Is atheism against evolution?

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

I could have sworn there was a post by CerebralCortex asking me why I think Science is in the grip of atheism. Did you delete it? I wanted to respond

See end of this post. No deletions have happened.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

See end of this post. No deletions have happened.

Going blind. Ta

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Soul Winner I can't understand why you said that. Care to explain?

Because of this attitude:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Going blind. Ta



Because of this attitude:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

Just so I'm clear he is suggesting that letting "a Divine Foot in the door" is detrimental to science? Would you not agree that letting a divine foot in the door turns science into religion and philosophy?

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

Didn't mankind used to have a "priori adherence" to supernatural causes? And wasn't it only the rejection of such causes that allowed mankind - through science - to make the huge technological leaps it has?

AtomicHorror

Nothing is "against evolution" anymore than it can be "against gravity". Evolution will act upon all that lives regardless of what it does. We can make some guesses about what traits will thrive and what traits won't but the system is exceptionally complex. We don't need to worry about defying evolution, it will select either way.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Just so I'm clear he is suggesting that letting "a Divine Foot in the door" is detrimental to science?

Yes but based on an ill founded assumption that materialism is absolute.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Would you not agree that letting a divine foot in the door turns science into religion and philosophy.

To blindly assume that materialism is absolute without any solid evidence just goes against what is put forth as the only method -the scientific method - that is supposed to be the best and only method to make sure of its validity. Until you test and prod and know for certain from the facts in evidence that materialism is in fact absolute only then can you use that as foundational premise on which to proceed. It’s a contradiction in terms and yet we are not allowed to assume a divine creator as a possible answer based on that same premise. I just think it is very hypocritical to have a scientific method that has at its undergirding foundation a philosophy such as this. That's all.

Dades wrote: »

Didn't mankind used to have a "priori adherence" to supernatural causes? And wasn't it only the rejection of such causes that allowed mankind - through science - to make the huge technological leaps it has?

I believe that if its going to be neutral then be neutral, don't make blind assumptions that materialism is absolute without finding out first that materialism is in fact absolute by the methods that you enthroned as the only method to find out. See what I'm getting at? I'm all for giving anything a foot in the door not just the divine once what we are working off is a blank sheet. No idea can be invalidated a priori based on the assumption that materialism is absolute which itself is not a multiple scientifically attested to bona fide fact.

Pgibson

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Cultures with strong monotheistic religions have been more successful than pagan or non religious and individuals bloodlines in those cultures have thrived and reproduced successfully.

Not the Pope's bloodline or his clergy's surely ?

They are not allowed to do that "reproducing" thing.

Or so I hear.

.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but based on an ill founded assumption that materialism is absolute.



To blindly assume that materialism is absolute without any solid evidence just goes against what is put forth as the only method -the scientific method - that is supposed to be the best and only method to make sure of its validity. Until you test and prod and know for certain from the facts in evidence that materialism is in fact absolute only then can you use that as foundational premise on which to proceed. It’s a contradiction in terms and yet we are not allowed to assume a divine creator as a possible answer based on that same premise. I just think it is very hypocritical to have a scientific method that has at its undergirding foundation a philosophy such as this. That's all.



I believe that if its going to be neutral then be neutral, don't make blind assumptions that materialism is absolute without finding out first that materialism is in fact absolute by the methods that you enthroned as the only method to find out. See what I'm getting at? I'm all for giving anything a foot in the door not just the divine once what we are working off is a blank sheet. No idea can be invalidated a priori based on the assumption that materialism is absolute which itself is not a multiple scientifically attested to bona fide fact.

Science doesn't blindly assume that materialism is absolute as a primary mover. Science relies upon experimentation and observation and only that which can be experimented upon and observed independently by separate individuals repeatedly can be viewed as science. It just so happens that anything which falls into that category is material and so the materialism of science is symptom and not a causality. To try to force the introduction of supernatural forces you would have to undermine the very foundations upon which science is built i.e. observation and experimentation. If such a revolution in science were to take place it would completely undermine the unique useful application that only science can facilitate and would instead become about as useful as religion or philosophy.

