Creation, Evolution, and faith

You are correct that science dictates neither position, and good science can be done under either. That, of course, does not mean the two positions are scientifically equivalent. One assumes the existence of a being which is unnecessary, and for which no objective evidence can be produced. Given that there can be no observational distinction between the two that would let us conclude that one is more likely than the other, parsimony would dictate rejecting the first as adding an additional irrelevant element. So, even though science doesn't dictate either one, it certainly suggests a strong preference for the second.If you are not inclined to reject the first on the basis of parsimony, then please provide a set of criteria to let us determine which irrelevant additions we should rationally accept and which we shouldn't. Is thunder the sound of gods bowling? Are natural disasters caused by Loki? Why do you say one god? Why not a different god for each regularity we see in nature?You first proposal raises many more problems (innumerable, really) than it solves (none).

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This isn't so much a matter of giving or withholding religion permission to make claims about the physical world. Nor necessarily whether that's within religion's purview (I believe that it is not). Rather, how capable is religion in this regard? Again, I believe, not very.In practical terms, how can we test the claims and comments made by religion? The types of questions that are within the purview of religion -- "why?", "what does it mean?", "how then are we to live our lives?" (which our first minister presented as the ultimate and most fundamental religious question) -- are very difficult to test against the real world, except perhaps when we examine the consequences of people following certain teachings. If religion makes statements about the supernatural, how are we to test those statements? We cannot, so we leave religion well-enough alone to make those statements.But when religion makes statements, definitive statements, about the physical world, then we do have something to test those statements against ... the physical world. The claims of "creation science" are just such definitive statements made about the physical world. Such statements are testable, they have been tested, and they have been found to be incredibly wrong.Should religion be allowed to make false statements about the physical world? Hell no! Should religion be allowed make false statements about the supernatural? Again, hell no! But we are powerless to hold them accountable in the latter case since we cannot check out those claims, rather only in the former case where we can actually check out their claims. At most, we can say that, since they are so incredibly wrong about those claims that we are able to check out, why should we believe them about the claims that we cannot check out?For the past three decades, I have unwaveringly insisted that if creationists want to make claims about the physical world, then they must ensure that their claims are both truthful and accurate. It does not matter to me in the least whether they oppose evolution, I just insist that they be absolutely truthful in conducting their opposition, which "creation science" is infamous for not doing. Creationist reaction has invariably (with maybe a few -- which to me means about 3 -- exceptions) been viciously hateful and vitriolic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I also see it in Dawkins' "God Delusion." He insists on a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis so that it will conflict with science and he can ridicule it.

---

This of course is quite false.

​

Dawkins does not "insist" upon any interpretation. He may address a literal interpretation, but he also devotes an entire chapter of TGD to criticising the OT as a supposed moral guide;

---

I did not mention the issue of whether or not the OT is a moral guide. I mentioned the issue of a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis. And I also said:

quote:

---

You seem to be projecting again. It is the Christian who regularly asserts that he has all the answers. Christians very often assert that they know the correct interpretation of scripture. Atheists tend not to claim such certainty.

​

Disagree? Why don't you show me where Dawkins "insists" on any particular interpretation of Genesis? Or is that another secret that you are unwilling to divulge?

---

I can't find an explicit mention in The God Delusion that Dawkins thinks Genesis speaks of a literal, 6-day creation. Perhaps I heard this in one of his debates (with Lennox? McGrath?) But he implies that he thinks such a literalistic interpretation is correct in a couple of places in the book. E.g., when speaking of Kurt Wise on p. 285, he mentions that Wise could have interpreted the Bible symbolically or allegorically, but instead he adopted a "fundamentalist" interpretation. Dawkins praises him for this as "honest -- devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest."But Dawkins certainly DOES insist on a conflict perspective between science and religion. This unwavering commitment permeates The God Delusion. He is strongly critical of any attempts to harmonize science and religion. He ridicules Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA" perspective (p. 55-61). He even accuses atheist philosopher Michael Ruse of being in "the Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists" because Ruse had some good things to say about non-YEC Christians (p. 67).As Alister McGrath explains, Dawkins has simply replicated a YEC "fundamentalist scenario, while inverting its frame of reference. ... Dawkins is clearly entrenched in his own peculiar version of a fundamentalist dualism. ... We are offered an atheist fundamentalism that is as deeply flawed and skewed as its religious counterparts." (Alister and Joanna McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? pp. 46-48.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is as far as science can properly go. The question of why (in a non-mechanistic sense) the earth follows gravitational laws is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question. I will suggest two possibilities:
1) The earth does this because God causes it to do so. God is the one who controls, operates, and upholds the universe every milisecond. He normally operates His universe in a consistent way. We identify this consistency as "natural laws." These natural laws have no independent existence on their own, they are merely descriptive of God's activity. This metaphysical perspective was held by nearly all of the founders of modern science: Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, etc.
2) The earth does this because gravitational behavior is built into the fabric of nature. These laws are part of the universe itself. Nature runs like a clock with these built-in laws governing it, independently of any gods. This metaphysical perspective is that of Deism and of many modern scientists, especially atheists. (This is what I meant by the metaphysical position of the so-called "scientific atheists.")

