I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

[Zombie Acorn]

Apparently this early humanoid walked on 4 legs in trees and 2 legs on ground. Supposed to be the "missing link".

http://topnews.us/content/27493-scientists-unveil-fossils-44-million-year-old-pre-human-ancestor

An international team of researchers Thursday unveiled the fossils from 4.4 million-year-old 'hominid' - comprising pre-human species and their kin - unearthed in the Awash region of Ethiopia in the beginning of 1994.

The researchers, led by paleoanthropologist Tim White at the University of California, Berkeley, said that the extensive fossil trove - comprising 36 males, females and a young of an ancient prehuman species called Ardipithecus ramidus - reveals that human predecessors were more modern than what the scholars had presumed till now.

The highlight of these remains is the skeleton of a female found to be at least a million years older than the iconic skeleton of Lucy, the primitive female figure that has thus far been considered ancestor of the human species.

The 4-foot-tall female, nicknamed 'Ardi', who has become the best known human forebear, is actually a distant cousin of Lucy's line, Australopithecus afarensis.

Saying that the 'Ardi' discovery further widens the evolutionary gap that separates humankind from apes and chimpanzees, White remarked: "Ardi is not a chimp. It's not a human. It's what we used to be. It gives us a new perspective on our origins. We opened a time capsule from a time and place that we knew nothing about."

Further, White also added that though Ardi is not the last common ancestor, "it's the closest we've come to the last common ancestor."

[Wotan31]

Re: I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

Yes, it will. About as much as the Bible impacts the non-creationist believers in the US. Just saying.

[Tilpots]

Does it ever? You can lead a horse to water...

[yg17]

Re: I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

Yes, it will. About as much as the Bible impacts the non-creationist believers in the US. Just saying.

The difference is that this discovery is based on facts. The bible isn't.

[Eraserhead]

The difference is that this discovery is based on facts.

And it also doesn't break the metaphor of how god created the world as given in the bible.

[DavieBoy]

The devil put that skeleton there to fool you. Its so obvious.

[Wotan31]

The difference is that this discovery is based on facts. The bible isn't.
And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

[Lord Blackadder]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.

[.Andy]

And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.
Is this how evolution works?

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.
Or another way to put it is religion is unnecessary. It can be yielded at whim to explain things in an every narrowing gap as scientific knowledge increases. Or it can exist as the supernatural.

[yg17]

Is this how evolution works?


Posts like his prove evolution. Some people have evolved past monkeys enough to put letters together to form words, but haven't evolved enough to put those words together to form a rational thought.

[.Andy]

Posts like his prove evolution.
I think it proves that statistics like the one in the OP arise from a neglectful level of science education in schooling. To call a spade a spade it is scientific illiteracy.

[Wotan31]

Posts like his prove evolution. Some people have evolved past monkeys enough to put letters together to form words, but haven't evolved enough to put those words together to form a rational thought.
And posts like yours prove that darwin was wrong. You'd think the lower end of the gene pool would weed itself out, but nope, they just keep popping up.

[gibbz]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.

+1.

I grew up with a religious upbringing and yet I am a scientist.

I have always viewed science as man's attempt to explain the physical world in terms that we all understand. That doesn't mean that because science defines something that it can't also be attributable to God. It just means that we have defined terms within the scope of our own understanding, which is very limited in the grand scheme of things.

I don't understand religious folks who hate science or science folks who hate religion. Neither precludes the other.

[.Andy]

And posts like yours prove that darwin was wrong. You'd think the lower end of the gene pool would weed itself out, but nope, they just keep popping up.
Although a wonderfully delivered slight, intelligence doesn't really have that much to do with reproductive ability. So again you're really showing a misunderstanding of evolution.

[Lord Blackadder]

Or another way to put it is religion is unnecessary. It can be yielded at whim to explain things in an every narrowing gap as scientific knowledge increases. Or it can exist as the supernatural.

Science will never be able to explain everything, and from the dawn of humanity people have used a variety of methods to try and understand the world around them and why things happen the way they do. The two great sources of "truth" have always been the gaining of empirical knowledge and belief in the supernatural.

I'm convinced this will never change for the majority of humanity. We will never become a planet of atheists/humanists, regardless of the high status science has in the modern world, just as we will never be a planet of believers. Almost everyone falls somewhere in between.

Science has never suggested that God does not exist (indeed it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural), while any religion that dismisses science or rejects scientific inquiry is overly dogmatic.

Unfortunately dogmatism is endemic.

intelligence doesn't really have that much to do with reproductive ability.

Something proven time and time again I'm afraid.

[Eraserhead]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.

Exactly.

If I were the creator of the universe I wouldn't create all the animals and their changes manually - I'd setup an algorithm to do it for me, as its far less work.

Just because evolution exists isn't proof that god doesn't give life a helping hand occasionally, or that god didn't initially create life.

[.Andy]

The two great sources of "truth" have always been the gaining of empirical knowledge and belief in the supernatural.
Is belief in the supernatural really searching for or providing truth?

Science has never suggested that God does not exists
Depends on how you look at it. Science has most definitely proven that the majority of the fantastic claims attributed to the christian god in the bible are completely bunk. It's proven that the claims attributable to the greek gods are complete bunk. It's proven that the claims made by the aboriginal supernatural giant snakes are complete bunk. And on and on. Science is forever releasing us from the misguided explanations of the supernatural. Evoking the supernatural at any stage just doesn't make any sense nor is it required for anything. It's an arbitrary adjunct.

If I were the creator of the universe I wouldn't create all the animals and their changes manually - I'd setup an algorithm to do it for me, as its far less work.
But evoking the supernatural here (in the guise of a Judeo-Christian god nonetheless) is completely unnecessary. Why does some supernatural entity need to have made the algorithm. We have shown that the algorithm works and arises without any supernatural input. It's adding a completely unnecessary and unprecedented level of complexity to a problem with a simple solution.

Just because evolution exists isn't proof that god doesn't give life a helping hand occasionally, or that god didn't initially create life.
An interventionist god giving life "a helping hand" is something that can be tested and detected scientifically. And that god created life is also a scientific claim. One that we have pretty strong scientific evidence to the contrary. And our understanding of abiogenesis is increasing every single day. To evoke god in this gap is very shaky ground.

[Lord Blackadder]

Is belief in the supernatural really searching for or providing truth?

I think it does for believers, it provides a truth. Finding answers through religious means is very satisfying for billions of people and does not necessarily have to involve repudiating scientific truth (though there are plenty of examples of that happening, some harmless enough, others catastrophic).

Depends on how you look at it.

Very much so. If you take the Bible as a literal truth, I agree with you that it is not an accurate description of events. It is a combination of oral history and myth.

Science is forever releasing us from the misguided explanations of the supernatural. Evoking the supernatural at any stage just doesn't make any sense nor is it required for anything. It's an arbitrary adjunct.

There is a kernel of truth in what you say, but I think you take it too far for most people. If it works for you, that's fine, but most people want to believe in the supernatural in some form, and you can interpret that as either an undesirable characteristic that science "releases" us from, or something more closely tied with humanity itself.

Science will never replace humanity's desire for the spiritual, just as history has taught us that religion without any science (or at least secularism) can breed unnecessary suffering and repression. I fully respect your position and even agree with most of your criticisms of religion, but (and I doubt I'm telling you anything new here), I think that relatively few people are going to see things unreservedly your way on this.

[.Andy]

I think it does for believers, it provides a truth. Finding answers through religious means is very satisfying for billions of people
Perhaps instead of "truth" a better description would be a palatable, satisfying, and attractive explanation?

and does not necessarily have to involve repudiating scientific truth.
No it doesn't. But that doesn't validate it as the provider of any truth or something that can be piggybacked onto established scientific facts (such as evolution above).

If it works for you, that's fine, but most people want to believe in the supernatural in some form, and you can interpret that as either an undesirable characteristic that science "releases" us from, or something more closely tied with humanity itself.
But again because people want something or like something or find something comforting by no means validates it. It has to stand on it's own merit - especially if it is making the most extraordinary claims.

Science will never replace humanity's desire for the spiritual, just as history has taught us that religion without any science (or at least secularism) can breed unnecessary suffering and repression.
But spiritualism and religion aren't mutually inclusive. One can still be spiritual without being religious. Taking wonder of science is a very valid spiritual experience.

[DiamondMac]

You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

Water to wine

Awesome

[Queso]

This won't convince anyone. They'll just change the script so that the missing link is elsewhere.

[Eraserhead]

But evoking the supernatural here (in the guise of a Judeo-Christian god nonetheless) is completely unnecessary. Why does some supernatural entity need to have made the algorithm. We have shown that the algorithm works and arises without any supernatural input. It's adding a completely unnecessary and unprecedented level of complexity to a problem with a simple solution.


An interventionist god giving life "a helping hand" is something that can be tested and detected scientifically. And that god created life is also a scientific claim. One that we have pretty strong scientific evidence to the contrary. And our understanding of abiogenesis is increasing every single day. To evoke god in this gap is very shaky ground.

While these may well be accepted scientific theory these days, they aren't directly related to belief in evolution.

[.Andy]

While these may well be accepted scientific theory these days, they aren't directly related to belief in evolution.
I was commenting on the reasoning given for science and religion not being mutually exclusive. By "exactly" I thought you were replying and building on Lord Blackadder's post. I was not commenting on evolution exclusively.

[Shivetya]

And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

Don't worry, they will trot out another dead monkey and so on and so on...


it never ends... that and someone posting a thread as a means to bash Christians on MacRumors.

Its fun watching people filled with so much angst lash out all the time :P

[.Andy]

Don't worry, they will trot out another dead monkey and so on and so on...


it never ends... that and someone posting a thread as a means to bash Christians on MacRumors.

Its fun watching people filled with so much angst lash out all the time :P
Please nobody reply to this. If you look at Shivetya's posting history he just drops in similar posts time and time again with no interest in a discussion.

[Unspoken Demise]

I find this discovery very intriging. I love when stuff like this is found.

[Lord Blackadder]

Perhaps instead of "truth" a better description would be a palatable, satisfying, and attractive explanation?

This may sound Clinton-esque, but it depends on the meaning of "truth". ;)

No it doesn't. But that doesn't validate it as the provider of any truth or something that can be piggybacked onto established scientific facts (such as evolution above).

I would argue that it is irrelevant whether people outside a particular religious group think it's valid or not. Religions are a kind of community, and while they obviously interact with other groups they do not rely on any outside validation whatsoever. Of course, people within the community would argue that it is valid because it is the truth. And they are entitled to believe that.

But I completely agree that when their interpretation of religion involves repudiating well-established scientific fact, I consider it detrimental to the community and everyone around them. This is not a case of scientific truth triumphing over religious truth, but rather religious truth having been applied outside it's proper scope.

But again because people want something or like something or find something comforting by no means validates it. It has to stand on it's own merit - especially if it is making the most extraordinary claims.

It completely validates it, as far as I'm concerned - as long as belief doesn't repress or hurt others (and I admit that THAT is a big sticking point).

Religion is validated by it's own community of believers. It has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method at all, and apart from the caveat I mentioned, it can't be subjected to any logical validation process.

But spiritualism and religion aren't mutually inclusive. One can still be spiritual without being religious. Taking wonder of science is a very valid spiritual experience.

Absolutely. Of course, few people do that exclusively (compared with the major organized religions), but I'll bet most people have had spiritual experiences as a result of science.

Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

If everybody approached such discussions they way you are doing, our society would be even further mired in ignorance, violence and hate. Being a Christian, as far as I'm aware, is not about tearing other people down like you are doing.

I'm sitting here trying to argue that religion is a valid component of humanity, and you seem intent on proving me wrong by your ridiculous attacks on other people's opinions. Unless of course you are an atheist shill. :rolleyes:

Its fun watching people filled with so much angst lash out all the time :P

I assume you're looking in the mirror?

[.Andy]

This may sound Clinton-esque, but it depends on the meaning of "truth". ;)

I would argue that it is irrelevant whether people outside a particular religious group think it's valid or not. Religions are a kind of community, and while they obviously interact with other groups they do not rely on any outside validation whatsoever. Of course, people within the community would argue that it is valid because it is the truth. And they are entitled to believe that.

But I completely agree that when their interpretation of religion involves repudiating well-established scientific fact, I consider it detrimental to the community and everyone around them. This is not a case of scientific truth triumphing over religious truth, but rather religious truth having been applied outside it's proper scope.

As usual I pretty much agree with all of this Lord Blackadder :). Although find your definition of truth a bit too all-inclusive.


It completely validates it, as far as I'm concerned - as long as belief doesn't repress or hurt others (and I admit that THAT is a big sticking point).

Religion is validated by it's own community of believers. It has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method at all, and apart from the caveat I mentioned, it can't be subjected to any logical validation process.
But I take issue with this. The validity that is of issue here isn't whether religion is personally acceptable to an individual. The validity I'm interested in is if there is a reason to necessarily place religion in a position where it's not at odds with science in some sense. And an overseeing/creating judeo-christian god is square in this court. And I'd also argue that such a religion can undergo a logical validation process. One can reconcile it's dogma with the world but to validate it logically is another thing altogether. edit: for an example of this last point I direct you to macaddicttt's detrimental beliefs on contraception in the religion thread.

[skunk]

As usual I pretty much agree with all of this Lord Blackadder :). Although find your definition of truth a bit too all-inclusive.The difference is that scientific proof is there to be discovered by anyone, while religious truth has to be asserted.

[Lord Blackadder]

The difference is that scientific proof is there to be discovered by anyone, while religious truth has to be asserted.

Yes, in a nutshell. Unless of course God talks to you. ;)

The validity that is of issue here isn't whether religion is personally acceptable to an individual. The validity I'm interested in is if there is a reason to necessarily place religion in a position where it's not at odds with science in some sense. And an overseeing/creating judeo-christian god is square in this court.

I'm not completely following, but I'm hungry and getting ready to eat so perhaps blood is rushing to my stomach and out of my brain...:o

And I'd also argue that such a religion can undergo a logical validation process. One can reconcile it's dogma with the world but to validate it logically is another thing altogether.

I guess I'm speaking about validity with respect to one's own self or within a religious community....for many, validating their religion to others is either irrelevant or takes the form of proselytizing. But you are right, with many, it's not a question of validating either science or religion but reconciling two things they individually accept but often seem at odds.

