Jump to content

From "obnoxious Atheist" To Believer


Reverend AtheiStar
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Language of God sets out to "explain how a scientist who studies genetics came to be a believer in a God who is unlimited by time and space, and who takes personal interest in human beings. Some will assume that this must have come about by rigorous religious upbringing, deeply instilled by family and culture, and thus inescapable in later life. But that's not really my story.”

 

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061203.html

 

From "Obnoxious Atheist" to Believer: Journey of World Famous Scientist who Cracked the Human Genome

 

By John Jalsevac

 

BETHESDA, MD, June 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a world where the rate of scientific discovery outpaces anything ever dreamed of in any other era of human history, the idea that “science disproves God” is perhaps one of the commonest arguments now invoked against the existence of an omnipotent Deity.

 

But according to Francis Collins, who headed the team of scientists who cracked the human genome, the argument is a fallacious one.

 

In the world-acclaimed scientist’s upcoming book, The Language of God, set to be published in September, he argues that science cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, since science is relegated to the natural world.

 

If anything, Collins argues, it may be the exact opposite—science aids not in disproving God, but may help in proving His existence. “For me,” says Collins about his work on the human genome, “the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.”

 

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

 

This was not, explains Collins, always his way of looking at the world. Indeed, according to Collins' own description of himself, at the age of 27 he was “a pretty obnoxious atheist”.

 

The Language of God sets out to "explain how a scientist who studies genetics came to be a believer in a God who is unlimited by time and space, and who takes personal interest in human beings. Some will assume that this must have come about by rigorous religious upbringing, deeply instilled by family and culture, and thus inescapable in later life. But that's not really my story.”

 

At the age of 27, relates the scientist, “Somebody pointed me towards C.S. Lewis's little book called Mere Christianity, which took all of my arguments that I thought were so airtight about the fact that faith is just irrational, and proved them totally full of holes. And in fact, turned them around the other way, and convinced me that the choice to believe is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the evidence around you.”

 

The Language of God will argue, according to its introduction, that “belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science.”

 

“In my view,” explains Collins, “there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science's domain is to explore nature. God's domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul -- and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms.

 

“I will argue that these perspectives not only can coexist within one person, but can do so in a fashion that enriches and enlightens the human experience. Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world, and its tools when properly utilized can generate profound insights into material existence. But science is powerless to answer questions such as ‘Why did the universe come into being?’ ‘What is the meaning of human existence?’ ‘What happens after we die?’ One of the strongest motivations of humankind is to seek answers to profound questions, and we need to bring all the power of both the scientific and spiritual perspectives to bear on understanding what is both seen and unseen. The goal of this book is to explore a pathway toward a sober and intellectually honest integration of these views.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so at 27 he converted due to C.S. Lewis' writing...........the headline made it seem a lot more sensational than that.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I will argue that these perspectives not only can coexist within one person, but can do so in a fashion that enriches and enlightens the human experience. Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world, and its tools when properly utilized can generate profound insights into material existence. But science is powerless to answer questions such as ‘Why did the universe come into being?’ ‘What is the meaning of human existence?’ ‘What happens after we die?’ One of the strongest motivations of humankind is to seek answers to profound questions, and we need to bring all the power of both the scientific and spiritual perspectives to bear on understanding what is both seen and unseen. The goal of this book is to explore a pathway toward a sober and intellectually honest integration of these views.”

 

If science is the only way to understand the natural world, why did he say that believing in god was the rational decision when one looks at everything around them?

 

I can see how this could have happened to a real scientist. There is a difference between a testable world and a world you can't see. But I would argue that the world you can't see most likely doesn't exist since there is no evidence of it. There is nothing from that world that comes into this world and affects it. But people have questions, like he mentions above, and they aren't satisfied with the answers they already have or aren't satisfied to just not have the answers. For me, there doesn't have to be a meaning to human existence, but I know for many people they must feel they have a purpose to live. What happens when we die? I am content to say that we are dead and gone, but many people cannot face the idea of their lives ending, something they cannot fathom. Why did the universe come into being? Why does it have to have a reason? Most likely, there wasn't a reason. Things just develop because they can and conditions are right to do so. The problem with being human is that we think there has to be a purpose for everything, a deeper meaning. I have found this to be untrue. For me, science holds enough answers to satisfy my questions, and for the questions I don't have answers to, I am content to be without.

