Is Evolution Religion?

Evolutionary biology is based on the observed fact of common descent. "Everyone" knew the fact of common descent in Darwin's day. Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics was an attempt to account for common descent; it foundered on its lack of a mechanism and on the noninheritance of many acquired characteristics. Darwin and Wallace accounted for common descent by developing a theory that included natural selection, but additional mechanisms have since been identified. The fossil record, the genetic code, and a body of mathematical inference all contribute to the modern theory of evolutionary biology.

Theistic evolutionists believe in intelligent design in a broad sense, and they believe that God created the universe.

All excellent points, I learn a lot from this blog. Evolution is science since it conforms to the scientific method (observation, testing, falsifiability, forming hypotheses and theories to explain the facts and data, etc) while creationism of whatever stripe is not science since it introduces the supernatural, divine causes, or miracles as explanations, etc. Methodological naturalism should be adhered to when doing science since it works best in our understanding of nature.

Evangelical geologist Keith Miller on methodological naturalism:

"Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not 'assume away' a creator -- it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science." (Keith Miller, Evangelical geologist from Kansas State, in "Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation," page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated? the Johnson/Lamoureux debate)

And again in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation:

"The doctrine of creation really says nothing about 'How' God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment....It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order." (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

BTW, theistic evolutionists (I am one) do not think God is deceptive. The universe points to God as the First Cause. God may be elusive scientifically, but there are plenty of good arguments for God (in my opinion) from philosophy. William Lane Craig is quite strong here.

Phil P

There's a theory of gravity, and the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. There's a theory of evolution, and there's natural selection, which is close enough to being law-like that it may deserve being called one. But neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution are law-like.

BTW, theistic evolutionists (I am one) do not think God is deceptive. The universe points to God as the First Cause. God may be elusive scientifically, but there are plenty of good arguments for God (in my opinion) from philosophy. William Lane Craig is quite strong here.

True scientists, he suggests, would "question the theory of evolution to make sure it's not just another crackpot idea that has gained wide acceptance."

Is evolutionary biology (the modern synthesis) a dogma?

All I can say is it's a good thing the author is teaching history and not biology - don't give up your day job. Although come to think of it it's so poorly researched and based in conjecture and assumptions it doesn't speak well of his attention to detail or methodology. The details regarding evolution have been well covered already. But I wanted to take issue with this creationist straw man of the supposed "dogma" of Evolutionary Theory. There ain't no such beast. Evolutionary theory has evolved and changed considerably since Darwin's day. To appreciate this it's important to understand that Darwin himself developed the theory of natural selection to explain and make sense of evolution (to be accurate two theories - he also developed the theory of sexual selection). Even in his day there were already other theories of evolution - the Lamarckian theory of "the inheritence of acquired characteristics" being one of the more well known. Not that long after Darwin there was a huge challenge from followers of the recently rediscoved work of Gregor Mendel on genetics and mutation - initially this was believed to offer an alternative explanation for evolution. Indeed even after scientists like Mayr, Fisher, Haldane and Huxley were able to demonstrate that the two theoroes were actually compatible and develop what we now refer to as "the new synthesis" of genetics and natural (and sexual) selection - incorporating ecology and population genetics as well - there were still challenges from more Mutationist theorists such as the Saltationism of Goldshmidt. Evolutionary theory did not stop there either - since the new synthesis there have been many new challenges, debates and developments - the controversy around rate and the "punctuated" nature of evolutionary processes, the "neutral" mutation theory, the ongoing debate around Sociobiology, recent mathematical work around the role of patterns and chaos in evolution (eg Kaufmann), the continual re-emergance of Saltationist theory, the ongoing debate around adaptionism, the similarly ongoing debate around cladism and the new trends in taxonomy (including Phyllocode) and at the moment there is a major challenge to New Synthesis in the form of Margulis's ideas around the role of Symbiosis and cooperation in evolution and the possible implications of recent discoveries of the role played by processes of genetic exchange and horizontal gene transfer. And I look forward to what the likely discovery of life processes on other planets will show and how this may challenge and help develop evolutionary theory. What none of these theories does is propose supernatural origins for life or order - that is the problem with so called theories such as "Intelligent design" and "Creation science" - they propose nothing apart from that we stop thinking and stop questioning our origins (which they assume is a question taken care of a priori). But what they do show is that evolutionary theory (or really we should say theories) is now richer, more alive and diverse than it ever was, and that rather than being a "dogma" it embraces a world of debate and ongoing development as befits any science. Posted by: amused at May 23, 2005 09:32 AM

Theistic evolutionists apparently believe in a God who is enormously deceptive. As they would have it, God exists, wants us to know that he exists, created us and everything around us, but carefully hid from us any evidence of these facts. I don't know why anyone thinks this irrational belief is any more plausible or worthy of respect than the irrational beliefs of ID proponents.

I'd like to draw a distinction between a theory and a law and suggest that a theory is in fact more valuable than a law.

A law is an empirical observation of a mathematical relationship between quantities. We have Kepler's three laws of planetary motion. These are empirically derived mathematical relationships, but they have no explanatory power. You need a theory of gravity that provides the context for understanding the law and why it has the form it has.

We have Mendel's Laws of Genetics, but they provide no explanatory power without the context of a more complete genetic theory to explain why they take the form they take.

Laws are poor second bests to theories.

As I like to say when talking to creationists: evolution is not just a theory, it's a *scientific* theory.

There's a theory of gravity, and the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. There's a theory of evolution, and there's natural selection, which is close enough to being law-like that it may deserve being called one. But neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution are law-like.

— ts

Don P wrote: As they would have it, God exists, wants us to know that he exists, created us and everything around us, but carefully hid from us any evidence of these facts. I don't know why anyone thinks this irrational belief is any more plausible or worthy of respect than the irrational beliefs of ID proponents.

evolution is not just a theory, it's a *scientific* theory.

Air Bear,
One thing that you wrote caused me some indigestion, though I don't disagree with any of your comment in the least.
From Air Bear in Comment #39893:

"They probably feel His presence in their lives and communicate with Him regularly through prayer."

Since most people would generally agree that communication is a two way street, that suggests some (to use your words) theistic evolutionists actually believe that an invisible man in the sky is talking to them. I shudder to think that these people are free to walk the streets.
Sincerely, Paul

Huh? If God exists, and wants us to know he exists, why doesn't he make his existence as plain as the midday sun, through empirical evidence or in some other way?

Also, a God who has left divine fingerprints all over creation would leave us with very little opportunity for authentic free will.

Finally, I'd like to point out that there is no requirement that religious beliefs be rational. Many theistic evolutionists have no problem acknowledging that their beliefs in God are irrational.

Also, a God who has left divine fingerprints all over creation would leave us with very little opportunity for authentic free will. Some theistic evolutionists believe that the universe is set up in this way precisely for that reason, to allow God's creations the opportunity to freely choose to acknowledge their Creator.

Finally, I'd like to point out that there is no requirement that religious beliefs be rational. Many theistic evolutionists have no problem acknowledging that their beliefs in God are irrational.

ts:

I think your second paragraph above explains why the threat comes not just from creationism or ID per se, but from religion more broadly, from faith, from, as you put it, "magical, mythical" thinking.

In practise, the difference between Dembski-style ID and the "theistic evolutionism" of people like Kenneth Miller is much murkier than defenders of the latter would have us believe, precisely because it's so hard to compartmentalize the theistic premises of Christianity in the way you describe. The temptation to try and sneak God in somewhere will always be there. I'm not sure about Miller, but one of the deans of theistic evolution, John Polkinghorne, winner of the Templeton Prize for his efforts to reconcile religion and science, is not above invoking typical ID arguments, such as the supposed fine-tuning of the universe for life, to bolster his religious convictions.

Speaking of Polkinghorne, and as a partial antidote to PhilVaz's links above, here is Simon Blackburn's scathing New Republic review of Polkinghorne's writings on science and religion. It's concise and funny and well-written, and in the course of reviewing Polkinghorne, Blackburn provides what I think is one of the best short critiques of Christianity, and theism more broadly, that I have read.

