Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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!
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 331 of 382 (670239)
08-10-2012 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by dwise1
08-10-2012 2:34 PM


Recently a friend lent me the book, "The Wedge of Truth" by Johnson. If I understand his position it isn't that he opposes the teaching of evolution, but that he opposes the teaching of evolution that is the product of solely natural mindless processes.
If I understand him correctly then he has a point. No matter how much we observe in the fossil or DNA record there is, as far as I can see, 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.
As I understand the discussion I would see him differing from Francis Collins. If I understand Collins correctly, he believes that God initiated the process and from then on evolution happened strictly as a result of natural selection and random chance. Johnson on the other hand believes that God continued to intervene in the evolutionary process in order to create new species. He doesn't however, seem to promote the idea of instant creation but just that God did have a hand in the mutations that saw new species being developed.
Once again, I don't see how science can differentiate between any of these positions. All science can do is to try and understand what happened in terms of results and processes.
I think that Johnson would be content if in teaching evolution it was made clear that the evidence is clear that evolution happened, that it is clear that there is a degree of randomness in the process, that natural selection is a basic ingredient of evolution but 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 or whether or not there is further intelligent intervention in the process.
Frankly I am not knowledgeable when it comes to biology or evolution, so I am more than open to being corrected in this view, but that is my understanding of Johnson's position after reading that book.
Edited by GDR, : missed a word in the text

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by dwise1, posted 08-10-2012 2:34 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 08-10-2012 7:48 PM GDR has replied
 Message 335 by nwr, posted 08-10-2012 8:12 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 367 by dwise1, posted 08-12-2012 7:36 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 333 of 382 (670244)
08-10-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by jar
08-10-2012 7:48 PM


jar writes:
But what we can say and should say is there there is ZERO evidence of any non-natural process.
Of course, and that is implicit in what I said in my post:
quote:
No matter how much we observe in the fossil or DNA record there is, as far as I can see, 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.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 08-10-2012 7:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by jar, posted 08-10-2012 8:09 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 338 of 382 (670250)
08-10-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by jar
08-10-2012 8:09 PM


jar writes:
There is lots of evidence of natural processes and NO evidence of. anything BUT natural processes.
Certainly, but it is beyond the scope of science to tell us whether those natural processes are the result of random, mindless combinations of particles, a deistic god who kicked the whole thing off and let it go its own merry way, or a theistic god who has intervened to bring about a desired result.
jar writes:
There is simply nothing to teach other than "the teaching of evolution that is the product of solely natural mindless processes."
Not really. There is nothing to teach other than the teaching of evolution.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by jar, posted 08-10-2012 8:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by jar, posted 08-10-2012 10:30 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 340 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2012 9:18 AM GDR has replied
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 08-11-2012 5:34 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 341 of 382 (670260)
08-11-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Modulous
08-11-2012 9:18 AM


