Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[ecco]

I have been specific in my definition of free will to distinguish it from what is often called the illusion of free will. The choice of an agent with free will cannot be foreknown by any other agent and still be free. ...
If you are defining free will in another way, then we are not discussing the same thing.

Why should you be able to define free will in a way to suits you?

free will
ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun

1. 1.
   the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
   synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence

There is nothing in the commonly accepted definition of free will that says anything about "cannot be foreknown".

When you are ready to use the commonly accepted definition of words, let's talk. If not, that's OK too.

Incidentally, your ant comment is a form of the puny minds argument. It suggests that one should accept the impossible or at least its possibility because his human mind might be antlike compared to ...

I googled "puny minds argument". I found nothing. You really have to stop making things up.

Also, unlike the ant’s mind, ours is capable of abstract analysis, the method that determines what is true. If you are suggesting that there are other modes of thought unknown to us that are not based in reason but still determine truth, things we couldn’t imagine yet,

An ant can lift about 400mg; a human 250 lbs
A human can lift about 250 lbs; an omnipotent god, infinity.

The difference in strength between an ant and a human is infinitesimally small compared to the difference in strength between a human and an omni-all god.

Now apply those ratios into mental capability. The difference in mental abilities between an ant and a human is infinitesimally small compared to the difference in mental abilities between a human and an omni-all god.

Yet you, and others, would limit the abilities of gods mind to only the same level of abstract analysis as is within the capabilities of the human mind to comprehend.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If I can answer as an ex-atheist; evolution was a major foundation of my position for many decades, and for the same reason as Dawkins; if all life could be described by naturalistic processes, there is not much need of intelligent agency

So I don't think it's any coincidence that the most well known evolutionists' best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'

some believe in evolution and God, but it is also possible to be skeptical of evolution as an atheist. Which I used to be.

I think that atheism is a rational position to hold post-Darwin now that we actually know that there is a natural explanation for the origin of the diversity and complexity of species. However, I do not believe that atheism was a rational position to hold pre-Darwin, because without an understanding of the naturalistic mechanisms behind evolution, one must believe in a designer by default. So, I would say that while your current rejection of evolution is of course irrational, your atheistic position was also irrational, since you disbelieved in evolution, while still disbelieving in God. In short, your beliefs in both cases (atheist and theist) do not make sense IMO.

 

[dianaiad]

So, you said "god, are you there?" and he said "yes".

Hmm, I have my suspicions about people who hear voices in their heads.

(grin)

Pretty much, yeah. Though I didn't hear Him in my head.

You can make as much fun as you like, though I don't really understand why. After all, is it so important to you that everybody not just agree that evolution works and that we can use the scientific method to find out stuff, but also agree that there can't possibly be a deity involved somewhere?

I mean, really, ecco....what difference does it make?

My dad the rocket scientist is a devout Mormon; always has been. He still managed to formulate the solid fuel that got most of America's satellites in orbit. One of my cousins, also devout, is still considered one of the better evolutionary scientists out there.

If you don't want to believe in a deity, fine. Don't. Just don't assume that you have ALL the answers. You don't any more than I do.

 

[dianaiad]

What you said was, “In fact, evolution is very...uhmn....'results driven,' with an 'eye,' so to speak, on the prize. All selection is done for the ultimate goal...as if there was an entity to have such a goal...of 'survival of the species.'”

That’s areligious belief that may be true, but if so, Darwin was wrong. His theory posits natural selection, not divine selection or any kind of intelligent or purposive intervention. That’s what I meant by conflict.

......


The term natural selection refers to a blind and undirected, meaning that evolution has no point, no more than the moon orbiting the earth has a point, also a blind and undirected process.

Whether one considers that 'survival of the fittest" is a goal set by Someone else, or it is simply a natural development of the process, the result is the same; the organism that is best fitted to survive in any environment is more likely to survive and procreate.

Whether that is a pre-planned goal or not is up to philosophy and religion. The results are the SAME, preplanned or not, and it is simply easier....and quicker...to refer to 'goal' and 'purpose,' rather than to insert paragraphs of disclaimers about the role of some outside Planner.

the one thing I DO see about the evolutionary process is this: long term goals aren't an issue; organisms change according to the environment that finds them, not the environment they eventually 'want' to live in. however, whatever the environment is, the organisms that live and procreate are going to survive, and those that don't....won't.

Again, whether that is intelligent design or just...happenstance, it doesn't matter. the results are precisely the same.

Finding God should be done an entirely different way using entirely different methods. 'Science' can't help find God. Scripture should NEVER be used to examine, or explain, physical processes.

At least, not now and not, as far as i can tell, for the foreseeable future.

 

[gnostic]

I am not an atheist.