Can you imagine the next generation of medicine being founded upon supernatural forces such as prayer. After all if you remove the requirement of science to experiment and observe that is what you will end up with.

CerebralCortex

I was just going to ask the question isn't what the process of science concludes that which is material? Sink has answered it quite well though.

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

Science doesn't blindly assume that materialism is absolute as a primary mover.

I never said that it was science that assumes it. It's prominent scientist that assume it. Scientist that have naturalism - that nature is all there is, was and ever shall be - as their philosophic foundation and hence proceed on that basis as if it were a fact and cut out any other philosophic view that might interfere. Like I said I'm all for the scientific method but without the philosophic foundation upon which it is based. Science should be based on science not on ANY philosophy.

sink wrote: »

Science relies upon experimentation and observation and only that which can be experimented upon and observed independently by separate individuals repeatedly can be viewed as science.

That's what I'm talking about. And anything that cannot be proven to the answer to anything should not be ruled out until it has been proven not to be the answer. Like how the universe came into being. Until very recently it was assumed by science that the universe was always there (eternal) with no beginning. But now we understand that it actually had a beginning in the finite past so until we know say that a divine being did not do it, then it should be left open as a possibility until it can be proven otherwise. And once it is proven otherwise by the scientific method that it was not created by a diving being or whatever then it should be left in as a possibility. But then you might say the same about the flying spaghetti monster. And I say that the matter that makes up the flying spaghetti monster did not come into existence until after the creation event or big bang so it couldn't have been him even if he does exist today somewhere out there. Among the attributes of -what we call God- are that He is outside of time and space and matter hence a good candidate for the creation of same. Not so with the flying spaghetti monster. He's made from spaghetti which is matter which came after the big bang.

sink wrote: »

It just so happens that anything which falls into that category is material and so the materialism of science is symptom and not a causality.

It must also be causality if its absolute.

sink wrote: »

To try to force the introduction of supernatural forces you would have to undermine the very foundations upon which science is built i.e. observation and experimentation.

I disagree. All you have to do is leave it open as a possible explanation. You don't have to worship it or become any part of any particular religion. Just leave it open until it is proven by the scientific method to be false. Then move on. If God doesn't exist then there is nothing to worry about. If He doesn't exist then will never be proven to be Him that caused everything, ever. Why can’t the option of “Hey you know what? What if the universe was made by someone?” be left as an option? Why do we hurriedly discard this possibility when we don’t really know that yet by using the scientific method?

sink wrote: »

If such a revolution in science were to take place it would completely undermine the unique useful application that only science can facilitate and would instead become about as useful as religion or philosophy.

Science needs it more than religion needs it. Because of the scientific method now employed science is running into brick wall after brick wall. Especially in the field of quantum theory where absolutely improvable hypothesis after improvable hypothesis are being presented as possible explanations. Even Einstein was open to the concept of a diving creator. He didn’t' believe in any personal God but He at least was smart enough to give the possibility a foot in the door.

sink wrote: »

Can you imagine the next generation of medicine being founded upon supernatural forces such as prayer. After all if you remove the requirement of science to experiment and observe that is what you will end up with.

So you do agree that it based on something else? Something else that is just as improvable as the supernatural by the scientific method.

In any case, I'm not saying remove the requirement of science and to use prayer instead of medicine. If you believe in God then you should use prayer with whatever medicine there is available. But this is getting away from the point I was making. I’m talking about removing or at least changing the undergirding unproven philosophic foundation upon which science today is predicated. Do it for science not for religion, like I said religion has its own well established views. It doesn’t predicate itself up science. Only science should do that.

Dave!

This is bloody embaressing.

We can't disprove that I did not start the universe buddy. Obviously I wasn't born when it was created, but maybe my SPIRIT was, and it created the universe, then went into hibernation for a few billion years, then entered my body 20 years ago.

Yeah? You cool with that?

Get a f*cking grip will ye

Dades

Steady on there, Dave.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why can’t the option of “Hey you know what? What if the universe was made by someone?” be left as an option? Why do we hurriedly discard this possibility when we don’t really know that yet by using the scientific method?

