Creationists V Athiests

[Al_Fel]

Ben I find it very hard to read your posts and understand what you're talking about and where you are going with them. It seems to me that come across that you think you're 100% right and people should listen to you. Its almost as if you've got to write loads to try and get your point across and I just find myself wondering off just reading the words rather than understanding what you are talking about. I think it would be nice if you could simplify what you are trying to say and you'd probably get more attention and more people reading what you have to say rather than thinking "oh god ben's off on one again" lol.

[1a2bcio8]

Ben I find it very hard to read your posts and understand what you're talking about and where you are going with them. It seems to me that come across that you think you're 100% right and people should listen to you. Its almost as if you've got to write loads to try and get your point across and I just find myself wondering off just reading the words rather than understanding what you are talking about. I think it would be nice if you could simplify what you are trying to say and you'd probably get more attention and more people reading what you have to say rather than thinking "oh god ben's off on one again" lol.

Ok fair enough. But I don't think myself 100% right. I think that what I'm refering to is currently the most convincing stance and as such I will argue for it. That is until or if new arguments/evidence emerges to contradict it. But as it stands, I've not been presented with any new arguments or evidence that encourage me to change my stance. And I am open to changing my stance because I have done in the past.

And I should really take the time to better describe what I'm talking about. I have done this in previous threads but sometimes I'm lazy.

So to redescribe my last post. I'm saying that science is great for thinking about reality (or the world), whereas religion is great for experiencing reality without thinking about it. Take riding trials for example. Science might be able to create some mathematics/ideas that describes the forces that are involved in riding but that description is completely different from the personal experience of actually riding. When you ride, no mathematics is involved in the experience. It's the actual riding that religion is about. How exactly are you experiencing your riding? Can you change your experience (feelings, emotions, awareness, etc.) to have a better ride? And what I mean by experience is the sensations, sights, sounds, etc.. No matter what science can say about these, that saying is the never the same as actually living them. The same difference is between imagining yourself riding and actually riding.

That's why no matter what science says about religion, ultimately, this is quite irrelevant to religion. Although obviously sometimes in the name of religion, people make scientific statements (often silly ones) which science can say something about. But no matter what I say about my looking at an apple (science), my words never amount to the actual experience (religion). Is this distinction understood? I understand it's difficult to get our heads round this because the language we use seems to suggest that an object is the same as a word. But really, an apple is not an apple, it's an event that contains no words. But when I say "It is an apple" this seems to suggest that the event is the word. The consequence of this is that we come to unconciously believe our thinking/ideas/language about the world as the same as our experience of the world.

I guess for that last point, if we imagine seeing the world from the perspective of an animal we can somewhat better understand what is meant by that events are not words, seeing as animals have no words for events of objects. An animal would not see an "apple" but would see only a shape with colours and so forth.

Please ask me to explain again if I'm not being clear and you're actually interested. I love talking about all this stuff and that's why I always jump on these threads.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Al_Fel]

Ok fair enough. But I don't think myself 100% right. I think that what I'm refering to is currently the most convincing stance and as such I will argue for it. That is until or if new arguments/evidence emerges to contradict it.

And I should really take the time to better describe what I'm talking about. I have done this is previous threads but sometimes I'm lazy.

So to redescribe my last post. I'm saying that science is great for thinking about reality, whereas religion is great for experiencing reality without thinking about it. Take riding trials for example. Science might be able to create some mathematics that describes the forces that are involved in riding but that description is completely different from the personal experience of actually riding. It's the actual riding that religion is about. How exactly are you experiencing your riding? Can you change your experience to have a better ride? And what I mean by experience is the sensations, sights, sounds, etc.. No matter what science can say about these, that saying is the never the same as actually having them. The same difference is between imagining yourself riding and actually riding.

That's why no matter what science says about religion, ultimately, this is quite irrelevant to religion. Although obviously sometimes in the name of religion, people make scientific statements which science can say something about. But no matter what I say about my looking at an apple (science), my words never amount to the actual experience. Is this distinction understood? I understand it's difficult to get our heads round because the language we use seems to suggest that an object is the same as a word. But really, an apple is not an apple, it's an event that contains no words.

