Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[dick_dastardly]

I have revealed nothing of what I do or don't care about, or what I do or I don't believe in. Speculation.

Hi MrGecko

May I ask, what is YOUR definition of God ?



dd

 

[trendie]

Mr Geckos point about having a common text to serve as basis is a very good one.
It would provide a framework for discussion.
This would no doubt go way over my head, and take me out of the discussion.
I am interested in MrGeckos texts nonetheless.

 

[JTrader]

Damn!

some of you philosphy guys should submit your lengthy inputs to this thread to a good University. I'm sure some of you might eligible for a PHD (and i dont mean - a Pretty Huge Dic*!)

 

[Atilla]

Damn!

some of you philosphy guys should submit your lengthy inputs to this thread to a good University. I'm sure some of you might eligible for a PHD (and i dont mean - a Pretty Huge Dic*!)

YES PLEASE - Can we restrict it to short paragraphs. When I look at a whole page it simply doens't sink in with simpletons like my self.

 

[Splitlink]

The devil is in the detail

Split

 

[MrGecko]

I believe in unobservable pink elephants - what's your position?

Good for you. I don't know If I believe in unobservable pink elephants or not.

Yes, it is. But man's present knowledge is a limitation. Which is why I refer to technological feasibility as well. There is absolutely no point in discussing the possibility of splitting the atom in the 17th century - this would waste everyone's time.

I fail to grasp the relevance, significance, or purpose of this statement. Surely you aren't saying there is no point in discussing things which cannot be verified or falsified with technology that is presently available?

You do not need to know the group of individuals who don't care. That I am one of them is sufficient.

You do not care about things which you cannot explain or understand, got it

And don't bore me with your logic.

Yes, logic.... problematic, eh?

1 might be possible - but no one has done so

Subjective.

Non Euclidean geometry was possible long before any physical phenomena was observed exhibiting it..

Would one not need to understand the nature of non-Euclidean geometry in order to identify it?

OR

Can we not extend the same principals to God, that he may exist without phenomena? We may even be able to make an a priori argument for his existence.

I don't see what you're getting at.

2 if these people have data, please come forward, because at present science has discredited them, or rather they have been subsumed to show that they do no prove anything to do with a God. How is our existence sufficient to prove the existence of a God. It is not. It's purely your OPINION, your own personal OPINION - and nothing more. Science requires proof, proper concrete proof, not philosophical arguments that depend on the unfalsifiable.

Our existence is adequate evidence enough according to some...Cosmological Argument.

NOTE: Do not make assummtions about what my OPINIONS are, you have no means of determining what my opinions are on anything. I present statements which you may or may not choose to believe to be true; statements you disagree with, you should demonstrate why it is logically inconsistent for such statements to be true. Opinions have no place in an academic discussion.

Without guidance you say? Tell me of your guidance?

Anselm, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Copleston, Russell, Hume, Vardy, Hick, Descartes, Plato + Aristotle, Moore, Ayer, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Mill, Bentham, Singer, Dawkins, et al (see next post).

Because it appears to me it is you who are moving towards the realm of making things up, being vague, to stir the debate/doubt about logic, reasoning and evidence.

lol.

ALL are ill equipped to tackle the issue of God period. No one has come up with any "guidance" to tackle the issue, they mainly spout rubbish. If there is such "guidance" I would very much like to hear about it. Until then please stop talking vague rubbish and either produce the body (legal expression) or leave the court.

See above. All are ill equipped perhaps; yet some are better prepared than others. That Aquinas, he didn't half spout a load of rubbish!

That may be so, Sir. But has it not occurred to you that there are people who take such works seriously, and it is a reference point for their beliefs, and they have their "scholars" who study the works, and much of moral interpretations is derived of such works? No matter what, there has to be a "foundation" laid somewhere. By your logic these religious people cannot determine anything about their God from their religious text - a view which they will look upon as absurd, and will vehemently oppose.

Their reaction to that argument is not of my concern. It must be demonstrated to be logically inconsistent, which it is not.

