Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, it [evolution] is a fact, again in the same sense that gravity is both a fact and a theory at the same time as well.

---

​

-from nos, previous posting

​

I agree to that under those definitions, but at the same time isn't Christianity a scientific fact by the same reasoning? Neither can be proved with absolute certainty because they are based on probabilities and 'best solution' logic. Christianity too looks for answers and has theories about the origin of the world that are being changed to better suit observations.

---

No, Christianity would not be considered a scientific fact because it is not based upon scientific tenets.Science is evidence-based, tentative and falsifiable, while Christianity is revelation-based.

quote:

---

Look at it this way, for a theory to become fact it needs to survive without refutation. I have never heard an argument that has destroyed my beliefs, so I feel they have not been refuted.

---

Are you following scientific rules, though? Just because you haven't changed your beliefs doesn't mean you are right. The scientific method is designed, through repeated testing, peer review and other means, to get us closer to consensus. One scientist's opinion might be right, but it isn't going to be accepted until her work has been tested by others.I suggest reading up on what science is and how it works, and also how it is that science considers Evolution to be both theory and fact. Here are some good links. Enjoy:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:
But by defintion 5 an atheistical world view IS a religion. I suppose I have to define devoted too though right?

---

Actually, no. But since I don't really care about this I won't argue the point.

quote:

---

Devoted: loving, loyal.

---

True enough. See above. (I don't care, so how is this to be 'loving' or 'loyal'.)

quote:

---

I doubt that this is what the previous 115 posts have been arguing. How about somebody tells me the 'real' definitions and an argument that evolution is not a religion.

---

The real definition is that which is commonly understood. I think we all know what a religion is.

quote:

---

e: In a strict sense, yes. However, since it is supported by so much evidence it can be used as a premise for further sudies. This is where creationists lose the thread of logic. They think that a working hypothesis is necessarily assumed to be a fact. In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'. By using this scientific fact as a premise we are not only causing scientific progress, we are actualy testing the theory as well. Every day.

​

PM: I agree, but that too is a selfserving definition. Look at it this way, for a theory to become fact it needs to survive without refutation.

---

This is a good criterion. It is why evolution has moved to what I call a 'scientific fact.'

quote:

---

I have never heard an argument that has destroyed my beliefs, so I feel they have not been refuted. It has been about six years personally. Is that enough time? Christianity has been around 2000 years, but at other times people believed slightly different Christianity as they believed slightly different forms of evolution. Is 2000 long enough?

---

I am not sure where you get the idea that christianity necessarily conflicts with evolution. The only conflict is where creationists insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis and forget about the important parts of the Genesis story.

[QUOTE] But by defintion 5 an atheistical world view IS a religion. I suppose I have to define devoted too though right?Devoted: loving, loyal.[/b][/quote]Wrong again, at least in my case. I have a fundamentally atheistic world view. I do not love it. The idea is a bit rididulous actually. I see no evidence for anything approximating a god, hence I do not believe in one. It is pragmatic. To say I love the belief is a bit like saying I love my belief in gravity. Everything I see leads me to believe in gravity. It is that simple.And loyal? Nope. Show me evidence and I will change my mind.

quote:

---

Look at it this way, for a theory to become fact it needs to survive without refutation. I have never heard an argument that has destroyed my beliefs, so I feel they have not been refuted.

---

Are you listening to the arguments? Only you know the truth of that. (Science gets around this problem of subjectivity by amalgamating the opinions of many thousands of scientists worldwide.) Are you willing to be convinced that your beliefs are wrong? We all know people who will not change their minds despite the over-whelming evidence. Are you like that with your religion?

quote:

---

It has been about six years personally. Is that enough time?

---

No. It is never enough time. As soon as you decide that "enough time has passed" you stop thinking rationally, you stop analyzing, you stagnate and die -- passing through a Wordswordsman phase on the way.

quote:

---

Christianity has been around 2000 years, but at other times people believed slightly different Christianity as they believed slightly different forms of evolution. Is 2000 long enough?

