Topic: Why we need faith, and why we lose it. (Read 5365 times)

Copernicus · « **on:** November 29, 2007, 06:09:44 PM »

I posted this in the Atheist forum on CARM already, but rereading Elisha's post here on the existence of evil, I thought it might be useful to post it here, as well. This is just some thoughts that have occurred to me lately about the atheist/theist debate and what I see as drivers of faith and loss of faith.

--------
A question that fascinates many of us is why so many of us have religious faith and why some of us come to lose it. It is my opinion that theism--any belief in a god or gods--is driven by the utility of the belief or what it does for us. What needs does it fulfill? The answer to the question, then, is whether or not we think that the belief is doing its job properly.

As far as I can tell, belief in a god does two things. It explains things to us, and it empowers us. Belief in a god helps us to understand why we exist, how we got here, and why things are the way they are. But it may be even more important to us that gods make us stronger. They offer us a chance to achieve immortality (a central theme of the oldest religious epic, the Gilgamesh story). They perform miraculous cures and bring good weather. They take our side in wars, and they justify our violence against our enemies. It is no random fact that the German Wehrmacht had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles. Most Christians believe that God supports their political goals and moral attitudes (although they tend to see it as themselves supporting God's political goals and moral attitudes). I cannot think of anything beyond these two purposes that a god may have, but I welcome suggestions. I see the companionship that people get from communication with God as a kind of empowerment, but maybe one could see that as a third reason to sustain belief.

When atheists argue with Christians, it seems that the debate centers primarily around how good a job God does at explaining things. That is why the debate over evolution is so important. Darwin's theory does much to undercut the need to explain biological (and physical) complexity as a divine artifact. Although most Christians have probably given up a literal belief in the Genesis story of creationism, God still seems to explain the mystery of the origin of the universe and the principal reason why evolution seems to have worked to create human beings. God simply guided evolution in their minds. But is God's explanatory value more important than his ability to empower us? I think not.

Most 18th and 19th century religious skeptics in the West tended to be deists, not pure atheists, but Darwinism helped to change that demographic--to create what Dawkins has called the "intellectually fulfilled atheist". In reading biographies of such religious skeptics as Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain (both probably deists) and Charles Darwin (a confirmed atheist), I have been struck by the fact that the tipping point from faith to lack of faith in their lives came after the deaths of loved ones. God failed to be there when they needed him. Before that point, they questioned the usefulness of God in explaining reality, but they could buy the fact that he might have played some role in setting things up. It was the utter failure of their God to prevent horror and tragedy that drove them away from religion.

Darwin was a particularly interesting case, because he claimed not to have really embraced atheism until around the age of 40 (from David Quammen's The Reluctant Mr. Darwin). That was after his father's death and shortly before the tragic death of his treasured young daughter. Lincoln's and Twain's lack of faith hardened similarly after the loss of children. It is ironic, because people of faith quite often find themselves becoming more religious after such tragedies, not less. The experience of tragedy is like a wedge in that it drives people who possess and lack faith further away from each other. After the 9/11 tragedy, the churches in the US filled up, but so did the number of people asking (or explaining) why God had abandoned us.

So I want to end this little essay by saying how I think it affects the debate between theists and atheists. If one is trying to develop a persuasive case for or against belief in a god, the more important of God's two functions--explanation and empowerment--is empowerment. The feeling that God doesn't explain things well may weaken faith, but it is the realization that he fails to help us that makes a real difference in the end. We have to look elsewhere for the strength to get through life's worst tragedies, and that is something which many (perhaps most) of us find too horrible to contemplate.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2007, 09:09:59 AM »

I would be seriously pissed if I lost my wife or one of my kids and I would not be happy with God at all. CS Lewis talked a big game about pain and suffering in "The Problem of Pain" but he expressed it all differently in "A Grief Observed." In other words, even though I, or another Christian 'knows' the 'answers' that doesn't minimize the depth of the suffering one knows after they experience it. I found this statement of yours to be simplistic if not condescending:

"We have to look elsewhere for the strength to get through life's worst tragedies, and that is something which many (perhaps most) of us find too horrible to contemplate."

It is simplistic for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that good theology would recognize that God wants us to be free people who can stand 'on their own.' It is bad theology, I think, to posit that in a time of suffering God dumps a bottle of strength into the human soul so that they can get through. It would be good theology to point out that God created humans and equipped them with mechanisms for overcoming adversity. For example, stories abound of people surviving in the face of suffering and danger because of their undying hope for the future while those who did not have that hope died while they were still breathing. Since you've invoked evolution's explanatory power, I would submit that the ability of hope to sustain life throughout terrible tragedy should be given an evidenced explanation. From the fossil record, if you will.

But my point is that God created people with strength. So, there are two senses of 'God giving us strength.' In the sense that you are using it, I would suggest it is bad theology to begin with. God does not 'give us strength.' But in the other sense, he does: when he made us.

This notion of it being 'too horrible to contemplate' getting through alone is what I found to be condescending. It makes it sound like those strong, brave, atheists have set aside such childish notions but alas, most humans are unable. It is only those weak religious people- most of the human race- that cannot bear to take hold of their own future. By your view, the atheist is the Ubermensch. How did Nietzsche's world view of hopelessness fare for him?

What is your evolutionary explanation for how hope can sustain us? And remember, no mumbo jumbo religious conjecture. A scientific explanation requires evidences. What is the evolution of hope?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2007, 09:10:11 AM »

Anyway, a couple of other comments:

"As far as I can tell, belief in a god does two things. It explains things to us, and it empowers us. "

Or... one has a belief in God because they think it is true and that's where the evidence points.

This one is key, I think...

"When atheists argue with Christians, it seems that the debate centers primarily around how good a job God does at explaining things. That is why the debate over evolution is so important. Darwin's theory does much to undercut the need to explain biological (and physical) complexity as a divine artifact."

I thought this was a very strange argument to make. Doesn't this statement admit that having an explanatory mechanism is an important thing to have? If not, why should it matter that evolution in the minds of atheists gives a better explanation? And if it is conceded that having an explanatory mechanism is important, and that evolution is a better explanation than 'God,' than why would you characterize your post in such a way as to make it sound as though only those weak-minded religious people 'need' a god to explain things. It would seem from this argument that every human needs an explanatory mechanism. Rather than being a factor unique to believers in god, it is a truth about all humans.

And that humans would need an explanatory mechanism itself requires explanation. Please produce your evolutionary explanation for why humans need an explanation. Remember, evolution is all about hard science, so you should be able to document this from the evidence. As far as I can tell, my dog, my fish, my horse if I had one, do not need anything explained and they go merrily on. Why is the human being the sole exception, seemingly, out of 2 million living species?

Just lucky, I guess.

I have now included two things that I think you as an evolutionary atheist should defend from the evolutionary world view and the evidence. You seem to concede that it is important for both atheists and theists that they need an explanation (though you only hold it against the religious people) and imply that it is this raw need for an explanation that leads them to believe there is a God. There is no hint in your analysis that religious people (like all people) need an explanation but they may choose 'God' because they find the evidence better. If I didn't know better, you can think of no reason for being a theist apart from psychological ones.

Well, if your explanatory mechanism is superior, than it should be able to account for 1. why we need an explanatory mechanism at all and 2. How and Why hope can overcome adversity and suffering and 3. why only humans seem to care and 4. why the fact that only humans care is not reasonably taken as evidence that the best explanation is that we were created that way.

I am going to guess that you will say that it is unreasonable to ask for a hard scientific description of how evolution produces these effects. To that I would simply say so much for the power of Darwinism to explain.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:37:14 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on November 30, 2007, 09:09:59 AM

"We have to look elsewhere for the strength to get through life's worst tragedies, and that is something which many (perhaps most) of us find too horrible to contemplate."

It is simplistic for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that good theology would recognize that God wants us to be free people who can stand 'on their own.'...

You call this "good theology", but it is really a poor justification for belief in a benevolent, all-powerful being that does not intervene to end suffering and evil. This is one of the most difficult aspects of Christian belief to explain, and the failure of the Free Will Defense argument seems to be a major cause of deconversion. It was before Darwin came along and kicked the legs out from under the Argument from Design. Darwin himself did not lose faith because of his science, but because he could not reconcile human suffering with the existence of the deity that he had been taught to believe in. His science merely served to make the case against theism water-tight in his mind.

Quote

...It is bad theology, I think, to posit that in a time of suffering God dumps a bottle of strength into the human soul so that they can get through. It would be good theology to point out that God created humans and equipped them with mechanisms for overcoming adversity.

I am not making a theological argument. I am merely claiming that we have two motivations for belief in gods--their ability to explain things and their ability to empower us. Of the two, empowerment seems to be the stronger motivation. We find it easier to ignore loss of rationality than loss of power.

Quote

...For example, stories abound of people surviving in the face of suffering and danger because of their undying hope for the future while those who did not have that hope died while they were still breathing. Since you've invoked evolution's explanatory power, I would submit that the ability of hope to sustain life throughout terrible tragedy should be given an evidenced explanation. From the fossil record, if you will.

I did speak about the irony of this aspect of tragedy--that it drives a big wedge between the faithful and the faithless. Both sides see it as supportive of their viewpoint. The faithful love to tell survival stories that were helped by faith, but those stories fail logically to explain why the tragedy happened in the first place and why other people were not saved by faith.

You said that you would be angry at God if you lost your wife or your child. Why? What expectation disappears in the face of such a calamity? It is the expectation that God will protect the faithful--empowerment. Your 'good theology' helps you to deal with that anger, but your theology isn't good enough for everyone. And 'good theology' isn't necessary for atheists, who have no expectations that they are owed anything by a god in return for their loyalty and service.

