Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?

I was wondering, if you had been influenced by different books, say islamic writings, or buddhist ones, can you imagine that it would have been possible that you had become a muslim or a buddhist then?I'm just curious as to your opinion about this hypothetical situation.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 10-Oct-2005 10:11 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

But do you think you might have been a follower of a non-christian belief if things had gone just slightly different?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Did you actively try to move to christianity?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

That's just it. Maybe the evidence can be explained some other way, but not just as well. There are many strange features in nature, features that should be regarded as very weird design indeed. The explanation that God created everything does not satisfactorily account for all these mad designs.God would have to be regarded as a rather incompetent designer, or a mad hatter, maybe even someone with an evil streak, and that just doesn't sit very well with the notion of God as a perfect being.A perfect designer makes perfect designs. Some designs in nature are far from perfect. Ergo, the designer is not perfect. God is perfect, ergo the designer is not God.Evolution, which basically comes down to a repetitive cycle of trial and error, is far more in line with imperfect results. I would like to take the idea that "evidence for evolution might be explained some other way just as well" and turn it around: the evidence for God's creation can be explained by evolution, not merely just as well, but far better.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11-Oct-2005 10:26 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

That's not an explanation, that's a cop-out. It's just a general statement that lumps every specific case under the generic heading of "gradual deterioration of all nature". It can't, as evolution can and does, address every single case of imperfection with a plausible explanation of the specifics.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

How does one tell a "man-originated" religion apart from a "god-originated" one? How do you know your particular religion is not "man-originated"? Absolutely nothing else? Does that mean that you have heard every other possible explanation? You must be very wise and knowledgeable then. Or does your remark indeed betray an abhorrence for ambiguity, uncertainty and vagueness? 'Absolute' is very... well, absolute, Faith. Are you sure you want to use such strong terms?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

OK, let me get this straight.Alice says the christian God is the true god.
Bob says there is no god.
Alice and Bob disagree on whether there is a god.
Therefore, the Fall is a fact.That's logic?? Boy, I like it! Let me try it again:I say I am right.
You say I am wrong.
Therefore, I am right.Wow, this is great! You've convinced me, Faith, thanks.Oh, one more thing, Faith: you're wrong. I can prove it.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Try to see this as a relative problem. Since we are limited by our senses, an absolute worldview is unattainable for anyone. But when two worldviews are contrasted, and the evidence from both is mutually evaluated, one of the two may need to deny more of the other's evidence than vice versa. The one that has to do more denying could be regarded as the lesser worldview. It all comes down to bookkeeping. But I can see it when they do it, and they can see it when I do it. The art of the game is then to deny as little as possible of your opponent's claims, and to spot as many denials of theirs as you can.May the best worldview win.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

On that note, you could say that the world doesn't have much to do with their view. There goes the game.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins