Why You Can't Argue With A Creationist
Evolutionary psychologist David Sloan Wilson on ScienceBlogs on people who believe, sans evidence, in creationism and god:
The concept of an intervening god--a powerful supernatural agent who creates things in the same way people create artifacts, takes an active interest in the affairs of people, and actively intervenes to alter human affairs--is a perfectly good scientific hypotheses. It generates testable predictions, at least insofar as one knows the powers and will of such a god. It was the prevailing scientific theory for centuries, starting when science emerged as a recognizable cultural institution. The problem with the intervening god hypothesis is that it lost--again and again--for our understanding of the physical universe, the geological features of the earth, and life on earth....Beliefs are often accepted and defended, not because they are factually correct, but because they are useful for the community of believers. That's true for other beliefs that are manifestly false as factual claims, from religions, to political ideologies, and even atheistic beliefs, as I recount in my atheism as a stealth religion series.
Still, we need to explain why the "rejecting creationism is unfair" claim is so successful, when it can be so easily dispatched. Consider the phenomenon of biological mimicry, whereby species resemble their background or masquerade as other species to escape detection by their predators and prey. An insect mimicking a leaf can be astonishingly convincing, right down the mid-vein and fake chew marks along the edges, but it's easy enough to recognize as an insect with enough scrutiny. Mimics depend upon the fact that their predators and prey are too busy to recognize them for what they are.
So it is for the "rejecting creationism is unfair" argument. It sounds like it makes sense, but only for those who don't have the time or expertise to seriously consider it. That's why it fails to pass muster among actual scientists but still manages to survive among the general public and especially among those who would like it to be true. Unfortunately, that's the arena where important decisions are made, such as whether to give creationism "equal time" in our public schools.
...Scrutiny is the friend of an authentic scientific position and the enemy of a mimic.
In this fashion, creationists who have been fairly excluded from the scientific playing field, as surely as the chess player who has lost his king or the losing basketball team after the final buzzer, still inhabit the comment section of my blog and other low-scrutiny venues, where they complain bitterly about being unfairly excluded. The next time you hear this tedious complaint, just reply "checkmate" or "game over".
Good a place as any to share this video. Note, it's about 10 minutes long and it's about "Open-Mindedness." Specifically the practice of those people who believe in non-scientific concepts to tell those who don't to be more open-minded, and why these people may actually be the least open-minded. Enjoy! I'm sure you'll like it, Amy.
Patrick at December 28, 2010 2:15 AM
Actually, the argument with a "Creationist" (in quotes because they themselves usually don't know what they mean) can be "won" - by presenting enough real evidence in one place so as to halt the discussion. They'll stop posting, and that's enough for me, because it's one less place spreading mental illness.
Answers In Genesis is, oddly enough, one of the places to cite arguments you'll see that should NOT be used; this is usually a showstopper as the Creationist tries to cope with a fundamentalist Christian site which disagrees with them.
The need to believe - something, anything - is real, because it's a buffer allowing a person to rest. Some people are just so intent on resting that they can't support the idea that they should resume thinking about an issue they think is settled.
But in all cases, you have to get to the roots. Arguing about animals on the Ark™ is pointless - what works is to ask the faithful to take 7 pals, then collect however many thousand animals they want and keep them in a warehouse for a year. People know that Pharoah wasted his time building a million-ton pyramid - because they can see how it was built - and so they can see foolish things for what they are if properly shown.
Radwaste at December 28, 2010 4:10 AM
It's not just creationism. A scientific attitude toward the world -- one that relies on inductive reasoning and empirical evidence rather than adherence to received wisdom -- remains rare 400 years after Francis Bacon first outlined the scientific method.
I was just reading in Harper's Bazaar about a trend among NYers to visit shamans for healing. The same sophisticated Manhattanites who mock creationists will pay money to someone to tell them the guardian animal spirit and run their hands over their auras to remove malign effects.
Astra at December 28, 2010 5:42 AM
Once again "atheist fundamentalists" feel the need to convert people to their way of thinking, doing the exact same thing they complain religious people do to them.
I don't want anyone trying to convert me to their religion, and that includes the atheist.
hadsil at December 28, 2010 6:50 AM
hadsil, true dat. Why do they care so much what someone else thinks? It takes faith to believe in the idea that one species can evolve into another - there's no evidence for that either. There is evidence for evolution within a species, but not for one species becoming another. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Also, creationism doesn't mean you necessarily believe in an intervening God, just that there is some unknowable Creator or Designer which has given us free will so that we can carve out our own destinies (otherwise what would be the point?) The atheist view is that there was nothing, for a long time, nothing, then, something! There is no explanation that we know of to tell us how something came from nothing, "The Origin of Species" notwithstanding (because it's not in there either), and the chances of life spontaneously arising from nothing at all are infinitesimal - from a scientific perspective.
The thing is though, if I choose to believe in some kind of Intelligent Design, why does it matter? It doesn't impede science to believe this - I still love science and think it's endlessly fascinating and I have never understood why atheists in particular like to put up this artificial barrier between religious belief and science, even when I was an atheist myself. I may not have understood the creationist side much and found it pretty ridiculous even, but I still didn't see it as incompatible with science and still don't.
Thag Jones at December 28, 2010 7:35 AM
Thag Jones: The thing is though, if I choose to believe in some kind of Intelligent Design, why does it matter?
It shouldn't. But when a bunch of narrow-minded zealots who believe in intelligent design start demanding that intelligent design be taught in schools at the expense of scientific theory with mountains of evidence behind it, then yeah, it does impede science.
Patrick at December 28, 2010 8:19 AM
Actually, the argument with a "Creationist" (in quotes because they themselves usually don't know what they mean) can be "won" - by presenting enough real evidence in one place so as to halt the discussion. They'll stop posting, and that's enough for me, because it's one less place spreading mental illness.
Actually, no. Look at gcotharn's postings on this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html
And if people with childish beliefs -- beliefs not based on evidence but their unwillingness to use their capacity to reason, and their (childish) discomfort with unanswered questions about the universe -- just kept to themselves like the Amish, they'd be as little a danger to the rest of us as the silly people who believe, sans evidence, in astrology.
The problem is, these people use their beliefs to promote public policy against gay rights and for filling the heads of children with fairytales as if they're true, just to name a couple of answers.
Adults who live without using reason and evidence to guide them can be convinced to do horrible things -- witness those who believe they'll get 72 virgins if they blow up everybody who doesn't share their particular primitive belief.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 8:22 AM
@Thag: "I still love science and think it's endlessly fascinating and I have never understood why atheists in particular like to put up this artificial barrier between religious belief and science, even when I was an atheist myself."
Not sure if it's atheists in particular, but yeah, people do like to see scientific and religious belief as being at odds, even when they aren't really. Part of the problem is with the baggage that comes with the simplest statements. If someone says, "Oh, evolution makes the most sense to me," it doesn't necessarily follow that the speaker is an atheist. Nor is someone who believes that somehow God created or creates the universe necessarily an advocate for teaching creationism in the schools. In neither case do we know what either person actually means, and we can't draw a conclusion without further evidence.
@Miss Alkon: "Adults who live without using reason and evidence to guide them can be convinced to do horrible things ..." Sometimes they can be convinced with reason and evidence. Especially if they've got guns and money.
Old RPM Daddy at December 28, 2010 9:24 AM
"Adults who live without using reason and evidence to guide them can be convinced to do horrible things -- " Amy...
To put a finer point on what Old RPM Daddy said...
Stalin ramped atheism in the USSR... to the tune of ~10million murdered.
pol Pot only managed to get ~2million in his shorter years...
What Mao did, isn't as much clarified, other than to say probably millions.
and that isn't including the famines.
I understasnd the point you are making Amy, but this is a strawman. People with power generally kill, and some may start genocides. I don't think it has as much to do with religion, per se. The koran says one thing, but Stalin said the same, he just attached his saying to an ideal instead of a god.
How is it different, really?
You have plenty of other arguments that are more meaningful. It doesn't mater the reason that the jihadis want to subjugate or kill, the fact is that they do.
SwissArmyD at December 28, 2010 10:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1810534">comment from SwissArmyDOh, that tired old saw. Atheism is not a religion, it's simply not believing in things without evidence. There are people who behave well who are atheists and people who behave poorly. Roman Genn, who grew up in the Soviet Union, will tell you that communism was their religion.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 10:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1810536">comment from Amy AlkonHere:
http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334:were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists&catid=39:atheism-agnosticism
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 10:19 AM
Atheism is most certainly a religion. It is the belief in Man as God.
And some people (Stalin, Mao) take it personally, and begin waging their judgements upon creation.
brian at December 28, 2010 10:29 AM
oye, another day, another "religion sucks" post. Why does the fact that some people believe in something that helps them get through the day offend atheists so much? I am personally intelligent enough to never discuss my religious beliefs with others, because logic quickly falls out of the conversation and it only causes one's hackles to go up. I need look no farther than into my dog's eyes to know there are greater forces at work than I can comprehend
ronc at December 28, 2010 10:37 AM
@Brian: "Atheism is most certainly a religion. It is the belief in Man as God."
Brian, mostly I dig your comments, but I don't think you're in any position to explain Miss Alkon's own doctrine to her, any more than she's able to explain other people's doctrine to them.
Old RPM Daddy at December 28, 2010 10:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1810553">comment from brianAtheism is most certainly a religion. It is the belief in Man as God. And some people (Stalin, Mao) take it personally, and begin waging their judgements upon creation.
Man as god? How silly. I'm an atheist, and I don't worship anyone. I'm grateful to be alive, and do my best to make a difference, and leave the planet a little better than it was when I got here.
Stalin was interested in power, not in spreading scientifically based thinking.