Quote

But my point is that God created people with strength. So, there are two senses of 'God giving us strength.' In the sense that you are using it, I would suggest it is bad theology to begin with. God does not 'give us strength.' But in the other sense, he does: when he made us.

If God creates people with strength, he also creates them with weakness. Sometimes, people of faith find themselves blindsided by their own logic. Not you. You do not seem willing to flip the coin over and look at the other side.

Quote

This notion of it being 'too horrible to contemplate' getting through alone is what I found to be condescending. It makes it sound like those strong, brave, atheists have set aside such childish notions but alas, most humans are unable. It is only those weak religious people- most of the human race- that cannot bear to take hold of their own future. By your view, the atheist is the Ubermensch. How did Nietzsche's world view of hopelessness fare for him?

Well, I understand why you find that condescending, and I apologize for giving you that feeling. You aren't the only Christian to have reacted to this argument in that way. I can only assure you that I don't see atheists as braver than Christians. It isn't courage that causes one to lose faith. It is the failure of the argument--loss of explanation and loss of empowerment. Lincoln's faith was brutalized by the loss of an early lover and the loss of his children later in life. Mark Twain became bitterly anti-Christian after his losses, particularly that of a daughter. Darwin seems to have gone over the edge when his young daughter died (probably of tuberculosis). These people were aware of your 'good theology', but they didn't find it convincing. They could not reconcile tragedy with the God they had been taught to worship. God is supposed to empower us, but he fails to be there when we need him. And his failure is completely consistent with non-existence, a much simpler explanation of his non-intervention than the idea that he is striving not to compromise our free will.

If you read about the lives of Lincoln, Twain, and Darwin, you find that they actually envied people who could maintain their faith. When Darwin wrote his devoutly Christian wife to inform her of their daughter's death, he even made a religious reference, despite the fact that his wife knew he lacked faith. Lack of faith doesn't empower you, but it doesn't weaken you, either. It just means that you make your plans in the absence of belief that a god can help you ensure your success.

Quote

What is your evolutionary explanation for how hope can sustain us? And remember, no mumbo jumbo religious conjecture. A scientific explanation requires evidences. What is the evolution of hope?

I don't need evolution to make the case. The placebo effect has been scientifically validated. Belief does affect one's health.

Quote from: sntjohnny on November 30, 2007, 09:10:11 AM

"As far as I can tell, belief in a god does two things. It explains things to us, and it empowers us. "

Or... one has a belief in God because they think it is true and that's where the evidence points.

That would actually be the first of the two things I mentioned.

Quote

I thought this was a very strange argument to make. Doesn't this statement admit that having an explanatory mechanism is an important thing to have? If not, why should it matter that evolution in the minds of atheists gives a better explanation? And if it is conceded that having an explanatory mechanism is important, and that evolution is a better explanation than 'God,' than why would you characterize your post in such a way as to make it sound as though only those weak-minded religious people 'need' a god to explain things. It would seem from this argument that every human needs an explanatory mechanism. Rather than being a factor unique to believers in god, it is a truth about all humans.

Yes. I agree with your point that all humans need explanations. That is why the Darwinian insight is so important in our debates. It undercuts the powerful Argument from Design. However, that alone seems not to be the factor that most often tips people over from faith to lack of faith. It is the feeling that God has failed to be there when we expected him. The lack of empowerment. Explanatory arguments can predispose people to believe or not believe, but it is our survival and well-being that really drives our beliefs. Evolution can make faith brittle, but usually it takes something else to shatter it.

Quote

And that humans would need an explanatory mechanism itself requires explanation. Please produce your evolutionary explanation for why humans need an explanation. Remember, evolution is all about hard science, so you should be able to document this from the evidence. As far as I can tell, my dog, my fish, my horse if I had one, do not need anything explained and they go merrily on. Why is the human being the sole exception, seemingly, out of 2 million living species?

I think it presumptuous of you to deny other animals the capacity to reason about their situations and their futures. They just aren't as good at it as we are. Explanations are necessary, because they form the basis of our need to predict future events. If we can anticipate dangers in the future, then we can take precautions in the present. So, yes, I think that the need for explanation--i.e. curiosity--has evolutionary roots. Our explanations make us more viable in the struggle to survive.

Quote

I have now included two things that I think you as an evolutionary atheist should defend from the evolutionary world view and the evidence. You seem to concede that it is important for both atheists and theists that they need an explanation (though you only hold it against the religious people) and imply that it is this raw need for an explanation that leads them to believe there is a God. There is no hint in your analysis that religious people (like all people) need an explanation but they may choose 'God' because they find the evidence better. If I didn't know better, you can think of no reason for being a theist apart from psychological ones.

I think that you have built something of a straw man here. I believe that theists and atheists are no different in their need to explain and rationalize. People such as yourself do attempt to explain belief in the existence of God in terms of rational evidence. It has been my opinion that both your evidence and your rationality have failed you, sometimes quite spectacularly, in our little debates.

However, I think that we are both also motivated by the need to feel empowered. I believe that lack of belief in gods gives us more power in the long run, because it is better able to explain reality. We behave differently when we fail to take the existence of gods into our calculations. You believe that it is a worse strategy not to take into account the existence of your particular god (albeit not all those others that people have invented).

Quote

Well, if your explanatory mechanism is superior, than it should be able to account for 1. why we need an explanatory mechanism at all and 2. How and Why hope can overcome adversity and suffering and 3. why only humans seem to care and 4. why the fact that only humans care is not reasonably taken as evidence that the best explanation is that we were created that way.

I think that I have addressed all of these points in my remarks above. Probably not to your satisfaction, but I have addressed them.

Quote

I am going to guess that you will say that it is unreasonable to ask for a hard scientific description of how evolution produces these effects. To that I would simply say so much for the power of Darwinism to explain.

The failure to find a "Darwinian" solution to a problem does not mean that there is none to be found. After all, you make that very point in your defenses of belief in God, don't you? God can exist, even if we cannot prove that he exists. The argument we have is not over whether we can prove or disprove each other's beliefs with respect to deities, but over whose viewpoint is more believable.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2007, 03:29:15 PM »

"You call this "good theology","

It is good theology, because it is based on an examination of the Scriptures.

"but it is really a poor justification for belief in a benevolent, "

No, it would be a poor justification if I was trying to fashion for myself an explanation on the matter. I'm not. I'm pointing out that your conception is a strawman that does not represent what is in found in the Christian Scriptures.

"and the failure of the Free Will Defense argument seems to be a major cause of deconversion."

You think it fails. That is just your opinion.

"I am not making a theological argument."

If you are making an argument about God and his nature, his motives, etc, you are doing theology. If you are mixing chemicals you are doing chemistry. If you mix chemicals without being taught by a good authority, like a text book, you're going to blow something up. If you make theological statements that you make up on a whim, we'll be lucky if all you do is erect a strawman.

I won't deny that you won't find Christians speaking as you presented it, though. But it is bad theology. Lazy theology, really.

"The faithful love to tell survival stories that were helped by faith, but those stories fail logically to explain why the tragedy happened in the first place and why other people were not saved by faith."

Again, bad theology. 'Saved by faith' refers to salvation after death. There is no promise in the Scriptures that we are going to be spared troubles in this life.

Eg, John 17:15, Jesus prays about his disciples, ""My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one."

So, ok, I'll give you some slack because there are Christians out there that talk otherwise, but I'm telling you that the Scriptures say otherwise. The Scriptures give no assurances that tragedies will not happen or that people of faith will not be saved. Death comes to all and though some circumstances are more vivid than others or are accompanied by more suffering, it comes to all. The Scriptures do not say anything different.

"You said that you would be angry at God if you lost your wife or your child. Why? What expectation disappears in the face of such a calamity?"

It is a good question, but it is not a question of expectations. Look above. You've seen my posts. I expect that life is going to suck and that people are going to screw up and people are going to hurt. I will be angry at God as a natural part of the grieving process. And since I know to expect that, I will be come out of it.

"Your 'good theology' helps you to deal with that anger, but your theology isn't good enough for everyone."

That depends. My good theology, derived from the Scriptures, makes it clear that no Christian is going to be spared from suffering just because they are saved, just as it is clear that God does not single people out for punishment. My anger is dealt with by remembering that God participated in suffering and loss. If God walking alongside you as one who has endured the same isn't good enough for someone, very little will.

"And 'good theology' isn't necessary for atheists, who have no expectations that they are owed anything by a god in return for their loyalty and service."

It is necessary if you think you're going to represent the Christian world view and are going to frame expectations to be dashed. If you think that a Christian is owed something for loyalty and service, that is a strawman. It is not supported in the Scriptures. I'm sorry.

http://www.nobts.edu/publications/News/Habermas.html

"If God creates people with strength, he also creates them with weakness." Maybe. Fortunately, there is grace.

"They could not reconcile tragedy with the God they had been taught to worship."

In my opinion, this is the sole aspect calling on genuine faith. Not that God exists, or that he did this, or that, but that he is good. I appreciate that, and I know that in the face of the viciousness of mankind, one needs a really good reason to nonetheless believe that God is good. That reason is the death and resurrection of Jesus, God.

"I don't need evolution to make the case. The placebo effect has been scientifically validated. Belief does affect one's health."

Calling it the placebo effect and telling me that it has been validated doesn't move the conversation. I'm not asking you to show that hope brings results. I already know that. I want the evolutionary explanation for that.

