Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[David T]

God was always a bonkers idea, regardless of Evolutionary study.

From the time I was a little kid, I didn't understand why people would sing, pray, and sometimes cry to the ceiling of a fellowship hall, and I had never even heard the world "evolution".

I think all of these God vs. Evolution debates are wholly misguided, as we seriously underestimate how ludicrous the God claim is in the first place...

Thank God science.saved you from you're clearly clueless family and even worse all Those idiotic ancestors of yours. Appears Dawkins had the same inbred idiotic ancestors. But England is an island and we know that genetics in a closed population isn't good today. All kinds of random accidental mutations happen.

 

[ecco]

Some of them are probably just good students of those who can think rationally about abstract concepts, if they are not that sort of people themselves, but yes, the statement, "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will" is an abstract concept that is rationally valid.

You are equating your human sense of rationality to the sense of rationality of an omni-all entity. That takes more than a little ego.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Do you have any evidence or argument to demonstrate that the conditional is not valid?

Occam was full of chitz. The simplest explanation for why apples fall down is because nothing can fall up.


(my emphases in the next two quotes)

Did you read what you just wrote? People who can think RATIONALLY have to acknowledge truth regardless of how ILLOGICAL it is?

• People who conclude "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will!" are taking a very simplistic view.

• People who can think rationally about abstract concepts would would have to acknowledge that godly omniscience and human free will are not mutually exclusive regardless of how illogical it may seem to the human mind.

Clearly I did not write:

regardless of how ILLOGICAL it is​

I wrote:

regardless of how illogical it may seem to the human mind
​

Those two snippets have two very different meanings. Do you really believe you support your argument by intentionally misquoting me?

I'm pretty sure that people who can think rationally are going to reject the truth of something that is illogical every time. But here again, the burden of proof is yours to support the claim that omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive--and just saying that it doesn't make sense so we have to accept it on faith isn't going to cut it.

You are the one attributing qualities to your deity. If there is a burden of proof, it is on you.
Support your claim that your god is omnipotent.
Support your claim that your god is omniscient.

Then, let's talk about the burden of proof of my views. Because if you cannot show that your god is omniscient and omnipotent, then the entire discussion is all rather silly, isn't it?

 

[Axe Elf]

Then perhaps your "belief system" is poppycock.

Perhaps. That's why it's important to be able to describe our beliefs in a way that a reasonable person could understand them, and measure them against those standards of reason by way of peer review. Otherwise it just comes down to who can yell the loudest.

I never said nor implied anything different.

Uh, yes you did--and you still ARE; insisting that the common definition of the word "omnipotent" (having unlimited, infinite power) means NOT ONLY can God do anything that can be done with power, BUT ALSO that He can do anything whatsoever, up to and including things that are logically inconsistent.

I mean, you can go that route... but then you basically close the door to ever saying anything meaningful about an omnipotent God whatsoever. I mean, you've solved the Problem of Evil now, haven't you?

"God DID create a world without evil, and if you just can't rationally comprehend that, then hey, it's not my problem. I insist that it's true anyway."

But even if you want to reduce the word "omnipotence" to meaningless nonsense, then like I said--forget omnipotence. I will humbly concede that my God is not "omnipotent" by your definition of the word, and I will assert that my God is all-powerful instead. Now don'tcha go saying that if He's all-powerful, then He can STILL do things that can't be done with any amount of power; because that would, of course, be patent nonsense.

Do you think quoting C.S. Lewis lends credibility to your argument?

Yes, because it shows that it's not "my" argument; it's a position held by at least one other respected Xian thinker.

It doesn't.

Shout louder.

You are equating your human sense of rationality to the sense of rationality of an omni-all entity. That takes more than a little ego.

Maybe, but a human sense of rationality is all that we have to evaluate claims, so that's what we're forced to go with here.

Unless of course you want to go down that road where anyone can say anything they want because nothing is true and everything is permitted and rational concepts no longer apply... in which case it just comes down to whoever can shout the loudest again.

Occam was full of chitz. The simplest explanation for why apples fall down is because nothing can fall up.

I dunno about school funding in your district, but if you were taught that "because it couldn't NOT happen" is the explanation for ANYTHING... well... ok.

Clearly I did not write:

regardless of how ILLOGICAL it is​

I wrote:

regardless of how illogical it may seem to the human mind​

Those two snippets have two very different meanings. Do you really believe you support your argument by intentionally misquoting me?