---

​

I agree with the distinction you are making between the metaphysics of Kepler et. al., and the metaphysics of today. I very much doubt that this has much to do with theism vs. atheism. It seems to me that theistic physicists are just as likely to talk of the fabric of space-time.

​

This change, it seems to me, has more to do with Newtonian mechanics having been displaced by GR (general relativity). With Newtonian mechanics, you had explicit laws which you could consider to be laws of nature. With GR, you have gravitation explained in terms of curvature of space-time, a notion that lends itself more to the "fabric" way of talking.

---

Perhaps my use of the word "fabric" was misleading. The distinction is whether the universe is something which is operated by God or whether it runs "all by itself." The space-time "fabric" of the universe can be viewed either way; it can be part of our description of how God normally operates His universe, or it can be a sort of self-existent, self-operating, independent structure.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most who reject the biblical God seem to end up substituting Him with something else.

---

You are projecting. Just because you need a theistic belief in your life does not mean others do, nor do they require something to replace it. I might as well ask what you replaced your belief in Santa Claus with. Nothing, right?

---

First, I never believed in Santa Claus.Second, if I had ever believed in Santa, I would have replaced him with my parents. They were the ones who actually performed the "Santa functions." As I explained earlier: These atheists take the "God-functions" of creating and sustaining the universe, and ascribe these functions to the universe itself. Nature becomes their god.Third, there is a big difference between belief in Santa and belief in God. Can you show me an adult who did not believe in Santa but then converted to belief in Santa? Maybe an intelligent university biochemistry student like Alister McGrath? Or an intelligent, reasonable philosopher in his 80's like Anthony Flew?

---

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

I cannot recall coming across anyone who has made such a distinction in the "all by itself" direction.

Hi kbertsche, I mention it to highlight the fact that Dawkins does address allegory, as shown by the quote I presented. Bet you a dollar Dawkins has never read those books. It hardly matters where you think you can trace it to, when you can't even find it in TGD. To be fair, that was not what you originally claimed. You claimed that he insisted upon a literal interpretation. But you can't even find him saying he believes in it. Or perhaps you were merely wrong. Happens to the best of us you know. Sure, although the whole context makes clear that Dawkins is not specifically talking about Wise's refusal to accept allegory when he calls him honest.There is another point to be made here. If one believes, sincerely, just as Wise did, that Gen 1 & 2 are literal; if one believes the allegorical interpretations of Gen 1 & 2 to be flawed; and one also realises that geoscience is incompatible with a literal Gen 1 & 2, just as Wise did, then what is the correct course of action? To accept allegory? NO! That has the logic backwards.If one accepts that science rules out a literal interpretation, it does not follow that the scripture in question must be allegorical. That, quite wrongly, assumes that the Bible is inerrant. It excludes the perfectly reasonable possibility that Gen 1 & 2 are simply wrong (as we've discussed before). Assuming that an allegorical interpretation was intended for Gen 1 & 2 simply because science rejects the literal version is spectacularly illogical, yet, I suspect, quite prevalent amongst moderate theists. I think that it is this that Dawkins was getting at when he praised Wise's honesty. Yes. Good chap that Dawkins. Always liked him.Seriously; Dawkins is right here. Science and religion are fundamentally opposed ways of trying to understand. They are not compatible. Yes. That's because it is ridiculous. I admire Gould, but he was quite wrong about NOMA, as any casual inspection of world religion ought to be enough to demonstrate. Religion, as you have pointed out, makes claims about the physical world all the time. No, you are mis-characterising what was said.Ruse was suggesting a truce of sorts between moderate religion and anti-creationist scientists. Dawkins rejects this for the most part. He was not criticising Ruse for saying nice things about religion, as you wrongly allege. He was criticising the suggestion that we lay off moderate religion and aim for the creationist extremists. I happen to agree with Dawkins here and most especially, I agree with Jerry Coyne, who, further down the page, writes that Ruse;

quote:

---

fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson [E. O. Wilson, the celebrated Harvard biologist], the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition. Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the greater enemy: religion. While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion.

