Denial of Evolution VI.

[Jan Ardena]

This touched me, trooper. I know this came from your heart. That means a lot to me.
I hesitate to take up anymore space in this thread, because I didn't mean for my "beliefs" to derail the topic.
But suffice to say, I'm taken aback by the hospitality everyone has shown me here. Humility goes a long way with me and I don't think any of us "knows" for certain. But thank you (all) for letting me share my views and most of u have shown a lot of generosity in that.

When I apply some thought as to what it might be like to not believe in "a god" anymore, I don't know how one can unlearn that. Lol you know?

Faith can't be unlearned because no one teaches a person to have faith.

Having said that, I don't know any other way "to be."
I'm just keepin it real as they say. And I appreciate your "realness."

Don't be fooled by this pretence.
He wants only for you to denounce God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That, I suppose would depend on your definition of brainwashing.

Erm... Bullshit like this.

...''Whales have existed for million of years. Watch this animation, from the Sant Ocean Hall, to see how they evolved from land-dwellers to the animals we know today. Discover more about whale evolution in our Ocean Over Time interactive. Note: this video contains no audio''.

jan.

 

[Rav]

There are those who avoid cognitive dissonance by believing that science and religion are compatible, and then there are those who take it one step further.

Do you think there is a practical reason to believe in god?

I've spent a decent chunk of my professional life working with disadvantaged and/or emotionally fragile people and many of them have had some sort of concept of god woven into a coping mechanism that was just barely getting them by. Of course it was never my job to discuss religion with anyone in that context (in fact it's the sort of thing that could have gotten me into trouble) but the topic naturally pops up anyway from the other side. But even if I had been free to engage in a significant discussion of such issues, I wouldn't have tried to extol the intellectual virtues of atheism, or negate the legitimacy of other world-views, not just because I could have potentially done damage, but also because I wholly believe that every individual should be free to contextualize their existence in whatever way they choose, even if they incorporate elements of fantasy. And whether any particular world-view is practical or not depends on what one is trying to achieve. If a person wants to live a richer more content life, and really needs to embrace some sort of faith in order to do that, then isn't the faith practical with respect to the desired outcome? Moreover, how is it practical to try to destroy that faith (again, with respect the persons desired outcome) unless you're both willing and able to provide an alternative and equally effective framework of psychological support? To put it more succinctly, if a person finds atheism depressing, what good does it do them to embrace it? How are they then a better person in any of the ways that most people think really matter?

The exact point where I take issue with faith is the point where it clearly encroaches on individual or collective freedom and/or wellbeing. It might be difficult to determine where that point is in any given situation, but I do nonetheless think it is an idea that can to some extent show us where to aim for the overall good of society. But, this is just my opinion of course.

Obviously, however, I sing a very different tune to people who come to science forums looking for a fight (or to evangelize). That's when the gloves can come off because the other side is literally asking for it. Nothing is sacred at that point because the act of pushing metaphysical and theological ideas as ultimate truths invites nothing but the strictest critical examination. Thus the birth of super hardcore forum atheism which is, as is probably clear now, different from what I typically carry around with me in the real world.

Having said all that, I value truth. I search for it. I even yearn for it. It's important to me (although I'm not entirely sure exactly why) that my philosophy aligns with reality. I see religion as a definite hindrance. Discarding it means that in some respects you're working with a far more mysterious conception of reality (although yes, in other respects it's the opposite) but in this context less is more in the sense that fabricated details are further removed from reality than nonexistent ones are. So for me, theism is generally impractical with respect to my desired outcome, which is essentially to steer clear of delusion.

/rant

 

[wegs]

Don't be fooled by this pretence.
He wants only for you to denounce God.

jan.

Hi jan;
I read everything presented and I'm not and have never been the type of person to wish to sway ppl to believing in God, if he/she doesn't.
It is a personal thing yet I appreciate hearing from ppl who don't think as I do.
Trooper (who is female, if I'm not mistaken) is sharing her thoughts.
Nothing more or less.
I don't read into it assigning motive, because I can't presume to know anyone's motives on an anonymous Internet forum.

