Theory of Evolution and Belief in God

[seanD]

Disbelief in God is not religion, so how does that make sense? So some atheists accept evolution after concluding from their experience and study that God, as religion perceives him, doesn't exist. That's not "religious-like" but a completely rational conclusion to make.

You probably confuse some of their passionate defense of evolution as religion because you're projecting your religious behavior onto them? They're actually passionate because evolution is a jaw-dropping truth, not because it involves dogmas and creeds. I think Dawkins has hammered this point home well. To the shame of evangelicals who still lie and sneer about it after reading Strobel et al, I might add.

There's no beneficial imperative for an atheist to defend it in the religious-like manner that it's being defended in a place like this. On top of that fact, it's in no realistic danger of being removed from the majority of educational institutions anytime soon, regardless of any meaningless threat against it by religious organizations.

[OtherCheek]

Also every atheist who lived before the theory of evolution.

Good point. I wonder then what explanations these atheists had for the existence of living things.

[shunyadragon]

So then environment conditions and Natural Law caused life to generate and then according to Natural Law and environment, life naturally evolved and naturally designed. Is that an accurate representation of your belief?

I do not care for the word 'designed' here. God is not an engineer, nor a designer. God is a Creator.

I believe God Created by the natural methods we see in science including evolution.

The atheist simply believes in evolution for similar reasons I believe in evolution. Atheists do not believe in God , because they believe there is a lack of evidence for God. Their main objections concern the Judeo-Christian God including that of the LDS lacks coherent evidence and relationship to the knowledge of the world we live in. Actually I agree that these God(s) of the Judeo Christian ancient beliefs do not exist. They are ancient beliefs in God from the human perspective of a culture 2000 years ago, and have not coherent relationship to today's world.

[shunyadragon]

Good point. I wonder then what explanations these atheists had for the existence of living things.

Actually going back to Lucretius of 1st century BC Rome, they believed in similar natural processes as later developed as the theory of evolution. He was likely the first to propose a secular science to understand the world, and shot down Aristotles limited view of infinities.

[headheart]

Good point. I wonder then what explanations these atheists had for the existence of living things.

Hi OC,
Just keep in mind that when Frank says that he believes in God what he's actually saying is 'I believe in a 'Source' [that] some call God or Gods. A 'Source' that Creates and Reveals in a never ending dynamic evolving circle which includes humanity' (refer: Neutral Starting Point in Apologetic - Post 35)

Just keeping it all real, if you know what I mean?

Peace,
Eric

[Whag]

There's no beneficial imperative for an atheist to defend it in the religious-like manner that it's being defended in a place like this.

Religion is dogma and creeds and prayer. Because someone is simply passionate about the truth doesn't make it "religious-like."

On top of that fact, it's in no realistic danger of being removed from the majority of educational institutions anytime soon, regardless of any meaningless threat against it by religious organizations.

It's well established, yes. Despite that secure position, millions of religious people doubt the fact of evolution based simply on the disinformation from their religious instruction/inculcation. Surely I am passionate about that, and that passion does not translate to being "religious-like."

[OtherCheek]

It's well established, yes. Despite that secure position, millions of religious people doubt the fact of evolution based simply on the disinformation from their religious instruction/inculcation. Surely I am passionate about that, and that passion does not translate to being "religious-like."

I doubt evolution theory for several reasons, one of which it makes no sense. It makes no sense for example that say all the crocodiles in a certain isolated population would develop into a highly specialized bird called a woodpecker that is vastly different than all other birds.

The theory of evolution seems to be adjusted regularly and often to be compatible with new discoveries.

[showmeproof]

I think atheism follows from naturalism. Once you come to the realization that natural processes are indifferent and sufficient to account for everything, then a god isn't left anything to do. Personally, chemistry and biochemistry are what made me understand this. Then I took genetics courses. Evolution, in its modern formulation, just happens to be the explanation for the diversity of the genetic code and thus the endless forms most beautiful.

The big breaking point is learning to stop seeking 'purpose' questions for phenomena. The 'purpose' formulation implies intent and quite frankly atoms don't 'know' what they're doing; they simply interact according to natural law. Intention only becomes important when we interact with organisms with brains.