Modulous writes:
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 canno t 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.
I agree that this issue of plagues, tsunamis etc are difficult issues for theists and deists but frankly I think that deists should have a more difficult case to make. A deist has to accept that a creator brought this world into existence with these flaws with no plan to resolve them.
As a theist, and in my case as a Christian, I have two thoughts on this. Firstly I don’t see the world as we know it as the finished product and that we will at some point be part of a world without plagues and tsunamis, but that is simply a matter of faith and not science. Secondly I believe that God has created humans to be His agents on this planet and that He essentially works through the hearts, minds and imaginations of humans, including atheistic scientists. In the case of the plague we now have antibiotics to control the disease and in the case of tsunamis we have learned to a degree to minimize their effect and to provide aid and relief to the victims of this and other disasters.
Plagues and tsunamis are realities and obviously they should be taught. Evolution should be taught. I also think that philosophy should be taught in which issues like these can be discussed. Science is essentially agnostic.
Modulous writes:
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 help us rule out.
The same is true though for teaching that all first causes are non-intelligent. In science we should just be teaching about the natural world and anything beyond that is again, either philosophy or theology.
Modulous writes:
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?
Frankly I found the book an interesting read but on the whole a bit obscure. I agree that evolution should not be taught from a materialistic sense, but on the other hand it isn’t theistic or even deistic either. He does seem to think, as near as I can tell, that if there is a theistic or even a deistic first cause then it is just as valid as assuming a materialistic cause. I can see that point but then why worry about it. If he and other theistic scientists want to try and find the hand of God in their science, and who knows maybe they can, then let them go about doing it but as of right now it isn’t science.
The problem stems from the debate. It is like all of these fish with Darwin in them on the bumpers of car. It is an either or, Christianity or Evolution. It can be Christianity and evolution. There seems to be those on both sides of the issue who for whatever reason are happy to see debate framed that way.
Modulous writes:
. But then - while the theistic position leads to qualms about the teaching of evolution, the deistic position is usually more tolerable.
I just don’t see that. Unless you decide that Genesis should be read like a science text, (which IMHO obscures real meaning from the text but that’s another issue), theism is just as compatible as deism is with evolution. (Or atheism for that matter.)
Modulous writes:
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 disco ver.
OK, but how do you really tell the difference between a deistic god and a theistic one. All we know is that we have had the curiosity, reasoning and imagination to discover the process of evolution. It seems to me that it is more difficult to rationalize a deistic god with sufficient intelligence to design a process that would bring about human curiosity, reason and imagination without being involved in one way or another, even if it just being involved in the human thought process. The fact that we have discovered evolution, antibiotics etc, IMHO, points to the idea that a theistic deity is more plausible than a deistic one.
Modulous writes:
. 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...
Absolutely.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2012 9:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by ringo, posted 08-11-2012 5:23 PM GDR has replied
 Message 345 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2012 5:50 PM GDR has replied
 Message 347 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2012 6:08 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 344 of 382 (670263)
08-11-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by ringo
08-11-2012 5:23 PM


ringo writes:
By contrast, most theistic gods are depicted as obsessive and often bumbling tinkerers.
You've been listening to the wrong theists.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by ringo, posted 08-11-2012 5:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 08-11-2012 5:51 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 348 of 382 (670268)
08-11-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by foreveryoung
08-11-2012 5:34 PM


foreveryoung writes:
How is the theory of evolution anything other than "a solely natural mindless process"?
Firstly, for the evolutionary process to even have started a first cause is required. It seems to me that it is more plausible that the first cause that brought about intelligent life is intelligent itself, than is the idea that intelligent life had a non-intelligent first cause.
Secondly, we have no way of knowing whether the evolutionary process is unguided or not. From our perspective it all looks the same.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 08-11-2012 5:34 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Percy, posted 08-12-2012 6:42 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 349 of 382 (670269)
08-11-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Modulous
08-11-2012 5:50 PM


Modulous writes:
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.
Unless a question is asked then the issue shouldn’t even come up. Evolution should be taught in the same way algebra is. If someone young bright light asks a question pertaining about cause or possible guidance the answer should simply be that scientifically there is no way of coming to a conclusion. Any answer beyond that is no longer scientific.
The point is that evolution is science or biology and has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist, a deist or a theist. One can be anyone of the three and either accept evolutionary science or reject it. In terms of the OP there is no actual connection regardless of how fundamentalist Christians, or dare I say it, fundamentalist atheists try to make one.
Modulous writes:
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 ve ry 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)
Sorry. I missed your point. Science is the study of the physical and not the metaphysical so there are no grounds on which to discuss the metaphysical. Mind you, in some ways when science starts talking about alternative universes etc the lines do seem to blur so who knows what the future holds.
Modulous writes:
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?
Frankly, when I was educated during the dark ages I have never had a class on evolution that I can recall. I loved physics when I was young but didn’t have any interest in biology. In any science classes I took the subject of God was never raised. I also don’t see why the term natural and mindless causes should be used. It should simply be taught that this is the conclusions that can be drawn from the fossil record and the DNA record. It isn’t scientific to either accept or reject the record as being mindless or intelligently cause.
Modulous writes:
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 c an't be detected, then the two are practically indistinguishable.
Absolutely. There is nothing to distinguish them scientifically. The best that we can do is to apply our own reasoning to arrive at what we as individuals view as the most plausible answer to the god question.
Modulous writes:
Why? Surely that would make it a more perfect deity? No need for course corrections - it just gets the right result first time.
I know. That is the crux of the biggest issue that Christians such as myself have to deal with and there are no pat answers. I am happy to answer it but I think as you rightly pointed out we are treading on the boundaries of the topic of the OP here. You have influence. Am I allowed to answer the question in this thread or not?
Modulous writes:
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.
I think that if we sat down and talked about it in depth that we would agree. Frankly a lot depends on what else is being taught and how much time is available. I also think that schools should not be wading into issues that are best left to parents.
By the way. I know that Manchester is somewhat north of London but your country can take great pride in the job you have done with the Olympics.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2012 5:50 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2012 9:13 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 350 of 382 (670270)
08-11-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Dr Adequate
08-11-2012 6:08 PM


