Summations Only

In the US, approximately 35% of the population are theistic evolutionists and 15% believe that God did not intervene in evolution. 45% are Creationists. That is according to this survey.These figures would indicate that most evolutionists believe in an interventionist God (twice as many as those that believe that God doesn't get involved in evolution). This also does not count those theists that believe in an interventionist God, but don't think it intervenes in evolution.Other surveys carried out the US support the view that approximately twice as many theistic evolutionists exist than non-theistic evolutionists. So the statistics would more realistically be 66% of evolutionists are theistic, 33% of them are atheistic/agnostic.

So what damage do I do if I tell them Zeus loves them and Hercules laboured for them and if they would believe in him that he would give them a wonderful life with him in a place called Elysium one day?Now if I am wrong and there is no Zeus, Hercules, Elysium or Tartarus and they live a happy, fulfilled, contented life helping all those they can and harming no one along the way.When they die they are buried and then nothing.Please explain the damage I have caused to them.Be specific.If you are wrong when you tell your children there is no Zeus, Hercules, Elysium or Tartarus and they live a happy, fulfilled, contented life helping all those they can and harming no one along the way.When they die they find themselves facing Zeus and he says to them depart ye into everlasting punishment I never knew you.Being specific.You will be directly responsible for their being in gloomy pit of torment and suffering.

---

Rhetoric aside - I was actually wondering if anybody had seen the topic?

You set it up, I am merely knocking it down. So here goes.Some Abrahamic religions require being tortured in permanent fire unless a person accepts the validity of a specific human sacrifice.Anyway, your post highlights something that interests me enough that I tried to find a way to make it on topic. I went to Exhibition Islam when it came to Manchester. Some of the exhibits were rather fascinating, old Qur'ans, and various things from Islamic history including old scientific equipment and of course I had the chance to speak with an Imam and a variety of Muslims while in a Mosque.They sound exactly like Christian apologists. They claim to have the superior evidence, they claim they can prove the Qur'an is the word of God and so on and so forth. The standard of their evidence for these claims is the same as the kinds of evidence I've seen Christian apologetics come up with their own beliefs. Archaeology, writing style, accurate scientific claims being made centuries before science made them and so on and so forth.What strikes me is that when the other religion does it, its deceptive mush. When the religion that you just happen to believe is true does it - you could be saving the very souls of children so it is justified even if it turns out to be false.This strikes me as a similar, perhaps related though not identical, kind of mindset that is required to believe that evolution and the devil might be connected in some way or that any science that contradicts the plain reading of a religious claim must be something to do with 'atheists'.Naturally, you will say something like 'but my evidence is better!', but really Buz - I have no stake in whose evidence is 'better' whereas you clearly do. And both have appalling standards of evidence that don't lead to the conclusions that those that tout those evidences are trying to make us believe they do. Naturally you will protest, but so do they.

Right, that's what I said. If you don't accept this human sacrifice you get burned for all eternity. That's what some followers of some Abrahamic faiths are certain will happen. They require acceptance of a human sacrifice, the consequences for not are burning in a lake of fire. So it isn't a strawman, instead it was my humourous take on you being so seemingly outraged by sacrifices and burnings. Hmm. I am sure that I said

quote:

---

Naturally, you will say something like 'but my evidence is better!', but really Buz - I have no stake in whose evidence is 'better' whereas you clearly do. And both have appalling standards of evidence that don't lead to the conclusions that those that tout those evidences are trying to make us believe they do. Naturally you will protest, but so do they.

---

I cannot bring myself to defend such contorted logic as apologetics, even for the sake of argument, with the required level of dogheadedness. I would call it 'so called' like I call your 'so called' evidence, but there doesn't seem any reason to highlight that the claims were only 'allegedly' made to me. Do you have reason to doubt that Muslims make the kinds of claims I highlighted, or do you doubt that I went to a Mosque and allowed myself to hear them?For what it is worth, I have offered for several of my Muslim friends to sign up here to do that very thing, but the only ones that have even sounded like they might one day do it have been the ones that are least likely to rely on apologetics and other such 'evidence' for their faith.