[OtherCheek]

I think atheism follows from naturalism. Once you come to the realization that natural processes are indifferent and sufficient to account for everything, then a god isn't left anything to do. Personally, chemistry and biochemistry are what made me understand this. Then I took genetics courses. Evolution, in its modern formulation, just happens to be the explanation for the diversity of the genetic code and thus the endless forms most beautiful.

The big breaking point is learning to stop seeking 'purpose' questions for phenomena. The 'purpose' formulation implies intent and quite frankly atoms don't 'know' what they're doing; they simply interact according to natural law. Intention only becomes important when we interact with organisms with brains.

But conditions have to become just right before life can be created or advanced, correct? Now that you ARE, and have a brain, what purpose do you find for your own existence?

[showmeproof]

I doubt evolution theory for several reasons, one of which it makes no sense. It makes no sense for example that say all the crocodiles in a certain isolated population would develop into a highly specialized bird called a woodpecker that is vastly different than all other birds.

The theory of evolution seems to be adjusted regularly and often to be compatible with new discoveries.

You're right that doesn't make sense and that is not how evolution works. Evolution acts on genomes and as a result works on individuals. An entire population doesn't evolve (a la metamorphosis) into a new species. Individuals can be more fecund than others within their population and their offspring will contain their genetic code (recombined with the other parent's genome) plus mutations. Sometimes genes are duplicated. Sometimes, as in the case of humans, chromosomes fuse.

Think genome. Look at the diversity of dog breeds. On a relatively short time scale and through Artificial Selection we have everything from a Great Dane to a chihuahua. But they're both dogs you say. Surely they are both dogs, their genome is very much the same. However, we now have two breeds that are genetically isolated in that a Great Dane cannot copulate with a chihuahua (try not to form a visualization). The genome dictates the phenotype.

Similarly, "The wild cabbage, Brassica oleracea, is an undistinguished plant, vaguely like a weedy version of a domestic cabbage. In just a few centuries, wielding the fine and coarse chisels furnished by the toolbox of selective breeding techniques, horticulturalists have sculpted this rather nondescript plant into vegetables as strikingly different from each other and from the wild ancestor as broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, Brussels sprouts, spring greens, romanescu and, of course the various kinds of vegetables that are still commonly called cabbage." (Dawkins pg 27)

[showmeproof]

But conditions have to become just right before life can be created or advanced, correct? Now that you ARE, and have a brain, what purpose do you find for your own existence?

Surely we can come to the agreement that life has developed. Whether or not your incredulity can lead you to believe that the 'just right' conditions occurred, they obviously have as I'm sitting here with my son and dog, hearing birds chirp in the background. Your idea of 'just right' conditions includes an intelligent agent at the start. Naturalism gets rid of the intelligent agent. What were those conditions? We have many ideas, but do not know precisely. But we do have very conclusive evidence that amino acids and nucleobases can form via chemical reactions. We have viruses, which are chemically complex but most don't consider them living (lacking metablolism and self-reproduction), bacteria, colonial bacteria, bacteria with functional diffirentiation (Volvox), we have very simple muliticellular organisms like rotifers etc. We are not talking about nothing and then there's humans...The Climb to Mount Improbable is not up the steep cliff, but up the gradual incline.

Ultimately speaking, like all life forms my purpose is to live and pass along my genetic information. But as Steven Pinker says, humans can tell their genes to "go jump in a lake." Meaning, that many of us choose not to reproduce (yet there are 7 billion of us and counting). The purpose that I have chosen for my life is multifold and will surely change as my interests and abilities change. Currently, my purpose is to take care of my family, to learn as much as I can about what interests me (ANE, The Universe, and Microbiology), and to make life better for as many people as I can. I find great fulfillment in testing the chemical and biological composition of drinking water to ensure that it is safe for a large city.

[MaxVel]

I think atheism follows from naturalism. Once you come to the realization that natural processes are indifferent and sufficient to account for everything, then a god isn't left anything to do.

What do you think of Rosenberg's ideas then? He denies that the self exists, that beliefs, morality, history and much more have any real meaning.... You're Ok with that?

Nevertheless, if the mind is the brain (and scientism can’t allow that it is anything else), we have to stop taking consciousness seriously as a source of knowledge or understanding about the mind, or the behavior the brain produces. And we have to stop taking our selves seriously too. We have to realize that there is no self, soul or enduring agent, no subject of the first-person pronoun, tracking its interior life while it also tracks much of what is going on around us.

Personally, chemistry and biochemistry are what made me understand this. Then I took genetics courses. Evolution, in its modern formulation, just happens to be the explanation for the diversity of the genetic code and thus the endless forms most beautiful.

The big breaking point is learning to stop seeking 'purpose' questions for phenomena. The 'purpose' formulation implies intent and quite frankly atoms don't 'know' what they're doing; they simply interact according to natural law. Intention only becomes important when we interact with organisms with brains.

I think if you take naturalism to it's logical conclusion then all intentionality is an illusion.


For an alternative view, how about reading Aquinas? Or check out a philosopher's responses to Rosenberg's philosophy.

[showmeproof]

What do you think of Rosenberg's ideas then? He denies that the self exists, that beliefs, morality, history and much more have any real meaning.... You're Ok with that?

I think if you take naturalism to it's logical conclusion then all intentionality is an illusion.

For an alternative view, how about reading Aquinas? Or check out a philosopher's responses to Rosenberg's philosophy.

I'm not aware of Rosenberg's ideas (or who he is). If he denies the self exists etc. as you summarize above then I'd have to disagree with him. I affirm the self, I think history and our reconstructions of history have import on our lives and can influence our behaviors, current events are included in the next generation's history and are likewise important, beliefs and morality are undoubtedly important as they guide our actions/interactions with others. As for the realization that there is no soul or 'enduring agent', yes I am very much okay with that-but that doesn't mean that the idea of 'self' is false.

In short, I'm not advocating Rosenberg's philosophy.

What specific argument provided by Aquinas do you think bears on this topic?

[MaxVel]

I'm not aware of Rosenberg's ideas (or who he is). If he denies the self exists etc. as you summarize above then I'd have to disagree with him. I affirm the self, I think history and our reconstructions of history have import on our lives and can influence our behaviors, current events are included in the next generation's history and are likewise important, beliefs and morality are undoubtedly important as they guide our actions/interactions with others. As for the realization that there is no soul or 'enduring agent', yes I am very much okay with that-but that doesn't mean that the idea of 'self' is false.

In short, I'm not advocating Rosenberg's philosophy.

What specific argument provided by Aquinas do you think bears on this topic?

If 'natural processes account for everything' then I think a lot of what Rosenberg says follows. We might feel as if we are 'selves', have 'beliefs' and 'morals', but none of these things can be identified with anything real* and thus are illusions.

* 'real' in the sense of physical, material, natural - that's all that exists, according to Rosenberg.

[shunyadragon]

What do you think of Rosenberg's ideas then? He denies that the self exists, that beliefs, morality, history and much more have any real meaning.... You're Ok with that?

You have to be careful presenting Rosenberg's views in sound bits. I have a couple of his books, and find them a hard read to fully understand. Yes, he is a physicalist, and he has presented what I believe to be the most comprehensive documented argument for physicalism. For one thing he does not present a reductionist argument for physicalism.

I think if you take naturalism to it's logical conclusion then all intentionality is an illusion.

'I think . . .' will not get you very far in the real world. Intentionality can be as much a part of the physicalist world as the theist world, but in different terms. There of course is not a Divinely directed intention to our existence, but to the physicalist, intentionality is product of natural laws and processes.

It is true that the atheist, naturalist nor the physicalist would support the theist believe in the necessity of Divine intention for our universe and humanity to be the way it is, but there is no evidence that anthropomorphic Divine intentionality is required for our existence to be the way it is.

For an alternative view, how about reading Aquinas? Or check out a philosopher's responses to Rosenberg's philosophy.

Interesting reference, I will follow up on it.