I'll give you a good reason why, SW.

The moment a scientist suggests that "something" might have had a hand in creating the universe, a dozen religions claim that "something" is in fact their god, and quote that scientist in support of their fully-realised deity.

Of course the real point is that science doesn't make such claims because there's no evidence to support the idea. History has shown that the god concept has continued to move back out of reach as science moves forward. The god concept is a philosophical one, until such point as we discover something which is seen to support it.

Pappy o' daniel

The way this thread has gone reminds me of the south park episode, where Cartman wakes up the future and the different athiest factions are fighting a civil war. Maybe the part of us that wishes us to be with others who think like us (or convince others to think like us), is the part that inspires nationalistic feelings.
Forget about the merits of the different arguements, ask ourselves why do we care what others think.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that it was science that assumes it. It's prominent scientist that assume it. Scientist that have naturalism - that nature is all there is, was and ever shall be - as their philosophic foundation and hence proceed on that basis as if it were a fact and cut out any other philosophic view that might interfere. Like I said I'm all for the scientific method but without the philosophic foundation upon which it is based. Science should be based on science not on ANY philosophy.

From the wikipedia article on science:
The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions.
The philosophy you are against is the scientific method. Science only concerns itself with what can be measured and modeled and all that can be measured and modeled exists in nature. You cannot be for science, but against this method.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's what I'm talking about. And anything that cannot be proven to the answer to anything should not be ruled out until it has been proven not to be the answer. Like how the universe came into being. Until very recently it was assumed by science that the universe was always there (eternal) with no beginning. But now we understand that it actually had a beginning in the finite past so until we know say that a divine being did not do it, then it should be left open as a possibility until it can be proven otherwise. And once it is proven otherwise by the scientific method that it was not created by a diving being or whatever then it should be left in as a possibility.

Just because something is a possibility doesn't mean its in any way probable. there comes a point where things need to discounted in scientific investigations simply because you can't model evrything in existence. So what you do is you go for the most probable possibilities and model for them. You pick the most probable possibilities based on the science (ie models that have been made and tested) that came form before, not based on the outcome you desire. A divine being is a highly improbable cause for existence given that nothing in science before has pointed to one existing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But then you might say the same about the flying spaghetti monster. And I say that the matter that makes up the flying spaghetti monster did not come into existence until after the creation event or big bang so it couldn't have been him even if he does exist today somewhere out there. Among the attributes of -what we call God- are that He is outside of time and space and matter hence a good candidate for the creation of same. Not so with the flying spaghetti monster. He's made from spaghetti which is matter which came after the big bang.

And then we would say that all material spaghetti is made in his image and that the weakness and tangibility of our spaghetti is nothing compared to his intangible and immaterial spaghetti which has existed before time and space began and actually caused time and space to begin (by particluar movements of his noodly appendages). All matter, nay, all space and time is a mere reflection of his noodlieness...
This is the problem with bringing in the supernatural into science. It is unfalsifiable. You cannot say that "insert god/noodly appendage here" cannot do something, because you can never no their limits because they are supernatural, they are outside of nauture and undefinable.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I disagree. All you have to do is leave it open as a possible explanation. You don't have to worship it or become any part of any particular religion. Just leave it open until it is proven by the scientific method to be false. Then move on. If God doesn't exist then there is nothing to worry about. If He doesn't exist then will never be proven to be Him that caused everything, ever. Why can’t the option of “Hey you know what? What if the universe was made by someone?” be left as an option? Why do we hurriedly discard this possibility when we don’t really know that yet by using the scientific method?

As above, we cannot have the supernatural as a possibility as this destroys the validity of the scientific method. The supernatural is unfalsifiable.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science needs it more than religion needs it. Because of the scientific method now employed science is running into brick wall after brick wall.

Science always runs into brick walls. Look at the first people to try to fly. look at all those that failed. they didn't stop and go looking for supernatural ways to fly, they just kept at it, designing different airplanes until one worked.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Especially in the field of quantum theory where absolutely improvable hypothesis after improvable hypothesis are being presented as possible explanations.

