Stephen, I am no scientist but I do understand the tendency of many scientific communities to do their work to the exclusion of religious interpretation. "Intelligent design" is a recent example of the corrosive impact of religious dogma upon rational thought. Religion does not permit itself to be opened to the same interrogative scrutiny as a scientific hypothesis, and for good reason...

You say "Yet, in spite of all the scientific evidence, and the determined expositions of evolutionary biologists, belief in creation persists in western cultures. How can this be explained?"

I believe the answer is a simple one. Rational thought coexists with irrational superstitution because no 2 humans are identicial, some are prone to being more skeptical of so-called "truths" put before them than are others.

And thank goodness we have the former because the latter do seem to need some help in accepting that their dogma is not what a secular culture (western or otherwise) needs in these times.

There need not be a clash if religious people keep their beliefs to themselves and not try to force others to follow their dogma. If you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. If you dont believe in euthenasia then dont do it. If you dont believe in pre marital sex then dont do it. If you want to pray in church and worship your god then go right ahead. JUST DONT TRY TO FORCE IT ON ME!

Mikk, why are you trying to force your beliefs on me?

Grey:
He’s not.

* * *

Need there be a clash between religion and science? Yes, because the two kinds of belief systems are mutually contradictory, and are saying inconsistent things about reality and what is true.

With science, if the facts don’t fit the theory, you keep the facts and throw out the theory. With religion, if the facts don’t fit the theory, you keep the theory and throw out the facts.

Creationist belief seems to be part of man’s default-mode mechanism for explaining how things come into existence. An interesting example from the Bible is the explanation that where languages come from, is that they were all created. That has been disproved by the evolution of new languages since it was written.

I once read about a traditional Aborigine referring to a particular tree and saying it had been there since the Dreamtime; whereas we think of geology, biology and history as being on vastly different time-scales.

With the progress of factual knowledge, man seems to substitute a naturalistic explanation based on evidence for the prior default-mode explanation based on assumption and supernatural creationism.

Man’s superstitious proclivity has not disappeared. It has gone from awe of groves and streams; to reverencing spirits; to worshipping gods; to one big God; to one big god with an earthly corporation to administer his worldly concerns; until in secular times man’s superstitious proclivities become vested in the omnipotent corporation itself – the State.

The State is assumed to be all-knowing, all-moral, and all-capable; even while the fact is that the State is a monopoly of theft and crime. The State is assumed, creationist-wise, to be the source of all social order, the basis of all morality, and to be necessary for productive and economical behaviour to exist; even while it legalises theft and violence; actively dispenses privilege; wastes hard-earned wealth on a grand scale; spreads moral and economic incoherence; sends people on unnecessary wars; and enforces the submission, obedience and tribute of whole populations.

This is nothing but superstitious belief originating in modern-day creationist assumptions and disproved by economic science.

<<The way..we understand/things..guides our beliefs,and in turn,..'it'..determines..'our'..actions.>>..quite correct..earlier you said..re personality cults..

[i call darwinism,and the other evolutionary prophets..holding religiously to evolution..to be as much personalitie cultists..with religiously held beliefs..the SAME as any of religion's faulse god-heads]

<<If our perception is incomplete,our actions will be flawed>>..egsactly..the personalities make claims clearly designed to decieve..

[take your OWN quote]..<<''..The great apes may be our most recent evolutionary ancestors,..but even then'',..probably..lol..''millions of generations,(as opposed to millions of years)..have passed by since the..'divergence'in'evolution'.>>..60 to 80 THOUSAND years..[ie the first homo erectus..ie non ape..is hardly millions..lol

<<if we draw the wrong conclusions from our actions,..our perception will remain flawed>>..egsactly...so lets see science says big-bang--religion says in the beginning..[we both agree to a beginning..lol

we both have names..[religion has paul/jesus/mahamoud,..science has darwin/dorkins/et'al

bible has an winged/angel become snake...evolution has a snake that grows wings..religion has adam..[science claims lucy..[yet lucy is a proven fraud]

<<The third,and probably the most important unease caused by those who do not fully support evolution are the currently held views of a human being...>>..ok lets look at..'human'..[the only animal capable of making writen/words..math..science..mythology..theology

the[only]..'animal'..that thought of making a pot/a basket/a wheel/a tent..thought of value/units of exchange/..was able to concieve a greater god..[an unseeable/eternal/imortal/good god]

the list of divergances from ape..[while geneticlly only 2 percent..yet enumerate 2000 plus..2000[succesfull]..evolution's/mutations..[dispite mutations largly..[statisicly]mutations..are detromental..to the mutants survival

[all the trillions of fruit-fly mutations..have not made EVEN one non-fruitfly..[ie..no proof of evolution out of species..[into new genus]

life comes from life..[religion says..'god'..breathed life into clay[science/that..'somehow'..amino-acid's..became..'life'..lol..[science has..never created actual/life,..not even made a single/living cell membrane..[yet dare speculate life arose from nothing..lol]

despite mutating..intra species..science has NEVER recorded a species changing genus..[all mutation is intra species]..genus into new genus is not valid..[has NEVER been recorded],..and science has never observed it nor recorded it...

NOR done it..lol..isnt true science able to replicate?..[yet sciences FAULSE GODS/guru's..DARE to speculate that species/evolve from their genus..into other genus..lol]

evolution is EVERY BIT as much faith/basedas religion..[the evolving/de-volving fanatics..just dont note their own fanaticism]..hence it is taught to gullable/children..and expaned by reporters...lol

According to official Western academia, as regards Christianity,
religion and science came together under St Thomas Aquinas, who is said to have lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages by accepting Hellenistic Reasoning from Arab scholars.

Further, while also as a Doctor of Learning Aquinas began what are now our Western universities, the Arabs later did accept Islam, some researchers say, as far as science is concerned, sadly dipping themselves into their own Dark Ages.

Regards, BB, WA.

I can identify only one common attribute shared by both religion and science and that is human imagination.

I can’t see any reconciliation of the two since they are applied to uncommon goals. Science uses human imagination to interrogate possibilities to explain the observable, then develop a hypothesis, then test it and repeat it to produce a single applicable formula for each problem.

Religion on the other hand is man made, by our imagination. Since religion has no “observable” components, our imagination creates them, miracles, divine interventions and “holy texts”.

Instead of a single formula for each religious problem, we end up with today’s 34,000 formulae or religions.

There can be no reconciliation of two mutually exclusive constructs. Every time we try we simply create another religion (formula).

I am "forcing" my beliefs on you as you put it Greg because my beliefs are better than yours. :P My beliefs give you and all others the freedom to believe what they want while not infringing on others. In contrast to the godbotherers beliefs which want to force us all to conform to their twisted morality and rules and take away our free will.

This reference gives a unique Understanding of the role of science as a method of free enquiry, and scientific materialism as a limited power seeking ideology or dogma.

1. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx

Plus a unique Understanding of religion, God and Truth.

1. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

Mikk, the one thing which seriously bothers me about people who hold your view is that they rarely recognise the fact that EVERYONE forces their beliefs on others.

Everyone knows this, or they must if they've given it a moments thought, but it is swept out of the way in order to create this false dichotomy whereby one group is trying to force beliefs on others, and the other group (your view) is not. This is simply untrue.

For example, I will make the assumption that you think child gambling is wrong. Now you may or may not share this view, but the content is not the issue as we could use numerous different examples here. So lets say an 11 year old considers himself mature enough to be able to gamble on the pokies. Now, is it not "infringing" on him to not allow him the privelege? Of course it is infringing on him.

So the point is, everyone infringes on someone. We personally do it, and governments do it. So the question is NOT the false question which you imply- should we able to infringe our beliefs on others?, the question is actually What should we infringe on others and what shouldn't we infringe on others?

This is an important distinction, which is so often lost. Losing the distinction allows your view to become slyly misleading.

Wing Ah Ling,

Exactly, for many,even educated people, "God" is the god of the gaps in human understanding.
I've no objection to religious belief as long as it's not compulsory and believers follow the laws of the liberal democratic state. An evolutionary explanation for religious belief is examined in this article at-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

Evolution has been correctly described as a fairy tale for adults. Despite numerous changes in the theory it still is not backed by science or has any plausible answers in regards to origins. It is faith based just the same way as the gw alarmist are faith based. The stinking humanistic worldview which secularist draw from the evolution theory leads to degradation, death and suicide and immorality. Man in his arrogance thinks if he can sell a silly little theory excluding God he may then be the master of his own destiny. He thinks he can have sex with who he wants, mock his Creator as he pleases, murder the unborn and play god himself. Thank fully God is not mocked and each will be judged by His Creator. Hopefully many will find forgiveness in Christ and stop denying the obvious corruption of their nature. God must laugh at such a pathetic attempt to explain the universe (as evolution). I really think a two year old has more of an idea.

To me the author is asking why is it so, rather than making a direct statement one way or the other. If we could step back from the earth and look at it's human history, the answer is easy to see, but not readily acceptable by many.

Cultures and belief come and go constantly, the most powerful last a few thousand years and are then overtaken by other psychological needs.

Monotheistic religion's been replacing deism, theism and animism for the last couple of thousand years and has passed it's peak. Now as will all things unsustainable in an evolutionary way, it's diminishing and another ideology is growing to take it's place. The new ideology revolves around our sciences and will probably be a belief in our ability to transcend the universe and colonise other universal bodies.

It's a simple understanding, religion relies upon perceived threats of outcomes, using psychological and physical pressure with restraint of knowledge. Our science has broken those shackles, now knowledge is available to all. Worldwide we're seeing the death throes of religion as it struggles to suppress changes empowering the entire human population, putting religion in the past with other unsupportable mythologies. It will take a few violent years, but monotheistic religions passing will come, as it has in the past to all other psychological fears and superstitions.

Stormbay:

"Worldwide we're seeing the death throes of religion....."

Religion has certainly declining in some parts of the world over the past 50 years, but the decline in those areas is more than compensated for by huge increases in other areas, for example Africa and China. So overall, your statement is completely false.

Yet the language you've used to describe religion has allowed you to create such a strange and impoverished carictature in your own mind that it doesn't surprise me to hear your opinion on the subject.

However, I do look forward to hearing any evidence you've got to back up your claim. My mind isn't closed, so go right ahead

As science is based on fact and reality, the clash is between religion and reality.

Science is perfectly happy to continue on, but the nutjobs of the religious world continue to bay at any progress that erodes their belief system and try and have the science or teaching of the science banned.

I wish they would just keep to their corner and mutter to themselves, but they continually feel the need to inflict their obsolete morality on the rest of the human species. When they get over their "god" given superiority complex and recognise the right of other people to think and act for themselves, the world will be a better place.

under one god,

While entitled to your opinion, there is some information which may interest you.

Your correct in stating that there is an apx. 2% genetic difference between humans and ape, this must me taken in the context that >90% of our DNA does not code for genes, thus protein. This makes the 2% difference in DNA of which we know the gene function more significant than it sounds.

"[all the trillions of fruit-fly mutations..have not made EVEN one non-fruitfly..[ie..no proof of evolution out of species..[into new genus]" This statement shows a rather simplistic view of genetic evolution. What did you expect... "well professor, we substituted adenine with guanine... and now its a cow!" all species are related to each other by some means, the definition of one species and the changes required to define it as another is a subjective decision made by humans with no real relevance.

"[science has..never created actual/life,..not even made a single/living cell membrane..[yet dare speculate life arose from nothing..lol]" Well, this depends on how you define life... some theories would suggest viruses and plasmids could be considered living, as they are able to adapt and replicate. If you agree with this, then science can and has created "life". as for a cell membrane, I'm quite sure that lipids can be easily formed my chemists.

"science has NEVER recorded a species changing genus..[all mutation is intra species]..genus into new genus is not valid..[has NEVER been recorded],..and science has never observed it nor recorded it..." The length of time over which evolutionary changes occur makes it difficult to observe and record events which may take thousand of years. However, observation of bacterial strains in hospitals which become resistant to various anti-biotics is a quite interesting example of inter-generational genetic mutations producing bacteria very different. The same could be said for the virus strains which change significantly from one flu season to the next.

It may be frustrating that science does not provide complete 'proof' of its various theories. However it does lead us in the right direction, and that is to the truth.

stezza..its a matter of fact..that the science hasnt the fact..[so why they persist in selling it to kids as a done deal?]

you would know that we share'..50'percent of our dna with a bannana[does this mean we decended from a banana?..[according to the insanity of science...anything can evolve into anythin..

[but the proof is..species stay stable..[within their genus..[and did not mutate into that we now have]..via any type/or/form of..'natural'..selection..[whatever'natural'means..within the confines of science methodology]...lol..even survival..of the fittest yet needs a mutant..fit enough to survive..[and the vast majority of mutants die]

science should say..our reserch reveals life only comes from life

[we see a living/sperm go into a dead egg..[within a living cell membrane]..and evolve into a living being..[which is amasing..but science should also be upfront and say;..we are completly unable to make a sperm..[or a cell membrane]..[because its scientificlly impossable to get life from dead matter...]

say THEY/think life evolved..[but because of/..gaps between species..have no verifiable/faulsifiable proof..[of one genus mutating into any other genus]...[because it dont[..it says..'we are right..and religion is wrong'..lol..yet cannot re-create even the most basic of life..[of our/own science method.]

see the gaps in the fossil record occure..EGSACTLY where science would need genus to change genus..[not one verifyable genus mutation into other genus is recorded]..thus intermediates theory is flawed/and[decieving]

see that these EXPERTS can find a miniscule bone/tooth..[and tell you specificlly what species it comes from,..thus revealing..;..these..'looks the same'..arnt scientificlly identical..!..[EVERY species bone is unique..!..][think about how this could be?,,if they are only slowly mutating..[evolving..lol]..

the absurdity of the faith..you all have in deceptions..[is the same as any..religious nutter..holding fast to the wrong idea of god/or their human messenger's,..be they saints of science/or saints of a church.

only science/pope claim infalability..,yet evolution remains a theory OF science..[not a valid science in its own right]...just as many religious nutters havnt experienced god..[many believers of evolution never done the science..[its all faith based...faulse/faith built on the messengers/message]

we have had this debate many times
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411&page=0
they allways end in name calling..because some retard needs to have the last say

Hilarious, runner. Funniest thing I've seen all week. Now, would you like to borrow a hanky to wipe the foam away from your mouth?

Runner,

"He (Man) thinks he can have sex with who he wants, mock his Creator as he pleases, murder the unborn and play god himself." -R

According to the Bible, the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit. In order to sin against the Holy Spirit, one needs to first believe in God.