---

I applaud that sentiment. I can understand why it doesn't appeal to you, but even you must admit that it is consistent and honest. This is complete nonsense. McGrath is simply making the same claim as you did, that Dawkins is insistent on a YEC literalist interpretation. This is false. You cannot back it up and nor does McGrath attempt to.Dawkins often brings up YEC beliefs. Can you blame him? They are very, very silly and they make sensible people laugh. Encouraging people to laugh at the silliness of religion is part of Dawkins' goals and YEC's fit the bill nicely. Why not bring them up? Millions of people sincerely hold these beliefs and you can no more guarantee that their interpretation is wrong than you can guarantee that yours is right.Mutate and SurvivePS; And I never believed in God. How can I "replace" a belief I never held?Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

So that would make your parents gods and your belief in the existence of your parents would be a religious belief, right? This would seem to fit with your statement from before:

quote:

---

Dawkins, Hitchins, Stenger, and other "scientific atheists" reject the personal God of the Bible, but replace Him in their metaphysics with the impersonal god of the universe itself.

---

Or is it possible that one doesn't need other gods to replace a belief in your God? Or is it possible that they see nature just as nature, not a god. Again, you are projecting. So you are saying that adults replace a belief in Santa Claus with a belief in God?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The question of why (in a non-mechanistic sense) the earth follows gravitational laws is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question. I will suggest two possibilities:
1) The earth does this because God causes it to do so. God is the one who controls, operates, and upholds the universe every milisecond. He normally operates His universe in a consistent way. We identify this consistency as "natural laws." These natural laws have no independent existence on their own, they are merely descriptive of God's activity. This metaphysical perspective was held by nearly all of the founders of modern science: Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, etc.
2) The earth does this because gravitational behavior is built into the fabric of nature. These laws are part of the universe itself. Nature runs like a clock with these built-in laws governing it, independently of any gods. This metaphysical perspective is that of Deism and of many modern scientists, especially atheists. (This is what I meant by the metaphysical position of the so-called "scientific atheists.")
[quote omitted]
I'm not sure about your particular position. But the two positions outlined above are definitely metaphysical. Science dictates neither one, and good science can be done under either.

---

You are correct that science dictates neither position, and good science can be done under either.

---

Good, at least we agree on something!

quote:

---

That, of course, does not mean the two positions are scientifically equivalent.

---

Neither view is scientific at all; they are both metaphysical. So what does "scientifically equivalent" even mean here?

quote:

---

One assumes the existence of a being which is unnecessary,

---

Not so! In stating this, you assume your conclusion. A god is only "unnecessary" under position 2). He is essential under position 1). If you start by asserting that God is unnecessary, you have already taken a metaphysical position. You have assumed your conclusion.

quote:

---

and for which no objective evidence can be produced. Given that there can be no observational distinction between the two that would let us conclude that one is more likely than the other, parsimony would dictate rejecting the first as adding an additional irrelevant element.

---

First, I don't quite see how "parsimony" or "Occam's razor" applies to a philosophical/metaphysical question. This is a general scientific principle, but not a strict quantifiable law. We have a strong bias toward the simpler explanation in science, but we recognize that it is not invariably the best one. But we can’t force a scientific principle onto a metaphysical question.Second, the universe is very different under the two metaphysical positions above. The first position is NOT simply the second position with a "god" added. Under the first position, the universe is simply a created thing which responds to the control of its creator and sustainer. It has no independent existence or power of its own. Under the second, the universe is independently existing and self-operating. This is a much more complex universe than the first. So the complexity of the two positions is similar; one puts the complexity outside the universe, in God, and the other puts the complexity in the universe itself, making the universe god-like. It's not obvious that either basic position is philosophically simpler or more "parsimonious" than the other.John Lennox gives a good analogy. Suppose someone were to see some scratches on a cave wall and postulate that these were a random result of the forces of nature. But then someone else points out that these are actually ancient Chinese characters that communicate meaning, and postulates that an intelligent being wrote them on the cave wall. Should we follow your logic and reject this explanation because it adds "an additional irrelevant element" and there is "no observational distinction" between the two theories?

quote:

---

So, even though science doesn't dictate either one, it certainly suggests a strong preference for the second.

---

Not so. This is metaphysics, not science. Science cannot discriminate between metaphysical positions.

quote:

---

If you are not inclined to reject the first on the basis of parsimony, then please provide a set of criteria to let us determine which irrelevant additions we should rationally accept and which we shouldn't.

---

I don't think we should have ANY irrelevant additions, of course. Only relevant ones.

quote:

---

Is thunder the sound of gods bowling? Are natural disasters caused by Loki? Why do you say one god? Why not a different god for each regularity we see in nature?

