more effort to apply such ideals in daily life. So if some atheists claim that rationality was brought about by evolution, their understanding of the theory of evolution is just as naive as yours.
Regardless of the fact that the theory of evolution does not claim that the human mind was forged for survivability, and regardless of its correctness, all humans, regardless of beliefs, are left with the task of deciding when what we see, hear, feel, and say is really true. Theists do not have access to God's The Mighty Almanac of All that is True, and The Even Mightier Tome of All that is Not True (except for Luke). And all that is true is obviously not obtained through prayer and revelation (just tell me what the derivative of 1/sin(x) at x=0 is). Science, however, provides the best and most trustworthy way of discriminating between truth and non-truth through a collaborative effort of people practiced in thinking rationally and without vested interests. This is where I place my trust, and this is, in my opinion, the only place where the resulting knowledge is reliable. If you still have a reservation about accepting this logic, just have a look at my working cellular telephone.
So what we have here is an argument in tatters, all because care was not taken in assuring the premises had any truth to it.
Everyone, Thank you for
Everyone,
Thank you for your kind words.
Bob L. Sturm, I told you a
Bob L. Sturm,
I told you a few weeks ago that I want to know where my thinking is wrong. Your reduction accurately reflects my ideas. Show me how to improve it.
Luke,
Thank you for the kind words and for showing me something about the argument I had not considered. Let me take a stab at an answer...
I think your question goes back to a bigger metaphysical argument about whether logic exists at all apart from the human mind. I'm not talking about how we know logic exists or how the mind would discover it if it did exist because that would be an epistemological argument. Instead, I am restricting this to just the metaphysics. If logic is part of the universe, that is, exists apart from the human mind as an abstract universal, then it would have to have been there before our minds existed. My evidence for this would then be the same as for any abstract universal. If logic was an abstract universal we would expect people to have equal access to logical ideas, as much as they want, whenever they want. There would also be a clear standard of what is logical and what is not for all of us to appeal to. We would expect logic to transcend culture and be able to make judgments of who is more logical and who is less regardless of what ideas they were brought up with (remember I am ignoring the epistemological problems).
If logic was a label we give to concepts our minds generate from observing the world around us, then we would expect logical concepts to be arrived at by some sort of consensus. Logic would metaphysically become the best ideas for the moment, but as consensus changed so would what we deemed logical. In other words, the epistemology of logic would determine to what extent logic existed in the first place. We would expect humans living under different environmental pressures to microevolve different concepts about nature and ultimately different logics...with no one culture's logic better than the rest.
OK...That is the best I can do. I know it has a long way to go to be good, but I gave it a try.
Bob, I know that my addition
Bob, I know that my addition might screw things up a bit, but I want to throw in what I am observing here.
"(5) Therefore, if atheism is right, there is no reason for me to trust it over any other way of thinking; thus you cannot guarantee to me that your thinking is correct. I cannot rely on it."
I think that Steve's argument can only be taken (and is meant only to be taken) to the conclusion (5). I think Steve is trying to show that if Atheism and Evolution are, in fact true, then our logic cannot be trusted to find that (or any other) truth. Anything that you conclude as "true" must be immediately questioned. Since all observations and interpretations of them rely on logic (which again could be right or wrong), the truth can never really be known. Any interpretations (and their implications, such as Atheism) therefore, cannot be stated as absolute "truths". The closest you could get to the "truth" of anything, is agnosticism.
I think Steve's pointing out how believing in Evolution restricts you from reliably stating that Atheism is true. Since "truth" cannot be known, "I know" has no meaning if Evolution is true. The strongest conclusion that Evolution allows is, "I think..." because all evidence that supports it must be preceded with "I think". Therefore, the strongest conclusion that an Atheist can state (as restricted by his own worldview) is "I think there is no god".
(6) Therefore, logic cannot be grounded in evolution.
I don't think this is a logical conclusion of Steve's argument. It could still be grounded in evolution, but we would not know if our logic was leading us toward the truth. Another piece of evidence must be presented in order for (6) to logically follow--there must be proof (in nature or the fossil record) that logic existed before the human mind came around.
Until this piece of evidence is found, it must be conceded that the "logic" or "reason" argument alone for a supreme being is not enough to prove it.
Bob, you could very well be right, but we'll never know or have the chance of knowing.
Dear all, It is very
Dear all,
It is very revealing you find Steve Gann's argument acceptable and even excellent! Once he approves of my reduction, I will demonstrate why.