Yes, the only real difference between theistic evolutionists and proponents of ID is that the former claim, not that there is no intelligent design, but merely that there is no evidence of intelligent design. Theistic evolutionists apparently believe in a God who is enormously deceptive. As they would have it, God exists, wants us to know that he exists, created us and everything around us, but carefully hid from us any evidence of these facts. I don't know why anyone thinks this irrational belief is any more plausible or worthy of respect than the irrational beliefs of ID proponents.

Since most people would generally agree that communication is a two way street, that suggests some (to use your words) theistic evolutionists actually believe that an invisible man in the sky is talking to them. I shudder to think that these people are free to walk the streets.

From Jeremy Mohn in Comment #39902:

"Also, a God who has left divine fingerprints all over creation would leave us with very little opportunity for authentic free will. Some theistic evolutionists believe that the universe is set up in this way precisely for that reason, to allow God's creations the opportunity to freely choose to acknowledge their Creator."

And to then subsequently punish those who choose wrong, even though he forces the choice upon them. That's beneficence for you. Is it any wonder some atheists consider that god to be psychotic?

Many people strongly feel God's presence, as plain as the midday sun.

A belief that we have authentic free will is inconsistent with the sciences of neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, and perhaps others. In fact, it may well be inconsistent with evolution, if Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" is on the right track.

Since most people would generally agree that communication is a two way street, that suggests some (to use your words) theistic evolutionists actually believe that an invisible man in the sky is talking to them. I shudder to think that these people are free to walk the streets.

Air Bear, exactly. And I should have used the word fundamentalist instead of theistic evolutionist, but even that would probably ahve been too inclusive. Not all fundies hear voices telling them to blow up abortion clinics (to cite one example) but the ones who do are definitely scary.
Paul

I disagree with all theists who think there is sufficient reason to believe that a God exists. It does not follow I think they are irrational to draw their conclusions.

What theistic evolutionists believe is that there is no scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design".

This does not preclude historical evidence (many theistic evolutionists believe there is adequate historical evidence to believe that Jesus not only lived and died, but also was ressurected);

sociological evidence (some theistic evolutionists would claim that the survival, spread and ethical influence of their religion is itself evidence of their God's existance); personal evidence (the way their lives have gone); mystical evidence (the inner experience of the "divine"); and (as Phil P points out above) philosophical evidence.

Kenneth Miller, for example, believes the fine tuning of universal constants is compelling evidence for the existance of God. Wheras ID advocates who share this belief would conclude that science demonstrates the existence of an Intelligent Designer; Miller recognises that the hypothesis of God as an explanation for the unusual properties of the universe entails no testable observations. Because it is not testable, he recognises it is not science, despite the fact that he finds it personally compelling.

People who believe they hear God in their head have gone onto found orphanages in Calcutta (Mother Theresa)

the sheer fact that this is considered unquestionable is a sign of what we are up against, namely the problem of credulity. One of the most salient examples of people's willingness to believe anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would normally be thinking - however lazily - in a secular or rational manner. In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim.

If one really truly honors all the empirical evidence, it's very hard to deny that all religion -- not just the religions of the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Zoroastrians, the Mithraens, but all religions, have the same social and psychological roots.

No, it doesn't follow, but such formulations are off the mark. Evolution and gravity don't follow logically from anything, but are well supported from the evidence. And the evidence is strong that religious belief generally precedes the sorts of empirical beliefs you mentioned, rather than vice versa. One of the strongest pieces of evidence is the strong correlation between the specific empirical beliefs, such as the resurrection of Jesus, that people hold and those that their parents hold. If one really truly honors all the empirical evidence, it's very hard to deny that all religion -- not just the religions of the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Zoroastrians, the Mithraens, but all religions, have the same social and psychological roots.

The notion that God "carefully hid from us any evidence" is quite different from the belief that God is actively involved in creating and sustaining all "natural" processes. What appear to be random and undirected processes to our limited point of view is not neccessarily so to a God who is "omni-everything."

