My position explained

I thought you had just been trying to stir the pot as you had in the past. I am sort of sad to see this is not the case.What you said about the current state of your belief is not without merit. There is the possibility of day-age issues expanding the timeline of the creation of earth and creatures. I thought it was also interesting to use "let the earth bring forth" to mean evolution could be true.I would only note that letting the earth bring forth could also indicate abiogenesis. That is he commanded that the conditions be met on earth for abiogenesis to occur. I don't see how one would be able to tell the difference between that and actually making life occur (from our vantage point).What I think is sad to hear is repeated commentary such as this: and This sounds like, you are wrong I am right, keep talking but I will stick my fingers in my ears. That you won't accept arguments because of a prechosen position is possible, but not very intellectual or reasonable. It certainly has nothing to do with scientific approaches, or even theological approaches... merely willful ignorance.It also hands out the sad, tired stereotype of bleakness and purposelessness to those who do not believe in your diety and/or in evolution as a blind mechanism for speciation. Frankly that theory cannot be accepted as it is untrue.So you simultaneously say it is no use talking to you, and that anyone that disgrees is destitute in some capacity. Nice work.Of course in all of this you skipped right over the other theological discussions which bring the possibility of science to be accepted. That is that there are other claims made in the Bible which have been proven untrue. Why are you cutting slack for some but not other passages? This makes no sense. Haven't you read ecclesiastes? It says you cannot make such claims regarding animals. Now you are actively defying wisdom directly imparted by the Bible.Sad, this is all a very sad turn.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yet you do allow for heliocentrism and a round earth correct? And the Bible does not allow for that possibility. Why should this be considered a consistent criteria for you? I provided a quote and mine was the first response to you OP. Is there a reason you didn't answer?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Arrrrghhhh, I'm seeing double!He might have just been looking for attention, but he said he wasn't. I guess I'm taking him at his word, though at this point I am not sure what that's worth.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

abiogenesis is more speculative, especially as we have no known mechanisms for it.What I am saying is that there is no more reason to doubt it than anything else, even given theology. Great and they think you are wrong. So end of discussion on evolution, evolutionary mechanisms, and abiogenesis? This appears to be what you are saying if any implication might be that your are wrong.And remember you ladled on the descriptors of bleakness and nihilism and even purposelessness to anyone that holds an atheistic evo view. Personally I am very close to Dawkins' view, thus your saying you are only slamming people like Dawkins does not exactly say much to me. It says men cannot know such things. What is your interpretation and how do you arrive at it. It looks pretty plain to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe you need to define what you mean by "a no go area". That reads as if it is an end to communication.I can say that anyone arguing that God created the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood, are all "no go areas" in the sense that I don't believe them... that is until there is good evidence for them. I will listen to evidence that anyone has for them.Are you willing to discuss and understand evidence which suggests random mutations (or events), and perhaps even "purposeless" (whatever that loaded term means) events?Once again I do need to point out that random and purposeless events leading to life and speciation is not inherently an athiest position. Athiests will inherently need something like it (or appeals to aliens or other nondeity powerful intelligences), but that does not make such things against theism. Or to put it another way, theist positions do not require that such things not exist. You had better give abiogenesis the credence it deserves, that is all. It is currently the best scientific theory for how life originated. That is without question.If you want to say it is so tentative a theory that you feel safe in believing tenets of your faith that say such a thing did not occur, that is fine, but that does not allow you to pretend like it is anything less than the best scientific theory we have. If we turned the tables and applied the same level of skepticism on your faith's position, it would come off far far less.But I do wonder about your final statement. Who are you to say whether primal sludge generating life is not a humongous testament to a God's creation? Why is the natural something you seem to hold in disdain? See this is where you get things confused. Evolutionists do not "have faith in" abiogenesis, including those that say it is likely what occured. It is only those that say 100% that is positively what happened and they "know" it, who are expressing a faith. Other than extremists that pretend we have definite knowledge of where and how life arose, the rest are stating a fact.Right now, the only physical evidence we have regarding the formation of life on earth is some form of abiogenesis, though it may actually have begun in various locations including off earth (meteoritic conditions).That is the only evidence you have and the only evidence I have... it is the only possibility based on evidence any of us have.Your position is of faith without regard to evidence. What your position stands on is that abiogenesis, as a theory, is so tentative (the evidence so small) that further evidence can