Are you just jealous that these unprovable hypothesis are being presented, while your unprovable hypothesis of "a divine being did it" isn't? Remember it all goes back to probabilities. We cant look at everything, so we look at the most likely and assuming they fan out, we continue with them. Also don't forget that a hypothesis doesn't count for much in the science world. Its not the same as a theory, which is essentially a demonstratable model. A hypothesis is just an idea in someones head, scientists remember they doin't count for much until they can be modeled, it seems that only people attacking the scientific method dont understand this at all.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m talking about removing or at least changing the undergirding unproven philosophic foundation upon which science today is predicated.

Science is not based on any unproven philosophical foundation. All the science that we have is actually proof for the philosophical foundations its based on.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that it was science that assumes it. It's prominent scientist that assume it. Scientist that have naturalism - that nature is all there is, was and ever shall be - as their philosophic foundation and hence proceed on that basis as if it were a fact and cut out any other philosophic view that might interfere. Like I said I'm all for the scientific method but without the philosophic foundation upon which it is based. Science should be based on science not on ANY philosophy.


That's what I'm talking about. And anything that cannot be proven to the answer to anything should not be ruled out until it has been proven not to be the answer. Like how the universe came into being. Until very recently it was assumed by science that the universe was always there (eternal) with no beginning. But now we understand that it actually had a beginning in the finite past so until we know say that a divine being did not do it, then it should be left open as a possibility until it can be proven otherwise. And once it is proven otherwise by the scientific method that it was not created by a diving being or whatever then it should be left in as a possibility. But then you might say the same about the flying spaghetti monster. And I say that the matter that makes up the flying spaghetti monster did not come into existence until after the creation event or big bang so it couldn't have been him even if he does exist today somewhere out there. Among the attributes of -what we call God- are that He is outside of time and space and matter hence a good candidate for the creation of same. Not so with the flying spaghetti monster. He's made from spaghetti which is matter which came after the big bang.

And here you go trying to force individual scientist to follow you theological point of view. There are plenty of scientists that believe in a creator and there are plenty of scientists that don't. Practising science is not predicated upon individual theological beliefs as science only concerns itself with what can be observed tested and falsified, anything else is not science and should have as much impact upon science as a persons favourite type of cheese. So asking science to consider your theological beliefs as a possibility is equivalent to me asking science to consider my preference for Gorgonzola as evidence that it is the best cheese. Neither can be tested and proven nor can they be falsified and both are essentially meaningless for any further application.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It must also be causality if its absolute.

I think you are confusing absolute with constant. A constant is not necessarily a causality it can also be an effect. The fact that science only concerns itself with material things is an effect of the scientific method and is also a constant.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I disagree. All you have to do is leave it open as a possible explanation. You don't have to worship it or become any part of any particular religion. Just leave it open until it is proven by the scientific method to be false. Then move on. If God doesn't exist then there is nothing to worry about. If He doesn't exist then will never be proven to be Him that caused everything, ever. Why can’t the option of “Hey you know what? What if the universe was made by someone?” be left as an option? Why do we hurriedly discard this possibility when we don’t really know that yet by using the scientific method?

Science does not concern itself with whether a creator exists or not. It is not a question that current scientific understanding is even remotely capable of answering. It neither discounts it nor does it advocate it. It will carry on doing so until such a time when it can be tested which is possibly never.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science needs it more than religion needs it. Because of the scientific method now employed science is running into brick wall after brick wall. Especially in the field of quantum theory where absolutely improvable hypothesis after improvable hypothesis are being presented as possible explanations. Even Einstein was open to the concept of a diving creator. He didn’t' believe in any personal God but He at least was smart enough to give the possibility a foot in the door.

Science always runs into brick walls, it has many times before in history. Just because it's hits a difficult question does not mean it should be abandoned.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you do agree that it based on something else? Something else that is just as improvable as the supernatural by the scientific method.