If Man is made in God's image and Man is wrong to create life (in a test tube) or the early universe (in particle accellerator). How is God justified in creating Life and a Universe. We are in His image and following His example.

If God is wrong in creating the Universe with the cruelty of the insect world and the Man, who sins. Surely, if that God exists, there are ideal forms of high morality transending God's (im)morlaity.

It doesn't follow, because an Enity is a Creator, said Creator is moral. Would you create Satan?

Trav,

<”However, I do look forward to hearing any evidence you've got to back up your claim. My mind isn't closed, so go right ahead”>

The evidence I use is cultural history, the roman empire was at it's largest, so was communism and just about every invasive culture and ideology the planet has suffered. Look at the reality of our sociological existence, you'll find most organisations collapse when they are at their biggest and most perceived successful state.

Sure the Abrahamic religions are spreading around the world, but wherever they go doesn't see an improvement in peace, security or freedoms, suppression is getting worse worldwide. As religion struggles under the weight of truth which is unravelling it's control, we see many spreading conflicts involving religious states, cultures and factions.

Science and religion are incompatible, science is an investigative changing process, whilst religion is a forced, stagnant acceptance. There's no argument when you look at the real facts. Trying to put religion on a par with science is quite childish, logic shows they are incompatible opposites, one science, reasoned logic, the other religion, illogical illusion.

Science and Religion are generally incompatible by virtue of very opposite natures. One seeks to inquire the other to accept.

I tend to agree with the author regarding religion and conflict. Religion really just adds another log on the fire where there is already disunity for other, mainly economic, disparities.

Religion attempts to be inclusive but it is doomed to fail in the face of too many doctrines. To choose one religious doctrine over another is in effect making a statement that the other is wrong. Not a great way to foster conducive relationships in the face of other challenges.

Of course religion and science can be compatible in those arenas that don't tamper with Creationist viewpoints such as investigations into the origins of man. Other scientific discoveries or ingenuity such as the invention of the wheel, microbiology, treatment of cancer, medical and other advancements may even be in sync with the altruistic goals of some religions.

Oh dear, runner and co why am I not surprised

under one god,

Many of the enzymes and proteins we use have high similarity to those in the cells of a banana, however to find a common ancestor you may have to go back to the evolution of single celled organisms. I can understand that you may think this theory is "insane". It is hard for the closed mind to comprehend. It must be easier for you to accept that a magic invisible being made them appear from thin air.

I think before you comment you should do some research into the things you say, for almost every sentence you write is either your opinion or incorrect information stated as fact. "we see a living/sperm go into a dead egg" Eggs are as alive as any other cell in our body.

You may like to read about artificial speciation, whereby new species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry. In the experiments by William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies from the same species under differing conditions. After 35 generations fruit flies which had been bred under one condition were unable to breed with flies from another, thus formed two distinct species which had originally been one. This experiment contradicts your previous arguments that one species do not arise from another. You can even replicate this experiment yourself if you must see to believe. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/284831

Yes, here we go again.

Runner's provided the most entertainment so far, I reckon :)

Hilarious.

Leave the religious people alone.
Until we get cheaper intelligent robots we need the dimwits to do the menial jobs.
That is why religion persists ,it is useful to us at the top.
Intelligent children from the religious classes can escape and are welcomed into the tech world.

"There are several important claims made by some scientists as to why religious beliefs are an impediment to human progress. These can be summed up as:

1. the brainwashing of people into accepting belief systems;
2. religions cause conflicts; and
3. a general unease by many who, although they may accept many aspects of evolutionary biology, nonetheless question the seeming insistence on the “animal” aspects of humans."

You forgot number 4: They're demonstrably false.

Hot off the “Intergalactic Weekly”. Star date 1004 A.D. (took a long time to get here).

“Reports are being received from our staff in the Blinker Region, outer fourth spiral arm, that disturbances are taking place on the planet Plunk, inhabited by intelligent silicon based species resembling 3m tall grasshoppers.

A region occupied by the Romano Empire, home to the Irate tribe, is in turmoil as the occupying forces executed one of the giant silicon grasshoppers by “pop-riveting” it to a metallic frame until it fluttered no more.

Early editions indicate that this particular grasshopper was a Son of God, and appears to have come to life again and now resides at the right hand side of the other two bits that make up an even bigger grasshopper God.

In making the Plunks think they look like God, they seem to believe they have some sort of “special status” on their planet, particularly those who follow the leader known as “Rusty” (the pop-riveted one). So much so that they actually feel they are in some way superior, not only to the other 4.2m silicon based life forms on Plunk, but those in the rest of the Universe.

The authorities in the Blinker region are increasingly concerned, and will monitor the situation for millennia or so. A spokes hopper for the Blinker region expressed concern that similar stories have emerged from other planets and cited an alarmingly similar incident on planet “Earth”, fifth spiral arm. Whilst this species is in fact carbon based, they too have been told they are made in the “likeness of God”. Clearly this is not possible given that God is in fact silicon based.

The spokes hopper agreed to update our journalist with developments which we should received in about 1,000 years. The spokes hopper did however suggest that the misinformation spread by God might lead to fragmentation of societies as we know them, certainly within our Galaxy and possibly the rest of the Universe, and might induce false assumptions that could, in a worse case scenario, lead to suspension of reality.

stezza<<..read about artificial speciation,>>>indeed i have..[it gets raised nearly every debait]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2679&page=0

BUT dear child...DO you know the DIFFERENCE..between species and genus?..[clearly..you do not]

your link..talks about seagulls[..all seagulls are the same genus
[but diveregent species]...

YOU WILL BE MISSING THE POINT..and looking silly..if you DONT know..the difference...

see how your link has../species in its heading..NOT GENUS..SEE how darwin wrote..evolution of the..SPECIES...not genus

it seems a small thing..to those not knowing the difference,..but they just dont know..any different..lol..the genus includes..all of its species/within its genus...

THUS all seagulls are the same genus..!..[all pigs are same genus..[all sheep same genus,..thus can inter-BREED..[thats part of what devides species and genus..[in part-THE ABILITY TO INTERBREED,..but failure to breed ISNT proof of genus]

one genus CANT interbreed with an OTHER GENUS..!

..please educate yourself..before you presume to educate me..[read the two linked debates,..dear child,..learn to know what/your claiming..

<<whereby new/species have been created..>>>YES YOUR CORRECT..but species..DONT mutate out of genus..nor into NEW genus!

<<In the experiments by William Rice and/Salt..bred fruit flies from the same species under differing conditions...After 35 generations fruit flies which had been bred under one condition were unable to breed with flies from another,..thus formed two distinct...species...>>..yes..NOT A NEW GENUS

flies are ALL..the same genus..[GET IT GENIOUS?],..for evolution to be valid..SPECIES has no proof..[we need a new genus]..[species is nothing]re-evolution/proof

[till you clearly get the difference its like claiming because your mother got pregnant you are..[get how dumb what your saying really is]

<<This experiment contradicts your previous arguments that one species do not arise from another>>>..dear..i have NEVER contended species cant breed with species..WITHIN/their genus..

..but evolution says new/genus arises via mutation INTRA/species..thus/creates NEW GENUS..[a scientific frauD]..geneticly impossable

<<..this experiment yourself if you must see to believe.>>..i have replicated INTRA GENUS..[ie species matings..many times..[but lets hear you evolve..a NEW genus]..its just not possable...

[but ignoarants like you..[who have no real concept of how dumb they sound],..keep saying species/proof=genus/proof=evolution/proof..lol

[ie they claim that micro-species/evolution..validates genus-evolution..ie macro evolution..[IT DONT]..it cant..but your too stuck in the lie to realise you been decieved and decieving

The problem is not religion. Religion is great.

But rather the problem is with a particular branch of religion called monotheism. At some point the human race needs to stand up, look at the Torah, Bible and Koran truthfully and admit they are a load of crap.

For these texts are so far removed from healthy reality that they can only ever end in xenophobia and rank stupidity.

Stormbay- I repeat, your impoverished and bizarre strawman carictature is hindering you from seeing clearly on this subject. Christianity, for example, is not a "invasive culture and ideology", nor is it an "organisation". Christianity is far, far more widespread and diverse than any organisation.

I realise you love cultural history and cultural anthropology, but you need to start putting more thought into how your field interacts with others.

You made a fatal mistake in the resurrection discussion by trying to use cultural factors to explain why the resurrection didn't happen, when a quick examination of your statements showed that they in fact pointed towards the opposite direction- that is, your quotes from the cultural anthropologist actually made the resurrection appear more likely, not less. You're making another mistake here, similiar in that you're using cultural factors to make your point- albeit it's still a different mistake. By using an absurd caricturised definition of religions such as Christianity as "organisations", you're barring yourself from making any meaningful contribution to the discussion, right from the outset, as soon as you start talking about the cultural history of "organisations".

Even if I did accept that Christianity is defined as an organisation, you'd still be forced to admit that Christianity is far more widespread and diverse than any other organisation from which you're drawing comparisons, therefore your observations become useless.

Richard Dawkins says he was radicalised by 9/11.

Speaking for myself, when hordes of murderous nutcases actually started killing one another over some fairly ordinary cartoons, that's when I realised I wanted no part of religion anymore.

I still read the Bible, the Koran and other holy books, just as I still Shakespeare and Homer. But I don't believe either Hamlet or Zeus were real.

I'm genuinely saddened by your post, Clownfish. It's just incredibly dissapointing when people decide to turn away from their faith because of the actions of religious people.

However, I don't think it's a necessary step, or even a logical one. Why would you abandon a worldview because of it's adherents not following it's ideas? Or any would someone abandon religion because religious people do wrong? It doesn't seem logical to me at all. On an emotional level, I feel ya, but on an intellectual level I can't say that I see any logic in your complaints. I'll admit though that it's easy to let the emotional side get the better of you.

On another note, it also saddens me to see Dawkins lumping Christianity in the same boat as Islam. Each religion is different, and needs to be judged accordingly- even if you're only looking through a sociological lens at the good/bad done in the world.

^On another note, it also saddens me to see Dawkins lumping Christianity in the same boat as Islam.^

They are almost the same ,from the same part of the world but Christianity is 600 years in advance.
Spanish inquisition is where Islam is now.

under one god,

Ah so I see that you understand how a species can evolve from a common ancestor into two district species. Well done.

As I stated previously the definitions of species and genus are made up by humans to allow the classification of the similarities and differences between various lifeforms. Note: prior to genetic sequencing many species have been incorrectly classed in a particular genus based on morphological similarities. In reality there is no clearly defined line between species and genus. It just makes it easier for us to relate one animal to another.

Proof that a species has evolved "out" of a genus into another genus would assume that what is classified as a genus remains constant. This is not true, as all the species in all genera are constantly evolving.

I would be interested to hear how you understand this topic along with explanations for the evidence of evolution we can observe, such as artificial speciation and the changes we see with bacteria and viral adaptation to artificial selection.

Stephan Chelada, I liked your article.
The term 'survival of the fittest' was first coined by Herbert Spencer, who was closer to an economist than a biologist. Apparently, when he read Darwin's treatise, he was struck by the parallels between evolution and laissez faire economics. In fact, he used Darwin's theory as an apology for free market capitalism; it was 'natural'.
Although Darwin came to use the expression himself, (better soundbite), I believe he was initially disturbed by the concept, as giving the wrong impression.
Imagine a picnic, attended by people of all ages, from babies to geriatrics, suddenly attacked by a pack of wolves. 'Survival of the fittest' would suggest those in their prime should just flee, and leave the children and the weak to be savaged.
It is impossible to know the full potential of a small child; how 'fit' he or she will one day be.
It's fortunate many people are capable of a little more compassion, a little more 'humanity', than the free marketeers.
And yet, 30,000 children are still allowed to die, every day, from poverty.
You're right, Stephan Chelada. There are a lot of critters walking around on 2 legs, that just ain't Human.
www.avasay.com

Stephen, I can see you scratching your head in genuine bewilderment over the scientists‘ failure to see the holes in their “arguments” and the religious obstinately holding onto unfashionable beliefs.
Almost.

You write: “The Theory of Evolution placed a permanent question mark over the literal interpretation of the Bible.”

But this is only true for NON-BELIEVERS. (For believers, "God's word" as a matter of faith and belief trumps "patchy evolution theory" as a matter of faith and belief.)

Yet you ponder how can this be explained, as if belief in the biblical account of creation is an anomaly in the face “all of the scientific evidence”.

Other posters have addressed the lack of credible evidence, and you insist that: “An important part of scientific inquiry is that one should constantly question a theory.” Presumably, the Theory of Evolution falls outside of this rigorous approach to fact gathering?

According to the scientists, “religious beliefs are an impediment to human progress”, and according to you this is based on three (non-scientific) reasons which you then attempt to deconstruct in your rush to remove the barriers between science and religion.

Consider this: some scientists hold religious views. Therefore, science and religion are only incompatible in the mind of NON-BELIEVERS.

Your argument that “adherence to self-discipline and the importance of a set of rules is a common factor in all past and present belief system” is NOT TRUE of Christianity. In fact, the New Testament preaches the very opposite path to salvation – not through the law, not through your own actions, but through Christ.

How do you reconcile the fact that religions DO cause conflicts to your argument. It is true to say that not all conflicts are founded on religious differences. However, many of them are and will continue to be. It has nothing to do with science, so why?

To your “scientific” arguments for religion holding back progress, please deconstruct:

- Do you check your brain in at the door when you enter a church?

And:

- What proof do you have that God exists?

stezza<<Proof that a species has evolved "out" of a genus into another genus would assume that what is classified as a genus remains constant.>>>..all seagulls are one genus..[all fruitfly are one genus]..a species fluctuates within its species mean..[darwins finches are all finches]..lol

had you read the links..[which you havnt]..you would have read the link on darwins finches..finding out the season determines the species vairiation,predominant according to seasonal vaioriability..according to dry or wet seasons

[in dry times the thick beak..[in wet times the narrow..[all fl;uctuate WITHin is species mean..NEVER LEAVING ITS FINCH GENUS

you can prattle on about<<..This is not true,as all the species in all genera are constantly evolving.>>..but can offer NO EVIDENCE OF NEW GENUS EVOLVING..because it simply cant happen..

as you claim it does..PRESENT proof..[and not flies into flies..[or seagulls into seagulls,..they are all still within the genus..[of seagull,or fruitfly]

<<..how you understand this topic along with explanations for the evidence of evolution we can observe>>..evolution WITHIN the species..is well known..

