Evolution and atheism

[phank]

Yes, 50% of those polled in the US reject evolution. BUT, when it comes to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, it is Christians who often lead the fight. For instance, in the landmark MacLean vs Arkansas trial in 1982 keeping YEC out of classrooms, there were 26 plaintiffs against creationism. ALL were theists. 23 were ministers or rabbis. These included the Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, and African-Methodist bishops of Arkansas. The other 3 were teachers, all of whom were Christian. I can cite numerous other examples.

Considering that 50% of the US rejects evolution, what an ENORMOUS coincidence it was that all these plaintiffs opposed creationism. You'd think they were, like, taking sides. Just as enormouse as the coincidence that those siding with the defense felt the opposite. TWO enormous coincidences? Golly!

Of course, the fact that those groups for and against either side were religious groups reflects the fact that this was a religious case. There is no reason to meddle with evolutionary instruction in public education EXCEPT religious "reason".

[seer]

"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

amen

[seer]

You went a bit too far there. It's not that there is not ANY justification, but rather that there is no proof. Faith is not belief without evidence, but belief without proof.

From within science or our existence, we cannot prove that we are not subject to something like the Matrix. Now, that science and particularly techology work so well can be viewed as "justification" for thinking we exist and we are sane, as well as the 5 assumptions about the nature of the universe, but they aren't PROOF.

Lucaspa when I spoke about "empirical justification" my idea was that any empirical evidence that one use to point to a physical universe could just as well be evidence for life in the Matrix.

[seer]

I think this is a much better statement of the issue than Seer's bald 'Everybody lives by faith'. There is a distinct difference in the quality of faith between 'My toaster told me to kill my neighbor' and 'I saw the water boil at 100 degrees'.

But Lucaspa also said this, which is exactly my point:

Not at all. What is being stated is the ability to distinguish what we take on faith and what can be proved. It's not that "reality is an illusion", but rather that we cannot prove that reality is NOT an illusion. It's an accurate statement of our knowledge. As it happens, we ALL share that faith that we are not living in the Matrix.

That "reasonable certainty" is not materially different from faith. We can't prove what we observe corresponds to "reality", or even that there is an objective reality out there to observe.

[Wally]

But Lucaspa also said this, which is exactly my point:

And like it or not, that's the definition of Solipsism.

[phank]

I'm always puzzled by this quest or Absolute Truth, the need for "proof". We are subjective observers in an empirical world, so our appropriate goal is to approximate closely enough to be useful. Even in math, "proof" is arbitrary, depending on the implications of rules that cannot themselves be "proved" - they are conventional, used because they are useful.

So what we need to ask is whether our understanding is close enough to allow us to do whatever we need the understanding for. If we're crossing the street, we find that the appearance of oncoming traffic, or lack of such appearance, works welll enough to survive. We can't "prove" that we're hitting our mouths with our food, but even as infants we learn what "good enough" means to keep ourselves fed.

The requirement for Absolute Proof within a religious context, even though it's a concept without any valid referent, indicates by its very impossibility that it's not useful in this same way. Even the claim that we can't "prove" reality exist, can't be "proved". This is a semantic void at best, and a weak excuse for remaining ignorant all too often.

[seer]

And like it or not, that's the definition of Solipsism.

No, it is "a" definition of faith. We all "believe" that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality - even though we can not prove it empirically or deductively. Descartes would not let himself slip into solipsism since he believed that a good and trustworthy God would not create such a deception (that we would believe in a physical universe that wasn't real). Of course that too is a position of faith. But if you think this logically leads to Solipsism, I'm not going to try and argue you out of it - I personally don't think we have to go there.

[seer]

I'm always puzzled by this quest or Absolute Truth, the need for "proof". We are subjective observers in an empirical world, so our appropriate goal is to approximate closely enough to be useful. Even in math, "proof" is arbitrary, depending on the implications of rules that cannot themselves be "proved" - they are conventional, used because they are useful.

So what we need to ask is whether our understanding is close enough to allow us to do whatever we need the understanding for. If we're crossing the street, we find that the appearance of oncoming traffic, or lack of such appearance, works welll enough to survive. We can't "prove" that we're hitting our mouths with our food, but even as infants we learn what "good enough" means to keep ourselves fed.

But that is not the point at all! It is not about what is approximately correct or not. It is about the unprovable assumption we must first make before we can even approach reality with all its approximate outcomes.

[phank]

But that is not the point at all! It is not about what is approximately correct or not. It is about the unprovable assumption we must first make before we can even approach reality with all its approximate outcomes.

Even bacteria, not to mention jellyfish, seem to make these "unprovable assumptions" quite naturally, and it serves them well. I had no idea bacteria were such sophisticated philosophers - as sophisticated as you are!

[technomage]

One claim made by both creationists and militant atheists is that evolution mandates atheism.

I've heard very few sensible atheists make that claim--the ones that do tend to be of the "New Atheist" crowd, and most of them have their heads ... in an anatomically inconvenient location.

[phank]

I admit I hadn't heard that claim (except by some creationists for whom everything they disagree with mandates atheism). I really can't imagine how that would work anyway. Evolution is biological change over time, and the theory of evolution is proposed mechanisms for that change. It's no more atheistic than gravity, rainbows, or daily mail delivery.

However, I have noticed that locaspa is quite devout in his belief that atheism is a religious faith. I suppose it's possible that if one starts with that misconception, one can conclude anything.

[seer]

Even bacteria, not to mention jellyfish, seem to make these "unprovable assumptions" quite naturally, and it serves them well. I had no idea bacteria were such sophisticated philosophers - as sophisticated as you are!

You are still not getting it. Do you mean bacteria and jellyfish living in reality or living in the Matrix?

[seer]

Even bacteria, not to mention jellyfish, seem to make these "unprovable assumptions" quite naturally, and it serves them well. I had no idea bacteria were such sophisticated philosophers - as sophisticated as you are!

You are still not getting it. Do you mean bacteria and jellyfish living in reality or living in the Matrix? The unprovable assumption is that we are actually experiencing reality and not an induced illusion like the Matrix.

[pancreasman]

You are still not getting it. Do you mean bacteria and jellyfish living in reality or living in the Matrix? The unprovable assumption is that we are actually experiencing reality and not an induced illusion like the Matrix.

And we call that philosophical proposition solipsism and it is a barren and pointless detour.

[Jorge]

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.

Why this 'zombie' thread ? Oh well ....................................

I'm not one of those. Evolution does NOT equal Atheism. Evolution is
a tool of Atheism - the tool that (in their mind) allows them to be
"intellectually fulfilled".

The continued insistence by creationists that "natural selection can't account for ..."

We continue to insist this because it's true!

BTW, don't ever forget that the Evo-Faithful continue to insist (as they must) that
natural selection (+ RM) is able to account for anything in the living world.

... atheism remains a faith even with natural selection in place.

Materialism / Atheism is a faith - period! No other qualifier is necessary.

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

Of course they can't make that claim.
But my-oh-my, they do try and try and try and ...

Jorge