Besides, boiling it all down, why would anyone care (here) if I denounce my faith?

 

[leopold]

Besides, boiling it all down, why would anyone care (here) if I denounce my faith?

that's basically it right there.
it's nobodys business whether you believe in god or not, whether you read the bible or some other holy book or not, whether you pray or not.

 

[wegs]

that's basically it right there.
it's nobodys business whether you believe in god or not, whether you read the bible or some other holy book or not, whether you pray or not.

Hi leopold

Well, I openly shared all that, but just in reference to evolution.
And then the dialogue went on from there.
I wouldn't have been able to participate in the conversation without sharing that I believe in creationism, and evolution.

It is a natural progression (I think) for people to ask as to what I believe.
Nothing stays in a vacuum.

That said, I'm not looking in life to change minds or sway minds to believing in a god.
I don't trust ppl very much so if ppl don't trust me, I can understand.
I hope for a day when we just see people for people.
Without labels. Without pretense.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

Trooper (who is female, if I'm not mistaken) is sharing her thoughts.
Nothing more or less.

Right off the bat you are being charged with cognitive dissonence and endorsing cognitive biasness.
The point of which is that anything you say in favour of God, is not to be taken seriously at all.
This means that the right position is a position of rejection of any positive ideas of God, and until you do this, you are labelled with having a negative mental condition.

1. It’s not easy becoming an atheist.

2. There is no euphoric feeling that greets this realization.

3. The self-soothing activity of pray will no longer reduce your anxiety.

4. You’ll have to develop new strategies to cope.

5. You’ll realize that at some point you will utterly cease to exist.

6. You’ll become more aware of your insignificance, limitations, and vulnerabilities.

7. You’ll see that there’s a reason why things happen but that things do not happen for a reason.

I don't read into it assigning motive, because I can't presume to know anyone's motives on an anonymous Internet forum.

The above list basically say's you are deluded and are out of touch with reality, and that will stop once you accept atheism, and the cognitive dissonance/bias say's that anything you say in favour of God proves that you are. If you are looing for intelligent debate and discussion on the issues of God, religion, and science, you'll be dissapointed unless you learn to read between the lines.

Besides, boiling it all down, why would anyone care (here) if I denounce my faith?

One reason could be that it justifies their own position.

Some people hate the idea of going to hell, or being judged on their actions, because they want to do whatever they feel to do, but at the same time feel guilty about the acts they perform (conscience), so they want the comfort of being exactly who and what they want to be without any censorship, or judgement. The only way to do this is to create a society whereby this can be acheived, a society where human's control their own destiny, not God. This society cannot expand successfully unless all remnants of any notion of an all powerful, all knowing god is extinct, hence the reason for surveys and polls. This could be a possible reason, or something along those lines.



jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

the primary question of the conference was can the process of speciation be applied to the grander scale of macroevolution and their conclusion was no, it can't.

Let's go to the pic Lewin placed in his article to illustrate the question that was in play. Can you restate what you said above in a way that is consistent with the illustration?

 

[Grumpy]

wegs

I wouldn't have been able to participate in the conversation without sharing that I believe in creationism, and evolution.

I don't care what a person believes about a deity, personally I don't buy it but I was raised as a Southern Baptist, so I know both sides well. Don't take what I say as condemnation of your beliefs, it is meant only to point out the...well, cognitive dissonance inherent in that sentence.

If you meant that you believe in both evolution and the existence of some sort of god I have no argument with that personal belief, nor reason to try to disabuse you from an opinion I do not share.