..[BUT IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLVING A NEW GENUS,

<<such as artificial speciation>>..speciation MEANS WITHIN ITS SPECIES[

evolution CLAIMS genus-ification..[your ignorance knows no bounds[claiming no genus is insane..[please provide evidence]

<<and the changes we see with bacteria>>..ARE ALL BACTERIA

<<viral adaptation to artificial selection.>>..are all still virus
ie within the genus for bacteria
or within the genus for virus

its not the first time some fool claims the science term used isnt relitive..[read the link..[some retard disclaimed abiogensis is a science theory,..when i advised..[him/her]..that life comes from life..[as witnessed by science itself...

[thus non-life making life is scientificly absurd..[..they also were unable to name this first-life]..lol..very scietific..lol

[as is your claiming speciation..[within species,..is proof of genus evolution...lol..[for which not a single proof is to be found..

[the 5 claimed..[in the fossil record]..have been rebutted in the first debate..[see link]

Jurisprudence has been described as the science of law. The author says; Lack of self-discipline, and not adhering to a set of rules is detrimental to the individual and to society.

It was so then, and it is so now. He is so right. The Super Set of Rules, that have been applied as a science to government since about 1215 and the Magna Carta by the English were the Gospels. Those four narratives carefully selected from about 35 tales by early scholars, and referred to in the OT, have been the basis of the science of self government until 1970 in New South Wales.

In 1970, a small clique of gangsters and politicians, decided to allow nine lawyers, all Judges and Atheists, to write a Koran for the government of New South Wales. A new State Order, called the Supreme Court Act 1970, was published, and it broke all the preexisting rules. This new State order has evolved into the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. This is the catechism of the State of New South Wales Church. It fails to accept that Almighty God exists so it is the Atheists Bible. It refuses to acknowledge that Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second is Sovereign, and refuses to apply the universal and long tested Rules, that governed and ordered society scientifically, since 1215. Instead of separating Church and State, it makes the State the Church. It is not a Christian State, it is governed by nine Lawyer/Judges, on a Rules Committee. In practical terms New South Wales is an Atheist’s republic.

As a republic and a self proclaimed Sovereign State, the State has become Almighty God. This is the ultimate lack of self discipline. You may whinge and grizzle about Christians, but when your children decide you are past your use by date, and want your assets and can send you to a nursing home so they can sell them, on an order from the Guardianship Tribunal, you may just wish that Christian values still prevailed. Before 1970, anyone could have helped you to live with dignity. Now no one can

Stephen, science and religion are not opposing camps.

Yes, “science” is used by atheists/agnostics to refute religious beliefs, and the Theory of Evolution is one of the better known counter-arguments trotted out in such debates.

But that is the best that “science” can offer. Atheists certainly do not have the final answer and further, the argument itself is very thin on “science”. You might note that Creationists use “science” (convincingly) to argue back.

“Religion” is not anti-progress or anti-science, nor does science = progress . These are over-simplistic generalizations,not accounting for the differences between the world religions, or between individual believers.

Einstein was a Jew. Right? But he was also the influential scientist who sent a letter to the American president recommending that the new science of splitting an atom be exploited to develop weapons of mass destruction. He later expressed regret that this influenced the decision to commence the Manhattan Project. Science does not equate to progress if you weigh your definition of progress more heavily with those genetically-loaded empathetic tendencies.

Contributors here are quick to uptake the “religion” = “backwardness” idea.

Shadow Minister: “ but the nutjobs of the religious world continue to bay at any progress that erodes their belief system and try and have the science or teaching of the science banned.”

Einstein, for example? Or, like Clownfish, are we only talking about the “hordes of murderous nutases (who) actually started killing one another over some fairly ordinary cartoons”.

And undidly offers: “Intelligent children from the religious classes can escape and are welcomed into the tech world. “

Which doesn’t really explain why a large Government department pays me to be a computer programmer, and further, that I was a programmer first and became a believer later (nor, necessarily, assume that I fit this exclusive category of intelligence, or that I continue to be welcomed in the "tech world" since I converted, I suppose).

I get that “religion” has so many negative connotations, but in fairness, perhaps ONE of the world religions is being allowed to taint all religions.

Predictably, this has drifted into the usual simplistic arguments. The fact is, science and religion don't need to be at each other's throats.

The only time when there needs to be conflict, is when religion claims something factual, and it's proven to be wrong - like the literalists who think the earth's only 5,000 years old. They need to take a new interpretation of their bible and realise that religion is a form of philosophy - not a factual history, except in allegorical senses.

As for the arguments equating evolution to religion, I say, balls to that.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25510735-30417,00.html

Here's yet another damn suggestive piece of actual scientific evidence that's been unearthed in the last few days. Another missing link in evolution.

As opposed to scriptural tales from one religion among thousands, that claims truth in the form of thousand year old fairy tales.

It's pretty obvious to thinking people, that religion can be taken philosophically but not literally.

So to the literalists such as runner...

Get educated or suck eggs.

I see the desperados again claiming they have found the missing link. What a joke and insult to those who believe in true science. Yet another fraudulent claim. As I said before fairy tales for adults. This another case in point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/

TRTL writes

So to the literalists such as runner...
Get educated or suck eggs.

You mean get brainwashed like yourself and be filled with self righteousness. It is this kind of 'science' that only the most gullible could swallow. To create your evolutionary story around this fossil is as dumb as the many other attempts to ease man's corrupt conscience.

Runner states&#65306;"To create your evolutionary story around this fossil is as dumb as the many other attempts to ease man's corrupt conscience."

I'll take that, but with a minor correction:

To create your evolutionary story around this fossil.. AND the formation of landmasses that have shifted due to tectonic plate movement over millions of years AND the sheer number of prehistoric primate specimens that match primate and human characteristics such as Australopethicus not to mention thousands others AND the sheer number of dinosaur fossils that have showed up in fossil records despite no mention in the bible, yet the bible mentioned horses (you'd think a bloody tyrannosaur would mention a rating, but no AND the existence of shellfish fossils in high-altitude areas suggesting massive changes in climate and geology AND the fact that many religions claim the sole truth with no backing, just as you do AND....

Look, runner, I can go on forever, but you're not really listening are you?

Never mind. It's not as if you provide any kind of reasoning for your random diatribes anyway. Actually, I'm impressed.
That kind of fundamentalist determination takes a pretty impressive willpower.
It's a shame that that same fundamentalist determination results in the denial of reality and the production of suicide bombers, people who murder doctors who provide abortions to desperate women and the oppression of women in the name of religion... but I guess there's a kind of pure honesty in it.

Stephen has recognised the importance of the issue of how we define ourselves as humans. “Defining a human as an animal, albeit capable of abstract thought and capable of using complex tools, is, somehow, inadequate.”

There is indeed a problem with the current empty mechanistic outlook taken by many, as the following quote highlights -

Naturalism (the philosophy that underpins evolution, namely that matter and energy are all there is) cannot provide ethics; it simply is not capable of providing meaning. This problem runs deep, undercutting even the basis of rationality itself. In the atheist’s naturalistic worldview, thoughts and reasoning are just the results of chemical reactions in the brain. ‘A debate and a couple of soda bottles in the front of a room fizzing are just different types of chemical reactions. The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we can reason as human beings created in the image of God. But the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God. On naturalistic principles, there’s no explanation for why a debate is more important than the two soda bottles fizzing. So you could say that, by showing up for the debate, the atheist has already conceded.’
- Lael Weinberger quoting Douglas Wilson.

TRTL,
You say dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. Have you not read the book of Job? You also speak of the evidence which shows massive changes in the earth’s climate and geology. Have you not read about the massive climactic and geological upheavals spoken of in Genesis chapters 5-9?

Are you prepared to look into these things before assuming that all the evidence is pointing your way?

And as for those who say they don’t like some pushing their beliefs on others, why do they bother clicking on a web site like this? That’s all anyone ever does here.

Oliver,

As a scientist, you do have a remarkable grip on scripture and you are right to pull Runner up on moral judgements.

But to just extrapolate your: “According to the Bible, the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit. In order to sin against the Holy Spirit, one needs to first believe in God.”.

You seem to have missed the punchline.

That, therefore, the only unforgiveable sin is….UNBELIEF (worse yet, to believe and then reject).

OK, moving on…

"…if Man is wrong to create life or the early universe….How is God justified…."

The reasoning doesn’t really abrogate men from the folly of trying to be God (not mere imitation, but self-determination). So I guess we really need to go back to the question of: Is this sin?

Honestly, I don’t believe these are salvation issues (for believers), unless it leads to unbelief. Most Christians would tend to err on the side of caution, believing the path to be slippery and filled with traps and snares.

Without presuming to judge God’s innocence or guilt on his act of creation, my understanding is that pre- The Fall, there was no cruelty or sin in the earthly or heavenly realms. And Satan’s existence is due to God’s provision of free choice which consequently led to the entry of sin into the world.

However, Jesus was present at the beginning and God has allowed the world to exist as it is to glorify his Son, knowing that his creation, without a purely divine nature, was flawed with the gift of free choice.

We were created for belief, however sin leads to the rejection of God and his Son (unbelief). The only doorway into God’s world is through Jesus Christ.

Would said Creator still be a moral entity if He created us without free will?

As (unarguably!) morally-superior creatures who have inherited some aspects of the “higher morality”, we would have done it differently I suppose.

turleft/right quote<<the sheer number of dinosaur fossils that have showed up in fossil records despite no mention in the bible,>>>mate reveal where these reveal an adam..fossil...get it mate.till adam[or rather his decendants writing it..it wasnt able to be recorded..[ie a human to witness..till then..it simply cant be written down

<<AND the existence of shellfish fossils in high-altitude areas suggesting massive changes in climate and geology>>>..yes it does..[but then the real facts never get revealed

[see we have an expanding earth..[your not science enough to know the theory,..but in the non science movement it is well known the plate theory is wrong

i dont know why the truth isnt revealed..[and cant be bothered filling your little minds with the real fact's..oh what the heck i will google it for you
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=expanding+earth+neal+adams&aq=1&oq=expanding+earth

but anyhow thats the truth

[bet you dont even check it out]..but the proof is clear..[the plate theory is wrong..clearly a lie..[but so too is evolution..[but some people keep prattling on about the lies..taught to us as children..why..didnt santa and the easter bunny lies wake you up?

mate these plates are 50 k thick..[get it..[subduction means we should have mountains 100 k high..[we dont]

but our minds are lied to as a matter of policy..[fill the peons with delusions..[by men in white coats for believability..[science is a faulse god replacement

<<AND the fact that many religions claim the sole truth with no backing>...mate religions take their lead from those we would lead and decieve..[if you dont read the texts your self..[just like if you dont research the science...lol..[the system uses both to mind fuc us into ingnorant serfdom..for reasonsas i have previously posted..power over us

<<,just as you do AND....>>..and just as you do..[mindlessly pratteling others lies..do the research my brother...teach a man to reason and he soon learns to think...good luck bro

katie0<<How is God justified….">>simply as THE giver of life[ALL living/all loving/logus/logic]

<<The reasoning doesn’t really abrogate men from the folly of trying to be God..Is this sin?>>we in his image are co-creators[not judges/not destoyers]to hear his voice is to reveal[as jesus did]gods infinite good/grace/mercy;love

<<I don’t believe these are salvation issues>>god gives ALL life their lives[EVEN the most vile of the living...if that dont prove GOD dopnt judge nothing can

<<(for believers)err on the side of caution,..believing the path to be slippery and filled with traps and snares.>>it is..IF..we deney god is love/logic/light sustaining life/

<<my understanding is that pre-The Fall,..there was no cruelty or sin in the earthly or heavenly realms.>>yes but with freewill it becomes a concious choice[god dont want slaves but seeks equals[as much as cretion can equal creator...lol

<<And Satan’s existence is due to God’s provision of free choice which consequently led to the entry of sin into the world.>>what is faith withoiut works[or good without conciously seking to do good?

<<..God has allowed the world to exist..knowing that his creation, without a purely divine nature,was flawed with the gift of free choice.>>>gods knowing isnt as revealing as man learning it[via knowing all gopod comes from god[good]

<<We were created for belief,>>no we were creasted to question[test freewill..then trust gods higher wisdom of its worth/values

<<however sin leads to the rejection of God..(unbelief).>>some see sin and seek to do good

<<The only doorway into God’s world is through Jesus Christ.>>the first step is to know god VIA that we saw jesus do

<<Would said Creator still be a moral entity if He created us without free will?..>>egsactly

<<As(unarguably!)..morally-superior creatures who have inherited some aspects of the..“higher morality”,..we would have done it differently I suppose.>>you cannot legislate goodness..[it must be a free-CHOICE]

I know of the behemoth mentioned in there, Dan.

But if dinosaurs were living alongside people, the entire narrative of history would be so incredibly different.

There'd be tales of Tyrannosaurs wandering into towns and devouring things. Why use horses when allegedly, there's all manner of huge reptiles roaming around?

EVERYTHING in the bible would be fundamentally different, not just a few passages which can be construed as talking about a some great beast.

What's more, other historical documents would also rate a mention of the fundamentally different world that existed.

The only logical explanation is that a literalist 5,000 year old interpretation of the world is just plain silly.

DSM,

"Naturalism (the philosophy that underpins evolution, namely that matter and energy are all there is) cannot provide ethics,"

Why not? It certainly can't do worse than the stilted "thou shalt not" of the Christian Church, whose abuse of children until recently was "endemic" and who still tries to cover it up.

From the paedophiles of the catholic brothers to the serial adulters such as Jerry Falwell, the church proposes rigid, ridiculous guidelines, and fails to follow them. A case of do as I say, not as I do.

The bible is as hopeless as a moral compass as it is a record of our past.

Secondly your quote "The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we can reason as human beings created in the image of God."

Is such a mind blowingly stupid circular argument. The main assumption is that without any ordained purpose for existance of the universe, reason cannot exist.

Reason does not require a pre ordained purpose, in fact it works better without it. Reason takes the facts and uses logic to draw a conclusion. Applying a pre ordained purpose to the process means that the conclusion is largely drawn before the facts are even examined, and is faith not reason.

The moment you need to use a fairy tale unsupported by facts as the basis for your rationale, you have abandoned reason.

Reason is to faith as black is to white.

katieO

And undidly offers: “Intelligent children from the religious classes can escape and are welcomed into the tech world. “

Which doesn’t really explain why a large Government department pays me to be a computer programmer, and further, that I was a programmer first and became a believer later (nor, necessarily, assume that I fit this exclusive category of intelligence, or that I continue to be welcomed in the "tech world" since I converted, I suppose).

Posted by katieO, Thursday, 21 May 2009 9:46:27 AM

So you were first a computer programmer THEN a believer and you do not have the insight to understand you now have the equivalent of a computer virus in your brain.
No wonder most scientists are men.
Women are more deluded than men by spirits,astrology and religion.
I have supported equality for women all my life but now see that was a mistake.
I will continue to support equality of OPPORTUNITY for all.

katieO for POPE.

