Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 317 of 382 (670192)
08-10-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


marc9000 writes:
Without the atheism, it [evolution] wouldn’t get near the attention and public spotlight that it gets. Biological change over time — what could be more boring? If it had nothing to do with atheism, these forums wouldn’t exist, popular books wouldn’t be written about it, court cases concerning it wouldn’t exist, on and on.
Actually, you have that exactly wrong.
Without a small section of religious believers - the fundamental creationists - making a fuss about evolution because they, and only they, feel it threatens religious belief, evolution would indeed be just another boring science topic in the curriculum.
If it wasn't for some whacky religionists, evolution would be as much discussed in popular books as Hook's Law or particle physics.
Think about that; if creationists didn't make such a fuss about it, neither would anyone else; atheists and believers alike.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 5:19 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 328 by dwise1, posted 08-10-2012 12:52 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 320 of 382 (670203)
08-10-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2012 5:19 AM


Dr A writes:
First of all, there are lots of popular books about particle physics.
I did consider looking up the Amazon lists but decided that life was, indeed, too short.
But without the creationists nonsense, a book on evolution would sell to people with a general interest in natural science only and it would be as popular as any other interesting area of science like, say, astronomy. The added 'controversy' of religion, simply adds a massive new market for the books - as Dawkins, Jones, Dennet et al have found.
The creationist reaction against evolution has fuelled a very visible resurgent debate that simply would never have happened if evolution had been accepted as a scientific fact like any other.
In the States of course, it literally IS about books - creationists want their science books to be different from the mad, atheistic 'evolutionists' - and everyone else's too. If they didn't, the world would hardly give them a glance and evolution wouldn't be anything special inside or outside the science class.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 5:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 9:12 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 323 of 382 (670209)
08-10-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2012 9:12 AM


Dr A writes:
I'm not sure that this is true. Dennett is not a biologist, Dawkins does not mix his evolution with his atheism to any great extent, and Jones to the best of my knowledge has never said anything at all about religion. I notice that you didn't mention Gould ... why not? ... ah, yes, "NOMA". One of the most popular writers about evolution has argued explicitly that science says nothing against religion, but you were picking the ripest cherries, which includes Dennett, a philosopher with no more qualifications in biology than my ass, rather than Gould, a professional paleontologist.
I was making no claims for an exhaustive list, merely providing some examples . I could have included many more authors and so could you - you missed Attenborough for example. (Although he's an atheist, he generally sticks to the science)
Jones is a geneticist who regularly and publicly comments on evolution and atheism - I just read read almost like a whale which is a re-write of Darwin's Origin with modern evidence. It's a book almost exclusively about the science but makes passing remarks about religion.
Dennett wrote 'Darwin's dangerous idea' and, if you read it, you'll find that he does indeed know more than your arse about the subject - regardless of qualifications. Indeed he knows a damn sight more than I do (not at all hard) and I'm supposed to have a qualification in it.
Why would Gould mention religion at all? You don't bother pointing out that science says nothing against religion if religion is not already complaining that it is.
Edited by Tangle, : to avoid pedantry

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 10:29 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 325 of 382 (670217)
08-10-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2012 10:29 AM


Dr A writes:
That is hard to parse.
Let me have another go then.
Had religion not objected so strongly to the idea of evolution, there would be no reason for anyone on the science side of the argument to comment on it. Gould would not have felt a need to mention it.
Religion says nothing about chemical valency because it doesn't obviously affect their beliefs. They ban no chemistry books and raise no petitions or preach from pulpits about the number of electronics in a sodium atom. So no famous chemist is likely to comment that his work does not threaten a religious belief.
Gould is both right and wrong about science not having anything to say about religion; right because science just follows evidence wherever the evidence takes it, but wrong when a particular bit of science - evolution - clashes violently with the literal creation story. Science didn't do it directly, but do it, it did.
Anyhoo, this particular sidetrack is about whether the presence or absence of a religious controversy about evolution sells more books about evolution - that seems inarguable to me, it's perfect PR; but I don't for one moment think that it'll stop you arguing it.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 357 of 382 (670278)
08-12-2012 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by marc9000
08-11-2012 10:06 PM


marc9000 writes:
.....and atheists control science. (there is evidence for it)
I'm calling you on this one. Would you like to start a new thread to defend your assertion?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by marc9000, posted 08-11-2012 10:06 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 378 of 382 (670405)
08-14-2012 2:51 AM


marc9000 writes:
A great debate with only you, or a general thread? PM me if you want a great debate - otherwise I'll propose a new thread in the coming days/weeks.
A general thread will do fine.
But I recommend you do some research on what your terms mean before you start - otherwise it'll be as bizarre as attempting to argue that someone who believes in god is an atheist.
Black=White.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024