A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

And what is the basis for that claim?

First-hand knowledge of miracles

Some philosophies restate that concept in a way that does not amount to a claim about the physical universe at all. Instead, they talk about the relationship that humankind establishes with the universe.

That's interesting.

What miracles are you talking about? With miracles in scripture, we cannot assume that the events actually happened as described. We don't make that assumption with the Iliad or the Elder Edda. Even if an event has no obvious natural cause, we cannot simply assume that a supernatural entity was responsible. For that assumption to have any credibility, the existence of the entity would already have to have been established. The assumption rejects the more likely possibility that the event had some natural cause that has not yet been detected.

But, to assume they simply did not happen is a rejection of a possibility, too. I'm not seeking anyone else to assume they did happen, just to not dismiss the possibility that they did happen. That would be rather arrogant, and close minded (not to mention unscientific).

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Tonio

I made no such claim about nothingness. Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible.

Originally Posted by Tonio

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them.

This statement implies that events can have a direction without a driver or catalyst. In other words it occurs in a vacuum. TP’s statement - that events have purpose and reason because of a creator - is no more baseless than yours. It’s a matter of belief. But if events are not random (as you have admitted they are not) that means they have a direction or a purpose or a reason; it’s going somewhere. If it doesn’t then it’s random. And having a belief in something is not false or baseless and is not an admission to not knowing how our universe got here devoid of any other explanation. And because you choose not to believe this doesn’t make it baseless.

Originally Posted by Tonio

I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of such an intelligence, however remote the possibility. But the burden of proof is on any claim that such an intelligence exists.

For those that believe in this intelligence (we call God) there is no burden to prove it. It just is. But you can’t say there is an intelligence at the helm and in the same breath deny it’s a central controller; that this intelligence is some sort of purposeless, inanimate object.

Originally Posted by Tonio

I'm not sure of your point. I'm saying that the question of the existence of gods is a scientific question. It's not a question of faith or a question of theology. For example, we cannot perceive black holes directly with our senses, but we can perceive their effects.

You’re relying solely on science to answer everything: our existence and God. You’re putting your faith in something to provide your answers. How is that any different than someone putting their faith in God? Neither has provided us with ALL the answers. How many times has science been wrong. Stephen Hawking felt he had proven that black holes destroy everything; that all matter breaks down in a black hole. He spent decades proving his theory and it split the scientific community in half. His theory would destroy years of research in quantum physics. Then he realized he was wrong; matter does retain its original information. I understand physics to a certain degree but these guys have minds that go way beyond anything I’m willing to put faith in. I’m not sure I trust the science. What if there really were no black holes? It turns out Pluto, after all these years, is really not a planet. WHAT! What about the science behind global warming? Do we really trust these scientists to give us factual information or are they just a bunch of really smart mathematicians making a bunch of stuff up. Because you can’t travel billions of light years into space to prove these things you have to rely on faith that they are even telling us the truth about things that “exist” in our universe.

I don’t doubt there are black holes; that’s not really the point. I challenge your contention that our beliefs are baseless. I believe that we are here for a reason; that the result of this creation has a reason; that the intelligence behind this is God Yahweh. I don’t think ours is any more baseless or false than those that rely on science.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

In a way, it sounds as if you and I are saying very similar things. I believe that science is in it's best role when researching the "how" of what God did, while religion is in it's best when discussing the "why".

No, science is about both the "how" and the "why" with the latter referring to causes and not reasons. I have no simple word that describes how religion's realm is the human experience.

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, except for science's dismissing the possibility of a supernatural origin.

While we cannot dismiss the possibility, we also cannot give the possibility any serious consideration without evidence.

Originally Posted by This_person

As a matter of fact, it's already come to some deductions that have, as yet, not been disproved (nor, regrettably, proved).

Can you offer an example? What evidence was used to reach the deduction?

Originally Posted by This_person

Or, was built into our DNA from the beginning.

There is no basis for that assumption.

Originally Posted by This_person

And, science certainly does go to the places you've described. That's why we have so many drugs.

No, the drugs are merely tools that people use or abuse. They do not by themselves constitute any concepts about the human experience.

Originally Posted by This_person

Based upon what?

Since the time of the ancient Greeks, mystical and supernatural explanations for natural events have been gradually disappearing as science discovers the natural causes for these events. This is a positive trend for two reasons. First, we can apply our knowledge about nature and the universe to improve our lives, such as through medicine. Second, the skepticism that is part of science is closely related to the skepticism that is part of democracy. As we question and analyzing what we observe, we also question government leaders and not simply take their claims at face value.