Steve Gann, Great post. I
Steve Gann,
Great post. I think you summed up the whole argument extremely well. All that you stated is true. However, your conclusion hinges on whether logic existed before the human mind existed. Can you produce any evidence of this?
Dear Steve Gann, Is this
Dear Steve Gann,
Is this your argument then?
(1a) Evolution is claimed to bring survival advantages to species, including humans.
(1b) According to evolution the human mind was forged for survivability regardless of truth.
(1c) Beliefs come from our minds, which come from our brains, which, as claimed by evolution, ultimately came from an evolutionary process.
(2) From (1) then, evolution can bring about false beliefs as well as true ones in the human mind.
(3) Atheists claim to be rational, but also claim evolution brought about that rationality.
(4) Therefore, if evolution is correct, i.e., the mind was forged for survivability regardless of truth, then the atheist cannot guarantee his rationality is based on truth.
(5) Therefore, if atheism is right, there is no reason for me to trust it over any other way of thinking; thus you cannot guarantee to me that your thinking is correct. I cannot rely on it.
(6) Therefore, logic cannot be grounded in evolution.
Well said Mr. Gann...
Well said Mr. Gann...
Dear Bob – I have been
Dear Bob –
I have been doing my best to keep up with what you have to say but I’m falling farther and farther behind.
I’ll concede:
I cannot show you a miraculous healing.
I cannot refute your probability arguments.
Nonetheless, for the rest of my life I'll place my faith, hope and love in the dieing work and living person of the Lord Jesus Christ and see where He takes me.
Just in Jesus, Steve
Bob & Steve, Fantastic
Bob & Steve,
Fantastic posts!
" O taste and see that the Lord is good " Psalms 34:8
Bob L. Sturm, Here is my
Bob L. Sturm,
Here is my evaluation of your reduction. I appreciate the thoroughness of your thought.
1) Evolution is claimed to bring survival advantages to species, including humans.
Yes, this is what I meant.
2) Most humans believe in the supernatural.
Yes, I was purposely being broad here because not everyone is a monotheist.
3) If evolution is correct, belief in the supernatural must give a survival advantage.
Yes, this is what I meant.
4) According to atheism, belief in the supernatural is irrational.
Yes, I would add “false” to irrational.
5) But according to (1) beliefs come from evolution.
Beliefs come from our minds, which come from our brains, which ultimately came from an evolutionary process.
6) This is wrong according to atheism; i.e., atheism says that evolution should only bring rational things.
No. This is not what I was trying to say. Evolution brings about a survival advantage, not necessarily a truth. Evolution can bring about false ideas as well as true ones. The trueness or falseness of the belief is not as relevant as the survival aspect.
I am not saying that atheism claims that evolution should only bring about rational things; instead, I am saying atheist claim to be rational (and are in many cases) but also claim evolution brought about that rationality.
7) Since evolution is capable of producing minds that use false, irrational ideas to survive, then how do I know my ideas are not false and irrational?
The second part is wrong. You can know your ideas are true and rational by using disciplines that involve logic. If you view logic as a thing that is a product of the mind, then the rationality that is produced is only as good as that mind. Since the mind was forged for survivability regardless of truth, there is no guarantee that one’s rationality is based on truth. Logic and rationality become only as good as the minds that formed them. Since the minds that formed them are capable of using false ideas (despite being convinced that the idea is not false) that means logic and rationality could have false ideas behind them but our minds might not perceive them. This is the problem I was trying to explain. If atheism is right, there is no reason for me to trust it over any other way of thinking. You cannot guarantee to me that your thinking is correct. I cannot rely on it.
However, if you view logic as something that exists apart from the mind, something the mind discovers rather than forms, then there is a way of measuring which ideas are better and which are worse. This also presents problems for atheism. For an atheist to claim that theism is irrational, they would be appealing to a universal standard apart from the mind. But, that would mean their minds were capable of discovering that standard while others were not. Yet, if the mind is capable of forming false ideas in order to survive, then they cannot guarantee that they accurately perceive the standard.
8) You can’t know this unless you admit that God exists.
Not exactly. If you are a Christian theist, you believe a completely rational mind produced smaller minds and imbued them with a certain level of that rationality. If that is right, then logic and rationality are grounded in the mind of a completely rational being and all humans can potentially discover and appeal to that standard. Logic and rationality become as good as the mind that made them…which is completely rational.
9) Therefore, everytime I use reason, I am acting like a theist.
Every time you use your rationality, I can potentially judge if it is good or not by comparing it to a universal standard that came from a completely rational mind. You can do the same. Guarantees can be made as to the correctness of the thinking. Guarantees that logic grounded in evolution cannot give.
I just finished reading the
I just finished reading the concluding article in the RTB series "Evolution As Mythology": Very well written by the three authors and much appreciated by me. Thanks to all who contributed.
Kenny, Great explanation. I
Kenny, Great explanation.
I would like to add another piece of info from "Who Was Adam". On page 220 Fuz references Jonathan Marks' book "What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee". He points out that the area of DNA that is referenced when citing that the genetic similarity between humans and chimps is 99%, also contains 35% similarity in the human DNA to that of the same area of the daffodil. He goes on to conclude that since humans have no physical similarity to flowers, citing only a 3x closer similarity (99% as in chimps and humans) does not really mean anything if one is trying to find why humans and chimps contain some similar physical features.
If I share 40% of my DNA
If I share 40% of my DNA with daffodils am I 40% related to flowers? If I have more DNA in common with certain fish than rats, am I more fish than mammal?
To assume that humans evolved from apes we must have the following premises: - Apes look like us - Hominids look like us and like apes - Hominids behaved like us and like apes - Hominids existed before we did - God did not create us... therefore we must have come from hominids.
To accept the human origins from hominids we need to accept the last premise.
I inferred from Bob's statement [“I am naturally an inductivist, thanks to the survival of my evolutionary ancestors.”] that being an inductivist has something to do with being born into the "right" people group. If I am wrong here I do apologize. But his latest comment [Why didn’t the “reason giver” see fit to give everyone an ability to reason?] makes me think I was right after all.
If the West had not inherited the intellectual heritage of Athens and Jerusalem we wouldn't even be having this conversation about reason and God.
The reason I posed those questions to Bob is to point out the fact that due to the accidents of geography and history certain people groups have acquired knowledge that explains the world better than any other knowledge known to mankind.
Now you may wonder whether this confluence of 2 intellectual cultures in north western europe was truly an accident or purposeful. But that is a whole other conversation.
rs, By cavemen, did you
rs,
By cavemen, did you mean cro-magnon? Those were modern humans. Neandertals are considered a dead end side-branch in evolution. Nuclear, mtDNA, and Y-chromosome DNA all show that neandertals were not our ancestors.
As was pointed out in Dr. Rana's book "Who Was Adam?," recent tests show only an 86.7% similarity between chimps and humans. When looking at mtDNA it is 91.1%.
Neandertals, homo erectus, habilis and australopithecines all developed at about the same rate as chimps. Humans take longer to fully develop.
Evolution test found false: A paper published in 2005 showed that Evolutionary clocks over the last three decades have shown precambrian divergence times, for animal phyla, between 786 and 1,166 MYA.
This of course contradicts the cambrian explosion (543 MYA) in which almost all known phyla show up. The evolutionist just says "the fossil record is incomplete and you are using the 'God of the gaps' argument. Am I?
New research has shown that an earlier explosion is also real--"Avalon explosion" (575 MYA). These creatures are not related to the cambrian ones and the cambrian phyla are not among them. Still no cambrian and now no Avalon ancestors.
This could still just be gaps, you say. Well before the Avalon, the earth went through multiple "snowball earth" events where the planet froze over (600-800 MYA). We do have fossils of algae during this time, but no animal phyla.
Is this still "God of the gaps?" Then let's close off these gaps with chemical evidence from the pre-Avalon oceans. The oceans could not support animal life because they were oxygen poor, lacked molybdenum and they were far too salty. This is why only micro-organisms like cyanobacteria are found in the pre-avalon fossil record. There seems to be another chemical reason, but I have misplaced my note.
I see no "God of the gaps" here. I have given both negative and positive evidence for the false assumptions of evolutionary molecular clocks and the lack of fossil ancestors. This looks a lot like day/age five, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures..."
Bob, How is my question
Bob,
How is my question ("Where did that ability [to reason] come from") a "loaded question"? What does that question assume? You already proved that you possess the ability to reason. Evolution tries to explain the other abilities that we possess naturally, why not try to explain this ability also? It is an ability that we obviously have, and all things have a natural explanation (according to evolution). So, what is that explanation?
I think I found a disconnect between what you believe and what you are saying that you are doing.
According to the paradigm of Evolution, the natural concern of all species is only with survival of themselves and their young (genes). You stated, "I try to avoid such narcissism and survivorship bias," thus you have made the choice to defy evolution.