My beliefs are based in evidence, and as for why atheists worry about people's evidence-free beliefs, if the god-believers were as passive about spreading their fable-driven beliefs as the equally evidence-free believers in astrology, I'd just think they were silly, not worrisome.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 10:43 AM
Creationism is faith based and it's far too common to see the religious trying to defend their beliefs by relying on faith, claiming faith justifies their position and that their beliefs are based on faith. Are non-believers justified in regarding this as little more than a cop-out because faith isn't really any kind of standard that can be tested for reliability? Yes, because in practice "faith" is simply pulled out whenever attempted arguments based on reason and evidence fail. Faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything. It also has no value when it comes to evaluating whether a religion is likely true or not.
If we're going to evaluate religious beliefs then we must use something independent of them all: the standards of reason, logic, and evidence. These standards we all use for every other aspect of our lives sans religious beliefs. If religions have any connection to reality, then we should be able to compare and weigh them against each other in at least a similar manner.
The existence of god cannot be defended on the basis of faith. Faith alone is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false.
As for the Stalin, Pol Pot or any other despot straw man, read carefully:
Atheism is not a belief system, secular or religious. It is a word to define a person who does not believe in theism.
Ed at December 28, 2010 10:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1810567">comment from EdWell-said, Ed.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 11:10 AM
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It can only be considered a religion in the same way that not collecting Beanie Babies is a hobby and baldness is a hair color.
While it would be nice if those with fantastical beliefs "just kept to themselves", it's an unreasonable expectation. Beliefs inform our actions, and poor thinking leads to poor results. Spend a little time at What's The Harm?, and it's easy to see the poor results.
chickity at December 28, 2010 11:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1810570">comment from chickityGreat site, chickity. Thanks for the recommendation.
Here's the harm from the evidence-free belief in god and the evidence-free beliefs that ensue from it:
http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 11:13 AM
Ed: "The existence of god cannot be defended on the basis of faith. Faith alone is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share."
Uh, yes it can. It is simple logic. We know from logic that "A v(or) ~(not)A" is a true statement under all circumstances. Well, if A is "God exists" and ~A is "God does not exist," we know that "God exists or God does not exist" is a true statement. Always. Forever. Right? We are talking logic here.
Now, you can either be a skeptic and simply say, "I have no evidence so I will suspend my judgment about it." Or, you can say, "I know that one of those statements is true, and I choose to believe A (or ~A)." Either one takes an act of faith because either one takes a judgment about something metaphysical.
Ed: "Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false."
Well, not really. Again, using logic, which atheists seem to think they have a monopoly on, there are better gods than others. I think, logically, a monotheistic system is superior to a polytheistic system. As Aristotle reasoned, a single god makes more sense than a set of gods. Our notion of god is one of omnipotence. If you have more than one "god," you have a contradiction, because neither one would be omnipotent, or one would be more powerful than the other (meaning that the inferior one was not omnipotent and, therefore, not god). You can argue, likewise about crystals, graven images, or animals. Only someone with the theological sophistication of a 5-year old would think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is in any way a refutation of a solid theological analysis of Western notions about God. It is a funny notion, but not a serious argument.
Also, it is kind of funny that this article was written by an evolutionary psychologist. Ms. Alkon, who likes to point out that the biological preferences of men and women in their mates can be traced across cultures and has an evolutionary basis, does not seem to suspect that notions of god and theology also span across cultures and likely have an evolutionary basis. People have evolved and the propensity to believe in god, or some higher order or power, is either the effect of a higher power, or the effect of our evolved ability to explore and comprehend things beyond ourselves. While god may not exist, our quest for and belief in god part of our ability to engage in dialectic.
Now, don't try to say that "it can't be part of human nature because I don't believe in God." Good for you! And, some guys like fat chicks. It does not change the basic principle.
-Jut
JutGory at December 28, 2010 12:01 PM
Atheism is not a religion; it is the mere absence of belief in gods. Nevertheless, atheists can exhibit the same intolerance, fundamentalism, and totalitarian thinking as fundamentalist theists.
For example, read Truth and Toleration by David Kelly. The atheist Ayn Rand Institute holds that Objectivism, and every other philosophy, is immutably closed. ARI even calls it, a la the Roman Catholic Magisterium, an "official, recognized doctrine." Atheists can most certainly be dogmatic in action and temperament, fundamentalist in approach, and as intolerant as a spanish Inquisitor. Tracinski's article Anthemgate is devastating on this point.
Atheism writ large didn't make people better or governments less oppressive. In fact, it seems to have made them worse.
Atheism is the absence of a belief. The absence of a belief implies nothing about ethics or aesthetics. Atheists refuse to believe without justification. They must tell what is a valid criterion for justification and why an alternative ethics is actually justified under that criterion.
Many atheists approach every religion as fundamentalist. That's an error. Most Christians, for example, are not fundamentalist. A critique of fundamentalism is not a critique of religion.
Creationists make really bad arguments. Often, atheists make bad arguments. Not really bad, but still bad.
Jeff at December 28, 2010 12:15 PM
"Uh, yes it can. It is simple logic. We know from logic that "A v(or) ~(not)A" is a true statement under all circumstances. Well, if A is "God exists" and ~A is "God does not exist," we know that "God exists or God does not exist" is a true statement."
Insert "Flying Spaghetti Monster" to your statement and we can then conclude that the 5yr old is as logical as your argument.
"Atheism writ large didn't make people better or governments less oppressive."
Of course it didn't. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in theism. It's akin saying: Anti-Santaism (non belief in Santa) didn't make people better or governments less oppressive.
Why do the faithful always want to take atheism and turn it into and ideological position. I don't believe in bigfoot, santa, ghosts, trolls, uni-corns etc... either. Would you consider my non-belief in these mythological beings an ideology?
"Many atheists approach every religion as fundamentalist."
No, we approach every religion with the same regard, god(s) does not exsist. Fundamentalist or not.....
Ed at December 28, 2010 1:13 PM
Ed: Insert "Flying Spaghetti Monster" to your statement and we can then conclude that the 5yr old is as logical as your argument.
Not really. Yes, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" could easily be "A." And, yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster either exists or doesn't.
Do you seriously believe that it does? Do you seriously believe anyone does?
If not, you are not arguing in good faith. You are essentially saying, "here is this made-up thing that I invented, but you can't prove that it does not exist, so it must exist as much as God does." That is a false analogy (and a Strawman, at that).
Ed: "Why do the faithful always want to take atheism and turn it into and ideological position. I don't believe in bigfoot, santa, ghosts, trolls, uni-corns etc... either. Would you consider my non-belief in these mythological beings an ideology?"
Because the question of theism and atheism is a metaphysical question. Bigfoot, Santa, trolls, and unicorns do not present metaphysical questions. "Santa lives at the North Pole." That is not a metaphysical question and science can test it. Also, Santa Claus is basically St. Nick, a human being. We know humans are not immortal. So, we can safely say we know that there is no Santa Claus (or that Santa Claus died a long time ago). But, just because Santa Claus is not real, does not mean that God is not real. Again, false analogy.
-Jut
JutGory at December 28, 2010 1:25 PM
Sorry for the double post.
Okay, Ed, I might not have completely addressed your FSM analogy.
yes, from a strictly logical perspective, "FSM v ~FSM" is perfectly logical (and absolutely true). There is no debate there.
However, another quality of God is that there is no coming to be or passing away. God is static and cannot change. St. Augustine thought long and hard about this. Again, if God is perfect, God cannot change.
Now, spaghetti is a human invention. There you have the problem of coming to be. Spaghetti is also made of matter. So, it passes away. Also, as it is matter, it is limited (or destructible). In our conception of God, God is indestructible.
Also, being made of matter, FSM is knowable under the scientific method. There is no evidence of it and, thus, it is rational to dismiss such claims of its existence.
So, I stand by my comment that anyone who holds up the FSM as a refutation of religious belief has demonstrated the theological sophistication of a 5-year old.
-Jut
JutGory at December 28, 2010 1:32 PM
You can't argue with a creationist because, to them, the lack of proof for their position is taken as proof of it.
Mind you, I'm not talking about people who believe the universe is not entirely random and that there is (or may be) a guiding hand in the development of the universe. I'm talking about the people who think Job rode a dinosaur and the world was literally created in six 24-hour days.
But, if it helps them get through their day, more power to them; as long as they're not telling me I can't have medicine or surgery for my ailments and insisting the teaching of evolution be banned as heresy.
If atheism is defined simply as the opposite of theism, then it leaves room for plenty of other corollary -isms in the philosophy of the atheist. One of those -isms can be communism (an atheistic system).
How about this description of life in the USSR from Eugene Veklerov: "It is 1976. I am a young scientist who has just immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union. [...] He asks me about life in my old country, and I am eager to oblige. I try to describe everyday life in the police state, where Big Brother decides what books people are allowed to read, where the Beatles' songs are smuggled in, where atheist indoctrination is a required part of the school curriculum...." [Emphasis mine]
Stalin, Marx, and Trotsky may have been born and raised in a conventional religion, but all chose to reject belief in a supreme being in favor of an over-arching system involving state control of all aspects of the lives of its citizens; state control that rejected and persecuted any deviance from its philosophy, including religious deviance. And the state's philosophy included atheism.
Conan the Grammarian at December 28, 2010 1:51 PM
Jut,
"There is no evidence of it and, thus, it is rational to dismiss such claims of its existence."
There is no evidence of god either, unless of course your using the complete lack of evidence as evidence. Either way, thanks for making my point....
Ed at December 28, 2010 2:25 PM
Ed,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, no, the lack of evidence is not viewed by me as evidence.
(At any rate, I am not conceding that there is no evidence. There is lots of evidence; it is just not testable. Jesus died and rose from the dead; he brought Lazarus back to life. There is evidence of these things. Now, that Jesus was God is but one conclusion that could be reached from this evidence; he might have, consistent with the evidence, been a space alien with technology greater than ours; he might have been stolen from the grave and Lazarus might have just been a stinky comatose patient. Not one of these propositions is testable because they are not repeatable. However, only the second and third are subject to knowledge (and only the third is really testable, if we presume that the aliens had technology we do not yet understand)).
Put another way, we know Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. We know that Santa Claus is human. if we scour the North Pole and find no evidence of existence, we can scientifically conclude he does not exist (or that there is no evidence to support the testable hypothesis of his existence).