 

Others must insist there is "more to life" than just being born, eating, sleeping, reproducing, surviving, and then dying. I don't, and it doesn't make my life any less meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Mere Christianity too, but quite honestly the arguments in it were full of holes as well.

 

He found Mere Chrstianity's arguments to be air tight? If this guy passes for a good scientist then I weep for science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Mere Christianity too, but quite honestly the arguments in it were full of holes as well.

 

He found Mere Chrstianity's arguments to be air tight? If this guy passes for a good scientist then I weep for science.

:HappyCry: I'm right there with ya. I only managed to get through the intro of that book and I felt like vomiting. It basically came off as: there is a natural morality (which I *can* agree with, depending on what is meant), therefore xianity is correct. What kind of crap is that? I didn't bother reading any more because I assumed that the rest of the book would be full of bad "logic," if you can even call it that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's correct in saying that science does not contradict religion. If thinking that was the case is why he was an atheist, then it's no surprise that he converted. He probably didn't have very good reasons to be an atheist in the first place.

 

It basically came off as: there is a natural morality (which I *can* agree with, depending on what is meant), therefore xianity is correct.

 

To be fair, it actually says that there is a supreme natural governing morality, therefore there is a supreme moral Legislator. It doesn't try to make the jump to Christianity that quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Mere Christianity too, but quite honestly the arguments in it were full of holes as well.

 

He found Mere Chrstianity's arguments to be air tight? If this guy passes for a good scientist then I weep for science.

 

I agree. I was thinking as I read the article that if this guy headed up the group of scientists who "cracked the human genome code", how dependable is that information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's correct in saying that science does not contradict religion. If thinking that was the case is why he was an atheist, then it's no surprise that he converted. He probably didn't have very good reasons to be an atheist in the first place.

Agree. I suspect someone that never been in a religious cult are in more danger of falling prey for one, since there's a risk they never understood and never had the arguments. Our dear Asimov on this site probably are not in any dangers, since he has been part of discussing and seing the ins and outs. But a "casual" atheist, have not necessarily seen all the fallacies yet.

 

This guy, Collins, he got religious at 27, before his research. The article kind of makes it sound like the research led him to faith, which isn't the case. He got religious, then worked, did the research, and the research never changed his mind back to atheism. There's plenty of deists in the scientific community, based on what they were before, not from their research.

 

And the only statement he makes is really, Agnosticism is correct, we don't know, and science can prove or disprove God. So what. That's old.

 

Is the Human Genome really the language of God? Then he's pretty limited. Don't think Noah got his marching orders for the Ark through DNA coded messages! :HaHa:

 

-edit-

 

How's that argument again? The one Christians love to use...

 

You don't become a car because you're in a garage. Can't that be applied here too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the response from Amy recently about my saying there are no miracles in nature, "what about a snow flake?", is at the heart of this. A snow flake is what it is. It is not a supernatural miracle. It is up to the person to perceive it as a miracle, though of course there is in reality nothing miraculous about it. It is the natural result of the processes of the laws that governs this universe.

 

If someone were to argue that these laws are somehow designed to work to these ends, it is still not evidence. It is nothing more than a logic argument which is hardly scientific evidence. I know of no logic arguments that are usable in any practical sense. The reality of this universe is that the true Creators of miracles are human beings, in how they perceive things. That's a fine way to view things if it servers to inspire the "soul", but let's not call it something it's not. Let's not call it proof of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Mere Christianity too, but quite honestly the arguments in it were full of holes as well.

 

He found Mere Chrstianity's arguments to be air tight? If this guy passes for a good scientist then I weep for science.

