Evolution and atheism

[lucaspa]

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.

It's not up to you to agree or disagree with a definition. Michael Shermer invented the term and defined it as he did so. It's a done deal. You may not like the term "militant atheist" and you may claim you do not fit the definition, but the definition is what it is.

Educated Christians like yourself should have better things to do than sit around arrogantly bickering with the atheists.

Not really, because militant atheists are half the problem for science. Yes, creationists are a problem for science. They warp individual theories. They sometimes try to change part of the nature of science. Atheism rarely misrepresents individual theories (Eric Lerner is one exception in his book The Big Bang Never Happened) but the danger to science from atheism is broader: atheism would change the very way that science works. Positivism is one example of that.

[lucaspa]

Are you telling me that the main reason you disbelieve Mr. X's claim that he can levitate is that you think he would have had trouble breathing at high altitude?

I'm saying that this is one way to falsify the claim.

Well, since I am a physicist I'm in a good position to correct you. We are "agnostic" towards tachyons, time-travel etc in the same sense that you are "agnostic" about unicorns. OK?

Sorry, but I'm not agnostic about unicorns. Unicorns are falsified.

You seem to be pretending to have no concept of plausibility. Some hypotheses are more implausible than others. Yet you certainly have such a concept, or you couldn't function in the real world (you'd spend equal amounts of time checking out preposterous claims and reasonable ones).

You are trying to confuse science and "real world". Science doesn't care about "plausibility". What matters is data. In the absence of data, there is no way to calculate plausibility. However, it appears that sometimes you are unaware of the data that falsifies a hypothesis -- see below for your car example. For instance, you don't think the hypothesis of unicorns is falsified. At other times, it seems that you are unaware of ad hoc hypotheses and tend to invalidly use them to avoid falsification.

Yes. But like many things that could have happened, it is highly implausible. That judgement is based on what we know about the world. Just like when I go to the garage and see my car is gone but there is a pool of water on the floor, I know it is highly unlikely that the car melted into water. I am not "agnostic" about the possibility that it melted. It would take a lot of evidence to convince me that such a thing had occurred. Are you "agnostic" about melting cars?

This is an example of being unaware of falsifying data. Cars are not composed of ice. Therefore you can use that to falsify the hypothesis that the car "melted into water".

I mean that the hypothesis of a deity is highly implausible in the absence of credible evidence. Just like the hypothesis of elves, the hypothesis of alien abductions, etc. Are you "on the fence" about elves?

Define "credible evidence". I don't see anything in science that forbids the existence of several of the versions of deity. In terms of elves, I don't know what the hypothesis is. In terms of alien abduction, I am agnostic. There is no scientific evidence (objective and intersubjective) supporting it, but I don't have the means to falsify all the personal experiences of the people claiming to have been abducted.

Really? What statement of faith is required to say that it is implausible that unicorns exist? Is the "there is no evidence" argument against their existence "incredibly weak"?

Actually, there is evidence falsifying unicorns. But let's take a different example: coelencanths. For decades it was said the living coelencanths did not exist. What was used to back that claim was the "no evidence" argument. In the event, how strong was that argument anyway?

I'll provide another example from Nobel Prize winning work:
" When Günter Blobel and David Sabatini first proposed the signal hypothesis in 1971, the whole thing was simply ignored. There was not a shred of evidence to support it. " Volume 13, #22 The Scientist November 8, 1999
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/18750/

How strong was "no evidence" in that case. As Carl Sagan stated "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Demon Haunted World, pg 8

If you are willing to put "there is a God" on a level with "brussels sprouts taste good", as a subjective statement, then fine. If not, this is irrelevant.

What I am saying is that not all evidence is scientific evidence. Science limits itself to a subset of evidence. ALL evidence is personal experience, science limits itself to personal experience that is intersubjective. The evidence for the taste of Brussels sprouts is personal experience. But it is not intersubjective. My personal experience is not the same as yours. Whose is "wrong"?

The evidence for the existence of deity is personal experience. Your personal experience seems to be no personal experience of deity. But you can't say absolutely that the personal experience of a theist is wrong. You believe your personal experience accurately reflects objective reality. But a theist believes that their experience accurately represents objective reality. And thus we have both atheism and theism being faith.

[phank]

Wow, a discussion raised from the dead after 7 peaceful years of rest...

Your notion of atheism and mine are quite different, it seems. The relationship between theism and biology might be of intense interest to the theological apologist, but it's quite irrelevant to the biologist. Maybe we need new terms, rather than ambiguous modifiers implying grades or shades of atheism. Certainly I don't see atheism as a religous faith of any kind - it is exactly the opposite. But I suppose different people who are not theists can take different postures toward theism. We might have the anti-theist, who regards theistic believers as deluded dunces. And then there's the a-theist, for whom notions of theism never have reason to cross his path, nor is he any the worse for the lack of that experience. Then there's the non-theist, who is well aware that theists might make a great fuss over their various gods, but he "has no need of that hypothesis", and doesn't pay attention to it.

But perhaps the point is that in a hypothetical society devoid of conflict, there's no such thing as a pacifist. The various flavors of atheism describe how someone stands in relation to some other position for which they have no particular use to begin with.

The claim that science is limited to experience that is intersubjective is quite accurate. The countering claim that science can have nothing to say about personal experience may be somewhat misleading. The organization and operation of the human brain is slowly giving way to intense study, and it is at least conceivably possible that the personal experience of a deity or of brussels sprouts can be intersubjectively identified and understood - it might even be possible to devise a treatment to induce, eliminate, or modify religious beliefs or taste in brussels sprouts, by means of rerouting neural networks within the brain.