Also, a God who has left divine fingerprints all over creation would leave us with very little opportunity for authentic free will.

Some theistic evolutionists believe that the universe is set up in this way precisely for that reason, to allow God's creations the opportunity to freely choose to acknowledge their Creator.

The supposed fine-tuning may in fact simply be a contingent or random property of the universe, fully accountable by natural processes. If that turns out to be the case, Miller's premise evaporates, and therefore so does his conclusion.

Yes. I intend to do the same. Because I want my children to love me (really love me, not just love me because "I'm Dad"), I plan to conceal my existence from all my offspring. However, the proof of my love for them will be apparent in their very existence, and so in this manner I hope to engender their sincere affections in return.

Further, acceptance of scientific methodology also shows a high correlation to parental beliefs; as does acceptance of atheism or agnosticism.

But while the information about parental beliefs is suggestive, it is hardly conclusive. Both Islam and Christianity, for example, boast a very high conversion rate, so the correlation is far from exact.

Further, acceptance of scientific methodology also shows a high correlation to parental beliefs;

These corelations show much about the transmission of beliefs amongst humans, but probably very little about the veracity of those beliefs.

I think you really have to be in deep denial not to see the tension between the premises of Christianity (an omnipotent, benevolent creator God) and the world we actually observe and experience.

There are lots of "fingerprints" that the world is very old. That obviously doesn't prevent millions of people from believing the world is very young.

I don't understand why you think the presence of evidence is inconsistent with free will.

Why should anyone "freely choose to acknowledge the Creator" unless they have evidence that he actually exists? Why would God expect them to?

LOL. That's a funny way to put it, but I think there's an important difference that you may be overlooking. Theistic evolutionists often claim to "feel" the presence of God in their lives. Unless you could somehow convey a "feeling" of your presence to your offspring, they'd be unlikely to notice your existence.

I might have to set up some sort of system of coaches and instructors who, through communal reinforcement, can remind my offspring how much I must love them to have left them so. Perhaps they can suggest that I am with my children in spirit whenever they suffer. Certainly that would go a long way to manufacturing such feelings--real or perceived--I don't think there'd be a way to tell a difference between the two. (my emphasis)

Huh? If God exists, and wants us to know he exists, why doesn't he make his existence as plain as the midday sun, through empirical evidence or in some other way? This surely cannot be beyond the power of an omnipotent being.

This is all the more puzzling because the evidence that we do have suggests that human beings evolved only because of a series of accidents, with no sign of purpose of direction. If this evidence was created by God, how is it not deceptive?

I really appreciate the analogy you have constructed here, especially the last part. Indeed, believers can never know for sure whether our personal feelings of God's presence are real or perceived. That's where faith comes in, right?

If Don P became a YEC his arguemtns woould go down well at Lynchburg. He simply criticises without understanding. His misuderstandings of Chrsitianity found in Miller and Polkinghorne are immense.

But the statement 'with no sign of purpose' is not a scientific one.

In fact, evolution itself appears quite teleological (see Ruse or Ayala).

If Don P became a YEC his arguemtns woould go down well at Lynchburg. He simply criticises without understanding. His misuderstandings of Chrsitianity found in Miller and Polkinghorne are immense.

a new population of zebras with "Made by God" tags attached to their tails suddenly "poofing" into existence on the White House lawn would make God's existence much more difficult to deny.

If God is truly interested in all of us freely choosing to follow Him, I think He might intentionally avoid such interventions.

To extend the analogy, how could you set up this system of coaches and instructors without directly or indirectly making your presence known to your offspring?

They also show a high correlation to education. And the claim that Islam and Christianity have a "very high" conversion rate without even giving a ballpark rate is neither sensible nor credible. I can't even judge how much of this unsupported crypto-statistic is mistakenly being attributed to conversion rather than changes in demographics.