Much much better. I know what you are saying now lol. I always think things like this too. I think, is what I see the same as others? Is the colour that I call blue what they call blue or is it their red? I'd assume it was the same because we are made the same way but still it makes you wonder.

Everything in the universe is here and our brains process that information into what we feel every day. It's pretty amazing but I wouldn't call it Religion.

[1a2bcio8]

Much much better. I know what you are saying now lol. I always think things like this too. I think, is what I see the same as others? Is the colour that I call blue what they call blue or is it their red? I'd assume it was the same because we are made the same way but still it makes you wonder.

Everything in the universe is here and our brains process that information into what we feel every day. It's pretty amazing but I wouldn't call it Religion.

No it's not religion but religion is what teaches us how to tune into it. The Buddhist asks, "who is the one that makes the grass green?"

Unfortunately, due to people being fanatical, dogmatic and confused, Christianity generally hasn't really been allowed to change to become appropriate for this age. I'll admit I'm not into the stories contained in the bible. But there are other religions which talk a bit more directly about this subject rather than in the form of 2000 year old myth. Buddhism and especially the Zen sect, I find especially useful for teaching these ideas. Although in addition to those religions you have western mystics who express this subject in the most understandable and acceptable terms to the western mind.

Religion is so not we tend to think it is in the first instance, simply because it's been continually hijacked for other purposes and so we easily end up identifying it as relating to war, profit, power, delussion, etc. It's a great shame to my mind because really it can ultimately allow for the discarding of those problems.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Spider Lad]

But just because my car allowed me to reach the mountains, doesn't mean that my experiencing of the mountains is an experience of a car.

This feels a little reductio ad absurdum to me.

Ben, you're talking about experience not religion. Some experiences could be described by some people, through lack of understanding or education, as religious. But that doesn't make it so. You appear to be so tied up in your romaticised 'spirituality'.

Have you anything to offer regarding the actual topic in hand? This thread was originally about creationism and evolution, (I think Al would concede that 'Creationists vs Atheists' isn't really what he is getting at, plenty of theists aknowledge and accept the fact of evolution).

Hence the accusations of waffling.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Spider Lad

[1a2bcio8]

I see nothing wrong with a tangent although I do think that most of what I said is applicable. My position is that the atheist (and evolution) vs. Creationist (Christianity, religion, etc. - it has become broad) argument, regarding the true nature of Christianity, is based on a several false premises and so is essentially a bit pointless/nonsensical. In that sense, I feel it is relavent. And anyway, discussions would be shorter and less interesting if tangents were prohibited.

The point is regarding religion and experience, is that religion can be very effective at indicating certain truths about the nature of experience and reality. These are not the same truths found in science which is conceptual (language based). And although religion is communicated in concepts (language), those concepts are so structured to allows us to leave them behind (transcension). Religion often indicates practices such as meditation, prayer, chanting, etc. which helps break down certain perpcetions (and preconceptions relating to language) to reveal more fundamental ones. Now, I can actually comment on this relating to personal experience. This obviously convinces me moreso of the argument I'm putting forward.

Do you realise that we mostly agree about a lot of what is being discussed? I don't agree with bashing believers of God as an entity and those who have a literal interpretation but I do agree that they are probably incorrect and that evolution is a more reliable description of the development of life. But like the rest of science, that description is meaningful only within certain limits. But the point is, if I am correct, the argument is rather pointless if both atheist and Christian alike are arguing over the belief that Christian myth is literally true.

I am open to changing my view with regard to spirituality. I am not dogmatically attached to it but so far, my opninion is that the experiences I've had and the arguments I know of that make sense to me are in support of the view I'm putting forward. There is a lot of nonsense in spirituality, especially with the new age so I don't subscribe to all. However, I am yet to see any arguments that are strong enough to change my mind with regards to the specific points I'm putting forward. And I haven't just surrounded myself with arguments that support what I'd like to believe. On this argument, I have read on the constructivist view of mystical experience which sees mystical experience as entirely a product of culture and doesn't relate to any realisation true of all human experience. This is probably the strongest argument against but I feel that it fails for several reasons. Of course, I accept that I could be wrong. I just don't think that presently I am.

