Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 77 of 104 (518429)
08-06-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Evidence
What? Good things don't happen to non-christians? Why would you assume being christian has anything to do with anything? Now you know two people that this happened to?
Yeah well after rereading myself I agree it sounds awkward. WHat I was saying is that from my vast sampling of spontaneous cancer remissions (which is only two ...) both were christians, which really doesn't mean anything since my sampling is very small, and so it was more humoristic I guess.
I just spoke to a friend who is a radiologist. He says that though something like this is uncommon it is not rare. Spontaneous remission of cancer is not an unknown phenomenon. Tends to drive docs crazy, because peoeple start proclaiming miracles. He even knows of people that received treatment and then claim that it was some sort of miracle. No sense giving the docs and medicine any credit when you can give it all to god.
Any chance he could tell you the christian/non-christian ratio of the spontaneous cancer remissions ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:13 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:33 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 84 of 104 (518767)
08-07-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 8:23 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
Great topic for another thread. The problem is you have no evidence. Just your preconceived ideas from your own indoctrination.
I agree it would be a great topic for another thread. However, I do also think that you seem to push the 'indoctrination' button quite early, if anything. What I have claimed is at the very least probable, since why then would every culture aroudn the world have the concept of God/Gods ? In evolution, this fact about the human tendency to believe in divinities has to be explained, and of course much effort has been put into this, such as looking for an evolutionnary advantage for our ancestors to believe in Gods, or even the search for a 'God' gene.
Anyhow, I find the title of the following article to be revealing to the fact that you did in fact push the 'indoctrination' and 'no evidence' button quite early:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...rs-in-God-academic-claims.html
Another reference:
Brooks, M., Natural born believers, New Scientist 201(2694):31—33, 7 February 2009

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:23 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 9:50 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 7:30 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 90 of 104 (518946)
08-10-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Theodoric
08-08-2009 9:50 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
Ok, you'll have to explain something to me: I have seen numerous times on these forums the claim that 'Religion belief is the result of indoctrination' or that 'You are taught to believe in God when you're a kid' from many fellow atheist here. Yet I have seen no one back up these claims from any research.
Now, the question 'Is the belief in God/Gods natural ?' is a legitimate question, yet no one seems to want to answer it with research on the atheist's side. So how do you get the answer, if any research done by a christian is 'off-limits' ?
Researchers do not go around collecting data on everything and anything. You have an idea of something you believe is true, and then set out to prove it. This is counter-intuitive in regards to the scientific method, but this is exactly how science acts in reality (You just have to read Karl Popper and 'The logic of scientific discovery'). Darwin saw different sizes in finch beaks, and theorized that human and apes were relatives. This was not seen at all in the fossil record in his time. When paleoontologist set out to find the fossils of the intermediate stages between ape and man, they already believed that such fossils existed, or else why would they try to find it ? Having the belief that something 'is' before you prove it 'is' in no way discredits you're research as legitimate. The same applies for Barrett's research.
As for the response by AC Grayling, it is not at all surprising from an antitheist. Should I disregard his comments on the research because he has a preconceived idea on the subject ? Of course not ...
In between his attacks on organized religion and the Templeton foundation, I one statement that I found intriguing:
Now on this point he and I, an atheist funded by no organisation keen on promoting atheism, agree. Children's earliest experiences are of purposive agency in the adults and other people around them — these being the entities of most interest to them in their first months — and for good evolutionary reasons they are extremely credulous, not only believing that things must be acting as their parents do in being self-moving and intentional, but also believing in tooth fairies, Father Christmas, and a host of other things beside, almost all of which they give up believing before puberty, unless the beliefs are socially reinforced — as with religious and, to a lesser extent, certain other superstitious beliefs.
He is saying that this tendency in children will dissipate when growing up unless it is socially reinforced. Yet he provides no support for this statement.
I do remember that I stopped believing in Father Christmas the day my older brother told me it wasn't true, and since that day, I take every chance I have to do the same to every small children I see mouhahahaha . I could as legitimately say that these beliefs dissapear when socially repressed.
As for the New Scientist article, it is purely an article. I don't subscribe that mag so I cannot read the full article. New Scientist is not known to be a stellar research mag , but the quick blurb does not convince me that the article necessarily says what you say it does. Has anyone here actually read the article? What is it based on? Who are the researchers?
It is only an article in New Scientist about the Bartnett research, I think. [/qs]There is nothing here to show me you are correct.[/qs]
There was another similar research done about ten years ago, which as can be seen by the next quote by Dr. Olivera Petrovich, came to very similar conclusions. She showed children ojects and they had three possible answers: 'God', 'Nobody knows' or 'by People'. (note that this answers AC Grayling's second objection to the Barnett research). She did this with both British children and Japanese children, which of course are very different cultures and 'social pressures' on these beliefs. (Which answeres AC Grayling's first objection)
I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., ‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion Shinto doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding.
entire interview: http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 9:50 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 2:48 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 3:09 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 99 by Theodoric, posted 08-10-2009 8:25 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 100 by Admin, posted 08-10-2009 8:26 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 91 of 104 (518947)
08-10-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
08-09-2009 7:30 PM