My questions are, why are you acting against the fundamental teachings of naturalistic evolution and how do you account for the ability to choose to act against it? Once again, you have demonstrated that this ability exists and insist that all things have a natural explanation.
Unless you want to argue the definitions of "things", "ability" or "reason", give us an explanation that only involves natural processes.
Dear Steve Gann, Is this a
Dear Steve Gann,
Is this a fair reduction of your argument?
1) Evolution is claimed to bring survival advantages to species, including humans. 2) Most humans believe in the supernatural. 3) If evolution is correct, belief in the supernatural must give a survival advantage. 4) According to atheism, belief in the supernatural is irrational 5) But according to (1) beliefs come from evolution. 6) This is wrong according to atheism; i.e., atheism says that evolution should only bring rational things. 7) Since evolution is capable of producing minds that use false, irrational ideas to survive, then how do I know my ideas are not false and irrational? 8) You can't know this unless you admit that God exists. 9) Therefore, everytime I use reason, I am acting like a theist.
Bob L. Sturm, "Throwing
Bob L. Sturm,
"Throwing down the gauntlet"...capital letters....he he, I will try to avoid sugar and caffeine before posting from now on.
Thank you for finally taking a step towards explaining how you account for your rational mind. The process you described is the same process I have come to respect myself. This is why I admire the staff at RTB, as well as many other Godly men and women who endeavor to love the lord their God with all their mind. Have you ever considered this common ground is why you are so well admired on this blog (seriously)?
You say your natural inductivist mind is due to the survival of your evolutionary ancestors. So, evolution is the process that brought about this rational function in you. OK, I will grant you that for sake of argument. The form of inductivism used by your ancestors must have given them a survival advantage if they were able to pass it down, eventually, to you. Now, using this logic, how would you account for the fact that most humans believe in some form of supernatural existence? Belief in the supernatural must have given our ancestors, who thought this way, a survival advantage in order for that idea to become so pervasive. But, according to atheism that type of idea is wrong and irrational. But that would mean that evolution is capable of producing minds that use false, irrational ideas to survive. That’s a problem though, because IF (not yelling, just emphasis) that is true, how does the atheist know their ideas are not false and irrational too? They can't! Yet atheists, like yourself, are rational...using evolution to ground your rationality becomes incoherent.
You cannot ground rationality in evolution. For atheism, a worldview with no other choice but naturally directed evolution, this is a serious flaw. Every time you or any other atheist uses logic to promote atheism, you are borrowing from a theistic system to accomplish something atheism cannot.
So, I think you should become a theist. You might as well because every time you employ that mind of yours you are simultaneously promoting a theistic worldview and contradicting atheism.
Dear Charles, You are right
Dear Charles,
You are right that if we collect together many people who tested positive we should expect half of them to be false positives given your prior. Homework question: if you only had the probabilities of the true positives and the true negatives, what could you say about the majority of any group of N people who tested positive?
Dear Joe,
I don't see where my viewpoint is consistent with theism. Please take me along your path of thinking. Most importantly though, where does my "explanation" contradict what I have been saying all along? Was Steve Gann asking, explain why you can think logically? Now Luke is asking, "Where did that ability [to reason] come from?"
It seems to me a loaded question, just like "What is the purpose of life?" What demonstrates "life" belongs to the set of things with "purpose" in the universe? You might as well ask, "Who gave you the ability to reason?"
Why should I require a "reason giver" to give me an ability to reason? I might as well not have developed a liking for rational thought; or I could have had an accident that rendered that part of my brain dysfunctional. Am I to think that I have been so incredibly lucky to have developed the ability to reason that the only explanation for it was predestined? That the forces of nature colluded to produce me? I try to avoid such narcissism and survivorship bias.
If I invoke a "reason giver" -- as you all seem to do -- then I would have to address many questions, for instance, Why didn't the "reason giver" see fit to give everyone an ability to reason? Furthermore, why does my reason lead me to the conclusion that a God supposedly active in changing the world each and every minute through answered prayers, is not at all likely. Also, why does my ability to use reason then warrant me eternal torment? Furthermore, and most important as I am arguing from experience in much the same way believers do, why do I continue to benefit and receive extremely nice rewards even while I am a vocal denier of God, especially in my social circles? I wouldn't expect that from an extremely jealous deity. One by one I continue to discover the benefits of being atheist.
Dear Luke,
I am letting it roll off my back.