This is a false analogy. You cannot address a metaphysical concept the same way you would a physical one.
So, I did not make your point. The only way you could believe that I have made your point is if you did not understand mine.
-Jut
JutGory at December 28, 2010 2:39 PM
True it is people exist who use religion for carte blanche cause for mayhem and murder. However, they do not have a monopoly on it. Areligious regimes have their own share of mayhem and murder while they consider religion to be the opium of the masses.
Today people use science to promote redistribution of wealth, population control, the food we may eat, the products we may purchase and use, and other issues they're sure they know better than we do on how to live our lives.
The atheists offer no better alternative.
hadsil at December 28, 2010 2:57 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1810700">comment from hadsilWhen science is true science, good science, based on evidence (and not those studies where the outcome is only around chance or slightly better than chance, and can't be replicated), it's absolutely wise to base decisions about how we live on it.
You would have us base them on what "god" said to "Cain" in some big book of fables?
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 3:06 PM
We know that Santa Claus is human.
But...I thought Santa was a jolly old elf?
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 3:56 PM
"Actually, no."
Actually, yes. This forum once mistook pretty posting for veracity, just as someone might think the Pope must be right because he has big money and fine clothes.
But a systematic argument, built from the construction of the Earth itself, the nature of belief, the definitions of "chance", "evidence", "probability" and "faith", the difference between an editorial and an information source... waits patiently, to cite Saint Augustine on the side of learning.
Want to show somebody their argument sucks? Show them the real world. It's far more interesting than the gossip-laden Bible™, which leaves immense things out - and if you want to, you can study it without being told what, who, how and when to worship.
Radwaste at December 28, 2010 4:15 PM
Here's an example:
"Today people use science to promote redistribution of wealth, population control, the food we may eat, the products we may purchase and use, and other issues they're sure they know better than we do on how to live our lives.
The atheists offer no better alternative."
hadsil, do you look at the evil men of the cloth do and then decide all men of the cloth are nasty?
Then why would you say that about what is really a method of investigation?
Science works for anybody, not just some imaginary egghead in an ivory tower. It's nothing more than writing down everything about a thing of interest and then testing those observations to see what they mean.
Lots of school children have been turned off by shrieking demands to memorize this or that before they get dessert. Mmmm, dessert! If there was only a way to get right to the dessert without all that learning crap...
But enough of us go to good schools, the kind which inspire. They produce all sorts of things we don't even suspect exist.
What Do You Really Know?
You should look at these things, if not out of wonder and curiousity, then because you will know about your own world - and this will equip you properly to resist people who make promises while picking your pocket!
Radwaste at December 28, 2010 4:24 PM
"Put another way, we know Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. We know that Santa Claus is human. if we scour the North Pole and find no evidence of existence, we can scientifically conclude he does not exist (or that there is no evidence to support the testable hypothesis of his existence)."
How preposteros to say Santa is human. He flys around the world in 24hrs. With 8 magic raindeer that fly draging his sled, through the air. He magically get's in and out of all these homes undetected. He's knows who's been bad or good and manages to know what every child wants. And to top it all off, no one has ever seen him do any of this.
So again, what science disproves his exsistence exactly? You can't find his home in the north pole because he's magic and doesn't want you to find it.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Double talk does not confuse me. You want to believe in god, good for you, but you've made no clear argument that he exsists. Which frankly is what always happens in these discussions because it can't be done.....
Ed at December 28, 2010 4:38 PM
Goddess:
Science has NOTHING to contribute to discussions of morality.
Euthenasia
"Dating Tips for Chimps"
Various lame out-on-a-limb libertarian claims -
...we've been here before on this blog.
This is where utilitarianism - which often accompanies, but is not the same as, atheism - falls apart.
A lot of awful, manipulative, oppressive, dishonest, and violent actions can be justified by utilitarian thinking at the personal and communal level.
And the atheist mindset lessens the imperative to consider "the greater good" rather than selfish, immediate gain.
This brings us back to the discussion of "who's been more barbaric" - the atheist claim that religious belief has motivated atrocities is exactly matched by the observation that atheism has freed modern dictators from the obligations of Judeo-Christian morality, and allowed them to justify and commit atrocities in a moral vacuum.
Ben David at December 29, 2010 1:18 AM
There is evidence for evolution within a species, but not for one species becoming another
Really? Look at dogs, some breeds are no longer able to physically breed with one another, give them enough time and their gentics will diverge to the point that they can no longer have their dna mixed artificcaly either.
Neandertals and homo sapiens are two seperate species, yet closly enough related that they two interbred some time ago before neandertals dies off completely
lujlp at December 29, 2010 2:04 AM
A few thoughts
@Jut, if god is perfect and doesnt need to change, then why did he? When as the last time you saw a prophet preforming miricles? When was the last time entire cites were destryed in freak unpredictable calamities of nature? When was the last time god killed a group of swingers?
Also, Jut, what evidence is there that Lazurus was raised from the dead? FYI evidence means indepentantly verifiable and testable, otherwise it isnt evidence, its testemony
RE: Stalin, Pol Pot and athiesm. PolPot overthrew a regime and sent the city folk out to work the feilds in order to 'teach them a lesson' by working them to death in the manner he flet they were working 'his' people to death. Had nothing to do with athiesm and everything to do with regime change.
No one argues the american revolution was about getting rid of the anglican church's hold on the colonies religous people, do they?
As for Stalin the biggest church in russia was the eastern orthodox church, as such it was the biggest threat to his power, and in the same way the catholic church killed off 'heritics' in europe, Stalin killed off those who threatened his power - again nothing to do with athiesm and everything to do with solidifying his power base
lujlp at December 29, 2010 2:25 AM
RE: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Odd isnt it how the faithful need to spend money in order to find resons to reinfoce their faith?
Seems to me if god were real, careed about you, and intevened regualrly in everyones life, you wouldnt have to spen 10 to 20 dollars to get a book to let you that god were real, careed about you, and intevened regualrly in everyones life.
And if the authors really belived they were doing gods work why arent they giving it away for free? Charging money to save souls? Apparently they didnt learn the lesson of the mony changers in the temple.
Ah the hypocricy of christians - turns out far mpre atheists then atheits themselves ever could
lujlp at December 29, 2010 2:31 AM
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, no, the lack of evidence is not viewed by me as evidence.
Not viewed by you as evidence. However, this is precisely the persuasive argument for the atheist. You said that Ed's point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster was specious, because he did not seriously believe in it. Yet somehow your God is more likely to exist, because you do believe.
Leprechauns have a long history in Irish legend, and some superstitious folk actually do believe in them. Really, though, there is no physical proof of their existence. In the absence of such proof, make the simpler assumption: they don't exist. You're not going to persuade that Irish granny, but as long as she isn't doing stupid things in pursuit of Leprechauns, just live and let live. That is the point of view of most atheists.
"The pursuit of stupid things" is where atheists feel a need to intervene. When people like Thag write "It takes faith to believe in the idea that one species can evolve into another - there's no evidence for that either" - keeping their eyes tightly closed to prevent any of that nonexistent evidence froms seeping in - well, that's fine. But: when they expect teachers to regurgitate such nonsense in the classroom where my kids may be sitting, then it suddenly becomes my business, and I won't have it.
Ben David takes another tack on the evils of atheism: "the atheist mindset lessens the imperative to consider 'the greater good' rather than selfish, immediate gain." This is often the view from the religious side of things. The view from the atheist side of things is that religious folk are much more prone to accept "the ends justify the means", because their intentions are so pure. Anyway, if you screw up, all you have to do is pray for forgiveness and everything is peachy - who cares how many lives you screwed up along the way.
The right - but difficult - answer is to study ethics. This is important for both religious and non-religious people. The religious "because god says so" is not an answer but an abdication of responsibility. The value of ethical behavior in the context of society, the meaning of "right" and "wrong", the long-term personal gain from ethical behavior - these are important concepts that can be taught at age-appropriate levels, without appealing to religious authority.
a_random_guy at December 29, 2010 3:08 AM
"Science has NOTHING to contribute to discussions of morality."
False. You say this merely because you have stopped looking; you have set up an artificial boundary, because actual investigation of your faith and its claims would, in your view, harm you.
Scientific investigation reveals the differences between social groups' success rates based on their religious affiliation, for instance. The bonding of a social group which successfully suppresses egotistical competition can be shown as a survival trait for the group. Yes, objective reasons to avoid particular sects can be found.
Now: What other method of investigation, other than scientific, would you suggest?
-----
There is another problem with the way some people use the word "evidence": they use the "absence of evidence" citation as if no one has ever heard of that before.
Sorry - the researcher, not the theologian, has to show her work. And make sure you get this point: for some arguments, there is no "absence of evidence" = there is abundant evidence that something else precluding the assertion of the faithful was actually in place the entire time. Usually, this statement comes up because the user doesn't know what's going on. Again, what do you really know?
You should always think about that before making statements.
Radwaste at December 29, 2010 3:51 AM
Wow.
Holy Mackerel.
I've been on the earth for forty years and have never seen someone so beaten up by his own arguments as JutGory.
The shocking thing is that he has no idea that he has been completely bent over by Ed. More shocking than that, he won't ever understand.
Anyway, on to my point. The reason that atheists get so exercised is that we are very wary of people trying to base U.S. law on their little book. They do it all the time. Look at gay rights issues for example. The only reasons given for oppressive laws against gay marriage and a ban on serving in the military (recently overturned, thank goodness) all boil down to the Bible.
What the fuck is that? We're not a theocracy. Believe your little book all you want, but don't try to turn our country into a slightly different version of Iran.
whistleDick at December 29, 2010 4:15 AM
lujlp: what evidence is there that Lazurus was raised from the dead? FYI evidence means indepentantly verifiable and testable, otherwise it isnt evidence, its testemony
The Bible provides evidence. Besides, testimony is evidence. Granted, history is not scientifically testable. But, that does not mean it is not evidence. The evidence that Lazarus was raised from the dead is the same sort of evidence that shows me that Greeks defeated the Persians in the Persian war, that Socrates was a real person, that Caesar was real, or that King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. All of this is testimony (at least, that is how I understand your definition).