As things stand, however, that level of knowledge is far beyond the state of the art, so it makes sense to argue that no two theists believe in exactly the same god. I personally would not go so far as to claim that each of our personal mental models of our world qualify as "faiths" and therefore a working model lacking an active god renders "atheism" to be a "faith". Working models are not faiths.

Nonetheless, I think I can dimly grasp the need of the theist to find that even LACK of faith is another faith. I personally cannot imagine what it's like to actually BELIEVE in any gods, to the point where it's very hard for me to take such claims seriously. So if I find it hard to accept that those who claim religious faith actually HAVE it, it makes a sort of sense that those who DO have it can't accept that anyone can LACK it. Maybe we just have to agree that just as theists are NOT brainwashed atheists, atheists are NOT members of some sort of analogous faith.

[DuraGizer]

What, exactly, is the point of bumping a long-dead thread to respond to posters who haven't frequented this forum in years and probably will never read what you have to say?

[phank]

What, exactly, is the point of bumping a long-dead thread to respond to posters who haven't frequented this forum in years and probably will never read what you have to say?

Because newer posters may have showed up in the meantime, and be interested in the arguments presented. lucaspa presents some interesting viewpoints. I only wish he were more active in discussing them.

[seer]

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.

Well I often bring this up - ad nauseam actually. Since the atheist believes he lives on higher rational ground, a ground that does not depend on "faith." Of course his worldview is also build on "faith" - as you rightly pointed out. He just refuses to conceded that fact.

[phank]

Well I often bring this up - ad nauseam actually. Since the atheist believes he lives on higher rational ground, a ground that does not depend on "faith." Of course his worldview is also build on "faith" - as you rightly pointed out. He just refuses to conceded that fact.

SOME people think that knowledge is worth attaining. If you wish to regard this position as "faith-based", then for you it's faith-based. The problem here is, you have expanded the notion of "faith" to include anything it's possible for anyone to think or feel - everything becomes a faith. Then you equivocate on the concept, assuming that since everything is a matter of faith, any belief is just as good as any other - it's all faith! And since it's all faith, you see no real sense in LEARNING anything, because doing so gains you nothing, you already HAVE faith.

Now, some of us think learning is valuable. We have "faith in learning" and "faith in understanding", and we have found that the pretense that there IS a reality "out there" that can be known, is a very useful pretense. You may mock this belief, of course, that's up to you. In fact, you mock the abstract concepts of knowledge and understanding in every discussion you join.

[seer]

SOME people think that knowledge is worth attaining. If you wish to regard this position as "faith-based", then for you it's faith-based. The problem here is, you have expanded the notion of "faith" to include anything it's possible for anyone to think or feel - everything becomes a faith. Then you equivocate on the concept, assuming that since everything is a matter of faith, any belief is just as good as any other - it's all faith! And since it's all faith, you see no real sense in LEARNING anything, because doing so gains you nothing, you already HAVE faith.

First phank, I'm not suggesting that everything a person believes is valid - just that we all start with unprovable assumptions - faith if you will.

Now, some of us think learning is valuable. We have "faith in learning" and "faith in understanding", and we have found that the pretense that there IS a reality "out there" that can be known, is a very useful pretense. You may mock this belief, of course, that's up to you. In fact, you mock the abstract concepts of knowledge and understanding in every discussion you join.

That is all fine, but the main premise remains a fact. You must approach reality by assumption or faith. You can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

[technomage]

You must approach reality by assumption or faith. You can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

If you are arguing for a full-fledged "brain in a vat" experience (tat reality is an illusion that we must take on faith), then you've left behind any possibility of discourse.

We can have reasonable certainty that what we observe does correspond to reality, because multiple people can independently observe the same incident, and give largely the same result. Of course, you can then respond with "But how do you know they are actually perceiving reality," in which case you're back to the "brain in a vat" argument.

"Brain in a vat" is useless--not only does it close discourse, it shatters your preferred worldview as well.

[technomage]

You must approach reality by assumption or faith. You can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

If you are arguing for a full-fledged "brain in a vat" experience (tat reality is an illusion that we must take on faith), then you've left behind any possibility of discourse.

We can have reasonable certainty that what we observe does correspond to reality, because multiple people can independently observe the same incident, and give largely the same result. Of course, you can then respond with "But how do you know they are actually perceiving reality," in which case you're back to the "brain in a vat" argument.

"Brain in a vat" is useless--not only does it close discourse, it shatters your preferred worldview as well.

[Cerebrum123]

If you are arguing for a full-fledged "brain in a vat" experience (tat reality is an illusion that we must take on faith), then you've left behind any possibility of discourse.

We can have reasonable certainty that what we observe does correspond to reality, because multiple people can independently observe the same incident, and give largely the same result. Of course, you can then respond with "But how do you know they are actually perceiving reality," in which case you're back to the "brain in a vat" argument.

"Brain in a vat" is useless--not only does it close discourse, it shatters your preferred worldview as well.

Personally I prefer the Matrix.

[seer]

If you are arguing for a full-fledged "brain in a vat" experience (tat reality is an illusion that we must take on faith), then you've left behind any possibility of discourse.

Nonsense, I haven't left anything behind - I'm just stating a fact. You can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. The "belief" that it does is an unprovable assumption. And yes, we both take reality by faith - so?

[technomage]

Personally I prefer the Matrix.

If you refer to the first movie ... fine. Refer to either of the alleged "sequels," and I have to take a baseball bat to you.

[Cerebrum123]

If you refer to the first movie ... fine. Refer to either of the alleged "sequels," and I have to take a baseball bat to you.

There were "sequels"?

[technomage]

You can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

Brain in a vat.

Have fun with it, but your arguments of this stle are part of why I refuse to take you seriously.