Dr. Adequate writes:
I think you're missing Modulous's point. He's not talking about the Problem of Evil, but about the question of attributing causes.
We can always imagine a supernatural explanation for something for which we have a perfectly good natural explanation, but why should we particularly mention it? This is the background noise of epistemology.
We do not, for example, teach children: "Snowflakes are formed by the crystallization of water, or maybe some of them are made by Jack Frost"; "Epidemic diseases are caused by the spread of germs, but maybe some of them were caused by witchcraft"; "Fairy rings are produced by the growth patterns of mushrooms, or maybe some of them were made by fairies dancing"; "Metamorphic rocks were formed by temperature and pressure acting on non-metamorphic rocks, or maybe some of them were made by wizards"; "If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's either a duck or maybe it's a magic pixie using its magic powers to disguise itself as a duck."
It is, indeed, precisely because we can imagine this in every case that it becomes otiose to mention it in any case in particular. We can always imagine it, we never really have a reason to think it. So why mention it in the case of evolution? As a sop to the religious?
You're right that I misconstrued Mod's point. I hope I did better in my next response. As far the rest of your post, although I don't view Christianity in the way anyone does Jack Frost, I agree with your point.
Actually I see it as essentially what I was trying inadequately to say.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2012 6:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2012 9:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 351 of 382 (670271)
08-11-2012 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by ringo
08-11-2012 5:51 PM


Ringo writes:
So how is an interfering god "more plausible"? Since we discovered evolution, antibiotics, etc. by using science, why is it less plausible that a god would use a similar process?
But if science is a natural theology, or from my point of view the study of what God has created, then if our science is accurate it isn't a similar process but THE process that God used.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 08-11-2012 5:51 PM ringo has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 371 of 382 (670319)
08-12-2012 3:17 PM


Percy is not an atheist
Percy writes:
The "first cause" concept in general is just creationist mumbo-jumbo, it has no scientific basis. Regarding its application to intelligent life, you seem to have forgotten about the infinite regression - what is the first cause of the first intelligent life?
String theory and other scientific theories postulate more than one dimension in time. From what I have read the mathematics of physics tells us that time should be symmetrical and it should flow in either direction. If science can talk about more than one dimension in time why shouldn’t it be allowed theologically as well? If time flows in more than one direction, in the same way that we can travel infinitely around our 3 dimensional planet then we only require a first cause for our one dimensional existence
Let’s face it a living cell is incredibly complex and to perceive of it being formed by a mindless combination of mindless particles stretches the imagination just a bit IMHO.
Percy writes:
Science accepts that which has evidence. Mechanisms without evidence, as Jar described a few posts earlier, can be imagined without limit and have no place in scientific theory. At best they have a place as hypotheses awaiting evidence, like string theory (which is a hypothesis despite the name).
No problem with that. We all believe things for which there is no conclusive evidence.
To get back to the point of your OP, I agree with you. Christian fundamentalists are largely an exclusive group. They believe that they have a specific knowledge that is unassailable in that it is directly from God. It is my view that they have totally misunderstood the Bible, and specifically the gospel message of Jesus.
At any rate rest assured Percy I don’t consider you an atheist. I’m sure you’ll sleep better tonight.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024