Yes, it is based on self delusion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In any case, I'm not saying remove the requirement of science and to use prayer instead of medicine. If you believe in God then you should use prayer with whatever medicine there is available. But this is getting away from the point I was making. I’m talking about removing or at least changing the undergirding unproven philosophic foundation upon which science today is predicated. Do it for science not for religion, like I said religion has its own well established views. It doesn’t predicate itself up science. Only science should do that.

I am completely confused. You say religion is not predicated upon science but you fail to realise that science is not predicated upon religion or philosophy. How can you not see that question of the supernatural are outside the realm of science and always will be. It is my personal belief that the realm of the supernatural does not exist and anyone who believes in such is fooling themselves. I cannot prove without question that it does not exist as the absence of evidence is not proof of anything but in my judgement something for which there is no physical evidence and is highly improbable does in fact not exist.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

I'll give you a good reason why, SW.

The moment a scientist suggests that "something" might have had a hand in creating the universe, a dozen religions claim that "something" is in fact their god, and quote that scientist in support of their fully-realised deity.

First of all thank you Dades for your nice civilized and thought out answer.

Well that's where the demarcation should be. Science is well within its right to suggest because of the observations and fine tuning involved that its is quite possible that a supernatural agency which is beyond our scientific ability to measure might have had a hand in things. Any religion that would be averse to clinging onto that will still need to give a good account as to whether their concept of a deity fits the bill for such an agency. The Hindus would not be able to do so because they believe that the universe is eternal. Most pagan religions believe that their God made the universe out of stuff that was already made. The Judaic/Christian concept of a God is consistent with big bang cosmology as they claim that God created everything from nothing. But that should only be a squabble between faiths. Science can still be science and not even get involved with that one. And if it is determined that the universe was not made in this way then the Judaic/Christian concept would also be seen as dubious but again science does not need to get involved in the debate. Science should just call it as they see it. Yes it is possible that an agency beyond what we can observe or measure might have had something to do with it, and leave it there. I fail to see the big deal. Scientist can still be atheists if they want to or let the evidence convince them like Anthony Flew that there must be a creator/mind behind it all.

Dades wrote: »

Of course the real point is that science doesn't make such claims because there's no evidence to support the idea.

I whole heartily disagree. Current Big bang cosmology has turn that idea on its head. In the days of Carl Sagan scientists believed that the universe was always there. i.e. did not have beginning. The fact that we now know that the universe had a beginning ties in like a hand in glove with the Judaic/Christian concept of a beyond space and time creator. Either that is how it came into being or else it came into being from nothing and by nothing. But the only thing that can come from nothing is in fact nothing, not everything, and everything we see today - the universe- came from nothing. But how? The alternative theories to an almighty creator did it just don't add up. Big Crunch, Multiverse, Oscillating Universes and so on have all been more or less abandoned by most scientists in the field.

Dades wrote: »

History has shown that the god concept has continued to move back out of reach as science moves forward. The god concept is a philosophical one, until such point as we discover something which is seen to support it.

To many scientist this has already happened though. Many have become Christian based on what they perceive to be unassailable - in their view - proof that only a being with incomprehensible power could have created the universe rom nothing. Of course that is not proof that it happened but saying that the evidence does not point in that direction is just false.

Anyway look everyone. I don't need science to have a faith. I have that by other means. What I find fascinating with science is the fact that so many scientists are finding faith because of their scientific observations and not through any religion. Does that mean that they are right? No, but it encourages me greatly in my faith.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science should just call it as they see it. Yes it is possible that an agency beyond what we can observe or measure might have had something to do with it, and leave it there. I fail to see the big deal.

Well for one fundies are crazed with the desire to make that agency the reason for their religion or the God of their religion. I could look at that "agency" and make the conclusion that its not even consciously aware let alone consciously aware of us just as easily as you could take it as the god who "sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself" to quote Mark Hamill. The big deal is that organised religions create a perspective or idea completely unprovable just for the sake of this idea's or perspective's own propagation and isolate those of us who wish to not believe whatever we like.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Scientist can still be atheists if they want to or let the evidence convince them like Anthony Flew that there must be a creator/mind behind it all.