[.Andy]

I'm not completely following, but I'm hungry and getting ready to eat so perhaps blood is rushing to my stomach and out of my brain...:o

I guess I'm speaking about validity with respect to one's own self....for many, validating their religion to others is either irrelevant or takes the form of proselytizing. But you are right, with many, it's not a question of validating either science or religion but reconciling two things they individually accept but often seem at odds.
Sorry if I'm not being clear. The validity I'm interested in exploring is your original claim that science and religion are not mutually exclusive and can exist in harmony. I can't see this without science or religion making significant concessions. Science making concessions to it's principles would lead to a diminution in the power of science. Religion can and does make numerous concessions in an attempt to reconcile itself with science in a number of ways. For instance retreating from a literal reading of the bible, limiting the existence of god to gaps outside of the current understanding of science, evoking the supernatural, new sect spin-offs, or just changing their beliefs altogether.

But this ever limiting version of god has it's own problems for followers - they understandably end up drawing a line in the sand somewhere. They start to arbitrarily disagree with science. See science as the enemy. Start to keep their kids from learning science or aspects of science. Or try to inject god into scientific study and discourse. This most certainly isn't a valid use of religion. It's detrimental to everyone. Although the personal religion you evoke which can be reconciled with science is an attractive idea, I'm not really of the opinion that the major judeo-christian religions are all that good at keeping the "absolute truth" of their god to themselves and roll over as the scope of their god retracts.

[Lord Blackadder]

Ah, I see. Thanks. :)

The part that troubles me is the drawing of a line in the sand. Because it is arbitrary - and even the most die hard religious fanatic would admit that religion should never be arbitrary. Unfortunately, all too often arbitrary moves are retrospectively given some theological justification or, even more commonly, the original issue is forever buried in the mists of time and established tradition, both very powerful elements.

And yes, the "concessions" lie almost exclusively on the side of religion, though I would again argue that perhaps that is more an effect of religion over-extending itself in the first place than conceding ground, since I believe that this "retraction" of the scope of God can go on forever without it actually diminishing the validity that people ascribe to religion.

I'm an anthropologist but no philosopher, so I can't really comment on the absolute validity of religion in the absence of communities of people, while scientific fact, as skunk pointed out, exists independently from humans' awareness of it.

[Eraserhead]

I was commenting on the reasoning given for science and religion not being mutually exclusive. By "exactly" I thought you were replying and building on Lord Blackadder's post. I was not commenting on evolution exclusively.

I didn't know about the (recent) research that you raised that appears to exclude the possibility of god from the initial creation of life. So I was applying to mainly evolution, but also partially all science. I wasn't expressing myself perfectly so my posts probably weren't completely clear :o.

[Iscariot]

And yes, the "concessions" lie almost exclusively on the side of religion, though I would again argue that perhaps that is more an effect of religion over-extending itself in the first place than conceding ground, since I believe that this "retraction" of the scope of God can go on forever without it actually diminishing the validity that people ascribe to religion.

Let's shift the question for a moment away from "does God exist?" to "is God knowable?" By changing the parameters of how we approach the question, we're forced to examine the much more important question of relevancy. Factual errors in religious texts, failed religious prophecy, heinous acts perpetrated in the name of God, and a complete lack of evidence points to the answer that no, God isn't knowable. If he is not knowable, then it becomes impossible to act according to his will, and he becomes irrelevant, regardless of his existence.

[Lord Blackadder]

But further shifting the question to "Why do people believe god exists?" should make it clear that your argument, however well reasoned, misses the mark completely. For various reasons, relatively few people are going to subscribe to it. People believe, and that has very little to do with the terms of your examination of relevance.

At any rate, you don't need to attempt to prove God irrelevant in order to argue for the acceptance of the principles of Darwinian evolution. That was my original point in an earlier post. Whatever your belief system (or lack of one) may be, I reject the notion that Darwinian evolution is some sort of direct challenge to religion, or that the teachings of religion, in particular Christianity (the religion I'm most familiar with) are not compatible with Darwinism.

If people choose to believe that God is ultimately responsible for creating the universe, well, I don't see Darwinism challenging that notion. And with regards to the creation story in the bible, I don't see it directly challenging Darwinian evolution either, unless you read it literally, which many Christians do not (and here I must respectfully disagree with the literalists). I'll not pretend that a high-profile fight over these issues doesn't exist, but I believe there to be a middle ground on this, at least for the purposes of laws and education.

[Iscariot]

At any rate, you don't need to attempt to prove God irrelevant in order to argue for the acceptance of the principles of Darwinian evolution.

I'm not. I'm looking at the bigger picture re: science and religion having some level of mutual exclusivity. I don't believe it's enough to say that the two can co-exist, because the space for one is ever-expanding and the other ever-shrinking, a condition which necessarily begs the question I asked.

[Tomorrow]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.

Thank God - I was honestly starting to think that I'm the only one who believes this.

This all goes back to labels, and why I reject them - it is People who decided that "Creationism" and "Evolution" are two separate, mutually exclusive camps, and that you must belong either to one or the other, and wholly immerse yourself in the ideology associated with that label.

I am a Christian, but hardly a religious zealot; I'm also open-minded enough to accept the truths that the scientific community has brought to us. I don't interpret the Bible or any other religious text literally. I don't look to one source for information that will disprove another. To me, there's no reason to do that. There's nothing to be gained by trying to resolve the type of "truth" that can be scientifically proven with the types of "truth" that are strictly taken on faith by believers.

I'm glad I read this thread tonight.

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm not. I'm looking at the bigger picture re: science and religion having some level of mutual exclusivity. I don't believe it's enough to say that the two can co-exist, because the space for one is ever-expanding and the other ever-shrinking, a condition which necessarily begs the question I asked.

I don't think they can occupy the same space, if that's what you mean. But I don't think that their relationship must always be antagonistic either. It can be complementary.

When referring to the process of science expanding and religion shrinking though, it's important to discuss where you think that is ultimately headed. Do you think it will eventually result in the disappearance of religion apart from a tiny, hard core?

[Chundles]

When people are basing their beliefs on no evidence, no amount of evidence can change those beliefs.

I don't care what the religious folks think about evolution just as they don't care what I think.

[djellison]

How did most Christian people believe man, animals and plants were made BEFORE Darwin became widely accepted? 'God' as a hands on creator directly responsible for each species, us included? i.e. "Look at all the wonderful life, only God could have made it" type situation?

Now, even the Vatican agrees that Evolution is real, even if a majority of brainwashed Christians do not. How or why people still ignore evolution I don't know. They don't ignore, say, gravity when they leave their house via the front door rather than the upstairs windows. They trust science with the brakes in their cars, the compounds in their drugs, the silicon in their computer, even the structural integrity of their church roof. But not the most simple and elegant explanation for the diversity of life.

I just don't get it.

It's the same thinking that costs lives with the Anti-Vax movement, AIDS in Africa, refusing blood-transfusions, or trusting quackery over chemo for a child with cancer.

It demonstrates a DANGEROUS lack of critical thinking, a skill that is needed more than ever before when ones inbox, letter box, newspapers and televisions are crammed full of people prepared to defraud and extort those who lack such skills.

[skunk]

The concept of anthropocentrism is what is really questionable. If any god/creator exists, what grounds are there for supposing that we as a species are of any interest to him or her at all, or even that he or she is aware of our existence? It surely beggars the belief of even the most credulous and/or self-important to imagine that this supposed being would have set a process in motion that would take fifteen billion years to reach any sort of fruition, with all kinds of opportunities along the way which might frustrate the chances of that ever happening? According to this scenario, 99.9999999999% of matter in the universe is entirely irrelevant to the central project, as is 99.9999999% of the time allotted to it.

[Eraserhead]

Now, even the Vatican agrees that Evolution is real, even if a majority of brainwashed Christians do not. How or why people still ignore evolution I don't know.

To be fair I think these 'brainwashed christians' not believing in evolution only really occurs in the US.

It demonstrates a DANGEROUS lack of critical thinking, a skill that is needed more than ever before when ones inbox, letter box, newspapers and televisions are crammed full of people prepared to defraud and extort those who lack such skills.

+1

[.Andy]

http://i38.tinypic.com/j5ypzl.jpg

[Iscariot]

Do you think it will eventually result in the disappearance of religion apart from a tiny, hard core?

No, but I think it will ultimately result in a society that is entirely secular by necessity. As the relevance of God diminishes, so too will the amount of impact belief will have on politics and society. People will be much more able to reconcile their beliefs with the beliefs of others as the common ground provided by scientific knowledge expands further and further. I don't see it as the end of religious belief so much as the end of religious zealotry.

[skunk]

People will be much more able to reconcile their beliefs with the beliefs of others as the common ground provided by scientific knowledge expands further and further. I don't see it as the end of religious belief so much as the end of religious zealotry.Back to Scientific Materialism, then?

[Tomorrow]

To be fair I think these 'brainwashed christians' not believing in evolution only really occurs in the US.

And only very few at that. Most of us aren't "brainwashed Christians" any more than many on this thread are "brainwashed atheists."

You people seem to think that all Christians reject evolution completely; that isn't the case. There are a handful of nutjobs, but they don't represent the entire religion.

[skunk]

You people seem to think that all Christians reject evolution completely; that isn't the case. There are a handful of nutjobs, but they don't represent the entire religion.Of course "we people" don't think "you people" are all like that, but the statistics regularly show it is by no means a "handful of nutjobs". It's more than half your nutjob nation.

[djellison]

There are a handful of nutjobs

HALF is not a 'handful'

[Tomorrow]

Of course "we people" don't think "you people" are all like that, but the statistics regularly show it is by no means a "handful of nutjobs". It's more than half your nutjob nation.

If you create polls that force people to choose "Creation," "Evolution," or "Not Sure," then you're going to end up with results that don't really mean a whole lot, because the poll is based on "Creation" and "Evolution" being mutually exclusive. I don't think a majority of people here believe that; I certainly don't.

That's the problem with labels; people are uncomfortable with anything that doesn't fit neatly into one category or another.

[djellison]

If you create polls that force people to choose "Creation," "Evolution," or "Not Sure,"

The graph above asks no such thing. It asked if you accept evolution. The options were yes, not sure, no. Not Evolution, Not Sure, Creation.

If is a FACT that more than half of Americans don't think Evolution is real when demonstrably, it is.

[Tomorrow]

The graph above asks no such thing. It asked if you accept evolution. The options were yes, not sure, no. Not Evolution, Not Sure, Creation.

If is a FACT that more than half of Americans don't think Evolution is real when demonstrably, it is.

Six of one, half dozen of the other - it's not a yes or no question.

[djellison]

Six of one, half dozen of the other - it's not a yes or no question.

You're making excuses for religious types here.

Yes or No - in a six of one half dozen of the other sort of way- is the same as a ''true / false' question. That's what that graph presented earlier was about.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

Belief in Theory of Evolution by Church Attendence is especially revealing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

"On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
God created humans in present form - 51%
....
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.


Those figures are higher than the 50%, roughly, presented in the graph earlier.

Bare in mind that this is the same as asking if Gravity is real. An accepted scientific theory.

And religious types, on the whole, don't agree with it.

[.Andy]

Six of one, half dozen of the other - it's not a yes or no question.
What type of choices should one have in such a poll in your opinion?

Do you believe in evolution?
Yes
No
Not Sure
......and then what?

[Tomorrow]

What type of choices should one have in such a poll in your opinion?

Do you believe in evolution?
Yes
No
Not Sure
......and then what?

The question doesn't define what it means to "believe in evolution."

Like I said, it's possible to believe that some things have evolved over time and still believe that God created the Earth and life. The question doesn't clearly allow for that.

It goes back to what I was saying about people want to believe that everyone belongs cleanly into one camp or the other, and that there's no overlap; I don't believe that that's the case.

[.Andy]

The question doesn't define what it means to "believe in evolution."
I don't agree with you reasoning here but I do agree that in the US there is a terrible understanding of what evolution actually means due to terrible science literacy.

Like I said, it's possible to believe that some things have evolved over time and still believe that God created the Earth and life. The question doesn't clearly allow for that.
Because this isn't what the questioning is asking. It's asking if you believe in evolution. It doesn't encroach on abiogenesis at all. It's not a question of abiogenesis. In keeping with what I said above this is a conflation that arises out of a lack of science literacy.

And what exactly do you mean by some things evolved over time? That some things evolved whereas others were made in their modern day image by god :confused:? Do you think that is that a tenable position?

[djellison]

It goes back to what I was saying about people want to believe that everyone belongs cleanly into one camp or the other, and that there's no overlap; I don't believe that that's the case.

You either agree evolution occurs, or you don't. In the same way, you either agree gravity works, or doesn't.

It's quite simple.

[.Andy]

You either agree evolution occurs, or you don't. In the same way, you either agree gravity works, or doesn't.

It's quite simple.
I can't understand the position of I believe in evolution but will vote no if a poll doesn't explicitly state that the christian god plays a part in it. Despite claims otherwise I think this is one of the best demonstrations of how the objectivity of science and the subjectivity of religion are largely immiscible.

[Rt&Dzine]

You either agree evolution occurs, or you don't. In the same way, you either agree gravity works, or doesn't.

It's quite simple.

Gravity doesn't always work. Funerals—yes. Jokes—not so good. sorry

[Iscariot]

Back to Scientific Materialism, then?

I don't see why belief has to be replaced.

Although I admit my argument sounds a lot more optimistic than I realistically think.

[CaptMurdock]

And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

To tell a family secret, one of my great-great-great-grandfathers was a chimpanzee. According to family legend, when the girl's father found out she married a chimpanzee, he bellowed "How the hell could this have happened??" Great-Grandpa Cornelius replied, "Hey, I was drunk."
:cool:

[Rt&Dzine]

And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

This comment made me wonder . . . do people who don't believe in evolution think they are descended from Adam and Eve?

[Counterfit]

I was driving in Connecticut today, west of Hartford, and saw an anti-evolution billboard. :(

[skunk]

I was driving in Connecticut today, west of Hartford, and saw an anti-evolution billboard. :(What, anti-all-evolution? How do they propose to stop it? :confused:

[DiamondMac]

This comment made me wonder . . . do people who don't believe in evolution think they are descended from Adam and Eve?

.

[ntrigue]

Apparently Christians are suggesting that God created our Earth 'old' with fossils baked-in!

You can ONLY lead a horse to water...

[XNine]

Water to wine

Awesome

If I were in the middle of a desert and some guy turned my water into wine, I'd beat his ass.

Plus, if he really was so talented, why wine? Why not something better? Like Pepsi? Or Lucky Charms? Or Easy Street Ale?

Seems to me he was pretty limited or had a lack of imagination.

Can't believe so many people still come here. I missed this place.