Well here again, human minds are all we have to evaluate the rationality of claims, so yeah, unless you have some other standard that you are able to access independent of your human mind to test logic, we're going to have to consider "illogical to the human mind" to be functionally equivalent to "illogical."

So, how are the meanings very different again? Is it the same as how "all-powerful" is very different from "omnipotent"?

You are the one attributing qualities to your deity. If there is a burden of proof, it is on you.
Support your claim that your god is omnipotent.
Support your claim that your god is omniscient.

IF there was a burden of proof, and there is not. One can establish that a logical conditional like "If A, then B," is valid, even without establishing a truth value for A.

So, when I make the statement, "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will," there is no burden of proof upon me to SHOW that God is omniscient. My only burden is to show that the conclusion (I can't have free will) follows logically from the premise (If God is omniscient)--at least in a world where human minds are allowed to evaluate the rationality of statements, a condition to which I am not sure that you stipulate.

So if you don't want to talk about an omniscient God, that's fine, we don't have to. But if you want to make statements about what one can or can't do, then I don't have to start by proving that one exists to debate your claims.

Then, let's talk about the burden of proof of my views. Because if you cannot show that your god is omniscient and omnipotent, then the entire discussion is all rather silly, isn't it?

Yeah, if nobody can prove that any gods exist and/or that they have any particular qualities, then all this talk about them on forums like this must be completely useless.

Why are you here again?

And you STILL haven't said anything about why you claimed that random events disprove predestination. Maybe you should do less shouting and more substantiating.

 

[exchemist]

I remained a Christian for quite some time after exposure to the sciences. Evolution was not an immediate game changer for me.

Me too. Frankly I have never understood why the origin of life is such a hot button issue, when most of us in the established Christian churches have been brought up - for the last century or more! - to treat Genesis as allegorical.

What really shook my faith was my time in the Middle East. Exposure to other faiths, convinced in their own rectitude and superiority to the others, made it plain we can't all be right about that!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Thank God science.saved you from you're clearly clueless family and even worse all Those idiotic ancestors of yours. Appears Dawkins had the same inbred idiotic ancestors. But England is an island and we know that genetics in a closed population isn't good today. All kinds of random accidental mutations happen.

What?

 

[David T]

What?

Obviously science has evolved us beyond our idiotic ancestors praise Darwin!!!

 

[ecco]

Perhaps. That's why it's important to be able to describe our beliefs in a way that a reasonable person could understand them, and measure them against those standards of reason by way of peer review. Otherwise it just comes down to who can yell the loudest.



Uh, yes you did--and you still ARE; insisting that the common definition of the word "omnipotent" (having unlimited, infinite power) means NOT ONLY can God do anything that can be done with power, BUT ALSO that He can do anything whatsoever, up to and including things that are logically inconsistent.

I mean, you can go that route... but then you basically close the door to ever saying anything meaningful about an omnipotent God whatsoever. I mean, you've solved the Problem of Evil now, haven't you?

"God DID create a world without evil, and if you just can't rationally comprehend that, then hey, it's not my problem. I insist that it's true anyway."

But even if you want to reduce the word "omnipotence" to meaningless nonsense, then like I said--forget omnipotence. I will humbly concede that my God is not "omnipotent" by your definition of the word, and I will assert that my God is all-powerful instead. Now don'tcha go saying that if He's all-powerful, then He can STILL do things that can't be done with any amount of power; because that would, of course, be patent nonsense.



Yes, because it shows that it's not "my" argument; it's a position held by at least one other respected Xian thinker.



Shout louder.



Maybe, but a human sense of rationality is all that we have to evaluate claims, so that's what we're forced to go with here.

Unless of course you want to go down that road where anyone can say anything they want because nothing is true and everything is permitted and rational concepts no longer apply... in which case it just comes down to whoever can shout the loudest again.



I dunno about school funding in your district, but if you were taught that "because it couldn't NOT happen" is the explanation for ANYTHING... well... ok.



Well here again, human minds are all we have to evaluate the rationality of claims, so yeah, unless you have some other standard that you are able to access independent of your human mind to test logic, we're going to have to consider "illogical to the human mind" to be functionally equivalent to "illogical."

So, how are the meanings very different again? Is it the same as how "all-powerful" is very different from "omnipotent"?



IF there was a burden of proof, and there is not. One can establish that a logical conditional like "If A, then B," is valid, even without establishing a truth value for A.

So, when I make the statement, "If God is omniscient, then I can't have free will," there is no burden of proof upon me to SHOW that God is omniscient. My only burden is to show that the conclusion (I can't have free will) follows logically from the premise (If God is omniscient)--at least in a world where human minds are allowed to evaluate the rationality of statements, a condition to which I am not sure that you stipulate.