 

lol... Isn't that the book where C.S. Lewis unknowingly admits he was never an Atheist in the first place?

 

I've read Mere Christianity too, but quite honestly the arguments in it were full of holes as well.

 

He found Mere Chrstianity's arguments to be air tight? If this guy passes for a good scientist then I weep for science.

 

I agree. I was thinking as I read the article that if this guy headed up the group of scientists who "cracked the human genome code", how dependable is that information?

 

A great deal of the work in cracking the code was done by computer, thank human! lol...

 

 

 

I think the response from Amy recently about my saying there are no miracles in nature, "what about a snow flake?", is at the heart of this. A snow flake is what it is. It is not a supernatural miracle. It is up to the person to perceive it as a miracle, though of course there is in reality nothing miraculous about it. It is the natural result of the processes of the laws that governs this universe.

 

If someone were to argue that these laws are somehow designed to work to these ends, it is still not evidence. It is nothing more than a logic argument which is hardly scientific evidence. I know of no logic arguments that are usable in any practical sense. The reality of this universe is that the true Creators of miracles are human beings, in how they perceive things. That's a fine way to view things if it servers to inspire the "soul", but let's not call it something it's not. Let's not call it proof of anything.

 

lol... Someone said a snowflake is a miracle? It's just an ice crystal! If I were to put in any camp, it'd be in science.

 

Yes, we are the Creators. Biologically, I had two. A mother and a father, my parents, my creators, had sex and 40 weeks later I popped out. No miracle, just biology.

 

so at 27 he converted due to C.S. Lewis' writing...........the headline made it seem a lot more sensational than that.....

 

It's a business. They're trying to seel a product. You don't want boring advertsing. Of course they're going to inflate it as big as possible. It's what they do. I should know, I studied Ad Design for two years. :)

 

“I will argue that these perspectives not only can coexist within one person, but can do so in a fashion that enriches and enlightens the human experience. Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world, and its tools when properly utilized can generate profound insights into material existence. But science is powerless to answer questions such as ‘Why did the universe come into being?’ ‘What is the meaning of human existence?’ ‘What happens after we die?’ One of the strongest motivations of humankind is to seek answers to profound questions, and we need to bring all the power of both the scientific and spiritual perspectives to bear on understanding what is both seen and unseen. The goal of this book is to explore a pathway toward a sober and intellectually honest integration of these views.”

 

If science is the only way to understand the natural world, why did he say that believing in god was the rational decision when one looks at everything around them?

 

I can see how this could have happened to a real scientist. There is a difference between a testable world and a world you can't see. But I would argue that the world you can't see most likely doesn't exist since there is no evidence of it. There is nothing from that world that comes into this world and affects it. But people have questions, like he mentions above, and they aren't satisfied with the answers they already have or aren't satisfied to just not have the answers. For me, there doesn't have to be a meaning to human existence, but I know for many people they must feel they have a purpose to live. What happens when we die? I am content to say that we are dead and gone, but many people cannot face the idea of their lives ending, something they cannot fathom. Why did the universe come into being? Why does it have to have a reason? Most likely, there wasn't a reason. Things just develop because they can and conditions are right to do so. The problem with being human is that we think there has to be a purpose for everything, a deeper meaning. I have found this to be untrue. For me, science holds enough answers to satisfy my questions, and for the questions I don't have answers to, I am content to be without.

 

Others must insist there is "more to life" than just being born, eating, sleeping, reproducing, surviving, and then dying. I don't, and it doesn't make my life any less meaningless.

 

It's favoring emotional over rational. That sunset is so beautiful (makes me feel good) how can't there be a creator? lol... They seem like silly arguments from our perspective, and they are, but you have to remember that a person feeling an intense emotion is a person high on their own drugs. Why kind of rational response can you expect from a person in that condition?

 

He's correct in saying that science does not contradict religion. If thinking that was the case is why he was an atheist, then it's no surprise that he converted. He probably didn't have very good reasons to be an atheist in the first place.

