AJ,
we obviously have different understandings of the term “legitimate”, though it usually means “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards“ (Merriam-Webster). We all know that there were times when atheism, or any other world view not “conforming to recognized principles” (as seen by the Church) were deemed illegitimate. I do not think it is helpful to anybody - including atheists - to want to turn this around by denying legitimacy to philosophical views not conforming to principles recognized by (a group of) atheists with a narrow view of what science can and cannot provide.

As for “jumping to conclusions” please recall that I spoke of a premise, the exact opposite of conclusion. I never said one should “base one’s science“ (whatever that means) on a theistic or atheistic premise, and I can fully agree with you that one should not. Many philosophers build their world view on metaphysical premises, both those that you might like and those that you might not. Also, there are books by philosophically inclined scientists explaining that belief in a God who created the universe and acceptance of e.g. the neo-Darwinian version of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I tried to argue along the same line in my previous posts, and I do not see the need to repeat myself. After all, there are many respectable e.g. Christian scientists - as there are respectable atheist scientists - which just proves my point that the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Neither do I want to repeat my objections to the misuse of logic by fundamentalist atheists to justify their position. They are at the same level as my objections to fundamentalist e.g. Christians‘ misuse of the term moral to justify their position. Logic - unless you mean its popular meaning, where ‘common sense‘ would be a better, albeit very vague, term - is the mechanism of thinking that leads from premises to conclusions and has been formalised into mathematical logic in the last centuries. Your computer - which is neither a theist nor an atheist - is “running on it“.

George,

I partially agree with you, but I can sense that we are both going to start nit-picking and repeating ourselves far too much considering how stale this thread is becoming.

Perhaps we can save it for another time?

AJ,
I don’t mind describing myself as a fundamentalist under a proper definition of the word. But it’s like you’re running a smear campaign. I reject the term fundamentalist as meaning someone who wants to start a war or push the button on a nuclear bomb. Nor does it mean someone who lives in fear of condemnation by an angry God (see Romans 8:1, or the same chapter, v.15).

When you ask, how many times have you heard of atheists starting wars in the name of atheism? Plenty in the 20th Century. We could start with a guy named Stalin.

But if we want to have a reasonable discussion, let’s try and limit the definitions. For fundamentalist, I’m happy with someone who accepts the plain and clear teaching of Scripture. (Historically, Fundamentalists held about half a dozen ‘fundamentals’, including the virgin birth, etc.)

I’ll try and define ‘creationist’; someone who accepts the book of Genesis as a true and accurate account of the world’s beginning, and thus a reliable basis for further investigation of the natural world.

You said that religion has a ‘stunting’ effect on science. This could not be more wrong. For every famous scientist you could think of, I could name ten who fit the ‘creationist’ definition above: Von Braun, Pasteur, Mendel, Faraday, Newton (…tell me when to stop). Modern science was virtually born out of the protestant reformation in Western Europe.

Later other philosophical movements grew to challenge Biblical thinking, such as Lyellian geology (see Relda’s entry above, 27/12). These made for the popularity of Darwinism, or something like it, virtually inevitable.

There has been much discussion so far as to whether evolution is a fact or theory (or both). I would best describe it as a philosophy. In some circles, Charles Darwin is considered one of the great philosophers of modern times.

Darwin’s success was in giving people a framework for viewing or interpreting the evidence. At heart, Darwinism is the explanation for how the world came to be what it is if God didn’t create it.

(continued…)

(…continued)

So we have, and possibly forever will have, two competing philosophies. One is attempting to explain our origins without reference to God. As a result we currently have in vogue uniformitarian geology, neo-Darwinism and other associated atheistic views. The other is an explanation for our origins taking into account the creator God.

Each case lives in the same world, looks at the same evidence, views it through different glasses, and claims the evidence matches their case better.

I say all of this in the context of your argument about ‘motives’. A Christian fundamentalist will never change their view of creation because they are committed to the authority of Scripture. You say that is a bind. I say that’s what allowed science to begin. The belief that there is a God of order behind the natural world provoked people to study his creation and the laws he had established within it.

An evolutionist will also never change his view, ever, as they are committed to their philosophy. Even if they dragged Noah’s ark down from Mt Ararat into Main Street, an explanation would be found (perhaps a CIA plot or something). God must be kept outside the door.

On the other hand, we are still free to change our views. People do change boats or adopt new philosophies or outlooks, even in this debate.

But I’m happy to swim against the stream. I can’t see how evolutionary philosophy is any benefit to science. I think of the Wright brothers who studied birds in flight attempting to discover the principles of aerodynamics, or current scientists studying the human cooling system to try and design more economical methods of refrigeration. That we could deny the creative qualities apparent within biology and then try and emulate them is hypocrisy, or at the very least, counter-intuitive.

By the way, the website http://www.creationontheweb.com has hundreds of pages and is very comprehensive. If you say you cross referenced them all, you must not have searched it properly.

I am thankful for the evolutionary process which has produced the family structure where fathers stay around unlike many mammalian species where mother must rear the offspring all by herself. I am thankful for having a father who I could ask about the binding of Isaac when I heard the story. I asked him if he would sacrifice me if he heard a voice telling him to do it. He said he would see a psychiatrist and gave me a hug. I believed in my father and started to doubt the existence of a God who would demand atrocity to prove belief.

Dan,

<<I reject the term fundamentalist as meaning someone who wants to start a war or push the button on a nuclear bomb.>>

I simply used extremes to illustrate a point. But I don’t see how you couldn’t define the above as fundamentalist.

<<Nor does it mean someone who lives in fear of condemnation by an angry God (see Romans 8:1, or the same chapter, v.15).>>

Not entirely, no. But that’s part of the parcel, and ultimately what stops Theists from questioning too much. Romans 8:15: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”

Yes, if they reject the idea that Jesus is Lord, then they face eternal damnation. Therefore, Theists are more inclined to shut-out anything that contradicts the Bible.

That being said, Romans 8:15 doesn’t help your point.

<<When you ask, how many times have you heard of atheists starting wars in the name of atheism? Plenty in the 20th Century. We could start with a guy named Stalin.>>

Wrong.

Stalin (among others) was a psychopath, who happened to be an Atheist. But he didn’t start a war IN THE NAME OF Atheism. The banning of religion in the Soviet Union was just one of the many methods he used to oppress the people.

Stalin was ‘religious’ in the sense that believed strongly in a particular world-view. But he never committed his atrocities ‘in the name of’ Atheism.

For example, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, but that doesn’t mean that he started WWII ‘in the name of’ Roman Catholicism.

<<You said that religion has a ‘stunting’ effect on science.>>

Certainly does. Atheists start with a blank sheet, then collect the evidence to fill it. Theists though, need to selectively collect evidence that fits their rigid doctrine; While discarding everything else.

<<...I could name ten who fit the ‘creationist’ definition...>>

My only fault was that I was not specific enough. Religion only stunts certain types of science, depending on the day and age.

Good examples of my point were scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus, who risked charges of heresy for their theories.

Continued...