So if you don't want to talk about an omniscient God, that's fine, we don't have to. But if you want to make statements about what one can or can't do, then I don't have to start by proving that one exists to debate your claims.



Yeah, if nobody can prove that any gods exist and/or that they have any particular qualities, then all this talk about them on forums like this must be completely useless.

Why are you here again?

And you STILL haven't said anything about why you claimed that random events disprove predestination. Maybe you should do less shouting and more substantiating.

You also wrote:

The meaning of "omnipotent" is therefore "all-powerful." God has infinite, unlimited power.

...

Wikipedia:
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

Let's cut to the chase shall we. You have stated that my views are illogical, nonsensical and irrational.

What you have to understand is, I do not believe in a god or gods. I was not the one who made up irrational words like omnipotent and omniscient and stated they were attributes of my god.

What I have been doing is demonstrating that your version of god is illogical, nonsensical and irrational.

You have stated that god is omnipotent and you stated what that means to you: "God has infinite, unlimited power".

Then you hedge by saying that unlimited power isn't really unlimited power because god cannot do some things like make a one sided coin. If god cannot make a one sided coin, then god does not have unlimited power.

You fail to see how illogical and irrational your views are.

You cannot reconcile your own interpretation of the word. No one can because the word omnipotence is self contradictory as you, yourself have pointed out. If you want to create a word semiomnipotence and declare it to be an attribute of your god , then by all means do so. You could then go on by creating the word semiomniscient. If you did that you might have to reevaluate your views on free will.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thank God science.saved you from you're clearly clueless family and even worse all Those idiotic ancestors of yours. Appears Dawkins had the same inbred idiotic ancestors. But England is an island and we know that genetics in a closed population isn't good today. All kinds of random accidental mutations happen.

Nice joke of the day David - I hope you know where the population of England tends to gets their genes from - quite varied actually - why not search for it online rather than spouting a load of nonsense.

 

[David T]

Nice joke of the day David - I hope you know where the population of England tends to gets their genes from - quite varied actually - why not search for it online rather than spouting a load of nonsense.

I was joking my ancestors are Irish definitely a lot of family loving going on!!! Real point is how rapidly we dismiss our history like wow we are genius the past is stupid.... hell christianity was the king of that nonsense itself. It's like a behavioural meme repeated over and over!!! We aren't as smart as we imagine ourselves to be.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Obviously science has evolved us beyond our idiotic ancestors praise Darwin!!!

Don't overstep. We're still idiots. We just know slightly more than we used to.

But none of that addresses the point of an invisible-magic-sky-man being a bonkers idea, does it?

 

[dianaiad]

How much evolution occurred in the ten million years before the big meteor?
How much evolution occurred in the ten million years after the big meteor?

When the environment is static, there is no pressure on a species and there is very little change - no evolving......

True.

......and?....

Let me know when you have figured out how to establish the existence of any deity.

Ask Him.

 

[metis]

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs?

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that called the acceptance of evolution as being "anti-Bible", but I realized even back in high school that this made no sense, especially since my parents were "museum freaks", which I have been now for many decades, and I saw what some of the evidence was clearly indicating. However, I also left the church for other reasons, especially for its racism (1960's).

To me, either a religious organization accepts basic scientific principles and objective history or it doesn't and, if it's the latter, I want nothing to do with it. However, neither do I disdain those who may not accept my orientation.

To put it another way, between religion and science, if in conflict, I'll take the latter.

 

[ecco]

Let me know when you have figured out how to establish the existence of any deity.

Ask Him.

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

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

 

[exchemist]

What?

He seems to think you come from Norfolk.....

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was joking my ancestors are Irish definitely a lot of family loving going on!!! Real point is how rapidly we dismiss our history like wow we are genius the past is stupid.... hell christianity was the king of that nonsense itself. It's like a behavioural meme repeated over and over!!! We aren't as smart as we imagine ourselves to be.

You are so naughty - confusing us all.

 

[David T]

You are so naughty - confusing us all.

I am confusion!!! This not confused about that!! Lol maybe.. ok yes..

 

[David T]

Don't overstep. We're still idiots. We just know slightly more than we used to.

But none of that addresses the point of an invisible-magic-sky-man being a bonkers idea, does it?

Random... same thing!!! The question becomes is random fundamental.religion would certainly swear by it!!! Now I can call random by its formal title god the father or by his personal name in science random!!! Which is it random or God the father? It's either donald trump or the president!!!!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Shhh! We were just told that science and religion are not in conflict.