[Queso]

Can't believe so many people still come here. I missed this place.
Hello you. Good to have you back :)

[imac/cheese]

You either agree evolution occurs, or you don't. In the same way, you either agree gravity works, or doesn't.

It's quite simple.

I think the comparison between gravity and evolution oversimplifies the topic a bit. Yes they are both accepted scientific theories, but people can see the effects of gravity in every aspect of their lives. I can agree with the theory of gravity because I can compare the theory to my own personal experiences. To agree with the theory of evolution, you have to study the topic, read the evidence, and make a decision based on the observations of other people. One really can't compare the theory to ther own personal experiences.

[yg17]

I think the comparison between gravity and evolution oversimplifies the topic a bit. Yes they are both accepted scientific theories, but people can see the effects of gravity in every aspect of their lives. I can agree with the theory of gravity because I can compare the theory to my own personal experiences. To agree with the theory of evolution, you have to study the topic, read the evidence, and make a decision based on the observations of other people. One really can't compare the theory to ther own personal experiences.

Couldn't there be no gravity, and it's just god pulling all our objects back to the ground?

Why do you take decades of scientific research on one subject as fact and decades of scientific research on another subject as sacrilegious BS?

[imac/cheese]

Couldn't there be no gravity, and it's just god pulling all our objects back to the ground?

Why do you take decades of scientific research on one subject as fact and decades of scientific research on another subject as sacrilegious BS?

I never said that I think evolution is sacrilegious BS. Where did you get that idea?

I was simply talking of the comparision between the theories of gravity and evolution. One can easily be seen in daily life while the other can't. I doubt most people who believe the theory of gravity do so because of the decades of scientific research into it. They believe the theory of gravity because it makes sense and can be visibly observed though simple personal experimentation.

[yg17]

I never said that I think evolution is sacrilegious BS. Where did you get that idea?



Not you specifically. But other Christians have said basically that.

[Don't panic]

I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

no.

[4God]

So much to say, I'll just refer you to here (http://www.drdino.com/) instead.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.

[yg17]

So much to say, I'll just refer you to here (http://www.drdino.com/) instead.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.

I'm supposed to take a site by a group that thinks The Flinstones is a documentary seriously?

[Cave Man]

I was simply talking of the comparision between the theories of gravity and evolution. One can easily be seen in daily life while the other can't. I doubt most people who believe the theory of gravity do so because of the decades of scientific research into it. They believe the theory of gravity because it makes sense and can be visibly observed though simple personal experimentation.

I think you mean the fact of gravity is easier to comprehend than the fact of evolution for lay people. The theories are substantially more complicated, and few theories are as complicated as those in evolution.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.

I stopped reading after the "Physics proves a 6 day creation is possible" banner on the first page.

[Unspoken Demise]

I stopped reading after the "Physics proves a 6 day creation is possible" banner on the first page.

Yes. I tried to keep an open mind. That banner shut it.

[Peace]

Doesn't impact me one bit and I believe in the creation of man.;)

[Cave Man]

Here's a great resource (http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/) from Science.

[benlee]

I think there has been a growing mistrust of science, particularly in the U.S.

I don't want to bring politics into the matter, but I think the policies of administrations have fueled such mistrust.

The sociologists sees this as pitting people against each other, and in the United States it is usually a 50/50 split. For instance, Climate Science (consensus is out there, yet many still disagree and disregard), Stem-Cell Research (which admittedly has a moral aspect, but people make decisions with no knowledge of the science), medical marijuana (the available research suggests that it has medicinal value and is not "that bad" for you, no more than other meds anyways).

I could go on, but I think I have expressed my point. People pick a "group" and then base their ideas and opinions on the group they are in, disregarding the science supporting anything (whether supporting their "group's" policy or the opposing group's policy). People read headlines, and not stories. There are people that agree with Glenn Beck and there are people that agree with Michael Moore. Very few actually know what the hell anyone is even talking about.

[Don't panic]

So much to say, I'll just refer you to here (http://www.drdino.com/) instead.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.

ok, i did take some time to look around.
what i have seen is a lot of naive and well-debunked stuff, unproven and unreferenced opinions stated as 'facts', a cornucopia of logical non-sequitor and a deep and thorough lack of understanding of evolution and of the scientific method.
Plus the usual it is so because the bible says so.

and precious droplets of wisdom like this one:
This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones
and if you don't see the wonderful irony of statements such as this one, than no amount of evidence, facts or reality will have any say on your prepackaged view of life.


now, given my limited time there, i cannot categorically exclude that brilliant gems of truth may be found in that site (although i am kind of leaning in that direction at the moment), but if they are, they are very well hidden.

[Eraserhead]

medical marijuana (the available research suggests that it has medicinal value and is not "that bad" for you, no more than other meds anyways).

There is also the fact that almost all other recreational drugs (except cocaine, heroin and crack and one other) are considered by scientists to be less dangerous than alcohol - yet they are still banned (source (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/fulltext)).

EDIT:

197620

Not all government policy is rational even outside the US ;).

[4God]

I'm supposed to take a site by a group that thinks The Flinstones is a documentary seriously?

I'm sorry, it's not the Simpson's or Family Guy right?

I stopped reading after the "Physics proves a 6 day creation is possible" banner on the first page.

Here's an excerpt to make it easy:

Physics Shows That Six Day Creation is Possible
Written by: Bruce Malone
Exodus 20:11 makes one of the most unbelievable statements of the Bible: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." It is hard to imagine a clearer statement defining how long God took in creating the entire universe. However, this simple statement has presented a seemingly impossible dilemma for Christians. On one hand, modern cosmology teaches that the universe has taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, if this clear and straightforward statement of the Bible can not be trusted to mean what it says, how can we know that any statement of the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says?
This was the dilemma which Dr. Russell Humphreys (physicist at Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang". During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.
Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.
The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.
Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that the Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book.


Oh, and this:
Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word
In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.

[Eraserhead]

I'm sorry, it's not the Simpson's or Family Guy right?

No, its just not a factual source like a newspaper, let alone a serious source like a scientific journal.

[Unspoken Demise]

Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word
In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.

So because that guy "way back when" named the universe the universe, that cemented the fact that God exists and he created the "universe" in 7 days and evolution is wrong?

"What is in a name..."

[yg17]

Oh, and this:
Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word
In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.

So? Insurance companies consider hail, hurricanes, tornados, etc, to be "acts of god" but that doesn't mean there's not a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for them.

[Don't panic]

Oh, and this:
Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word
In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.

:D LOL :D

[Queso]

Oh, and this:
Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word
In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.
And here I was thinking it came from the latin "universus" meaning whole or entire :p

[Cave Man]

Here's an excerpt to make it easy:

So, in Genesis by the fifth day we had all sorts of creatures? How does physics explain that?

20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


Oh, and this:
Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word

You're not serious, are you?

In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.

I'm not the one who lets personal incredulity get in the way of reason and rationale.

[Gelfin]

Oh, and this:
Universe - Uni=1 Verse=Spoken word
In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.
Like it or not.

Like it or not, this is a false just-so etymology. We get our word universe (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe) from the Latin universum, and it has always meant "the totality of everything."

The versus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=versus) is not derived from the Latin noun for a verse (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=verse) in the poetical sense. It is the present participle of the Latin vertere, "to turn."

The noun form relating to a line of poetry is a metaphorical derivation from the verb in much the same way we say "turn a phrase" today, if indeed that idiom is not rooted in the same usage.

The verb is also the sense from which we get the English versus used in court cases and sporting events, which clearly has little to do with spoken words, but instead indicates a turning of one party against another.

The word universe, also used to denote "in the absolute most general case," can be better expressed as "the sense in which all turns together."

[Rt&Dzine]

interesting stuff

Man, you are amazing. I love reading your posts!

[benlee]

There is also the fact that almost all other recreational drugs (except cocaine, heroin and crack and one other) are considered by scientists to be less dangerous than alcohol - yet they are still banned.
Not all government policy is rational even outside the US ;).

The graph is a little misleading, or your explanation of such, the graph outlines the "potential for misuse" which is different from "dangerousness." but your point is not moot.

I would argue that not much government policy is rational. Just as not many of people's beliefs are rational.

[.Andy]

no.
This is a great graph.

So much to say, I'll just refer you to here (http://www.drdino.com/) instead.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.
I don't need to look around. "Dr Dino" has been around for ages and is a complete and utter con man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

"Dr Dino" aka "Kent Hovind" isn't a "Dr" at all in any sense of the word. He attained his PhD from Patriot Bible University and his "thesis" is a sham (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm) and is largely unavailable for scrutiny. Patriot Bible University is a unaccredited christian diploma mill where you can get a degree in months.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2djw49f.png

Wiki does a god job at summarising his insanity;

The "Hovind Theory"
Hovind summarizes his version of the young Earth creation story into the eponymous "Hovind Theory" taken from a variety of creationist sources.[38][39] The "Hovind Theory" was presented at Hovind lectures and in his work "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution".[39] Hovind explained the Biblical account of Noah as follows: Noah's family and two of every "kind" of animal (including young dinosaurs)[40] safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300° F (~-184°C) ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the north and south poles of the earth.
He explains the fossils were created by billions of organisms that were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized.[41]
The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up.[42] Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. This made the earth "wobble around" and collapsed the vapor canopy that protected it.

He also doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis or have an understanding of physics whatsoever, putting forth a $250 000 challenge to scientists to "prove" evolution by satisfying these criteria;

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust
3. Matter created life by itself
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

At the height of his popularity he opened Dinosaur Adventure Land which was a laughable fun park that contained ridiculous assertions of dinosaurs and man living together to indoctrinate kids. He also thought the Loch Ness monster was real and claimed it to be a modern day dinosaur as depicted in the bible. And that the "firmament" of the bible existed as a canopy of water surrounding the earth and was the cause of Naoh's flood. He also thinks that giants roamed the earth in fitting with bibical verse

http://i38.tinypic.com/d5jrt.jpg

Did I mention he was insane?
Hovind's creationist presentations have asserted that the reason biblical creationism is not taught in public schools was tied to "an international conspiracy" of "'The New World Order' (NWO) consisting of Ted Turner (and his wife, Jane Fonda), the British Royal Family, the State of Israel, the ACLU, and a smattering of former and present US government officials, business leaders, and social activists (particularly those advocating population control) — shades of the Trilateral Commission."[85] In May 1999, he claimed "the implementation of the NWO's world-domination plan was May 5, 2000."
It's well worth reading the wiki section on his politics and conspiracy theories (and click through the links). There's claims of the suppression of the cure for cancer by the government as well as 9/11 was an inside job claims amongst others.

Thankfully he's currently spending time in a maximum security prison for not paying tax on the considerable fortune (millions of dollars) he scammed out of poorly educated creationists. He tried to claim that as a minister of god everything he owned belonged to god and therefore he didn't have to pay tax on his work for god. Not surprisingly it didn't fly in court and he was sentenced to 10 years in gaol. Even in gaol he conspired to try and hide his assets for which he was further convicted of another year in prison. His wife was also gaoled for her role.

But fear not you can still help him in gaol (http://www.drdino.com/legalupdate.php/) by continuing to be scammed;

Q: What can I do?

A: We're asking for people who have been impacted by this ministry and have a heart for the creation message to pray and financially support us through this transition. It would only take 3,800 people giving $100 to make the difference and help keep Creation Science Evangelism as a relevant and energetic ministry in the creation versus evolution debate. Click here to donate.

[benlee]

SNIP

Don't come invade this thread with your cold hard facts, I'm not buying them.

[Eraserhead]

The graph is a little misleading, or your explanation of such, the graph outlines the "potential for misuse" which is different from "dangerousness." but your point is not moot.

As far as I can see from the article I linked it outlines the "Mean harm scores for 20 substances" :confused:.

[.Andy]

Don't come invade this thread with your cold hard facts, I'm not buying them.
Biblical facts are warm and soft :)

[Unspoken Demise]

Biblical facts are warm and soft :)

Much like a puppy: It will always be there, but its not much use past that point.

[benlee]

As far as I can see from the article I linked it outlines the "Mean harm scores for 20 substances" :confused:.

They say that weed is more dangerous than ecstasy or am I reading the graph wrong?

Much like a puppy: It will always be there, but its not much use past that point.

Surely puppies are useful, and how dare you suggest otherwise.

[yg17]

snip

Sounds like a real winner there!

[skunk]

What happened? This was such a nice thread...

[Eraserhead]

They say that weed is more dangerous than ecstasy or am I reading the graph wrong?

That they do, one of the main things that makes ecstasy dangerous is not the MDMA but what it is cut with.

[yg17]

Has anyone taken the "Are you a good person" quiz on that site? I did, and apparently I'm a terrible person who is going to burn in hell for all of my sins but I'm going to be OK if I accept some guy named Jeebus as my lord. :D

[JurgenWigg]

In the beginning God Spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence.


Technically the Christian God created the heavens and earth first, then he spoke: "Let there be light".

You're thinking of Brahma who spoke "Aum" and formed (not created from nothing) the universe.

For the people that believe in a 6 day creation: If God created everything to be 13 billion years old at the time of creation, why is he intentionally deceiving us? Sure its a matter of faith to believe in the absence of evidence, but the absence of evidence isn't the same as contrary evidence.

For the people that believe in "6 days" as being without reference to time as we perceive it: Why would we write "6 days" then if a "day" was meaningless? People are big on saying that it's all cultural context, that it had to be put in terms that people of the day could understand. Seems like they could understand large numbers, why not just say 13 billion years? They could count that high, after all. What's so special about 6 days that it had to be written as such if it isn't an accurate measurement after all?

For the people that believe in genesis as metaphorical: how do you decide which parts of the bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical? How is God turning Moses' staff into a snake which then devours two other snakes more of a metaphorical story than Jesus walking on water or feeding the 5,000? If you say that this part over here is metaphorical, you can't really coherently say that this other part is literal.

For the people that say that Religion and Science can co-exist: Yes, I think it's a valid argument to say that they describe two different things. Religion has not been able to accurately describe the motions of the heavens, Pi, or really any natural processes. Science has no mechanism to investigate or describe what happens after you die. If you agree with this, however, then you lose so much about what people say about God. If the Bible is wrong in it's scientific assertions (physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, psychology, medicine), you can't really say with any confidence that it is right about it's metaphysical and ontological assertions. You have to give up the idea of a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent personal God of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Zoroaster, and Hinduism. You can't say with any certainty that Spinoza's god exists, and you certainly can't describe such an entity at all - you can't even really call it an entity. To resolve the conflicts between Science and Religion, you have to reduce Elohim/Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh/Ahura Mazda/Trimurti/Daeva to a nameless, faceless one-time creative force, uncaring if it's worshipped or believed in.