Shadow, the point of the argument is not that reason can't exist without a pre ordained purpose, but that we have more reason to trust our reason under a theistic framework than under a naturalist framework. I realise not all atheists are proponents of "naturalism", but 99% of self proclaimed atheists are. So the two go hand in hand. And often it's these naturalists who claim themselves as "free thinkers", "rationalists" and "brights". The irony is that rationality itself is far, far better explained by theism than by naturalism.

trav,

"I repeat, your impoverished and bizarre strawman carictature .. By using an absurd caricturised definition of religions such as Christianity as 'organisations' ... "

whatever "christianity" is, there have been and are christian organisations, and they have demonstrated no monopoly on wisdom or morality.

"On another note, it also saddens me to see Dawkins lumping Christianity in the same boat as Islam..."

whose christianity? there are no shortage of people who claim to speak for "christianity" who are quite loathsome. trav, who gives you the authority to pronounce on what true "christianity" is? it seems to me you're a more decent guy than, say, the revolting george pell. but who are you to say you're more "christian".

" we have more reason to trust our reason under a theistic framework than under a naturalist framework."

why? and which theistic framework? why that one? if you're going to reason for one, or any and all, form of theism, what is your justification for the frame work of that reasoning? why is this not simply "the god of the gaps", as mac pointed out about 50 posts ago?

"I realise not all atheists are proponents of "naturalism", but 99% of self proclaimed atheists are. "

prove it. for that matter, define what "naturalism" means in a non-absurd strawman manner.

new thread, same old crap.

Bushbasher

"new thread, same old crap."

Agreed.

Which religion, which version of that religion should preside overall?

To keep it simple, I'll use Christianity as an example.

Should it be the Unitarian version?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Or the Exclusive Brethren Brand? Or whatever variety Trav subscribes to?

Or, how about accepting pluralism and have a system in which no single creed dominates, such as secularism. Just a thought.

BB, [whatever "christianity" is, there have been and are christian organisations]

There are basketball organisations too. Does this mean basketball is an organisation?

[who gives you the authority to pronounce on what true "christianity" is? it seems to me you're a more decent guy than, say, the revolting george pell. but who are you to say you're more "christian".]

I never claim to speak for all Christians. I simply claim that Christianity is not Islam.

They're two seperate religions and need to be recogised as such. Rather than being tarred with the same brush. There have been something like 13,000 terrorist attacks taken out in the name of Islam over the past 7 or 8 years. There have been an insignificant and miniscule amount taken out in the name of Christianity. This is but one example of why the two need to be considered on their own merits when looking at the good and harm they do- as Dawkins does.

[why? and which theistic framework? why that one?]

Any theistic framework.

If you're going to reason for one, or any and all, form of theism, what is your justification for the frame work of that reasoning?]

My justification is that regardless of which theism you use, the existence of a God makes complete sense of rationality. Whereas I find the arguments of Alvin Plantinga, CS Lewis, Victor Reppert and others to be quite convincing in that the same rationality simply doesn't sit well with naturalism at all.

[why is this not simply "the god of the gaps", as mac pointed out about 50 posts ago?]

Please show how this could be god of the gaps...

["I realise not all atheists are proponents of "naturalism", but 99% of self proclaimed atheists are. "

prove it.]

I don't have proof, I have anecdotal evidence. I rarely see people who proclaim atheism talking about the wonders of the spiritual world. Do you?

[for that matter, define what "naturalism" means in a non-absurd strawman manner. ]

Lets use this definition.

From wiki-

Naturalism is a philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1]

i believe natural-ism to be a belief-ism
to clarify lets research out ism

Definitions of ism on the Web:

doctrine:..a belief..(or system of beliefs)..accepted as authoritative by some group or school
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs,..myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement,..institution,..class or group....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

A belief..that can be described by a word ending in -ism
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ism

thus naturally..naturalisim is a belief...[not a science]
either remain constantly scientific
or constantly in your belief

facts are facts
beliefs are beliefs

believe as you chose
but the facts on which belief in evolution rests remain unproven
natural selection...lol
how scientific is natural

trav,

"There have been something like 13,000 terrorist attacks taken out in the name of Islam over the past 7 or 8 years. There have been an insignificant and miniscule amount taken out in the name of Christianity."

if you are willing to tar "islam" with such data, i am equally justified in tarring "christianity" with its sordid history. i don't give a damn whether it's "christianity/islam", or if it's "in the name of christianity/islam". what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"My justification is that regardless of which theism you use, the existence of a God makes complete sense of rationality. "

cool! i'll give the flying spaghetti monster a whirl, and let you know how it goes.

trav, that's just unadulterated crap. your god can't make sense of rationality unless and until you assign attributes to your god. you can believe in whatever god you please. but unless and until you give some justification for those attributes, why on earth should anyone else care?

"I don't have proof, I have anecdotal evidence. I rarely see people who proclaim atheism talking about the wonders of the spiritual world. Do you?"

what the hell does "wonders of the spiritual world" mean? if you mean the wonders of existence and emotions and feelings and desires and meaning and consciousness, i know of no atheist, no human, who doesn't experience such wonders.

you think people can't wonder about the world without imposing a god? smells like god of the gaps to me ...

TLTR,
You say that ‘everything’ (with capital letters) in the bible’s version of history is silly. The main part with which you wish to contend seems to be on the dinosaur theme. So let’s address this further.

The passages in Job to which we refer are quite detailed. They mention two large beasts, namely the leviathan and the behemoth (the word in current use, dinosaur, is a quite recent invention).

Overall, your argument seems to be that if the bible doesn’t match with your personal view of history, then it must be in error. This leads me to contemplate the very nature of history. How can we be sure of any historical fact? No one has invented a time travel machine to go and investigate past events. All we can do is to try and piece together those incomplete fragments of the puzzle as best we can.

Creationist scientists have theorised quite harsh climactic conditions in the centuries following the flood, including an ice-age. These difficult conditions would not favour large animals, for reasons which include their need for much foliage to feed upon and hide within for protection from hunters.

Though the larger animals dwindled in number relatively quickly, evidence of their existence survives in written records, in legends, as well as in fossil and other measurable evidence (not to mention those still alive, such as large crocodiles.)

Many countries such as Wales, China, Japan, the Scandinavian countries and others refer to dragons as part of their folklore or in their national symbols.

There have even been recent discoveries of dinosaur vestiges that have survived without being fossilised. This points to either very hardy dinosaur blood cells that can survive millions of years, or more likely to their recent existence.

Shadow,
I raised the notion that atheists have no basis for reason. You took a dislike to my comment, but still did not offer any basis for reason.

Christians have a basis for reason. Page 1 of the bible describes God speaking things into existence. That infers that words are somehow profoundly at the base of all that exists.

The first sentence of the Gospel of John (perhaps the most read book in world history) begins “In the beginning was the Word…” The word ‘word’ in greek is Logos, from which we get our current word logic. Logos in greek can refer to a word or perhaps something longer like a sentence or an argument.

In the bible, God speaks and reasons with people. It’s said that he made people in his image. This is why we reason. This is not so true for animals. We observe monkeys in zoos, we train them, but we never attempt to reason with them. (I don’t think any monkey will have taken offence at these words, or at least I know I won’t get correspondence from those that did).

From where does scientific reasoning obtain its strength? Much of it comes from borrowing Christian assumptions. For example, how do we know that the laws of physics are uniform through out the universe? We don’t, as no one’s ever gone to investigate distance parts of the universe. However, scientists can and do make the assumption that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe because of the idea that God, in particular a reasonable God, who doesn’t have bad hair days, who created the universe in an orderly manner, is responsible not only for our part of the universe but for all of it.

It was such thinking that allowed for the possibility of modern scientific thinking to take off.

I accused the naturalist of believing that reasoning within logic is merely our brain’s chemical reactions. Do you have a basis for saying that we are anything more than monkeys on a lucky streak? If so, can our thoughts be relied upon?

Hello KatieO,

Thanks for your comment.

I was referring to Mathew 12:31-32

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Excuse brevity.

O.

huh. so "leviathan" and "behemoth" makes the bible a work of paleontology. and the concepts of isotropy and homogeneity are just like a god thing. wow! this science stuff is easy!

"I raised the notion that atheists have no basis for reason."

what the hell does "basis of reason" even mean? how does appealing to an arbitrary god help? if the god is not arbitrary, how do you jusitfy that? any chance you plan to reason? if not, why should anyone care?

"It was such thinking that allowed for the possibility of modern scientific thinking to take off."

yep. first there was god. then we wallowed in a mud-filled ditch for a few thousands years. and then the science. but let's give god the credit.

"I accused the naturalist of believing that reasoning within logic is merely our brain’s chemical reactions."

and i can do the strawman thing, too. i can accuse literalist christians of believing the bible deals with dinosaurs, but ...
no, hold on a second ...

wow busche basher such big words[they souund real clever[till you search them up to know whats being said

Definitions of isotropy on the Web:

(physics)the property of being isotropic;..having the same value when measured in different directions..being identical..from Greek iso/(equal) and tropos ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy

but what was the topic/oh bipolar one-minded non-rebuttal by ridicle and big meaningless/words..lol..<<huh...so"leviathan"and"behemoth" makes the bible a work of paleontology>>..such a hilarious comeback..[as usual..lol]

<<..''and the concepts of isotropy and homogeneity are just like a god thing...>>..no doudt it seems to be..[so why cant you guys rebut god without your supiror/sounding word play?]

your next comeback...lol..is even more revealing<<..what the hell does"basis of reason"even mean?>>..i think it likely that you guys claim to disbelieve a negative..[your failure to reason being based on denial of the very fact..you dispute..egsists..lol.

as you/yourself point out...lol.<<..if the god is not arbitrary,..how do you jusitfy that?>>...well look at it from our side[you claim nonegsistance..[yet accord arbitrary as an attribute..[quality]..to that you claim not to egsist...lol..[and still fail to see your own absurd position]..you seem to..lol...rebut to someone about that you claim dont egsist..[ah you A/thiests...lol]

i could keep on pointing out the bipolar responses your posting
but will let your[selective]..quote..have the final laugh

<<Yep...first there was god...
then we wallowed in a mud-filled ditch for a few thousands years.
and then the science...but let's give god the credit...>>..yes [even i sacasm..see..even from athiests some truth from god is allowed be revealed..[in ridicule you prove nothing]..[in ridicule you rebut nothing..[in ridiculing others you reveal the joke upon thyself]..IF SCIENCE REVEAL SCIENCE

love ya bro..but..cant resist quotiong you again...lol

<<..and i can do the strawman thing, too.>>..yet fail to prove/rebut/..say nothing about nuthin

its sad to see one as clever as you being fooled/by..science..[and not able to rebut a claimed/negative]..even if only a negative in your own mind...lol

yeah i know its not very xtian..to laugh at your futile foolish-ness..[but mate its so funny]...lol

UOG! Mate you have figured it all out for me! God put everything on this planet, then waited for man to eventually evolve, and the only catch is, that you have to follow a book not written by god himself and obey everything he or she says, so we don't have to come back to earth to be recycled in hell. OK then what? we just hang around spreading Philadelphia cream cheese work for ten minutes, then go back and do some more hanging around.

Have I missed anything. lol

Or can you tell me what really happens in heaven.

P\S I had a look at your web site, so you must be the man to ask?

EVO

[if you are willing to tar "islam" with such data, i am equally justified in tarring "christianity" with its sordid history. i don't give a damn whether it's "christianity/islam", or if it's "in the name of christianity/islam". what's good for the goose is good for the gander]

OK, look through Christianity's history, then look through the history of Godless regimes, and tell me which fared worse, who committed worse atrocities etc. Hint: It's not Christianity.

["My justification is that regardless of which theism you use, the existence of a God makes complete sense of rationality. "

cool! i'll give the flying spaghetti monster a whirl, and let you know how it goes.]

1. FSM is not a theistic God. FSM is more of a deity. So your point is completely irrelevant.

2. As should have been clear from the context, I'm referring to any theism which anyone actually subscribes to. No one seriously worships FSM.

3. Lets make it simple and use the Christian God. My contention is that the Christian God makes complete sense of rationality. Naturalism does not.

re: Atheists and naturalism. Strawman. Simply goto a few atheist websites or talk to anyone who proclaims their atheism and you'll see most of them are naturalists. (Note: I'm avoiding your tangent about consciousness and the "wonders of the world" because although it's an interesting topic, it isn't actually related to my original point about the argument from reason)

DSM and Trav,

I have not proposed a "basis" for reasoning by non-theists, simply because the term used for this basis is "prejudice"

If you look at any decision with a pre ordained "basis" you cannot reach any conclusion that conficts with that basis.

For example, if a judge has the "basis" that all black people are theives and murderers, the reasoning behind his decision will be questionable, as possibility of the black man's innocence is excluded. (which is why a judge that is found to have pre conceived ideas in a matter is expected to recuse himself.)

Like wise your "basis" for looking at science is that the bible is 100% correct and that anything that contradicts it must be wrong.

I find your reasoning extremely flawed due to the inflexible prejudice that you are burdened with.

One more thing, re: Christianity and Islam. I just re read my post. Unfortunatly, again we got off the original point I made, which was that Dawkins is NOT justified in lumping Christianity and Islam into the same boat and saying "All religion is bad".

That's about as logical as saying that all sports should be banned because sport is dangerous. Yes, bullriding and parkour are dangerous, but are synchronised swimming and croquet dangerous? No. Clearly, each sport needs to be considered on its own merits. Likewise, each religion needs to be judged on it's own history and it's own teaching when determining, from a purely sociological point of view, how dangerous and bad it really is.

trav<<OK,..look through Christianity's history,..then look through the history of Godless regimes,and tell me which fared worse,>>well im looking at iraq getting bombed back to the stone age[ditto palistein]in a few days iran..id say its pretty clear, who fared worse[what was the xtian crusades/witch burnings about..lol

<<who committed worse atrocities etc...Hint:..It's not Christianity.>>..mate your forgetting the inquisition in europia[or the anilation of the aztecs by spanish/bolcchovic/xtian mercenaries..[or busche and co..bring down building 7..911..[or the events of 7/7 where xtian security agencies set up muslim/stooges to take the fall

mate it must be re-asauring thinking one kettle blacker that the pot bellied xtian/zionista tutonic elites..ripping off the xtian govt tax payers..via huge lies and deceptions,..

via a media selling us out with red flag disinfo and black swan events..[like timmy mcveigh,..the govt operative set up to take the fall for yet another red-flag event..planned and exicuted via the xtian securities industry..[running the drug industry to finance their black-ops]

mate its a case of who does what being revealed and reviled for that they are known to have done..[not that they are accused to do..[like wepens of mass destraction[or them pennytraitors..lest we forget..[was all supplied by xtian[usa]

[or the sulpher-bombs dropped on palistein gulages..made in xtian usa[not doudt all church going evangelisers..[hoping to fullfill end time delusions and the messiahs return..via yet another amogeddon[noting he didnt come the last time..at the end of the first milenium..when the first ape-pox-o-lips occured]

then we get to the xtian/socital scientific fraud..to bring in the new car-bon tax...lol..using the high priests of greenie/science..[the neo[new]religion]

"OK, look through Christianity's history, then look through the history of Godless regimes,..."

not the point. the point is that you recognized an "islam" there which is open to criticism, while seemingly deflecting any similar criticism of "christianity". if islam is the sum/average/"best"/whatever of its practitioners, then so is christianity.