However, this trend also has the unintended effect of discrediting all of religion, not just its mystical elements. It offers no framework for discussing the human experience outside of both science and mysticism. It's not enough for science to demonstrate that volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by natural geological forces, because humans must still deal with the suffering that results from these disasters. Religion can fill this vacuum, not by claiming that such disasters are the work of angry supernatural beings, but by talking about productive ways to deal with the suffering. I'm thinking of something like Zen Buddhism, although my knowledge about that is somewhat limited.

Originally Posted by This_person

If they're true, you'd deny them because they're not required? Or, are you making the assumption off-hand that they're not true?

Neither. I've already acknowledge the possibility that they may be true. I'm saying out that any claim about the supernatural being necessary for any consideration of the human experience is merely an assumption.

Originally Posted by This_person

Myths may be better as metaphors. Certainly when Jesus spoke in parables, He was agreeing with this philosophy - He made his point with story.

Truths, however, are best told as truths.

Jesus' parables do not appear to be myths. They appear to embody certain truths that Jesus believed about the human experience. That's a practice found in many religions and philosophies.

Originally Posted by This_person

You appear to make the assumption that the information put out by religion is simply not true, unknowledgable, and illogical (based upon your last sentence).

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My reference to logic was not intended as a slam on religion. I was saying that philosophy often discusses the nature of knowledge and the nature of logic. While I've never had training in philosophy, I do know that philosophy students are taught how to approach arguments logically, in a way that transcends mere debate.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

First-hand knowledge of miracles.

And what were these? What made them miracles and not natural events?

Originally Posted by This_person

But, to assume they simply did not happen is a rejection of a possibility, too. I'm not seeking anyone else to assume they did happen, just to not dismiss the possibility that they did happen.

I've already acknowledged the possibility. Where is the evidence that would turn the possibility into a probability?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

No, science is about both the "how" and the "why" with the latter referring to causes and not reasons. I have no simple word that describes how religion's realm is the human experience.

The "cause" without meaning is really just the "how". How the trigger got moved, how the bullet started it's motion, how the bullet impacted the lifeform it hit. What religion considers unimportant, but interesting, details. Religion is more the why - was the trigger pulled by a person, was it with intent to harm, etc.; or, did it just fall onto something wrong and was completely random - without motive or reason. Both have a how, and the "how"s are identical. One has a why, one has a random, pointless, meaningless explaination.

While we cannot dismiss the possibility, we also cannot give the possibility any serious consideration without evidence.

Why? Every possibility is without evidence (conjecture) until there is proof. Why is lightening hitting mud just right any more serious to consider than a supernatural event? Is there any answer you can provide to that which is not bigotted against a thought process other than that of an atheist?

Can you offer an example? What evidence was used to reach the deduction?

Life exists. Life that cannot be demonstrated to exist anywhere else, even with comets from different star systems examined (as well as planets visited within our own system), and constant searching of the heavens for any existence of anything else. Not proven, not disproven to exist.

There is no basis for that assumption.

Except that it seems innate to people across the globe and across time, regardless of religion or upbringing. It's almost as if we're made that way. Wait, that is a basis for a hypothesis!

No, the drugs are merely tools that people use or abuse. They do not by themselves constitute any concepts about the human experience.

They merely attempt to alter them biologically.

However, this trend also has the unintended effect of discrediting all of religion, not just its mystical elements.

In what way has science discredited anything associated with Christianity? I know of many attempts, I know of no completed acts of discrediting.

Neither. I've already acknowledge the possibility that they may be true. I'm saying out that any claim about the supernatural being necessary for any consideration of the human experience is merely an assumption.

As is any other unproven hypothesis. Why dismiss a whole realm of possibility?

Jesus' parables do not appear to be myths. They appear to embody certain truths that Jesus believed about the human experience. That's a practice found in many religions and philosophies.

And?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My reference to logic was not intended as a slam on religion. I was saying that philosophy often discusses the nature of knowledge and the nature of logic. While I've never had training in philosophy, I do know that philosophy students are taught how to approach arguments logically, in a way that transcends mere debate.

Almost in a scientific manner? Philosophy, like religion, does that. I agree!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

And what were these? What made them miracles and not natural events?

This is a very personal, intimate thing. It's not something I can or will address on an internet forum. Doesn't make it less true, but I just can't discuss it here.

I've already acknowledged the possibility. Where is the evidence that would turn the possibility into a probability?

With the evidence of a chemical reaction on lifeless objects turning them into life. Other than the fact that life exists, there is no evidence. Thus, the two theories are equals.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

This statement implies that events can have a direction without a driver or catalyst. In other words it occurs in a vacuum.

No, I was saying that the catalyst is a natural force. The concept is known as causal determinism.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But if events are not random (as you have admitted they are not) that means they have a direction or a purpose or a reason; it’s going somewhere. If it doesn’t then it’s random.