Some evidence is better than others. The Gettysburg Address is testimonial evidence that Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but we also have pictures (and we know where to find his body). There is more scientific evidence to prove the existence of Abraham Lincoln than to prove the existence of Socrates or Caesar, or Lazarus. But, that is not to say there is no evidence. You may choose to disregard the evidence, or doubt its veracity, but you can't base THAT decision on any evidence.
MonicaP: But...I thought Santa was a jolly old elf?
Santa Claus was a character based upon St. Nicklaus (sp?), whose feast day was early in December. He was human. The character of Santa Claus was based upon him. if we are talking about the Saint, he was human and he is dead. If we are talking about the fictional character, nothing more need be said.
Seriously, though, does anyone here grasp the difference between physics and metaphysics? Do you believe that every true statement can be proven true. Godel's proof shows that that is not the case.
So, while "God exists or God does not exist" is a true statement (can we even agree on that?), you cannot prove either of the disjuncts. But, we know, logically, that one of the disjuncts is true. Why do you get all in a huff when, on faith, someone else makes a choice to believe one of them as opposed to the other?
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 5:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811137">comment from JutGoryIf there's evidence of anything, it's that god is kind of an immature and vindictive dipshit:
http://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Of course, the fact that stories are printed in a big old book is not evidence of anything. Do you also believe in Mother Goose?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 5:32 AM
Jut, what little historical evidence regading the bible shows is that it wa writeene decades after the proported authors were dead.
Now if we cant trust that the people who wrote it are who they say they are how can we trust what they wrote?
And even if we can trust what they wrote, they worte Jesus told a crowd of people that some of them would still be alive when the world ended.
Assuming there was a 1 day pregant woman in the crowd, and that child lived to be over 100yrs old, the world still should have ended before 150AD.
How in the hell do you recociliate that? Because quite frankly, based on the very words or your own god(or gods son depending on whether or not you are a trinitarian) it is a lie, and a verifiable lie at that one.
How is it verified, the fact that we are having this conversation means the world did not end a Jebus promised, therefore Jesus either
1 lied
2 didnt know what he has talking about
3 was a fitional charecter who may or may not have been based on a real(though possibly crazy) person
But given either of those three senarioes christianity is not the 'true' religion
luljp at December 29, 2010 5:34 AM
This is the kind of sophomoric thinking that passes for serious comment, even from really smart atheists. Science gives us knowledge, but lots of knowledge is not derived from science.
For example, when a cheating wife is asked why did you cheat on me?" The scientific answer will surely disappoint, with it's molecular explanations, theories of hormonal arousal, and pictorial descriptions of a protuberant clitoris.
When the question is asked, "why did you cheat on me?", we want to know the person's motives. This is not the kind of thing science can grasp.
Science fails us in this question for the same reason it fails us in economics. Purposeful human behavior does not exhibit the regularities of physical systems. Without repeatability, there is no way for science to make judgements.
That doesn't stop people from trying. From these category mistakes, we get the hugely destructive Keynesian and Marxist economics from the application of science to human actions. Let's not carry the destruction into other areas.
This is a ridiculous thing to write. Once again, you blithely assume fundamentalism.
When generations for thousands of years have found some fables useful for teaching prudent behavior, of course we should give them some credence.
Jeff at December 29, 2010 5:59 AM
Lujip, it's pretty clear that you've been drinking :)
whistleDick at December 29, 2010 6:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811189">comment from JeffNone of what I wrote is "ridiculous" -- you just don't understand (or need to cloud) the difference in the questions of "WHY did you cheat on me?" and "Is smoking good for your health?" People have agreements between them and whether to make an agreement with somebody -- an agreement to be each other's one and only, for example -- is best made by looking at the evidence. Does that person's behavior across the board reflect them to be ethical? Are they narcissistic, impulsive, show little empathy, etc.? (These are behaviors often reflected in people who cheat, per Buss and Todd Shackelford's research.)
People who believe in god can only do so by childishly stamping their feet and refusing to use their ability to reason -- which doesn't exactly serve to hone one's ability to reason across the board. Your failures in this department very likely trace back to your emotional need to believe, sans evidence, that a big man in the sky cares about you and your life. PS Who or what do you think created god? (Those with flawed enough logic to believe in god don't seem to ask themselves that question.)
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 6:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811192">comment from whistleDickLuj is dyslexic, but his thoughts are always very sharp.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 6:10 AM
Jeff people has sex because of a biological urge toprocreate which is reinforced by a release of endorphis which make you 'feel good'
As to why people cheat on a spouse - spouse is an asshole and they want to feel better, they have poor impusle control, they are an asshole and dont care about their spouse. Thats pretty much it barring some sort of brain injury
Most human reactions are explainable - thats why before we moved into the age of reason people used to write down those stories you mentioned, becuase it was easier to tell a story about actions and consequences then it was to explain how the brain worked, and it was eaiser becauase at the time they didnt know how the brain worked
lujlp at December 29, 2010 6:39 AM
Amy: Of course, the fact that stories are printed in a big old book is not evidence of anything.
Okay, so, the Persian War never happened. Alexander of Macedonia is a fictional character. Caesar never existed. Moses never existed. The Jews never fled Egypt. King David was not a real person. Christ never existed. These are just characters in big old books that provide no evidence of anything that ever really happened.
Seriously? You are equating Mother Goose with the Lives of Plutarch? That is not a serious question; it is a sarcastic question written in response to a sarcastic question. Age is not a valid basis for discarding historical accounts of events; if that were true, all history would have an expiration date.
But, if you want to dismiss stories in old books, feel free. But, you cannot then say Moses was a real person. Maybe you can say he was real, but you do not believe that the ten plagues of Egypt actually happened.Likewise, you might discard Plutarch's life of Romulus as legendary, while believing that his life of Caesar is accurate. But, you have discarded any basis for doing so, because they are both just old books.
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 6:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811241">comment from JutGoryNobody's trying to base public policy on whether the Persian War happened, so whether it actually happened is unimportant. Also, humans fight. War happens today. It's not some supernatural event. You notice the Pacific Ocean parting so people can hike the ocean floor?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 6:48 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811244">comment from JutGoryBut, if you want to dismiss stories in old books, feel free. But, you cannot then say Moses was a real person.
I have no evidence a person named Moses existed, nor does anyone, and an absolutely unbelievable story about the guy (on the level of Santa flying over the rooftops) isn't evidence.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 6:52 AM
Amy: Nobody's trying to base public policy on whether the Persian War happened, so whether it actually happened is unimportant. Also, humans fight. War happens today. It's not some supernatural event. You notice the Pacific Ocean parting so people can hike the ocean floor?
You are changing the subject. Atheists like to talk on and on about how logical they are, scientific proof, etc. Now you want to change the subject to the utilitarian value of belief.
I am not talking about supernatural events; I am talking about evidence, its probative value, and the way individuals weigh that value. Like I said, you can believe that Moses existed, and disbelieve the ten plagues occured, because they do not comport with your experience. Fine, but I can no more disprove a miracle that someone experiences than I can disprove an alien abduction to someone who claims to have experienced one. They are not testable experiences. That does not mean I have to believe they occurred, but I am content with the understanding that it is something I am probably never going to be able to prove or disprove. I just know that such events are outside my realm of experience, and can weigh that evidence as I see fit.
And, no, I have not seen the Pacific Ocean part. But, what if it did? What would that prove? God? Aliens? Some other cause? And, what if science did not have an answer? Perhaps, science could find an explanation. But, if the true answer is "God" (and that is a logical possibility), I do not believe science could demonstrate that, because God is metaphysical (put another way, outside the realm of empirical knowledge), and the parting of the ocean is physical.
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 7:06 AM
Amy: I have no evidence a person named Moses existed, nor does anyone, and an absolutely unbelievable story about the guy (on the level of Santa flying over the rooftops) isn't evidence.
Okay, so what, in your view, constitutes evidence when it comes to historical events, because most of what we have comes in the form of writings and stories? Because I think you have evidence of Moses. It is called the Bible. Now, you may weigh that evidence lightly, compared to Caesar who, like Moses, who apparently wrote some of those stories himself. You can even disregard IN TOTAL all of the "unbelievable" stories about him. That is fine. But, are you saying that because unbelievable stories were told about him that there is no evidence that he existed? I have no problem with someone who says, "yeah, Moses probably existed, and he probably led the Jews out of Egypt, but I do not believe in the ten plagues, because that is not something I understand." And, that is fine. Different people will weigh evidence in different manners.
You may say that there is MORE evidence for Caesar (coins with his image, vases with his image, more historical texts about him (creating corroborating evidence), etc.) and thus, a stronger case to be made in weighing the evidence.
But, to say that there is NO evidence that Moses existed is puzzling.
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 7:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811258">comment from JutGoryMoses MAY have existed. Frozen yogurt MAY levitate. Until I have proof of either, I'm not going to act as if they do. It's not adult or rational thinking to do so, despite the fact that many people over the age of majority, in 2010, act as if it is.
Again, a book of stories naming a guy called Moses is not evidence for Moses' existence. Maybe he existed, maybe not.
There are stories about Zeus, too. Do you believe in Zeus?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:23 AM
But I wrote specifically to distinguish between two kinds of questions: scientific and non-scientific. I wrote to persuade you that most important questions cannot be answered by science.
The question is "why did you cheat?" That is, why did you break the agreement, not why you should enter it. Cloudy.
By the way, Shackelford's book "Female Infidelity And Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-cuckoldry Tactics" is why I disagree with you about some dating practices. Male and female mating strategies are as competitive as they are cooperative.
Back to our questions. Let's look more closely at the question "Is smoking good for your health?" This is not a scientific question. There is no scientific meaning that can be attached to the words 'good' and 'health' in that sentence.