I have been agnostic since 2000, and evolution has never been driving force for my change towards Christianity.

Although I was never join a church and got baptised, I was a believer of the bible and church teachings, because my older sister joined a church, and gave me my first bible at 15, and almost join my sister.

At 20, I had higher priorities in my studies and later work, that i had stopped reading the bible, but I never stop believing in Jesus’ teaching and in the bible throughout my 14-year hiatus.

All that change in 2000 when I picked up the bible again, as part of my research for my Timeless Myths website.

I began to disagree with former teaching and church teachings in a number of key areas, starting with gospel’s (Matthew) claim in Jesus’s birth that the Isaiah’s sign of Immanuel had to do with virgin birth and Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14-17 & 8:1-10).

Re-reading these chapters, I realised the NT author and church teaching regarding the alleged “sign” of Jesus were flawed. And began to find other Christian interpretations of the Old Testament to be flawed too, which made me question everything that I learned from the New Testament as well as Christian view on the Old Testament.

From then on, I began to explore other religious literature relating to Judaea-Christian scriptures, like the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic literature, the Nag Hammadi codices, etc.

My change in position had nothing to do with evolution, because I was never a biology student, and my high school Year 9 science class didn’t cover evolution.

I only learned about evolution vs creationism in 2003, when I joined my first forum. I knew about Genesis creation, of course, but I didn’t know about the groups who called themselves “creationists” and I didn’t understand their hostilities towards evolutionary biology.

I only began to understand evolution, when I borrowed my late cousin’s biology textbook and began reading about it.

Only then I understood the contention between the two sides, and I have found that the creationist’s side often using irrational argument against evolution.

Irrational because the bible isn’t a science textbook, had nothing to do with science, because it doesn’t teach anything about biology.

ps

It was at this same old forum that I first learned about agnosticism. Back in 2000, I didn’t know I was an agnostic. I just knew my view with religion had change, and I didn’t know there was a name for my view.

 

[ecco]

Sickle cell anemia is a great example of an adaptation that conferred a survival benefit in certain malaria-ridden African environments, but had the opposite effect elsewhere.

I know that. But it did not lead to speciation.

Why malaria became so much of a problem. What was the trigger that led to the origin and rise of the Plasmodium parasite?

Age of the last common ancestor of extant Plasmodium parasite lineages. - PubMed - NCBI

Here, we report that based on an evolutionary analysis using 22 genes in the nuclear genome, extant lineages of Plasmodium parasites originated roughly in the Oligocene epoch after the emergence of their hosts.
​

In other words, a change in the environmental conditions in which its evolutionary ancestor lived. A newer, different and abundant food source.

 

[ecco]

After all, is it so important to you that everybody not just agree that evolution works and that we can use the scientific method to find out stuff, but also agree that there can't possibly be a deity involved somewhere?

I mean, really, ecco....what difference does it make?

People can believe anything they want to believe, it makes no difference to me. Where it does make a difference is when religious people:

• Insert "Under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance
• Try to force kids to pray in school
• Try to force Creationism into school curriculems
• Whittle away at the SCOTUS ruling on abortion
• Deny Climate Change
• Denigrate Science

It does make a difference.

 

[dianaiad]

People can believe anything they want to believe, it makes no difference to me. Where it does make a difference is when religious people:

• Insert "Under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance
• Try to force kids to pray in school
• Try to force Creationism into school curriculems
• Whittle away at the SCOTUS ruling on abortion
• Deny Climate Change
• Denigrate Science

It does make a difference.

perhaps, but that's not what we are talking about in HERE now, is it?

BTW, I REALLY don't like the Scotus ruling on abortion. I am very, very anti-abortion and believe it or not, my belief system is actually a bit more permissive than I am.

I want abortion to be absolutely unthinkable unless the life of the mother is at grave risk. That's it.

...........because, quite frankly, I can see no SCIENTIFIC reason to draw the line between 'individual life' and 'not an individual life' anywhere but at conception. All the other 'lines' proposed are philosophical/religious.

And since there is really no reason to GET pregnant if one doesn't wish to do so, abortion for the sake of convenience is, to me, horrific. It is akin to murder. It is the callous taking of human life.

I don't like it.

the other things you mention?

Well, what's it to you if some 'deny climate change?" besides, I get the feeling that it's not about climate change so much as the insistence of the left that humans are completely responsible for it and that we are horrible people for that.

Climate changes. That's how the earth works. It didn't STOP working just because a bunch of humans decided that it should. WE need to deal responsibly with our resources, yes, but some of the ideas put forward by some of the extremists are absolutely asinine.

As for denigrating science....well, I haven't done any such thing here, have I?