Yes, of course, the testimony of the author can be questioned. But can't you see then that it becomes an issue of credibility anyway. If it's the author's fault that he lied about Adam and Eve, is it not possible that it's the author's fault that he lied about the afterlife? having a soul? heaven and hell? how will we know?

Sure, file the whole thing in your bookcase under "fiction". How is that inconsistent with there existing a God?

____________________________________________________________________________

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

[MrGecko]

Apologies Atilla, will try to stop multi-quoting.

As for some reading... try:

"The Puzzle of God" Peter Vardy

Simple introduction. Not without it's flaws, by any means, but accessible. Trendie, not sure why you think this stuff should go over your head?? If you can consider ideas in an objective manner, leave your prejudice at the door, and string together a logically consistent argument, plenty of things to set the ball rolling in the above.

If that blows your skirt up, you might like to try:

"An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" Brian Davies

"The existence of God" Richard Swinburne

"Miracle of theism" J Mackie (not read this but came highly recommended).

but try Vardy first... also, "what philosophers think" is a pretty good "bog book", but I cant remember who its by; it's got an apple on the front.

Wouldn't recommend going straight to source (Hume etc...) without a companion text and a couple of months in a quiet room, unless to investigate the original context of citations from other works. Will try and dig my copies out from wherever I left them, I rather hastilly threw all my notes into a lake after the last exam

 

[temptrader]

I fail to grasp the relevance, significance, or purpose of this statement. Surely you aren't saying there is no point in discussing things which cannot be verified or falsified with technology that is presently available?

There is no point in discussing it within the realms of science, since science cannot do anything about the unfalsifiable.

You do not care about things which you cannot explain or understand, got it

Not that I do not care - I cannot do anything about it. Science cannot do anything about it. Which is why some people spend time on research, hoping to know more.

Yes, logic.... problematic, eh?

No, logic is not problematic to me. Trying to be vague and not clear enough is.

Subjective.

Yes, I agree it's subjective. But until anyone makes it objective, my statement is as valid as yours

Would one not need to understand the nature of non-Euclidean geometry in order to identify it?

OR

Can we not extend the same principals to God, that he may exist without phenomena? We may even be able to make an a priori argument for his existence.

I don't see what you're getting at.

first answer, no. We could have observed the phenomena (bending of light etc. . . ), looked at it, gone back to our Euclidean axioms, and found that the parallel postulate can be dropped. By the way, Pythagoras's theorem does not hold in non euclidean geometry.

"extend the same principals to God", yes, excellent. So tell me, we are to play with something that we don't really know anything about (scientifically anyway - and hence mathematically as well) and you want us to apply logic and reasoning to force a conclusion? What a priori arguments for His existence? I could just as well use the same a priori arguments for my pink elephants and nobody is none the wiser.

Our existence is adequate evidence enough according to some...Cosmological Argument.

NOTE: Do not make assummtions about what my OPINIONS are, you have no means of determining what my opinions are on anything. I present statements which you may or may not choose to believe to be true; statements you disagree with, you should demonstrate why it is logically inconsistent for such statements to be true. Opinions have no place in an academic discussion.

That's an idea that someone/some people have came up with. I don't have to agree with it - nor anyone else. The Cosmological Argument is an opinion - no more. Science has a few challenges to the Cosmological Argument.

Opinions do have a place in academic discussion, because they can serve as a stimulus for others as food for thought. But Opinions are not truths until proved so - that's the difference.

Anselm, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Copleston, Russell, Hume, Vardy, Hick, Descartes, Plato + Aristotle, Moore, Ayer, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Mill, Bentham, Singer, Dawkins, et al (see next post).

I did not ask for moral guidance, I am not here to discuss morals, they are another matter. Dawkins, however, is not guidance. Descartes is not guidance. None of them can prove - nor disprove - the existence of a God.

about 13 years ago, I was suffering from an insecurity about the nature of the religious question. It mainly centred on the concept of "kindness", "compassion", "charity", "altruism", and this was tied to whether people who exhibited these behaviours "choose" to or otherwise - in short the concept of "free will". I also questioned whether they were qualities unique to human beings, that we alone are capable of them because we can "choose" to. It was all resolved for me when I read about social insects, kin selection and the nature of Darwinian Natural Selection. Strangely enough it was around this time that evolutionary psychology was entering the scientific scene.

See above. All are ill equipped perhaps; yet some are better prepared than others. That Aquinas, he didn't half spout a load of rubbish!

Aquinas is in someways telling you how to live your life. I am not. I am not here to do that - nor tell anyone what to believe or not believe. That's your judgment call.

Their reaction to that argument is not of my concern. It must be demonstrated to be logically inconsistent, which it is not.

there are many ways to make things logically consistent if you are allowed to have flights of fancy with the unfalsifiable.

for example, just assume that the pink elephants did set everything up, started the big bang, and then left - never to interfere again. And further, assume that science can provide proof of this. This would tie perfectly with evolutionary theory and other physical theories. Everything would be logically consistent. BUT, and this is a big BUT, the general population would be seriously F*CKED off: no heaven, no hell, no comfort about the afterlife, no "soul" (that was a fanciful human notion anyway, even though we can never prove that) etc. . . . And I know you don't care about that, but the general population do, they live on it, it helps them get through the day. I don't need to tell you that the general population lead mainly impoverished lives. It is my view that religion is a purely psychological issue - nothing more.

Sure, file the whole thing in your bookcase under "fiction". How is that inconsistent with there existing a God?

whether anyone chooses to file it under fiction is their own choice. No, it is not inconsistent with the existence of a God, that's why Darwin died an agnostic as I keep on saying (atheism is a very strong position to take). It was enough for him to have a break down, be constantly sick, and generally in bad health afterwards. He might have had suicidal thoughts, we really don't know.

I have not come here to try and prove the existence/nonexistence of a God/Gods/whatever. Science can not really do much about such questions - in fact it has been totally ineffective.

 

[JTrader]

:-0 oops, sorry, was someone about to add something interesting....

Stone the bleeding crows, this threads worse than watching paint dry!

 

[Atilla]

Apologies Atilla, will try to stop multi-quoting.

As for some reading... try:

"The Puzzle of God" Peter Vardy

Simple introduction. Not without it's flaws, by any means, but accessible. Trendie, not sure why you think this stuff should go over your head?? If you can consider ideas in an objective manner, leave your prejudice at the door, and string together a logically consistent argument, plenty of things to set the ball rolling in the above.

If that blows your skirt up, you might like to try:

"An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" Brian Davies

"The existence of God" Richard Swinburne

"Miracle of theism" J Mackie (not read this but came highly recommended).

but try Vardy first... also, "what philosophers think" is a pretty good "bog book", but I cant remember who its by; it's got an apple on the front.

Wouldn't recommend going straight to source (Hume etc...) without a companion text and a couple of months in a quiet room, unless to investigate the original context of citations from other works. Will try and dig my copies out from wherever I left them, I rather hastilly threw all my notes into a lake after the last exam

It's not your bloggs MrGecko,

It's those Temp & New traders. Those boys are special. Very special.

I think as somebody suggested a dissertation of not more than 10,000 words should be a show stopper for them.

You see you reference lots of books and names of interesting world thinkers. I trust you are well read.

These chaps write so much I doubt they have read anything of much significance.

I know I'm sticking my kneck out here for abuse but you get my point. Who's likely to win mastermind? The well read or the well written guy. I won't go in to the age factor.

 

[MrGecko]

Trying to keep this as brief as possible so as not to "multi-quote"

TempTrader:
w.r.t the 1st part of your post, my point is that there can be understanding beyond the realms of science; there are things that can be understood without any scientific evidence of them (for example, Pink Elephants).

w.r.t "Guidance"; I am not talking about moral guidance, I am talking about academic guidance from those who have trodden this path before us, gaining an understanding of their positions and the arguments they used to defend them. Most of those thinkers have covered a wide variety of philosophical and theological issues, and their arguments are consistent enough to be taken seriously (whether one accepts the premis or conclusions of the arguments is another matter, the point is that these guys are accomplished thinkers and deserve attention).

w.r.t "altruism" etc... this, I believe, falls within the boundaries of moral guidance, be it from a God or not. IIRC "the problem of evil" delves deeper into this issue - anyway, a moral agrument for the existence of God (where these concepts are most relevant here) does exist, but merits it's own discussion. Morality and God can be discussed independently, as we are here.

w.r.t. "flights on fancy with the falsifiable"... please put into context; yes, if it were proven that the God of any particular faith categorically did not and could not exist, that may create personal problems for those who believed otherwise - one can argue that it is infact faith in God that is the key issue, but, again, that is another discussion.