[Sky Blue]

So much to say, I'll just refer you to here (http://www.drdino.com/) instead.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.

The study found that 45 percent of Americans believe that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago

no way

no freaking way

45% of Americans are that stupid??

[Zombie Acorn]

no way

no freaking way

45% of Americans are that stupid??

When you poll in a "Christian nation" what do you expect? Half of our population doesn't believe in evolution at all, a good amount don't think our president is born here.

[JurgenWigg]

no way

no freaking way

45% of Americans are that stupid??

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/08/20060608-111826-4947r/

[.Andy]

no way

no freaking way

45% of Americans are that stupid??
I don't think there are 45% of Americans that are stupid. Instead I think the figure represents a large percentage of people who think by answering no they are answering in line with their faith. Another large proportion hasn't been presented the science adequately or has been presented it dishonestly on sites such as the dr dino or answers in genesis.

[steve knight]

And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.

better then thinking we are a product of insest.

[andrew upstairs]

So much to say, I'll just refer you to here (http://www.drdino.com/) instead.

Oh, and really take the time to look around the site before making comments about it.That was hilarious!

I love a good comedy website.

[steve knight]

Thank God - I was honestly starting to think that I'm the only one who believes this.

This all goes back to labels, and why I reject them - it is People who decided that "Creationism" and "Evolution" are two separate, mutually exclusive camps, and that you must belong either to one or the other, and wholly immerse yourself in the ideology associated with that label.

I am a Christian, but hardly a religious zealot; I'm also open-minded enough to accept the truths that the scientific community has brought to us. I don't interpret the Bible or any other religious text literally. I don't look to one source for information that will disprove another. To me, there's no reason to do that. There's nothing to be gained by trying to resolve the type of "truth" that can be scientifically proven with the types of "truth" that are strictly taken on faith by believers.

I'm glad I read this thread tonight.

I would not tell other Christians this you may be drummed out :D

[skunk]

Science has no mechanism to investigate or describe what happens after you die.No, science can detect nothing happening after you die probably because nothing does happen after you die. Science has all the necessary mechanisms.

[Don't panic]

no way

no freaking way

45% of Americans are that stupid??

not all of them, some are just 'ignorant' on the subject and some are in bad faith.

[JurgenWigg]

No, science can detect nothing happening after you die probably because nothing does happen after you die. Science has all the necessary mechanisms.

While I personally agree, Science has been defined as the explanation of natural phenomenon by natural means through observation, hypothesizing and experimentation since modern science began.

As such, it's philosophically unsound to use science to describe anything "supernatural". You can say that the supernatural in general most likely isn't real, as we have never observed such a process and it would throw everything we know about the order of the universe into chaos, but you cannot, for instance, empirically disprove that there is an omnipotent being that exists outside of time and space.

[Gelfin]

As such, it's philosophically unsound to use science to describe anything "supernatural".

It is philosophically unsound to describe anything as "supernatural."

[skunk]

you cannot, for instance, empirically disprove that there is an omnipotent being that exists outside of time and space.You can, however, define time and space as including everything that is.

[JurgenWigg]

It is philosophically unsound to describe anything as "supernatural."

Show me a proof why that's the case.

It's philosophically unsound for Science to try and describe the supernatural because:

1. Science is the process of explaining natural phenomena by natural means.
2. If a God exists, he created nature in some capacity.
3. A creator is separate from its creation.

:. any creator-god is not part of nature; science cannot describe God.

[JurgenWigg]

You can, however, define time and space as including everything that is.

You can if you'd like, it just wouldn't be a productive argument.

Thomas Aquinas: God exists outside of time and space

Skunk: I define time and space as including everything that is. :. if God is outside of time and space, God doesn't exist.

You're just defining the other side out of the debate. Not exactly the most fulfilling discussion ever.

[.Andy]

It's philosophically unsound for Science to try and describe the supernatural because:

1. Science is the process of explaining natural phenomena by natural means.
2. If a God exists, he created nature in some capacity.
3. A creator is separate from its creation.
Why is it necessary for god to have created nature in some capacity if it exists? Why is it necessary for a creator to be separate from creation? For absolutely everything else that's created we can deduce what made it and how using science. Why is god outside this framework?

[skunk]

Thomas Aquinas: God exists outside of time and space

Skunk: I define time and space as including everything that is. :. if God is outside of time and space, God doesn't exist.

You're just defining the other side out of the debate.While Aquinas is simply inventing an otherwise unnecessary category in order to contain his preposterous hypothesis. He is in effect defining his side into the debate. I reject his definition as absurd, redundant and meaningless.

[Macaddicttt]

Why is god outside this framework?

Because that is the very definition of God.

[skunk]

Because that is the very definition of God.See above.

[Macaddicttt]

See above.

I think the two of us have had this debate before, and I don't think we'd get anywhere new. I was just responding to .Andy's questions about why God is outside of the framework he provided.

[Don't panic]

Because that is the very definition of God.

i would say it is a definition of god.

but there 'are' plenty of gods that 'exist' well outside of that definition, and well inside the real world (at least in the minds of the people who created them).

for example the greek/roman gods, the hindu devas with their avatars, or jesus.

but i agree with the concept that any godlike being, by definition, must at least have some attributes that transcend what can be addressed by science and the laws of nature. otherwise it would be just a very powerful being.

of course a modern human that could time-travel to the past (or visit a more 'primitive' world) with all the necessary technological paraphernalia would be, by all means and beyond any reasonable doubt, a god: a superior being with inexplicable powers, living outside of local time and space

[Gelfin]

Show me a proof why that's the case.

1. Human beliefs are formed through perception and apperception.
2. The faculties of perception and apperception are based in physical systems within a human being, and within the natural universe.
3. Formation of a belief within a human is thus a change in the physical state of the natural universe.
4. Anything which humans believe to exist is necessarily based on a phenomenon that effects physical change in the natural universe.
5. Anything that effects a physical change in the natural universe, particularly anything that does so in a way amenable to human perception and apperception, may be observed, measured and analyzed according to the terms of the naturalistic endeavor.
6. The naturalistic endeavor defines as natural anything that can be observed as having a physical effect within the natural universe. (Example: We accepted gravity as a natural law of the universe based on observation of its effects alone. We still struggle to truly understand it.)
7. Any candidate for the antithetical term "supernatural" is thus either unreal or not observed.
8. That which is unreal is not "supernatural." It merely fails to exist.
9. That which is not observed would in principle be classified as "natural" were it observed and found to have an effect upon the natural universe.
10. The person who applies the word "supernatural" to an event or entity may be reasonably assumed to mean it is not observed, not that it is unreal.
11. If the user of "supernatural" cannot provide sufficient information to investigate the provenance of his belief through observation of physical effects, then he himself has insufficient knowledge to draw any reliable conclusion whether the entity he describes is an unobserved natural phenomenon or merely an unreal inference from limited information.
12. The person who applies the word "supernatural" is not qualified to reach the conclusion he asserts.

∴ "Supernatural" is synonymous with "insufficiently defined to make any meaningful statement about its existence." It is an empty term.

[JurgenWigg]

Why is it necessary for god to have created nature in some capacity if it exists?

To put it simply, if it's anything but, then God isn't God. If God came into existence and has not "always been", then he isn't omnipotent as there is a cause that is above him and he's just another being the same as the rest of us.


Why is it necessary for a creator to be separate from creation?

If you program a computer game, you are essentially creating a universe with laws to govern actions and a textual reality. Are YOU a part of the game in a non-metaphorical way? No. In the same way, if you solely examine the surroundings and laws of a video game, can anyone say "there is a creator"? Moreover, can they say "whoever created this is a nice person and wants the best for us"? No. In this way, we can trace back the origins of our universe back as far as time will let us, but not beyond the beginning of time. In the video game, you can also trace the origins back to the start, but not before that. You can't prove or disprove God, you can only talk about probabilities and likelihoods.

What are some examples of a creator being a part of it's creation? Are you a part of a watch that you make? A house that you build? Even your children? In a metaphorical sense, sure, maybe even in a biological sense in the case of your children, but you are still a separate entity from them.

[/QUOTE] For absolutely everything else that's created we can deduce what made it and how using science. Why is god outside this framework?[/QUOTE]

Once again - for the same reason that you can't deduce a creator of a video game by examining code. You can talk about why atoms stay together, but last time i checked, you can't talk about why absolute values are what they are.


As an atheist, I can tell you that when you're talking to People of God (tm) you can't just fall back on "science can explain everything". Philosophically, science can't. You can deduce what how when and where with science, but "why" just isn't a part of science, with perhaps the exception of natural selection and some social sciences.

[JurgenWigg]

While Aquinas is simply inventing an otherwise unnecessary category in order to contain his preposterous hypothesis. He is in effect defining his side into the debate. I reject his definition as absurd, redundant and meaningless.

The point still stands that either time stretches back into time ad infinitum or has a beginning. Both are absurd and repugnant to a scientific mind.

If time has no beginning, well, that's mathematically preposterous. Here's a good illustration:
-----------------------------------now-----------------------------------
"If an infinite amount of dashes had occurred before the now, the now in the illustration would have never entered the screen. Since the now in the center does in fact appear then the dashes had a beginning. If you replace the dashes with passing moments, minutes, years, decades or centuries the same principle would apply. An infinite amount of moments, minutes, years, decades or centuries could not have passed before now."

So, if the here and now exists, there must have been a beginning to draw reference on for time. If there was a "Beginning" of time, there must therefore have been something outside of time to cause it.

[.Andy]

To put it simply, if it's anything but, then God isn't God. If God came into existence and has not "always been", then he isn't omnipotent as there is a cause that is above him and he's just another being the same as the rest of us.
So your definition of god proves your definition of god?

What are some examples of a creator being a part of it's creation? Are you a part of a watch that you make? A house that you build? Even your children? In a metaphorical sense, sure, maybe even in a biological sense in the case of your children, but you are still a separate entity from them.
For each of these items you can trace back where and what materials were used. What techniques were used. Where components were sourced etc etc. All be rational and logical and using science. It doesn't require evoking the supernatural to explain. Your analogies are entirely incorrect.

As an atheist
I mentioned nothing abut my beliefs. Because I ask questions of your irrational logic and mention science does not necessarily equal atheism. You should be careful of jumping to irrational conclusions - especially in the midst of arguing that you're using philosophy and rational arguments to prove god.

I can tell you that when you're talking to People of God (tm) you can't just fall back on "science can explain everything". Philosophically, science can't.
Which is not a claim I made. It's a strawman. Because science has some limitations does not give you a free pass in evoking the supernatural to explain a natural phenomenon. This is an irrational position.

You can deduce what how when and where with science, but "why" just isn't a part of science, with perhaps the exception of natural selection and some social sciences.
"Why" is most certainly a part of science. It's a catchy phrase for religionists to say but as you point out yourself, there is absolutely plenty of why in science.

[JurgenWigg]

i would say it is a definition of god.

but there 'are' plenty of gods that 'exist' well outside of that definition, and well inside the real world (at least in the minds of the people who created them).

for example the greek/roman gods, the hindu devas with their avatars, or jesus.

but i agree with the concept that any godlike being, by definition, must at least have some attributes that transcend what can be addressed by science and the laws of nature. otherwise it would be just a very powerful being.

of course a modern human that could time-travel to the past (or visit a more 'primitive' world) with all the necessary technological paraphernalia would be, by all means and beyond any reasonable doubt, a god: a superior being with inexplicable powers, living outside of local time and space

Yes, some religions posit that matter has always existed and it was their god that shaped it.

Again, though, that would mean that there is a cause outside of the god in that he did not create matter, so he is not omnipotent, not a god, just a very powerful being.

[.Andy]

The point still stands that either time stretches back into time ad infinitum or has a beginning. Both are absurd and repugnant to a scientific mind.
The issue of time is neither "absurd" or "repugnant" to a scientific mind. On the contrary it's exciting and a source of much intellectual challenge. Again because something appears to be a conundrum that add zero credence to the supernatural. You have to make a case of the supernatural on it's own merits.

[JurgenWigg]

1. Human beliefs are formed through perception and apperception.
2. The faculties of perception and apperception are based in physical systems within a human being, and within the natural universe.
3. Formation of a belief within a human is thus a change in the physical state of the natural universe.
4. Anything which humans believe to exist is necessarily based on a phenomenon that effects physical change in the natural universe.
5. Anything that effects a physical change in the natural universe, particularly anything that does so in a way amenable to human perception and apperception, may be observed, measured and analyzed according to the terms of the naturalistic endeavor.
6. The naturalistic endeavor defines as natural anything that can be observed as having a physical effect within the natural universe. (Example: We accepted gravity as a natural law of the universe based on observation of its effects alone. We still struggle to truly understand it.)
7. Any candidate for the antithetical term "supernatural" is thus either unreal or not observed.
8. That which is unreal is not "supernatural." It merely fails to exist.
9. That which is not observed would in principle be classified as "natural" were it observed and found to have an effect upon the natural universe.
10. The person who applies the word "supernatural" to an event or entity may be reasonably assumed to mean it is not observed, not that it is unreal.
11. If the user of "supernatural" cannot provide sufficient information to investigate the provenance of his belief through observation of physical effects, then he himself has insufficient knowledge to draw any reliable conclusion whether the entity he describes is an unobserved natural phenomenon or merely an unreal inference from limited information.
12. The person who applies the word "supernatural" is not qualified to reach the conclusion he asserts.

∴ "Supernatural" is synonymous with "insufficiently defined to make any meaningful statement about its existence." It is an empty term.


I agree with a lot of what you say, but you're missing a crucial jump:

Spinoza's God has an effect is observable and measurable, thus by your own proof it is as real as gravity. Spinoza posits that God is seen in the laws and order of the Universe. Gravity itself is a proof then for Spinoza's God. However, it is OUTSIDE of nature in that it no longer changes it (except in your confusing perception that the formation of a belief "is a change in the natural universe") and indeed created it (outside observable reality - we haven't observed a creation) and is thus only tangentially a part of the natural universe. You see Spinoza's Gods effects, but not Spinoza's God. I agree that Supernatural is a term that is used on things we cannot describe, but I don't think that the lack of ability to talk about them doesn't mean they exist. Describe blue to a blind person.

[JurgenWigg]

So your definition of god proves your definition of god?

You're asking me to prove a definition?