"I think it presumptuous of you to deny other animals the capacity to reason about their situations and their futures."

Well, I don't see you affirming it.

We don't really have enough information about it since they can't tell us. However, I do not see dog temples and monkey idols or even a dolphin bank where cash can be stored up for the future.

"So, yes, I think that the need for explanation--i.e. curiosity--has evolutionary roots. Our explanations make us more viable in the struggle to survive."

There is no evidence that any other species makes use of explanations or needs them to survive. I understand that you have to say it has evolutionary roots. But evolution is no ordinary explanation. It is supposed to be a thorough going explanation of the whole human being, therefore admitting that the theory will say that it has evolutionary roots is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for you to document that on evidence, that evolution produced this and that you can demonstrate that.

I think it is a very weak explanation and don't see how natural selection could select for it at all and I note that every other species seems to get by without it. In my view, your assertion that it has evolutionary roots is a statement of faith which you think to be valid because you think evolution is well supported, even if you couldn't document this aspect of it. However, still in my view, this is a phenomena which I do not think evolution can explain at all, and that our creation by God is a much better explanation.

"It has been my opinion that both your evidence and your rationality have failed you, sometimes quite spectacularly, in our little debates. Smile"

heh

"I believe that lack of belief in gods gives us more power in the long run, because it is better able to explain reality."

And I believe that the best theory is the one that explains the most. I don't think evolution can explain the power of hope nor the need to have an explanation at all. The theory is too small. It explains just some parts of reality, select parts.

"The argument we have is not over whether we can prove or disprove each other's beliefs with respect to deities, but over whose viewpoint is more believable."

But what makes something more believable? If the resurrection is a fact then it flies in the face of many of your allegations in this thread. God seems distant, or he is indifferent, or he is unable, etc, etc, or maybe he just has a bigger and better solution, and his own suffering and death shows that he was not at all immune to the tragedies of man. The Resurrection falsifies almost all the accusations about God vis a vis human suffering but it is God's absence in the face of human suffering which you are presenting as a reason not to think it is believable that he exists! But you wont' take a Resurrection (I now draw on previous conversations) because it is supernatural and you would prefer a natural explanation by default!

It looks like you've built your whole paradigm so as to be immune to refutation.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #5 on:** December 01, 2007, 12:20:34 AM »

I would be seriously pissed if I lost my wife or one of my kids and I would not be happy with God at all.

I have confessed this before and just reiterate it again.. I get mad at God for a good (I think) many reasons already... hmmmm... just to imagine what I would be like if I actually lost my wife or child??

Getting mad is not the same as losing faith. I get the feeling that some self-proclaimed athiests are just so mad that they want to hide that they are just mad.. and that's it.. mad.. and they haven't lost faith at all.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2007, 02:17:06 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on November 30, 2007, 03:29:15 PM

"You call this "good theology","

It is good theology, because it is based on an examination of the Scriptures.

All Christian doctrines claim to base their theology on an examination of the scriptures, and you are not the only one to claim to have the only correct interpretation.

Quote

"and the failure of the Free Will Defense argument seems to be a major cause of deconversion."

You think it fails. That is just your opinion.

Based on my observation that people who lose faith often cite the existence of evil as a major cause of their apostasy. The FWD fails for me, and it fails for them.

Quote

"I am not making a theological argument."

If you are making an argument about God and his nature, his motives, etc, you are doing theology. If you are mixing chemicals you are doing chemistry. If you mix chemicals without being taught by a good authority, like a text book, you're going to blow something up. If you make theological statements that you make up on a whim, we'll be lucky if all you do is erect a strawman.

You seem to have completely skirted past my point. My argument is not about the existence of God or which religious doctrine makes the most sense. It would be a theological argument, if it were. It is about what motivates belief and what makes the most sense as a debating strategy. Should Christians and atheists spend so much time on explanatory arguments such as the argument from design? I think not, because it is empowerment that seems to make the greatest difference over whether people keep or lose their faith. The Pope's latest encyclical against atheists was a case in point. It urged Christians to keep their faith on the grounds that life would be hopeless without God. What hope does God give us? He empowers us.

Quote

I won't deny that you won't find Christians speaking as you presented it, though. But it is bad theology. Lazy theology, really.

Tell it to the Pope.

He is making a theological argument. I am not. Based on my non-theological analysis, I give him high marks for debating tactics and bad marks for logical argument.

Quote

"The faithful love to tell survival stories that were helped by faith, but those stories fail logically to explain why the tragedy happened in the first place and why other people were not saved by faith."

Again, bad theology. 'Saved by faith' refers to salvation after death. There is no promise in the Scriptures that we are going to be spared troubles in this life.

No, 'saved by faith' means God's intervention to confer special favors on believers. It is one of the main reason why Christians pray to God--to curry favor with him. Now, this may be inappropriate behavior and a poor interpretation of scripture from your viewpoint, but it seems to be a very popular belief among Christians that God favors those who believe in and worship him. As for scripture, it appears to send very mixed signals on this. While you can find things in it like the story of Job, which counsels faith in the face hardship, there are also passages that appear to support miracles that God performed on Earth in order to send a "sign" to the faithful.

Quote

"You said that you would be angry at God if you lost your wife or your child. Why? What expectation disappears in the face of such a calamity?"

It is a good question, but it is not a question of expectations. Look above. You've seen my posts. I expect that life is going to suck and that people are going to screw up and people are going to hurt. I will be angry at God as a natural part of the grieving process. And since I know to expect that, I will be come out of it.

Well, I sincerely hope so. Those who expect God to provide them with some earthly advantage over the less faithful are sometimes apt to think that God is punishing them. That is the flip side of religious faith. It can have bad effects, as well as good.

Quote

"Your 'good theology' helps you to deal with that anger, but your theology isn't good enough for everyone."

That depends. My good theology, derived from the Scriptures, makes it clear that no Christian is going to be spared from suffering just because they are saved, just as it is clear that God does not single people out for punishment. My anger is dealt with by remembering that God participated in suffering and loss. If God walking alongside you as one who has endured the same isn't good enough for someone, very little will.

The idea that an omnipotent being can experience suffering poses interesting philosophical problems. Some have a greater tolerance for pain than others, and one might expect an omnipotent being not to be able to experience it at all, since pain and suffering are weaknesses. By definition, an omnipotent being can have no vulnerabilities or weaknesses. In any case, crucifixion was neither the worst torture that could happen to a person, nor could it be as terrifying to a being who knew that he would go on to live an everlasting life in full comfort. Nor could the death of Jesus have anything like the impact on God that it would for a true human parent, who would be deprived permanently of the company of the departed child. Jesus got an express ticket to heaven after his pain stopped, and an omnipresent God was never deprived of his company for even a second. These and other considerations make the crucifixion story somewhat less sensible than it appears to most Christians.

Quote

"And 'good theology' isn't necessary for atheists, who have no expectations that they are owed anything by a god in return for their loyalty and service."

It is necessary if you think you're going to represent the Christian world view and are going to frame expectations to be dashed. If you think that a Christian is owed something for loyalty and service, that is a strawman. It is not supported in the Scriptures. I'm sorry.

Not only do I not feel it my duty to "represent the Christian worldview", but I don't believe that any such thing technically exists. It is possible to make generalizations about what the majority of Christians appear to believe, and the belief that they feel owed something by God in exchange for their faith and worship seems a reasonable generalizations to make, your cavils about "good theology" notwithstanding.

And I really do want to get something straight with you about my attitude towards the "Christian worldview", because you seem completely oblivious to it now as in the past. I believe that the Bible is a hodgepodge of historical record and folklore from various periods of history. Both the Old and the New Testaments appear to have undergone syncretism from various other religious traditions, just as modern Christianity contains many practices and traditions that come straight out of pagan folklore. It is not consistent, and it also appears to contradict itself in many places. As such, it can be used to prove just about anything people want to prove, and that is how I've observed Christians to operate. They cherrypick the text they want to emphasize, and they downplay or ignore what they don't. Now you may feel that you have the best take on the true meaning of the Bible and that the Bible represents the inerrant word of God. I don't buy that it does, and I think that your interpretation of it is as viable as anyone else's. I know that you have devoted much of your life to its study and that you have done your best to resolve the ambiguities and contradictions that I and others see in it. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced.

I read the Habermas page that you referenced, and I consider my points above to reflect why I remain unimpressed with his story. He simply buys the entire concept of a scapegoating ritual as believable. I do not see any logic to the concept of scapegoating, which was a long-established practice in the Near East of 2 millennia ago, and I do not find it credible that an omnipotent creator of the universe would use that method to communicate with humanity. Either God intervenes in our affairs, or he does not. If he does, then fairness suggests that he should make his intentions known to all humans in an unambiguous way. If he does not, then the story of Jesus fails because it would have compromised his principle of not intervening. It is as if God just can't make up his mind, which is what one would expect of a mythical being that sprang out of the imaginations of ordinary humans.

Quote

"I don't need evolution to make the case. The placebo effect has been scientifically validated. Belief does affect one's health."

Calling it the placebo effect and telling me that it has been validated doesn't move the conversation. I'm not asking you to show that hope brings results. I already know that. I want the evolutionary explanation for that.

I have no idea why you think an evolutionary explanation would advance the conversation. I answered your question adequately, and it seems superfluous to me that you would demand a particular type of explanation. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that high expectations should predispose one to achieve success more often than low expectations, and that would be a reasonable guess as to why the placebo effect might evolve in humans and other animals. You could also attribute it to divine intervention, but I see no reason to leap to that conclusion when perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations are available.