and may surface to compromise it.So you have faith that future evidence will reveal abiogeneis to be untrue. While a scientist may be said to have faith that evidence will not surface that refutes abiogenesis, it is clearly a different epistemic category than your faith.To claim that scientists are having faith like you have faith is to equivocate. That is a gut feeling. It is fine to hold on to it, but one should not use that to discredit scientific claims unfairly, or avoid examining one's gut feeling critically given any new evidence.I am glad you said "theistic explanations" of intelligent design and not "scientific explanations". Yes I can. I have done so I think at least twice so far at EvC. The results have been Xians disappearing, and one lame-o claiming that ecclesiastes is actually false knowledge/wisdom and something we are being told to ignore. I hope this will not be the case with you.From the New International Version (I can get it from others if you want)... While it speaks of the limits of man's life being the same as any animal, it also suggests the limits of our knowledge regarding the afterlife of animals. We cannot know. Certainly your assessment of their purpose or lack thereof stepped across the boundary set here. You were not simply enjoying your work, but trying to explain things beyond our scope.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-18-2004 06:39 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have not seen him say this, but I will admit I have not followed his works fully. It's usually been in documentaries and his comments have not been as strong as you are suggesting here.From what I understand he does not believe in gods of any kind. In that he is taking a strong position, based on lack of any evidence for something. Logically that is not completely true (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but it is practically true. In other words it is a better pragmatic position than that taken by theists.I have heard him say that evolution is what gives atheists confidence in their position, and this is true. With contradictory evidence it would hinder atheism down to teh same pure faith level that theism currently holds.I have not heard him say that abiogenesis is a proven fact and that it along with evolution means that theism of any kind is ruled out. As far as I could discern it is the complete lack of evidence on the side of theism, combined with the positive (and consistently mounting positive) evidence for abiogenesis and evolution, which seals the deal for him.He has certainly been less than tactful towards theists, but surly is different than stating something logically out of bounds.But I have heard people make claims that evolution and abiogenesis is true and therefore all religious claims are bogus. Indeed I have heard scientists say this. Maybe I just haven't heard Dawkins say it. I am open to evidence on this point.That said, my guess is even if it were true, Dawkins is not advocating that reality is some bleak and nihilistic purposeless state of affairs. That is what Mike charged atheism with. Unless for some reason militancy of the atheism determines the tenor of life proposed by the atheist?It seemed to me Mike was trying to use the cover of bashing a rude atheist, to actually slip by attacks on atheism, or as you point out agnosticism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's funny, because that is not what I was saying at all. I was saying that this passage, in the process of talking about other things, discusses repeatedly the limits of man's knowledge.I am only dealing with the limits of man's knowledge. You spoke of grander things than you are capable of knowing, even according to scripture. Whether there is a place in heaven, or a seperate heaven, for animals is beyond both of us. I made no statement there was, you made a statement there was not.Though I would state that it implies they have a spirit of some kind. Christ was talking to humans, so that makes sense. Whether they have dominion over animals is irrelevant, as men have dominion over other men on this earth as well. Indeed you can be called to sacrifice your life or the lives of others in the name of God. That does not alter whether those dominated or sacrificed have souls, and where they go afterward.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heyyyy... what about us atheist evolutionists being insulted by equation to bleak nihilists?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To be honest, none of this appears to contradict what I said. Especially when one looks at the full text of the essay.He starts with what he is trying to prove... That is not a statement of evolution and abiogenesis did happen as current theory indicates, and in being proven theism is rebutted.It is a blank statement that there is a dearth of evidence for gods in specific, and growing evidence for processes that do not require gods to maintain them in general.It is for a person to choose what to believe from this, but an atheistic position is better buttressed with that state of evidence.He then moves on to knock down the common arguments for a designer for "complexity" in life, a basic theist position, explaining that it is a mistake in logical reasoning. Compared to evolution, he states... So it is capable of doing the large picture job theoretically, and current evidence does indicate (well "fits with" would be better) that that is what is going on.Then he gets mean. He addresses the other arguments for believing in God, which are personal beliefs outside of testable evidence, as not worthy.He does not say that they are absolutely incapable of being wrong, and that evolution has proven it wrong. He says that personal revelation is known to be unreliable (and gives the guilt by association lunatic analogy), and the area being left to gods as necessary "to do" doesn't leave the gods much to do... sort of a low blow calling gods lazy if they do exist.Thus the latter reasons seem unconvincing as reasons to throw faith into those positions. I would argue with him that this is a little strong, and rude, but it does not cross the line suggested that he has taken.And I would reinforce my original argument. Mike was blasting Dawkins and people that believe as Dawkins does as championing a bleak, purposeless, nihilist worldview. That does not seem to be the case. If anything, it appears that he is saying the position of people like Mike tend to create more bleak, nihilist environments.