JTrader:
Insightful.

Atilla:
I was not aware this was a private discussion. Nor am I particularly well read, for the record - I have just expored the problem in an academic context, and was aiming to stimulate a discussion, rather than the to-ing and fro-ing that was going on before.

I shall cease to post

p.s.

D_D:
I don't know. But I will take a stab and say something along the lines of "God is that which solves the problem of conscience" - ready to be proven right or wrong.

 

[JTrader]

YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

 

[Atilla]

Trying to keep this as brief as possible so as not to "multi-quote"

TempTrader:
w.r.t the 1st part of your post, my point is that there can be understanding beyond the realms of science; there are things that can be understood without any scientific evidence of them (for example, Pink Elephants).

w.r.t "Guidance"; I am not talking about moral guidance, I am talking about academic guidance from those who have trodden this path before us, gaining an understanding of their positions and the arguments they used to defend them. Most of those thinkers have covered a wide variety of philosophical and theological issues, and their arguments are consistent enough to be taken seriously (whether one accepts the premis or conclusions of the arguments is another matter, the point is that these guys are accomplished thinkers and deserve attention).

w.r.t "altruism" etc... this, I believe, falls within the boundaries of moral guidance, be it from a God or not. IIRC "the problem of evil" delves deeper into this issue - anyway, a moral agrument for the existence of God (where these concepts are most relevant here) does exist, but merits it's own discussion. Morality and God can be discussed independently, as we are here.

w.r.t. "flights on fancy with the falsifiable"... please put into context; yes, if it were proven that the God of any particular faith categorically did not and could not exist, that may create personal problems for those who believed otherwise - one can argue that it is infact faith in God that is the key issue, but, again, that is another discussion.

JTrader:
Insightful.

Atilla:
I was not aware this was a private discussion. Nor am I particularly well read, for the record - I have just expored the problem in an academic context, and was aiming to stimulate a discussion, rather than the to-ing and fro-ing that was going on before.

I shall cease to post

p.s.

D_D:
I don't know. But I will take a stab and say something along the lines of "God is that which solves the problem of conscience" - ready to be proven right or wrong.

Super post and my apologies. I will edit my blog to take offending item out.

 

[temptrader]

I think as somebody suggested a dissertation of not more than 10,000 words should be a show stopper for them.

You see you reference lots of books and names of interesting world thinkers. I trust you are well read.

These chaps write so much I doubt they have read anything of much significance.

I know I'm sticking my kneck out here for abuse but you get my point. Who's likely to win mastermind? The well read or the well written guy. I won't go in to the age factor.

100,000 would not be enough for the likes of you. Or a million, or a billion etc. . . because your "belief" is not of that nature - do you see what I'm driving at?

"read anything of much significance"? there are plenty of morons who read loads of books, reading loads of books does not make one intelligent. Well informed yes, but not intelligent.

I don't care for mastermind. My view is that the people who win it are not necessarily intelligent, just have a very good memory. I don't wish to argue this further.

w.r.t the 1st part of your post, my point is that there can be understanding beyond the realms of science; there are things that can be understood without any scientific evidence of them (for example, Pink Elephants).

the point of the matter is that someone has to come up with the concept of "pink elephants". It has to come from somewhere? I wonder where? Pink Elephants are unfalsifiable, hence they can be whatever I want them to be.

By scientific evidence do you mean physical evidence? Einstein's field equations admits many different solutions, unfortunately only one of which is compatible with our observed universe. Mathematicians play with peculiar spaces that have no bearing on reality (and probably never will), they are studied just out of interest and also some results and techniques in them can be used to illuminate other fields. But all these mathematical constructs have logical foundations to them. Mathematicians cannot go around with flights of fancy and invent spaces that contradict their own axioms that they use to define the space etc. . .