Dear Clifford,
My "cherished" myths are Christian. I was raised Christian. I will take you up on that book suggestion. Thanks!
cg: I'll try to field the
cg:
I'll try to field the questions you asked if you don't mind, maybe others will too...
1) My evolutionary ancestors, as nearly as we can ascertain in a testable fashion, are caveman-types and neanderthals -- and before them, monkeys. I'd point to the fact that we share 99+% of genetic code as one reason why I suppose this is so -- even if macroevolution seems far-fetched there is at least some measurable precedent for it.
2) I think induction is pretty broadly useful -- I'd put forth that most great inventions and scientific discoveries started out as inductive/creative flights of fancy. (They were tested and refined deductively/logically, of course, before they became pragmatically useful.) It certainly seems plausible that, before we had good ways of applying formalized "logic" to problems, induction was used in much greater measure.
I'm sure that my explanations above can be picked apart, and internal inconsistencies revealed. I think the thing is, though, that these are our best guesses, and they (at least partially) work without the need to invoke unmeasurable, unverifiable supernatural forces.
From the secular perspective I've still got more than a foot in, I think that's why these sorts of exercises are frustrating to skeptics: the attempts to explain away often seem like an excuse to feed somebody a pill of "hocus-pocus".
Happy Thursday, rs
Dear RS, I appreciate your
Dear RS,
I appreciate your honesty and hope you stick around. RTB exists for people like you. Your take was worth at least $.02, by the way.
To all,
I've enjoyed the great comments in this thread and will keep this one as the main discussion for a while longer before I introduce a new post.
Thanks to each.
Bob, you have a long way to
Bob, you have a long way to go. You are barely out of the gate. A 72-year-old colleague took time to post an intelligent remark just for you. Re-read it. I am half way between the two of you. At least respect him. Your "wonderful relationship with your wife" is a great gift from God but will be sorely tested in coming years. (Remember, marriage is God's good idea.) As will your current assumptions, conclusions, relationships and sanity. I'm not kidding. Life serves up unexpected troubles that only God can handle for you. You lack the hindsight of your elders which no PhD program can give. You kick like Paul against the goads. Would that you would yield like him to the Spirit of Truth rather than to that mocking spirit. It may seem like a mind game now, but read this in future years and know that there once was a time, when your mind was still fresh and your heart was still tender enough, that you could still choose this day who you will serve. I speak not from condescension nor arrogance but as one beggar trying to show another beggar where I have found Bread. Jesus said "I am the Bread of Life". Take your dispute to Him. Pray. He is patient, understanding and full of lovingkindness. He knows what it is to be mocked and ridiculed. He still loves us. You are two people Bob - this blogger-stage persona sparring like a mental gladiator is the only one you think we see; but God knows our hearts. The inner Bob, who is more obvious than you think, is quite a different fellow as time will surely show. You can file this under "Real Life Stuff they don't teach you in PhD school". When you need the Lord, He will be waiting. Like I said, Jesus passed the test. This is well documented in the gospels and in countless lives who simple chose to believe Him.
Bob, "I am naturally an
Bob,
"I am naturally an inductivist, thanks to the survival of my evolutionary ancestors."
Just curious but:
Perhaps your objections to Christianity may have something to do with the fact that it destroys your most cherished myths and not anything to do with objective reasons.
Seriously though, I would STRONGLY recommend you read the following book:
The author is considered one of best secular historians of our time.
Hi folks, It seems to me
Hi folks,
It seems to me one of the cruxes of the whole "god/ungod fight" has to do with to what extent we trust that which comes from inside of us. I find myself in a weird place on this.
On one hand, if a voice inside me tells me the sky is red, but then I observe that the sky is blue (and I ask my friend down the street, and she says the sky is blue too) then I should dismiss the voice inside me as nonsense.
I think it's C. Hitchens (famous anti-religion author) who talks about the fact that a belief in God seems biologically built into us -- but of course he thinks we should dismiss it as nonsense mainly because religious people often do mean things, and we have a good guess as to how humans got here, (basically the interplay of chance and Darwinism). Since there's no (direct, anyway) evidence for God we should dismiss it, even if that means fighting some psychological urge not to, Hitchens would say.
I was hardcore atheist for a long time, and I think I'm still a far cry from "religious" in the sense that a lot of you folks are. But I find myself at odds because it seems to me that prayer works -- not in the sense that I can pray for a turkey sandwich and one drops from the sky, but in the sense that if I earnestly seek God's will, then all these things to support that which I'm seeking start "coincidentally" happening.
