You cannot argue againt the religious

Not at all. Buddhism and Neopaganism are both non-dogmatic. In fact, the only religions that really fit your description are most Muslim and some Christian sects.

of course, deductive logic is a closed system of definitions and inductive logic is an error…

matters of faith on either side… but the scientist seldom admits or acknowledges his…



My new favorite quote.

I’d quote something to argue with to make this post useful, but I can’t find anything I disagree with, really. :confused:

On the initial subject matter, there was some beef in my first post… :slight_smile:

You both misunderstood me, I do not oppose Creation and Evolution but Creation to Chance, and Evolution to Fixism…

For Navigator, a fixist position, in brief, considers that all species were created directly by “God” in their final perfection from the first instant of their apparition. It is thus opposed to evolutionist theories, rather diverse, which postulate that animal species were not always what they are today, but have been transformed over the history of life. The debate is centred on the nature of these “transformations”. Are they specific or accidental? Limited to the animal kingdom? Does evolution explain the apparition of life from the non living? Does man have the same ancestor as the monkey? [Let us observe that scientific evolution does not put forward any link between vegetal life and animal life. For scientists, the apparition of life is not clearly defined as animal or vegetal. Actually, this is not a question that they ask]. Since scientific observations seem to seriously comfort certain evolutionist conclusions, fixism tends to be rejected in the camp of ideologies. This poses a problem, for we assimilate directly fixism to creationism, by refusing one, we refuse the other, including the underlying idea of Creation. In this way Evolutionism can today present itself as the gravedigger of the notion of Creation. Yet I say that one can be perfectly creationist without being fixist.

Thus one must not believe that the idea of Creation is reserved to Fixism, whereas Evolutionism would postulate or even demonstrate the absence of Creation. Yet the collusion Creationism-Fixism leads to this error.

A certain apprehension of Evolution, even by integrating chance, is perfectly compatible with the idea of Creation. Equally, a certain idea of Fixism could perfectly be accommodated with a vision of a Universe eternally present and increated.

Actually this subject only moderatly interests me, for it says nothing of finality. And to the question why does man walk on his hind legs, I have never heard a more intelligent answer than that of Aristotle : it is to contemplate.


Carleas, according to the Bible Jesus said to some people wanting to stone a prostitute, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone. I suspect you should not have cast this stone. However, I’m here neither to defend closed minded ‘religious’ people nor offend closed minded ‘philosophers’. I just thought I would let you know that on my thread I added to the converation we were having on “The God Delusion” thread. If you are interested here is the link. … t=#1846976

I didn’t say that. All I said was that evolution doesn’t rule out intelligent design. You initially claimed that it did, and also claimed that science shows that there is no God. This is not the case.

As to how probable it is that design is a part of evolution, my answer to that would depend on what hat I’m wearing at the moment and also on what is meant by “design.” So I’ll avoid the whole question and just say what I told Kingdaddy on the other thread: there is no need for that hypothesis, and so it is not a part of evolution theory.

I’m sorry, but you have no knowledge on which to base this statement. For one thing, neither you nor any creationist on this board has ever proposed a mechanism whereby design might impact evolution, and without such a mechanism in mind, there’s no operational meaning to the term “design” and so no way to assess the chance it might or might not be operating.

Actually, you DID say it’s definitively untrue in your first post. You did. And that’s what I was disagreeing with.

I don’t know. Why did you?

You may have observed that I generally don’t defend it. I don’t even call it a “theory.” It would need to be falsifiable for that. And I’m not defending it now. I’m just pointing out that what you’ve called proven, isn’t.

Bah, people get offended far too easily, particularly here.

That you presume to know the functioning of the mind of ‘the religious person’ is something you take entirely on faith. By your own measure, it is a religious belief.

In short, ‘closed mind’ is a metaphor and cannot therefore be reduced to logic.

This isn’t in any way something particular to religious people. Just about every sort of belief is held dogmatically by some of its advocates. This is more an issue of the function belief (in anything) has for uncertain people than it is an issue of ‘the religious person’.

You mean they all have thousands if not millions of adherent who’ll testify to the fact of having personal proof that their beliefs are right?

This is true of all beliefs.

All forms of belief and knowledge are formed because of some or other reaction to norms (conformist or otherwise). This doesn’t necessarily make them of equivalent epistemological value, but it’s a virtue of science, religion, reason, whatever else.