"As should have been clear from the context, I'm referring to any theism which anyone actually subscribes to. "

fair enough. take your pick:

http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/graveyard.html

"My contention is that the Christian God makes complete sense of rationality. "

dear god, yes, i know that's your contention. christians on OLO are forever contending their blessed little hearts out.

what you are not doing is arguing for or justifying your contention. making the same claim over and over, or making a remark which amounts to "you just gotta get it" is not an argument. it's simply faith. that's fine. just don't pretend it's an argument.

Regarding the issue of evolutionary biology, can I suggest that people have a read of Francis Collins' 'The Language of God'? Collins was the Director of the Human Genome project, is a strong evolutionist, and a committed Christian. He makes a very strong case as to why there need be no conflict between science and religion. To the contrary, they can and should happily coexist.

Nils,
I haven’t read ‘The Language of God’ by Collins. But Christians who also hold to evolution are by no means rare.

As for the supposed conflict between science and religion, there need not be one and there largely isn’t one. The only conflict here is between biblical and naturalist views of history. In the everyday, practical sciences, both theist and non-theistic scientists work alongside one another pretty happily independent of their stance on theism.

One of the main questions addressed by the author of this article, Stephen, is why so many educated people in the West accept the creationist view? Might it just be because they find their arguments compelling?

Bushbasher,
What do I mean by ‘basis for reason’? I am asking how we can be confident that our thinking is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable. I’ve previously posed the question of how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey. For at base, this is what we are if the naturalists are correct. Evolutionists at heart are naturalists, for they seek to find a solution for who we are outside of any reference to God or things spiritual.

I still invite an answer to that question.

Shadow,
I can agree with much in your last post. However, instead of the term prejudice, I prefer the term presupposition. (Another term with related meaning is the word hypothesis). That is, we usually start with certain presuppositions before even venturing an investigation.

Everyone has certain bias and prejudice. Could we deny this? Some Christians are quite open about theirs. For instance, I would quite openly declare that I believe the Bible to be inspired by God.

Now, if this is my presupposition, like a detective, I’ll use this to theorise what I might expect to see in the natural world, and how my presupposition matches reality. If it gave no good leads, then I’d be, as you say, burdened.

"What do I mean by ‘basis for reason’? I am asking how we can be confident that our thinking is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable. ... I still invite an answer to that question."

dan, i don't know on what level you want an answer. we see science work every day, with everything we do. but if you want to get philosophically deep, then that's fine.

but it's not my job to answer such a question. the fact that i (anyone) don't know the answers to ife, the universe and everything is not an argument for a god. except a god of the gaps.

it's your job to explain why proposing a god helps. further, either you have to argue why an arbitrary god helps, or why your particular god is not arbitrary. then, please tell me how you can be confident that your thinking about this god is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable ...

or, are we back to "you just gotta know"?

Oliver,

Thanks for being more specific. But if you are clinging onto some hope that it is only apostates that can commit the unforgivable sin, then you need to cross-reference the passage with other accounts to get to the bottom of it.

In Mark 3:27, the same passage is repeated, adding a bit more gravitas: “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin”.

But why is this sin eternally unforgivable when “all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven”? What about the murderers, the child abusers the rapists?

Scripture contains an important disclaimer: a necessary precondition for forgiveness is repentance, and repentence comes through belief in Jesus.

Although there is no need to venture further than the preceding verse (Matthew 29): “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”...we can flick over to John (3:18, 3:36) where the act of permanently rejecting Christ leads to condemnation and judgment.

Even if we simply look at the whole event (which the quote from Matthew refers to) in more detail, Jesus describes what blasphemy looks like in action: the scribes and Pharisees had just attributed Jesus’ miracles to the work of the devil instead of to God.

As Isaiah warned, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (5:20).

Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible.

So it is not the reserve of believers to “blaspheme against the Holy Spirit”, although it is tempting to declare “not guilty” if you don’t understand who or what the Holy Spirit, and what His role in salvation, is.

For these answers, John 16:8, 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 and Acts 7:51 are in agreement: it is the Holy Spirit who persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel.

katieo mark 3;29 must be put into context
jesus was addressing the scribes...telling them if they are stong[unbound by deceit, thus not adulterating gods word]then 28 applies..

mark 3 28<<..ASSUREDLY, i say to YOU,...ALL SINS WILL BE FORGIVEN the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies THEY utter...>>they not you scribes...think along the lines of too whom much is given much is expected...in this case he is talking of the sheep[not the shepards]

to the shepards/scribes, he says mark 3;29.. BUT he who blasphemes..[adulterates gods words]...against the holy spirit...[so as to turn people against good/god]...never has forgiveness,..but is subject to eternal condemnation..[that ye do to the least, you do to god]

30..because THEY SAID...he [who blasphemes untruths re gods good]''he''..has an unclean spirit

john has much the same..[jesus is adressing the chief rabbi..explaining how we are all reborn after death in spirit..[and how thinking of the flesh is of the flesh/mortal..not spirit/eternal

[but he..as the acclaimed man of spirit..must think in spirit/eternal..[3;9..are you the teacher of israel and do not know these things]

3;10 most assuridly,..i say to YOU,...WE speak of that WE know,..and testify what WE have seen..[and you do not recieve witness]

note 3;19...and men loved the darkness..[flesh]..rather than the light[spirit]..because their deeds were evil

important too is 3;8...and you hear the sound..but cannot tell where it comes from...[understand this in the light of..even a beast knowing its masters still quiet voice]

know god voice..is that good voice of love and grace..[that still quiet inner voice on concionse]..not that same still quiet voice of vengance..[those of god know gods good voice]..all good comes from god]...good is the only truth

3;18..he who believes in him..[god/good]..is not condemed..he who thus does not believe in good/god is condemed allready

OUG,

I’m not here to continue that long Christian tradition of sniping at other Christian faiths… and I greet you as a brother in spirit, if not to the letter.

Personally, I find it helpful to use the NIV. It dispenses with the thee and ye confusion and I have confidence in the translation:

(from the Preface):

“ In the process of making the NIV, the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style….The goal was to have an accurate translation, one that would have clarity and literary quality.”

I’m satisfied that the NIV attains this goal and the NIV’s widespread usage across the mainstream Christian faiths would support that.

The NIV Mark 3:28 reads: “I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them”.

I can’t honestly see that the KJV adds a new dimension to this translation.

Jesus’ words may be addressed directly to the scribes but isn’t the application to everyone who hears the Word and rejects it? To any hypocrite who claims to uphold the law but tramples on it? Believer and unbeliever (and the scribes fall into the latter category, agree?)? Aren’t the scribes the embodiment of Isaiah’s warning? Let’s not forget that the scribes – the teachers of the law, with their thorough knowledge of scripture - would immediately have understood that Jesus was repeating Isaiah. Of course they hated him! They hated to hear the truth! But they haven’t been singled out here, they are being made an example of.

I’ve only brought Mark 3 into this thread to help shed some light on Matthew 12, which was introduced by Oliver.

Occasionally I come across a phrase that makes an impact - many thanks Dan S de Merengue for this one:

>>I am asking how we can be confident that our thinking is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable. I’ve previously posed the question of how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey.<<

"the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey"

Love that.

But in the process of admiring the reductio ad absurdum of our thought processes into a single phrase, I noticed there is a question attached.

>>I still invite an answer to that question<<

The short - and long - answer is, of course, that we cannot.

There are simply so many secretions, and they are triggered by so many different conditions - fear, love, confusion, anger, bliss - that they are not possible to map, only to observe.

Sure, we can induce particular reactions by artificially introducing a chemical stimulus, but that doesn't make them controllable. And our different physical make-up, possibly also the imprint of our DNA, would defy any attempt to predict outcomes. Why else would two people respond differently to physical pain, for example.

So we are at the mercy of those dratted chemicals, yet rely upon them for a great deal of our minute-by-minute decision making.

I'm pretty certain - although short of any proof, not being a neurosurgeon - that our inclination or disinclination to religion would be a good example of an entirely chemical issue.

We experience a particular reaction to the religious stories we are told - they induce fear, love, confusion, anger, bliss, whatever - and the chemicals take over. Simple.

So your definitions in relation to our thinking, is it "accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable" cannot be objectively measured, since they are the result of those dratted chemicals, to which we each respond uniquely.

DSM,

Your quote "how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey" is waving the white flag.

In substituting mockery for reason, you have simply admitted that your argument has no logical foundation.

My answer is "why not!" We trust the polarised charges in a piece of stone to keep our planes and satelites flying and handling our banking etc.

How can we trust a man in a frock who probably rogers children to give us moral and scientific guidance based on a book written centuries ago based on handed down tales from several generations previously?

As long as religion does not claim to have any foundation in science, and religious nuts don't assume that because they have found god that they have to drag everyone else down their "true path" of questionable morals and flexible ethics, then there will be no clash.

Shadow, no one's waving the white flag. In fact, Dan is simply providing a solid argument against naturalism- one which is been put forward, in a few variations by people such as CS Lewis, Victor Reppert and the great Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga. It's a fair objection to the naturalist account, IMO.

And, thoughts differ greatly from any of the examples you gave in your "why not"? Why should we have the ability to direct our thought processes? How can we obtain rationality from irrational atoms and molecules? These are fair questions. Why not? Doesn't do them any justice whatsoever.

katieo<<..sins and blasphemies of men..forgiven them”>>im reluctant to accept the new-age/version's..[i first read the/new-testiment in the new age version only...later..i came across a full/traditional bible,i understood it much better.

see...''them''..dosnt represent properl;y.''sons of men''..i recall specificlly..in job..a referance to the sons of god,..thus sons of man/men..cearly is intended to diferentiate..[teacher from student?]

<<Jesus’ words may be addressed>>..is..'will'..the same as..'may'..?

..as directed..<<..to the scribes..but isn’t the application to everyone who hears the Word and rejects it?>>..im not sure it can be [how can the same spoken to one..'of'..the flesh,..be the same as to, one of the spirit...[or say an unbeliever/..believer/..or a knower..?]

<<directed To any hypocrite who claims to uphold the law/but tramples on it?>>..what is worse one claiming belief..to lie..[or one not believing?]

there comes to mind the words of jesus..[about how the law was made for men,...specificcly..added an exclusion/clause..something like the law dosnt apply to you..[now]..it isnt..as WAS written

there are different levels..[a shepard who lies to his sheep,..is one to whom much is given,..and/thus much is expected..

think of the talents..[one got saved and saved 10,..thus was given more..[one got saved and only saved himself]...thats what that parrable..equates to

<<Believer and unbeliever..(..scribes fall into the latter category,..agree?)?>>...im sorry i cant..[we need only look at those who rape children[..may well have been scribes...but they didnt serve their flock..[for them]..to know god..indeed may have caused them to reject..god..all because some lying/cheating deciever..wolf..in sheeps/clothing...[hell will fall mercilessly on them]

<<Aren’t the scribes the embodiment of Isaiah’s warning?>>yes and not issiah alone ezikial/jemmiah..etc..[it is a predonminant theme]

<<..scribes...would immediately have understood..Jesus/repeating..Isaiah.>>..they would have had great difficulty,..actually equating the words/with the reality...havnt you ever met a famous person...[and got lost..for words,..then..later thought i should have..done..said...

<<..They hated to hear the truth!..But..haven’t been singled..made an example of...>>..i call them more..a teaching aid..[a warning]...

recall..its not what a mas..puts in his mouth..that makes us unclean..but that which comes out..remember..there will be many messiah's..you will hear he is here..etc..yet..by their deeds will we know them

to whom..much is given ...much is expected..likely more than those who got none..but in the end..we all get equal wages..[grace]

KatieO,

Thank you for the Biblical references. I will look them up and think about them.

Also, please consider:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." Hebrews 10:26

One appears to need to accept god as real (receive knowledge) to reject god. Fallen angels and the Christian Satan would fall into this category. Yet, if one does not believe in something, it is hard to see how one can truly reject said entity. For example, I suspect neither of us can reject Zeus, because, neither of us believe in Zeus. For Zeus, we see, as a mythical being in the Greek pantheon.

Regards,

O

KatieO,

Thank you for the Biblical references. I will look them up and think about them.

Also, please consider:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." Hebrews 10:26

One appears to need to accept god as real (receive knowledge) to reject god. Fallen angels and the Christian Satan would fall into this category. Yet, if one does not believe in something, it is hard to see how one can truly reject said entity. For example, I suspect neither of us can reject Zeus, because, neither of us believe in Zeus. For Zeus, we see, as a mythical being in the Greek pantheon.

Regards,

O.

Dan, you pose an interesting argument.
How can an atheist reason that reason is reasonable, without believing in a supernatural deity which -by definition- defies reason?
Wow.
I liked the line about the monkey, by the way.

Grim, believing in God is not unreasonable at all.

However, the point is God makes more sense of reason than naturalism does. If God exists, and God created us, and therefore if objective truth exists, it makes perfect sense that I could have some trust in my own thought processes and in my own ability to assess truth claims. But if we're "hair challenged monkeys" (to borrow a term from DSM) then I'd have far less reason to trust my own ability to reason.

Trav,

Your comment "Dan is simply providing a solid argument against naturalism" By saying "how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey?"

I fail to even see a tenuous argument.

A solid argument would require that he explain why we "should not trust" in a rational manner, which he cannot do.

DSM made the assertion that reason needs a over all basis. He has provided no reasoning for this assertion, and as I mentioned earlier, most would consider his "basis" to be Bias and the antithesis of reason.

going with the theme antithesis of reason..last post..[and by their deeds will we know them]...and need there be a clash...lol

Israel Threatened by Shoes,Toilet Paper And Laundry Detergent
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2009/0905022.html

ISRAEL APPARENTLY considers toilet paper, laundry detergent, dish soap and shoes threats to its security—why else would it add these mundane and harmless items to a laundry list of basic necessities not allowed into Gaza?