For each of these items you can trace back where and what materials were used. What techniques were used. Where components were sourced etc etc. All be rational and logical and using science. It doesn't require evoking the supernatural to explain. Your analogies are entirely incorrect.

You're not really listening to my analogies then. Yes, in the video game analogy, if you had knowledge of programming you would know how they were made (in this analogy, you're saying if you had knowledge of creation you'd know how the universe was made). Work with me a little bit, analogies are imperfect. I should have said "A character in the video game would not be able to deduce anything about his creator from his surroundings". I apologize.


I mentioned nothing abut my beliefs. Because I ask questions of your irrational logic and mention science does not necessarily equal atheism. You should be careful of jumping to irrational conclusions - especially in the midst of arguing that you're using philosophy and rational arguments to prove god.

Um... I'm aware? I don't know where you think I said anything about your beliefs. Maybe it's when you didn't read past "as an atheist" to when I said "I can tell you..." I'm merely playing devils advocate to show you that you have to use the right tools for the right job. You can't use a screwdriver to tighten a bolt. You can't use science to discuss ontology.


Which is not a claim I made. It's a strawman. Because science has some limitations does not give you a free pass in evoking the supernatural to explain a natural phenomenon. This is an irrational position. "Why" is most certainly a part of science. It's a catchy phrase for religionists to say but as you point out yourself, there is absolutely plenty of why in science.

It's an irrational position to say that science explains natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena? There's plenty of Why in science, but not really enough. Like I said, you can identify absolute values, but you can't explain why they are what they are. You can say that if such values were slightly greater or slightly less, then heavier elements or life would not be able to form, but you can't say why these values ended up where they are.

I'm aware that it doesn't give a free pass to evoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena, i'm just saying that there are some things that science can't talk about.

[drewsof07]

The problem I have with "discoveries" like this is that there are very few of them. It could be a genetic mutation that make whatever creature this was appear more human. Surely it would take more than one, two, or even ten of these creatures to create the modern man. Where are the rest?

Not to mention the assertion that evolution is fact. It is a theory. Too many people get deluded into believing it as absolute truth.

[JurgenWigg]

The issue of time is neither "absurd" or "repugnant" to a scientific mind. On the contrary it's exciting and a source of much intellectual challenge. Again because something appears to be a conundrum that add zero credence to the supernatural. You have to make a case of the supernatural on it's own merits.

While the concept of infinite time is fascinating, I wouldn't call it much of a challenge as much as it is a paradox. It's a logical impossibility. It's absurd and repugnant to a scientific mind to say that time is infinite. Let me know if you still don't understand why and I'll break it down for you.

Supernatural - existing outside of the natural world; Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature". If the natural world exists entirely within observable space and time, then supernatural is that which exists outside of observable space and time. If time had a beginning (and thus space and thus nature), then it cannot be universally encompassing. If it's not universally encompassing, there must be something that exists outside of time, space, and thus nature. There are logical connections that I'm skipping over, and I guess this is tripping you up, I'll be sure to take smaller steps next time.

[JurgenWigg]

The problem I have with "discoveries" like this is that there are very few of them. It could be a genetic mutation that make whatever creature this was appear more human. Surely it would take more than one, two, or even ten of these creatures to create the modern man. Where are the rest?

Not to mention the assertion that evolution is fact. It is a theory. Too many people get deluded into believing it as absolute truth.

Very few? There are literally hundreds of them! In looking at the fossil record it's remarkable that there are this many considering the extremely fragile state of fossils and the difficulty in finding them. You're expecting thousands of specimen from a single specie to survive AND be found? In reality, there is a very nice progression of transitionary fossils that leave very little doubt.

If you're getting caught up on the word "Theory", then you have a tenuous grasp on scientific terminology. A scientific law describes a "what" (think of the laws of motion). A theory describes a "how". It doesn't mean that one is less certain than the other. And yes, evolution is a fact. If you deny evolution, you do away with at least a dozen fields of science entirely. There really isn't much dispute as to if evolution occurs that fact is as solid as gravity. The debate is over how.

[.Andy]

You're not really listening to my analogies then.
No I am. It's just that they don't work. As you go on to point out;

I should have said "A character in the video game would not be able to deduce anything about his creator from his surroundings". I apologize.
So in your evolving analogy humans area the equivalent of computer game characters? Like in the Matrix?

Um... I'm aware? I don't know where you think I said anything about your beliefs. Maybe it's when you didn't read past "as an atheist" to when I said "I can tell you..."
When you start a paragraph in reply to a quote of mine "as an atheist I can tell you" you will have to excuse me for thinking you were addressing me directly.

It's an irrational position to say that science explains natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena?
That's not what I said. Science can be used to explain all natural phenomena. If it can be observed, experimented on, or influenced it's all well within in the realms of science. Science can explain the "supernatural" by showing that it's entirely natural. Ghosts, fairies, angels, unicorns etc etc. The supernatural is not logical. Evoking a supernatural cause is not philosophy, is illogical, and is completely arbitrary.

There's plenty of Why in science, but not really enough. Like I said, you can identify absolute values, but you can't explain why they are what they are.
You can most certainly explain why values are what they are with science. You can carry out experiments to determine why they are the way they are. Again you're trying the argument that "science can't explain X, therefore evoking the supernatural is reasonable" and it just isn't logical.

I'm aware that it doesn't give a free pass to evoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena, i'm just saying that there are some things that science can't talk about.
Even if this assertion is true it still doesn't add any credence to evoking the supernatural. Although you argue otherwise your entire argument is based on the limitation of science is X, therefore the supernatural is a reasonable conclusion. It's not.

While the concept of infinite time is fascinating, I wouldn't call it much of a challenge as much as it is a paradox. It's a logical impossibility.
Only within the realms of a specific paradigm of thinking.

It's absurd and repugnant to a scientific mind to say that time is infinite.
No it's not. It's a challenge to understand it's very nature.

[drewsof07]

You're expecting thousands of specimen from a single specie to survive AND be found?

No, I'll just take your word for it :rolleyes:

And I never said I did not believe in all evolution. Microevolution is practical. It provides animals with a way of adapting to their immediate surroundings (more fur, height, body fat, skin color).

Macroevolution is another story.

[bobber205]

No, I'll just take your word for it :rolleyes:

And I never said I did not believe in all evolution. Microevolution is practical. It provides animals with a way of adapting to their immediate surroundings (more fur, height, body fat, skin color).

Macroevolution is another story.

Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution over millions of years. I thought that was the whole theory of evolution. :)

[JurgenWigg]

If you want to think of it like the matrix, sure. You can't comment on something that is outside of time and space scientifically because you can't observe it. You're taking "Supernatural" to mean very specific things (like you pointed out for me by referencing Ghosts fairies etc), I'm taking supernatural to mean anything outside of nature, as in outside of time and space. Of course ghosts don't exist. We can prove that scientifically. However, IF time and space have a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space that is separate from time and space to initiate time and space. If you disagree, comment with examples.

If so, then such a thing is outside of nature and is thus.... supernatural.

[.Andy]

And I never said I did not believe in all evolution. Microevolution is practical. It provides animals with a way of adapting to their immediate surroundings (more fur, height, body fat, skin color).

Macroevolution is another story.
The micro/macroevolution criticism of evolution isn't a scientific argument. Neither is adaptation synonymous with microevolution.

[drewsof07]

Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution over millions of years. I thought that was the whole theory of evolution. :)

What need would there be for a redesign of the bone structure? I think that's my biggest hangup. Also, how can millions of years be accounted for? Who was watching the clock?

[.Andy]

What need would there be for a redesign of the bone structure?
Different posture, different environment, different habitats.

Also, how can millions of years be accounted for? Who was watching the clock?
Ernest Rutherford.

[NT1440]

If you want to think of it like the matrix, sure. You can't comment on something that is outside of time and space scientifically because you can't observe it. You're taking "Supernatural" to mean very specific things (like you pointed out for me by referencing Ghosts fairies etc), I'm taking supernatural to mean anything outside of nature, as in outside of time and space. Of course ghosts don't exist. We can prove that scientifically. However, IF time and space have a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space that is separate from time and space to initiate time and space. If you disagree, comment with examples.

If so, then such a thing is outside of nature and is thus.... supernatural.

And the reason to believe such a thing exists in the first place....?

[drewsof07]

And the reason to believe such a thing exists in the first place....?

Hope.

[NT1440]

Hope.

Hope of what?

WHY does such a supernatural being have to exist?

[.Andy]

However, IF time and space have a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space that is separate from time and space to initiate time and space.
There need not be anything outside time and space. If time and space as we know it has a specific beginning that does not demand there exists something extraneous to it. And even if it did it would still be entirely illogical to evoke a supernatural being to reside there.

[NT1440]

There need not be anything outside time and space. If time and space as we know it has a specific beginning that does not demand there exists something extraneous to it. And even if it did it would still be entirely illogical to evoke a supernatural being to reside there.

I tend to think of the underlined as taking the easy/lazy way out. I don't get why people can't just live their lives, as if they are somehow meaningless if there is no end goal.

[JurgenWigg]

haha, he doesn't :)

Macroevolution has been observed. If two different species cannot produce viable offspring together, and macroevolution is the transition of one species into another...

Polyploidy (genome duplication) is a mutational event. When it happens, the organism with the duplicated genome is reproductively isolated from its ancestors because it has twice the number of chromosomes. Speciation happening this way occurs in a single generation and has been observed. (Li 1997, pgs 395-396; Maynard Smith 2000, 207-209)

A lab in Cornell produced a new species of fruit fly that fed exclusively on human urine using artificial disruptive selection.

I read about a lab that followed e. coli through about 40,000 generations and observed it evolving the ability to process new a new food sources - citrates. Characteristically, e. coli cannot process citrates.

Macroevolution is just as observable AND OBSERVED as microevolution. Species differentiate to fill new ecological niches.

[JurgenWigg]

I tend to think of the underlined as taking the easy/lazy way out. I don't get why people can't just live their lives, as if they are somehow meaningless if there is no end goal.

As Jean-Paul Sartre tells us, our lives take on whatever meaning we choose.

I have a lot of trouble with the idea of infinite time, and if there is a specific beginning of space and time, it doesn't have to be your narrow definition of supernatural. Whatever exists outside of space and time IS supernatural.

[Macaddicttt]

Hope of what?

WHY does such a supernatural being have to exist?

To make existence meaningful. The existence of an eternal being outside of time and space provides an objective point of reference to life. Then life is not finite in an infinite world. A finite life in an infinite world is meaningless since anything divided by infinity is 0.

[JurgenWigg]

Ernest Rutherford.

hahahaha - love it!

[NT1440]

As Jean-Paul Sartre tells us, our lives take on whatever meaning we choose.
.

Thats exactly how I live my life. No god.

[Zombie Acorn]

To make existence meaningful. The existence of an eternal being outside of time and space provides an objective point of reference to life. Then life is not finite in an infinite world. A finite life in an infinite world is meaningless since anything divided by infinity is 0.

My existence is meaningful because I am alive, why would anyone be bothered that they are part of an infinite time period?

[Macaddicttt]

My existence is meaningful because I am alive, why would anyone be bothered that they are part of an infinite time period?

But you won't always be alive, and after (and before) your life, infinity stretches out, making whatever meaning your life had while you were alive equal to zero.

[JurgenWigg]

To make existence meaningful. The existence of an eternal being outside of time and space provides an objective point of reference to life. Then life is not finite in an infinite world. A finite life in an infinite world is meaningless since anything divided by infinity is 0.

Why is the world infinite?

Why is grand meaning important? Why can't the meaning of my life be to be good to others? to be a good boyfriend or to explore reality? to be the best at what I do? Why do I need a supernatural, eternal being to tell me that?

[Zombie Acorn]

But you won't always be alive, and after (and before) your life, infinity stretches out, making whatever meaning your life had while you were alive equal to zero.

so? Its not like I am going to mind.

[NT1440]

Why is the world infinite?

Why is grand meaning important? Why can't the meaning of my life be to be good to others? to be a good boyfriend or to explore reality? to be the best at what I do? Why do I need a supernatural, eternal being to tell me that?

Exactly!

There doesn't need to be a god or an ultimate reason, I can enjoy the journey and do as good a job as I can at it.

[Macaddicttt]

Why is the world infinite?

Why is grand meaning important? Why can't the meaning of my life be to be good to others? to be a good boyfriend or to explore reality? to be the best at what I do? Why do I need a supernatural, eternal being to tell me that?

What is "good" in a universe with no external measure of goodness? What is "best" if there's nothing to judge it by?

[Macaddicttt]

so? Its not like I am going to mind.

So then you can do whatever you want, because in the end no one's going to mind. Kill someone? Sure, why not? They won't mind, they're dead.

[NT1440]

What is "good" in a universe with no external measure of goodness? What is "best" if there's nothing to judge it by?

Society has always set the definition of good, just like they made up god.

[NT1440]

So then you can do whatever you want, because in the end no one's going to mind. Kill someone? Sure, why not? They won't mind, they're dead.

Lol, I love when someone pulls this crap out. I don't kill people because I live by reason, not because some book has to tell me so.

[Zombie Acorn]

So then you can do whatever you want, because in the end no one's going to mind. Kill someone? Sure, why not? They won't mind, they're dead.

I am a social creature, we don't kill each other unless its necessary.

[Macaddicttt]

Lol, I love when someone pulls this crap out. I don't kill people because I live by reason, not because some book has to tell me so.

Lol, I love when someone pulls this crap out. They have no standard of morality except "reason." What's the "reasoning" for not killing someone?

I am a social creature, we don't kill each other unless its necessary.

What if you enjoyed killing people? There are people out there who do. And again the use of quantitative words without any sort of measurement. What is "necessary"? Necessity requires a goal.

[Gelfin]

Spinoza's God has an effect is observable and measurable, thus by your own proof it is as real as gravity. Spinoza posits that God is seen in the laws and order of the Universe. Gravity itself is a proof then for Spinoza's God. However, it is OUTSIDE of nature in that it no longer changes it

It is unclear how you think defining nature as God (which I frankly see as a desperate bid to reconcile a prodigious rationalism with an emotional attachment to superstition) is also defining it as "outside" nature. You need to clarify what you mean by "no longer changes it."

Regardless, appealing to Spinoza's God is defining God out of existence in all but name. If a theist wants to fall back to Spinoza's God instead of abandoning belief outright, I'm fairly sure most atheists would shrug and say, "knock yourself out."

(except in your confusing perception that the formation of a belief "is a change in the natural universe")

It's not confusing at all. Your sensory organs and the brain they inform are made of the stuff of the universe. Anything that influences your thinking accesses you through those organs, and is thus participating in physical causality.