If you did mean that you believe both evolution and creationism, you don't understand one or the other, or both. That is what cognitive dissonance is all about, believing in two contradictory things, things that can not possibly both be true. Once you have knowledge of what evolution is and what creationism claims, you cannot sustain such diametrically opposed beliefs if you are sane and rational, you will either alter your beliefs in one, or you will reject the knowledge in the other. Many scientists(and many, modern religions)select the first route, altering their religious understanding in light of scientific findings, comfortably accepting reality while retaining the core values of their faith(nothing wrong with that, by the way). Many who select the later course will break every commandment of their religion to lie about, distort, misrepresent, denigrate and deny the evidence, the reality that evolution is an observed fact that our theories of the mechanisms of evolution(gradualism, PE, etc.)try to explain(very successfully, by the way). It is these later ones(several posting here today)that should be opposed as they are peddling false information to try to protect and justify their erroneous conclusions.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

rav,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. It's moments of sincerity and introspection like this when some of the most interesting personal insights are expressed. It comes as refreshing pause from some of the more predictable ways people interact here. You have a perfectly centered voice, with all the best stuff: wisdom, compassion, valor . . . and most of all, honest reason. I might just as well have read Thoreau or any comparable literary genius.

(still wouldn't want to get on your bad side heh heh)

 

[wegs]

wegs



I don't care what a person believes about a deity, personally I don't buy it but I was raised as a Southern Baptist, so I know both sides well. Don't take what I say as condemnation of your beliefs, it is meant only to point out the...well, cognitive dissonance inherent in that sentence.

If you meant that you believe in both evolution and the existence of some sort of god I have no argument with that personal belief, nor reason to try to disabuse you from an opinion I do not share.

If you did mean that you believe both evolution and creationism, you don't understand one or the other, or both. That is what cognitive dissonance is all about, believing in two contradictory things, things that can not possibly both be true. Once you have knowledge of what evolution is and what creationism claims, you cannot sustain such diametrically opposed beliefs if you are sane and rational, you will either alter your beliefs in one, or you will reject the knowledge in the other. Many scientists(and many, modern religions)select the first route, altering their religious understanding in light of scientific findings, comfortably accepting reality while retaining the core values of their faith(nothing wrong with that, by the way). Many who select the later course will break every commandment of their religion to lie about, distort, misrepresent, denigrate and deny the evidence, the reality that evolution is an observed fact that our theories of the mechanisms of evolution(gradualism, PE, etc.)try to explain(very successfully, by the way). It is these later ones(several posting here today)that should be opposed as they are peddling false information to try to protect and justify their erroneous conclusions.

Grumpy

Grumpy;

Thank you for this and for spelling out, what others are trying to say to me. Ok I understand. So my question is this. Is the reason that one can't be both a "creationist" (I don't like labels but for the sake of this discussion, I just want to use it) and a "Darwinist" (which actually is a "naturalist" but we are splitting hairs) due to the fact that a Christian would therefore need to "reject" Genesis?
(as literal)

I think if someone can say yes to that, then I will understand why CD was mentioned. I don't reject the Big Bang theory, nor the theory of evolution ... but I don't know if the story of Adam and Eve is literal or metaphorical. :/ I have always wondered that so maybe this is why I can "accept" what may seem as diametrically opposed views.

Grumpy, your post helped a lot; appreciated.

 

[spidergoat]

Don't be fooled by this pretence.
He wants only for you to denounce God.

jan.

That seems kind of silly. God would know what's in my brain already. Of course I don't mind blasphemy, but my real motivation is for people to sincerely question their beliefs in light of reason.

You can always make up reasons to believe in creationism, but the best reason to give it up is it's just superfluous.

 

[billvon]

Is the reason that one can't be both a "creationist" (I don't like labels but for the sake of this discussion, I just want to use it) and a "Darwinist" (which actually is a "naturalist" but we are splitting hairs) due to the fact that a Christian would therefore need to "reject" Genesis?

The Christian would need to reject creationism. Creationism describes the universe, the Earth and Man as creations of God.