Quote

"I think it presumptuous of you to deny other animals the capacity to reason about their situations and their futures."

Well, I don't see you affirming it. We don't really have enough information about it since they can't tell us. However, I do not see dog temples and monkey idols or even a dolphin bank where cash can be stored up for the future.

Perhaps you would have a different perspective on these matters if you were a monkey or a dolphin.

Quote

"So, yes, I think that the need for explanation--i.e. curiosity--has evolutionary roots. Our explanations make us more viable in the struggle to survive."

There is no evidence that any other species makes use of explanations or needs them to survive. I understand that you have to say it has evolutionary roots. But evolution is no ordinary explanation. It is supposed to be a thorough going explanation of the whole human being, therefore admitting that the theory will say that it has evolutionary roots is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for you to document that on evidence, that evolution produced this and that you can demonstrate that.

To what end? I see no reason to indulge this demand. How does it bear on the discussion? If you want to argue the merits of evolution by natural selection, that's another thread topic. I don't feel that evolution is proven or disproven by my speculations as to how a given trait might have arisen. That is a matter for scientists to do research on, and neither of us are qualified for that sort of work.

Quote

I think it is a very weak explanation and don't see how natural selection could select for it at all and I note that every other species seems to get by without it. In my view, your assertion that it has evolutionary roots is a statement of faith which you think to be valid because you think evolution is well supported, even if you couldn't document this aspect of it. However, still in my view, this is a phenomena which I do not think evolution can explain at all, and that our creation by God is a much better explanation.

Fair enough. I disagree. Let's take it to another thread. Here, the point seems extraneous.

Quote

"I believe that lack of belief in gods gives us more power in the long run, because it is better able to explain reality."

And I believe that the best theory is the one that explains the most. I don't think evolution can explain the power of hope nor the need to have an explanation at all. The theory is too small. It explains just some parts of reality, select parts.

Again, I would prefer not to morph this thread into a debate over evolution, which I see as a much more comprehensive explanation than you do. This is pulling us too far away from the main topic of discussion.

Quote

"The argument we have is not over whether we can prove or disprove each other's beliefs with respect to deities, but over whose viewpoint is more believable."

But what makes something more believable? If the resurrection is a fact then it flies in the face of many of your allegations in this thread...

If Krishna's resurrection were a fact it would have the same effect. This is a total red herring. We don't know that Jesus's resurrection was a fact, and it is reasonable to doubt it. The evidence that it ever occurred is simply too slim to count as significant. By my lights, not by yours. We already know that we disagree on this point.

Quote

...God seems distant, or he is indifferent, or he is unable, etc, etc, or maybe he just has a bigger and better solution, and his own suffering and death shows that he was not at all immune to the tragedies of man. The Resurrection falsifies almost all the accusations about God vis a vis human suffering but it is God's absence in the face of human suffering which you are presenting as a reason not to think it is believable that he exists! But you wont' take a Resurrection (I now draw on previous conversations) because it is supernatural and you would prefer a natural explanation by default!

The resurrection is an established fact only in your mind. Most of humanity finds it less credible, and the burden is on you to establish credibility.

Quote

It looks like you've built your whole paradigm so as to be immune to refutation.

That you lack the means to refute something does not mean that it is, in principle, irrefutable, only that you can't refute it.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2007, 09:10:31 PM »

From Dorothy Sayers, "Creed or Chaos."

Quote

It is not true at all that dogma is hopelessly irrelevant to the life and thought of the average man. What is true is that ministers of the Christian religion often assert that it is, present it for consideration as though it were, and, in fact, by their faulty exposition of it make it so. The central dogma of the Incarnation is that by which relevance stands or falls. If Christ were only man, then he is entirely irrelevant to any thought about God; if he is only God, then he is entirely irrelevant to any experience of human life. It is, in the strictest sense, necessary to the salvation of relevance that a man should believe rightly the Incarnation of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Unless he believes rightly, there is not the faintest reason why he should believe at all. And in that case, it is wholly irrelevant to chatter about Christian principles.

If the average man is going to be interested in Christ at all, it is the dogma that will provide the interest. The trouble is that, in nine cases out of ten, he has never been offered the dogma. What he has been offered is a set of technical theological terms that nobody has taken the trouble to translate into language relevant to ordinary life.

Ragnar · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2007, 03:54:05 PM »

"There is no evidence that any other species makes use of explanations or needs them to survive. I understand that you have to say it has evolutionary roots. But evolution is no ordinary explanation. It is supposed to be a thorough going explanation of the whole human being, therefore admitting that the theory will say that it has evolutionary roots is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for you to document that on evidence, that evolution produced this and that you can demonstrate that."

I've seen quite a few of "God's creatures" caught in a thunderstorm, including young humans, and across the board they all display signs of being what an evolutionist might call "scared s--tless."

However, the humans are the only ones with sufficient enough intellect to wonder where this rude interruption of their lives came from, and what they might do to protect themselves from it in the future. This intellect is a product of evolution.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2007, 06:00:19 PM »

"However, the humans are the only ones with sufficient enough intellect to wonder where this rude interruption of their lives came from, and what they might do to protect themselves from it in the future. This intellect is a product of evolution."

You say it is a product of evolution but I am challenging you to demonstrate it. In particular, you need to show that needing an explanation adds to survivability. It ought be enough that when lightning comes it is observed to kill therefore when lightning appears you ought to hide. Where does this added need for an explanation come in? It is evolutionarily irrelevant to need an explanation for a thunderstorm. Hordes of species show no interest in having an explanation and still survive. It is not self-evident that merely because we are intelligent enough to know that lightning is dangerous that intelligence would prompt us to need to know why it is dangerous or that intelligence is part and parcel seeking explanation. Deep Blue is a fantastic chess player but as far as I know he doesn't inquire as to how he came to be such a good player, nor does he care.

All I'm saying is that if someone is going to assert that they have a better explanation than they ought to be ready and raring to show that it really is better. Furthermore, if one puts forward an explanation that is supposed to be a raw demonstration of the power of science they have given themselves a much higher standard to meet.

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 10, 2007, 01:34:41 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on December 09, 2007, 06:00:19 PM

You say it is a product of evolution but I am challenging you to demonstrate it. In particular, you need to show that needing an explanation adds to survivability. It ought be enough that when lightning comes it is observed to kill therefore when lightning appears you ought to hide. Where does this added need for an explanation come in? It is evolutionarily irrelevant to need an explanation for a thunderstorm. Hordes of species show no interest in having an explanation and still survive. It is not self-evident that merely because we are intelligent enough to know that lightning is dangerous that intelligence would prompt us to need to know why it is dangerous or that intelligence is part and parcel seeking explanation. Deep Blue is a fantastic chess player but as far as I know he doesn't inquire as to how he came to be such a good player, nor does he care.

You are right, sntjohnny. We are no better off than when we took shelter from lightning in caves. Old Ben Franklin contributed nothing to our survival when he invented the lightning rod. Sure, a lot of people weren't killed who would have been had he not sought to understand the nature of lightning, but how would that give us an evolutionary advantage? Boy, them evolutionists sure is dumb, ain't they?

Quote

All I'm saying is that if someone is going to assert that they have a better explanation than they ought to be ready and raring to show that it really is better. Furthermore, if one puts forward an explanation that is supposed to be a raw demonstration of the power of science they have given themselves a much higher standard to meet.

Scientists have always been ready and willing to demonstrate to all who will listen and think about their explanations.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** December 10, 2007, 05:09:43 PM »

"Boy, them evolutionists sure is dumb, ain't they? Think"

Yea, actually. The tiny increment of survivability that you might wish to posit as self-evident here pales in the face of the fact that millions of species have existed for billions of years with no need to have an explanation. Not only that, but it is said that our homo erectus ancestors have been around for 2-3 million years. Looks like evolution has done fine without selecting for the "I need an explanation" gene.

"Scientists have always been ready and willing to demonstrate to all who will listen and think about their explanations."

You have an opportunity right now. I've been giving you that opportunity. Explain with scientific rigor how our need to have explanations in the first place has resulted from evolutionary processes.

Your Ben Franklin example fails because in order for your demonstration to work you need to reduce this 'I need an explanation' phenomena to some sort of physical measure and mark Franklin as the product of selection forces that distinguish him from his immediate ancestors. As far as I know, no one believes that people five thousand years ago were all that genetically different than people today- or Franklin.

You say you've got an explanation that explains better than mine and not only that it is backed up by rock solid science all up and down the chain. That explanation, you say, is evolution. Appealing to inferences that you think are self-evident, ie, that a need for an explanation will automatically add to survivability is not what I would consider an explanation backed by scientific demonstration. That is the standard you are asserting.

Even if I allowed that the "INAE" phenomena adds to our survivability, that would not account for why it is so recent, so rare, and precisely how it came to be selected when it is obviously unnecessary. For that is self-evident, too: lots of creatures survive without the INAE gene.

Copernicus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 10, 2007, 06:51:10 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on December 10, 2007, 05:09:43 PM

...The tiny increment of survivability that you might wish to posit as self-evident here pales in the face of the fact that millions of species have existed for billions of years with no need to have an explanation. Not only that, but it is said that our homo erectus ancestors have been around for 2-3 million years. Looks like evolution has done fine without selecting for the "I need an explanation" gene.