I agree that Supernatural is a term that is used on things we cannot describe, but I don't think that the lack of ability to talk about them doesn't mean they exist.

It does mean that whatever we say is meaningless, and cannot establish either way whether any of those things exist. We can talk about the weather on a planet we stipulate to exist in a distant galaxy, but it does not even make sense to ascribe truth values to anything we say.

Describe blue to a blind person.

Bad analogy. It presupposes someone who knows what blue looks like, who can speak authoritatively about blue. Imagine instead an entire race of blind people who know nothing of sight talking about something called "blue." In the first place, how would something so bizarre occur? The coincidence by which they might end up saying correct things about something they cannot experience by any means is too remote to be plausible. Even if they talked about something called "blue," they could not possibly mean what we mean by it, or indeed much of anything at all.

There are clearly things that exist that we cannot observe. Most if not all of them are far more mundane than gods. In pretending to say authoritative things about them, however, we are just making noise.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. Naturalism does not attempt to place limits (somehow) on what is permitted to exist. It acknowledges (and explores) the limitations of what we may know to exist.

[Macaddicttt]

Society has always set the definition of good, just like they made up god.

So if God was made up and doesn't exist, then since "good" was made up, it doesn't exist.

[JurgenWigg]

What is "good" in a universe with no external measure of goodness? What is "best" if there's nothing to judge it by?

You don't need an absolute measure to say something is more or less X than something else.

My parents instilled in me a certain set of values when I was a child. So did the people I grew up around. Some values have been laid out over thousands of years in accordance to game theory.

[Zombie Acorn]

What if you enjoyed killing people? There are people out there who do. And again the use of quantitative words without any sort of measurement. What is "necessary"? Necessity requires a goal.

Human evolution (social not physical) has constructed a social contract that most abide by, if I a few do not then that is their problem, ultimately it will not matter.

Concepts of fairness extend even to the animal kingdom in some instances, I don't see why it would be hard to believe our evolution has given us more instinctual social rules.

[JurgenWigg]

We don't kill each other because of consequences.

Re: Game theory.

[NT1440]

So if God was made up and doesn't exist, then since "good" was made up, it doesn't exist.

So are we going to go further and finally agree that all language and the meaning behind it is abstract and made up? ;)


Do you really think that there has to be a higher power involved so that someone doesn't harm others? Its called the golden rule (around long before the sermon of the mount or w/e its called) and its completely logical.

[Macaddicttt]

You don't need an absolute measure to say something is more or less X than something else.

Sure, you can say X creates more or less happiness than Y. Or you can say X creates more or less pain than Y. But you still need an absolute measure that says, "Happiness is good," and, "Pain is bad." Sure, you can observe that you enjoy happiness, but that still doesn't give it any value, especially in other people, since in the end we'll all be dead and no one will care.

[Zombie Acorn]

We don't kill each other because of consequences.

Re: Game theory.

I don't believe that. I don't steal stuff when I know I won't be caught.

[Macaddicttt]

Human evolution (social not physical) has constructed a social contract that most abide by, if I a few do not then that is their problem, ultimately it will not matter.

Concepts of fairness extend even to the animal kingdom in some instances, I don't see why it would be hard to believe our evolution has given us more instinctual social rules.

But instinctual social rules don't have any meaning on their own.

So are we going to go further and finally agree that all language and the meaning behind it is abstract and made up? ;)

In the universe you've described, any comparative words such as "good," "better," "best," "bad," "worse," and "worst" have no meaning.

Do you really think that there has to be a higher power involved so that someone doesn't harm others? Its called the golden rule (around long before the sermon of the mount or w/e its called) and its completely logical.

I'm waiting for the logic. Please lay it out for me.

[NT1440]

I'm waiting for the logic. Please lay it out for me.

I treat others the way I wish to be treated. Makes sense, no?

[Macaddicttt]

I don't believe that. I don't steal stuff when I know I won't be caught.

Because you believe that "not stealing" has innate, absolute, eternal value, just like God has innate, absolute, eternal value.

[Don't panic]

But you won't always be alive, and after (and before) your life, infinity stretches out, making whatever meaning your life had while you were alive equal to zero.

i don't see the logic in this. it seems to me that believing this god of yours actually devalues life.

on the other hand, the fact that our journey is limited in time and space should be driving us more to make it a valuable existence.
not to some abstract being, but to yourself and those around you.

[Zombie Acorn]

I treat others the way I wish to be treated. Makes sense, no?

What if I am deranged and want people to kill me? :eek:

[juanm]

What need would there be for a redesign of the bone structure? I think that's my biggest hangup. Also, how can millions of years be accounted for? Who was watching the clock?

Bone structure is intimately related to diet. Even slight changes in the environment can have a huge impact on vegetals and animals, hence the need to adapt to the gathering/hunting. A very simple image would be this: in a region with dense vegetation small animals will be able to hunt (and escape from predators) more easily than bigger ones, and the same goes for pretty much everything.
Technology also plays a huge role in this. With the invention of spears and other weapons, our ancestors were able to eat more meat (and not be killed in the process :). More meat allowed better health and a different lifestyle, which made picking food in the trees/plants less necessary, so the weaker/smaller ones had less chances to provide a good diet to their children than the big ones (in a different scenario, like in case of a drought, bigger animals, who need more food and water to survive, are at a disadvantage). The brain is a very power-hungry organ, and with the change in diet from vegetables, fruits, and occasionally small preys to very protein-rich diets it could gradually grow larger and work better than before.
All these changes are very slow (since sudden important changes would simply be too much for most species). To that, you've to add a certain inherent randomness in mating (which is nature's strength since it provides us with more options to face changes...)

What I just said is rather oriented to the evolution of humans, which is the main concern of religious people but it's applicable for everything.

When you say "What need...?" you've to keep in mind there's not really a purpose to it. Instead, it's mere adaptation to the surrounding ecosystem in a struggle for survival. Bigger preys will make bigger predators, and smaller preys will make smaller predators.

About the millions of years question, if scientists can master a phenomenon like radioactivity to the point of creating nuclear powerplants, I guess they are good enough to use it for something as simple as mere measuring of RA levels.

I remember my grandmother had always had an inner struggle between her faith and logic, and was deeply relieved when Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution was "more than a theory". :rolleyes:

[Macaddicttt]

I treat others the way I wish to be treated. Makes sense, no?

No, it doesn't make sense because you haven't given a reason why. Lay it out, all the logic. Saying, "It's logical," doesn't make it so. You have not laid out any logic in that statement at all.

[NT1440]

on the other hand, the fact that our journey is limited in time and space should be driving us more to make it a valuable existence.
not to some abstract being, but to yourself and those around you.

Thats exactly how I view my life. I know I have finite time and thats it, so I do my best to accomplish what I think is important in my life.

[JurgenWigg]

It is unclear how you think defining nature as God (which I frankly see as a desperate bid to reconcile a prodigious rationalism with an emotional attachment to superstition) is also defining it as "outside" nature. You need to clarify what you mean by "no longer changes it."

Regardless, appealing to Spinoza's God is defining God out of existence in all but name. If a theist wants to fall back to Spinoza's God instead of abandoning belief outright, I'm fairly sure most atheists would shrug and say, "knock yourself out."

Leave out the freudian analysis - you're heading down the wrong path as I already told you I'm playing devil's advocate.

By "no longer changes it", people will say that Spinoza's God is not a personal god - it doesn't interfere in the universe. Spinoza's God has no new effects to look for.

Appealing to Spinoza's God still says that there is a God and he created the universe. Two pretty big claims that I, as an atheist* (*I make no comment respecting your own views), reject. If I was discussing God with a Christian and the fell back to Spinoza's God, I wouldn't just say fine whatever.



It's not confusing at all. Your sensory organs and the brain they inform are made of the stuff of the universe. Anything that influences your thinking accesses you through those organs, and is thus participating in physical causality.

Yep, it's just too broad of a definition to do anything meaningful with.



Bad analogy. It presupposes someone who knows what blue looks like, who can speak authoritatively about blue. Imagine instead an entire race of blind people who know nothing of sight talking about something called "blue." In the first place, how would something so bizarre occur? The coincidence by which they might end up saying correct things about something they cannot experience by any means is too remote to be plausible. Even if they talked about something called "blue," they could not possibly mean what we mean by it, or indeed much of anything at all.

There are clearly things that exist that we cannot observe. Most if not all of them are far more mundane than gods. In pretending to say authoritative things about them, however, we are just making noise.

Thanks for phrasing it better than I could. you can't say anything substantive about the supernatural, but that in itself does not rule out their existence. Thanks.

[Macaddicttt]

i don't see the logic in this. it seems to me that believing this god of yours actually devalues life.

I don't see how. The eternal cares what man does, therefore, even though man will die, man will have impacted the eternal and any meaning associated with man will live on for eternity.

on the other hand, the fact that our journey is limited in time and space should be driving us more to make it a valuable existence.
not to some abstract being, but to yourself and those around you.

But a life of "value" (which you haven't really described or explained from what you're deriving value) X over infinity is zero. A life with twice the "value" of X, 2X, over infinity is still zero.

[benlee]

No one can prove that god doesn't exist and no one can prove that god does exist. God (or a benevolent force) is faith (that some people maintain and others do not)--that being so, in trying to prove or explain the existence of a god, the argument that "people don't kill other people" so there must be a god is the most ridiculous argument I have probably ever heard.

[Macaddicttt]

the argument that "people don't kill other people" so there must be a god is the most ridiculous argument I have probably ever heard.

Who made that argument? Certainly not me.

[JurgenWigg]

I don't believe that. I don't steal stuff when I know I won't be caught.

There are more consequences than police. Guilt, for instance. Guilt, caused by empathy. Empathy that evolved to produce closer bonds in a tribal society. Tribal societies that developed as it gave a group of humans a better chance at survival and reproduction than as individuals.

A killer or a thief is also detrimental to have in your in-group as they are unpredictable and could end up hurting your group and lowering the chances of survival on the whole.

You enjoy happiness, you don't like pain, why do you need an external standard to make sense of your own emotions?

[JurgenWigg]

I don't see how. The eternal cares what man does, therefore, even though man will die, man will have impacted the eternal and any meaning associated with man will live on for eternity.



But a life of "value" (which you haven't really described or explained from what you're deriving value) X over infinity is zero. A life with twice the "value" of X, 2X, over infinity is still zero.

Except that one way, this life is all that we have. In that, life is infinitely precious and valuable. Never again will there be a Mozart or a Picasso. You or I. Each contribution that we make to this world is unique, special, and irreplaceable.

In a religious view, this life is only the preview to the real reward of the Kingdom of Heaven (tm). If you die in this life, don't worry because there's eternity to look forward to. The religious view trivializes the death of a person as they've gone on to a better place.

[benlee]

So then you can do whatever you want, because in the end no one's going to mind. Kill someone? Sure, why not? They won't mind, they're dead.

perhaps I am misinterpreting this, or reading it out of context. But I stand by my first, and more important, assertion that god's existence cannot be proved or disproved--most arguments to try and prove the existence of god are ridiculous. I think non-believers have something going for them, it's harder to prove something exists than in it is to prove that something does not exist.

[Macaddicttt]

Except that one way, this life is all that we have. In that, life is infinitely precious and valuable. Never again will there be a Mozart or a Picasso. You or I. Each contribution that we make to this world is unique, special, and irreplaceable.

And ultimately forgotten.

In a religious view, this life is only the preview to the real reward of the Kingdom of Heaven (tm). If you die in this life, don't worry because there's eternity to look forward to. The religious view trivializes the death of a person as they've gone on to a better place.

Why does "death" have to have any meaning? If a person completely ceases to exist after death, then any emotion felt toward that death is completely selfish. You miss them, but they don't miss you. They're dead. It doesn't give value to them at all.

[bobber205]

Lol, I love when someone pulls this crap out. They have no standard of morality except "reason." What's the "reasoning" for not killing someone?



What if you enjoyed killing people? There are people out there who do. And again the use of quantitative words without any sort of measurement. What is "necessary"? Necessity requires a goal.

Religion is a by product of our culture. If you look at the history of man, religions were most strong when there were vast levels of poverty, especially when there were vast levels of poverty with a few rich in-control people. Organized religion was invented to keep people working as a collective whole and to prevent them from taking from the "rich".

[Don't panic]

No, it doesn't make sense because you haven't given a reason why. Lay it out, all the logic. Saying, "It's logical," doesn't make it so. You have not laid out any logic in that statement at all.

you are clasping at straws. there is no need whatsoever to invoke a god or religion for an ethical society to exist, quite the opposite.

my kids are growing up with very strong ethical values about fairness and how to be a good person, and at the end of the day it goes fully back to the simple rule NT mentioned.
it's simple enough that a 4 years old can grasp it, yet powerful enough to work as the foundation of nations (or religions). and yet my kids have no concept of "god" at all (Santa, on the other hand....)

[Macaddicttt]

perhaps I am misinterpreting this, or reading it out of context. But I stand by my first, and more important, assertion that god's existence cannot be proved or disproved--most arguments to try and prove the existence of god are ridiculous. I think non-believers have something going for them, it's harder to prove something exists than in it is to prove that something does not exist.

I didn't say God exists because people don't kill each other. I'm saying that without God, there's no reason to believe that killing someone is "bad" because there's no such thing as "bad" or "good."

[NT1440]

Why does "death" have to have any meaning? If a person completely ceases to exist after death, then any emotion felt toward that death is completely selfish. You miss them, but they don't miss you. They're dead. It doesn't give value to them at all.

Seeing as life and living is unique to each of us, don't we ultimately assign values on a personal level, as well as contribute to value on a societal level?

[Macaddicttt]

you are clasping at straws. there is no need whatsoever to invoke a god or religion for an ethical society to exist, quite the opposite.

my kids are growing up with very strong ethical values about fairness and how to be a good person, and at the end of the day it goes fully back to the simple rule NT mentioned.
it's simple enough that a 4 years old can grasp it, yet powerful enough to work as the foundation of nations (or religions). and yet my kids have no concept of "god" at all (Santa, on the other hand....)

I'm not saying that you need to know God to follow NT's rule. I'm saying that it only has value because of God.

[Macaddicttt]

Seeing as life and living is unique to each of us, don't we ultimately assign values on a personal level, as well as contribute to value on a societal level?

So if we assign values on a personal level, I can assign value to whatever I want? I can assign value to killing? I mean, you'd have no recourse to tell me it didn't have value.