You might ask, "Does smoking reduce total lung capacity?"That's scientific. Whether the effects of smoking are good or reflect health is a non-scientific evaluation based on human motives. For some, diminished total lung capacity is worth the social and physical payoff. For others, not.
There is no objective standard of value. Human value systems do not exhibit regularity. Purposeful human action can't be studied by scientific methods.
Likewise, questions like "Does that person's behavior across the board reflect them to be ethical? Are they narcissistic, impulsive, show little empathy, etc.? " are not scientific, either. There is no scientific meaning to the term 'ethical.' It's a term of human motives.
We can ask, "Does general agreement breaking correlate with agreement-breaking in mating?" That's scientific. But you won't get a causal explanation out of that.
Some of the most brilliant scientists in human history were devoutly religious. Newton and Galileo, to name just two. This is adequate refutation of your claim, I think.
How do you now what I believe? If there's any failure, it's your own fantasies about other people's motives and beliefs - sans evidence. Unscientific. Unsound even on prudential grounds.
Really? Plato asked the same question. Aristotle asked it. Every major Christian theologian im history has grappled with the problem, albeit not conclusively or very successfully.
Hello? Aquinas, anyone? Have you read the major writings in Christian theology, Amy?
Sometimes, atheists are wholly ignorant of the the things they critique. I remember, reading Dennet's book "The God Delusion". He dismisses Aquinas with one sentence! It's precisely analogous to creationists dismissing evolution with a flourish of the Bible.
Thomas Paine argues much more persuasively for atheism than modern advocates of scientism (by which I mean science as an ideology).
Jeff at December 29, 2010 7:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811262">comment from JeffI didn't phrase the question well, but you can make determinations about what is sensible behavior based on solid scientific evidence, and the questions are NOT commensurate. I would never dispute that male and female mating practices are competitive -- I read about it and write about that all the time -- and, yes, they are also "cooperative," when it serves the players.
In short: My beliefs are based in evidence. If I have no evidence for something, I don't believe in it.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:30 AM
George Washington MAY have existed. Frozen yogurt MAY levitate. Until I have proof of either, I'm not going to act as if they do. It's not adult or rational thinking to do so, despite the fact that many people over the age of majority, in 2010, act as if it is.
Again, a book of stories naming a guy called George Washington is not evidence for Washington's existence. Maybe he existed, maybe not.
There are stories about Zeus, too. Do you believe in Zeus?
Giraffe at December 29, 2010 7:31 AM
Giraffe, not quite getting the point you're trying to make -- are you for or against what I'm saying? Why are you copying my words and changing them slightly?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:39 AM
Do you think Mount Vernon is a mirage, and that thousands of letters by George Washington and accounts of the Constitutional Congress, etc., are faked?
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:41 AM
If George Washington was a made-up figure, is the Constitution any less valuable?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:43 AM
If Moses never existed, is the fable any less valuable?
Jeff at December 29, 2010 7:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811275">comment from JeffWhat value does the fable have?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811282">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and your "logic" in thinking that you can smash these two together to be considered as if they are similar or equivalent is rather amazing.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 7:57 AM
The story of the Exodus has bound together many peoples struggling against nature, tyranny and ill fortune. For example, the Cavaliers in the English civil War, escaped American slaves, the "city on a hill" described by Gov. Winthrop to the early American colonists, 1960's civil rights leaders like Dr. King saw their struggle in terms of the Exodus and drew strength from it. The Moses story has inspired people for millennia.
I took the question seriously, but I'm surprised it has to be asked. The Exodus is arguably the most influential story in Western history, over the long-term since the early medieval period.
A culture is probably best defined as a collection of shared stories. A decadent culture (from the Latin, literally de-cadenced or out of step) is one lacking shared stories. Shared religious stories like the Exodus have helped preserve cultures, liberate peoples, and inspire leaders to action.
Jeff at December 29, 2010 8:07 AM
They are similar. The value of the things produced do not depend upon the historical exigencies of their production.
I've not used the term 'logic' in our discussion, so I presume you mean to demean my reasoning by the scare quotes? I dunno.
Jeff at December 29, 2010 8:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811292">comment from JeffStories of the underdog seem to be satisfying and helpful to people, yes, but you've gotten off-track here.
Whether George Washington existed is rather immaterial to the value of the Constitution.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 8:17 AM
Well Jut how do you know anything at all existed until just a moment ago when god created us all fully implanted with a backstory?
You talk of evidence? Most evidence shows the gospels were not written by the people it claims they were written by, mark wa probably writeen first and the rest were copies o that decades alster as more was added to the story.
There is no archeological evidence of a million person thron wandering the siani for 40 some years, there is acheological evidence of the persians, and macedonian, and phonecians, even creteans. Does that fact that a real labyrinth was found on create lead you to belives that posidesn took the form af a bull to fuck the kings wife? Or that she gave birth to minotaur? Or that kidnapped Icarus flew so close to the sun that his wings melted and he died?
Because the closer to the sun you get the colder it gets in case ou didnt know.
I'll grant you taht the bible does contain some relevent data, just look at the discovery of Troy. Also note no one has ever found the Ilse of Circe or her magic potion to turn men into swine.
lujlp at December 29, 2010 8:44 AM
Also RE: Ceaser, Washington, ect
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE BOOK ABOUT THEM FROM MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY AND MORE THAN ONE CULTURE
lujlp at December 29, 2010 8:47 AM
Amy, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to this subject and Sloan's self-serving piece is an embarrassment to logic and science. His analogy is inept and his conclusion is totally unjustified. If he doesn't want to debate creationists, that's completely fine, but he cannot avoid doing so and still claim to be behaving fairly or with an open and scientific mind.
As for your attempt to excuse murderous atheists because they did not ALWAYS kill "in the name of atheism", (they did explictly do so at times: see The League of the Militant Godless, among others), you're simply parroting one of Sam Harris's dumber arguments. By that logic, Camels don't cause cancer because one doesn't smoke "in the name of Camel". Correlation is not causation, but the correlation between "historical atheist leader" and "mass murderer" is much stronger than most correlations that are generally considered to be causal. Only two out of thousands of religious European leaders ever murdered more than 20,000 of their own subjects, whereas 52 of the 89 confirmed atheists leaders did.
Now, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. But if you're going to claim to live by reason and evidence, you should at least attempt to get your historical facts and logic straight. Also, Giraffe is rather politely attempting to point out to you that you do not understand the difference between "evidence" and "scientific evidence", which tends to raise a question concerning upon what you are living if you don't even know what evidence is.
As for the so-called "threat" to science education that is inevitably summoned by the evolutionists as an excuse to oppose creationism, it is worth noting that it is utterly absurd to worry about whether evolution, creationism, or phlogistonism are taught to the increasingly illiterate and innumerate denizens of the modern public schools.
VD at December 29, 2010 9:00 AM
lujlp: Well Jut how do you know anything at all existed until just a moment ago when god created us all fully implanted with a backstory?
Simply put, you don't. If someone wants to play the perpetual skeptic, they can always question the certainty of anything. But, I have no trouble having confidence in my own judgment about what to believe and what weight to give things. Reason and logic inform those judgments.
lujlp: Also RE: Ceaser, Washington, ect
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE BOOK ABOUT THEM FROM MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY AND MORE THAN ONE CULTURE
I think this might miss the point. Quantity of evidence just goes to the relative weight of evidence. The fact that there are many books about or by Caesar does add greater and greater support for the proposition that he existed (and some of the things he did). However, that you only have a a single account does not necessarily mean that it has no evidentiary value.
Apart from Moses, you have King David, King Solomon, or Daniel. I do not know if there is corroborating evidence of their existence from other sources, but I have no reason to think that they did not exist. And, just because I say that the Bible provides me with sufficient evidence of their existence does not mean I have to believe that every miracle described in the Bible occurred as it happened. By the same token, I can read the Iliad and the Odyssey and believe that there was a Helen of Troy, without believing that Achilles was dipped into some magical river that gave him special powers.
These are not all-or-nothing propositions here.
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 9:11 AM
Yes, just as the historical existence of Moses is rather immaterial to the value of the Exodus story.
Logically similar. Right on track.
We should worry. Science classes are for science. Science is the best way to describe and explain physical causation. We shouldn't mix different kinds of explanations into science classes.
We shouldn't teach religion in science classes. Religion gives us shared stories about the past, and shared metaphors and allegories to help us communicate and understand one another. That's got shite to do with science.
It's also the reason science cannot function as an ideology. It neither moves the passions, nor is it accessible to the common man who must uphold the ideology. Science cannot bind a peoples together.
Jeff at December 29, 2010 9:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811328">comment from JeffYes, just as the historical existence of Moses is rather immaterial to the value of the Exodus story
The value of the Exodus story is minimal -- objectively, no more than any other underdog story of similar literary merit. The fact that people believe in The Imaginary Friend causes them to attribute great value to it. It promotes the idea that appeals especially to the childish, irrational mind that one is "special" and "chosen," and that a big man in the sky will come look out for you when the mean people prey upon you. I find that message rather damaging and a message that you must take charge of your life and not expect supernatural forces to help you, a much more realistic and therefore more positive one.
So...do you believe in Zeus?
You have spongy logic and arguments and I have no desire to continue in what is a boring waste of my time.
If anyone else would like to continue with Jeff, have at it.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 9:34 AM
My apologies, I am not a debate champion.
As Vox and Jeff more articulately stated, I was merely pointing out there is evidence that Moses existed. It may not be the same quantity or quality from your point of view of that for George Washington, but is of the same type.
There are other figures, Plato and Socrates for example, for whom there is far less evidence for than Jesus Christ, yet many will reject the latter because of bias against religion, and accept the former.
As for the value of the Constitution, it doesn't have a lot of value today, in case you haven't noticed all the extra-constitutional programs and laws that our Federal Leviathan has produced over the last 75 years or so.
Giraffe at December 29, 2010 9:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811338">comment from GiraffeThere's a great deal of evidence that George Washington existed, but it really doesn't matter whether he did or not, in terms of whether we should should base how we live on what's written in the Constitution.