If you will track our exchange, you will see that I wasn't referring to veracity of beliefs, but rather to whether people hold the religious beliefs they do because of their beliefs about empirical evidence, or v.v. You referred to "perfect correlation", but that is (always) a strawman. You refer to "very high" rates of conversion, but there are much higher rates of non-conversion. Generally, people's prior religious beliefs lead them to find confirming evidence and disregard disconfirming evidence. This is a basic principle of human psychology -- a cognitive heuristic -- that applies not just to religious belief.

Considering you cited no surveys for your claim of a high correlation between parents religion and childrens religion

Finally, you wish to use the fact that religious belief tends to precede evidential support rather than vice versa as evidence against the truth of religions.

To clarify this, I wrote "strong correlation between the specific empirical beliefs ... that people hold and those that their parents hold" -- strong, not "very high". You wrote "I agree that most people accept the beliefs of their parents." No issue there -- it was an uncontroversial claim. You wrote "Both Islam and Christianity, for example, boast a very high conversion rate, so the correlation is far from exact." The latter part of that is a strawman, and the first part is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand since, whatever "very high" means, it isn't higher than the majority of people who don't convert. That's why I wrote "And the claim that Islam and Christianity have a "very high" conversion rate without even giving a ballpark rate is neither sensible nor credible." I called it a crypto-statistic because of the heavy lifting that it was supposed to do. And we end up with 4% conversion to Islam. I think my skepticism about "very high" was well warranted. The fact that I didn't cite any surveys for my claim of a high (but I didn't even say that, let alone "very high") correlation between parents' religion and childrens' religion is completely and utterly irrelevant, since it was a completely uncontroversial statement which you immediately agreed to. So enough of this.

I would have put this on the bathroom wall; will it ever it get back up and running?

Science addresses only the natural world. Most people that have a religious belief seem able to reconcile themselves to this by compartmentalising. An aim of a free society should be to allow and maintain discourse and prevent the abuse of anyone who might hold an inconvenient view. (Creationists, or their leaders, very obviously want to subvert a free society, to enable them to construct an unreality bubble around their youngsters)

Why is religion being discussed interminably, when it's a side issue? Once the point is made that a religion exposes itself to scientific analysis when it makes claims about the natural world, religion attacks science, not vice versa, what else needs to be said. A FAQ section or a separate thread on philosophy would reduce the time taken to wade through posts irrelevant to those who wish to read about new scientific breakthroughs, see Dembski and Behe et al. debunked, and the machinations of the far right/fundie conpiracy closely monitored.

The germ theory of disease was an attempt to explain the fact that many diseases are infectious. It has been well established by observation and laboratory experiment. If we count viruses as germs, then the vast majority of diseases are caused by germs. You would frankly have to be nuts to deny the germ theory.

Why is religion being discussed interminably, when it's a side issue?

The correlation doesn't need to be perfect. The fact that one of the best predictors, or perhaps the single best predictor, of a religious person's religious beliefs is the religious beliefs of his parents and/or the dominant religion in his culture, is powerful evidence that religious beliefs are generally a consequence of social conditioning rather than any kind of objective search for truth.

I don't collect stamps.

Is that a hobby?

I didn't imagine it could be controversial among people of good faith.

I have no idea where you got that from. My point was and is that religious belief cannot be kept in a compartment such that it doesn't affect empirical beliefs. As for the evidence against the truth of religions, it's hardly even worth discussing when the religious admit that their beliefs are unjustified, a matter of faith.

No, it doesn't follow, but such formulations are off the mark. Evolution and gravity don't follow logically from anything, but are well supported from the evidence. And the evidence is strong that religious belief generally precedes the sorts of empirical beliefs you mentioned, rather than vice versa. One of the strongest pieces of evidence is the strong correlation between the specific empirical beliefs, such as the resurrection of Jesus, that people hold and those that their parents hold. If one really truly honors all the empirical evidence, it's very hard to deny that all religion -- not just the religions of the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Zoroastrians, the Mithraens, but all religions, have the same social and psychological roots.