But you have denigrated my religious beliefs pretty strongly. Double standards much?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should you be able to define free will in a way to suits you?

free will
ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun

1. 1.
   the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
   synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence

There is nothing in the commonly accepted definition of free will that says anything about "cannot be foreknown".

When you are ready to use the commonly accepted definition of words, let's talk. If not, that's OK too.








I googled "puny minds argument". I found nothing. You really have to stop making things up.





An ant can lift about 400mg; a human 250 lbs
A human can lift about 250 lbs; an omnipotent god, infinity.

The difference in strength between an ant and a human is infinitesimally small compared to the difference in strength between a human and an omni-all god.

Now apply those ratios into mental capability. The difference in mental abilities between an ant and a human is infinitesimally small compared to the difference in mental abilities between a human and an omni-all god.

Yet you, and others, would limit the abilities of gods mind to only the same level of abstract analysis as is within the capabilities of the human mind to comprehend.

Thanks for your time. It's time to move on.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

...........because, quite frankly, I can see no SCIENTIFIC reason to draw the line between 'individual life' and 'not an individual life' anywhere but at conception. All the other 'lines' proposed are philosophical/religious.

I define a human life as not being living unless their is electrical activity in the brain - until then, they are just organs that cannot process experience.

And since there is really no reason to GET pregnant if one doesn't wish to do so,

So accidents, poor sex education, peer pressure, ineffective birth control methods, lack of access to birth control and rape don't happen?

 

[ecco]

BTW, I REALLY don't like the Scotus ruling on abortion.

...........because, quite frankly, I can see no SCIENTIFIC reason to draw the line between 'individual life' and 'not an individual life' anywhere but at conception. All the other 'lines' proposed are philosophical/religious.

Hitler wanted to eradicate lesser races. Part of his reasoning was that a purer race would benefit future generations.

Laws are not based on SCIENTIFIC reason. They are based on current political, religious, moral norms.

I doubt you have read the Row v Wade. You should. The Court took a lot of views into consideration when they established the timeline.

And since there is really no reason to GET pregnant if one doesn't wish to do so...

Rape.
Incest.
Religious prohibitions on teaching and providing birth control.

Well, what's it to you if some 'deny climate change?" besides, I get the feeling that it's not about climate change so much as the insistence of the left that humans are completely responsible for it and that we are horrible people for that.

Horrible humans are not a contributing factor.
Thoughtless, ignorant humans are a contributing factor.

What's it to me? I have concern for the future wellness of my grandchildren's grandchildren. I have concern for the future well being of this Country.

Climate changes. That's how the earth works. It didn't STOP working just because a bunch of humans decided that it should.

No scientists made any such decision.

Accelerated climate changes are the problem. Slowly rising oceans would not have been much of a problem thousands of years ago. Today, parts of Miami flood regularly during extreme tides and weather events.

/// but some of the ideas put forward by some of the extremists are absolutely asinine.

Name a few absolutely asinine ideas put forward by mainstream scientists and politicians.

As for denigrating science....well, I haven't done any such thing here, have I?

Yes you have. Apparently you cannot understand what you write.

But you have denigrated my religious beliefs pretty strongly. Double standards much?

Not yours specifically - I said nothing about Mormon underwear.


Evolution is science.
People teach evolution is evil.
People teach science is evil.

Millions of young minds are turned against science. Your own views on things scientific like evolution and climate change are reflective of that.
In the 21st Century, like in the 20th Century, nations that advance science will advance. Nations that hold back science, will fall behind.

But, maybe, as a Mormon, you aren't concerned about climate change because you believe we will never see the effect of it...

(my emphases)
The Battle of Armageddon: A Prophetic View

“So I pray every day of my life that the Lord will hasten His work; and while all this has to take place, I hope He will hasten it, that it may soon come to an end, that peace may come; and so I repeat, as I said in one of the talks some time ago, I am praying for the end of the world because I want a better world. I want the coming of Christ. I want the reign of peace. I want the time to come when every man can live in peace and in the spirit of faith, humility and prayer.” (Signs of the Times,pp. 154–55, 175.)​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think that atheism is a rational position to hold post-Darwin now that we actually know that there is a natural explanation for the origin of the diversity and complexity of species. However, I do not believe that atheism was a rational position to hold pre-Darwin, because without an understanding of the naturalistic mechanisms behind evolution, one must believe in a designer by default. So, I would say that while your current rejection of evolution is of course irrational, your atheistic position was also irrational, since you disbelieved in evolution, while still disbelieving in God. In short, your beliefs in both cases (atheist and theist) do not make sense IMO.

something seeming to make 'no sense', being 'irrational'- is often due to simply not understanding another person's point of view, we've all been guilty of that

I agree both have apparent implications, but remember that many atheists framed the Big Bang as ' religious pseudoscience' for the implications THEY saw in such a specific creation event.