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't know this, what happened? I agree, though there was a huge debate here at evc on what is an agnostic and what is an atheist, and I ended up being pushed into agreeing that agnostics are actually a subclass of atheists. Thus I now call myself an atheist-agnostic, where I used to call myself an agnostic.There are definitely some atheists that are as rabid as theist fundies, though they are much fewer and thankfully don't have as many morals to impart to others. I still don't think Dawkins is one of those, though a bitter angry man (towards theists) he certainly seems at times.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I can figure it out. You are insulting the belief system that people such as myself hold.If I said for people that believe in a God, for which there is absolutely no evidence, they clearly then do not believe in reality and so must be deranged and have a bleak purposeless life because they cannot find a reason to exist outside of bizarre fantasy worlds... that would be insulting right? Your desire to equate permanence with meaning or purpose has been argued and shot down before. Or was it just that the person ran away who was arguing your position? Hmmmmm. Yes, I see you rationalizing your viewpoint without understanding what people around you are saying. Although there may be no permanent and external purpose for a life, that does not mean that a life has no meaning or purpose. It would hardly have to be bleak.Its not exactly like Ecclesiastes makes life sound grand does it now? What purpose did you find in it? Nice bit of inconsistency there. Oh yeah, and you did attack someone. You personally attacked Dawkins, and above you admitted that it would extend to me as well. Holy Cow, you are back to crying "macroevolution"? If you actually understood EVOLUTIONARY THEORY you might be able to understand why you never saw the horses you breed become a species other than a horse.And as for there not being "enough evidence" for abiogenesis... Enough for what? To be the most credible scientific theory we have right now? Yes. What else do we need than that?Oh yes, but since you appear to be saying you have mountains of evidence for this God of yours? For the mechanisms he employed for genesis of life? For the purpose he has stacked your life with?I always find it ironic when fundies drink from the fountain of logic and gain skepticism long enough to doubt science, but then wipe their hands of the whole thing when it comes time to look at their own "theory". Give me a specific quote. And if you can, give me a quote from ME saying something like the above.Name calling and more name calling. This is why the "new old Mike" sucks. You have given up all your good habits to revert to ad hominem.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, that would do it for me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

(delete: double post)This message has been edited by holmes, 12-20-2004 03:34 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Rrhain already answered this (quite excellently I might add) in almost identical fashion to the way I would. I'll try to throw in a few other elements. In no way have I said it undercuts anything Christ said. I said it undercuts what you said. I'll tell you what though, you find me quotes from Jesus that say something like what you proposed regarding animals, and I'll take my charge back. Nothing like starting with a loaded question. Who said our sun is a small, apparently unimpressive one? Only from a galactic scale would one be able to start making such statements. From a human scale it is quite large and quite impressive.I'll bet the best you get are quotes from people like Sagan, taken out of context. One can get a sense of humbleness and vulnerability (or preciousness) of life on earth (and one's own life) when thinking on galactic scales. It is not dissimilar to people humbling themselves when thinking of the completely fictional image of gods.But as was pointed out, other than the picture of what processes may have taken place, abiogenesis and evolution aren't meant to paint meaningful pictures for human lives. Science is not moral philosophy. Once you grasp this fact, maybe you will come to peace with what is being said. You could be a theist and argue that position. As it is it stands quite close to the meaningful picture painted of earthly life in ecclesiastes.But that would be your personal philosophy, not one that anyone else would have to agree with or share. In an absence of eternal life, or an eternal being that hand created you for some purpose, I do not see any logical argument that there are no other purposes (much less "higher" purposes) than survival. This is called a circular argument. Not to mention ad hominem.Atheism is not nihilism, and nihilism is not atheism. Theists can be potent nihilists as we have seen time and time again with Xian baby killers, suicide leaders such as Jim Jones, and the whole wave of militant islamic radicals.Let us start fresh. Purpose is purpose. How you rank purposes as far as higher and lower is up to your personal viewpoint. There is no objective way of determining such a thing.What can be said is that if there are gods that are eternal and have handpicked you for an assignment, and after death you continue to live forever for the purpose of the gods, then that purpose is longer lasting (eternal) and has an external source.Atheists can have purposes come from outside, but they are all of limited duration.It may be humbling to think that all purposes within life are short when viewed on a galactic timescale, but that does not lessen their immediate meaning. But perhaps that is the problem with theists. They are not content with being humble, and so must load their purposes with external and eternal merit, so they can lord it over others. And of course this requires them to convince themselves that purpose is objectively measured in degree of external eternal nature. I think you have put a finger on the issue when you say "grow up".Personally I cannot think of a mentality so immature and frail, that it requires one posit an eternal and omnipotent "invisible friend" in order to feel one actually has meaning in life. It appears more mature to me to deal with reality as it comes. If there is a God then fine. If there is not, then fine. Meaning and purpose simply shift from one source to another, or multiply from different sources/contexts. I didn't ignore this message. Show me where I said this was put in dispute by any of my words. You know and I know at this point that I have shown you are wrong. My point was not to discredit the argument regarding what is an abundant life, only to show your hypocrisy in demanding following the letter of the Bible, and then defying the letter of the Bible. You have speculated on things which you cannot know.Other than a book's promise to make life more abundant, and this comes from many different holy books (so what makes yours more real?), I have seen none of this in reality. I have seen no hint that it could be true. So how does it have any meaning, beyond anyone believing it is so, or should I say "feeling" that it is so.An atheist could equally feel that their actions do have permanent effects on the world, as the flapping of a butterfly's wings may change the weather in another country. Or more importantly, one's life can have an effect on those they live with and will live after them.But that is only if one feels that purpose must be grand scale in order to have greater meaning. For me, some of the greatest events, the one's that filled my life with meaning, have been quite short in duration.If I thought my only purpose was as cog in a god machine, well that would suddenly make life seem very bleak. It would just be going through motions to ensure that I get a better afterlife, because no sweetness here would compare to the sweetness I am going to find in the grave. No, I see you unable to comprehend how condescendingly insulting your position is. It is as repulsive and insulting as the missionaries who on encountering other cultures deride how these people have lived for centuries not understand the true good. That the missionaries actually believe that those in the other culture have been suffering, despite their smiles and earthly happiness.And of course in the name of true happiness, the people are then forced into true suffering. I mean come on, the whole way to happiness in Xianity (to be specific) is to dwell on the suffering of a guy nailed to a cross. Through his suffering, your life has meaning and you have to pay homage to it for all of your life.That point should be dwelt upon as it was played out throughout much of the world. How many happy people, have become wretched in the name of gaining this eternal paradise you claim exists?I would argue that people have lost purpose and wellbeing in that scenario. And missionaries (such as yourself) just don't get that they are insulting others, by ridiculing the idea that others can actually lead happy and purposeful lives all on their own. If you can understand this question, then why can you not understand you are wrong about what abiogenesis and evolution mean regarding purpose and happiness? Anyone trying to use science to set their morality is wholly mistaken. Anyone using science to determine whether gods exist or not, are partially mistaken.Science is used to construct a model of what we can say we know in the world. There is much we do not know. The existence of gods has neither been discredited nor proven.A person may choose to believe or not. The only difference is that those that choose to believe (especially in an organized and specified set of deities) are positing the existence of things for which we have no evidence at all. That does not make them wrong, only not necessarily right. The more organized and specified the claims regarding earthly life, the more open it is to discrediting from science.Morality and purpose are separate from both scientific world models and belief in gods. It comes from inside onesself, and if one has faith then one's feelings of how important it is to fulfill stated criteria for good standing. The man of gods may end up committing many incredibly socially unacceptable actions (immoral) due to this overriding set of criteria.Indeed the Bible is filled with tests and commands which are on their face quite against common value systems. Obedience trumps internal moral imperatives.This is where you keep making your mistake. You believe that for a scientist, their world model is the source of their morality and purpose, because that is where you feel you get yours. It is only partially true in your case, and almost completely untrue for atheists. Given that atheism has no inherent connection to nihilism and purposelessness, yet you keep linking them together, that is an attack. It is an insult.It would be the same if every time I talked about Xianity I would say "the hate-driven nihilistic, theistic, slavery and murder propagating picture is unacceptable to me". I want you to find me one prominent atheist evolutionary theorist who uses evolution to actually build their entire morality or sense of purpose. It certainly has not been used by Dawkins or myself to dictate any of our morality or purpose.I won't even say evolution has provided all the