How does it follow from the above? Agnosticism is the position which requires least justification, and therefore is least likely to lead to the dogmatic attitude. But Atheism? For atheism to be logically superior to religious belief one would have to disprove the existence of metaphysical entities. Just as no argument exists that confirms this existence, no argument exists to refute it.

As a side point to this whole argument - where is the justification for logical thought being superior to illogical thought? Why not value imagination over reason? Indeed, if one does that, one can argue the case for both atheist and religious thought, as both fuel imagination.

Carleas good point made…

Religion just provides psychological security, the thought of a more powerful being, heaven… all these provide security… and the being dissolves into this illusion which purely correlates manifested earthly pleasures.

Any filiation that derives itself from religious thought is basically an expedient to contrast the fact that the very notion of sanctitude found its birth place in societal and relational influences.

This is what I would call a “manifestation of stupidity”

You’ve only quoted the unimportant chunks of my post. Let’s review.

Evolution DOESN’T rule out intelligent design; however, it gives us a method in which all of the various, complex life forms on this planet could have gotten here without intelligent design. Define intelligent. Define design. To think the driving force behind natural selection has any intelligence whatsoever, or that it was somehow “designed” to arrive at any particular destination, is a faith statement. There’s no evidence for it, and as you said, therefore there is no reason to include it in the evolution theory. So why is it even a glimmer of a thought in anybody’s mind?

Creationists propose the mechanism behind design as God, and he impacted evolution to lead to humans. What exactly do you think Christians who believe in evolution think? Not to be captain obvious, but design implies a designer. A hammer, a car motor, a radar tracking device, is designed by a designer. The living life forms on this planet are NOT.

For practical purposes, I said it’s difinitively untrue, but if you want to try to stick me with semantics, let me clarify myself. It is as difinitively untrue as the existence of unicorns and ghosts, a.k.a. there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest their existence, and therefore there is no need to include any of these in any theory or hypothesis. So if you are agreeing that it is as unlikely that evolution had some intelligent force behind it as it is that I have supernatural psychic powers and can see the future, then we’re in agreement.

Once again, for all practical purposes, I called it proven. I call the non-existence of unicorns, Thor, and Zeus proven, although, as you mention, it’s unfalsifiable. I realize there is a chance they exist, but the odds against it are so stacked that it’s almost 100% safe to say they do not exist, which is what I have claimed.

well said, 'darkener. Raises to mind (your rebuttals) how curiously similar are the philosophical defenses employed by the religious and the “religiously” non-religious alike…

You’re absolutely correct, nor would I ever stand behind such an argument.

But let’s suppose that X is an argument for ducks not having legs.

Y’s counter-argument is that ducks do have legs, and is supported by evidence of what the definition of a “leg” is in respect t our culture and science, and then photographs, as well as living samples, of ducks with legs.

Y has a case. X does not. Y is a more logical argument, considering the underlying facts behind it.

To form a belief, is to form an oppinion with what you know when not all information is available, because of the nature of what lies beyond, namely that it is what’s beyond our understanding, such concepts are entirely up for debate, but it is still an oppinion based on limited information.

To say that yout oppinion is “right” and enforcing your ideas blindly implies that you know all the varriavles, which for this is not the case, that is the concept behind religious blndness.

To say someone else is wrong because they don’t know all the varriables would be to call yourself wrong because you do not know all the variables either. many athiests fall victim to this characteristic as well.

To fight over the unknown seems pointless in that it dosn’t make any diffrince since nothing new is learned and so no point can be made, perhaps insted of arguing and trying to prove or disprove a point we should ask questions to try to learn the nature of the beyond before fighting over it.

but than perhaps that is my belief.

In our world, all information doesn’t have to be available fo you to develop a belief or opinion.

In science, if you have two theories, you stack the evidence for each one up. Whichever stack has more evidence and proof is the one that becomes accepted. If, at any point, new evidence or new proof changes the theory, the new theory with the more evidence and proof becomes accepted. This is simply how our world works, in most cases, but unfortunately, not in all cases.

What exactly did you find a theologian doesn’t wan’t to discuss or argue ? Was it something related to the epistemology of Duns Scotus, or Augustine’s dispute with the Donatists ? Maybe the interpretation of free will in Tomas Aquinas and how it echoes in Calvin ? Please, do share with us some snippets of that highly prestigious substantiation which religious people seem to lack.

D0rky, creationists believe that God creatged the Earth and Humans by direct manipulation, not by manipulating evolution. They dismiss evolution lock, stock and barrel.