Nor is the exclusion of these necessities a harmless idiosyncrasy—for, with the exception of goods that are smuggled in (see Jan./Feb. 2009 Washington Report, p. 19),..nothing can enter or leave the Gaza Strip without Israeli approval.
http://uruknet.com/?p=m54606&hd=&size=1&l=e
The besieged and battered 25-mile-long stretch of land, regularly referred to as the world’s largest prison,is home to 1.5 million inadvertent inmates,..nearly two-thirds of whom are under the age of 18.

im seeing a theme here..[the motivation and faulse intel ..[we-pens of mass distraction?..that sent us to iran,..by/via intense lobby from those following talmudic law..
http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-are-these-israeli-rabbis-so-filled.html

treating religion like a science..and science into a great destraction...needing a clash..to bring on armogeddon

http://news.aol.com/article/iraq-torture-photos/501890?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Firaq-torture-photos%2F501890

lord..forgive them they..[mostly]..know not what they do..
http://uruknet.com/?p=m54634&hd=&size=1&l=e
..are doing..is bringing hell/..right here on earth

http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/05/28/mohamed-khodr-the-three-branches-of-the-aipac-the-executive-the-legislative-and-the-judicial/
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/27/israeli-parliament-oks-bill-to-outlaw-denial-of-israel-as-jewish-state/
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088912.html

Trav,

With refence to your earlier comment:

"However, the point is Zeus makes more sense of reason than naturalism does. If Zeus exists, and Zeus created us, and therefore if objective truth exists, it makes perfect sense that I could have some trust in my own thought processes and in my own ability to assess truth claims. " - Travates (ahem)

Cheers,

Oly.

You've raised an interesting point Oly- that is, single arguments alone will rarely attempt to justify any particular God. In the instance of reason for example, the Christian God and Zeus may or may not have some similar characteristics, so it might be perfectly ok to use the same argument. But, the case for Christianity is cumulative, as is the case for anything.

I assume no one came into the world, claiming to be Zeus's son, leaving behind solid historical evidence confirming all the events surrounding his miraculous signs, as Christ did with the resurrection.

Shadow, two questions:

Are you claiming not to have any bias?

Why do you say my comment regarding monkeys undercuts my own argument? I hold that we are not monkeys at all, in the sense that we don’t share any common ancestry with apes.

Bushbasher,
Stephan Cheleda challenges us to reassess our self perceptions, saying, “The notions we hold about creation or evolution are some of those important perceptions.” I could agree with this (though disagreeing with his overall viewpoint).

When I asked are we trusting the musings of a brute monkey, or if our thoughts were just fortuitous chemical reactions (implying thoughts we merely unreasoned impulses), I didn’t think that such questions would be unanswerable for atheists. I wanted to stimulate discussion, and at least try and put atheists on the back foot. Creationists took some unwarranted snipes in Stephan’s article and in earlier parts of this discussion, so I aimed to defend that position and demonstrate that this debate isn’t a one way street.

Possibly my questions were a bit deep. Perhaps Nils is right by suggesting that we should just go away and read a book, rather than try and sought out anything here in 350 words or less. But deep does not make it invalid.

You argue that “we see science work everyday, with everything we do.” Science does work well in many areas within certain parameters. However, the success of science is dependent on correct philosophical underpinnings. Are you presuming that science supports evolution? Many scientists these days do not.

How can I be confident that my thinking about God is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable? Or why is following the God of the bible not an arbitrary choice?

These too, are deep and multi-faceted questions. Many books have been written in different domains of study addressing them. However, my main focus touching on the current article is in the area of science and the creation/evolution debate. In earlier posts I have already posited some preliminary argument.

OUG,

The NIV (New International Version) can be the “new-age version” for you. It’s not abbreviated though.

There is a big difference between sons of men – denoting mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12, etc.); and Son of Man - used forty-three times in the NT as a distinctive title of the Savior and twice in the OT (Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13).

Interpreting “sons of man” for all humankind is consistent with biblical usage (KJV and NIV!) and the inference of teacher/student or shepherd/sheep is your own.

The scribes were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles and direct beneficiaries of his teaching, and still did not believe.

The “unforgiveable sin” is not a matter of degree, although things appear to go worse for hypocrites or believers who turn away; believers who “do good” are rewarded – no dispute here.

The Gospel of Mark is a roaring good read, and gathers momentum from this point. In the end, it is the trumped-up charge of blasphemy (isn’t that what we started with here?) that they crucify him for. So the scribes definitely understood references to the prophets – it is used at the trial.

The reaction of the scribes is critical to Jesus’ mission, for:

1) The prophecies are brought to bear, evidence that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promises.

2) As a result, Jesus is hated, rejected and killed for his claims. If he was a liar – the scribes were righteous men, upholding the law. If he was a lunatic, the penalty was harsh and bloody. If he was telling the truth, then the evidence should point to that, and the scribes are the worst of hypocrites: executing both an innocent man and the Son of God.

Teaching aid, yes, if Jesus was a mere teacher, but that would also make him a liar and/or a lunatic. The reaction of the scribes is therefore describing the pathway to salvation (accepting Jesus as the Son of God or not blaspheming against the Holy Spirit).

much of what you say is good and true katieo...but i have just opend three of my bibles..the first is called life application bible[new international version..reading job 1;6<<one day the angels came to present themselves to the lord,and satan also came with them>>..next i open self pronouncing edition

king james.job 1;6<<..now there was a day when the sons of god came to present themselves before the lord..[and satan came also ammoung them

so we have in the new version..[satan also came..with them..and the old version..came also ammoung them]..its not as was written

[what happend to rev..22;18...[new age version];..I WARN EVERYONE[who hears these words of the prophecy of this book...if anyone adds anything to them...etc
then 22;19..and if anyone takes words away...

ok i still have the first new testiment [new testimenmt contempory english version..22;18 and here is my warning for any one who hears the prophecies in this book

ok its hair splitting..but the translation is much dependant on the understanding AS WRITTEN..as well as the times they were wrote..it also is relitive..to who it was addressed...where/when/why/

[to place it in context..who will deney the christ three times before the cock crows..is he the head of the church of denial?...is the one that saul that became paul forgiven..for his persution..it must all be kept in context..either its consistant or manipulated by special intrests

i will return to my first book

rev 22;6..these words are true and can be trusted..the lord god...controls the spirits of his prophets..and he is the one who sent his angel...to show his servants..what musy happen straight away

remember i am comming SOON..god will bless everyone who pays attention to the mess-age of this book...

so i tried to read the book with all seriosness when i came acrross a complete bible[because so too was my name john...lol]..then later i found out my name was johan...as more is revealed more is learned]

its worth remembering rev 22;11

The real clash is between science and religious fundamentalism. Most Christians do not have any difficulty with the idea of science, it is only those who take their bibles literally that run into problems with understanding science.

And as fundamentalists are only a very tiny proportion of religious folk, although I acknowledge their noise would indicate otherwise, I find these arguments rather pointless. There is so much we could be concentrating our energy on - such as equity, world peace and responsible care for our environment.

"When I asked are we trusting the musings of a brute monkey, .."

dan, you don't have a choice. you guys think you can wave a magic God wand, and somehow these questions disappear. they don't. you are monkeys too, musing in the same manner. your musings about your God have no different basis, and less explanatory power, than our non-god musings.

"Are you presuming that science supports evolution? Many scientists these days do not."

utter crap. there is no substantive scientific challenge to evolution. and if there were, scientists would be fascinated, not threatened. what there is is absurd non-scientific special pleading nonsense from threatened religious types.

dan, i don't know if there MUST be a conflict between science and religion. but dishonest crap like yours pretty much ensures there will be.

if your god is so threatened by evolution then it is a piss poor god. i suggest you find a new one.

busche basher i was raised into science asurd by my father who read the book three times there was nothing to be learned in reading it..so delved deeply into the sciences

science is supposed to be based on the ability to prove its results predicably..[ie it must have stated faulsifiables..theories that if disproved invalidate the theory..evolution dont..evolution is not a science..[its a theory]..by carfull sudy it reveals its full of holes

were it a science..it would state failure to produce life from non life invalidates the theory..life emerged from some convoluted soup[and mate..ammino acids arnt life]...carefull study reveals life comes from life..consistantly

just as carfull study..has NEVER found and any species that has changed genus..ever..in fact study has found species consistantly wobble arround within the species mean..[..see darwins finches were all yet finches..[ring species seagulls are all seagulls]..fruitflies/fruitflies

we have fossils of..presumed..transitional;s..[very few..less than ten,..none of them actually proved to be the missing link..not one..

see logic deems we should find many[or at least one..but not one mising link..and[that speaks for itself]...lol

i studied the deceptions..inherant in evolution for 20 years..[and despite real science[mendelism etc]..the factualitry of evolution never morphes..[evolves..lol]..into a valid science

we get sold by buzz-words..like natural-selection..[hardly science][or surivival of the fittest..[within the species..but..species/micro evolution..isnt genus/macri evolution...

science is so clever..yet has never created even its own cell..[nor even a simple cell-membrane]..it has not even made..that first living life form..let alone evolved it..because its a theory..sold to kids

[like santa clause or the easter bunny..[in them-selves cloaks to hide the birth and death of jesus..the most amazing man ever born of woman..[but definitivly..[in his own words NOT GOD]

just as much as evolution is not a science

Fractelle,
I’ve noticed that you’ve applied your energies towards the Bogie Man of ‘fundamentalism’, whatever that means. (New thread, same old words.)

You’ve used the word fundamentalist twice in a short space. However, could you define that word, and who it is specifically that you are talking about?

In my experience, those who use this word don’t have much of an idea in their own head of what they mean by it. It is used mainly as a derogatory term to put down someone that they disagree with, maybe trying to associate them with Sharia.

Bushbasher,
You are free to call yourself a monkey, if you choose. If I thought you were a monkey, I wouldn’t bother attempting any rational engagement.

This article by Cheleda laments why many in the West do not accept evolution. Despite evolutionists having the monopoly within the universities and scientific institutions for generations, they can’t seem to convince the general populace that it’s true.

The problem is that the evidence just isn’t there. It’s about as bereft as your last post.

When those attempting to engage evolutionists in debate are met with name calling and slander, such as ‘dishonest’, or with four letter words such as ‘piss poor’, it only confirms in the minds of many that that side of the debate has little to offer.

From a reaction like that of your last post, I wonder who it is that is feeling threatened. Wouldn’t it be the ones who stand to lose their grip on the status quo?

You use the word ‘fascinated’. Many educated people today are fascinated by creationist arguments. And it seems increasingly so.

"You are free to call yourself a monkey, if you choose. If I thought you were a monkey, I wouldn’t bother attempting any rational engagement."

however monkeyish we may be, your musings are no different from mine. belief in a god is no magic wand which transforms or validates your musings. belief in god is no "basis for reason" which grants superiority to your thinking.

"The problem is that the evidence just isn’t there."

the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"Many educated people today are fascinated by creationist arguments."

but not many informed scientists. once again, there is no substantive scientific challenge to evolution.

the real question is, why are so many intelligent and educated people so susceptible to the god-inspired trashing of a solid scientific discipline? another question is, why is it particularly the christian god which inspires this anti-intellectual lunacy?

"name calling and slander, such as ‘dishonest’"

you are intellectually dishonest. you are monkey(ish).

"From a reaction like that of your last post, I wonder who it is that is feeling threatened."

not threatened. disgusted.

DS M

I define religious fundamentalism as those who take the words in their bible, koran or torah quite literally.

Such as the parables of Adam and Eve, burning bushes, parting of oceans, building of arks, walking on water and so on as literally true.

People who see their religion more as a philosophical guide, usually do not block themselves from learning about the world/universe around them but see it all as part of their god's wonderful creation. These people are not fundamentalists.

fracture..<<..i define religious fundamentalism as those who take the words in their bible,koran or torah quite literally...>>fundimentally i take all words serious..fundimentally..[law is about taking words seriously]..so lawyers are fundimentalists?..yeah i agrrree

<<Such as the parables..as literally true...People who see their religion more as a philosophical guide,>>...oh dear philophist's..[who love debating the neuance and meaning inherant in words..[and the lawyers],and no doudt the spelling nutters...seem's these fun-dim.mental-ists are keeping high company...lol

<<..usually do not block themselves..[others?]..from learning about the world/universe around them..but see it all as part of their god's wonderful creation.>>..ah if only that were true..[lawyers are the scum of the earth...had they studied religion they would practice love of god/love of neighbour

<<These people are not fundamentalists.>>i agree...[except i named them..you did not]...

so i might have missed it.philosophers are fun-dim-mentalists?...yeah i suppose they appear pretty dim..to the dim-witts that cant follow thier precice logic

i suppose its bad form to try to deconstruct..then not try to re-con-struct...thus i see more a fundimentalist is an ignorant..who by knowing generalities..[or limited specifics...then generalises this tiny speciality into hate/bile..

or..those who constract a delusion based on a percieved suppirority..over others..they deem less schooled..because they dont interpritate..[their selectivre point]..the same way they do

i have noted many believing evolution/fall into this fundimentalism[same with those claiming a carbon-tax,..cure-all..due to...lol ..climate/change..lol..media seems rife with fun..demon..tall-poppy-isms

[so do blogs and certain topics..attract these fun-demon-mental-ists,..con-structing their own-ism's..

aint that..fun-di-men-tally clear,..

or need we further di-sect the basics..?...purely for enter-taint-meant..pure-pose.

DSM,

I certainly have a belief system based on my life experience which motivates my actions. However, I try very hard to make decisions in which my preferences take a back seat, and as I result I have found several times in my life that my "preferences" have had to be revised.

Reasoning dictates that one assembles as much information as possible, and uses rational to draw conclusions.

Bias means rejecting information that contradicts the bias and often coming to conclusions that differ significantly from reality.

In my line of work I often see the result of "preferences" (by highly intelligent people) having been applied unquestioningly having serious consequences.

This is why in scientific circles peer review is so important, as scientists themselves are not immune to bias. This process helps weed out unwarranted or non repeatable results.

The problem with the "scientists" that discredit evolution is that non of their papers stand up to general peer review.