I might accuse you of being romantically attached to science and evolution!

Edited October 16, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[JT!]

...but I do agree that they are probably incorrect and that evolution is a more reliable description of the development of life.

Probably? Evolution is 'more reliable'.

Wouldn't you go as far as saying they are incorrect and evolution is fact.

[1a2bcio8]

Probably? Evolution is 'more reliable'.

Wouldn't you go as far as saying they are incorrect and evolution is fact.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Scientific fact is always tentative, not absolute. The history of science shows the changing and discarding of theory/fact over time. I'm mostly with evolution but you never know what's going to happen in the future. And I'm not so keen on the word "fact" though as it seems to sound so absolute.

The best I'm willing to say is that evolution is most likely correct (a high percentage chance) and creationism is most likely incorrect (a low percentage chance). Brought into that equation is a general consideration of history and the limits of human knowledge.

It's simply a method of staying open to new evidence, argument, experience, etc. and I think the fairest way of assessing any knowledge form through considering broader factors involved in knowing.

[Spider Lad]

The history of science shows the changing and discarding of theory/fact over time. I'm mostly with evolution but you never know what's going to happen in the future.

You're obviously not aware of the massive weight of evidence that supports and demonstrates evolution. If your 'something' was to happen in the future or however you want to put it, then it would represent the greatest single reversal of thinking in human history. What we know about evolution can hardly be compared to other past instances where previously known 'facts' have been debunked. However, should anything come to light that were to contradict the theory we currently hold true, then as scientists we would accept that.

[1a2bcio8]

You're obviously not aware of the massive weight of evidence that supports and demonstrates evolution. If your 'something' was to happen in the future or however you want to put it, then it would represent the greatest single reversal of thinking in human history. What we know about evolution can hardly be compared to other past instances where previously known 'facts' have been debunked. However, should anything come to light that were to contradict the theory we currently hold true, then as scientists we would accept that.

You may be and probably are correct. However, I feel that life is such that our comprehension is limited and that which seems so right at present may eventually, regarding a change of circumstances, be found as incorrect. That which exists outside of our current comprehension may disturb our current position but only when discovered in the future. This situation is intrinsic to the past and we are continually becoming the past. This is a reasoned choice which I attempt to relate to all knowledge forms. Thus I try to talk in maybes, probabilities, likelihoods, etc. It doesn't however mean I'm failing a knowledge form by introducing a degree of ambivalence to it.

This also relates to my desire for a modesty in my views although, no doubt, I often fail at that practice. But I find it even easier to fail/forget if I talk in either/or language of definites and absolutes.

I do personally appreciate your willingness to adjust to new evidence which is, of course anyway and as you indicate, a requirement of 'proper' science.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[totaltrials]

I don't think it's as simple as that. Scientific fact is always tentative, not absolute. The history of science shows the changing and discarding of theory/fact over time. I'm mostly with evolution but you never know what's going to happen in the future. And I'm not so keen on the word "fact" though as it seems to sound so absolute.

The best I'm willing to say is that evolution is most likely correct (a high percentage chance) and creationism is most likely incorrect (a low percentage chance). Brought into that equation is a general consideration of history and the limits of human knowledge.

It's simply a method of staying open to new evidence, argument, experience, etc. and I think the fairest way of assessing any knowledge form through considering broader factors involved in knowing.

If you're thinking evolution is "probably" correct, you more than likely must think of it as fact and it's your religious beliefs which is stopping you from being 100% certain about evolution. It can't be that you think evolution might be wrong or new evidence which contradicts evolution becomes available because that isn't going to happen. If any new evidence was found, it would only be to back up the evidence already there because it's so profoundly accurate.

For example; You know something which is a fact like the earth is a sphere, it is and it's fact, there isn't going to be any new evidence that pops up which differs. The same applies to evolution, it's a fact and no new evidence is going to pop up to disregard that. There's got to be a point where fact is literally fact, if not then we may as well disregard every verifiable truth that's ever been proved.

[JT!]

Ben are you just saying all this solely because you want it known that you are open to new evidence?

