|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
This is a response to a claim by almeyda. She claims that evolution has a religious nature. This question seems off-topic for that thread. Since I cannot find an older topic directly related to this question, I decided to try to open a new thread about this. (There is one about whether evolution is good science, but I think this question is different.)
I claim that evolution, itself, is not a religious belief. Evolution is simply the following hypothesis: All living and past species (at least those known) are descended from a single or a very small number of ancestral species. New species arise from older ones by means of natural selection acting on naturally occuring variations in the species. A corollary is that there is a source for new variations. This is a hypothesis, not a belief. This means that although a particular person may believe it to be an accurate description of the natural world, this belief and its details are subject to modification and even abandonment due to evidence - experiments and observations in the real world. There examples of observations and experiments confirming evolution. For one, Darwin propose this hypothesis based on the observation that agriculture and animal husbandry shows that a selection process on naturally occurring variations can give rise to a wide range of new breeds, some of can be even described as new species. Another example is that evolution very nicely explains the heirarchical classification of species, which was fleshed out by Linnaeus long before Darwin came up with this theory. Another example: it was already proposed, based on morphology, that whales are mammals, and even shows some affinities with certain land mammals, namely a group related to contemporary artiodactyls. It was proposed, based on the hypothesis of evolution, that whales and artiodactyls evolved from a common ancestral species, and that it might be possible to discover fossils of animals that have characteristics that are in between these two groups of mammals, and that the more whale-like fossils will be found in strata dated to be younger, and that more terrestrial fossils will be found in strata that are dated to be older. It is also a prediction of evolution that no fossils will be found that are intermediate between, say, whales and fish (excepting the proposed lineage that goes through terrestrial, amniotes, of course). The purpose of this thread is not to debate the scientific merits of evolution, except in regard to the main question: Evolution is not a religious belief. It is not based on any dogmatic tenets; it is a tentative hypothesis that is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence. It has no implications for what ethics or morality that a person should adopt beyond what an individual reads into it herself. It has no implications for a metaphysics, the ultimate nature of reality and our ability know about this ultimate reality, except, perhaps, as an example of the sufficiency and insufficiency of the scientific method. It has no direct implications for the place that humanity occupies in the cosmos, nor for the relationship of humans with each other, and the relationship of humans with the universe, except for what someone reads into it - I am speaking here of spiritual place and relationships. It certainly says nothing about an afterlife, or a purpose of life. These last items are what I feel to be features of the concerns of "religion". Evolution has none of these features. It is true that it can be used by a particular individual as a part of her overall religious belief, but this involves an arbitrary interpretation of the facts of evolution (assuming there are any) beyond the legitimate purview of the scientific hypothesis. In responding to this topic, it would be interesting to read what others think "religion" is, and how evolution fits into it. My own defintition of religion is somewhat idiosyncratic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This is a good topic opener. There other thread on this is:
Evolution: Science or Religion? I don't think it hurts to pick that up in a new thread but I'd like to direct people to the previous discussion so we don't have to go over all the same ground. This would be strenthened if you would at least supply some suggested general definitions of "religion" as well as ask others for theirs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maxwell's Demon Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 59 From: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: |
Great post. It pretty neatly summarizes my position on this matter.
Evolution as a theory holds none of the basic properties of religion.- It does claim to know anything about what morals/ethics we need to follow, or how to live our lives in general. - It does not claim to know anything about the 'meaning' of anything. - It does not claim any forms of Gods are involved, nor does it say they necessarily aren't. - It doesn't require faith in anything, only (to some varying extent) trust in the scientific method, and the people who do science. People who believe in evolution, however might very well incorperate it in a religious view of the world... As may people who believe in quantum mechanics for that matter. This message has been edited by Kent, 05-15-2004 09:04 PM "tellement loin de ce monde..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
This is one of the most absurd claims creos ever make. By definition, religion involves a belief in a god or gods. What god or gods is associated with evolution? Science and religion are opposites. The one one takes on evidence, the other on faith.
One must be of a shockingly low intellect to confuse science with religion. The fact that so many grown people do confuse them is evidence that our school systems are failing our kids and have been for quite some time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One must be of a shockingly low intellect to confuse science with religion. Hey, I for one love when they make arguments you can refute with just a dictionary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maxwell's Demon Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 59 From: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: |
Not that I want to throw a wrench in your machinery or anything, but I do believe that a belief in gods doesn't necessarily follow from religion.
You may correct me if I'm wrong of course, but I do believe Buddhism is considered a religion, but says nothing of a god or gods.It does say a lot about morals... how you should live your life, and about the 'meaning' of things though. Of course Buddhism is also more than just religion, but that's a whole other matter... It might seem like a small detail, but if we're going to discuss wether or not evolution should be considered religious, then it has some impact (if only upon the type of argument which is made).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You may correct me if I'm wrong of course, but I do believe Buddhism is considered a religion, but says nothing of a god or gods. I think you could make the case that the bodhisattvas have divine nature or are god-like. Godish? Certainly the iconography seems to deify them.
Of course Buddhism is also more than just religion Why, just cuz it's associated with kickin' butts? Hell, the Irish Catholics have a martial art - it's called "gettin' wicked pissed and kicking your fookin' arse with a shillelagh." The point is that religion necessarily involves details about the supernatural, and scientific theories necessarily involve ignoring the supernatural. It's hard to see where any of that converges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maxwell's Demon Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 59 From: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: |
Quite true, there seems to be supernatural elements to all religion (I can think of), and the point is a good one if you want to challenge the statement that Evolution should in some way be considered religious.