Evidence?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I whole heartily disagree. Current Big bang cosmology has turn that idea on its head. In the days of Carl Sagan scientists believed that the universe was always there. i.e. did not have beginning. The fact that we now know that the universe had a beginning ties in like a hand in glove with the Judaic/Christian concept of a beyond space and time creator. Either that is how it came into being or else it came into being from nothing and by nothing. But the only thing that can come from nothing is in fact nothing, not everything, and everything we see today - the universe- came from nothing. But how? The alternative theories to an almighty creator did it just don't add up. Big Crunch, Multiverse, Oscillating Universes and so on have all been more or less abandoned by most scientists in the field.

And theists call atheist reductionist sheesh.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To many scientist this has already happened though. Many have become Christian based on what they perceive to be unassailable - in their view - proof that only a being with incomprehensible power could have created the universe rom nothing. Of course that is not proof that it happened but saying that the evidence does not point in that direction is just false.

Why Christianity? Why not Islam? Judism? Who are these scientists?

Soul Winner wrote: »

....What I find fascinating with science is the fact that so many scientists are finding faith because of their scientific observations and not through any religion. Does that mean that they are right? No, but it encourages me greatly in my faith.

Are they and faith in what?

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

The alternative theories to an almighty creator did it just don't add up.

So we will pretend it was done by magic? Got it.

MrP

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

So we will pretend it was done by magic? Got it.

MrP

Hey, knock yourself out.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well that's where the demarcation should be. Science is well within its right to suggest because of the observations and fine tuning involved that its is quite possible that a supernatural agency which is beyond our scientific ability to measure might have had a hand in things.

No it cant. This has been explained before. Science is all about modeling events in nature in a reproducible and falsifiable fashion. Science cannot come to the conclusion that a supernatural entity is a cause because this is not a falsifiable conclusion (not to mention Dades point about what the different religions will do with such a conclusion)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Any religion that would be averse to clinging onto that will still need to give a good account as to whether their concept of a deity fits the bill for such an agency. The Hindus would not be able to do so because they believe that the universe is eternal. Most pagan religions believe that their God made the universe out of stuff that was already made. The Judaic/Christian concept of a God is consistent with big bang cosmology as they claim that God created everything from nothing. But that should only be a squabble between faiths. Science can still be science and not even get involved with that one. And if it is determined that the universe was not made in this way then the Judaic/Christian concept would also be seen as dubious but again science does not need to get involved in the debate. Science should just call it as they see it.

Science does call it as it sees it. Its religions that have problems when science doesn't things their ways.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I whole heartily disagree. Current Big bang cosmology has turn that idea on its head. In the days of Carl Sagan scientists believed that the universe was always there. i.e. did not have beginning. The fact that we now know that the universe had a beginning ties in like a hand in glove with the Judaic/Christian concept of a beyond space and time creator. Either that is how it came into being or else it came into being from nothing and by nothing. But the only thing that can come from nothing is in fact nothing, not everything, and everything we see today - the universe- came from nothing. But how? The alternative theories to an almighty creator did it just don't add up. Big Crunch, Multiverse, Oscillating Universes and so on have all been more or less abandoned by most scientists in the field.

This was covered in the "God is not Dead" thread, (which, by the way, ended with a post from Wicknight and a post from me both covering this). Its not nothing, its just something that doesnt come under the rules of this universe. Might I suggest you read the Stephen Hawkings lecture I linked in the last post again?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Anyway look everyone. I don't need science to have a faith. I have that by other means. What I find fascinating with science is the fact that so many scientists are finding faith because of their scientific observations and not through any religion. Does that mean that they are right? No, but it encourages me greatly in my faith.

Really? Was there a mass conversion when the LHC was turned on or something?

oeb

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it cant. This has been explained before. Science is all about modeling events in nature in a reproducible and falsifiable fashion. Science cannot come to the conclusion that a supernatural entity is a cause because this is not a falsifiable conclusion (not to mention Dades point about what the different religions will do with such a conclusion)

Just to clarify this, it also fails to pass Occam's Razor (and all science must be parsimonious), and it it is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey, knock yourself out.