Yes there can be understanding beyond the realms of science, but of what purpose does it serve? Can it be used to force the existence of my pink elephants or are we just going to argue forever, endlessly going around in circles, while time goes by, we all get older, and maybe the Riemann Hypothesis gets proved?

I am talking about academic guidance from those who have trodden this path before us, gaining an understanding of their positions and the arguments they used to defend them. Most of those thinkers have covered a wide variety of philosophical and theological issues, and their arguments are consistent enough to be taken seriously (whether one accepts the premis or conclusions of the arguments is another matter, the point is that these guys are accomplished thinkers and deserve attention).

If you excuse the pun, but the issue of whether God exists or not is purely "academic".

I know you don't want me to go here, but to most people it's not. Just like anything else in life, there are psychological reasons behind it. People want to believe, because, deep down even though they won't admit it, because they get something out of it, or their ego is tied to it, or they don't want to think but only to feel. "God" helps them in this way, just like heaven and hell. I can see the intent on some of the posters here that this is where they are coming from.

"Most of those thinkers have covered a wide variety of philosophical and theological issues, and their arguments are consistent enough to be taken seriously"

No, actually some of their arguments are going to get swept by the wayside. And those that remain might continue for eternity, because they are unfalsifiable. That is the nature of the unfalsifiable - it never gets resolved. No one is ever the wiser. My pink elephants explanation could fall into that category, and if it's true what use is it for anybody?

For myself, I'm a practical man. I came here to make Darwin's work clear in the context of the religious texts.

I do not care about your "academic" guidance for arguing about God's existence or not. It's never going to effect me in life - nor anyone else for that matter. If you wish to waste years of your life on it (to get a degree, PhD etc . . . ) you may. I, and many others, will only be interested if your work can illuminate the scientific world further, add a results, concepts etc . . that we can do SOMETHING with.

 

[cofton]

Wish I'd have posted this George Carlin video in the first place as it would have saved me a lot of typing !

This guy said it all and far better than any of us. Brilliant and funny, just brilliant JTrader.

YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is bull****.

 

[Atilla]

100,000 would not be enough for the likes of you. Or a million, or a billion etc. . . because your "belief" is not of that nature - do you see what I'm driving at?

Versus

I do not care about your "academic" guidance for arguing about God's existence or not. It's never going to effect me in life - nor anyone else for that matter. If you wish to waste years of your life on it (to get a degree, PhD etc . . . ) you may. I, and many others, will only be interested if your work can illuminate the scientific world further, add a results, concepts etc . . that we can do SOMETHING with.

Your reference to me and then your response to MrGecko is pretty much of the same ilk imho. You simply do not care about academic guidance? Why not? You dismiss it and even if you did read 1 billion words you are not like to change your mind or even weigh up what is spoken to you as you have already set your mind in concrete.

I am open minded as it happens. At least I like to think so.

You don't care for a lot of things do you? Don't care. Don't care. Blimey how many times have I read that in your essays?

Heres one for you.

Billy is sitting for his mock exams. He doesn't know the answer. So he writes on his paper, "God only knows???"

Gets his exam paper back marked with teachers comments. He reads...

"God passed, you failed!"

 

[temptrader]

Your reference to me and then your response to MrGecko is pretty much of the same ilk imho. You simply do not care about academic guidance? Why not? You dismiss it and even if you did read 1 billion words you are not like to change your mind or even weigh up what is spoken to you as you have already set your mind in concrete.

I am open minded as it happens. At least I like to think so.

You don't care for a lot of things do you? Don't care. Don't care. Blimey how many times have I read that in your essays?

Heres one for you.

Billy is sitting for his mock exams. He doesn't know the answer. So he writes on his paper, "God only knows???"

Gets his exam paper back marked with teachers comments. He reads...

"God passed, you failed!"

No He hasn't because you don't get the point I'm driving at. And it seems very likely that you never will . . . .

I am not dominated by the thought of a God, or that there is heaven and hell. In the past I might be, but not now.