 

It basically came off as: there is a natural morality (which I *can* agree with, depending on what is meant), therefore xianity is correct.

 

To be fair, it actually says that there is a supreme natural governing morality, therefore there is a supreme moral Legislator. It doesn't try to make the jump to Christianity that quickly.

 

That would depend entirely on your interpretation of your religion. If, say, you're a biblical literalist, then science very much does contradict your religion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would depend entirely on your interpretation of your religion. If, say, you're a biblical literalist, then science very much does contradict your religion!

 

True enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I will argue that these perspectives not only can coexist within one person, but can do so in a fashion that enriches and enlightens the human experience. Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world, and its tools when properly utilized can generate profound insights into material existence. But science is powerless to answer questions such as ‘Why did the universe come into being?’ ‘What is the meaning of human existence?’ ‘What happens after we die?’ One of the strongest motivations of humankind is to seek answers to profound questions, and we need to bring all the power of both the scientific and spiritual perspectives to bear on understanding what is both seen and unseen. The goal of this book is to explore a pathway toward a sober and intellectually honest integration of these views.”

 

That would depend entirely on your interpretation of your religion. If, say, you're a biblical literalist, then science very much does contradict your religion!

 

True enough.

 

I agree that a literalist view is missing the message of reality. However, spirituality may be one side of the coin, with science being on the other side. It's nice to examine the coin from both sides, IMHO. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a literalist view is missing the message of reality. However, spirituality may be one side of the coin, with science being on the other side. It's nice to examine the coin from both sides, IMHO. :shrug:

 

I agree it should be examined. I further this, though, and say it should be completely dissected an analyzed. Here's a great article I just read on this subject last night:

 

http://www.stnews.org/books-2869.htm

 

Casting a spell: the meaning of ‘Breaking the Spell’

 

If I told you I want to study the pharmaceutical industry because it is important these days, I think most people would say, “Yes, by all means.” But if I said, “We should study organized religions with the same intensity because they are important factors today,” a lot of people would draw back in horror and say, “You mustn’t do that, it’s just not done, it’s blasphemous, it’s sacrilegious, it’s rude.”

 

Well that may be, but we’re going to have to do it. That’s the spell that I want to break — the taboo against subjecting religion to the same level of scientific scrutiny that we address all other really important phenomena with.

 

Let’s talk about design. Who designed the dairy cow? Of course, the dairy cow was designed over millions of years by natural selection. It was a wild species. The aurochs is the ancestor of the dairy cow. Its purpose? Aurochs were for making more aurochs. But when the aurochs became domesticated, it came under conscious, deliberate — one might even say intelligent — design. Breeders redesigned it and optimized it. In effect, they reverse-engineered the cow and engineered it into something for human purposes.

 

Much the same is true of religions. They evolved from wild ancestors; they’re still evolving. If we want to understand religions, we need to subject them to careful scientific scrutiny. Religions are brilliantly designed products. No wonder religions have a hold over us. They’ve been designed and redesigned for thousands of years by human beings and for tens of thousands of years by evolution by natural selection. They have an evolutionary history, which we should try to get to the bottom of — and we are able to do so.

 

In other words, what I’m talking about is reverse-engineering religions. Looking under the hood to see what makes them work, trying to figure out how their features got the way they are. Some of them are the products of intelligent human re-engineering. Some of them are the products of blind human tinkering, like early domestication. Some of them are more ancient still and owe their existence not to any human engineering at all but to the engineering that’s done by evolution, by natural selection.

 

The wild memes of religion got themselves domesticated. Once the memes of religion become domesticated, they are for something. Aurochs were just for making more aurochs, but dairy cattle are for us. We own them. And once domesticated god memes came into existence, we could start thinking about what they might be useful for.

 

— Daniel C. Dennett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a literalist view is missing the message of reality. However, spirituality may be one side of the coin, with science being on the other side. It's nice to examine the coin from both sides, IMHO. :shrug:

 

I agree it should be examined. I further this, though, and say it should be completely dissected an analyzed.

