Questions Will Get You In Trouble

[Ouroboros]

Which leads to the question: is God ordered or not?

[Legion]

Which leads to the question: is God ordered or not?

Well, God is supposedly a living being, right? And if that’s true, then like all living beings God must be extraordinarily ordered.

[Ouroboros]

Well, God is supposedly a living being, right? And if that’s true, then like all living beings God must be extraordinarily ordered.

Which makes the argument that the Universe must come from God just because it's so ordered a moot argument. (As you probably know)

[woodsmoke]

Here's something I've pondered in regard to what defines life. Now so far as I know, a living thing eats and excretes and reproduces.

 

Now this is going to sound waaaaaaaaaaaay out there, but minus the reproductive part, I know of something that might fit the bill.

 

Stars. They're sort of like food that digests itself. They are fueled by hydrogen and the digestive process is nuclear fusion which produces heat , light and radiation. In an odd sense, they excrete, because the nuclear fusion present in stars creates heavier elements and compounds such as iron, etc which the star ejects in eruptions. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

 

Sounds weird I know, but I thought I'd throw that out there for consideration.

Weird, yes, but also a very interesting thought experiment.

[PandaPirate]

Deistic evolution...I find it absurd. Evolution needs no "hands" to guide it...life emerged here because it was suitable for life to emerge here...not the other way around. Evolution is a fact...it's just not accepted by everyone. The Earth being spherical and the Earth rotating the sun went through this process too. Religion will always try to find some way to work it into their lie when the pile of evidence gets too high.

 

Sounds like you didn't read my post.

 

Here, read again:

 

Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,

deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies

that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing

creative process.

 

Now, since I'm a deist (and an agnostic one at that as I'm not sure if I even believe that but I lean more towards the idea of deism than atheism) I'd like to say that yes, I understand the problem of god. How did god get here? Why don't we just eliminate one step and say that nature "just is." Well, if you're willing to accept the premise that something (in this case- nature) "just is" than why can't people accept that a "god" "just is" or "just was."

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here as I really believe there's no way to know for sure.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not sure if I even believe that but I lean more towards the idea of deism than atheism) I'd like to say that yes, I understand the problem of god. How did god get here? Why don't we just eliminate one step and say that nature "just is." Well, if you're willing to accept the premise that something (in this case- nature) "just is" than why can't people accept that a "god" "just is" or "just was."

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here as I really believe there's no way to know for sure.

This is why Occam's Razor is your friend. Quoted from Wikipedia

Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

 

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

There's also this quote by Pierre Simon Laplace

I had no need of that hypothesis. ("Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là", as a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy.)

[PandaPirate]

Thanks.

 

Was just looking at Carl Sagan's website and found this:

 

Baloney Detection Kit

 

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

 

-Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

 

-Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

 

-Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

 

-Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

 

-Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

 

-Quantify, wherever possible.

 

-If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

 

-Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

 

-Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

[AKR]

That's unfortunate because I begin my studies in biological anthropology in the fall and once I get my doctorate I feel that if I want to question darwinism after I'm a trained scientist then I should be free to do so.

 

See, the problem is that people like Dawkins have admitted they are speculating because no one was around to see it happen. So, yeah, I have a problem with it.

 

No one is speculating about whether evolution exists or not. They can view it in a lab; they can view it out in nature. It makes perfect sense and is easily seen all over the world. To say that things don't evolve is simply idiotic, so if you find that Atheists shun you for it, that's probably why. I don't know how anyone who has honestly thought about it for five minutes and googled it for another three can actually say that evolution doesn't happen. Keep getting the same flu shots if you don't think evolution happens. I find it hard to believe that anyone studying evolution would honestly think it doesn't exist. I grew up in a fundy home and never knew anything about evolution until I was 21. It took about 5 minutes for someone to explain it to me until I said, "well duh! That makes perfect sense."

 

 

I mean, are you actually telling me that incompetent animals have just as much of a chance to advance as more competent animals? An animal that has some sort of biological trait that makes it easier for them to secure resources isn't anymore likely to breed and spread it's genes than a less equipped animal? That's just dumb.

 

Evolution is a scientific fact. How about deism? It's funny that you want to question something that has a staggering amount of scientific evidence, but you have no problem being a deist. Another case of faith destroying reason.

[PandaPirate]

There are quite a few scientists who have questioned evolution over the years. Mind you they are advocates of Intelligent Design but nonetheless I think it is quite arrogant and rude of you to come on this forum and call me "dumb" and "idiotic."

 

I was raised a theist (Catholic) and was taught that evolution was a lie and "only a theory." However, after about a month and a half of looking at BOTH sides of the issue (which is what most intelligent human beings do...they weigh both sides of the issue before deciding and look at ALL the evidence, which is what scientists do.)

 

To come on here and say the equivalent of "how DARE you question something about evolution!!!" is the equivalent of the church saying, "Don't question our authority!!!"

 

I live in America where I, thankfully, have the freedom to question ideas, even scientific ones.