I see what Darwin saw - and I am very frightened. Darwin was way ahead of his time when he saw what he saw and the consequences thereof, he kept most of it to himself. If you understand him deeply enough, and can think and deduce, you'll see it too - but I will not give the game away. Do your own homework.

You're right: I don't CARE about the unfalsifiable. Because, strangely enough, it's unfalsifiable. If you wish to waste your entire life trying to solve the general quintic you may, the rest of us will not bother and do not care (due to the fact it's been shown to be impossible!!). However, I don't tell people what to do with their lives.

 

[Atilla]

No He hasn't because you don't get the point I'm driving at. And it seems very likely that you never will . . . .

I am not dominated by the thought of a God, or that there is heaven and hell. In the past I might be, but not now.

I see what Darwin saw - and I am very frightened. Darwin was way ahead of his time when he saw what he saw and the consequences thereof, he kept most of it to himself. If you understand him deeply enough, and can think and deduce, you'll see it too - but I will not give the game away. Do your own homework.

You're right: I don't CARE about the unfalsifiable. Because, strangely enough, it's unfalsifiable. If you wish to waste your entire life trying to solve the general quintic you may, the rest of us will not bother and do not care (due to the fact it's been shown to be impossible!!). However, I don't tell people what to do with their lives.

I don't care what you say TempTrader!

I don't tell people what to do with their lives.

I don't have a box at Hyde Park corner.

I don't have an agony uncle column anywhere at all? Honest... :cheesy:

I do have a brain.

I do have a heart.

The physical brain is linked to my heart via a soul I guess. No science has touched it as of yet. Not even come close. I don't understand it but do feel it. I'm not talking about God but just the emotions that science is yet to touch and explain...

Mysteries of life like the stars and galaxies are beyond the capacity of my comprehension.

Never ceases to amaze me. :clap:

 

[dick_dastardly]

for example, just assume that the pink elephants did set everything up, started the big bang, and then left - never to interfere again. And further, assume that science can provide proof of this. This would tie perfectly with evolutionary theory and other physical theories. Everything would be logically consistent. BUT, and this is a big BUT, the general population would be seriously F*CKED off: no heaven, no hell, no comfort about the afterlife, no "soul" (that was a fanciful human notion anyway, even though we can never prove that) etc. . . . And I know you don't care about that, but the general population do, they live on it, it helps them get through the day. I don't need to tell you that the general population lead mainly impoverished lives. It is my view that religion is a purely psychological issue - nothing more.

Yup, I'll go with that.







Atilla, yes, it does feel like the thread is becoming nothing more than a who's read the most books contest

but.....

is that any better/worse than a who can post the most youtube vids contest ???




Guys, I guess this thread was only gonna go one of two directions ( or should that be 10 directions :cheesy: ), a bun fight or a Philosophical debate.

tt and Mr G are obviously enjoying it so what's the harm ?

You never know, between them they might figure it out :smart:

D_D:
I don't know. But I will take a stab and say something along the lines of "God is that which solves the problem of conscience" - ready to be proven right or wrong.

Hmmm, then you're right Mr G, we really are talking about completely different things.

I see what Darwin saw - and I am very frightened.

Although I'm aware of the Theory of Evolution I've never actually read Darwins book.

But even with my CSE grade 4 in wood work ( I turned up once ) I understand enough to be very frightened too


dd

 

[cofton]

'I see what Darwin saw - and I am very frightened....'
'I understand enough to be very frightened too..'

Not quite sure why any of us should be frightened ??

Shouldn't we celebrate and embrace the discoveries of Darwin ?

If we are frightened by it all that may in itself send us down the religion/God/heaven route as these things can then become our safety net. Relgion/god/heaven then becomes 'our saviour' and we are no longer frightened.

Darwin (and of course George Carlin ;-)) did us all a favour, he gave us some logic, some sense of it all, something kind of 'real', something we could comprehend, something totally feasible.
(In George Carlin's case he gave us humour about something that can be sooo serious)

I see no reason to frightened of Darwins theorie's at all but I see plenty to be frightened of religion.

Just my view of course, I'd rather be intrigued than frightened.

Be happy

Cofton