Evolution and atheism

[lucaspa]

It's time, once again, to discuss the relationship of evolution to atheism. There are many creationists in the forum who are thinking that evolution = atheism.

The actual relationship of evolution and atheism is more complicated.The old top-down philosophy of the 18th and early 19th century had deity on top. Deity made intelligence, which made Design, below Design was Order and below Order was Chaos. In 1802 Paley wrote his famous Natural History: Significantly the subtitle was or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. In this Paley gave the Argument from Design as proof of the existence of deity. That is, you can't have the design in biological organisms without a Designer. At the time, this argument for the designs in organisms was unanswerable. David Hume, as staunch an atheist as ever lived, had conceded this 20 years earlier in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume was able to logically demolish all the other logical "proofs" for the existence of deity, but he had to cave in the face of the Argument from Design. Basically, Hume has to admit that his atheism is a faith.

Now along comes Darwin and Wallace and they discover an unintelligent process -- natural selection -- that gives the design in biological organisms. Suddenly the Argument from Design as "proof" of deity disappears. So, for the first time, atheists can pretend that their faith isn't a faith. Dawkins makes his famous statement "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg 6. http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/evolu...exander_01.htm

Without natural selection, atheists have no good answer to the Argument from Design. Now, does evolution falsify a Creator? Of course not. Darwin realized this. Even Phillip Johnson realizes this: "The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a creator who works through natural selection." Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance, pg. 73

The continued insistence by creationists that "natural selection can't account for ...." is an attempt to restore the old Argument from Design and take away the intellectual prop for atheism. But that isn't necessary, because atheism remains a faith even with natural selection in place. Militant atheists cannot validly claim that evolution shows God does not exist.

[Solly]

[Kulindrichnus]

Militant atheists cannot validly claim that evolution shows God does not exist.

Only stupid atheists claim that. Militant atheists usually know their arguments a little better.

K

[Benster]

"The continued insistence by creationists that "natural selection can't account for ...." is an attempt to restore the old Argument from Design and take away the intellectual prop for atheism."

The best and last hope for fundamentalists is to find things that science cannot answer and keep insisting that God must have done it. Not every theist has a heart so filled with faith that he will continue to worship an unneeded God...a God-of-the-gaps when there ARE no gaps. The desire for intellectual fulfillment competes with the appeal of blind faith in an almighty, in at least some minds.

"But that isn't necessary, because atheism remains a faith even with natural selection in place. Militant atheists cannot validly claim that evolution shows God does not exist."

It's one more nail in the coffin. BTW, if atheism is a faith, then so is the idea that we are not brains in jars, and we don't want to have that discussion again.

[Solly]

Isn't that the crux, as far as 'science' is concerned. This phenomena can be explained in such and such a way, without resort to supernatural interventions, therefore we have no need of that hypothesis; Newton needed God to shove the planets around their orbits, because his 'gravity' was itself a 'gaps' answer; later scientists refined his views and closed the gaps.
Yet this seems to be such that some scientists can still maintain their religious beliefs, be they Christian, Islamic, Hindu, or Big Sur derived.
For many it seems to come down to the value-added nature of religion: it gives us the/a meaning of the facts that science describes. Science does not specialise in meaning, only description and explanation. Philosophical naturalism derives its power from methodological naturalism, but isn't the only way of looking at things.

[Kulindrichnus]

BTW, if atheism is a faith, then so is the idea that we are not brains in jars, and we don't want to have that discussion again.

quite so. looks like reductio ad absurdum for the 'atheism is faith' argument to me.

K

[Kulindrichnus]

Philosophical naturalism derives its power from methodological naturalism, but isn't the only way of looking at things.

But it is the only way of thinking about things in a manner consistent with the only way of consistently describing the things being thought about.

K

[Solly]

But it is the only way of thinking about things in a manner consistent with the only way of consistently describing the things being thought about.

K

I don't have the philosophical skill to argue with what looks like a watertight case, I admit, but I will take it into consideration.

[lucaspa]

Only stupid atheists claim that. Militant atheists usually know their arguments a little better.

K

I am using the term "militant atheists" as Michael Shermer in How We Believe uses it. And he uses the term for those atheists who say that science shows God does not exist.

So... in how we are using the terms, militant atheist = stupid atheist. I can live with that. My experience is that most atheists posting are militant atheists.

[lucaspa]

But it is the only way of thinking about things in a manner consistent with the only way of consistently describing the things being thought about.

K

Philosophical naturalism is a non-sequitor from methodological naturalism. MN does not compel or even imply PN. MN arises from how experiments are done and results in that we cannot comment on supernatural. Not "will not" or "choose not", but are UNABLE to comment one way or the other.

[lucaspa]

Isn't that the crux, as far as 'science' is concerned. This phenomena can be explained in such and such a way, without resort to supernatural interventions, therefore we have no need of that hypothesis;

No. Science would LIKE to know if we have need of the hypothesis, but we can't tell.

Newton needed God to shove the planets around their orbits, because his 'gravity' was itself a 'gaps' answer; later scientists refined his views and closed the gaps.