Re: what about the topic?
Yeah the original question is pretty much answered. It was not much of a debate as more of 'what's your personnal opinion on this' kinda discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 7:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 94 of 104 (518953)
08-10-2009 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2009 2:48 AM


Re: "Hard-Wiring"
Well all the Data I got o nthis subject is in this thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 2:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 3:56 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 95 of 104 (518955)
08-10-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2009 3:09 AM


Re: Finches
I interchanged Darwin's finches and the Darwin's mockingbirds. my mistake
As for Karl Popper, I have not read it. I have read about Popper's approach to how scientists do science in an english book, and so I maybe misunderstood it. (it was difficult to read, I'll have to find which book and reread it again because of you ). I had planned on buying Popper's book, but it is freakin' expensive for a student like me!
Still, it appeared logical to me at the time that when a scientists sets out to do an experiment, it is with the objective of proving/refuting a theory.
Example: Rutherford was set out to confirm the plum-pudding atomic model with his gold foil experiment, even though he ended refuting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 3:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 4:04 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 98 of 104 (518960)
08-10-2009 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2009 3:56 AM


Re:
Well then, I guess you'll come to this topic with a fresh and open mind.
I was starting to write some stuff on this topic. There are various questions that one might ask, depending on whom one was talking to, whether it was a theist who believed in fiat creation, or a theist who believed in evolution, or an atheist who believed in evolution.
Here are the questions that I'd like to start out by asking a creationist. If you find this discussion interesting, please let's start a new thread:
Many creationists believe that God created us directly and produced this supposed "hard-wiring" as part of his creation. This provides them with an argument against evolution more or less as follows: "The belief in creationism is apparently hard-wired into us. Why would evolution (which, since this is an odd-numbered day of the month, we're going to pretend must always produce perfect results) hard-wire into us a belief that as you claim (since we're going to pretend that all evolutionists are atheists) is false?"
A couple of obvious questions arise.
First, why bother? According to most theists, and all crackpot creationists, the existence of God is self-evident. There would then be no reason to hard-wire me to believe in God any more than to hard-wire me to believe in the sun, or clouds, or mountains.
Second, why wasn't it done better? If this supposed hard-wiring was produced by the Christian God, why did it produce, for example, Sun-worshipers who performed child sacrifice, like the Incas? Indeed, the practice of worshiping a Sun-god was nearly universal until the spread of the Abrahamic religions in historical times. To say that we were hard-wired to believe in "God", meaning the Christian God, would be an over-statement.
I would have other remarks to address to the evolutionist who believes in God, and the evolutionist who doesn't. I'd be happy to discuss these questions with you.
I think we could indeed start a new topic on this, since I do believe that this 'hard-wired belief in God' argument is over used both in its biblical support and also in its significance in the evolution/creation issue. I usually only bring it up when somebody maintains that theism is only the fruit of social pressur, education and parental influence. I maintain that it is quite possible that belief in God/Gods is innate in humans, and that this is a fourth factor that comes into play.
So you can start a new thread on this.
---
By the way, you maintain that English is your second language, and that you are only nineteen years old. If this is true, then I should like to point out to you that you are very obviously a person of superior intellectual talents --- and I say that as someone who thinks that pretty much everything that you've posted is wrong. Even as someone who is obstinately wrong, you are far more intelligent and coherent than 99.9% of creationists, and if you're achieving that at nineteen in a language that is not your own, then you have my admiration. I hope that you are putting that brain of yours to good use.
We have a good english program here in Quebec so that even though our first language is french (athough a very poor french, according to people from France) you can pretty much be bilingual when you come out of highschool.
Now, obviously I have not only learned English at school or I could not even come close to debating science,etc. on an internet forum. I lived in the US from age 7 to 9, and so it helped a lot in being bilingual. (Writing is still good, but of course speaking in english is always harder for me). Add to that the fact that every documentation about the creationism/evolution debate is in english and so reading it gave me a pretty good vocabulary to express myself on these issues. I sometimes even talk about this with my friends and I have a hard time finding the word in french since I have the english one in mind hehe.
On a final note, I appreciate a lot your attitude change towards me. I still remember that very first comment I saw from you on my first thread. Obviously, coming in as a creationist on this forum you have to show that you can discuss coherently and be able to reason, and I'm glad you saw that I could. I do think that I gained this capacity through my pastor (this may sound ironic for some people here). I mean, I think I'm fortunate that I have a pastor that thinks much, much more than he speaks, and when he does speak it is well thought. Sometimes you almost feel like in your a sociology class, when in fact you're at church. (he studied history and sociology at university).
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 3:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 103 of 104 (519678)
08-16-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Rrhain
08-16-2009 4:47 AM


Hey, if you think that one of the other options you mentioned are the ones with the fewer assumptions, so be it. I mean, this was a bit of a side-issue even at the time that this thread was active. You had equated Occam's razor to 'what is simpler', and so I did find it important to just correct the misunderstanding that Occam's razor is more specifically on the number of assumptions rather than on simplicity. I do think that you knew full well what Occam's razor was, and that it was just a bad choice of words on your part.
I don't think it is valuable to continue to discuss this side-issue, as I think it will end up 'arguing for the sake of arguing'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 08-16-2009 4:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 08-16-2009 6:01 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024