The reason why people died of the black plague was because of a disease caused by bacteria carried by fleas primarily carried by rats. (implication: it was just mindless processes).Either that, or a theistic god cursed/blighted/smited the people by unleashing demons upon the earth to possess their bodies and this manifested itself as a bacterial infection.Or perhaps the deistic god, ensured that they set the initial conditions of the universe just right so that people would be vulnerable to the bacteria which it ensured came into being by tweaking those same initial conditions.Since we cannot rule out that the bacterial infection wasn't directed or somehow 'built in to the design of the universe' should we insist that when we teach about it, we include a disclaimer to that effect?Where does this philosophy end? It may well be true that there is 'no way of differentiating between a evolutionary process that has been intelligently designed and a process that is the result of mindless and natural causes.', but that's because the proposition that there was some intelligent design (be it deistic or theistic) is almost always unfalsifiable and possibly constructed so as to be unverifiable.That means that it is not just 'beyond the scope of science', but beyond the scope of knowledge. But unless you want to be guilty of special pleading, you should recommend not just teaching ' that we cannot tell if all of this is a result of chance and natural selection or if there is a an intelligent first cause ' but you would give equal comment about all unfalsifiable and unverifiable propositions that science, nor indeed anything, can't help us rule out.We can explain how lakes are formed, how mountains are formed, how urine is formed - all by entirely unguided and unintelligent processes - why do people like Johnson get so upset about things when we explain life that way too? I mean, I know they have some qualms about geology and cosmology - but the only pattern is that they are specially pleading about subjects which they believe relate to Genesis et al. I mean, I guess the deists can pick and choose what parts of 'creation' were designed in, and what are just happy outcomes, or even take the position that they can't tell them apart. But then - while the theistic position leads to qualms about the teaching of evolution, the deistic position is usually more tolerable. That's largely because Deistic beliefs are largely inconsequential to our experiences. We might be here because of this deity, but everything else is up to us to discover.Which is presumably why the deists don't tend to be seen starting movements to get deistic explanations of whatever (evolution/lakes/stars etc.) being taught at schools. And just because deists reject certain theistic interferences, it does not make them atheists, by any stretch. I assume you agree with that, but since its the central topic...Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I was trying to steer the topic in direction of deism, but you seem to be more focussed on theism here. To avoid off topic commands/suspensions can I ask that we work together to get deism into the mix a little more? But the objection wasn't about whether they should be taught - it was whether we should disclaim all scientific statements by referencing specially privileged unfalsifiable propositions such as undetectable manipulations of theistic gods or undetectable design by deistic ones.I don't think we should, you seem to imply maybe we should.The other points you raised about the 'problem of evil' to summarize it, was not what I was going after. I was merely describing how other scientific conclusions can be polluted if we teach alternative metaphysical possibilities that by their very nature cannot be falsified. I chose the plague at random, you can insert the science of urine formation in there if you want (its just that I don't have any historical theistic/deist based arguments to draw on on that subject) I'm pretty sure that's how evolution is taught - by referencing only natural causes. Biology teachers don't start getting into Aristotle's unmoved mover argument or anything else that would be out of place. No declarations about first causes and how they are all non-intelligent.It was this exclusive focus on natural causes that you and Johnson seem to have a problem with - that we should teach that we can't be sure it's only natural because we are capable of conceiving of non-natural entities that could be involved.Do you think that by only talking about natural and mindless causes is the same as making the philosophical statement that is all there is? In a science class, surely the most that can be being said is 'that is all that science can tell us'. Do you remember high school evolution classes? Was it taught as if God is dead? Well of course, that's the gist of my Message 15 -- There are plenty of Christian evolutionists - in fact there are more Christian evolutionists than there atheist ones (in the US at least). A deistic one doesn't interfere with the universe post creation, generally speaking whereas a theistic one does. If the theistic god acts in ways which can't be detected, then the two are practically indistinguishable. Why? Surely that would make it a more perfect deity? No need for course corrections - it just gets the right result first time. I'd really like to see you hash out the argument that gets you there. How does scientific discovery make an interfering deity more likely than non-interfering one? I have a feeling that's just your own biases about what is easier to believe in, probably based on what's familiar thinking to you, not based on any particular analysis. I think philosophy should be taught - but at high school I think the main focus should be on ethics and logic. In the UK reference is made to the beliefs of others, as well as the history of teleological arguments when teaching evolution. Would you regard this as sufficient, or do you think we should get into the discussion in depth and include theism and deism and pantheism and panentheism and atheism and...? Personally I'd sooner see epistemology and aesthetics taught before metaphysics.