Ah, but closing gaps in material explanations doesn't eliminate deity. god-of-the-gaps is not valid theology. At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

[lucaspa]

The best and last hope for fundamentalists is to find things that science cannot answer and keep insisting that God must have done it. Not every theist has a heart so filled with faith that he will continue to worship an unneeded God...a God-of-the-gaps when there ARE no gaps. The desire for intellectual fulfillment competes with the appeal of blind faith in an almighty, in at least some minds.

1. Fundamentalism does not = Christianity. Yes, fundamentalists rely on god-of-the-gaps. But the rest of Christianity gave that up long ago.
2. Faith in a deity is NOT 'blind' faith. There are reasons and evidence. Not scientific evidence, but scientific evidence is only a small subset of evidence.

It's one more nail in the coffin. BTW, if atheism is a faith, then so is the idea that we are not brains in jars, and we don't want to have that discussion again.

I never had that discussion. And yes, a Matrix type scenario is possible. Science hasn't falsifed it. Therefore, yes, it is a SHARED FAITH that we are not brains in jars suffering hallucinations. A lot of what atheists call "knowledge" is actually shared faith. We all believe the same things. However, believing the same things does not make them true.

Sorry, but science rests on 5 articles of faith about the nature of the universe. One of them is that there is an objective reality out there. But we have not "proved" it. Now, in the evolution vs creationism debate, this doesn't come up much because both evolution and creationism SHARE that faith.

I think Kitty Ferguson in Fire in the Equations gives this the best.
"There is a further element of risk for anyone on a search for the truth. You cannot start in a vacuum. You must begin by trusting some ideas about the universe that have never been proved, may never be proved, and might turn out to be wrong. To be simplistic about it, you have to assume that you exist and that you are sane. Those may not be such difficult assumption. Common sense supports them. Of course, you have to believe they are true in order to trust your common sense. You see what sort of mental mess we get ourselves into!
"The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claiming to be avenues of truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in agreement on so basic a level? ...
"Scientists of the seventeenth century, most but not all of whom had religious views closer to my grandparents that to Hawking ... developed a procedure that would systematically separate what is true from what is not true. That is the procedure that we call the scientific method. It has served us splendidly ever since its birth and made our spectacular technology possible. Whatever the scientific method's origins or its philosophical foundations, we have no cause to doubt its usefulness.
"Depending upon whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following." (I put the comments related to deity in [ ] to separate them.)

"1. The universe is *rational*, [reflecting both the intellect and the faithfulness of its Creator]. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. For these reasons, it is not futile to try to study the universe.
"2. The universe is *accessible* to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. [Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.]
"3. The universe has *contingency* to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance [and/or choice] played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance [and choice] play an on-going role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was a initial chance occurrence [or choice] which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought and logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
"4. There is such a thing as *objective* reality. [Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is a truth behind everything.] Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the dessert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
"5. There is *unity* to the universe. There is an explanation -- [one God], one equation, or one system of logic -- which is fundamental to everything. The universe operates by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even millenium to millenium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits."
"Divorced from the assumption that there is a God, these five assumptions about the universe, these five articles of faith, if you will -- rationality, accessibility, contingency, objectivity, and unity -- continue to underlie the practice of science. Some would argue that upon them depends all possibility of doing science as we know it. The best argument for their validity is not that they are obvious but that the scientific method seems to work so well! The proof (dangerous word) is in the pudding." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations pg. 8-9

[Kulindrichnus]

So... in how we are using the terms, militant atheist = stupid atheist. I can live with that. My experience is that most atheists posting are militant atheists.

No, in how you are using the terms, militant atheist=stupid atheist. I haven't agreed to your definition and don't, of course, intend to. And I really don't care what 'your experience' of most atheists is: look around you, and ask yourself what anyone's opinion of Christians must be on such a YEC dominated board? You would do well to take a leaf from Glenn Morton's book and spend a little time putting your own house in order around here. Educated Christians like yourself should have better things to do than sit around arrogantly bickering with the atheists.

K

[Solly]

Amen to that.

[Benster]

"2. Faith in a deity is NOT 'blind' faith. There are reasons and evidence. Not scientific evidence, but scientific evidence is only a small subset of evidence."

The phrase "blind faith" is redundant. There is Faith (and it is blind by nature. If your faith is not blind then it is not faith.) and there is Reason.

Please explain what evidence there is for God. AND, what is the reasoning by which you interpret that evidence as pointing to God's existence.

"Sorry, but science rests on 5 articles of faith about the nature of the universe. One of them is that there is an objective reality out there."

No. True, the presence of objective reality has not been proven, but belief in it is not faith, because the repeatability of observations of our world supports the existence of a physical reality.

"There is a further element of risk for anyone on a search for the truth. You cannot start in a vacuum. You must begin by trusting some ideas about the universe that have never been proved, may never be proved, and might turn out to be wrong."

My emphasis! Which ideas should we trust? Being that they might be wrong? Basic ones, without which, we cannot know truth. (Not ones that assume an omni-Creator.) Like assuming that there is a physical reality. I'm not even sure it has to be objective, unless you do your reasearch with assistants, and you want your science to apply to others!