Secondly, I didn't say your comment undermined your argument, I said the fact that you could not provide reasoning and had to resort to sarcasm showed that you had no argument.

shadow's quoted opinions..<<Reasoning dictates that one assembles as much information as possible,and uses rational to draw conclusions.>>i would think science MUST use science[]yet uses peer revieuw[in lue of any real science

<<Bias means rejecting information that contradicts the bias and often coming to conclusions that differ significantly from reality.>>the current science reality is the case in point[reveal the science of evolution[the theory held religiously by scientists[blindly]

<<In my line of work I often see the result of "preferences"by highly intelligent people)..having been applied unquestioningly having serious consequences.>>egsactly my point the case isnt that rebuttal be validated but that science be proved science[please present the science[not the theory]

<<This is why in scientific circles peer review is so important, as scientists themselves are not immune to bias.>>indesputable[but evolution claims chance[random/selection..natural selection[hardlty science[survival of the fittest[how scxientific is this..[prove it]

<<This process helps weed out unwarranted or non repeatable results.>>..wow how absurd to claim repeatability of chance..

[mutation isnt an egsact science..lol..[evolution is a theory not a scienc]

<<The problem with the "scientists" that discredit evolution>>is that scientists havnt ever done the same validation[the issue is it has never been validated[reveal the science faulsifiables if science it be

<<is that non of their papers stand up to general peer review.>>reveal the science papers..[repeatable science methodology]..that proves evolution..you got a few fossils

[then silence,ie not science..name the scientists that revieuwed the validation of the..'theory'..into science...[faulsifyable science..[repeat the scientific method..lo.,..[its a THEORY dude]

<<I said the fact that you could not provide reasoning and had to resort to sarcasm showed that you had no argument.>>..dont avoid the fact science claims repeat-ability..

[repicate evolution..replicate that first life..it hasnt been done..nor never will..because science cant do it..[it has a theory,...because it dont have the science..sure it has its believers[in a theory]..but it dont have THE science

Fractelle, Thanks for clarifying.
I’ll happily subscribe to that definition of fundamentalist, if it’s based on the miracles as recounted in the Bible being true and real.

Bushbasher,
You claim the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that there’s no substantive challenge to evolution. I know that evolution is the current orthodoxy, but there are a number of scientists who simply disagree with your claim.

I’m not sure how many scientists must stand up and risk reputation and declare they prefer creation over evolution before we can say there’s a substantive challenge. I’m also not sure how many scientists must say they prefer creation before I’m allowed to say that they’re many in number without you accusing me of dishonesty for saying so.

And remember, being small in number doesn’t kill and idea. Science is not a vote or a democracy.

Like fractelle above, one issue with this type of discussion is the problem of word definitions. Some define evolution as adaptation and natural selection. If this was all that was meant then there would be no controversy, as evidence for this is overwhelming, accepted by everybody. However, others take evolution to mean that we are all descendants of one or a small number of original life forms. It’s this version that is objected to, as it is philosophically rather than empirically driven.

Shadow,
I deny I was being sarcastic, perhaps hyperbolic. You can’t accuse me of having no argument if you’ve already reasonably responded to it. In responding, you seem to have understood the argument contained therein despite any sarcasm or other rhetoric on my part.

You speak of peer review and bias.

Since evolution is the governing orthodoxy, any paper outside of that ruling paradigm will usually be rejected in principle, regardless of its content, no matter how many other quality papers that scientists has already published on less controversial topics. ‘Mainstream’ journals want to be seen as mainstream, especially on such a hot topic as this.

Though it’s a nice little catch-22. Bias restricts creationists publishing, and then is used as an argument against them.

you said of evolution: "The problem is that the evidence just isn’t there."

this is dishonest. or hugely, willfully ignorant. which amounts to dishonesty. whether or not there is a substantive challenge *against* evolution, there are (literally) mountains of evidence *for* it.

you talk about "scientists", as if this group term has some significance. you have backed down from "many scientists" to "a number of scientists" to "it doesn't matter". make up your mind. then look up Project Steve.

you talk of scientists "preferring" creationism. you may as well talk of hairdressers preferring creationism. it's not a question of what they prefer: it's a question of what they have evidence and argument for.

you object to [what i take to be] macroevolution as "philosophically driven". what is your evidence for this? do you deny that your objections are religiously driven?

you seem ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution. my link was exactly for evidence of macroevolution.

you talk of "orthodoxy", as if reasonable, pro-creation scientific papers are being rejected. i don't believe you. prove it.

[I certainly have a belief system based on my life experience which motivates my actions.

Reasoning dictates that one assembles as much information as possible, and uses rational to draw conclusions.

]

How does anyone account for reasoning such as this, under a naturalistic framework of understanding life?

I'm very suspect of the claim that use of rational inference could lead us to a belief in naturalism (ie: the natural world is all that exists), because naturalism itself would mean that all causes are nonrational. Therefore, that'd be a self refuting belief.

"How does anyone account for reasoning such as this, under a naturalistic framework of understanding life?"

trav, it's not my job to account for reasoning. i'm not pretending to. i agree, the question of consciousness is fascinating. [this seems more to the point: there are clear examples of non-human animals engaging in reasoning]. i have no idea whether evolutionary biologists have some guesses to its origins. i doubt that the theories are currently very solid.

the point is that proposing a god simply doesn't help. it's not explaining anything: it's simply using god to plug a gap in our knowledge.

Dan,

The reasons that creationist "scientists" papers don't stand up to peer review can't all be put down to bias, the complete lack merit has more to do with it.

Any peer review has to have justification and is not "I don't like it." and any peer reviewer that shows bias risks his reputation.

The fact that creationists are so far from orthodoxy put them right on the fringe with the "scientists" that deny that HIV causes aids.

Because I replied to your sarcastic comment does not lift it to a rational argument.

Trav

Your comment of "because naturalism itself would mean that all causes are nonrational" is another circular argument.

Naturalism does not say that things don't happen for a reason, only that it is not following a higher life form's direction.

Because a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it, does not mean it did not happen for a rational reason. We may just not know or care.

busche basher your link<<...separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed.>>>funny its mutations at the micro level[little'evolutions that underpin the macro tTHEORY

<<Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation.>>..big words saying ASSUMED to be correct

<<However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.>>>of course lol...much is promised in the big heading[till one hits the small print

<<Therefore,the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred,>>no they go straight to the ASSUMPTION the must have...lol

<<None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa.>>>egsactly

<<Because of this evidentiary independence,..the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection,or the inheritance of acquired characaters,or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism..of adaptive evolutionary..change.>>lol essentially excluding proofs yet<<The scientific case for common descent stands,regardless.>>stands regardless of no proof[ie by faith..lol]

<<Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis.>>>now you exclude even explaining the first life..lol

<<In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past,regardless of its origin.>>yet you nutters insist it was BY CHANCE

<<All scientific theories have their respective,specific explanatory domains;no scientific theory proposes to explain everything>>>this link explains even less[do you even read?.

[Because a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it, does not mean it did not happen for a rational reason. We may just not know or care.]

Yes. And you would be employing rationality to give a reason. If your rational reason was inferred from nonrational causes, then how can it be rational at all?

If naturalism is true, then all causes for beliefs are ultimately nonrational, which leads me to believe that either rationality doesn't really exist, or that naturalism is false.

Given the two alternatives, it seems far more likely that naturalism is false.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, Trav.

>>If naturalism is true, then all causes for beliefs are ultimately nonrational, which leads me to believe that either rationality doesn't really exist, or that naturalism is false. Given the two alternatives, it seems far more likely that naturalism is false.<<

On the basis that you allow yourself to consider only these alternatives, of course you will decide one or the other. Interestingly, it doesn't matter a fig which one you pick, since reducing the argument to these two on an either/or basis is itself irrational.

You tried this on earlier, with equally fishy results.

>>I'm very suspect of the claim that use of rational inference could lead us to a belief in naturalism (ie: the natural world is all that exists), because naturalism itself would mean that all causes are nonrational. Therefore, that'd be a self refuting belief.<<

How on earth do you derive from "the natural world is all there is", the conclusion that this would mean "all causes are non-rational"?

There is absolutely no logical connection between the two.

I genuinely cannot understand your need to justify your faith on a rational basis. You have made a choice to believe in a specific form of the supernatural. In order to do so, there is absolutely no requirement to force the real world into an irrational shape.

Faith and nature can live side by side. There is no need for conflict. But they do need to be kept apart, in that the existence of one should not necessarily rule out the existence of the other.

The problem arises not with the acceptance that the supernatural can exist, but that that there is only one form that it can take, and that form happens to be the one you have chosen to believe in.

So ultimately it is not an existential issue, but a people problem.

Pericles,

[How on earth do you derive from "the natural world is all there is", the conclusion that this would mean "all causes are non-rational"?]

The natural world consists of molecules, atoms, quarks, protons, neutrons, electromagnetic forces and the like. None of these can be said to be "rational". They are effectively random. They may appear ordered, but according to naturalism, they started due to a random accident. That is, they are the way they are because of a nonrational, non ordered event.

Yet, anyone who accepts that a conclusion of an argument follows from it's premise is performing a rational inference. They are ordering their thoughts in a process.

If naturalism is true, people can't perform a rational inference. Therefore, we should completely reject the idea that rational inferences lead us to naturalism, because that's effectively saying that rational inferences lead us to conclude that we cannot rationally infer anything- it's self refuting.

Of course, the other option, rather than rejecting naturalism, as I said would be rejecting the idea of the rational inference. But that wouldn't appear very palatable to naturalist atheists, many of whom call themselves "rationalists" now would it?

[I genuinely cannot understand your need to justify your faith on a rational basis. You have made a choice to believe in a specific form of the supernatural. In order to do so, there is absolutely no requirement to force the real world into an irrational shape]

I'm not attempting to justify my faith. In this discussion, all I've done is point out the irrationality of naturalism, that is all. The rejection of naturalism doesn not automatically lead to any particular belief, because it could lead to many.

Generally speaking, when it comes to the relationship between rationality and belief in religion, or indeed any particular worldview I wouldn't consider myself a "strong rationalist". I consider myself a critical rationalist. Which is significantly different.

"The natural world consists of molecules, atoms, quarks, protons, neutrons, electromagnetic forces and the like. None of these can be said to be "rational""
Why not?
Quantum mechanics is said to be the most successful theory in the history of science. It's capacity for accurate predictions is unmatched. I would suggest it must therefore be 'rational'.
And yet, QM is based largely on Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; the idea that it is impossible to determine the exact location and velocity of a particle at any given time. Despite the fact that it is impossible to predict the decay of any single particle, the half life of elements -even radically unstable ones- can be predicted with astonishing accuracy.
Has the 'nonrational' now become 'rational'?
I must agree with Pericles on more than one point. Trav's continual leaps from conclusion to conclusion with no connective evidence defies rational explication.
"If naturalism is true, people can't perform a rational inference".
If religion is true, people wouldn't need to perform a rational inference.
I really don't understand why religionists continue to pick fights with science. There are questions -which even the hardest core atheistic scientists admit- they will never know the answers to.
Why not put your God there, and stop fighting losing battles?

[Despite the fact that it is impossible to predict the decay of any single particle, the half life of elements -even radically unstable ones- can be predicted with astonishing accuracy.
Has the 'nonrational' now become 'rational'?]

It is not the particles themselves which are rational, it is the people who are rationally inferring something from them, who are performing a rational inference and who are therefore rational.

[If religion is true, people wouldn't need to perform a rational inference.]

Why?

[I really don't understand why religionists continue to pick fights with science. There are questions -which even the hardest core atheistic scientists admit- they will never know the answers to.
Why not put your God there, and stop fighting losing battles?]

I'm not picking any kind of fight with science at all, I'm merely showing it's incompatability with the philosophy of naturalism. Science relies on rational inference, and rational inference is incompatible with the philosophy of naturalism. You may know I'm a christian, but I haven't said anything about that in this discussion.

The rejection of naturalism could lead to any of a number of beliefs- theism, pantheism and deism are the three that spring to mind- although I'm sure any philosopher of religion could tell you of multiple other philosophical positions which reject naturalism but don't believe in the sort of God you're thinking of.

[There are questions -which even the hardest core atheistic scientists admit- they will never know the answers to.]

It's interesting that you mention this. It seems to me that scientists are divided about whether science will ever give us any kind of full explanation of "how". Some are optimistic, others less so. It seems to me unlikely that there will ever be concensus on any explanations. I believe you're talking about questions relating to "why". I think most atheist scientists would argue those questions are unnecessary. Of course science will never answer them, because it can't. The question then becomes whether we actually need to answer them

Naturalism:(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.
Rational:Consistent with or based on or using reason.
Trav's Dogma:
"Science relies on rational inference, and rational inference is incompatible with the philosophy of naturalism."
I would suggest a far more reasonable statement would be:
the philosophy of naturalism relies on rational inference, and is fully compatible with science.
Another characteristic of dedicated theists; their love of unsubstantiated dogma. When rationality fails, it comes down to 'faith'.

Again, I’m derided as ‘dishonest’ for giving an opinion, one shared by many thousands of others. Is everyone who holds this view dishonest?

Was Colin Patterson dishonest when, in discussing ancestral forms in the fossil record, said, “There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”? If evolution were real, we could expect to find millions of in-between forms in the fossil record. Instead, we’ll discuss the merits of a limited few, while here’s one expert admitting there are none.

Bushbasher claims there are mountains of evidence for evolution. Many don’t see it that way. Whether it’s “many scientists” or “a number of scientists”, what does it matter? It’s not about counting votes. One person with sufficient evidence and a good argument beats 99 with an inferior argument.

Shadow,
Comparing creationists to someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS is an unfair comparison. For the cause of AIDS can be examined through repeatable experiments. Origins cannot be decided by repeatable experiment. The origin of the Grand Canyon occurred but once. The origin of mankind occurred a long time ago. Original events are unrepeatable.

So by its nature, the study or origins ultimately is more reliant on philosophical argument, as those original events fall outside the realm of current experience.

Do I have religious motivations? While I’ve already admitted a bias (earlier on this thread), it’s obvious that others too have bias. These days, the most vocal proponents of evolution, such as Dawkins and Will Provine are ardent atheists. I’d be willing to guess that my main debating opposition on OLO also at least lean towards atheism. Would that not be so?

I said that creationist scientific papers are (or would be) routinely rejected along philosophical lines rather than merit by most mainstream journals. I’m asked to prove it. I say such is the history of science. For hundreds of years, since resistance to heliocentricity, orthodoxy buckles slowly to a good idea.

Robert Higgs put it like this:
‘Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases - until it becomes impossible to deny their findings, a time that often comes only after one generation's professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea's bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong.’

If the playing field were even, then at least a few creationist papers would find favour amongst reviewers, considering the calibor of scientist that support creation, who regularly have their papers published on less controversial topics. That this doesn’t happen only reflects on the slope of the playing field.