---

Good, valid questions. I presented only two metaphysical positions, but many, many more could be proposed, as you suggest. Feel free to develop these as you wish. I only presented the position that I hold and the one that I suspect most of my critics here hold.

quote:

---

You first proposal raises many more problems (innumerable, really) than it solves (none).

---

I disagree. Many problems have no easy answer under the second, but have simple, straightforward answers under the first. (Note: I am talking of philosophical problems here, not scientific problems.)But this thread is not about arguing any particular metaphysical position, or about the reasons for or against any particular position. (If you want to argue this, please take it to a different thread.) My point here is simply the existence of metaphysical positions which underlie science, the inability to decide between them on scientific grounds, and the necessity of taking them on faith.

---

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

But when religion makes statements, definitive statements, about the physical world, then we do have something to test those statements against ... the physical world. The claims of "creation science" are just such definitive statements made about the physical world. Such statements are testable, they have been tested, and they have been found to be incredibly wrong.

---

I agree with you on this. "Creation science" is a set of scientific claims which are demonstrably false. But these claims are not central to Christianity or to religion; they are the views of one particular subgroup. Many Christians are as opposed to their claims as you are.

quote:

---

For the past three decades, I have unwaveringly insisted that if creationists want to make claims about the physical world, then they must ensure that their claims are both truthful and accurate. It does not matter to me in the least whether they oppose evolution, I just insist that they be absolutely truthful in conducting their opposition, which "creation science" is infamous for not doing. Creationist reaction has invariably (with maybe a few -- which to me means about 3 -- exceptions) been viciously hateful and vitriolic.

---

I agree with you, and have experienced the same sort of vitriol from YECs. But don't let them determine your view of all Christians or all religious people.

Here are what I consider to be my metaphysical assumptions:1. There is an actual reality external to us that exists. In other words, we're not in the Matrix.2. Other people are actual, independent, sentient beings.3. As a group, we can accurately sense that external reality. Particular individuals in particular situations may be mislead by their senses, but when there is a general consensus, for example, the sky is blue, that general consensus is usually accurate. In other words, we're not all having the same delusion.I reject your classification of the two possibilities that you offered as being metaphysical. They are statements that purport to describe reality. As such, they are subject to scientific investigation the same as any other statement that describes reality. You say that, yet you fail to propose any observational distinction that anyone could use to be able to tell which of the two universes we are in. Can you propose such a distinction? Or, can you explain why we should care about which of two statements that have no observational distinctions between them are true?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

What we keep asking for are christian beliefs that are reached through reason and logic that are demonstrably true. If you can't demonstrate that something is true but still dogmatically believe it to be true how is this anything other than blind faith?

Don't be silly, kb. There can be only one basis for asserting that a given set of scratches are actually symbols that communicate meaning in a given language, and that would be an ample and uncontestable record of similar scratches that were obviously made by users of the given language. This entails that we already have objective evidence regarding those language users -- they are not imaginary, and clearly not "an additional irrelevant element." They are known to exist.We know enough about how (human) language works, and how any written representation of it must work, so even if we don't know the specific language that was written, the patterns and distributions of elements would make any writing system recognizable as such, and there's nothing irrelevant or unnecessary about postulating a human origin for marks.Lennox's analogy is as lame as the ones used to push Intelligent Design. Whatever point you're trying to make, that analogy doesn't help.Anyway, I'm still puzzled: how do you figure that when someone says "I don't know why the universe/life/mankind exists," this constitutes a metaphysical position about existence?Having asked that question, I will point out my own position (indicated by my login name and signature), which I do admit is metaphysical: it's up to us, as emergent life forms with sentience and self-awareness, to figure out for ourselves what our purpose should be, and to work hard toward making sure we can accomplish that purpose. I think that focusing on unobservable, unverifiable notions is not the right way to pursue this, and limiting ourselves to assertions made in 2000-year-old texts is simply a mistake.I have some amount of faith that we can do this, once enough of us become sufficiently mature that we don't just push this responsibility away onto some unknowable and imaginary external entity.That's just my own personal position -- it's not a basis for scientific pursuit, but it is at least a position that poses no obstacle to pursuing science.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I am not seeing anything metaphysical about that.

quote:

---

I disagree. Many problems have no easy answer under the second, but have simple, straightforward answers under the first. (Note: I am talking of philosophical problems here, not scientific problems.)

​

But this thread is not about arguing any particular metaphysical position, or about the reasons for or against any particular position. (If you want to argue this, please take it to a different thread.) My point here is simply the existence of metaphysical positions which underlie science, the inability to decide between them on scientific grounds, and the necessity of taking them on faith.

---

If a proposed explanation cannot be investigated in any way, is it even meaningful? Surely it is dishonest to take any position on a question which cannot even be investigated. "Faith" is just an inability to admit ignorance.