But, to recap, this puts me at odds with the whole fashionable atheist thing going on right now, since it's something like immoral, to that set, to rely on things you can't verify scientifically.
It's hard to explain. I'm not sure any of this fits neatly into the realm of logic or whatever, but part of what has changed in me is that I don't assume that I can put everything into a logical "box" anymore. Maybe that just isn't appropriate for everything, and maybe it's ultimately limiting to try and do so...
$0.01, rs
Bob, I'm cool with calling
Bob,
I'm cool with calling you a "skeptical atheist". I think that best describes you at this point. But, what I or anyone else calls you makes no difference (you know that). It is what you believe and the foundations of those beliefs that really matter. Testing helps you identify those foundations and their strength. Testing applies to logic. There are rules that logic abides by. Our logic can be tested against those rules, to identify faulty logic. Everything in this thread has pushed all of us to test our foundations, including our logic. We may not like what we find, but what we find must not be ignored- to do so, would be illogical.
Performing exercise assumes that one has the ability to exercise. If muscles cannot be used, they cannot be exercised. By exercising muscles, one automatically assumes (and proves) that the ability exists. You have assumed (and proved) that you have the ability to think logically, and have exercised that ability. By exercising it, you have gotten better at it. Let us test that ability. Where did that ability come from? That is the question that must be addressed.
That comment about "anyone being brought out of dire straights" was off topic. You could have let it roll off your back and ignored it or simply stated that it was off the topic of testing. I have to know...why did you feel so strongly that you had to provide an exception? Apparently an emotion (or other reason) stronger than your logical thinking took over and pushed you to answer. Can you identify it, and can you account for it?
Bob, In accounting for your
Bob,
In accounting for your mind, it looks to me that you have proven Steve's point. Your explanation is entirely consistent with theism.
Dear all, This thread has
Dear all,
This thread has gotten away from Joe's initial topic. Sorry Joe! I will be brief.
Dear clifford,
Watch those trite generalizations, as well as those arguments from authority!
Dear Steve Gann,
It is funny you accuse me of schoolyard behavior and then you throw your gauntlet down. When I say I don't see my argument in your reduction, I am not saying you are a stupid worthless person that cannot reduce an argument. I am asking for elucidations. Now you are shouting at me with words in all capitals!
"EXPLAIN to me how atheism accounts for your brilliant mind?"
I will explain how I account for my "brilliant" mind. I have worked at it for a very long time. I have worked very hard. And I continue to work very hard and exercise my ability to look at, formalize, and solve problems. I also love collaborating and working with others who share a passion for knowledge and science. Everyday I actively exercise my ability to think logically and coherently and reasonably. There are limits of course; I am naturally an inductivist, thanks to the survival of my evolutionary ancestors.
"... rationality demands that you change to something that is coherent."
Believing that the entire universe was created just for me, and that people who do not practice faith will be punished forever, and that there are people who are so important that they will live forever, etc., is incoherent and incompatible with my real experiences of the real and observable world, not to mention my respect for Science as the most trustworthy reflection of that real world. Taking on your beliefs would require me to ignore or discredit many things that I know to be true. That would make me a walking contradiction, and I am sure I would burst into flames!
Dear Luke,
Yes, we got off track somewhere. Oh right. Someone said they don't know of anyone who was brought out of dire straits by turning away from God. So I chimed in and provided an exception. It was never meant to start off this entire fire-laden thread, and I was not attempting promote atheism. If you want to call me agnostic, then that is fine. I prefer "skeptical atheist."
Bob, I did not jump all
Bob,
I did not jump all over the Bible to get that interpretation. I got it from Genesis 1 and then backed it up with Job 38. Testing our interpretations with other texts is the way to determine if we have made mistakes.
"Isn’t God going to be angry if you have to actually use empiricism to obtain a belief in him? Seems contrary to the whole emphasis on faith."
No, God will not be angry. He left the disciples an empty tomb and let Thomas see his hands and side. Paul mentions 500 eyewitnesses as part of his evidence for the resurrection. As mentioned before, the Bible doesn't mean "blind" faith.
"If God was so busy obviously guiding processes in the real world then why is his influence so absent today?"
God ceased (rested from) creating on the seventh day/age. We are still in that day/age (Hebrews 4). God is still upholding creation (Colosians 1:17). He has put the laws governing the universe in place (Jeremiah 31:35-36 and 33:25).