Its easy to be glib about it, but that's what you're saying.

"Hey, science isn't sure where the universe came from, it was God" is pretty much all you're saying.

No matter how you put it, at the end of the day you're just making up an answer that has no evidence.

Lack of scientific evidence =/= support for non-scientific answers. We can all come up with whatever silly nonesense we like to explain the universe in the absence of evidence, doesn't mean any of us are right.

Tomk1

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Cultures with strong monotheistic religions have been more successful than pagan or non religious cultures(christianity in europe, islam in mideast), and individuals bloodlines in those cultures have thrived and reproduced successfully.
So, I'm wondering if religion is an aid to prospering, will discarding it hurt our chances?

First the most monotheistic religion islam, has not produced succesful cultures.
Lets compare to a secular country that was the USA, was succesfull, now (in god we tust on money since after 1950's) with GBush, not so succesfull.

Name one country without a religion.

"IS ATHEISM AGAINST EVOLUTION" is the title so zero to do this post.
does the title question really need a reply...

Pgibson

Tomk1 wrote: »

"IS ATHEISM AGAINST EVOLUTION"

That's a bit like saying:

"IS ATHEISM AGAINST THE EQUATION 2+2=4"

The question itself is DAFT and therefore pointless.

Evolution is a fact of nature,like the law of gravity.

The law of gravity has nothing to do with atheism either !

What a daft thread.

.

AtomicHorror

Pgibson wrote: »

That's a bit like saying:

"IS ATHEISM AGAINST THE EQUATION 2+2=4"

The question itself is DAFT and therefore pointless.

Evolution is a fact of nature,like the law of gravity.

The law of gravity has nothing to do with atheism either !

What a daft thread.

.

Flying is wrong as it is (superficially) Against Gravity. Now, when you go further and try to claim that scientific theories are also moral theories (as creationists like to do with evil evolution) you end up with flying being morally wrong. As is jumping. In fact, just lie the hell down because Science Says So.

Zillah

Pgibson wrote: »

That's a bit like saying:

"IS ATHEISM AGAINST THE EQUATION 2+2=4"

The question itself is DAFT and therefore pointless.

If you try a little harder then you'll realise that the question is merely a poorly phrased "Is atheism an evolutionarily disadvantageous trait?"

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey, knock yourself out.

LOL ... I always find it amusing that religious people claim things don't add up and then introduce supernatural magic into the equation and stand back as if some how they have made things add up.



What part of supernatural magic "adds up"???

Zillah

^ That's why religion doesn't submit to peer review.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

That's why religion doesn't submit to peer review

Bzzt -- wrong -- religions do submit to peer review, if you allow yourself a bit of latitude in your definition of "peer".

Centralized religions like catholicism have their own internal processes which approve whatever they wants to approve, and that's usually what's most advantageous for the immediate future of the church. Bad news is that such approvals build up over time, providing an interesting history, for anybody who's interested in such things, of the changeable political necessities that any institution must weather as time passes.

Decentralized religions, like most branches of protestantism (and all of the recent ones) are far more flexible. Appearing and disappearing again with an ease that would impress a glowworm, they can supply whatever truths are immediately required by their consuming public and from an evolutionary perspective, are fitter than their centralized counterparts. Hence their rapid growth at the expense of their centralized counterparts.

Both species of religion have been known to review the truth claims of other distantly-related, or unrelated, religions, but invariably dismiss them using arguments which do apply to, but are conventionally not applied to, the truth claims of their own religion.

So, ultimately, religions do appeal to peer-review, but unintentionally, and never to anything but the only kind of peer-review that matters to a religion -- its memetic fitness amongst the meme-carrying public.

Pgibson

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Flying is wrong as it is.

Haw Haw Haw.

Or,as the crow who has just "wrongly" flown onto the fence in my back garden puts it:

CAW CAW CAW.

What a DAFT thread.

.