[NT1440]

I'm saying that without God, there's no reason to believe that killing someone is "bad" because there's no such thing as "bad" or "good."

Uh, yes there is, Society dictates what is deemed good and bad.

You personally don't kill anyone solely because you believe in a god? (I have a strong feeling that you're just playing devil's advocate)

[Gelfin]

Leave out the freudian analysis - you're heading down the wrong path as I already told you I'm playing devil's advocate.

Don't get rankled. I was speaking of Spinoza.

Yep, it's just too broad of a definition to do anything meaningful with.

Certainly not. Whatever physical or mental experience you claim supports your belief in something "supernatural" is in principle subject to analysis by naturalistic means to determine whether the conclusions you draw are supported. What you claim to be "outside the universe" is one thing. You and your sensory and experiential processes are quite another, and are firmly rooted inside the universe.

Forget trying to prove the metaphysical negative. Of course that's impossible. The question, instead, is whether there is any reason to believe the positive claims made by some other entirely natural human being.

Thanks for phrasing it better than I could. you can't say anything substantive about the supernatural, but that in itself does not rule out their existence. Thanks.

You've still misunderstood. There are things that exist we have not observed; however, they cannot be called "supernatural" because in all cases if we observed them to exist we would call them "natural."

"Supernatural" refers only to nonsense.

[NT1440]

So if we assign values on a personal level, I can assign value to whatever I want? I can assign value to killing? I mean, you'd have no recourse to tell me it didn't have value.

You already assign values to everything in your mind, after all, the world exists only as we personally perceive it. That is the reason why there are so many opposing views in the world.

Values depend upon your personal perception.

[benlee]

I didn't say God exists because people don't kill each other. I'm saying that without God, there's no reason to believe that killing someone is "bad" because there's no such thing as "bad" or "good."

That is even more ridiculous. So god is the only one that dictates what is good or bad? who talks to god to know what god says is good or bad? do we use the bible? There were slaves in the bible and god said nothing about it, does that mean slavery is not "bad" ?

[Macaddicttt]

Uh, yes there is, Society dictates what is deemed good and bad.

How does society dictate this? Is it a simple majority? Was slavery "good" when the majority thought it was? I mean, if it was good when the majority thought it was, anyone who thought it was "bad" was wrong. There would have been no reason to ever switch and decide that it's "bad."

You personally don't kill anyone solely because you believe in a god? (I have a strong feeling that you're just playing devil's advocate)

I wouldn't enjoy killing people, so I wouldn't no matter what, but if someone proved to me without a doubt that God didn't exist, I'd probably off myself.

[Macaddicttt]

That is even more ridiculous. So god is the only one that dictates what is good or bad? who talks to god to know what god says is good or bad? do we use the bible? There were slaves in the bible and god said nothing about it, does that mean slavery is not "bad" ?

That's where religion comes in. Religion is the striving to gain an understanding of morality as close to God as possible. It's not possible to completely know God, but you still need a God to strive towards or else any change is meaningless. It's not "better" or "worse" because it's not moving towards a "best."

[Don't panic]

I'm not saying that you need to know God to follow NT's rule. I'm saying that it only has value because of God.

this doesn't make any sense. :confused::confused:

[Macaddicttt]

You already assign values to everything in your mind, after all, the world exists only as we personally perceive it. That is the reason why there are so many opposing views in the world.

Values depend upon your personal perception.

So you're now giving up your ability to criticize anyone else's beliefs? If we all assign value on our own, then no one is more correct than anyone else.

[benlee]

That's where religion comes in. Religion is the striving to gain an understanding of morality as close to God as possible. It's not possible to completely know God, but you still need a God to strive towards or else any change is meaningless. It's not "better" or "worse" because it's not moving towards a "best."

SO then your argument should be without religion, not without god, people wouldn't know that killing people is bad, which I also disagree with.

[NT1440]

How does society dictate this? Is it a simple majority? Was slavery "good" when the majority thought it was? I mean, if it was good when the majority thought it was, anyone who thought it was "bad" was wrong. There would have been no reason to ever switch and decide that it's "bad."



I wouldn't enjoy killing people, so I wouldn't no matter what, but if someone proved to me without a doubt that God didn't exist, I'd probably off myself.

To the underlined: Yes, slavery from societies standpoint at the time, was viewed as good. Like I said, our concepts and values, as a society, are always in a state of flux.

You can't enjoy your own life if there is no god?

[Macaddicttt]

this doesn't make any sense. :confused::confused:

Why not? I can give you the rules to football, and you can follow them, but that doesn't mean the rules to football have value.

You said that you taught your kids a rule, and they follow it. Why does it have any value? Certainly not just because they follow the rule.

[Don't panic]

That's where religion comes in. Religion is the striving to gain an understanding of morality as close to God as possible. It's not possible to completely know God, but you still need a God to strive towards or else any change is meaningless. It's not "better" or "worse" because it's not moving towards a "best."

but which religion? there are/were thousands of them, striving in quite opposite directions.

[Macaddicttt]

To the underlined: Yes, slavery from societies standpoint at the time, was viewed as good. Like I said, our concepts and values, as a society, are always in a state of flux.

You can't enjoy your own life if there is no god?

Who said I enjoyed my own life with a God?

[Macaddicttt]

but which religion? there are/were thousands of them, striving in quite opposite directions.

That's the trick now, isn't it. But just because there's no clear answer doesn't remove value from the struggle to find truth.

[NT1440]

So you're now giving up your ability to criticize anyone else's beliefs? If we all assign value on our own, then no one is more correct than anyone else.

I can criticize anyone's values I want, I never said people's values can't change. I do keep in mind constantly that people value things differently and that is why there is so much conflict in the world. I respect that people don't view everything on the same scale.

[Iscariot]

Not to mention the assertion that evolution is fact. It is a theory. Too many people get deluded into believing it as absolute truth.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that it occurs (including macroevolution), the mechanisms behind it comprise the theory.

[Macaddicttt]

SO then your argument should be without religion, not without god, people wouldn't know that killing people is bad, which I also disagree with.

No, without God, killing isn't bad since there's no measure to evaluate "good" or "bad." That's my argument.

[Macaddicttt]

I can criticize anyone's values I want, I never said people's values can't change. I do keep in mind constantly that people value things differently and that is why there is so much conflict in the world. I respect that people don't view everything on the same scale.

But without there being a correct set of values, any change is meaningless. So why would you want to change anyone else's views? Or an even better question, why would anyone want to change their own views?

[Don't panic]

Why not? I can give you the rules to football, and you can follow them, but that doesn't mean the rules to football have value.

You said that you taught your kids a rule, and they follow it. Why does it have any value? Certainly not just because they follow the rule.

they follow it (sometimes ;)) because they understand that it has intrinsic value, that it is fair, and beneficial to them and others. no particular religion or specific god has anything to do with it.
look at young children play. when one gets hurt, others come to sooth her/him. Innate empathy, no indoctrination required.

[NT1440]

But without there being a correct set of values, any change is meaningless.

Meaningless in your mind ;)

[Macaddicttt]

they follow it (sometimes ;)) because they understand that it has intrinsic value, that it is fair, and beneficial to them and others. no particular religion or specific god has anything to do with it.
look at young children play. when one gets hurt, others come to sooth her/him. Innate empathy, no indoctrination required.

Again, I never said that "indoctrination" was required, only that God is the only reason why empathy has value. Yes, it's an instinct, so we follow it, but instincts don't have intrinsic value.

And by the way, believing that something has intrinsic value is a huge leap of faith.

[NT1440]

Again, I never said that "indoctrination" was required, only that God is the only reason why empathy has value. Yes, it's an instinct, so we follow it, but instincts don't have intrinsic value.

And by the way, believing that something has intrinsic value is a huge leap of faith.

How in the hell is god the only reason why empathy has value?* You realize that instinctively we are bound together as social beings right?

* Seriously, please elaborate, I don't get what you're getting at.

[Don't panic]

That's the trick now, isn't it. But just because there's no clear answer doesn't remove value from the struggle to find truth.

but what if truth is that there is no true religion, and no gods?

besides since there are obviously infinite possible religions, by your own logic any single one of them has a value of zero, therefore making them worthless.

now please do not off yourself ;)

[JurgenWigg]

No, without God, killing isn't bad since there's no measure to evaluate "good" or "bad." That's my argument.

Killing is bad because it lessens the survivability of one's ingroup.

If there's a killer in your town, it behooves you personally on a very basic level to apprehend them lest you yourself be killed.

You don't kill because either a) you'll be apprehended and killed yourself, b) the guilt-empathy-bonds devolution i explained before, or c) you're not apprehended and your in-group falls apart.

In any case, you have a very personal vested interest in not killing and keeping your ingroup together.

Good is what improves longevity and survivability.

Bad is what hinders it.

No external measure needed, unless you need God to tell you that 10 is less than 20.

[JurgenWigg]

Don't get rankled. I was speaking of Spinoza.



Certainly not. Whatever physical or mental experience you claim supports your belief in something "supernatural" is in principle subject to analysis by naturalistic means to determine whether the conclusions you draw are supported. What you claim to be "outside the universe" is one thing. You and your sensory and experiential processes are quite another, and are firmly rooted inside the universe.

Forget trying to prove the metaphysical negative. Of course that's impossible. The question, instead, is whether there is any reason to believe the positive claims made by some other entirely natural human being.



You've still misunderstood. There are things that exist we have not observed; however, they cannot be called "supernatural" because in all cases if we observed them to exist we would call them "natural."

"Supernatural" refers only to nonsense.



Sorry, misunderstood then - no offense taken.

I don't believe in anything supernatural, however, you're saying that examining the roots of ones beliefs can yield results about the existence of what they believe, right? So by discrediting miracles and the like, you're using science to work against the supernatural. Is that what you're saying?

[benlee]

No, without God, killing isn't bad since there's no measure to evaluate "good" or "bad." That's my argument.

So god is the ultimate measure of good? assuming that god is infinite good, you are saying that without that, we would not be able to measure good or bad. but, I can measure a pencil eraser without the qualitative value of infinity, or 10,000 miles, etc.

You must agree that all creatures have innate understandings. I know that killing is bad without god, because people get upset if I kill their family member, I have an innate trait of empathy, I feel empathetic and realize that I should not have killed the person. However, I don't have to kill someone to figure this out, I can gain this from my existing innate attributes, social upbringing and family upbringing. Some people have religions as part of their upbringing, which might help establish what they should and should not do--bad and good are socially defined, not defined by god himself or herself.

[JurgenWigg]

Really what it comes down to is this:

Would you act any differently if you knew there was no God?

[skunk]

Again, I never said that "indoctrination" was required, only that God is the only reason why empathy has value. Yes, it's an instinct, so we follow it, but instincts don't have intrinsic value.Why do we need to assign a value to empathy? Like many other animals, we are able to imagine and we are able to remember. Like many other animals, we are social beings. Other animals do not seem to need your god to avoid wholesale sociopathy. Why should we?

[Gelfin]

Sorry, misunderstood then - no offense taken.

I don't believe in anything supernatural, however, you're saying that examining the roots of ones beliefs can yield results about the existence of what they believe, right? So by discrediting miracles and the like, you're using science to work against the supernatural. Is that what you're saying?

I am saying there isn't a supernatural. Not even that any particular phenomenon doesn't exist, but that, as a category into which phenomena may hypothetically be placed, the concept is nonsense.

I am saying that if there were such things as "miracles" and the like, then we would examine the physical manifestations of those things and integrate their existence into our understanding of how the world works, just as we do with any other phenomenon we can observe to happen in the world. The very fact of their verifiably observable existence would vet them into the club of natural phenomena, whether we understood the precise mechanisms or not. If we are unable to do that, we have no reason to claim they exist at all, much less devise a category for them.

Now, most if not all of the alleged phenomena people lump into the class of "supernatural" things are also nonsense, make no mistake, because they are things believed without good reason to believe them, and use of the nonsense category "supernatural" is generally a tacit admission of this, but in the extremely unlikely event that one of them turned out to exist, then ipso facto it would no longer be proper to call it "supernatural." For us to say with authority that something exists means we have access to sufficient tangible information about it to make that determination, and that very fact grounds it.

[Macaddicttt]

How in the hell is god the only reason why empathy has value?* You realize that instinctively we are bound together as social beings right?

* Seriously, please elaborate, I don't get what you're getting at.

You don't seem to understand the concept of value. We are bound together as social beings, but again, instinct does not equal value. Why is continuation of the species an inherently good thing? Cows try to continue their species as well. Is it immoral to kill and eat cows since we're harming the continuation of their species?

There's no logical reason to assign value to instinct. Assigning value to and basing morality on things that have evolved through natural processes is akin to basing morality on gravity or some other natural law.

but what if truth is that there is no true religion, and no gods?

besides since there are obviously infinite possible religions, by your own logic any single one of them has a value of zero, therefore making them worthless.

now please do not off yourself ;)

How does infinite possible religions mean that any single one of them has a value of zero? There are infinite possible religions, yes, but some are closer to God's true will than others.

There's an infinite number of heights that people can be, there's still a tallest. So too are there an infinite number of possible religions, but there still is a best.

Good is what improves longevity and survivability.

Bad is what hinders it.

No external measure needed, unless you need God to tell you that 10 is less than 20.

Again, why are longevity and survivability good? To whom does it apply? Humans? Adults? Children? Mammals? Animals? All living things? If strengthening and continuation of the human race is the ultimate goal, should we kill off the weaker ones to enhance the genetic pool?

So god is the ultimate measure of good? assuming that god is infinite good, you are saying that without that, we would not be able to measure good or bad. but, I can measure a pencil eraser without the qualitative value of infinity, or 10,000 miles, etc.

You must agree that all creatures have innate understandings. I know that killing is bad without god, because people get upset if I kill their family member, I have an innate trait of empathy, I feel empathetic and realize that I should not have killed the person. However, I don't have to kill someone to figure this out, I can gain this from my existing innate attributes, social upbringing and family upbringing. Some people have religions as part of their upbringing, which might help establish what they should and should not do--bad and good are socially defined, not defined by god himself or herself.

So everything innate is good? I innately get angry at people. Is it good to follow that emotion? Would it be immoral to not follow that emotion?

Some people don't feel empathy towards others. Are they allowed to be jerks (at best) or murderers (at worst)? Would it be immoral of them not to follow their emotions?

If society sets "good" or each individual sets what is "good," is there such thing as a bad person or a bad society? Is there such a thing as "progress" if society is the thing that sets what is good? Is there any impetus for change?