It's fair enough to keep an open mind about how non-life became life because that is pretty much an unknown, same with the origins of the universe. But evolution is considered fact like the earth is round. It is true that we're always going to be learning more, when we used to believe 'the earth is flat' and 'we were all created' these were 'facts' at the time, the problem was is there was no evidence to support this. As time went on we knew that the earth was round and we knew about evolution because of scientific evidence. And up to the present we know so much about the earth, we know all the mountain ranges, the thickness of layers of the earth, we know the earth isn't perfectly spherical, we know exactly where the magnetic poles are. But to say 'the earth is probably round, but it also could be flat' is exactly comparable to what you're saying about evolution 'probably being right'.

[Al_Fel]

Ben are you just saying all this solely because you want it known that you are open to new evidence?

It's fair enough to keep an open mind about how non-life became life because that is pretty much an unknown, same with the origins of the universe. But evolution is considered fact like the earth is round. It is true that we're always going to be learning more, when we used to believe 'the earth is flat' and 'we were all created' these were 'facts' at the time, the problem was is there was no evidence to support this. As time went on we knew that the earth was round and we knew about evolution because of scientific evidence. And up to the present we know so much about the earth, we know all the mountain ranges, the thickness of layers of the earth, we know the earth isn't perfectly spherical, we know exactly where the magnetic poles are. But to say 'the earth is probably round, but it also could be flat' is exactly comparable to what you're saying about evolution 'probably being right'.

That's not actually true. Most people thought the world was round it was some American who wrote a book that made people think people thought the earth was flat. Stephen fry told me on QI.

[1a2bcio8]

If you're thinking evolution is "probably" correct, you more than likely must think of it as fact and it's your religious beliefs which is stopping you from being 100% certain about evolution. It can't be that you think evolution might be wrong or new evidence which contradicts evolution becomes available because that isn't going to happen. If any new evidence was found, it would only be to back up the evidence already there because it's so profoundly accurate.

For example; You know something which is a fact like the earth is a sphere, it is and it's fact, there isn't going to be any new evidence that pops up which differs. The same applies to evolution, it's a fact and no new evidence is going to pop up to disregard that. There's got to be a point where fact is literally fact, if not then we may as well disregard every verifiable truth that's ever been proved.

My religious beliefs, which aren't entirely of any particular religion, have nothing to do with my agnostic attitude toward scientific theory/fact. My 'religious' practice is that of meditation and yoga which leads me to have experiences that have little to do with science. I possess my attitude toward science through reason in reference to philosophy and history.

I'm unsure how you can tell me that evidence for the theory of evoution will be supportive? You may think that it will be but this is only a thought and is not the reality of the future which we do not know of until it has happened. Although you could be right and you may be using good reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion. Good reasoning however is not infallible.

Yep, I'm sure the earth is a sphere but I can't outrule the potential of things being well beyond my current comprehension and actually turning out to be perceived differently at some other date. This doesn't mean I don't live my life in accord with what seems 99.999999% likely. Evolution isn't as supported as the earth being a sphere however. In more obvious ways that are prone to error it contains inductive and deductive reasoning and is much more complex than simply saying the earth is a sphere with respect to observations from space. Evolution is a generalisation or inference taken from limited data, relative to the actual generalisation. That's not to say that generalising in this way isn't sensible and doesn't have at its base, good evidence leading to a strong conclusion. It's just to indicate that the process is open to error.

Science never proves anything to completion. Scientific fact is essentially the best conclusion we have at this point in time with reference to certain data/observation/reasoning. Any theory or fact of science needs to be open to contradictory evidence in order to be scientific. If there could only be supportive evidence for evolution, it wouldn't really be scientific. As time goes by we may only find supportive evidence but there still has to be at least the potential for unsupportive evidence. None of us can say for sure that such evidence won't arise.

What you have to understand is that just because I only say evolution is probable (I think highly likely) doesn't mean I'm denying its validity. There seems to be the attitude that unless I'm 100% on board with evolution that I'm not on board at all. This simply isn't true. As already stated, I choose to consider a recognition of my own and other peoples limited ability to definitely know. Existence is well beyond my complete comprehension and could easily throw some incomprehensible spanner in the works of something that seems very true. Unfortunately I feel we live in a culture that wants to view the world only in either/or values. Something is either this or is either that (is only true or false) and can't be somewhere between the two. This attitude sems to relate to Aristotelian logic and is a very deeply entrenched unconscious philosophy in our culture. New attitudes on knowledge probability, especially with the advent of modern physics, are beginning to form. We can accept knowing as something of degrees rather than only 0% or 100%.