You wrote "Both Islam and Christianity, for example, boast a very high conversion rate, so the correlation is far from exact." The latter part of that is a strawman, and the first part is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand since, whatever "very high" means, it isn't higher than the majority of people who don't convert. That's why I wrote "And the claim that Islam and Christianity have a "very high" conversion rate without even giving a ballpark rate is neither sensible nor credible." I called it a crypto-statistic because of the heavy lifting that it was supposed to do. And we end up with 4% conversion to Islam. I think my skepticism about "very high" was well warranted.

In the Biblical account He appeared before people (both as man and not), he spoke, miracles happened all the time. He was almost as involved in this world as the Greek gods! We are told in the book that His existence is so obvious only fools could deny it.

I don't see any particular problem visualizing our investigation of the universe as "learning how God does things." So long as we don't run into any paradoxes or contradictions (which I don't think we have), there's no problem.

So the problem arises when God's methods or intent as we conceive them, conflict with what we observe - when religious faiths make testable statements and the tests fail. And when that happens, I see the theistic evolutionist saying "I must have misunderstood the scripture" and the creationist saying "everyone else must be misunderstanding the observations."

Many people strongly feel God's presence, as plain as the midday sun.

Air Bear, exactly. And I should have used the word fundamentalist instead of theistic evolutionist, but even that would probably ahve been too inclusive. Not all fundies hear voices telling them to blow up abortion clinics (to cite one example) but the ones who do are definitely scary.

After explaining the differences between ID, YEC and Evolution, I ask my students what part of ID do scientists most object to? Invariably they say they object to The Designer; I tell them no. We object to the fact that of all natural forces in the universe, ID' rs have natural selection running along and then just stop and wait for the miracle. I tell them gravity never gets a day off, germs continue to cause disease, the atomic model never flies apart. I explain many scientists are atheists and many are religeous and this is accepted by both. But the moment you insert the untestable data of a divine being, you have fallen outside of science, and are now in the religeous arena.
YEC's at least have the guts to say they are ignoring all science (my minds made up don't confuse me with the facts), but ID is stealth religeon, and has no place in science.

Even though I find it difficult at times to believe in a divine being, I try to structure my family in a Christian way. My husband and I attend church and take part in the church community. Our children are pre-school, toddler, and infant, but as they grow they can be more and more a part of that community. What attracts me is the formation and execution of charitable organizations that provide food, shelther, education, and medicine to the needy.

Religion is the glue that holds a nation together. Atheism makes more sense, but religion is more useful. It can also be incredibly destructive, as has been demonstrated. But each time it is destructive, the destroyers are not following the basic tenets of the religion, but going with their own twisted interpretation instead.

Atheism requires intelligence, and not everyone can make logical conclusions from natural observations that lead them to benevolent social ideals.

If you accept Dennett's belief that intelligent life would have developed even if humans hadn't involved, that could explain why God doesn't need to leave "fingerprints" on evolution. I'm quite sure if this were a planet of intelligent jellyfish, God would be just as happy to speak with them as with us, so why not let the cosmos unfold as it will?

Maybe it's more entertaining that way.

Considering you cited no surveys for your claim of a high correlation between parents religion and childrens religion, your talk of an "unsuported crypto-statistic" is uncalled for.

For what it is worth, 30% of Muslims in the United States are converts, ie, were not born into a Muslim familly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States...

World wide, 10% of growth in Christian belief is due to conversion; and 4% of growth in Islamic belief is due to conversion. In Asia, conversion accounts for about 30% of Christian growth as well.

In contrast, globally conversion was a net drain on increase in numbers, cancelling about 2/3rds of the natural increase. (This statistic probably represents the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, with nominal atheists reverting to a Christian faith.) http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christi...

Increases in Christian numbers due to conversion in Asia alone more than match the net declines in the Americas, Oceana, (and probably Europe now that nobody is an atheist due to repression anymore).

If we were to be so silly as to reason about the truth of beliefs on the basis of conversion rates, we should conclude that one of Christianity or Islam is true, and that Atheism is false.

Of course: evolutionary biologists probably do so implicitly every time they perform an experiment or interpret a data set.