:)Reverend, I think that's a good idea and the intention of the initial NT writing's movement, also. It has to make sense! However, I do find a difference in spirituality versus religion. IMO, the dogma that has come to be associated to religion is part of what gets in the way.

If I told you I want to study the pharmaceutical industry because it is important these days, I think most people would say, “Yes, by all means.” But if I said, “We should study organized religions with the same intensity because they are important factors today,” a lot of people would draw back in horror and say, “You mustn’t do that, it’s just not done, it’s blasphemous, it’s sacrilegious, it’s rude.”

As others, here, have pointed out to me, there really is not the means to disect and analyze the subjective experiences associated with spiritual teachings, as we do science. IMO, there is an epiphany and/or philosophy gained from these spiritual teachings that lessen our struggles and/or grief. I don't see why these can't be explored and understood in a rational way though. If we don't do that, how do we know what it really says?

Let’s talk about design. Who designed the dairy cow?

Taking it a bit further, I think that EVERYTHING is a part of God and all are one. So, I guess, God is making himself... maybe much like you and I started and made ourself too. :shrug:

Much the same is true of religions. They evolved from wild ancestors; they’re still evolving.

I agree with you here. IMHO, the initial movement was not like it is today in Christianity, probably about opposite. It evolved much the same way as St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Yet, the original story is quite endearing, and more meaningful than the one that evolved out of greed for power and money. *sigh*

If we want to understand religions, we need to subject them to careful scientific scrutiny.

Philosophies can't be done that way. If we look at what these most initial writings we have say, and critially examine them without the spin, I think they may have some noteworthy significance. IMHO, these people on this site are more aligned to what NT says than most of those we find in the church. Maybe it was written by ExJews, and ExChrisitians are just the same thing for today's climate. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, you guys are some educated individuals. your concept of logic far exceeds mine. but can you examine it so much that you lose sight of the original point. if you saw a miracle today how would you view it. what if when moses saw the burning bush, he deducted through reasoning. that due to the heat index, lack of humidity and moisture that it spontaneously combusted, then we wouldn't be having this discussion if the religion of old is logical. I will admit that some people will describe a miracle that sounds like something more by chance. But i will leave you with this example. i had a teacher once who was diagnosed with breast cancer. the Xray studies showed a lump on the right breast. when she went to surgery there was no lump. how can you logically explain this.

 

is it logical to question the tough questions of life, and then come to the conclusion that there is a God. is it logical to look at the complexities of the universe and conclude that it was not by chance. logic is not a bad thing. when studying atoms, we are dealing with something we can not see or manipulate by conventional means. yet by looking for measurable properties of subatomic particles, we can find convincing evidence that they do exist. there is also convincing evidence to prove God's existence logically IMHO. its all in how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, you guys are some educated individuals. your concept of logic far exceeds mine. but can you examine it so much that you lose sight of the original point. if you saw a miracle today how would you view it. what if when moses saw the burning bush, he deducted through reasoning. that due to the heat index, lack of humidity and moisture that it spontaneously combusted, then we wouldn't be having this discussion if the religion of old is logical.

I like the questions you ask. From what I recall, burning bushes were not an uncommon occurrence in the desert. In the Moses story the fact that it continued burning rather than going out eventually was what was supposed to have peaked his curiosity to do an investigation. It was at this point the bush is said to have started talking. It’s talking bushes that defy rational explanation since they lack vocal chords. I would have to conclude rationally that it was either a hallucination, or a mythological story told by later writers. Experience shows us these are typically the explanations for these sorts of claims. The reason we are talking about it today, is not because of a miracle, but because of the power of myth.

 

I will admit that some people will describe a miracle that sounds like something more by chance. But i will leave you with this example. i had a teacher once who was diagnosed with breast cancer. the Xray studies showed a lump on the right breast. when she went to surgery there was no lump. how can you logically explain this.