The christians who believe in evolution believe that humans evolved in exactly the same way that atheists. Maybe there’s some bastardised form of evolution that some of these Christians believe where God has a guiding hand in creating intelligence, but you’re attributing beliefs to people who don’t have them.

Why are you so insistent that Christians have to believe there was a designer evolved in the arrival of humans? As I’ve said before many believe that the book of Genesis is a metaphor for the big bang, evolution, etc. The design could merely be the laws of the universe, laws that could inevitably lead to intelligence.

I mean that they believe in the same form of evolution as atheists do, not that atheists are a different species :laughing:

Christians believe Christ died for their sins. To say that God had no hand in sending Jesus to earth isn’t Christian. He had to direct evolution in some way, shape or form for Jesus to get here.

Most Christians who believe in evolution don’t fully understand it. Most other people who believe in evolution don’t even fully understand it, and I’m sure there are a whole hell of a lot of biologists who don’t fully understand it.

I will soon be reading The Origin of Species to get a better grasp on it myself, but I’m still in search of a counter-argument to those Dawkins presents. Evolution eliminates the need for a God, for divine intervention in any manner for the variaton and complexity of life on this planet, and certainly eliminates the set path that God would have had to play part with Adam and Eve’s sin, Jesus arrival, and his return as savior.

But please, if you have a logical theory behind why one could accept both evolution with no hint of design or predestination with the help of God, as well as Christianity, I would be more than open-minded to reading and pondering it.

Is there not a clear difference between religion and science? I see repeated, more or less strongly phrased, the claim that have come forward to advance some sort of secular religion. I don’t see science as at all religious. I don’t see that involves faith (granted there are different definitions of faith in play, and I’ll come to that). The comparisson is tripe, quite frankly, and that apparently needs explaining.
In our daily routine, we take certain things for granted. We take steps knowing that the ground will support us. We speak to people knowing that our words will have the meaning that they have had before. We jump back as a car runs a light, because we have every reason to believe that being struck by a car would hurt badly. All people, religious or not, will at least act the same way. I say “at least”, because some may object to the idea of ‘knowing’. But the action reveals the fact of the matter, that there is a very deeply held and strongly supported belief that these things are the case.
This belief shows that, in principle, all humans (and many non-humans) follow the scientific method in their daily life. In principle, there should be no qualms from anyone about science, because people are in some sense natural scientists. There may be problems with the practice of science, because like anything it can be done wrong. But the method, and the refinements it has undergone to ensure its rigor (double-blind, representative samples, placebos, etc.), are an extension of the everyday internal process.
That’s really enough, isn’t it? The fact that the entire body of scientific knowledge, and the degree to which it is knowledge, can, in principle, be constructed on things that you already hold true. The gulf between the belief in the pain a car could cause you and the belief in realitivity or quantum physics, modrern medicine, or evolution, is at most ignorance of the methods used.
Religion (meaning dogmatic religion) is not the same. It must be accepted wholesale. There is no build-up from basic beliefs to religious dogma. It must simply be accepted that the bible/koran is the word of god, that 72 virgins await you the afterlife, or that when you die you will be born into another body.
Science is not a religion. The claim is cliche, but ultimately bullshit. People use the same word, ‘faith’, to try to tie them together. They simply equivocate, for the faith required of science is less than that of dogmatic religion to the point that it is really irresponsible to use the same word. Most people should agree, especially when it is explained that the faith required for scientific belief is the same faith required for the belief that eating is an important part of living. Call it faith if you must, but do not conclude the paradigms equal by virtue of those 5 letters.

just something funny to add to this stew,

I was raised mormon, and when I bring up things (regardless of what it is) that contradicts mormon theology the answer is, “it is a test” or to “test our faith.”

I bring up dinasaurs, and how they don’t fit in the historical paradigm most mormons look at, and the answer is, “it is a test of faith.”

this answer seems to work for everything, but when mormons see something that they believe is true or supported by evidence, then that is testament to their faith.

This seems self-serving to me and an excuse to be fundamental. However, I must admit that I have meet some mormons who are not like this, and admit gaps in logic etc, but they are not as common.

Anyway, sorry to intervene with this. It just makes me chuckle a little.


Well, if you are talking about degrees of faith, you should at least extend it to your own analogies. The faith required in knowing that one must eat on a daily basis, something which is experienced personally every day, is much different in degrees to the faith in an abstract scientific theory, which has been passed on as second hand knowledge, and which may be based on evidential proof which could be considered tenuous at best when compared to the personal, daily proof of hunger.