Thinking in probabilities helps me avoid the dogma that is so common to both religion and science. Although I often fail depsite my practice.

[JT!]

Limited evidence.

[1a2bcio8]

Ben are you just saying all this solely because you want it known that you are open to new evidence?

It's fair enough to keep an open mind about how non-life became life because that is pretty much an unknown, same with the origins of the universe. But evolution is considered fact like the earth is round. It is true that we're always going to be learning more, when we used to believe 'the earth is flat' and 'we were all created' these were 'facts' at the time, the problem was is there was no evidence to support this. As time went on we knew that the earth was round and we knew about evolution because of scientific evidence. And up to the present we know so much about the earth, we know all the mountain ranges, the thickness of layers of the earth, we know the earth isn't perfectly spherical, we know exactly where the magnetic poles are. But to say 'the earth is probably round, but it also could be flat' is exactly comparable to what you're saying about evolution 'probably being right'.

Can you elaborate what you mean by fact? It's just I feel that it's commonly used to define something that is definitely true? I understand a scientific fact, in reality, to be a strong conclusion supported by strong scientific process (observation, reason, etc.). Not definite but strong and strong enough act thereafter as if true.

Limited evidence.

Yep. Every scientific conclusion is based on limited evidence. You cannot test to infinity regarding space and time. Science tests on a limited sample range and generalises the results to untested variables which it is (deductively) reasoned to be applicable. This is the inductive process of science and is fallible because it always works on untested assumptions.

[JT!]

What i'm trying to say it evolution as it stands now may have a few things that are incorrect, but the underlining theory is 100% fact, no doubts, that's what happened and nothing will ever change that.

There will always become more and more information discovered and the theory of evolution will become more filled but like i was saying when comparing it to the earth being round no matter how much more information we get about the earth it'll always be round.

Just because you can't get a clear cut picture of evolution just like you get of the spherical earth doesn't mean it should be more open to criticism.

Yep. Every scientific conclusion is based on limited evidence. You cannot test to infinity regarding space and time. Science tests on a limited sample range and generalises the results to untested variables which it is (deductively) reasoned to be applicable. This is the inductive process of science and is fallible because it always works on untested assumptions.

Well, define limited.

If i had 100% of the earths money, apart from a couple of pennies, do I have limited funds?

[1a2bcio8]

What i'm trying to say it evolution as it stands now may have a few things that are incorrect, but the underlining theory is 100% fact, no doubts, that's what happened and nothing will ever change that.

There will always become more and more information discovered and the theory of evolution will become more filled but like i was saying when comparing it to the earth being round no matter how much more information we get about the earth it'll always be round.

Just because you can't get a clear cut picture of evolution just like you get of the spherical earth doesn't mean it should be more open to criticism.

We differ in opinion then. I feel I would be overevaluating my ability to comprehend the future if I were to say anything to 100%. Why do I even need to? Life is easily managable on knowledge probabilities. It's also, I think, a lot more accurate to our limitations to comprehend.

Can you appreciate though that individuals of past probably felt similar to yourself with regard to other ideas that have now been discarded?

[JT!]

We differ in opinion then. I feel I would be overevaluating my ability to comprehend the future if I were to say anything to 100%. Why do I even need to? Life is easily managable on knowledge probabilities. It's Can you appreciate though that individuals of past probably felt similar to yourself with regard to other ideas that have now been discarded?

I suppose but with the modern tech we have these days I feel we can't go too wrong.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Can you appreciate though that individuals of past probably felt similar to yourself with regard to other ideas that have now been discarded?

Yeah but they were a bit stupid really... the Earth is flat?! Whateva mister!

[1a2bcio8]

Well, define limited.

If i had 100% of the earths money, apart from a couple of pennies, do I have limited funds?