---

Two thousand years of what? Think about it. There are religions older than Christianity. They should be "more correct" yes? I doubt you'll agree. This should tell you that there is something wrong with the argument. Time is not a sufficient judge of veracity.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I agree to that under those definitions, but at the same time isn't Christianity a scientific fact by the same reasoning? Neither can be proved with absolute certainty because they are based on probabilities and 'best solution' logic. Christianity too looks for answers and has theories about the origin of the world that are being changed to better suit observations.No, Christianity isn't the same since it doesn't have any credible, verifible, nor unbiased evidence in it's favor in regards to the existence of its god.If Christianity were to be classed under any such thing it would be under pseudo-science (The same as Creationism is). With pseudo-science when the facts don't fit what the theory states than the facts are discounted and dismissed since belief and faith are far more important than actual facts in this regard.In other words Christians constantly ignore the mountains of evidence against their belief in the existence of their god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-20-2002]

[QUOTE][B]In other words Christians constantly ignore the mountains of evidence against their belief in the existence of their god.[/QUOTE][/B]Be sure to ask Nos what that evidence is.I always hear Creationists claim they have "mountains of evidence" but they never seem to share it. I suspect this is more of the same.

This argument doesn't use any of my funny definitions Evolution involves evidence and probabilities:

quote:

---

Science is tentative. We devise theories to explain bodies of evidence, and then we modify/replace these theories in light of new evidence or improved understanding. Science never proves anything, not in any of its many fields.

​

--Percy

---

Evolution is a scientific fact however because it has survived for a long time without refutation:

quote:

---

In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'

---

(that was from edge, back a page or so)From Philosophy, Quest for Truth
by Louis P Pojman
fourth edition
Wadsworth Publishing Company

quote:

---

Argument from Ignorance This kind of argument occurs when I claim that because you cannot prove a proposition false, I am justified in believing that it is true. For example because you can't prove that God doesn't exist, I am free to believe that he does exist. Or because you can't prove that we do not have a soul, I am free to believe that we do.

---

It seems to me that the argument for evolution being true contains one of the fallacies of reasoning from my philosophy text.Evolution may be a scientific fact, but believing this scientific fact is not a result of common sense, but involves believing in an argument containing fallacy.I appreciate you guys puttin up with a newb like me. Sorry if my posts are sorta weird anyway, I have PHIL105 to cram for so l8r------------------
-Phantom Mullet

Originally posted by gene90:Be sure to ask Nos what that evidence is.

​

I always hear Creationists claim they have "mountains of evidence" but they never seem to share it. I suspect this is more of the same. That's another difference, we do share it. How about sharing some evidence for the existence of your "spirit witness"?

Not quite, Mullet. Firstly, I think your philosophy text deserves some criticism. Strictly speaking the classic fallacies of reasoning occur when one attempts to establish the truth of a proposition by an invalid argumnet. For example:Either we have a soul or we do not.
You cannot prove we do not;
therefore we do.This is a better statement of the form of the argument to ignorance than that given in your quote. Things get a little muddled when we talk in terms of "I am justified in believing it is true." Consider the ad hominem argument.Either E=mc^2 or it does not.
Roger Penrose says E=mc^2;
therefore it does.This is a fallacy because Roger Penrose's utterances do not affect the values of physical constants. However "Roger Penrose says E=mc^2; therefore I am justified in believing it does" is not, strictly speaking, a fallacy or an ad hominem argument because it can be fleshed out to a valid argument so long as the justification is included as one of the premises ...I am justified in believing the statements of experts in their fields.
The statement "E=mc^2 is true" is a statement in the field of relativity.
Roger Penrose is an expert in the field of relavity ... etc etc... (you can do the rest, I presume)The reason the justification must be included as a premise, is becuase a logical argument is only guaranteed to provide true conclusions following from true premises. It may not be true that I am justified in believing experts, or it may not be true that Roger Penrose is such an expert, or it may not be true that E-mc^2 is a statement in relativity, but in these cases I would err in my premises and not in my logic.Now if you take Percy's and edge's statements you will see that they are both establishing empirical criteria rather than criteria of strict logical deduction. They must do so because, as Percy points out, science cannot prove anything in the formal sense of logical or mathematical proof. Indeed, if you are studying Philosophy, you have already, or will soon, come across the "riddles of induction" which show exactly why this is so. In this regard, note that edge places "scientific fact" in quotes to point out that there is a particular nuance to his usage of the term - to distinguish it from a more absolute form of proven truth such as may be found in mathematics or formal logic.Percy and edge are not saying "evolution is true because it has not been disproved" but "science is justified in empirically regarding evolution as true because it has not been disproved." If you consider this in the light of the clarification I made to the argument from ignorance you will understand the difference.edge also introduces another important distinction - namely that this empirical acceptance of evolution requires a process of disproval or approval. For example, I could come up with a theory right now that the crab nebula is formed from the droppings of a giant space goat - could I regard this empirically true until disproven? I would be seriously mistaken if I did. The establishment of empirical truth is a process - a process which we call "Science."So what was your mistake? You will be glad to know that it is a recognizable logical fallacy that you can avoid in the future: the fallacy of weak analogy. You are in effect sayingScience is like formal logic.
In Formal Logic, edge's statement would be untrue;
therefore edg'es statement is untrue.But, as Percy and edge both tried to point in their own ways, Science is not like Formal Logic.You may be tempted, as many a creationist before you, to say that therefore you are justified in doubting the conclusions of science. But, as a student of philosophy, you should be able to see through that one by recasting the argument to ignorance in empirical rather than formal terms.Have fun philosophizing.