What I tried to do with my post about Buddhism however, was to point out that while not all religion seems to have a god or gods, all religion (as far as I know) seem to have a set (or several sets ) of rules/morals, which need to be followed.But... from the fact that species evolved we can derive no such rules or morals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
CHIROPTERA - This hypothesis you speak of is their belief system. This is what they believe and it requires faith. This classifies as religion because it is a belief system that requires faith. A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals. It can be anything thats a belief system. Yes this includes having a presupposition that no supernaturalism exists. This is what they believe. Since they cannot prove God does not exist how can they proclaim to be fact and not faith?.
KENT - It requires alot of faith actually. As nothing becoming everything is very hard to explain and although against all odds they say it did happen and this involves faith and chance. And like i said religion isnt restricted to just things about God and morals. BERBERRY - Your confused, Religion does not by definition involve worshipping a God. Yes there is no God associated with evolution that does not mean it is not a religion. Creation is the science of a religion. Evolution is the science of another religion which excludes all supernaturalism. I am not saying Evolution is not science but a religion. Im saying that it is the science of a religion. A belief system. They have a presupposition and framework. So they build upon that with the evidence they find for evolution. Likewise creationists base there evidnce upon another religion which derives from the Bible therefore the evidence must be built upon that. Its not very difficult to understand this dilemna. It doesnt undermine evolution at all. Since evolutionists do not accept creation evidence (Not because its not evidence they found the same evidence remember just interpreted differently) but because it does not fit there ideology. There belief system. There presupposition. There religion. Its your willingness to refuse to accept it is a belief and a religion. It does not matter how much evidence there is it is still a belief because they werent there when it happened and the past cannot be repeated just the present observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
almeyda
This hypothesis you speak of is their belief system. This is what they believe and it requires faith. No,it does not. It does require thinking on your part to establish what you propose is occuring.The hypothesis does not reqire you to believe in it,however,it does require that you actively pursue evidence to show that your hypothesis has merit.If no evidence can be found to back it up then it can be considered as invalid.If you can let go of it when no evidence is forth coming then how can we say it requires faith? Faith is the maintenance of a position regardless of the lack of evidence. "For the mind of man is far from the nature of clear and equal glass,wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence;nay,it is rather like an enchanted glass,full of superstition and imposture.if it be not delivered and reduced." Sir Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You keep saying
This is what they believe and it requires faith. It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it still is not true. Simply, not true. Science is not built on FAITH. It is built on observation. If you get nothing else out of your sojourn here, let it be that SCIENCE does not require FAITH. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is what they believe and it requires faith. No, it doesn't. Evolution, like all science, isn't believed because of faith. It's believed because of evidence. The proof of this is that all scientists stand ready to abandon evolution in the face of observation that proves it wrong. In fact if you ask the scientists they'll even tell you what observations you would have to make to disprove evolution. I'm not aware of a single Christian that can tell me what it would take for them to stop believing in Christ. That's the difference between science and religion.
Evolution is the science of another religion which excludes all supernaturalism. There can be no such thing as a "religion that excludes all supernaturalism", because religions, by definition, require supernaturalism. Anyway, it doesn't presuppose anything. All science does is tell you about the natural world. It doesn't tell you anything about the supernatural world, just like the manual to my VCR doesn't tell me anything about the weather in Sweden. But that doesn't mean the people who built my VCR think that Sweden doesn't exist. Likewise just because science doesn't say anything about the supernatural doesn't mean that science doesn't think the supernatural exists. You're confusing silence with refutation. Science isn't a part of the supernatural debate. That's why it can't ever be religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maxwell's Demon Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 59 From: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: |
Almeyda:
I can assure you, it requires no faith from my part. I trust in the scientific method because I have seen very strong, impressive results come from it. I most certainly would not sit here typing on a computer if it was not for the scientific method. This is trust, not faith. The theory that we all evolved from a common ancestor, is in itself scientific, because it is potentially falsifiable, and lends itself to testing. Again, no faith required, only trust in the scientific method. The evidence for this theory is ample, and again, I require no faith to accept this as evidence, only trust in science. So what I have now is a scientific theory, with lots of evidence to support it, and none that falsifies it, and no need for faith. I'm sorry, but nothing about the theory of evolution requires faith, any more than the current theory of gravity does. Is gravity a religion as well? When I drop a cup, am I exercising my faith in gravity when I yell out in anger because I know the cup will be shattered... before the cup has struck the floor? Also I'd like to adress a certain part of your post more specifically:
almeyda writes: It requires alot of faith actually. As nothing becoming everything is very hard to explain and although against all odds they say it did happen and this involves faith and chance. Nothing becoming something is not for evolution to explain. Evolution explains that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor in the past. This by no means makes any claims of nothing becoming something.The closest I can come to this "Nothing Becoming Something" you speak of is the Big Bang, and the Big Bang has no connection to the theory of evolution whatsoever. So again, no faith required for evolution. We could of course discuss the possibility that believing in the Big Bang is a religion, but that's a whole other topic alltogether... This message has been edited by Kent, 05-16-2004 12:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Guys, do you think it's worth it to continue to repeat over and over for almeyda? He's never going to comprehend the difference between empirical evidence and faith. To him, both are the same. We continue to see the same crap from him without any support whatsoever thread to thread. Just do what I do and ignore him.
The Laminator
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024