answers to scientific questions regarding speciation, how on earth could it give me all the answers on how to live? A provocative statement which is wholly inaccurate is known as name-calling. It is an insult. That is pretty objective. I saw no philosophy in the rambling that followed. But just to let you know, I believe there are some species with mouths and without bumholes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Notice you start with "we', and then switch to "I". The devil is in the details. "We" did write the Gospels, and "we" continue to practice them. This is to say that my potential criticism would have applied to the writers of the Gospels, and then to each group down through the ages, and finally to you.I still have no idea if Jesus (the man) existed or not, and care neither one way or the other if he was made up. Why would I? I do believe however, that even if he had a connection to God and associated magickal powers, there is more than credible evidence that those who wrote about him borrowed actions from other deities to pump up his curriculum deitee. You mentioned Dawkins as an example. Dawkins does not say the above. How can I know that you didn't mean Dawkins, or people with positions like him, when you did not say the above before and instead used Dawkins as an example? And then its back to the same old same old. What does evolution, or atheism have to do with a definitive moral mindset? No. Anyone can be a nihilist. First of all that is not the common definition, or not a complete common definition. But we will get to that in a second. Yes, Xians are able to give up all morals, including Xian morals. They are also capable of giving up religious belief.The idea that you could believe that Xians can't staggers the imagination. What on earth was Jesus tried for? He was considered a nihilist, advocating throwing away all the laws if people simply worshipped him. He removed sin through his death.And since then there have been plenty of Xian shisms which involved rejection of previous Xian morals, in order to set new ones. And as you have already said you basic mindset is nihilist... if there is no God then there is no morality or purpose. The atheist does not have to believe this at all, and evolutionary theorists come nowhere close to touching on that subject.And I would add that you should take a second look at that definition you gave. Where in that does an atheist naturally incorporate into his philosophy? That there are no religious beliefs and values? Yes. But no moral values? No.So I guess I'd have to reject the moral tenets of secular humanism, yet be a secular humanist? And what about Buddhists and Jainists who have to real Gods to speak of?But lets look at some defs from merriam webster... I think we both understand you were going for 1 a. That would fit in with the bleak and purposeless commentary. Your original def did not really cover that aspect.While an atheist may certainly feel that there are no objective, as in external pre-set, moral "truths", that does not inherently lead to a belief existence is senseless and useless, or that there are no objective truths (nonmoral) about the world.That's where the rub is, the insult, the added dimension which atheism does not require or advocate. YOU see no meaning without a God, atheists usually do. Yes, but not for very long. We require a means of waste disposal. Your comment is that evolution means all beings need one opening and a separate exit. I was just pointing out that this is not the case... although I will admit I could be wrong. I just seem to remember having read about a creature without "bumholes". Perhaps you can give an example of such a thing that you know occured. Have citations please. As far as I can tell this is one of the common creationist strawmen. I wish you'd demand that from the biblical crowd, or the anti-evolutionary crowd. As it stands you seem to have bought (and perhaps repurchased) their bill of goods hook line and sinker.I want a proper question that does not insult my intellect... or both our intellects as the case were. Asking how many systems all evolve at once because they "just have to" hardly qualifies. I have already explained that you don't even seem to understand that you are doing so. You say that you are okay, and then say that I am not okay. You put words and perspectives into my philosophy, and my scientific model, while describing them.Inaccurate statements that are meant to be generate excitement, are called insults. It should be quite clear. I stated that science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy. Rrhain was obviously referring to moral or ethical philosophy. And he is right. You will not find moral philosophy within natural philosophy. Consistently linking evolution and atheism to advocating an outlook on life with descriptors of bleak, purposeless, nihilist. You just made rrhain's point and did 0 to advance your own. If you do not understand this, please stop quoting Einstein. No it's not. I can't believe you are going to stoop to this level of appealing to authority.Einstein certainly did believe that science should be used to build models of the world. It is from the evidence, viewed through the model that science provides, where a person can make judgements on theism/atheism. This is to say, one can start to judge if there are gods likely in the model... even if science has not detected any in a concrete form.Dawkins is perfectly okay to say that since there is no reason to include gods in the model, and all professed religions have so far failed to make true statements about other things in the world, that it is more likely or easy to not believe in deities at all.If Einstein really meant something similar to what you have taken from his comment, why then was he not a theist like you? At best he was a deist, but more or less just an agnostic that worshipped the universe as he saw it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)