Yes. I said so myself. I don't think they ARE in conflict.

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.

I don’t see how any religion that teaches that a god shaped man is compatible with Darwin’s theory or natural selection.

Remember, I'm a devout theist here and I do believe that God created everything. With that in mind, I ALSO believe that He gave us two 'texts' to learn about Him. One is the scripture He gave His prophets, very fallible people who were products of their own ages and learning, and who wrote as they understood stuff. This is the instruction book we are given on how to treat one another, and to start to understand Him, as much as we can.

The OTHER 'text,' is the universe: His creation. HOW things happen, and WHAT happened? Those things are the purview of scientific examination, and I believe strongly that this is something we can, and should, do. Coming to a wall where we can't figure out 'what's next" and just saying 'God did it," IS lazy. Yeah, God did it. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE OUT HOW. Scriptures are given to us third hand and filtered. The universe is a...letter, a text book, written directly BY Him and given directly to us.

That’s an interesting idea. How shall we evaluate whether the source of the one, the Bible, is the source of the other, the universe? The two tell different stories about the history of the universe.

Also, the Bible contains other errors of science and history, internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, and moral and intellectual errors attributed to a perfect god.

It’s a bit like encountering an immense suspension bridge with some graffiti spray painted onto it saying “I bilt (sic) this.” Maybe.

There's nothing 'supernatural' about a Creator God, after all. What there is, is 'natural' we don't know about yet.

I agree with you that everything that exists should be considered a part of nature whether we realize it exists yet or not, and that therefore, the word supernatural describes nothing that actually exists and should be discarded.

But the concept is so entrenched in our culture that it is impossible to have these discussions without using the word, so I accede to common understanding and refer to a belief in deities as supernaturalism.

The whole point is survival. If that wasn't the point, there would be nothing for climate to 'drive,' now, would there?

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So does God have free will? Can an omniscient entity do anything other than what it already knows it will do?

Everything that God knows He is going to do, He has determined that He will do. That's how He knows it.

So God is locked into those choices?

That’s a different understanding of free will than the one I described, where the agent is free to make choices at the time they are apparently made, choices that even the agent might not have known he would make until he made them, and choices not imposed on the body by neural circuitry outside of consciousness.

Unless of course you want to go down that road where anyone can say anything they want because nothing is true and everything is permitted and rational concepts no longer apply... in which case it just comes down to whoever can shout the loudest again.

Agree again.

I call arguments that ask us to suspend reason to accept impossible logical contradictions as transcendently reasonable, and moral absurdities as actually moral in some sense beyond our understanding, puny mind arguments, a form of special pleading. That is, our minds are too puny to grasp these thing, so we should just accept them as true however much they offend our understanding and values even though we wouldn’t do so under any other circumstances.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not if free will means the freedom to make a choice at the time it is made rather than the mere illusion of this freedom. If free will means only the experience of becoming aware of a desire, like thirst, and being free to act in order to accomplish some desired outcome such as to get a drink, then yes, we have that even if God exists and is omniscient.

The neuroscientists suggesting that free will is an illusion grant that we have such experiences - how could they not? - but are generally considering something else - the ability to be more than a passive observer of urges and desires being fulfilled by neural circuits outside of consciousness that generate them and the motor signals that result in their fulfillment. This observer needs to be the source of these desires and their execution at the time they are made.

If it's the latter to which you refer, then I agree with @Axe Elf that such a state of affairs is incompatible with divine omniscience.

What do you base that on? Logic? Common Sense? Your understanding of the mind of god? See my post #79 to @Axe Elf regarding ants and humans.

I base that conclusion on pure reason, specifically, the law of noncontradiction.

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. Thus a choice is either free or predetermined, two mutually exclusive options, like bachelor and married.

If you are defining free will in another way, then we are not discussing the same thing.

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 what is needed to understand why apparently absurd propositions are true, with the idea thrown in that questioning that this might be true amounts to presumptive arrogance.

If that’s your position, then I have to agree with @Axe Elf that that is a formula for derailing the train of reason and knowledge. I one is willing to go there, then he might as well abandon reason altogether and adopt extreme skepticism

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,

Why did this species develop gigantic tail feathers to begin with? There must have been a reason. Perhaps it was to shoo away deadly flies. Those with the bigger tail feathers survived to produce offspring a tiny bit more often than those with lesser tails.

When the deadly flies died out (because the climate got colder?), the gigantic tail feathers became less of an asset and more of a liability.

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.