I'm taking about the claim that purpose and reason were consciously created by a supernatural entity. Again, there is no evidence for that claim. You would have a point if you are referring to purpose or reason as the same as a natural cause.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

For those that believe in this intelligence (we call God) there is no burden to prove it. It just is. But you can’t say there is an intelligence at the helm and in the same breath deny it’s a central controller; that this intelligence is some sort of purposeless, inanimate object.

When I acknowledge the possibility of gods, I emphasize that the gods may have any sort of natures, and that some people's beliefs about the gods may be wrong. Some people believe in a single god and others believe in many. What evidence would show that one group is wrong and the other one right?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You’re relying solely on science to answer everything: our existence and God. You’re putting your faith in something to provide your answers.

No, science's answers can be tested in some cases and analyzed in others to see if they continue to match data from observations. Scientists don't simply accept their colleagues' conclusions without question.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

How many times has science been wrong...

That implies that science simply replaces one set of knowledge with another. It's more accurate to say that science adds to its storehouse of knowledge with new discoveries. While there have sometimes been wrong turns, the overall collection of knowledge continues to grow.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

It turns out Pluto, after all these years, is really not a planet. WHAT!

That wasn't a case where Pluto was never a planet and we simply didn't discover this until recently. It was a case where the discovery of small planets beyond Pluto caused a firestorm of controversy among astronomers as to how they should define a planet. (That's why the first one discovered was named Eris, for the goddess of discord.) So Pluto, Eris, Ceres and others were put into the new classification of "dwarf planet." The issue was about humans revising their own classifications for observable objects, based on new tools for making observations. I sometimes joke that Pluto was demoted.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Because you can’t travel billions of light years into space to prove these things you have to rely on faith that they are even telling us the truth about things that “exist” in our universe.

Scientific hypotheses are not "truth" and they are not branded as such by science. They are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Obviously some hypotheses cannot be conclusively proven because we don't have the ability to make certain observations. But that caveat is inherent in the concept of the scientific hypothesis.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I challenge your contention that our beliefs are baseless. I believe that we are here for a reason; that the result of this creation has a reason; that the intelligence behind this is God Yahweh.

Would you explain the basis for your beliefs?

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

Religion is more the why..

My point is that the existence of the "why" for natural events is a question for science because it involves the physical universe. A being behind the "why" would be like any other natural object or natural phenomenon, and thus subject to scientific inquiry.

Originally Posted by This_person

Every possibility is without evidence (conjecture) until there is proof.

Not quite. A possibility is conjecture unless there is evidence, which turns the possibility into a probability. Proof would turn the probability into a fact.

Originally Posted by This_person

Why is lightening hitting mud just right any more serious to consider than a supernatural event?

Because any claim about "why" inevitably leads to the question of the intelligence's motive. This is where religion enters the whole distatesful realm of natural events being punishments from angry entities. That goes against the idea of looking at the natural world empirically and skeptically. It implies that humans should not be curious about how the universe works.

Originally Posted by This_person

Life exists. Life that cannot be demonstrated to exist anywhere else, even with comets from different star systems examined (as well as planets visited within our own system), and constant searching of the heavens for any existence of anything else. Not proven, not disproven to exist.

I'm not sure of your point. Based on our current knowledge of our planet and of the universe, it is probable that life exists somewhere. While this is not proven or disproven, it simply means that the evidence favors the existence.

Originally Posted by This_person

Except that it seems innate to people across the globe and across time, regardless of religion or upbringing.

How is it innate when many religions do not believe in single gods?

Originally Posted by This_person

It's almost as if we're made that way.

It's possible that we evolved that way, as Dean Hamer as hypothesized.

Originally Posted by This_person

In what way has science discredited anything associated with Christianity?

I wasn't talking about Christianity specifically. I was talking about the entire realm of mystical explanations for natural events.

Originally Posted by This_person

Why dismiss a whole realm of possibility?

Pointing out that a suggested possibility is an assumption doesn't dismiss the possibility.

Originally Posted by This_person

And?

And Jesus' ideas about the human experience can be evaluated for value for one's own life experience.

[Lugnut]

Tonio and TP, I'd like to buy both of you the beverage of your choice some lazy afternoon and just it back and BS with you two..

This has been one of the better threads in the religion forum.

[Dodgem250]

Originally Posted by Lugnut

Tonio and TP, I'd like to buy both of you the beverage of your choice some lazy afternoon and just it back and BS with you two..

This has been one of the better threads in the religion forum.

Yeah me too, I'd love to set, listen, learn and then offer up my 2 cents worth of reality.