So what? The principle of evolution is simple--survival of the fittest. Franklin's lightning rod doesn't even have to be thought of in terms of human survival. Shortly after Franklin's invention, buildings all over the world began to sport lightning rods. Those that didn't had an increased likelihood of burning. Hence, more and more buildings grew lightning rod "appendages". That, my friend, is evolution.

Quote

"Scientists have always been ready and willing to demonstrate to all who will listen and think about their explanations."

You have an opportunity right now. I've been giving you that opportunity. Explain with scientific rigor how our need to have explanations in the first place has resulted from evolutionary processes.

Why do you require an explanation with "scientific rigor" from a non-biologist? Darwin used such rigor in his Origin of the Species, and modern science texts use it everywhere to support belief in evolution theory, yet you ignore all the explanations and all the details. Why do you bother demanding scientific rigor of me, a layman, when you so clearly ignore or deny the overwhelming amount of evidence that you can get from more reliable and accurate sources?

Quote

Your Ben Franklin example fails because in order for your demonstration to work you need to reduce this 'I need an explanation' phenomena to some sort of physical measure and mark Franklin as the product of selection forces that distinguish him from his immediate ancestors. As far as I know, no one believes that people five thousand years ago were all that genetically different than people today- or Franklin.

You don't believe that curiosity kills cats? Other animals seek explanations of their environments that allow them to plan and strategize behavior. Humans seem to be more adept than any other animal at predicting outcomes. That is why the planet is now overpopulated with humans. We have been too good at outguessing our competitors, and now we have outgrown our environmental niche, just as Darwin's theory predicted. All organisms produce more offspring than their environment can support. That is essential to the theory.

Quote

You say you've got an explanation that explains better than mine and not only that it is backed up by rock solid science all up and down the chain. That explanation, you say, is evolution. Appealing to inferences that you think are self-evident, ie, that a need for an explanation will automatically add to survivability is not what I would consider an explanation backed by scientific demonstration. That is the standard you are asserting.

Straw man. I never said that a need for explanation "automatically" adds to survivability. Explanations can also be wrong and lead us astray. I see no survival value whatsoever to your explanations of how the universe and biological diversity came into existence.

Quote

Even if I allowed that the "INAE" phenomena adds to our survivability, that would not account for why it is so recent, so rare, and precisely how it came to be selected when it is obviously unnecessary. For that is self-evident, too: lots of creatures survive without the INAE gene.

You don't get it. It isn't about survival. Evolution has no direction or goal. It is the mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to their changing environments. If all humans were to pass away in the next few centuries (an unfortunate, but growing possibility), that would not make the process of evolution a success or a failure. It has no direction it's going in. You know. Like a rolling stone. No direction home.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:59:53 PM »

"Franklin's lightning rod doesn't even have to be thought of in terms of human survival."

You're the one that suggested it in those terms.

"That, my friend, is evolution."

lol, of buildings.

""Why do you require an explanation with "scientific rigor" from a non-biologist?"

You're the one that made the claim. Now, you have to defend it. If you personally don't have the knowledge to defend it then clearly you are putting your faith in the ones who say that such material can be demonstrated. The superiority of your explanatory model is looking less and less superior.

"Darwin used such rigor in his Origin of the Species, and modern science texts use it everywhere to support belief in evolution theory, yet you ignore all the explanations and all the details."

I don't ignore them at all. You're missing the subtlety of my argument. Evolutionary theory is very careful to explain the 'easy' ones. But if evolution is the correct account of how the human animal has come to be then it will account for everything- also the ones that are difficult. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't insist that you have superior explanation supported by the full weight of science.

You don't get to pick and choose what things your superior explanatory model are going to explain. The way I see it your argument is simply 'evolutiondidit.'

Wow! What an improvement!

"Other animals seek explanations of their environments that allow them to plan and strategize behavior."

Prove that this is what they are doing.

"Humans seem to be more adept than any other animal at predicting outcomes."

Yes, how about that? Fancy that.

"That is why the planet is now overpopulated with humans."

And ants. We have a lot of ants and I don't think they seek explanations at all.

"Straw man."

Your failure to articulate your position with clarity doesn't make my response a 'strawman.'

"I never said that a need for explanation "automatically" adds to survivability. Explanations can also be wrong and lead us astray. I see no survival value whatsoever to your explanations of how the universe and biological diversity came into existence."

Your whole gambit about Ben Franklin and the lightning rod was a clear attempt to show that it was self-evident that explanation aided survivability. Otherwise, you had no reason to mention it. However, I agree that explanations can lead us astray. I think in fact that this is a core accusation by atheists about religion, that it is an explanation that can lead us astray. But if evolution is the final answer of how we came to be then it is the final answer to why it would select for organisms that would seek out explanations and continue to select for it while those organisms carried out [insert atheist's choice of litany of religious evils] based on their false explanations.

If the INAE gene is selected for, we presume that it won't merely be a need for an explanation that is selected for but the knack for choosing the best explanations will be selected for, as well- back to your Franklin lightning rod example.

Quote
Even if I allowed that the "INAE" phenomena adds to our survivability, that would not account for why it is so recent, so rare, and precisely how it came to be selected when it is obviously unnecessary. For that is self-evident, too: lots of creatures survive without the INAE gene.

"You don't get it."

This is a standard ploy that I've seen you play on just about every theist you've argued with.

"It isn't about survival. Evolution has no direction or goal."

RIGHT! AMEN!

If I didn't know better you were laying the groundwork for your superior explanation a graceful retreat.

"My explanation is better than yours! It is supported by science! It explains more and does it better!"

[whispered suggestions]

"Why, no, I can't show how it really happened. Yes, I know I just said its supported by science, but we can't expect it all ... uh..."

[poking, jabbing]

"Why are you asking me? I can't personally defend my assertion. But I know that its true, anyway! Listen to the scientists! I can't produce for you a smattering of the evidences that I know must exist, but they do, they do!"

[smirking]

"Well. At least I'm not arguing 'Goddidit!'

[But at least my 'Goddidit' covers the facts to be explained...]

After you've admitted that your superior explanatory account cannot explain the universal human need to pursue an explanation and back it up with actual empirical data, I'll put forward another thing that I want to hear accounted for.

Sorry, Cop. You opened yourself up for this. At least my explanatory model can account for why we want explanations in the first place. If we assume for the sake of argument that I can't defend my model, it still remains that you can't do so either. You are a non-biologist after all. It would seem that you are going to be thrown back to admitting that only a narrow slice of observed phenomena can be directly supported and you will have to infer that there is an evolutionary explanation because of your confidence on other grounds that evolution is true. I won't say that is irrational, but it is not much different than what I would do, where on other grounds I would feel confident in affirming Christianity.

The difference, as I said, is that you said your approach is superior. So I think that means you've got a higher standard to meet.

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2007, 01:56:43 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on December 10, 2007, 07:59:53 PM

"Franklin's lightning rod doesn't even have to be thought of in terms of human survival."

You're the one that suggested it in those terms.

My remark was merely pointing out that evolution is a process that also applies to non-biological scenarios. It is a simple concept to grasp, if you are willing to give it some honest thought. I'm a little surprised that, after all these years of debating with evolutionists, you still don't seem to have an intuitive grasp of how it works.

Quote

"That, my friend, is evolution."

lol, of buildings.

Of course. Evolution works in all situations that involve repetition with variation and competition for resources. Lightning rods improve the survival of buildings. Hence, those who produce buildings are more likely to affix lightning rods to them. Ironically, many an old church has survived, thanks to this evolutionary process.

Quote

""Why do you require an explanation with "scientific rigor" from a non-biologist?"

You're the one that made the claim. Now, you have to defend it. If you personally don't have the knowledge to defend it then clearly you are putting your faith in the ones who say that such material can be demonstrated. The superiority of your explanatory model is looking less and less superior.

It would appear that way to one who makes no effort to understand it.

Quote

...You're missing the subtlety of my argument. Evolutionary theory is very careful to explain the 'easy' ones. But if evolution is the correct account of how the human animal has come to be then it will account for everything- also the ones that are difficult. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't insist that you have superior explanation supported by the full weight of science.

I'm not missing any subtlety here. Your argument is just dead wrong. Science is methodology for evaluating explanations, not a guarantee of the absolute truth. It doesn't tell us that evolution must account for development, only that it is the most likely explanation, given our knowledge of the circumstances. Hence, it never claims to "account for everything". You are confusing science with religion, which does claim to account for everything (and fails miserably at accounting for anything in the end).

Quote

You don't get to pick and choose what things your superior explanatory model are going to explain. The way I see it your argument is simply 'evolutiondidit.'

Wow! What an improvement!

You still miss the point by a wide mark. When you say "Goddidit", we not only lack a means of verification, but we also lack any clue as to how Goddidit. Natural selection, by way of contrast, is perfectly well understood and via a wide range of different data sources. Science doesn't always get the best explanation at first, but it has a process for refining and correcting explanations. Religion provides us with no methodology for deciding between competing religious claims, yet you still insist on promoting one among many competing claims.

Quote

"Other animals seek explanations of their environments that allow them to plan and strategize behavior."

Prove that this is what they are doing.

Well, science does provide us with a vast amount of data on animal behavior, if you care to consider it. Using tools requires planning and strategy. Do you want examples of animals using tools? Crows, for example, understand how to fashion and use tools to achieve goals. Despite their birdbrain mentalities, they solve puzzles.

Quote

"Humans seem to be more adept than any other animal at predicting outcomes."

Yes, how about that? Fancy that.

"That is why the planet is now overpopulated with humans."

And ants. We have a lot of ants and I don't think they seek explanations at all.