 

Finally, I do understand and accept evolution now but I, like others before me, had a hard time accepting it because of my background but once I learned as much as I could about it then it became, "well, yes, of course evolution happened."

 

So, I implore you, try to find some manners.

[AKR]

There are quite a few scientists who have questioned evolution over the years. Mind you they are advocates of Intelligent Design but nonetheless I think it is quite arrogant and rude of you to come on this forum and call me "dumb" and "idiotic."

 

I was raised a theist (Catholic) and was taught that evolution was a lie and "only a theory." However, after about a month and a half of looking at BOTH sides of the issue (which is what most intelligent human beings do...they weigh both sides of the issue before deciding and look at ALL the evidence, which is what scientists do.)

 

To come on here and say the equivalent of "how DARE you question something about evolution!!!" is the equivalent of the church saying, "Don't question our authority!!!"

 

I live in America where I, thankfully, have the freedom to question ideas, even scientific ones.

 

Finally, I do understand and accept evolution now but I, like others before me, had a hard time accepting it because of my background but once I learned as much as I could about it then it became, "well, yes, of course evolution happened."

 

So, I implore you, try to find some manners.

 

 

Don't be so sensitive; I never called you dumb or idiotic - I called your claims dumb and idiotic. Smart people can say dumb things; we all do it. And really, they are quite dumb. It's quite obvious that things evolve, and it is being idiotic to say otherwise. I have no problem with someone questioning any thing in science, but they better have a damn good reason for doing so, and I simply haven't seen any good reasons to not believe in evolution. It seems the only people questioning it are those who are desperately trying to undermine it because of emotional problems. I don't know any Atheist scientists that question religion. Coincidence?

[AKR]

After reading more and more about evolution (currently reading Michael Shermer's book called WHY DARWIN MATTERS) I have come to see the theory more clearly.

 

It's obvious that yes, evolution happened.

 

I tend to take a "deistic evolutionary" view though. Which would be as follows:

 

Deistic Evolution

 

 

Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the

best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic

evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,

producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws

which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the

process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,

becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created

order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of

everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All

the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the

Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate

cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,

deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies

that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing

creative process.

 

 

And why do you take this view? You're going to college for science, but you're happy to believe in something that has absolutely no evidence for it.

[Legion]

I don't know any Atheist scientists that question religion.

Come again? Maybe I am misunderstanding you here AKR. But Dawkins, for instance, is an atheist scientist who not only questions religion, he routinely attacks it.

[Antlerman]

Evolution is a scientific fact. How about deism? It's funny that you want to question something that has a staggering amount of scientific evidence, but you have no problem being a deist. Another case of faith destroying reason.

Just because I love playing Devil's advocate....

 

One doesn't become a deist (or theist) on the basis of evidence, at least it shouldn't be placed to that level. It doesn't function on the level of "natural sciences". Its more a symbolic, mythical system for social and personal reasons. So to equate the reasons for accepting the validity of a scientific theory should not apply to a choice of religious faith. It is improper to put them on the same level, since they don't operate on the same level. It's comparing apples to oranges.

 

It's quite obvious that things evolve, and it is being idiotic to say otherwise.

Technically there is a difference between the fact of evolution, and the Theory of Evolution. The fact of evolution is simply an acknowledgment of the processes of evolution as a fact of nature, which it is. The Theory of Evolution however takes the fact of evolution, and applies it to the origin of the species, creating a theoretical model explain how species evolved through the process of evolution. That's the area of the "how" that is ongoing in its investigation. Furthermore the whole word Evolution, has become a moniker for all things scientific about origins, whereas that's technically incorrect. The Theory of Evolution only applies to biological species, and only in regards to their changes from one species to another. It shouldn't be used for Cosmology, for instance, or the origins of life itself. At that point, the ToE doesn't apply.

 

I have no problem with someone questioning any thing in science, but they better have a damn good reason for doing so, and I simply haven't seen any good reasons to not believe in evolution.

Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. I simply accept it as a well established scientific theory, the most probably and validated explanation for the origin of the species. No faith required.

 

It seems the only people questioning it are those who are desperately trying to undermine it because of emotional problems.

Ad homimen? Though I might choose to question their motives, not so sure I'd refer to it as "emotional problems". There may be many reasons for their discomfort with it, besides psychiatric disorders.

 

I don't know any Atheist scientists that question religion. Coincidence?

Why should they, if they are already atheists? They've already made a personal faith choice. Should Theist scientists question Atheism? Or is that simply outside the scope of scientific research for both theist and atheist scientists, and belongs either in the churches are personal libraries? I like to see the pursuit of science as objective, and not faith driven.

[Antlerman]

I don't know any Atheist scientists that question religion.

Come again? Maybe I am misunderstanding you here AKR. But Dawkins, for instance, is an atheist scientist who not only questions religion, he routinely attacks it.

Ahh... but the difference is he's not speaking as a scientist in his criticisms, even though his credentials as a biologist give the illusion he's an authority on philosophy and the humanities as well. Maybe he's not intending to speak as a scientist, but a just political opinionator?