I don't have to believe that Socrates lived to see that some of what he said had value. The same goes for some of what was supposedly said by a man who supposedly existed named Jesus.
I'm certainly not going to worship god, Jesus, Socrates, or George Washington.
Also, people may go beyond the limits of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean what's written in it is any less valuable, just that there have been abuses.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 9:45 AM
Once again, a very unserious response. I'll stop boring myself, too.
I disfavor creationism as mixing religion, which explains nothing, and science which explains physical causes. Religion describes the human condition. Science explains the condition of humans.
As the devout Galileo wrote, "Religion tells how to go to Heaven. Science tells how the heavens go." No matter whether you think there is a Heaven, he precisely located the crucial issue.
Jeff at December 29, 2010 9:47 AM
It's also the reason science cannot function as an ideology. It neither moves the passions, nor is it accessible to the common man who must uphold the ideology. Science cannot bind a peoples together.
Science isn't meant to function as an ideology. It's a process. Ideology frequently keeps people focused on a single path and ignoring the better answers off to the side.
If science doesn't move your passions, you lack imagination. I spent a childhood dreaming of visiting the moon because science made that a physical possibility in my world. It has helped me understand people and the world in a way religion never has.
I am of average intelligence, and I find it pretty accessible if I try. Some of it is completely beyond me, but there's always the chance I'll understand it if I work hard enough, and the rewards of working to understand it are tangible.
People are bound together by their mutual desire for survival. You seem stuck on this idea that if we remove religion, we need to replace it with something.
As for the value of the Constitution, it doesn't have a lot of value today,
Would you support eliminating our Constitution and seeing what happens?
MonicaP at December 29, 2010 9:49 AM
Would you support eliminating our Constitution and seeing what happens?
No. I am saying it is being eliminated piece by piece. All that remains is to disarm the average citizen and it is as good as toilet paper.
Giraffe at December 29, 2010 9:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811357">comment from MonicaPThank you MonicaP. I just didn't have it in me today.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 9:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811360">comment from JeffAs the devout Galileo wrote, "Religion tells how to go to Heaven. Science tells how the heavens go." No matter whether you think there is a Heaven, he precisely located the crucial issue.
As for this idiocy, religion tells you what serves religion: Remain in fear of burning up in a place there's no evidence for and you will continue wasting hours of your life on Sunday offering words of prayer to a big guy in the sky there's no evidence exists.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 10:02 AM
Amy,
Wow!!! I had no idea this thread was still continuing. I, like yourself, got feed up with Jut and Jeff desperately trying to sound logical while all along removing any logic what-so-ever. I find it fascinating however that they don't seem to realize the frivolity of their arguments. Using convoluted logic in an attempt to sound intelligent, all the while cherry-picking only the subject matter that they deem to prove there unsubstantiated claims, has been a great source of humor to me.
Believers live in the hypothetical world of what-if. Faith demands this position because without it they have nothing to substantiate there assertion that god does indeed exist. Theists want science to prove them wrong, while conveniently making a conundrum placed in a paradox wrapped up tight in faith, so this possibility is impossible (re: Jut and Jeff). Science however proceeds to hypothesize on a subject, collect all empirical data, conduct experiments and set out to prove themselves wrong. Religion cannot follow this formula for they know the evidence against god far outweighs the evidence for god rendering there hypothesis moot.
Have a great New Year and keep up the good work…..
Ed at December 29, 2010 10:57 AM
You all do realize that the title of this blog is "Advice Goddess Blog". For an avowed atheist who claims to not worship anything, I find that ironic, at the very least.
As for creationism vs evolution vs intelligent design and all that nonsense: would an atheist seriously renounce atheism if evolution was proven false? Likewise, would a Christian renounce faith in God if evolution was proven true? Both questions are highly hypothetical and rhetorical. They were designed to illustrate the meaningless vanity of these debates. The truth is, it's about bashing religion or non-religion, depending on which side you fall on. It has nothing to do with faith or science at all, given my observations of the debaters.
swiftfoxmark2 at December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811390">comment from EdSame to you, Ed. And thanks for your coherent and logical thoughts. It's so amazing how simply things can be explained when one's goal isn't obfuscating to "prove" a point.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 11:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811391">comment from swiftfoxmark2You all do realize that the title of this blog is "Advice Goddess Blog". For an avowed atheist who claims to not worship anything, I find that ironic, at the very least.
Oh, how dippy. I was "The Advice Lady" but shared the trademark with two other women. I picked up my first paper in syndication and needed a name fast. My friend Terry Rossio suggested "Amy Alkon, Opinionated Bitch," which I loved, but I thought I'd have some trouble getting in some papers with it. My business card read "Amy Alkon, Freelance Goddess." I became "The Advice Goddess." It's a joke, but feel free to irrationally worship me as your Supreme Being, and leave $1,000 in small bills in my PayPal jar just to your left.
Regarding "seriously renouncing atheism!" -- atheism isn't some form of alt. religion people cling to. It's merely a term used to describe many very different people who require evidence before believing in things.
If you do not require evidence before believing in things, well, believe that I'm god and give me all your money.
Also, there's a great deal of evidence supporting evolution. Not surprisingly, you don't seem to understand what "theory" means in science. Google it, and read.
You have the capacity to reason -- best not to stick it in the bottom cupboard with the early model George Foreman Grill.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 11:11 AM
Ed: Using convoluted logic in an attempt to sound intelligent, all the while cherry-picking only the subject matter that they deem to prove there unsubstantiated claims, has been a great source of humor to me.
I do not believe I have ever said things will "prove" my claims.
Ed: Theists want science to prove them wrongwhile conveniently making a conundrum placed in a paradox wrapped up tight in faith, so this possibility is impossible (re: Jut and Jeff).
Actually, I have said no such thing. My whole point is that science and theology are separate. I don't expect science can prove me wrong and I do not expect it can prove me right. My point was that it is that the existence or non-existence of god is not knowable in any scientific sense (even though, logically, we know one of those two statements is true-well, I do, at least: I don't believe you ever acknowledged that fact).
But, at least you were amused. As I say, "anything for a laugh." And, as the adage goes, "ignorance is bliss."
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 11:19 AM
Amy, I'm happy that the What's the Harm link from yesterday was a useful one for you. If I might be allowed to offer another link helpful for these kinds of discussions, it would be Iron Chariots. It's a counter-apologetics website created by some members of the Atheist Community of Austin, and it deals with the most common apologetics and answers to them.
For example, the earlier comments regarding constructs of logical arguments bears a striking similarity to the beginning of the Transcendental Argument for God. Although, it may merely be one of TAG's apologectics cousins. (Or even the beginning of something entirely original, but there don't seem to be many new apologetics coming along these days. All that I have seen appear to be mere rehashings of already discredited stuff.) I've found it useful to have some familiarity with apologetics during discussions with theists so that I can have some idea of the road they're headed down. I hope the site is useful to you or perhaps some of your readers.
I enjoy your site and reading the discussions here. Thanks for providing it!
chickity at December 29, 2010 11:40 AM
If you want a clear example of the distinction between religious faith & scientific reasoning, look at the Aztecs. They sincerely believed that if they didn't offer up human sacrifices every day, the Gods would be angry, the Sun would not rise, and the world would end. They put this belief into practice by dragging people to the top of a temple & ripping out their vital organs while they were still alive. Every day of the year, for centuries. And any skeptical Aztec who questioned this belief quickly found himself on the altar as the next sacrifice.
You don't get to dismiss this as a misguided attempt to apply faith to a question of physical causation, because this belief was at the very center of Aztec cosmology - without it, their entire religion made no sense. Do we need to debate the morality of perpetual human sacrifice?
Not every religion demands human sacrifice, but all religions have a priestly class whose claim to be able to interpret the word of God gives them status & power over their fellow human beings, which they frequently abuse & always guard very jealously. Any debate about religion in the abstract that doesn't recognize this power is of limited value. It's not just about story-telling.
Martin at December 29, 2010 11:43 AM
"As for creationism vs evolution vs intelligent design and all that nonsense: would an atheist seriously renounce atheism if evolution was proven false?"
Problem here is evolution is not false. Except in the minds of all those who refute the very provable science behind it. But I will say this, if god showed up at my door and preformed a miracle and then wisked me away to heaven I would be inclined to change my mind.
“Likewise, would a Christian renounce faith in God if evolution was proven true?”
We already know the answer to this and it’s clearly no. Faith never allows for a deviation in of itself regardless of any evidentiary evidence to the contrary.
“Both questions are highly hypothetical and rhetorical.”
This may well be the most absurd thing anyone said during this thread…..
“My whole point is that science and theology are separate.”
So is science and science fiction.
“My point was that it is that the existence or non-existence of god is not knowable in any scientific sense (even though, logically, we know one of those two statements is true-well, I do, at least: I don't believe you ever acknowledged that fact).”
Of course one of those statements is true. God does not exist. You can apply that logic to anything. A 2+2=4 or A 2+2= not 4. Most assuredly one of those statements is true and one is false. If you choose to believe the later you are wrong.
“And, as the adage goes, "ignorance is bliss."
You would know…..
Ed at December 29, 2010 11:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRH50fvHWA
Joshua_D at December 29, 2010 11:46 AM
I know it was a joke, I was just having some fun at your expense.
Oh, believe me, I know of no atheist who would die for atheism. Granted, most Christians would probably not die in the name of Jesus, but there would be some. There are, however, no atheists in theocracies because they are unwilling to put their lives on the line for their beliefs in reason and science. Their lives are, at the end of the day, all they have to cling to.