You cannot test any experiment to its complete end. Unless there were an end to time. We experiment for a limited time and take the conclusion from that time and infer it to other times. I guess it is a bit different with material which, relative to certain structures (animals, money, etc.), have some sort of limit. Still, the nature and capabilities of scientific experimentation is such that it doesn't/can't look at the entire range with which it applies its theory/fact to.

This is only one sense with which science is problimatic and not definite. The structure of language, within itself and relative to the world it describes, has certain ramifications for science as does underlying unconscious/conscious philosophical assumptions which influence reasoning and experimentation. Our subjective states are of great importance to our 'objective' assessments. There are so many variables which make the scientific process prone to error. This doesn't stop science being an awesome means of coming to understand, to some degree, the part of material reality that it relates to.

I suppose but with the modern tech we have these days I feel we can't go too wrong.

And that's your scientific faith...

Yeah but they were a bit stupid really... the Earth is flat?! Whateva mister!

I would suggest that we'll probably be seen as stupid from the eyes of people in the future

[Al_Fel]

Yeah but they were a bit stupid really... the Earth is flat?! Whateva mister!

Are you kidding me? People from thousands of years ago worked some crazy shit out. They tracked the stars and predicted their positions. You've got to consider that everything we know today started from them discovering things and working things out. I don't think people from the past get enough credit for what we have today.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

People from thousands of years ago worked some crazy shit out. They tracked the stars and predicted their positions.

Yeah but that was blatantly aliens. Tracking orbits, building pyramids, Machu Picchu... aliens. I saw it all on this documentary called 'Alien vs. Predator'.

[Tomm]

In more obvious ways that are prone to error it contains inductive and deductive reasoning and is much more complex than simply saying the earth is a sphere with respect to observations from space.

I'm fairly sure people knew (and believed) that the earth was round way before the first space missions. I'm sure I've raised this point earlier in this thread, but you can't live your life with caveats all the time - you'd never get anything done. This apple is probably an apple and therefore safe to eat, but there's a 0.00001% chance that it's a man-made cyanide-filled sphere that looks, feels, smells, tastes like an apple. Sometimes you've just got to accept assumptions and get on with your life (eat the apple. Accept evolution).

[1a2bcio8]

I'm fairly sure people knew (and believed) that the earth was round way before the first space missions. I'm sure I've raised this point earlier in this thread, but you can't live your life with caveats all the time - you'd never get anything done. This apple is probably an apple and therefore safe to eat, but there's a 0.00001% chance that it's a man-made cyanide-filled sphere that looks, feels, smells, tastes like an apple. Sometimes you've just got to accept assumptions and get on with your life (eat the apple. Accept evolution).

And as I have repeated about 20 times that is exactly how I do live my life

Just because there is that small amount of ambiguity doesn't mean that every time I come to make a decision, I can't. I act according to what seems most likely and this works just fine.

It seems that regardless of how many times I state the fact, unless I state it as an absolute subscription, nobody really accepts that I subscribe to evolution. I do! It's just at the same time I choose to consider other factors which impinge on the judgement that says evolution is definitely right (although it may well be definitely right). Is it understandable that I can subscribe to something but retain an apprehension of its certitude? It sounds like you recognise this for apples not being cyanide (haha) but can you possibly apply the same to evolution?

I guess I happen to believe that not thinking in absolutes is quite beneficial for the purposes of modesty, adaptation to change, and sanity. Sanity because I believe this kind of agnosticism to utilize relavant evidence (history) which offers a good structural aproximation of the relationship between human knowledge and 'things'. We get it wrong, a lot.

This is self-referential and so I also accept that I may be wrong

edit: I forgot to mention about the earth. My point about knowing the earth as spherical from space was just to illustrate the best evidence for that 'fact' absent of the same amount of issues involved with the theory of evolution. Identifying the earth as spherical is still deductive however (If... then...) - If the earth is such and such a shape and the definition of sphere is such and such a shape then if these two factors correlate, we may say that the earth is a sphere. This line of reasoning is rudimentry and pretty much fool proof carrying less assumptions than the deduction involved in the theory of evolution which relates masses of varying compartments of life.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Ben Rowlands