 

 

 

[PandaPirate]

After reading more and more about evolution (currently reading Michael Shermer's book called WHY DARWIN MATTERS) I have come to see the theory more clearly.

 

It's obvious that yes, evolution happened.

 

I tend to take a "deistic evolutionary" view though. Which would be as follows:

 

Deistic Evolution

 

 

Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the

best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic

evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,

producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws

which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the

process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,

becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created

order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of

everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All

the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the

Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate

cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,

deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies

that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing

creative process.

 

 

And why do you take this view? You're going to college for science, but you're happy to believe in something that has absolutely no evidence for it.

 

Because it is my right to do so.

 

Again, I will point out that Francis Collins (the geneticist who leads the Human Genome Project) and Kenneth Miller, who are both EVOLUTIONISTS, are THEISTS. Why? Because it is their RIGHT as citizens of the United States to choose what religion, if any, they will have in their lives.

 

I'm sorry that you cannot understand this but I am really under no obligation to explain my personal spiritual views to you.

[PandaPirate]

What's this? An actual scientist who is also a theist?

 

http://minerva.stkate.edu/news_events.nsf/...5G?OpenDocument

 

Neither Dawkins nor PZ Myers have negative things to say about him and seem to respect him. He's quite brilliant, actually. The comments on RichardDawkins.net are equally positive.

 

11. Comment #12706 by Munger on December 13, 2006 at 10:57 am

 

Miller may call himself a Roman Catholic, but the guy is smart as a whip and also logical. After all, if there is a god and he is all-powerful, why would he throw down thousands of bits of evidence to confuse us? Miller proves that just because you believe in a god, that doesn't require you to shut your eyes and ignore what you see around you.

 

I don't know how he manages the dichotomy, but he does. More importantly, he is a strong advocate of rationality and intelligence. I'd certainly find religion less offensive if all its followers were as well-educated and logical.

 

The key here is that Miller understands the big difference between religion and science, unlike most religious folks. He also understands enough about biology and evolution to see the evidence for it everywhere. Your average person just doesn't get that.

 

In the end, when we atheists rail against religion, we are railing against ignorance and unthinking acceptance of dogma. Obviously, Miller isn't in this camp. I gladly welcome "religious" folks who realize that it's okay to think and question and observe, and that the bible isn't the beginning and end of all human knowledge.

 

Well done, Mr. Miller. Informative and enlightening.

[Neon Genesis]

Don't be so sensitive; I never called you dumb or idiotic - I called your claims dumb and idiotic. Smart people can say dumb things; we all do it. And really, they are quite dumb. It's quite obvious that things evolve, and it is being idiotic to say otherwise. I have no problem with someone questioning any thing in science, but they better have a damn good reason for doing so, and I simply haven't seen any good reasons to not believe in evolution. It seems the only people questioning it are those who are desperately trying to undermine it because of emotional problems. I don't know any Atheist scientists that question religion. Coincidence?

Hasn't PandaPirate already stated that they now accept evolution after reading more about it? Perhaps you should try reading what they're actually saying before you slam people?

[Deva]

PandaPirate said,

 

I do understand and accept evolution now but I, like others before me, had a hard time accepting it because of my background but once I learned as much as I could about it then it became, "well, yes, of course evolution happened."

 

So I take that to mean Panda does accept evolution. Panda has the perfect right to question evolution, or anything else under the sun.

 

I had a poor education in school on the subject, and what I learned about it was mostly on my own.

[Legion]

Deistic Evolution ... only the first living form was directly created.

 

Personally, I disagree with this. And this is not evolution. Evolution presupposes that organisms exist. But I think nature is responsible for the emergence of life on Earth.

 

Then again, I don’t know how a person might view God. Maybe some try to reconcile God and nature by some sort of pantheistic accommodation. And if so, should I hold it against them?

[PandaPirate]

Deistic Evolution ... only the first living form was directly created.

 

Personally, I disagree with this. And this is not evolution. Evolution presupposes that organisms exist. But I think nature is responsible for the emergence of life on Earth.

 

Then again, I don’t know how a person might view God. Maybe some try to reconcile God and nature by some sort of pantheistic accommodation. And if so, should I hold it against them?

 

Not sure if I'm correct on this but wouldn't that be Abiogenesis as opposed to Evolution (the creation of the first form or matter)?

[Legion]

I think that may be right Panda. I’m not talking about evolution. I’m talking about the events that gave rise to the first organisms on Earth. I basically think of it as the emergence of the first cells.

[PandaPirate]

I think that may be right Panda. I’m not talking about evolution. I’m talking about the events that gave rise to the first organisms on Earth. I basically think of it as the emergence of the first cells.

 

Yes, that's it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

 

{So much to learn...so little time!!}

[woodsmoke]

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone (willfully) confuse evolution (the growth and adaptation of life to its environment) with abiogenesis (the origin thereof), I'd never need to work another day in my life.

 

I could kiss you both for making the distinction between the two without someone needing to point it out.

[PandaPirate]

I like kisses