I suppose you missed the whole point of my initial post. My point is that the debate between creationism and evolution is utter nonsense and to waste your time on such things is vanity, a chasing after the wind. We're here now. How we got here isn't all that important in the grand scheme of our mundane and short lives on this barely habitable rock we call home. The only people who find it important are the scientists whose very livelihood (and government grants) depend on it, the atheist who likes to bash the religious, and the religious Christian who stretches the vague story of creation in Genesis into some incoherent theory.
swiftfoxmark2 at December 29, 2010 11:53 AM
Ed: Of course one of those statements is true. God does not exist. You can apply that logic to anything. A 2+2=4 or A 2+2= not 4. Most assuredly one of those statements is true and one is false. If you choose to believe the later you are wrong.
Again, a false analogy. The latter example is demonstrable (because we know the rules of arithmetic). The former example is not (because we do not have complete knowledge; where you and I may differ is that you believe complete knowledge is possible, while I do not).
And, if god showed up and whisked you off to heaven, I would STILL have a couple questions: 1) how would you know it is god, and 2) how would you know it's heaven. I would still say: you can't know; your scenario, even if completely divine, is not testable. But, even if you BELIEVED that, you could not prove it (scientifically); people claim to witness miracles all the time.
That is my point. There are true statements that cannot be proven. Logic admits that. I think even science (a la Schrodinger's cat) acknowledges that.
-Jut
JutGory at December 29, 2010 11:58 AM
How we got here isn't all that important in the grand scheme of our mundane and short lives on this barely habitable rock we call home.
So, what is the "grand scheme" of our short lives?
MonicaP at December 29, 2010 1:00 PM
Jut,
In all of your attempts to inject logic (as if it is some magic bullet) you forget to apply reason. You can’t have logic without reason (defined: as a cause that explains a particular phenomenon). So A~an omnipotent magical god created the universe or A> an omnipotent magical god did not create the universe. Now you could logically come to the conclusion that the former is true based on the fact you can’t prove a false negative. But is it reasonable to come to that conclusion? Some where in this logic formula you keep using reason must be injected for the model to have any validity. If you want to apply logic sans reason that is your prerogative, I however refuse to do so. Removing reason from logic turns logic into faith.
Ed at December 29, 2010 1:04 PM
My point is atheists and science are not holier than thou, pun intended, just because people do bad things in the name of religion. People do bad things in the name of science or reason just as well. People do bad things for any excuse they can think of.
Personally I find no conflict between science and religious faith. My faith is my own. Show me all the scientific proof you want about anything, and I can accept its validity without conflict to my faith.
hadsil at December 29, 2010 2:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811473">comment from hadsilhadsil, atheism is neither "holy" nor "unholy" because "atheist" is merely a term that describes people who require evidence before they'll believe in something.
As for your faith, do you have faith in Zeus or just the Christian god?
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2010 2:52 PM
"hadsil, atheism is neither "holy" nor "unholy" because "atheist" is merely a term that describes people who require evidence before they'll believe in something." - Amy
Amy, why do you keep saying that? That's not what 'atheist' means.
Joshua_D at December 29, 2010 4:25 PM
My GOD woman.
Do you realize that of the 95 comments up above, 26 of them are yours?
Youre a virtual POSTER CHILD of the argumentive internet atheist. Half of them are mindless cheerleading with no substance at all.
It's all reminiscent of the ex-girlfriend who always had to get the last word in and for that reason she's decidedly the EX-girlfriend.
JD Curtis at December 29, 2010 4:50 PM
"Show me all the scientific proof you want about anything, and I can accept its validity without conflict to my faith."
Well, you'd be the odd duck at best. Catalhoyuk, ice cores, animal husbandry and simple geology deny the "Flood". The laws of physics deny any ability of prayer - which is simple begging - to influence the progression of cause to effect. Editing by the Council of Nicea establishes that the Bible™ is neither complete nor flawless (so does the inclusion of some interesting other material in the KJV). Modern Nazareth was a burial site and unoccupied 2010 years ago...
... what remains is that the core message Jesus carried, of unheralded sacrifice for the greater good, stands almost alone among the petty issues and pretty tales in the Bible.
If you don't know how the real world works, you can believe a lot more stuff in the Bible™ than someone who does. Cue The Irony of Faith: you literally cannot have faith in a thing you know for sure.
(Forums work a lot better than blogs for hashing this out - there's just more room.)
Radwaste at December 29, 2010 5:28 PM
I haven't read every comment -- but whenever someone mentions the flood -- I always have to ask about the koala and the panda:
Let's see -- koala's eat nothing but eucalyptus leaves from eucalyptus trees. They then swam all the way from Australia (probably dragging the eucalyptus trees behind them), dragged the trees across the dessert, boarded this boat they didn't know existed. Lived for however long. Then after the waters descended -- dragged the trees back to Australia. Replanted the trees and live happily ever after.
The giant panda just had to drag the bamboo plants from China to Israel overland and then board the boat. Then go back to China.
Of course there is no reason for the difference between african and asian elephants. But that is a side story.
Jim P. at December 29, 2010 9:13 PM
> atheism isn't some form of alt. religion people cling to. It's merely a term used to describe many very different people who require evidence before believing in things.
Either your logic is fractured and contradictory, or by your own definition you don't believe in free will, love, or consciousness. Nor do you believe that life originated on this planet. You must not believe in the Cambrian Explosion since no evidence exists to explain that essential element of natural selection, nor do you believe in natural selection itself, since it has never been observed.
gecko at December 29, 2010 10:01 PM
Regarding the original point of this post, I am in full agreement with the sentiments expressed by Wilson and, by association, Ms. Alkon.
Because creationists deny the evident truths known to all devotees of Science and admirers of Scientists, it is quite appropriate to deny them any public voice or, for that matter, any role at all in government. Once their politico-religious stance is known, an ad hoc analysis of their evolutionarily inspired motives can proceed, and their usefulness can be dismissed forthwith.
As with all other useless and enervating beliefs that deny the proper centrality of Science in determining the course of human affairs and, indeed, the correct thoughts and feelings of all humans, creationism must be thoroughly eradicated by the just and honorable defenders of Her righteousness and glory.
May you remember my humble pleasantries when you come to power in the next great atheist totalitarian dictatorship.
Dave at December 29, 2010 11:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1811686">comment from JD CurtisDo you realize that of the 95 comments up above, 26 of them are yours?
Perhaps you didn't notice the funny way my name is over the top of the blog, but it's actually my blog, so I tend to participate in conversations here.
I probably shouldn't have participated in this one to the extent I did because it's people who have evidence-free beliefs putting up various smokescreens to hide that.
Feel free to add something substantive to the discussion at any point.
Amy Alkon at December 30, 2010 12:14 AM
My substantive point is that it is perfectly appropriate to exclude creationists if they are wrong by default and you have absolute power.
Y'all are arguing about whether they are wrong by default, which is a category error. That is a fact-centered argument that can never be solved, since evolution by definition can never be demonstrated in "real time."
What y'all are dancing around is the ethical question of defining who must be excluded from public policy discussions. Your answer evidently is that anyone who says certain words is de facto insane and must be excluded beforehand.
However, according to the standard atheist evolutionist victimization narrative, y'all make up at best 20% of the US electorate. I am certain, nevertheless, that you will find a way to obtain political power over those you hate.
Dave at December 30, 2010 8:25 AM
"Either your logic is fractured and contradictory, or by your own definition you don't believe in free will, love, or consciousness. Nor do you believe that life originated on this planet. You must not believe in the Cambrian Explosion since no evidence exists to explain that essential element of natural selection, nor do you believe in natural selection itself, since it has never been observed."
Most of this is false, and that is because proper definitions are not being used. "Free will", "love", "consciousness", you note, do not depend on any particular religion to exist; this establishes each concept's independence from whatever mythology you favor. The Cambrian Explosion is likewise independent of regious thought, does not preclude the existence of a similar process on an extrasolar planet, and occurred fully in compliance with natural laws absent external influence.
Natural selection has been observed - and in fact, you have seen it yourself, done it yourself when you shunned the chick with poor personal hygiene. I suggest that the definition of "natural selection" is being ignored here.
When will you get it?
See this brief about "free will".
By the way, Dave, that's a fine display of the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Bzzzt!
It is possible for anyone to put themselves first and allow, or even cause, others to suffer. Whether some of them excuse themselves by citing a "higher power" does not change this.
Radwaste at December 30, 2010 8:31 AM
Hi Amy, first time poster..found this through scienceblogs too. Some of the arguments made here don't make much sense to me.
"would an atheist seriously renounce atheism if evolution was proven false"
First, evolution does not coexist with atheism. They are not the same thing and tying them together like that is silly. Many theists do accept evolution remember.
To rephrase your question, "Would someone who believes in evolution, if it were proven false, reject evolution?" or "If someone who does not believe in god, and god were proven to exist, would they denounce their atheism?"
Yes. I am an atheist and I believe that evolution is really what happened. However, if tomorrow someone were to show me strong evidence against evolution, I would be the first to denouce it. Many "evolutionists" think this way. Many scientists think the way. Richard Dawkins himself said that if the evidence was strong enough, he would abandon evolution. (Of course he goes on to say that the possibility of someone coming up with as much evidence against evolution as we already have for it is negligable)As for the god existing one, I have to modify my answer on that one. This depends greatly on what the "proof" is. If I were alone looking up at the sky, and the stars themselves began to move and spell out a message in the sky, "I am your creator! how can you doubt my power now?" Then the first thought I would have would not be "welp, god must exist" it would be "well, I think I have suffered some very severe brain damage or ingested some phsycadelic drugs." However, if the "proof" were something that EVERYONE could see, and test, and varify, then I would indeed accept it. Personal experience does not costitute proof.
"Likewise, would a Christian renounce faith in God if evolution was proven true? Both questions are highly hypothetical and rhetorical."
No, they would not. That is the main difference I see between the atheists and the believers. Their book is the final and true word no matter what happens and nothing will change thier mind. To me, evolution has already been proven, it's been proven for many years. And yet most theist still reject it. Has anyone "proven" to me that an atom is made up electrons that orbit a nucleus of neutron and protons? No. But do I accept it? Of course. Becuase the scientists who are just as skeptical as I am have take it not as a theory, but as a truth.