I can’t explain it. There is insufficient information to make a careful investigation. I cannot offer an explanation based on scant information. We would need to speak with the attending MD. Examine the radiology records for accuracy – that information was not misfiled or mislabeled. Have other doctors confirm the original diagnosis, etc, etc, etc. Even then, if all looks in order – it doesn’t mean a supernatural explanation will be in order. We don’t have knowledge of all possibilities in nature, do we? What sorts of foods might she have eaten; are the genetic peculiarities that might be extraordinary in the patient, etc, etc, etc. “God” would have no support to explain the extraordinary in nature until much more thorough and exhaustive research were done, leaving us with absolutely no other explaination and then state "it was a true miracle that defied the laws of nature."

 

Yet, notice how quickly you and other's point to "miracle" as a possibility? What does this say?

 

is it logical to question the tough questions of life, and then come to the conclusion that there is a God. is it logical to look at the complexities of the universe and conclude that it was not by chance. logic is not a bad thing. when studying atoms, we are dealing with something we can not see or manipulate by conventional means. yet by looking for measurable properties of subatomic particles, we can find convincing evidence that they do exist. there is also convincing evidence to prove God's existence logically IMHO. its all in how you look at it.

I of course, will have to disagree. All you have in looking at the God question is logic arguments and arguements from emotion. Those arguments are not really evidence of anything and can be easily countered with other logic arguments or subjective experience. The old Epicurean Paradox leaps into mind. So you understand, I do find a valid place for belief in God in the world, it's just not where you (and many others) try to insert it. I will explain that in a later conversation as it comes up.

 

I agree logic is not entirely bad, but it is unreliable and certainly has nothing whatesover to do with atomic theory. You seem to be confusing logic with theoretical models based on observation. I know you may have been frustrated with this scientist before when I had you read him because it was as not really pertinent to the conversation at that time (my misread), but in this context it’s worth a read on this short article. I think it will be well worth your time to review it: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm

 

BTW, thanks for your participation in these discussions. I enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if when moses saw the burning bush, he deducted through reasoning. that due to the heat index, lack of humidity and moisture that it spontaneously combusted, then we wouldn't be having this discussion if the religion of old is logical.
Uhh, if I recall correctly, it was the fact that the bush wasn't actually burning that caught Moses' attention. On fire, yes, but no heat. Then it talked to him. How one would logically approach that conundrum I don't know.

 

Cancers spontaneously remit frequently. There's a reason, we just don't know what it is completely, although I do firmly believe in the power of prayer in those instances.

 

there is also convincing evidence to prove God's existence logically IMHO. its all in how you look at it.
Well, there's the logical deduction, which states that if god exists, he either doesn't care about what goes on, or is not intricately involved in every observable phenomenon, in which case it is equally logical to continue searching for naturalistic solutions to life's mysteries. Then there's the illogical conclusion: the individual jumps straight from no answer to a question, to there being a caring, personal god who involves HIMself in the individual's life, and who guides and shapes each individual atomic reaction, such that each such event is a thing of infinite wonder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, if I recall correctly, it was the fact that the bush wasn't actually burning that caught Moses' attention. On fire, yes, but no heat. Then it talked to him. How one would logically approach that conundrum I don't know.

 

Cancers spontaneously remit frequently. There's a reason, we just don't know what it is completely, although I do firmly believe in the power of prayer in those instances.

 

Well, there's the logical deduction, which states that if god exists, he either doesn't care about what goes on, or is not intricately involved in every observable phenomenon, in which case it is equally logical to continue searching for naturalistic solutions to life's mysteries. Then there's the illogical conclusion: the individual jumps straight from no answer to a question, to there being a caring, personal god who involves HIMself in the individual's life, and who guides and shapes each individual atomic reaction, such that each such event is a thing of infinite wonder.

 

 

i would have to look it up but i think that it was on fire but not being consumed.

 

as far as cancer goes, when tumor suppressor genes fail to hold cellular mitosis in check, cells proliferate in an abnormally fast way. once the malignancy starts it often results in cellular mutation of the DNA and eventually loses it specialized characteristics. with that definition, i personally find it hard to believe it will reccess. but this is another topic, that by my own conclusion, i don't believe in evolution.