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:Evolution involves evidence and probabilities:What probabilities? The thing is that most creationists don't understand the concept of probabilitiy theory either. They believe that it speaks in absolutes, or certainties, when it only speaks in chances. Just because something may seem highly unlikely doesn't mean that it won't happen in the next second or so.Evolution is a scientific fact however because it has survived for a long time without refutation:Of course.From Philosophy, Quest for Truth
by Louis P Pojman
fourth edition
Wadsworth Publishing Company

​

Argument from Ignorance This kind of argument occurs when I claim that because you cannot prove a proposition false, I am justified in believing that it is true. For example because you can't prove that God doesn't exist, I am free to believe that he does exist. Or because you can't prove that we do not have a soul, I am free to believe that we do.It seems to me that the argument for evolution being true contains one of the fallacies of reasoning from my philosophy text.Maybe for just one thing, evolution is not philosophy. There is hard evidence in its favor, there is none for creationism.Evolution may be a scientific fact, but believing this scientific fact is not a result of common sense, but involves believing in an argument containing fallacy.Please define "common sense" in this context? Belief is irrelevant in this situation. Is it any wonder that philosophy is not a hard or exact science. Word and mind games are not proof in and of themselves.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

In other words Christians constantly ignore the mountains of evidence against their belief in the existence of their god.It's not that simple. I lie awake at night considering it. Sometimes I seriously consider dropping the whole thing.But somewhere under it all...Martyn Joseph does an interesting version of Joan Osborne's "One of Us", where he ends with "So much bigotry, so much hatred, so much anger, so much... but what if, despite all the bullshit, what if God was one of us".It's not about science; it's not about objective evidence.And of course, because evolution is about science, it has nothing to do with the existence of God, or the truth of Christianity.[This message has been edited by Karl, 10-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
And of course, because evolution is about science, it has nothing to do with the existence of God, or the truth of Christianity.

---

What truth about Christianity? There is no (Whoops) objective evidence for Christianity.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-22-2002]

Don't split hairs. You know what I mean.

And now you've edited your post, I know what you mean. Ignore my last.I'm not inclined to think there is masses of objective evidence for Christianity being true, especially of the scientifically verifiable kind - I said that in my post.Approaching religion from a scientific viewpoint is like trying to change a plug with a hammer - wrong tool. That's the mistake the fundamentalists make, and it's the mistake that a lot of atheists make. Our "scientific method" is only the product of the last few hundred years, and it's bloody good at what it does. But religion is not part of its remit, I think we'd all agree.Trying to assess faith scientifically is like trying to devise scientific methodologies to establish whether Hamlet was really mad or merely pretending to be.If religion in general - and Christianity in particular - were merely assent to a set of propositions, then the scientific method might be applicable. It isn't mere assent, however - indeed, I hold that assent to Christian doctrines is a minor element in Faith - and so the scientific method isn't applicable. Don't get me wrong - I struggle with this as a scientist - I really want objective scientific evidence that my faith is true, but reality just doesn't deal the goods. Better to accept that God (OK, OK, if He exists ) wants it that way for some reason, and move on.If you want to inhabit a universe composed only of that which is subject to scientific analysis, then feel free. But existence is bigger than that.Non of this matters a fig to evolution, which is science, is subject to the scientific method and passes science's strictures with flying colours.

Do you understand probability theory either? In that case, most evolutionists don't understand the concept of probability theory either. ('Most' in this case used to indicate the general populace).

quote:

---

Of course.

---

Just like the heliocentric model?[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:Do you understand probability theory either? In that case, most evolutionists don't understand the concept of probability theory either. ('Most' in this case used to indicate the general populace).The difference is that evoltuinists don't try to misuse it as creationists do. We know that it doesn't actually deal in absolutes and certainties as creationists want to think it does. And we're not speaking of the general populace either.Just like the heliocentric model?Do you have any proof that the Sun isn't at the "center" of our solar system? The old Earth centered model was Church imposed.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]