Comment #39970 Posted by Alan on July 28, 2005 04:13 AM (e) (s) I would have put this on the bathroom wall; will it ever it get back up and running?

Splash of paint, difficult, strenuous? No, I don't see.

The claim that "evolution is a religion" is garbage, no matter how you feel about religion.

It implicitly defines religion as "something many people believe without sufficient evidence, which could be wrong".

Anyone can see that this doesn't apply to the theory of evolution. Anyone who "believes" in the theory of evolution either does so because they understand the evidence for it (and as I've said before, if you understand molecular biology and genetics, you realize it's impossible for evolution NOT to happen), or, in fewer cases, because they reasonably trust the expertise of scientists.

That implicit definition of "religion" is wrong for religion as well. First of all, it isn't specific. Many beliefs fit that description, but are NOT religion. Second of all, it isn't some religions may not fit that category. They may be largely evidence-based, like Buddhism, or they may simply have very few followers. It's point blank slop. I would argue that it violates Christian ethics for an intelligent person to make this statement, since it is trivially untrue.

The rest of this thread is irrelevant.

Here are some relevant link, with regard to evolutionary biology and religion -

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp

http://www.mindandlife.org/hhdl.science_section.html

In the biblical account, He NEVER appeared as a man before Jesus made his messianic claims.

Than you can tell us who Jacob was really wrestling with if not God, or how he hurt his hip in a metaphor.

— Amos

First things first. I'm in complete argeement that evolution is not religion. Try established and respected science, instead, to start.

Second, those who believe in theistic evolution are NOT trying get ID or other alternatives "taught" in the K-12 science curriculum across the USA.

Nor are they interferring with scientific research, funding, etc. Regardless of your opinion regarding theism, etc., these people -- the theisic evolutionaries -- are NOT the enemy.

Just check the evidence. Or better yet, show up and partipate at these state school board meetings.

Which brings us to third point -- many people of faith have contributed to science and evolution. Let me quote from H Allen Orr, a scientist who should need no introduction to PT readers:

##
"Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology--Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky--one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science."
##

Now, perhaps some PT readers do deem it fit to mock 4 of these 5 scientists for their theistic beliefs.

But certainly, no one here has any right to say that because of those beliefs, these men are not "real" scientists.

I'm not here on behalf of the Templeton Foundation--about which I'm still quite suspicious.

But this general war against all forms of theistic belief has to end. It has nothing to do with promoting or advancing science. And it is at times radically counter-productive.

There's a great deal of real work to be done still, sadly, keeping Creationism and ID out of the K-12 (and perhaps even college) science curriculum.

Please don't delude yourself that you are contributing to this effort by mocking anyone who might believe in God.

Let's do, promote and advance science -- and live and let live when it comes to personal belief.

Finally, and more importantly, the teaching of science in America--especially evolution--has real enemies. Please don't target false ones so as to make new enemies and strengthen the old ones.

Thank you.

ThomH,

I couldn't agree with you more.

You're right. There is obvious tension. Theodicy is something that theistic evolutionists are forced to grapple with, just like any other theists. Based on your questions, I really don't think I can provide an answer that will satisfy you.

What I'm really trying to say is that obvious interventions (like the observation of a new population of zebras with "Made by God" tags attached to their tails suddenly "poofing" into existence on the White House lawn) would make God's existence much more difficult to deny. If God is truly interested in all of us freely choosing to follow Him, I think He might intentionally avoid such interventions.

I suppose it depends on what kind of "evidence" one considers valid. Some people base their decision to belive in God on other forms of evidence (spiritual, emotional, circumstantial, coincidental, etc.).

Because He wants to accept Him on faith?

But the statement 'with no sign of purpose' is not a scientific one.

In fact, evolution itself appears quite teleological (see Ruse or Ayala). If God created the Universe through evolution, why whould this be 'deceptive'?

Atheism requires intelligence

— Katarina

But certainly, no one here has any right to say that because of those beliefs, these men are not "real" scientists.

Oops. That should be "completely" not "complete."