 

that being said, just because i don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that it is not true. and just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean it's not true. it is all a percieved truth that is affected and molded by external sources that we have encountered throughout our life. i think i am really starting to understanding why you guys don't believe. now that is a logical statement. :grin:

 

 

 

:Doh: i will figure out one day how to properly quote things posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cancers do remit frequently, enough to suggest that there is a natural cause but not enough, and in too few cases of individuals of noteworthy religious fervor to suggest the miraculous. I even know of some ideas behind the possiblity; I'll look it up later.

 

Just because you don't believe in evolution, huh? You got that right, but who told you I personally don't believe in god? I don't recall saying anything of the sort. You don't believe in evolution because it doesn't agree with god I take it? Well that would be an illogical conclusion, as nothing about evolution necessarily contradicts god. It certainly contradicts the story of genesis, so your real qualm then would be that it contradicts your religion's idea of god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, you guys are some educated individuals. your concept of logic far exceeds mine. but can you examine it so much that you lose sight of the original point. if you saw a miracle today how would you view it. what if when moses saw the burning bush, he deducted through reasoning. that due to the heat index, lack of humidity and moisture that it spontaneously combusted, then we wouldn't be having this discussion if the religion of old is logical. I will admit that some people will describe a miracle that sounds like something more by chance. But i will leave you with this example. i had a teacher once who was diagnosed with breast cancer. the Xray studies showed a lump on the right breast. when she went to surgery there was no lump. how can you logically explain this.

There's still a lot of things we don't understand or can explain. Consider that religion was the dominant only only explanation to all natural phenomenon until a few hunred years ago. Religion have a head start of thousands of years, and yet, people demand science to answer everything after a short time of few hundred years.

 

I've heard stories about people (even talked to the mom to one) that had cancer, became vegetarians, and the cancer was gone. Was that a miracle by praying to the vegetable god? Maybe the Cute Bunny did it?

 

Miracles are only miracles for the person that experienced it and can't be used as proof for other people. If God was concerned that everyone should believe, then he could do great miracles for everyone. Like making parapledgic and quadrapledic walk again. Correct? Why can't he do it on a regular basis, unless there's something fishy about the whole thing. And also, how come most miracles happens in countries where people have less education and training in critical thinking? Could it be that miracles only happens to ignorant people, or could it be they don't happen but people are duped?

 

Why is analyzing something dangerous when done "too far"? Is it because the truth is revealed if you do? A true miracle should not be possible to explain away, don't you agree?

 

is it logical to question the tough questions of life, and then come to the conclusion that there is a God. is it logical to look at the complexities of the universe and conclude that it was not by chance.

I'm sorry, but that's a bad argument. If the complexity of the universe points to a creator, wouldn't that creator be so complex that he by same token have to have a creator too? Or is God less complex than the universe? Which way is it?

 

 

logic is not a bad thing. when studying atoms, we are dealing with something we can not see or manipulate by conventional means.

Science isn't about "seeing" everything, but be able to measure and "sense" things. No one really knows exactly how an atom looks like. There's a model for it that works though. Btw, you do see atoms. Everything you see is light reflected on atoms. So you do see them. But they're so many of them, and your eyes resolution can't distinguish those trillions of light beams that hit your eye.

 

yet by looking for measurable properties of subatomic particles, we can find convincing evidence that they do exist. there is also convincing evidence to prove God's existence logically IMHO. its all in how you look at it.

So what is the convincing evidence to prove God's existence? If it was convincing enough, do you think the smartest man in our world today (Hawkins) would be agnostic?

 

 

---edit---

 

And to follow up on Dhampir's statement. Not everyone in this forum are atheists. There's several Deists and Asatruer, they believe in creators too. So the point is, people can believe or they can believe not, or they can believe in something else than you believe in, but nothing is for certain either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cancers do remit frequently, enough to suggest that there is a natural cause but not enough, and in too few cases of individuals of noteworthy religious fervor to suggest the miraculous. I even know of some ideas behind the possiblity; I'll look it up later.