Why do we need to assign a value to empathy? Like many other animals, we are able to imagine and we are able to remember. Like many other animals, we are social beings. Other animals do not seem to need your god to avoid wholesale sociopathy. Why should we?

Because as humans we also strive to find meaning and value. Other animals don't have the capability to question the value of their instincts. Humanity does, and we strive for meaning, not just survival.

And I don't know exactly what you mean by "wholesale sociopathy." There are species of monkeys that kill and eat each other. Is it moral for humans to do the same as they have in the past? We can question our actions and our instincts. Other animals cannot.

"Wholesale sociopathy" is highly subjective. With the amount of beef and chicken we eat, I'm sure from a cow's or chicken's perspective, we haven't avoided wholesales sociopathy.

[JurgenWigg]

No one SAYS that survivability or longevity is good, no creature is consciously working toward keeping their species alive. Make no mistake though, the longer life anything has, the longer it survives, the more it can benefit the whole. Who says surviving is good? By the intrinsic value of existence over non-existence. I know existence. I am here. I know what it's like. Even a bad known is better than the unknown (non-existence) by virtue of the familiar and an inherent will to live that is in every living creature. An animal might gnaw off it's own foot to get out of a trap - better to be crippled than dead. Do they, too, have this supreme conception of right and wrong that's revealed to you only by the "eternal"? No. It is a base, instinctual habit imprinted on our DNA because those with the "will-to-live" gene tend to live longer and reproduce more than those without.

Are you really trying to turn what I said into a justification of eugenics? Really? First: THERE IS NO ULTIMATE GOAL! There's no meaning to life beyond what meaning you imbue your own life with. There is absolute freedom, and we are slaves to choice - including the meaning to life. The meaning of YOUR life might be the strength and continuation of the human race, but there's no grand, overarching master plan for all of existence. Second: Like I said - nothing is consciously working toward keeping their species alive. I would think that it's a very very small fraction of people that think "this is for the human race" when they have sex. Why wouldn't that also be the case elsewhere. We're dimly aware enough of our drive for survival to keep ourselves alive and out of stupid situations. Beyond that, it would require us to cognitively strive for a "better race".

[JurgenWigg]

Also, if there's an infinite number of heights people can be, then there's no tallest. "Tallest" implies an end, a top, a cap to the series beyond which there's no more data. Infinite means that it goes on without end, so by definition, in an infinite series there can be no tallest.


I think you're getting confused by what is good because you define good as what God tells you.

Just because something is innate doesn't mean it's good, and just because it's good doesn't mean it's innate. Why are instincts good though? Because they have been naturally selected for. They are advantageous to survival. We don't necessarily know that survival is good. Survival may be bad. Honestly, life is about making deep emotional connections and having them be ripped from you time and time again. That's pretty irrelevant, though. It just so happens that all of us like surviving, since those without the will-to-live gene died out, and can't exactly voice their opinion.

So, really, all of our so called morality comes down to us wanting to survive because of the genes that have been naturally selected for. No inherent good. No inherent bad. Instead of saying that "murder is bad", you could say "murder works against survival". It's only when YOU start thinking in terms of good and bad do you start applying these arbitrary terms.

[Iscariot]

Why is continuation of the species an inherently good thing?

I don't know that it is. I've opted out of continuing the species, having not had any kids.
Cows try to continue their species as well. Is it immoral to kill and eat cows since we're harming the continuation of their species?

I think it's immoral for other reasons than that.

…

Not that I'm interested in debating the point so much as I am curious what you think, but are you trying to argue that a) morality exists only through/because of God or religion or b) morality can only be explained because of/through God or religion?

[Zombie Acorn]

Cows are bred now merely for eating. That is their purpose, and they are tasty. In fact most of the place I have seen don't allow bulls/cows to "continue the species" they artificially inseminate them.

[JurgenWigg]

Pain isn't always necessarily bad.

Catholics (Christ on the cross)and Jews (God teaches lessons through suffering) would say that suffering is good.

Buddhists would say that suffering is bad.

Two distinct groups of people with different perspectives of good and bad on the same topic. Morality is relative to your own standpoint.

[Macaddicttt]

Not that I'm interested in debating the point so much as I am curious what you think, but are you trying to argue that a) morality exists only through/because of God or religion or b) morality can only be explained because of/through God or religion?

I'm arguing that morality can only exist if the universe is a personal one, that it matters to something eternal what someone does. Call that God if you want. Religion is merely the pursuit of it.

If morality is so subjective that it only depends on a single person's point of view, then the word "morality" is meaningless. No one can be any more or less moral than anyone else since it's all in the eye of the beholder.

I think that many people hold extremely superficial morals and never really decide what morality is or what the common thread between every action that makes it moral or immoral.

People usually define their morals as "personal" or "societal," but both of these definitions of morality lack any meaning. If all morals are subjective and depend on each individual, then nobody's morals are any better than anyone else's. There would be no basis for law, since how can you punish someone for doing something that someone else thinks is immoral? Both versions of morality would equally valid.

If morals are determined by society, what is the criteria for those morals? Simple majority? So if the majority of people think that slavery is okay, then it is. There would be no impetus to change at all. Morality would not evolve, since anyone who held a minority view of morality would be immoral by definition. In addition, what are the geographic bounds of society? State? Country? City? Continent? Are lynchings okay because the majority of the community thought it was right?

Really my point is that without an external measure of morality, the entire concept of morality is useless since it becomes so subjective that no qualitative statements can be made about it.

[Zombie Acorn]

If morals are determined by society, what is the criteria for those morals? Simple majority? So if the majority of people think that slavery is okay, then it is. There would be no impetus to change at all. Morality would not evolve, since anyone who held a minority view of morality would be immoral by definition. In addition, what are the geographic bounds of society? State? Country? City? Continent? Are lynchings okay because the majority of the community thought it was right?


America did have slavery for a while, but because we are social creatures we empathize with each other and it suddenly becomes wrong to a minority and we change once enough people are against it.


Really my point is that without an external measure of morality, the entire concept of morality is useless since it becomes so subjective that no qualitative statements can be made about it.

Its hard wired into your brain because we are social animals. Concepts of fairness are present very early in kids lives, the parents help shape your idea higher morality also.

[Macaddicttt]

America did have slavery for a while, but because we are social creatures we empathize with each other and it suddenly becomes wrong to a minority and we change once enough people are against it.

Again, what are the bounds for determining a minority or a majority? Was American slavery immoral once Americans decided it was immoral, or once the rest of the world thought it was? Is the death penalty in the US immoral because the majority of countries think it's immoral? Are lynchings moral because the majority of the community believes in it?

Its hard wired into your brain because we are social animals. Concepts of fairness are present very early in kids lives, the parents help shape your idea higher morality also.

If you think that fairness and equality are innate characteristics, then why in the thousands and thousands of year history of the human race, has equality become valued only in the past 400 years or so?

[Zombie Acorn]

Again, what are the bounds for determining a minority or a majority? Was American slavery immoral once Americans decided it was immoral, or once the rest of the world thought it was? Is the death penalty in the US immoral because the majority of countries think it's immoral? Are lynchings moral because the majority of the community believes in it?


I think that American slavery was always immoral, the people who held slaves knew it was immoral they simply did not care or refused to believe slaves were humans. I believe there is a set of rules that has been evolved in our brain structure (assuming its not a defective brain) which has allowed us to function as a society for thousands of years (although not always a peaceful one). There is some relative morality, but it usually varies very little from the path.


If you think that fairness and equality are innate characteristics, then why in the thousands and thousands of year history of the human race, has equality become valued only in the past 400 years or so?

I said fairness was innate, one knows when he is getting the shaft early on in life without being taught, this doesn't necessarily mean that he won't treat others like crap if it serves his ends.

Equality also has to do with the society at large as a justification mechanism which isn't as nicely packaged. The people knew enslaving humans was immoral, but they bypassed the issue by not thinking of them as human.

[Macaddicttt]

I said fairness was innate, one knows when he is getting the shaft early on in life without being taught, this doesn't necessarily mean that he won't treat others like crap if it serves his ends.

Equality also has to do with the society at large as a justification mechanism which isn't as nicely packaged. The people knew enslaving humans was immoral, but they bypassed the issue by not thinking of them as human.

Those quite huge suppositions that all are observable/should have data to back them up. Do you have any data supporting them?

[Zombie Acorn]

Those quite huge suppositions that all are observable/should have data to back them up. Do you have any data supporting them?

Dogs even have an innate sense of fairness, humans should be much more advanced:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463467,00.html

Disregard that its from fox news, its not political.

As for the justification of slavery through making them non-human, you can see signs of it when tax laws were introduced that were going to include slaves and there were outcries because they were seen as property and not humans.

[Macaddicttt]

Dogs even have an innate sense of fairness, humans should be much more advanced:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463467,00.html

Disregard that its from fox news, its not political.

As for the justification of slavery through making them non-human, you can see signs of it when tax laws were introduced that were going to include slaves and there were outcries because they were seen as property and not humans.

So what if a person is born without that innate sense of fairness? Is it moral for them to be unfair? Why does biology transfer directly over to morality? What about the mentally handicapped? Do they have different morals since their biology is different?

And as to the property thing, I see dogs as property. Does that mean I don't also see them as dogs?

[Zombie Acorn]

So if a dog acts selfishly, it knows that it's being immoral?

And as to the property thing, I see dogs as property. Does that mean I don't also see them as dogs?

I only stated that fairness was innate, that they know when they get the shaft.

If I impose a tax on dogs would you argue that it isn't a dog but property?

[NoSmokingBandit]

Hasnt there already been about a dozen "missing links" that were later found to be false?

[Cave Man]

Hasnt there already been about a dozen "missing links" that were later found to be false?

Such as?

[Macaddicttt]

I only stated that fairness was innate, that they know when they get the shaft.

Well, if you're basing your morals only on instincts, I could only assume that all aspect of morality would be instinctual. If we're only born with an innate knowledge of "when [we] get the shaft," all it means by your standard is that we ensure that we personally don't get the shaft, not that no one else doesn't get the shaft, too.

If I impose a tax on dogs would you argue that it isn't a dog but property?

No, I would argue that it's both a dog and property. Just like slaves were both humans and property.

[OllyW]

Such as?

Here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man). Only eleven to go. :)

[Zombie Acorn]

Well, if you're basing your morals only on instincts, I could only assume that all aspect of morality would be instinctual. If we're only born with an innate knowledge of "when [we] get the shaft," all it means by your standard is that we ensure that we personally don't get the shaft, not that no one else doesn't get the shaft, too.

Realizing that you are being treated unfairly leads to empathy for others. I also didn't state that all morals were instinctual, only the ones that have allowed us to thrive as a society. Many morals are taught (or not) by parents and are unique to the relative location.


No, I would argue that it's both a dog and property. Just like slaves were both humans and property.

Slave owners argued against the taxes because they were to be seen as property and not humans.

[Cave Man]

Here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man). Only eleven to go. :)

Piltdown was a hoax. The only other one I'm aware of (Nebraska man) was an error. Both show the power of science as a self-correcting endeavor.

The problem with "missing links" is that every time you find one you create two more.

[Macaddicttt]

Realizing that you are being treated unfairly leads to empathy for others. I also didn't state that all morals were instinctual, only the ones that have allowed us to thrive as a society. Many morals are taught (or not) by parents.

So what then is the basis of your morals?

Slave owners argued against the taxes because they were to be seen as property and not humans.

They also argued for counting them as humans when it came time to decide how many representatives the states should have in the House.

[Zombie Acorn]

So what then is the basis of your morals?


Basic morals are instinctual, the rest are an evolutionary process passed down through generations and molded as society changes. No god needed.


They also argued for counting them as humans when it came time to decide how many representatives the states should have in the House.

They had something to gain, I would hardly call this a change of heart since they are still enslaving them. I can't really get into the mindset of a slave owner though so I will not be able to verify either way on this.

[Cave Man]

So what then is the basis of your morals?

The basis of morality is biological, as has already been said on this thread. A nice introduction can be found here (http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Moral-Systems-Foundations-Behavior/dp/0202011747).

[Macaddicttt]

Basic morals are instinctual, the rest are an evolutionary process passed down through generations and molded as society changes. No god needed.

So again, what are the bounds of this morality? Was lynching moral because most of the community agreed? Was slavery moral because the rest of the country agreed?

They had something to gain, I would hardly call this a change of heart since they are still enslaving them. I can't really get into the mindset of a slave owner though so I will not be able to verify either way on this.

So then don't claim to.

[Macaddicttt]

The basis of morality is biological, as has already been said on this thread. A nice introduction can be found here (http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Moral-Systems-Foundations-Behavior/dp/0202011747).

Morals may have evolved from biology, but biology is insufficient for a comprehensive moral system.

[Zombie Acorn]

So again, what are the bounds of this morality? Was lynching moral because most of the community agreed? Was slavery moral because the rest of the country agreed?


I believe killing and enslaving would be part of the instinctual immorality.

[dsnort]

Piltdown was a hoax. The only other one I'm aware of (Nebraska man) was an error. Both show the power of science as a self-correcting endeavor.

Any human endeavor is subject to such hoaxes, but they're not always deliberate. Sometimes people just want to believe so much that they read into things. After much hullaballoo, Australopithecus Afarensis, ( Lucy ), has been quietly removed from the Evolutionary Tree of Homo Sapiens. Turns out she's just another ground dwelling ape. ( For goodness sake, the people who discovered her trimmed her pelvis bones because they "weren't shaped right"! )

[Macaddicttt]

I believe killing and enslaving would be part of the instinctual immorality.

Do you have sources that prove this to 97%?

And by the way, the people doing the lynching would disagree with you. Their instincts told them to kill and enslave the black man.

[Zombie Acorn]

Do you have sources that prove this to 97%?

And by the way, the people doing the lynching would disagree with you. Their instincts told them to kill and enslave the black man.

Its a theory, I am not trying to portray it as fact (and convert everyone to my way of thinking) thus don't need a 97% certainty.

[Cave Man]

Any human endeavor is subject to such hoaxes, but they're not always deliberate. Sometimes people just want to believe so much that they read into things. After much hullaballoo, Australopithecus Afarensis, ( Lucy ), has been quietly removed from the Evolutionary Tree of Homo Sapiens. Turns out she's just another ground dwelling ape.

A. afarensis hasn't been considered a direct ancestor of modern humans for many years because of the discovery of other fossilized hominids.

( For goodness sake, the people who discovered her trimmed her pelvis bones because they "weren't shaped right"! )

Can you elaborate on this assertion?