As you can clearly see, they are not hypothetical.
greame at December 30, 2010 9:35 AM
"Evolution" as the method used to run the world cannot prove or disprove the existence of G0d. By definition, creation means that the world (universe) appeared from nonexistence into existence. By the definition of G0d as omnipotent and omniscient, the universe could have been created at the "Big Bang" or just now with you sitting at a computer and this message on the screen. There is no falsifiable way of determining what happened.
In science, we must assume that the physical evidence did indeed exist at a previous time and, unless there is an obvious discontinuity, the "laws of nature" were consistent throughout. In fact, the Jewish calendar is based on calculations that go back to the "New moon before creation". Science and the physical universe cannot be considered to prove or disprove creation. All it can do is assume that at whatever point creation may or may not have occurred, the "laws of nature" were consistent from that point on.
The bible actually implies this. As an example consider the sentence in Genesis "Fruit trees bearing fruit". Also consider the logical implication of Adam being created able to see stars. This implies that the stars were created with a sufficient ring of light around them to be visible from however far away they are.
BTW, atheism means the rigid belief that there is no G0d. agnosticism means that a person has not come to a fixed conclusion. deism means that a person believes that there is a G0d but does not know what He requires of us or what his specific relationship (active or passive) might be with us.
Sabba Hillel at December 30, 2010 9:59 AM
gecko regarding the 'cambrian explosion' do you ever look up the terms you referece?
If you had you would have seen that reasearch from the last 35 yrs shows the cambrian explosion to be no more signifigant that any other diversification after mass extintion events.
Infct many species were belived to be miss catoluged in their time frames and pre date the 'explosion'
And dave evolution has been seen in action
Look at the birds in the galapagoes, look at the fossils of the pygmie mastadons on the Catalinas after they were cut off from the mainland, look at the fact that desert sqirrels, but not mountain sqirrels are developing a strong natrual resitance to snake venom
lujlp at December 30, 2010 11:01 AM
No. Maybe for some, but for me and many others, atheism means there is no scientific evidence to conclude that there is a God, so there is no reason to believe in one. If someone presented proof tomorrow that there is in fact a God, I would change my mind. Many people trip over this.
MonicaP at December 30, 2010 11:03 AM
MonicaP and others: Your definition of yourself is not "atheism" according to the literal meaning. For example
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+atheism&FORM=DTPDIA&qpvt=atheism+definition
unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
[ Late 16th century.
agnostic
Definition
ag·nos·tic
[ ag nóstik ]
To hear the pronunciation, install Silverlight
ag·nos·tics Plural
NOUN
1.
somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
2.
somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
"I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens."
This is partly what causes problems in discussions on the matter. In any case, the discussion about "creationism" is also difficult because people overlook the logical results of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing) and make assumptions that do not follow.
So far nobody has actually said anything that actually disproves (or proves) creation. For example, if we saw actual evolution in progress over the past year, all that would show would be that evolution is a valid procedure now. Creation means that everything came into being and continued on from there. Part of that creation would have been the fossils as well. That is also why I mentioned that Adam could see the stars.
As an analogy, if Adam had cut down a tree, he would have seen and been able to count the tree rings. He would also have had a navel even though he was not "born".
Sabba Hillel at December 30, 2010 12:47 PM
Sabba you gave us a dictonary definition of atheism as being a disbelief in gods, note it did not say how that idea is formed, also you used a definition from the 16th century
Because in an eariler argument you said atheism is a "RIGID" belief that there is no god.
There is a world of difference between saying 'I dont belive in gods', and saying 'I Know there is no god'
You have two types of athiests, the type that say there is no god, and the type that say there is no evidence of a god and therefore no need to kill the guy who wears the wrong kind of animal pelt or mutilate various body parts.
The second type of atheists differ from agnostics in that agnostics belive their might be a god, and since its a possibility they are to chicken shit to commit to either side of the argument and just plan to sit on the ideological fence in a piss poor attempt to appease both sides.
I will say I have more respect for diests than theists. Ideologically speaking there is a far better argument to be made for a dead beat dad god then the kind of fantasic, unrealistic, and unrealized god figure most theiests worship.
luljp at December 30, 2010 1:12 PM
"Holier than thou" is a figure of speech.
I'm Jewish.
hadsil at December 30, 2010 2:36 PM
"Has anyone "proven" to me that an atom is made up electrons that orbit a nucleus of neutron and protons?"
That's because you haven't looked. I won't ask you to dig up a copy of Nuclides and Isotopes, by GE Nuclear Energy, at the library, but you could. The dramatic evidence of atomic bombs at work aside, maybe you need a picture.
Ok. Here.
Radwaste at December 31, 2010 7:25 AM
"So far nobody has actually said anything that actually disproves (or proves) creation."
Sabba, that is why I have asked for a definition, and for someone, anyone, to point at an example.
Because there is no example in view. Lots of people make things up when they don't know an answer. Is that really responsible behavior in this case?
The faithful, in my experience, detest and avoid definitions, because then they have to deal with changing their opinion about what the Bible™ says - or what they think it says. Many of them have mistaken the Bible™ for God™, Jesus™ or the Earth itself, in that they establish limits based on Bible™ content.
"Something from nothing, caused by God™" is the closest I've seen to a definition of "Creation™". This is, of course, magic. That's when I enjoy bringing up the life of Hermione Jean Granger...
Radwaste at December 31, 2010 7:42 AM
While I am sure as someone who would be classified a soft atheist, it's things like this that give me sympathy for the theists. As the old saying goes, I'd rather spend an entire day around a family of Jehovah's Witnesses than an hour in the company of a single "hard" atheist, because I'd hear about God a lot less.
Point of fact is, it's probably the agnostic position that is the only truly rational one as far as evidence. While I have concluded, for myself, that the evidence points to the non-existence of and God or Gods, I freely confess I cannot KNOW this with a certainty.
This is where I take great exception to the soi disant rationality claimed by hard atheists - unless you can provide the deductive proofs, you go by the same inductive and abductive reasoning that I have used to reach my conclusion. Both of which, however, do not have the certainty of deductive proofs.
And spare me the sanctimony. I have no evidence that convinces me for the existence of any God or Gods. *I* make no claims. You state with a certainty that there is no God(s), so, indeed you do. Having studied logic at the post-graduate level, I can assure you that the distinction, though subtle, is far from trivial.
I also object to the tendency of people, in general, to lump all Christian thought together. In addition to studying logic and philosophy, I also studied theology (Yes, I learned to be an atheist in divinity school) and arguing with a biblical literalist is far different than arguing with, for example, someone who believes in a Roman Catholic set of beliefs. The former would tend to include the type of creationist that believed the Earth was formed, fully aged, a mere few millenia ago. The latter would argue that the processes from the Big Bang up through Natural Selection was the Mechanism of his God's creation, and the difference is day and night.
The former is the low hanging fruit; but truth be told, lumping the latter in with it is a cheap shot, and unworthy.
I'm also secure enough in my unbelief that it makes no difference to it if indeed Moses, King David, or Jesus existed as historical figures. There is, in fact, a great deal to support a lot of the historical details of the Bible, including many of the biblical figures. To have to insist as an article of faith that because I discount the miraculous tales told about a historical figure, I have to deny the figure himself is just plain silly. I am perfectly capable of separating mythical embellishments attached to such people from the historicity of that person; and as for miracles attributed it is far easier to conclude that a primitive people, who did not understand how the material world worked, were quick to exclaim "Magic! Gods!"
Honestly.
Pete at January 1, 2011 11:40 PM
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you folks about "proving" evolution. I've been told many times by evolutionists that the creationist idea of "proof" for evolution is unrealistic because what they are arguing against (the origin of new "species" such as homo sapiens) happens only in "deep time."
The point that Amy wants to make with this post, obviously, is that the dogmatic evolutionist hates pluralism in public policy debates. He is always right and the other people are moonbats who need to be locked up so that society can progress toward a scientific utopia.
And all the atheist evolutionists shouted: Hail Gaia!
Dave at January 2, 2011 9:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/28/why_you_cant_ar.html#comment-1813805">comment from Davethe dogmatic evolutionist hates pluralism in public policy
How dopey. Science is a search for truth not a propaganda tool for dogma. Creationists and religious people are aggressive in their avoidance of any questions, even, that call into question their beliefs. Science tests and retests and tosses aside that which is proven untrue. Sometimes, there's bad science, but eventually, it is overturned when the evidence is proven to be the product of fraud or error.
Dave, you have to pretend that living life based on evidence is as pathetic as belief in religion. You can't do it.
Join the modern age and use reason.
Amy Alkon at January 2, 2011 10:00 PM
@Amy Alkon
I'm curious: what is your evidentiary standard? Is scientific proof a requirement of your evidentiary standard? When you, Amy Alkon, think of a possible supernatural God who exists outside of natural law: what scenario do you envision in which such a God could show Himself to you in a way which meets your evidentiary standard?
gcotharn at January 4, 2011 8:59 AM
@Amy Alkon
I'm not seeking argument. At this point, I'm just curious to understand your thinking on the matter.
gcotharn at January 4, 2011 9:00 AM
gcotharn, it's pretty clear you have no idea of the extent and behavior of "natural law" in the first place. That makes it mighty hard to couch an answer in any terms you'd understand.
I can tell you, though, that I don't consider anything in the Bible™ to be "evidence", because no work is shown, and because it's a very poor description at best of how the world works. It's mostly about and for people.
But here's one for you. The SI unit, "second", is the interval it takes for a Cs-133 atom to oscillate 9192631770 times between its hyperfine ground states.
Ignoring for a moment that in championing the Bible™ and your existing belief, you are setting yourself as a superior to those people who a) found Cesium, b) found it had isotopes, c) found it had multiple nuclear ground states, and d) discovered that it was superior to a multitude of other isotopes for use in establishing a standard repeatedly measurable to less than one part in 9 billion...
... just change that standard by one part, to 9192631771, or 9192631769, oscillations and back, on command.
Have at it.
Radwaste at January 16, 2011 4:23 PM
Leave a comment