If you were an ant, you might see things differently. Explanation is about relating new experiences to old ones, and you don't know how an ant brain organizes its experiences.

Quote

"Straw man."

Your failure to articulate your position with clarity doesn't make my response a 'strawman.'

Reading things into my position that weren't supported by anything I said does.

Quote

Your whole gambit about Ben Franklin and the lightning rod was a clear attempt to show that it was self-evident that explanation aided survivability. Otherwise, you had no reason to mention it...

My reason for mentioning it was to point out how wrong you were about the human need for explanations having no evolutionary advantage. By explaining things, we can predict the future. Knowing how to predict where lightning strikes has survival advantages, but Franklin could just have shrugged his shoulders and satisfied himself that "Goddidit" explanations for lightning were sufficient.

Quote

However, I agree that explanations can lead us astray. I think in fact that this is a core accusation by atheists about religion, that it is an explanation that can lead us astray. But if evolution is the final answer of how we came to be then it is the final answer to why it would select for organisms that would seek out explanations and continue to select for it while those organisms carried out [insert atheist's choice of litany of religious evils] based on their false explanations.

I never said that evolution was a "final answer" to anything. It does, however, answer a lot of questions that religion has answered poorly in the past.

Quote

If the INAE gene is selected for, we presume that it won't merely be a need for an explanation that is selected for but the knack for choosing the best explanations will be selected for, as well- back to your Franklin lightning rod example.

Who said anything about a single gene being involved in our drive to find explanations? Not me. More straw men for you to knock down?

Quote

Even if I allowed that the "INAE" phenomena adds to our survivability, that would not account for why it is so recent, so rare, and precisely how it came to be selected when it is obviously unnecessary. For that is self-evident, too: lots of creatures survive without the INAE gene.

What gene are you talking about? Where did you get this nonsense from? Our intelligence is not necessary for survival. Again, you really miss the point by a wide margin. It is a inheritable characteristic that gives us advantages over enemies and other environmental dangers. But the survival game is relentless, as Darwin noted. All organisms produce more copies of themselves than are viable in any environmental niche. Population growth is geometric, as Darwin's predecessor Malthus had pointed out, so we are still expanding beyond the capacity of our planet to sustain us.

Quote

"You don't get it."

This is a standard ploy that I've seen you play on just about every theist you've argued with.

Quite so. I've played it because it is so obviously true, as this discussion has revealed. You don't really understand evolution in anything more than a superficial sense. You make reference to imaginary genes and offer them as straw man "evolutionary" solutions that you can try to knock down. Our inheritable characteristics can be the result of several genes interacting to produce some funtionality.

Quote

"It isn't about survival. Evolution has no direction or goal."

RIGHT! AMEN!

If I didn't know better you were laying the groundwork for your superior explanation a graceful retreat.

Retreat from what? You seem to invent positions for me to retreat from so that you can claim victory.

Quote

Sorry, Cop. You opened yourself up for this. At least my explanatory model can account for why we want explanations in the first place. If we assume for the sake of argument that I can't defend my model, it still remains that you can't do so either...

What "explanatory model" are you talking about? You have offered none. "Goddidit" explains nothing at all. Natural selection, on the other hand, sets up expectations and makes verifiable predictions. Darwin never discovered the mechanism by which organisms change. He merely predicted that some such mechanism existed. It was discovered later, when the science of genetics was born. Your "Goddidit" alternative sets up no testable expectations, because it is essentially the claim that things happen by magic. That isn't a "model" or an "explanation". It is obfuscation.

Quote

...You are a non-biologist after all. It would seem that you are going to be thrown back to admitting that only a narrow slice of observed phenomena can be directly supported and you will have to infer that there is an evolutionary explanation because of your confidence on other grounds that evolution is true. I won't say that is irrational, but it is not much different than what I would do, where on other grounds I would feel confident in affirming Christianity.

Nonsense. What you do is offer unverifiable speculations and try to pass them off as explanations. Scientific theories make predictions, and that makes them testable.

Quote

The difference, as I said, is that you said your approach is superior. So I think that means you've got a higher standard to meet.

Verifiable claims are superior to unverifiable ones. I'll admit to that. They can be false claims, but eliminating a false claim gets you somewhere. Putting faith in miracles gets you nowhere fast.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2007, 02:00:04 PM »

"It is a simple concept to grasp, if you are willing to give it some honest thought. I'm a little surprised that, after all these years of debating with evolutionists, you still don't seem to have an intuitive grasp of how it works."

I guess it means that I've only given it dishonest thought. :rollseyes:

"Ironically, many an old church has survived, thanks to this evolutionary process."

So, let me get this straight. You think that the addition of lightning rods to buildings is a clear example of evolution... A very simple thing to grasp. Now, just out of curiosity, did the addition of lightning rods to buildings like old churches occur by accident? Or were they the product of intelligence?

Are you so sure that this is the sort of example you want to be giving for the evolutionary process?

"It would appear that way to one who makes no effort to understand it."

I have more books on evolution written by evolutionists on my shelf than you have of creation, or ID, on your shelf. Granted, even 1 is more than zero. I have more than 1.

"You are confusing science with religion, which does claim to account for everything (and fails miserably at accounting for anything in the end)."

No, I'm not confusing it. I'm pointing out that in your effort to raise your explanation as superior you have actually taken the same position as what you are castigating in regards to religion.

"You still miss the point by a wide mark. When you say "Goddidit", we not only lack a means of verification, but we also lack any clue as to how Goddidit."

Speak for yourself.

"Natural selection, by way of contrast, is perfectly well understood and via a wide range of different data sources."

Great, explain how this superior mechanism produced the human need to have an explanation.

"Religion provides us with no methodology for deciding between competing religious claims, yet you still insist on promoting one among many competing claims."

I certainly don't agree that there is no methodology for deciding between them. If you were to put this into more truthful terms, in actuality I don't propose that we use a SCIENTIFIC methodology as the only methodology to be applied. You know full well that I have posited examples like the historical method as a means so this is just a false statement by you. The truth is that in your view a historical methodology can never justify the kind of certainty you think you can get out of the scientific methodology. But that is a different matter than saying that there is NO methodology.

Furthermore, if you understood the nature of the entity that I have defended you would see that the scientific methodology is, by definition, impotent on this particular question. Other methodologies MUST be sought, whether you like that or not.

"Well, science does provide us with a vast amount of data on animal behavior, if you care to consider it. Using tools requires planning and strategy. Do you want examples of animals using tools? Crows, for example, understand how to fashion and use tools to achieve goals. Despite their birdbrain mentalities, they solve puzzles."

I am here considering it. However, you can't just spin out just so stories for me while at the same time dismissing my views as about the same. Don't give me a 'just so' story where we analogize from our own experience (anthropomorphizing... something you disdain). Did I ask whether or not animals use tools? No, I didn't. I asked for demonstrable, empirical evidence, that any one of the millions of species out there seeks out explanation for explanation's sake the way that the human race does. That is what i asked for and you gave me 'tools.'

Why did you give me 'tools'? Very simply: 'tools' is easy. There is nothing that godless evolution can explain that theism can't explain. Both can perfectly well account for how antibiotics can come to fail because of 'natural selection.' Why not take a shot at something that is really meaningful?

Like, the evolutionary explanation and account, empirically verified, for how we care about meaning in the first place?

"If you were an ant, you might see things differently. Explanation is about relating new experiences to old ones, and you don't know how an ant brain organizes its experiences."

I might. You don't know that I would. You gave the example of crows using tools for... a demand I didn't make. If I asked you to show that animals could problem solve then crows using tools may have applied. Though still a stretch because of course we are reading human behaviors back on the animal, at least the reading is reasonable even if debatable. But that is not what I asked you for. So you have to give us some analogy in the animal kingdom that shows that they seek out explanations and want them.

I don't know, an ant library, maybe. Maybe a monkey science lab. But I don't think a roach motel really shows the kind of human attributes we're looking for.

"My reason for mentioning it was to point out how wrong you were about the human need for explanations having no evolutionary advantage."

I only said that it wasn't self-evident. If your whole argument that your view is superior is based on acceding to a whole set of things you think are self-evident, you and your perspective is no better than the religionists which you decry. You have a higher standard: SHOW how it has an evolutionary advantage.

Keep in mind that in my back pocket I'm keeping the Richard Dawkins approach that the religious nature of seeking explanation being a 'misfire' or what not. If you think that explanation has an evolutionary advantage and religion has fulfilled this need in the past, then I'm going to point out all of the religious atrocities that are usually alleged for how that advantage, if any, is washed out in all of those evil things. You don't get to provide examples of how the INAE gene helps survival and dismiss examples where it would hurt survival.

Curiosity killed the cat, ya know? See evidence that curiosity does not necessarily have an evolutionary advantage.

"I never said that evolution was a "final answer" to anything. It does, however, answer a lot of questions that religion has answered poorly in the past."

I'm not advocating for 'religion.' I'm advocating for CHristianity. If you'd like to give examples from Christianity, feel free.

"Who said anything about a single gene being involved in our drive to find explanations? Not me. More straw men for you to knock down? "

Oh, come on Cop. You're smarter than that, aren't you? Obviously the INAE gene is standing in as a place holder for whatever physical realities you wish to have evolution select for. Good grief. If something is not a physical reality, it can't be selected for through unguided evolution.

An explanation for sake of having an explanation does not seem to be a physical manifestation but an immaterial one. However, by your world view, if it is real, it reduces somehow to the material. If you disagree with that, then you're a closet religionist. If you agree, then it is up to you to show precisely how, in empirical terms, this apparently immaterial facet of our nature was selected for.