In fact, creationist papers are peer reviewed in creationist journals by their real peers.

grim<<Naturalism:(philosophy)>>>thus not based on science fact,and its logic is thus as debatable as any philosphical BELIEF is

<<the doctrine>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:doctrine&ei=6mErSvHgHJTe7APc993tCA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

<<Definitions of doctrine on the Web:a belief..(or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school..wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Doctrine(Latin: doctrina)..is a codification of beliefs or.."a body of teachings"..or"instructions",..taught principles..or positions,..as the body of that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or super'natural' explanations.
thus quite IR<<Rational:..Consistent with..or based on or using reason.>>in lue of science fact

<<I would suggest a far more reasonable statement would be:..the philosophy of naturalism relies on rational inference,and is fully compatible with science.>>>i would say if science VALIDATE the science

Another characteristic of dedicated A-theists;..their love of unsubstantiated dogma....When SCIENCE fact and rationality fails,it comes down to..'faith'.>>>well we almost agree...you just trust what you were taught/told as a child...

and believed faithfully in a theory...till it became your own version of logic...till IT..became your life philosophy..[thus clearly have not a single..real science fact to solidify the evolution of genus..to back either your philosophy of evolution of genus/nor abiogenus..to wit life from non life..[rather for your belief/dogma]..

that meets the science nessesity of faulsify-ability..[ie that fact that if refuted collapses the science THEORY]...thus your dependance on evolvoltions phylosophies..and buzz words[spin]...in lue of faulsify-able science fact

dan, the circularity of your logic is a thing of beauty.

Under One God, if you sincerely wish a discussion on rationality, I would strongly suggest you first concentrate on your spelling and grammar. I rarely if ever bother to read any of your comments all the way through; it's just too much hard work.
It's 'irrational' to think you can put up a credible argument on reason or science, when you put so little effort into basic communication.

DSM,

Thousands of papers get submitted every week, many claiming break throughs which on rigourous review are shown to have been derived through flawed research. The ones that make it through this review are published, but are subject to further review.

Only a small percentage of "breakthroughs" make it through this process, but none of the creationist papers.

The creationist papers suffer from a few handicaps in that they bring no new evidence, and their sole purpose is to try to refute and reinterpret existing data, and offer no real alternative.

Given that there is absolutely no direct evidence of the theory of creation, the rock throwing at evolution lacks credibility.

Shadow,
I don’t know what you mean by ‘rock throwing at evolution.’ Do you think evolution is above scrutiny?

I contend with your idea that creationists bring no new evidence. Creationists are involved in some novel research. You could read about that in their peer reviewed journals.

However, why need anyone re-invent the wheel? There is evidence already accumulating and out there for anyone to read. It’s not necessary to uncover new evidence to make a good case for life arising from an intelligent source. As famous philosopher Antony flew recently noted, “The findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

With all due respect to Antony Flew, I don't think he knew much more about what has happened in DNA research in the last 50 years that you do, Dan S.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt about 'novel' research, which peer reviewed journals might I find some solid new creationist stuff. Just a couple of links would suffice. I am really interested in what you think is 'novel research'.

bugsy the issue isnt that creationsts rebut the theory[but that evolutionists prove their theory...and thats what you lot are unable to do[yes you can give 7 species evolutions[seagulls ringspecies making other seagulls etc[but this is micro evolution[WITHIN the species]

NOT macro evolution into a new genus[thats what science HAS NEVER recorded[let alone replicated]...what is science must be either documented and be able to be replicated[NO SCIENCE EVER HAS[thus evolution REMAINS a theory

if you feel[believe]..its a science..present YOUR proofs
i cant give proof there arnt fairies at the bottum of YOUR garden[but you make the absurd claim..[YOU PROVE IT]

prove that genus changes genus
prove that life can come from non life
the facts are not in..for evolution to be science

there are huge gaps in the fossil record[strangly just where they would need to CHANGE their genus...go figure[better yet give your proof that one genus evolved into any other genus]

>> Creationists are involved in some novel research. You could read about that in their peer reviewed journals.

i'm sure "novel" doesn't even begin to describe creationist research. i can also read about astrology research in peer-reviewed astrology journals. it doesn't mean astrology isn't crap.

what dan can't seem to point to is creationist research in established peer-reviewed biological journals. and, what he can't seem to point to are creationist articles unfairly refused publication in such journals.

>>Do you think evolution is above scrutiny?

god, you're an ignorant twerp. evolutionary biologists scrutinise evolution as their profession. if any real evidence against evolution came forth, it would be on the next cover of Nature. you clearly have not the remotest clue how science and scientific research works. yet you ceaselessly sermonise on science from your mount of ignorance.

Poor old Antony Flew. Dan S de Merengue has dragged him into the discussion, yet again.

>>As famous philosopher Antony flew recently noted, “The findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”<<

Probably the saddest aspect of thrusting this venerable gentleman into the spotlight is the extent to which he hates it. Second to this discomfort is the manner in which his pronouncements are pounced upon by theists, as if this is all the proof required to make their flimsy case for them.

As Dan S de Merengue knows very well, the full story of Professor Flew's recent musings do not, according to the man himself, line up very well with the sort of religion to which, say, the Dan S de Merengues of this world ascribe.

Here's an excerpt from an open letter to the great man, published in the Autumn 2005 issue of "The Open Society" - a fairly mainstream religious pamphlet, I'm sure you agree.

"You say that you have abandoned atheism for belief in God. But the God of which religion? Pantheism? Deism? Or of some non-Mosaic version of theism? You seem to have endorsed all three of them, notwithstanding that belief in any one is logically inconsistent with belief in any of the others, and that both Pantheism and Deism are inconsistent with the alleged ‘evidence’ you count on to support them."

http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/2005v78n1aut.pdf

Unfortunately, Flew's age and dislike of public stoushes have so far prevented him from providing a better explanation of his sudden refutation of his previous work.

Which is a pity. Because while to change one's mind is not an offence - in fact, it is an act of considerable intellectual courage for a man of Professor Flew's scholarship - the lack of rigour with which he appears to have approached the issue is at considerable odds with his customary attention to detail.

In the meantime, it is a fairly fragile hook upon which to hang an intelligent design story.

DSM,

Evolution is not above scrutiny, in fact it is probably the most thoroughly scrutinised theory ever. The fact that there is as yet nothing that contradicts the theory, or any plausible alternative is why it continues to stand.

the only "proof" that creationists can find for their own theory, is to:

- Point feebly at the ever shrinking gaps in the fossil records and bleat that the theory is not completely proven. (UOG)

- Look at the complexity of life and claim that because they can't understand it that God (or some other intelligent designer) must be needed to design it.

"Creationism" the alternative to reason.

shadlow minester<<the only "proof" that creationists can find for their own theory,is to:>>>//my brr-other of the shadows..evolution is your theory..[NOT MINE]...it is for you..to supply the proof for YOUR theory

it is you lot who<<Point feebly>>at evolutions of the SPECIES and say this is how one genus mutates into another genus

IT IS YOU that point...<<at the ever shrinking gaps in the fossil records>>>..well my shadow/brrr-other..point and bleat that the theory is completely proven...MATE..your just not revealing your proof...IF YOU HAVE PROOF PRESENT IT

<<Look at the complexity of life>>>NAME THE FIRST LIFE

evolve that first life into another genus[name one evolution that evolved from bacteria into not bacteria[or from single cell into multiple cell..[or cold blood into warm blood...NAME ONE..proven genus change

if science replicate the science[talk is cheap my brother [your faith in science is the same as my faith in god[give me that i have reasons for my belief..[reveal your reasons for BELIEF in science..[REVEAL THE SCIENCE FACTS[you cant because ommoung all the facts there is not one proof..[just facts that prove nothing

why didnt darwin write evolution of genus[because he presented proof of evolution in species..[one dont prove the other]...you can ONLY present proofs of species evolution because proofs for genus evolution are full of huge GAPS

[as witnessed by the fossil record..[and not a single reported]..NOT A SINGLE REPORTED CHANGE OF GENUS ...EVER..present one mate

ONE evolution of one genus into a NEW GENUS
present your science[you have a theory]..nothing more

<<God (or some other intelligent designer) must be needed to design it.>>>mate make but one like it...science has never made life..nor evolved a single life..into any other genus...EVER...cannot even make a living cell membrane..[let alone a life..let alone evolved the life

[evolution/THEORY is all fraud..[fraud to support a godless theory..fraud to give aid and comfort to retards..needing to not believe..in the living loving god

"One example of natural speciation is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish which, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. Over an estimated 10,000 generations, the sticklebacks show structural differences that are *greater than those seen between different genera of fish* including variations in fins, changes in the number or size of their bony plates, variable jaw structure, and color differences." Wikipedia, speciation.
<<God (or some other intelligent designer) must be needed to design it.>>
If Life requires a God to create it, what is required to create a God?

Grim,
What is required to create a God? God does not require anything. He is uncreated.

I notice that after 10000 generations, what were stickleback fish are still stickleback fish, but are now showing a diversity of variation. The issue is not to what genus they’re classified, as our invented classification systems are fairly arbitrary. The issue is whether the noted changes in colour, jaw size, etc. are the types of upward changes that, given enough time, could add to the genome sufficient information to adapt a fish into a philosopher.

Bushbasher,
You say I can’t point to a creationist paper in established biological journals. Are you pleased about this? Let’s look at one real life example.

Stephen Meyer’s paper on the origin of the basic types in the Cambrian explosion passed peer review and was printed in a journal associated with the Smithsonian. However, because he made a suggestion of intelligent design in the conclusion (and he is well known as an ID proponent) evolutionists protested so vigorously that the BSW promised that ID would not addressed in future issues of its journal. In the fallout the journal’s editor, Richard Stromberg lost his job at the Smithsonian; such is the climate for ‘open minded academic freedom’ surrounding this issue.

Evolutionists cannot demand that proponents of an intelligent designer publish in their favoured journals, and then prevent them from doing so.

Is it not science because it is not published, or it is not published because it is not science? Where does the circle begin?

I asked if evolution was above scrutiny. I’m told that it is continually scrutinised by ‘evolutionary’ biologists. But can we ever investigate the evidence from outside of the neo-darwinian framework? And if so, how does the evidence compare? Is there another explanation that is more plausible?

I mention the opinion of philosopher Antony Flew, though Bugsy doubts that he knows much more about genetics than DS Merengue.

Pericles, I don’t mention him because I think he believes the same as me on every issue (who would?). I highlight his viewpoint as one of an increasing number of scholars able to see the design inference within nature.

I don’t hang an entire theory on his words. Others who view the same evidence make similar statements. Francis Crick (who did know something about genetics) said in 1981,

“What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events… An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going … Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

It seems the more we understand of genetics over time, the more difficult it is to find a plausible naturalistic account for an origin of life.

Bugsy, http://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs

DSM as for Stephen Meyer's article:

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, the quote by the society sums says it all.

"The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history"

So essentially did not meet the requirements for scientific rigour and R. Sternberg paid the price for editorial negligence that the producer of "the chaser" paid for their skit.

The articles are not excluded for their message, but because of "such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known" or in layman's terms because of the bogus methods used to reach a conclusion.

Like wise the link you provided to Carl Wieland's RATE site is so bogus that as an engineer, I can already see the gaping holes in their "discoveries".

Finally, considering that in 1981 the DNA molecule had only been discovered for 28yrs Crick's comment was about the scarcity of information not suggesting intelligent design.

From what I can see, "creationist science" is an oxymoron.

shadowm QUOTE<<The Council,..deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings>>look up what deemed means

why was it deemed<<because the subject matter represents such a significant departure..from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known>>

so we have a deemed measure that overrules and opposing science as a matter of policy,thus shadows addendum is a creation over and aBOUVE THE REASONS HE JUST POSTULATED

TO WIT the new scxience info presented represents a ''significant departure...from the nearl;y...lol..purely systamised content''the journal purveyed for over 100 years

note not one mention of the lkey words in the shadows reply<< So essentially did not meet the requirements for scientific rigour>>scientific rigour indeed shadow

[please mate..point out where that was SAID...thats your made up rebutal..[putting scientific rigour where it said represents a departure from their religiously held evolutionary/zeal]...

you must have read..that they are deaf to anything deemed creationist..its in their constituted articles...as have been posted in previous debates..[ie IT WAS A POLICY position to reject it..[its their policy to reject anything not to their peer revieuw/status quo]

just like science has all ways/had the flat earth vieuw to new info,..and creation is a taboo subject to science policy..[they simply cant accept creation,..are thus blind to any dicusion on the topic]..

they thus DEEM it a..'significant departure''..from the statis quo[and mindless commentators..then claim it was rejected for its science

from
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2194
Darwinists Impose Gag Rule on Science
Try to Thwart Intellectual Freedom
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 8, 2004

SEATTLE, SEP. 8 – Amidst controversy over a peer-reviewed scientific article arguing for the intelligent design of life, the biological society responsible for the journal in which the article appeared has imposed a gag rule to avoid publication of future articles with the same perspective. The society attempted to justify its action by citing a 1999 policy statement from the AAAS asserting that the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

“Instead of addressing the paper’s arguments or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate,” said Dr. John West, associate director. “They’re trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts.”

In its statement released Tuesday, The Biological Society of Washington made clear that articles discussing evidence of intelligent design “will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings,” even if an article on the matter passes peer review. The peer-reviewed article that has generated the controversy, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” was written by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture Director Dr. Stephen Meyer. In it, Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.

In recent news coverage of the controversy in The Scientist, Richard Sternberg, editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, confirmed that Meyer’s article went through the normal peer-review process, and that the three peer reviewers "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions.”

“This action restricts intellectual freedom,” said Rob Crowther, the CSC’s Director of Communications. “It says that the journal shouldn’t allow its editors or its peer reviewers to even consider a scientific article that discusses evidence of design in nature.

That’s dogma, not science.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

UOG,

Your grasp of English is as poor as your grasp on science.

The "council deemed" could read:
- The council came to the conclusion or
- the council found

The article was peer reviewed only by the editor Sternberg as he tried to excuse himself:

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

This was in spite of:
- There being 3 other collegues involved in peer review that were better qualified,
- Sternberg being a member of a creationist group afiliated with the author of the paper. A clear conflict of interest.

Sternberg in a clear breach of ethics abused his position to circumvent the peer review process and publish a paper in which he had a personal interest.

For creationists to use this to claim scientific validity or intellectual discrimination is morally bankrupt.

I doubt Sternberg will ever find an editorial job at a reputable journal. Perhaps he should try the national enquirer.