Chosen,
Cris, as the atheist you are, of course you are going to "reasonably conclude that these processes [evolutionary theory] are true." And that "It is reasonable to believe that evolution is true." You use the belief system yourself. Correct?
No, this has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with logic. Note that I have made reference to
inductive logic several times now and I notice you haven’t picked up on those references and you have proceeded to chastise me as if it hadn’t been said. I strongly suspect you are not clear on the difference between deductive and inductive logic.
In case I am right here is a short article on the differences between these very important methods of reasoning.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_logic_ded.htm
Here is a copy of the article –
Arguments can be separated into two categories, deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is an example:
1. All men are mortal. (premise)
2. Socrates was a man. (premise)
3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible for the conclusion to be false.
An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates probably ate fish. (conclusion)
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. Words which tend to mark an argument as inductive - and hence probabilistic rather than necessary - include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.
It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not correct. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don't arrive at new information. Thus, the truth-preserving nature of these arguments comes at a cost.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for deductive arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may be used most often with mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of inductive arguments.
Here is a more precise article on logical reasoning using induction and deduction.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bio125/logic.Giere.pdf
Most of science is based on inductive reasoning. With induction we talk about the strength of the argument and the degree of probability. The theory of the atom uses inductive logic. No one has ever directly seen an atom, yet there is so much evidence based on the theory, including nuclear bombs that lead scientists to say with a very high probability of confidence that the theory of the atom is true. In other words it is reasonable based on the volume of evidence to consider the theory as if it was fact. However, there is a small possibility that the theory could be wrong.
The conclusions concerning Big Bang theory, and evolutionary theories also come under the category of inductive logic.
When I say it is reasonable to believe a particular theory as if it is true I am not being imprecise or vague. Neither has this anything to do with atheism or theism. This is formal logic and the basis for most of science, and the way we define what is and what is not knowledge.
If the evidence for a theory is considered overwhelming then the inductive argument is considered so strong that it is reasonable to consider and treat the theory as if it were true. This is simply very practical. However, it should always be remembered that there is an element of doubt in every inductive conclusion (no matter how small); it will always be present. So when inductive conclusions are considered as if they are true then it is important to understand how the conclusion was derived.
When someone says they
believe something what they are really saying is that
they are claiming they know that something is true.
The problem with theism, and your usage of the term belief.
Belief is a claim to have knowledge and not some vague statement that something may or may not be true. If you are not convinced of something then you clearly do not believe it to be true, and hence cannot hold a belief. Note that that is different from believing that something is false, one may simply not know either way and this is always an acceptable position.
Theists claim a belief that the existence of a god or gods is true. I.e. they think they know it is true. If evidence is shown in the form that allows for a deductive conclusion, or at least evidence that can lead to an inductive conclusion based on probability, then the conclusion can be considered logical and hence rational. If there is no evidence (as is the case for theism) then clearly neither deductive or inductive logic can be applied and any such conclusions are therefore outside of the scope of logic and are therefore illogical and hence irrational.
You claim to be a theist, hence you are claiming you know that a god exists, yet you have no evidence. You are therefore illogical and irrational, or you are not a theist.
When you say you are keeping an open mind and state that perhaps a god might not exist then that is contrary to your statement that you believe that a god does exist.
All theists always argue from the assumption and conviction that a god exists. They never express doubt. That is theism. If you express doubt then you are admitting that you simply do not know, and that is atheism.
You are an atheist my friend, accept it. It doesn’t stop you searching for a god. It just means you are able to think within the realm of logic. It doesn’t stop you wanting to believe that a god exists, but to be rational and logical you must provide evidence before you can claim a rational belief.
Evolution.
As for evolution being fact and theory: I find it amusing that you are throwing back at me website references that I have quoted here a number of times long before you appeared. You also need to read your references though, especially the one on misconceptions, you will find this supports my position perfectly. Evolution is fact; there is no doubt, and the processes that allow it to occur represent what is known as evolutionary theory. This is why evolution is considered both fact and theory.
This is the best web reference that summarizes the fact and theory explanation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Some of my favorite quotes –
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
So I hope all that helps clarify my position a lot better and I hope gives you pause to think and reconsider your claims.
Take care
Cris