If you can't show it in empirical terms then it is nothing more than an article of faith. Which is fine, as I said. I have no objections to 'articles of faith.' I have objections of assertions of fact that are in fact articles of faith. And you are asserting a fact.

"Quite so. I've played it because it is so obviously true, as this discussion has revealed. You don't really understand evolution in anything more than a superficial sense. You make reference to imaginary genes and offer them as straw man "evolutionary" solutions that you can try to knock down. "

Good grief Cop. And you wonder why some of us on this board aren't quite convinced that you are in fact a linguist.

"You seem to invent positions for me to retreat from so that you can claim victory."

Well, if you had an excuse before because I didn't spell out for you that the INAE gene was a construct standing in for a physical variable you have yet to define, you have no excuse now.

"What "explanatory model" are you talking about? You have offered none."

That's true. You stepped into the thread espousing the superiority of your view, so we are focusing on yours, not mine.

"Nonsense. What you do is offer unverifiable speculations and try to pass them off as explanations. Scientific theories make predictions, and that makes them testable."

Great. Apply your stellar methodology to this very simple request: "Making use of predictions that are testable, please demonstrate how it is that the human race needs to have explanations at all. Account for how it happened, why it remains, and why it was ever necessary given that by all appearances no such phenomena exists among the other millions of species that have existed for millions of years."

Make your prediction and test it. Or, show how it has been tested. Whatever. Just don't spin a 'just so' story and expect to get away with it if you are specifically trying to denounce that sort of thing.

"Verifiable claims are superior to unverifiable ones. I'll admit to that."

Great, now verify your claim:

Quote

When atheists argue with Christians, it seems that the debate centers primarily around how good a job God does at explaining things. That is why the debate over evolution is so important. Darwin's theory does much to undercut the need to explain biological (and physical) complexity as a divine artifact.

BTW, in light of my question about whether or not we are evolutionarily superior compared to humans thousands of years ago, it looks like you might have some support... I guess you don't have to backpedal on your example of evolution of buildings by intelligent agency.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1043228620071210?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 12, 2007, 03:51:22 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on December 11, 2007, 02:00:04 PM

"Ironically, many an old church has survived, thanks to this evolutionary process."

So, let me get this straight. You think that the addition of lightning rods to buildings is a clear example of evolution... A very simple thing to grasp. Now, just out of curiosity, did the addition of lightning rods to buildings like old churches occur by accident? Or were they the product of intelligence?

Intelligence. What point do you think that you can make here? Humans have used guided artificial selection for centuries to breed animals. You can even find a recipe for it in the Bible. The theory of natural selection was inspired by artificial selection. Darwin's point was that, given sufficient time, environments would do the selection as a natural unguided process. Instead of selecting for features that please an intelligent being, environments select for features that resist destruction by the environment. Evolution theory is a very simple idea. People reject it out of hand because they would rather believe that they were created artificially by a god. It makes them feel so much better about themselves.

Quote

Are you so sure that this is the sort of example you want to be giving for the evolutionary process?

It is exactly the sort of example I want to be giving. This sort of example makes it easy for people to grasp the brilliance of Darwin's insight. Breeding programs have existed forever. Natural selection is nature's breeding program.

This is just another example of how you miss the very simple concept of evolution by a wide mark. You've looked at The Blind Watchmaker, seen Dawkins little examples of artificial selection, and simply breezed past his point in making them. You got hung up on the fact that those examples involved guided selection. Unguided selection takes place when species compete for survival in an environmental niche. Darwin's sin was to point out that God's guidance in the process was unnecessary.

Quote

"It would appear that way to one who makes no effort to understand it."

I have more books on evolution written by evolutionists on my shelf than you have of creation, or ID, on your shelf. Granted, even 1 is more than zero. I have more than 1.

You can fill your bookshelf with books written in Chinese, but that won't mean that you can read and understand Chinese. In your case, I doubt that those books serve any useful purpose other than as backup references for the narrow range of data and issues that you find in your ID/creationist set. You don't see the bigger picture, because you only want to address a few pixels in the corner that you find a little blurry.

Quote

"You are confusing science with religion, which does claim to account for everything (and fails miserably at accounting for anything in the end)."

No, I'm not confusing it. I'm pointing out that in your effort to raise your explanation as superior you have actually taken the same position as what you are castigating in regards to religion.

It is clear that that is what you think you are doing. However, you can only achieve that by confusing religious and scientific explanations. Scientific explanations are never final, comprehensive, or absolute. They are always subject to revision and refinement. Religious explanations are fixed pretensions of absolute truth. There is a very big difference between attributing a biological change to evolutionary pressure, which can be evaluated by repeated observation, and attributing it to the miraculous intervention of a deity, which cannot.

Quote

"Natural selection, by way of contrast, is perfectly well understood and via a wide range of different data sources."

Great, explain how this superior mechanism produced the human need to have an explanation.

I explained it with the lightning rod example. What I learned from that exercise is that you really didn't put two and two together to make four. You didn't understand the significance of the difference between artificial and natural selection. You asked me if I was sure that I wanted to be using an example of artificial selection, because you saw no relationship between guided and unguided selection. Evolution has given us the capability to understand causes of natural phenomena in a way that no competing biological organism can. Brains evolved in animals, because they enhance the survivability of the bodies that host them. Human brains have given us an enormous advantage over other biological competitors, which is why we have been able to saturate the planet with human flesh.

Quote

"Religion provides us with no methodology for deciding between competing religious claims, yet you still insist on promoting one among many competing claims."

I certainly don't agree that there is no methodology for deciding between them. If you were to put this into more truthful terms, in actuality I don't propose that we use a SCIENTIFIC methodology as the only methodology to be applied. You know full well that I have posited examples like the historical method as a means so this is just a false statement by you. The truth is that in your view a historical methodology can never justify the kind of certainty you think you can get out of the scientific methodology. But that is a different matter than saying that there is NO methodology.

No credible methodology. You can use the terms "historical method" all you like, but you are no historian. You have not even attempted to prove that the Christian tradition is more historically accurate than, say, the Muslim or Vedic tradition. All religions claim that their scriptures are grounded in historical accuracy, so you provide no means at all for distinguishing them other than pure assertion. And you can't even convince most other Christians to buy your conclusions about the Christian "historical record"--for example, that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. What you get from your "historical analysis" simply contradicts the different beliefs about interpretation of scripture that other Christians have.

Quote

Furthermore, if you understood the nature of the entity that I have defended you would see that the scientific methodology is, by definition, impotent on this particular question. Other methodologies MUST be sought, whether you like that or not.

The compulsion is entirely yours, and it is driven by your need to believe in a god. Lacking such a need, I also lack the compulsion to find ways to justify the belief.

Quote

...Did I ask whether or not animals use tools? No, I didn't. I asked for demonstrable, empirical evidence, that any one of the millions of species out there seeks out explanation for explanation's sake the way that the human race does. That is what i asked for and you gave me 'tools.'

Explanations are calculations that allow animals to relate knew and old experiences. Crows can understand food sources. The need to create a tool is 'explained' by the opportunity to acquire a new food source. It engages in purposive behavior. It knows what it is doing. If you spoke crow language, it could tell you what it was doing.

Quote

Why did you give me 'tools'? Very simply: 'tools' is easy. There is nothing that godless evolution can explain that theism can't explain. Both can perfectly well account for how antibiotics can come to fail because of 'natural selection.' Why not take a shot at something that is really meaningful?

As I've explained to you several times now, theism does not offer explanations. It attributes phenomena to miraculous divine interventions. If it 'explains' everything, then you don't need science to explain anything. That kind of explanation is not 'explanation'. It is obfuscation. It distracts people from discovering real explanations.

Quote

Keep in mind that in my back pocket I'm keeping the Richard Dawkins approach that the religious nature of seeking explanation being a 'misfire' or what not. If you think that explanation has an evolutionary advantage and religion has fulfilled this need in the past, then I'm going to point out all of the religious atrocities that are usually alleged for how that advantage, if any, is washed out in all of those evil things. You don't get to provide examples of how the INAE gene helps survival and dismiss examples where it would hurt survival.

You are rambling into a new area here. If you want to drag Dawkins out of your back pocket, then try to understand what he said. He speculated about the origins of religion, and he did not offer his speculations as scientifically "established" in any sense of the word. In that section, he was examining various explanations by other folks, and he happened to give a more elaborate account of how evolution really works. Sometimes a trait that has an evolutionary advantage can 'misfire' in a context that did not figure into its original 'natural' selection by the environment. Religion usually embodies authoritarianism, and he opined that the need for authority might be a driving factor in the need for relgion, even though the imagined authority may not actually exist.

Quote

Curiosity killed the cat, ya know? See evidence that curiosity does not necessarily have an evolutionary advantage.

Yep. Cats seek explanations. They investigate. Sometimes they poke their noses into places that they ought not to. More often than not, the instinct leads to a better conclusion.

Quote

"I never said that evolution was a "final answer" to anything. It does, however, answer a lot of questions that religion has answered poorly in the past."

I'm not advocating for 'religion.' I'm advocating for CHristianity. If you'd like to give examples from Christianity, feel free.

Sure. Science has answered the question of the origin of the species in an intellectually more satisfying way than Christian 'natural theology' did with Paley's famous "watchmaker" metaphor.

Quote

Oh, come on Cop. You're smarter than that, aren't you? Obviously the INAE gene is standing in as a place holder for whatever physical realities you wish to have evolution select for. Good grief. If something is not a physical reality, it can't be selected for through unguided evolution.