You can have an alternative view of creationism (i.e. God just set the physical constants and then stood back) but that's not the common definition of creationism, so you'd have to have a huge set of caveats if you wanted to claim you were a creationist and also accepted evolution. Likewise you could accept creationism 100% and have some kind of limited view of evolution (i.e. "I accept microevolution but not macroevolution!") but again the list of caveats there would be so long as to make discussion nearly impossible.

 

[wegs]

The Christian would need to reject creationism. Creationism describes the universe, the Earth and Man as creations of God.

You can have an alternative view of creationism (i.e. God just set the physical constants and then stood back) but that's not the common definition of creationism, so you'd have to have a huge set of caveats if you wanted to claim you were a creationist and also accepted evolution. Likewise you could accept creationism 100% and have some kind of limited view of evolution (i.e. "I accept microevolution but not macroevolution!") but again the list of caveats there would be so long as to make discussion nearly impossible.

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

Seriously. This...is what I have been hoping someone would spell out. Accusations and all that doesn't help ME understand why I'm being told that the two "schools of thought" can't coexist.

Going with what you said, for a Christian, the OT is a foretelling
of the NT, in various passages. So, one might need to reject the entire bible in order to embrace evolution?
I don't want to think that. Sigh

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could reject what historians and astronomers have proven.
Which is why I won't ever reject science.

But, I also believe in a Creator.

But it would seem what I'm "hearing" and my friends who are atheists have tried to spell it out too, is I have to choose between God and science? (Edit to add; I don't want to give up either. )

Billvon, you and grumpy really helped as others here too. But some others "lose" me when they start the diatribes. Lol

Thank you. There needs to be more teachers like you in this world.

 

[billvon]

So, one might need to reject the entire bible in order to embrace evolution?

IMO, no - any more than you have to reject the Principia because it does not include relativity. So strictly speaking Newton was wrong but the Principia still contains some incredibly valuable stuff. Knowing what to use from it, and knowing what not to use from it, allows you to benefit from the wisdom it contains.

To me the Bible is a book that contains the oral history of a people and some general guidelines on how to live your life. Most of the New Testament is a pretty good guide to that. If you start thinking it's a literally accurate history/science book you can run into trouble, especially if you have a scientific bent.

But it would seem what I'm "hearing" and my friends who are atheists have tried to spell it out too, is I have to choose between God and science?

I don't think you do. People who take the Bible literally often have problems integrating science and religion because science conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, the people who truly take the Bible literally are becoming few and far between. (This is a good thing; there's a lot of stuff in the Old Testament that's pretty grim.)

 

[Trooper]

I've spent a decent chunk of my professional life working with disadvantaged and/or emotionally fragile people and many of them have had some sort of concept of god woven into a coping mechanism that was just barely getting them by. Of course it was never my job to discuss religion with anyone in that context (in fact it's the sort of thing that could have gotten me into trouble) but the topic naturally pops up anyway from the other side. But even if I had been free to engage in a significant discussion of such issues, I wouldn't have tried to extol the intellectual virtues of atheism, or negate the legitimacy of other world-views, not just because I could have potentially done damage, but also because I wholly believe that every individual should be free to contextualize their existence in whatever way they choose, even if they incorporate elements of fantasy. And whether any particular world-view is practical or not depends on what one is trying to achieve. If a person wants to live a richer more content life, and really needs to embrace some sort of faith in order to do that, then isn't the faith practical with respect to the desired outcome? Moreover, how is it practical to try to destroy that faith (again, with respect the persons desired outcome) unless you're both willing and able to provide an alternative and equally effective framework of psychological support? To put it more succinctly, if a person finds atheism depressing, what good does it do them to embrace it? How are they then a better person in any of the ways that most people think really matter?

Shouldn't we all value truth? Humans may need fantasy, but Rav, it’s not the space-faring teapots that concern atheists, it’s the tea that’s being served.

Mad Hatter: Would you like a little more tea?
Alice: Well, I haven't had any yet, so I can't very well take more.
March Hare: Ah, you mean you can't very well take less.
Mad Hatter: Yes, you can always take more than nothing.