 

Just because you don't believe in evolution, huh? You got that right, but who told you I personally don't believe in god? I don't recall saying anything of the sort. You don't believe in evolution because it doesn't agree with god I take it? Well that would be an illogical conclusion, as nothing about evolution necessarily contradicts god. It certainly contradicts the story of genesis, so your real qualm then would be that it contradicts your religion's idea of god.

 

sorry for the assumption, and i am trying to figure out why i don't believe in evolution at the current moment, i am guilty of jumping to conclusions. i have thus far found out that i do believe in microevolution, macro is still a question at hand.

 

Antlerman, i missed your post, we must have posted at the same time. will check out the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have thus far found out that i do believe in microevolution, macro is still a question at hand.

When you can show us some system that stops the accumulation of small changes adding up to some rather large changes, then you can start talking about Macro and Micro Evolution...

 

Until then, there is only Evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, there's only one evolution.

 

Micro or macro, look at numbers.

 

Small numbers added together become large numbers.

 

Or buliding a house. You build it with small components, and they become a large building.

 

Same process in evolution. Many micro evolutionary steps becomes a macro evolution.

 

I think the problem is in the definition of species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have thus far found out that i do believe in microevolution, macro is still a question at hand.

When you can show us some system that stops the accumulation of small changes adding up to some rather large changes, then you can start talking about Macro and Micro Evolution...

 

Until then, there is only Evolution.

 

i am working on something much better. thus far in my research, i have found evidence of evolution and contradicting evidence. but both are based on facts and speculations. there are plenty of questions that ToE cant answer. one example would be time lines during the varous periods, though there is millions of years inbetween the periods, using history they break them down based on varous extinctions (sp). stating there would not be enough time for the evolution process to occur as stated by ToE. but they are stating that 1 million yrs is not enough. in the large scale of the earths existence, this might seem small, but to me that is a hell of a long time. i think i understand why God of the gaps does not work for the hard core evolutionist. so with that in mind, i will not be trying to disprove your beliefs; instead i will try to offer a different perspective on mine using science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But i will leave you with this example. i had a teacher once who was diagnosed with breast cancer. the Xray studies showed a lump on the right breast. when she went to surgery there was no lump. how can you logically explain this.

 

<yawn> The immune system attacked it and won. Did you know that cancerous cells are always being produced somewhere in the body? The immune system, though, when healthy, attacks these cells and destroys them. It's only when the immune system goes down does cancer get the edge.

 

Now for a few hypothetical questions of my own from different angles:

 

Incompetant Design: Why couldn't your deity design a body that never got cancer in the first place? Too difficult?

 

Malevolent Design: Why did your god invent cancer? Did he intentionally build bodies with weaknesses in their design such a cancer? Does he get off on such pain and suffering?

 

Divine Negligence: Why is it that so many believers, after fervent praying of their own and from their families, still die horrible deaths in excruciating pain? Is your god asleep, drunk or otherwise occupied with a goddess in another dimension/universe?

 

i have thus far found out that i do believe in microevolution, macro is still a question at hand.

When you can show us some system that stops the accumulation of small changes adding up to some rather large changes, then you can start talking about Macro and Micro Evolution...

 

Until then, there is only Evolution.

 

i am working on something much better. thus far in my research, i have found evidence of evolution and contradicting evidence. but both are based on facts and speculations. there are plenty of questions that ToE cant answer. one example would be time lines during the varous periods, though there is millions of years inbetween the periods, using history they break them down based on varous extinctions (sp). stating there would not be enough time for the evolution process to occur as stated by ToE. but they are stating that 1 million yrs is not enough. in the large scale of the earths existence, this might seem small, but to me that is a hell of a long time. i think i understand why God of the gaps does not work for the hard core evolutionist. so with that in mind, i will not be trying to disprove your beliefs; instead i will try to offer a different perspective on mine using science.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.