Really? What is obvious to you is not always obvious to your readers. That certainly was not obvious to me.

Quote

"What "explanatory model" are you talking about? You have offered none."

That's true. You stepped into the thread espousing the superiority of your view, so we are focusing on yours, not mine.

You keep alluding to yours as if it were a viable alternative. I'm not surprised that you don't want it discussed in the open. It's embarrassing that all you have to offer as an alternative to empirical investigation is faith in miracles.

Elisha · « **Reply #17 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:29:46 AM »

I've read about half of the debate and have seen some great points on both sides. I just had a response to this as soon as I read it...

Quote

Should Christians and atheists spend so much time on explanatory arguments such as the argument from design? I think not, because it is empowerment that seems to make the greatest difference over whether people keep or lose their faith.

Shouldn't they spend that time on such arguments seeing that (I believe) such arguments prove (to some degree or another) the existence of a God?

People losing faith seems to fall under the category of "What kind of God is this?", rather than "Does God exist?".

So, should Christians and atheists spend so much time on philosophical arguments for the existence of God? Obviously, yes. Why Christians lose faith is a million miles away.

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** January 03, 2008, 03:16:32 AM »

Quote from: Elisha on January 02, 2008, 04:29:46 AM

Shouldn't they spend that time on such arguments seeing that (I believe) such arguments prove (to some degree or another) the existence of a God?

I'm not arguing that such arguments aren't important, only that they don't really address the issues that cause people to suppress skepticism. The arguments in favor of God's existence are fairly well-known, but what motivates people to attack and defend them are elsewhere.

I used to scoff at the question "What do you have to replace God with?" It is so obviously based on a fallacious argument from consequences. Whether or not I can find a satisfactory substitute for God has absolutely no bearing on the question of his existence. But the question is actually a good one, if you drop the logical objection. God is an extremely potent factor in the lives of those with faith, and the thought of atheism is repulsive on so many levels for them. The truth is that I don't have anything to replace the feelings of power, safety, and hope that religious faith offers. Atheists have to find other ways to deal with life's hardships. So I don't really expect the logical arguments to be of much use to most of the people I argue with. Still, logic and reason are tools of empowerment, as well. So I don't think that it is totally useless to hack away at the foundations of belief.

Quote

People losing faith seems to fall under the category of "What kind of God is this?", rather than "Does God exist?".

I agree, and your take on it doesn't quite fit my thesis. I think that the issue of whether God is worthy of worship comes up a lot in religious debates, although it, too, has little relevance to whether or not God exists or can explain things about reality. So, you make a good point.

Quote

So, should Christians and atheists spend so much time on philosophical arguments for the existence of God? Obviously, yes. Why Christians lose faith is a million miles away.

Right. Conversions and deconversions are private matters. It is seldom the case that any single debate turns someone. It is the accumulation of thought processes that have been going on for a while. A debate or an argument might trigger a crisis in faith, but it usually isn't the major factor.

End Bringer · « **Reply #19 on:** January 03, 2008, 03:59:19 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on December 12, 2007, 03:51:22 PM

Intelligence. What point do you think that you can make here? Humans have used guided artificial selection for centuries to breed animals. You can even find a recipe for it in the Bible. The theory of natural selection was inspired by artificial selection. Darwin's point was that, given sufficient time, environments would do the selection as a natural unguided process. Instead of selecting for features that please an intelligent being, environments select for features that resist destruction by the environment. Evolution theory is a very simple idea. People reject it out of hand because they would rather believe that they were created artificially by a god. It makes them feel so much better about themselves.

I reject it purely for the reason that the best it can do is reach an empiracle equivalency with Intelligent Design. Empirical equivalency means the observable data can be explained by two alternatives equally. In this case, the observation of design can be attributed to natural selection or conscious design. The evidence is equal for both. That's what it means to say that the world looks designed but natural selection can account for it.

So the question is: If both are equal why opt for natural selection? People who opt for natural selection only seem to do so due to a predeposition to leave God out. That being the case it becomes question begging.

Quote

It is exactly the sort of example I want to be giving. This sort of example makes it easy for people to grasp the brilliance of Darwin's insight. Breeding programs have existed forever. Natural selection is nature's breeding program.

True, and if natural selection was all you were asserting I'd have no problem with it. I have no problem with natural selection per se, because in the case of micro-evolution it's proven, irrifutable, and does absolutely nothing against Intelligent Design.

Quote

This is just another example of how you miss the very simple concept of evolution by a wide mark. You've looked at The Blind Watchmaker, seen Dawkins little examples of artificial selection, and simply breezed past his point in making them. You got hung up on the fact that those examples involved guided selection. Unguided selection takes place when species compete for survival in an environmental niche. Darwin's sin was to point out that God's guidance in the process was unnecessary.

I don't see how it is so unreasonable to criticize arguements for non-guidance when the examples for it must have guidance. It's like saying you can catch a fish bare handed then using a fishing pole.

Quote

It is clear that that is what you think you are doing. However, you can only achieve that by confusing religious and scientific explanations. Scientific explanations are never final, comprehensive, or absolute. They are always subject to revision and refinement.

And yet you would have us believe the scientific (though one should say materialistic, because science does raise doubts on evolution) explanations as the ultimate authority? Seems rather like a bald faced assertion.

Quote

Religious explanations are fixed pretensions of absolute truth. There is a very big difference between attributing a biological change to evolutionary pressure, which can be evaluated by repeated observation, and attributing it to the miraculous intervention of a deity, which cannot.

You fall into the same pit Humes did for his dismissal of miracles. If you are going to use the same standard you're going to have to dismiss the very creation of the universe, or how life began from non-life (abiogenisis). Those are certainly not repeatable events, yet here we are.

Quote

I explained it with the lightning rod example. What I learned from that exercise is that you really didn't put two and two together to make four. You didn't understand the significance of the difference between artificial and natural selection. You asked me if I was sure that I wanted to be using an example of artificial selection, because you saw no relationship between guided and unguided selection. Evolution has given us the capability to understand causes of natural phenomena in a way that no competing biological organism can. Brains evolved in animals, because they enhance the survivability of the bodies that host them. Human brains have given us an enormous advantage over other biological competitors, which is why we have been able to saturate the planet with human flesh.

Or God granted animals a degree of an intelligence, and made us in His image, granted us stewardship, and had us multiply. Seems to once again equally explain everything.

Quote

No credible methodology. You can use the terms "historical method" all you like, but you are no historian.

lol. And you are a non-biologist advocating for the "evolutionary method".

Quote

Furthermore, if you understood the nature of the entity that I have defended you would see that the scientific methodology is, by definition, impotent on this particular question. Other methodologies MUST be sought, whether you like that or not.

Quote

The compulsion is entirely yours, and it is driven by your need to believe in a god. Lacking such a need, I also lack the compulsion to find ways to justify the belief.

And conversly your compulsion in your belief in naturalisim is making it harder to justify where the need for explanations came from.

Quote

Explanations are calculations that allow animals to relate knew and old experiences. Crows can understand food sources. The need to create a tool is 'explained' by the opportunity to acquire a new food source. It engages in purposive behavior. It knows what it is doing. If you spoke crow language, it could tell you what it was doing.

That seems to be for food sources sake, rather than for explanations sake.

Quote

Why did you give me 'tools'? Very simply: 'tools' is easy. There is nothing that godless evolution can explain that theism can't explain. Both can perfectly well account for how antibiotics can come to fail because of 'natural selection.' Why not take a shot at something that is really meaningful?

Quote

As I've explained to you several times now, theism does not offer explanations. It attributes phenomena to miraculous divine interventions. If it 'explains' everything, then you don't need science to explain anything. That kind of explanation is not 'explanation'. It is obfuscation. It distracts people from discovering real explanations.

Science can explain things. It just doesn't explain anything important. Nothing that is ultimately valuable to you can be classified, studied, probed or analyzed empirically by the five senses using science. Love, friendship, happiness, understanding, etc. None of these are physical to be studied by science. You can't smell knowledge. You can't weigh friendship. Love doesn't have a shape. It doesn't have a physical texture. Happiness cannot be heard.

These are all non-physical things people feel, and thus can only be felt by a non-physical elemant. In other words I just proved the exsistence of the soul. I'll let you think about that implication.

A major problem you face is that if everything can be explained in scientific, evolutionary terms, our belief that we're exploring truth in explanations is merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control. It's very hard to argue, then, that there is any truth at all to be known.

Quote

Sure. Science has answered the question of the origin of the species in an intellectually more satisfying way than Christian 'natural theology' did with Paley's famous "watchmaker" metaphor.

Yet it still hasn't answered how life began from non-life. For an intellectually satisfying answer for the origin of life, it hasn't answered it.

Quote

Quote
"What "explanatory model" are you talking about? You have offered none."

That's true. You stepped into the thread espousing the superiority of your view, so we are focusing on yours, not mine.

You keep alluding to yours as if it were a viable alternative. I'm not surprised that you don't want it discussed in the open. It's embarrassing that all you have to offer as an alternative to empirical investigation is faith in miracles.

It's embarrassing to see you advocate macro-evolution as science when it is in fact philosophy. We know much about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing thanks to science. The increase of scientific knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. I've mentioned the whole life coming from non-life (abiogenisis). The game has to have a kick off to even get started. How did life come from non-life? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications.

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friend, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that macro-evolution is not about science, it's about philosophy.

Author Topic: Why we need faith, and why we lose it. (Read 5365 times)