Genesis 3: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Human desire is insatiable. Notice how in this little literary piecemeal, desire becomes separate from need. It was good for food, but it was to "be desired" to make one wise. Knowledge then becomes the object of desire, but neither food, nor knowledge is the means to an end, but rather that, which sets our desire in motion. Then BAM, YE SHALL BE AS GODS. This is an extreme kind of false sense of self, don’t cha think? I do not want to be a part of this collective fantasy. There is a little dilemma of retaining your uniqueness, while having the desire of being one with all.

The Talmud makes a statement: Every person should walk through life with two notes, one in each pocket. On one note should be the words, Ani afar ve‘efer—I am nothing but dust and ashes. On the other note should be the words, Bishvili nivra ha’olam—For my sake was this world created. In some sense, both are true, but you'd have to know when it's appropriate to reach in to each pocket.

“I can imagine a religion saying that matter and energy is God. It’s a beautiful thought, but instead of understanding what you are, you want to be what you’re not. However, it’s just because they don’t understand how precious, and absolutely incredible matter is, or how precious you are, and it is sad. Just because we can understand feelings from a material point of view, people view it as though it somehow demeans our nature, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else. What more could you possibly ask for?” ~ Rodolfo Llinas

Yes, some people may need fantasy, or self-serving biases for motivation, but in order to prevent encroachment, they have to realize that they are fantasies.

Humans need love and acceptance , not gods, Rav.

 

[Grumpy]

wegs

Christianity and creationism are not the same thing. Most Christians see the first chapters of Genesis as allegory or metaphor. If you want to say that god said "Let there be light!" and the Big Bang occurred, I would have no means nor any reason to try to convince you differently, we just don't know what caused the Big Bang(but we do know it happened and when).

Evolution, on the other hand, we do have copious evidence of, we KNOW that life is older than 3.5 billion years on Earth(not 6000 years as per creationists), we KNOW that nothing more sophisticated than a single cell existed before about 600 million years ago(as opposed to top down creation, we KNOW that every human currently on Earth descended from a single female who lived about 200,000 years ago(that "Eve" actually did exist), we KNOW that the human race got "smarter" suddenly about 15-20 thousand years ago, possibly from a single set of mutations or possibly due to the invention of writing, civilization and cultivation. In short, we KNOW that almost every claim made by creationists is wrong and that the goal of creationism is not a search for truth but a protection of ignorance and superstitious non-sense by those who cannot face reality. The Catholic Church has no beef with what scientists have found to be true(that has not always been so, but after so many loses they realized there is no winning with the facts on the other side)and nutjob fundies are a mystery to most of the world(and a bane on civilized, free societies wherever they do exist, here or abroad). Fundamentalism and creationism go hand in hand and they are both insults to the intelligence of mankind.

I was raised Christian, my morals are still based largely on the philosophy of Jesus(basically responsible Socialism)even as I realize he was just a man, not the deity the people of the organized cult following his death created out of whole cloth. The Old Testament was written thousands of years before Jesus, the New Testament has no content from less than 50 years after his death. It is largely fiction in both cases, it has nothing to contribute to any scientific investigation and cannot be considered history(legend and fable yes, accurate history, no). It was written within a misogynist, scientifically ignorant age and it shows. Many of the things the Old Testament tells you to do would get you arrested(if not executed)today, we don't sell our daughters or own our wives and if we kill everyone not of our temple who visits it, we deserve to be killed ourselves as we see this Biblical admonition as the barbarism it actually is. But the only one of these admonitions(kill your rebellious children, no bacon, no mixed fabrics, being crippled in the temple, divorce, etc.)is still supported, the one about homosexuality, go figure.

Grumpy

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Bullshit like ...''Whales have existed for million of years. Watch this animation, from the Sant Ocean Hall, to see how they evolved from land-dwellers to the animals we know today. Discover more about whale evolution in our Ocean Over Time interactive. Note: this video contains no audio''.