But those implications vanished once it was proven beyond most reasonable doubt. The same was true to a lesser extent for classical physics v. QM also- clearly there were some convenient reductionist/materialist implications of a reality running on a handful of simple immutable laws. And clearly notions of mysterious, underlying, unpredictable guiding forces had some uncomfortable implications for some..

But did acceptance of the BB or QM force anyone to give up their belief in atheism? of course not.

Similarly atheist ideology, as you concede, prefers the implications of the simplistic Victorian model for life Darwinism was conceived in. But as science moves us beyond that, nobody has to give up atheism. In fact I think it would help science progress if that were pointed out better.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Whether one considers that 'survival of the fittest" is a goal set by Someone else, or it is simply a natural development of the process, the result is the same; the organism that is best fitted to survive in any environment is more likely to survive and procreate.

The results of natural and artificial selection would be expected to be different. The term survival of the fittest applies only to natural selection

Whether that is a pre-planned goal or not is up to philosophy and religion.

Whether the results of evolution are determined by nature or man is not a matter of philosophy or religion, but a matter of fact. One or the other occurred, right?

The results are the SAME, preplanned or not

Unaided nature wasn't able to come up with German shepherds or seedless watermelons. I'd say that that fact refutes your claim. The results are different when an intelligent designer is involved.

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you disagree that natural and artificial selection are different processes yielding different results, only one involving an intelligent designer? You seem to think they generate the same results, which is clearly not the case.

 

[ecco]

but remember that many atheists framed the Big Bang as ' religious pseudoscience' for the implications THEY saw in such a specific creation event.

They did???

The same was true to a lesser extent for classical physics v. QM also-
... notions of mysterious, underlying, unpredictable guiding forces had some uncomfortable implications for some..

Really???

I'd sure like to see your evidence for the above assertions.

 

[Katzpur]

My dad the rocket scientist is a devout Mormon; always has been. He still managed to formulate the solid fuel that got most of America's satellites in orbit.

Wow! Kind of off-topic, but my late-uncle, the rocket scientist, was also a devout Mormon. Furthermore, he was also integrally involved with the development of the solid rocket fuel used by NASA. He worked at Thiokol, near Brigham City. I wonder if their paths ever crossed.

 

[dfnj]

Fundamentally the Baha'i Faith accepts the harmony of science and religion, and that science is the evolving knowledge of our physical existence including the physical as well as the spiritual evolution of humanity. Baha'is believe the natural processes of abiogenesis and evolution always reflect the intent of God, and for our planet humanity is the 'supreme talisman,' Also the scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence must be understood and interpreted in light of the advancing changing knowledge of science.

The lack of consistent guidance concerning science and evolution in Judaism, Christianity and Islam scriptures convinced me early on to move on,

I think you should stop selling the Baha'i Faith and just tell us what YOU believe in your own words. I'm getting a little tired of your advertising.

 

[dfnj]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

What I find amazing and stunning is how weak people of faith can be when it comes to evolution. There is no reason to think evolution is a threat to someone's faith. I would declare anyone who says anything at all about evolution is just showing how weak their own faith is in God.

An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. Why not have man evolved from apes. God's proving ground for faith would not be complete without having many seeds of doubt.

Any theist upset at all about evolution in my mind is a sign of weakness and lack of faith in God.

 

[Willamena]

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God?

Belief in the theory of evolution had zero effect on my religious inclining. My belief in "god" as a child wasn't founded in a literal interpretation of a Judaic story but on a vague emulation of what my parents believed, so nothing was lost in learning about the theory of evolution. For the record, my belief in "god" was shattered in Sunday School when I was told to my face by a (allegedly) reasonable adult that I was expected to believe an obvious and blatant lie, that God was a man sitting on a cloud in the sky.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

However, I do not believe that atheism was a rational position to hold pre-Darwin, because without an understanding of the naturalistic mechanisms behind evolution, one must believe in a designer by default.

Why? Why is a belief in a deity the default position? Shouldn't the default position be "I don't know" until there is evidence one way or the other? If there is no evidence for a deity creating life, then why believe it?

So, I would say that while your current rejection of evolution is of course irrational, your atheistic position was also irrational, since you disbelieved in evolution, while still disbelieving in God. In short, your beliefs in both cases (atheist and theist) do not make sense IMO.

Why is it irrational to not believe in God when there is no evidence for God?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Similarly atheist ideology, as you concede, prefers the implications of the simplistic Victorian model for life Darwinism was conceived in.

That's not true. Atheists prefer testable theories that are supported by objective evidence. That's why atheists accept the modern theory of evolution. Atheists are focused on the method of determining truth which is very different from theism.