DNA analysis shows that the cetaceans are artiodactyls, a clade that includes the order of even-toed ungulates: cattle, sheep, camels, deer, pigs, hippos, etc. In fact they are most closely related to the hippos, which makes perfect sense. Their ancestors were probably primitive hippopotamus-like creatures who swam down the river all the way to the sea, and liked it there.

The artiodactyls and cetaceans have now been combined into a superorder, Cetartiodactyla.

I've spent a decent chunk of my professional life working with disadvantaged and/or emotionally fragile people and many of them have had some sort of concept of god woven into a coping mechanism that was just barely getting them by.

Religion is a crutch: a well-known homily. It doesn't explain why healthier people should need it, especially since so many of us whose mental health is not particularly better than theirs don't.

Throughout history (and prehistory), all over the world, people cling to the fairytales of religion because they give them hope. Christianity and Islam, in particular, deliver the hope of a whole new life of love, peace and joy after they die. This makes it easier for them to endure the rigors of mortal existence.

As mortal life becomes less painful and more rewarding in the wake of industrialization, and particularly of the Electronic Revolution, a larger segment of the population finds no need for a promise of a better life. This life is quite fulfilling for a large number of people, and we regard religion as just plain silly. Sure, I'm gonna die, but I had a real blast while I was here!

What would I do in Heaven anyway? Would I have to reunite with my parents? I felt a huge wave of relief when they died. I miss all of my dear dogs, but the Christians assure me that they won't be there because they don't have "souls."

The Christian would need to reject creationism. Creationism describes the universe, the Earth and Man as creations of God. You can have an alternative view of creationism (i.e. God just set the physical constants and then stood back) . . . .

That's called "The Cosmic Watchmaker Model of the Universe."

. . . . so you'd have to have a huge set of caveats if you wanted to claim you were a creationist and also accepted evolution. Likewise you could accept creationism 100% and have some kind of limited view of evolution.

The heads of all the major Christian sects, including the Pope, have admitted that much of the Bible is metaphor.

Jesuit (an order of Catholic priests) universities have taught evolution for years, and plate tectonics since it was established. Clearly they have no problem integrating science with their religion.

Their god seems to be a personal one, somebody you can talk to. Not one that meddles with nature.

That's just fine. We're all allowed to talk to people who aren't there. It helps us organize our thoughts and answer our own questions.

I talk to my dogs. They've been very helpful.

Once again: "If dogs don't go to Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." -- Will Rogers (1879-1935), beloved American philosopher and humorist.

And I can't resist adding this one: "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

 

[billvon]

That's called "The Cosmic Watchmaker Model of the Universe."

I don't think so. The "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument is basically "if you found a pocketwatch just sitting there on the ground, and you examined it, it would clearly have been made by someone intelligent (i.e. a watchmaker.) We are more complex than watches, so therefore we MUST have been made by someone intelligent."

The "set the constants and then vamoose" angle is more of a God of the Gaps. God sets basic physical constants, the universe begins - and from that point on he doesn't directly mess with stuff.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I don't think so. The "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument is basically "if you found a pocketwatch just sitting there on the ground, and you examined it, it would clearly have been made by someone intelligent (i.e. a watchmaker.) We are more complex than watches, so therefore we MUST have been made by someone intelligent." The "set the constants and then vamoose" angle is more of a God of the Gaps. God sets basic physical constants, the universe begins - and from that point on he doesn't directly mess with stuff.

Okay. But those two arguments differ more in emphasis than in substance. The Cosmic Watchmaker (if I read this correctly) could have done all of his work up front and then sat back to watch, just like the God of the Gaps.

As we continue to learn more about evolution, during what's heralded as the "Century of Biology," so that God only needs to be invoked in those first few zettaseconds after the Big Bang (probably yottaseconds by then), the two models will converge.

For that matter, as the "gaps" narrow and disappear, the "God of the Gaps" becomes a watchmaker.