They will make changes to their hypothesis and models that explain exactly how evolution happens but the fact of evolution is pretty much unfalsifiable.

The rest of this thread is irrelevant.

— harold

Atheism makes more sense, but religion is more useful.

So the problem arises when God's methods or intent as we conceive them, conflict with what we observe - when religious faiths make testable statements and the tests fail. And when that happens, I see the theistic evolutionist saying "I must have misunderstood the scripture" and the creationist saying "everyone else must be misunderstanding the observations."

— Flint

Neither did I imagine that the high conversion rates to Islam and Christianity would be quibbled at by people of good faith either; but evidently I was wrong.

Asking if evolution is a religion is like asking what kind of fish a bicycle is. Evolution obviously isn't a religion because it lacks a church, has no rituals, doesn't comfort the sick, nobody tithes to it, it doesn't guarantee the sanctity of marriage, etc. etc. And turning things around, speaking about religions as if they were like scientific theories tends to overestimate the importance of the propositional content of religions to religion. By the way, if some philosophers of religion emphasize the cognitive aspects of faiths, isn't that just because philosophers tend to emphasize the cognitive aspects of everything?

(If we must look for a strawman here, it would be were you accused me of talking about "perfect correlation", something I have not done.)

You claim there is something suspect about religious belief because the belief precedes the evidence.

And turning things around, speaking about religions as if they were like scientific theories tends to overestimate the importance of the propositional content of religions to religion. By the way, if some philosophers of religion emphasize the cognitive aspects of faiths, isn't that just because philosophers tend to emphasize the cognitive aspects of everything?

ts wrote:

This is a common misunderstanding of "falsifiable". "evolution occurs" is falsifiable
because, had none of the evidence that supports it been observed, it would have been refuted. The fact that no additional evidence can wipe out evidence already acquired does not mean that "evolution occurs" is not falsifiable, it just means it isn't false. OTOH, there's the ToE, which includes a number of specific claims that are not nearly as well established as "evolution occurs", and these individual claims not only are falsifiable but may be false, or at least not entirely true.

There certainly was a time when evolution was falsifiable. But I would still argue that it is not today, at least not in the simplistic sense the word falsifiable is sometimes used. What I mean is the following: no one, or even several experiments, will today convince scientists that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong, regardless of the results. The theory will just be modified. Thus it is wrong to claim, to the creatitionists, that the theory of evolution is being tested all the time since even if the results of teh experiments went exactly as the creationists claimed science would not move closer to ID. If, for example, a rabbit fossil was found in pre-Cambrian rocks it would be blamed on fraud, or explained as a misdating or scientists would express amazement that a species that was so similar to rabbits had evolved so early. Abandoning evolutionary theory would be the last thing considerd despite claims from a prominent biologist that a rabbit fossil from such an early time would falsify evolution.
If results like these kept piling up evolutionary theory might finally be abandonded just like Lakatos thought.
BTW, according to the definition in my philosophy textbook whether a theory is falsifiable has got nothing to do with whether it is false. And no amount of evidence can have any effect on whether a theory is falsifiable.

The high conversion rates to both Islam and Christianity mean that significant numbers of believers in both religions do not satisfy your prejudice about how religious belief is formed.

I should perhaps make clear that I will not make any more posts in this debate. If someone does not understand what I mean, as opposed to understanding and disagreeing, I recomend you read a book about the philosophy of science, especially about Lakato. It will probaly explain it a lot better what I mean than I can.

About criticizing ID as a religion I want to say the following: It is unfortunate that the legal argument it in the states, that ID is religious and thus should not be taught by the state, sometimes is confused with the scientific argument against it.

Thus, you claimed that like evolution and gravity, the irrationality of religious belief is well supported by the evidence; and that all religions have the same social and psychological causes. It is true that on another thread you claimed that compartmentalisation is impossible; but that is not what I responded to, or was disputing.

you have not presented any compelling evidence for the irrationality of religious belief.

The fact that most people share the religion of their parents is simply a non-starter in this regard, for it holds true of virtually all beliefs, including scientific beliefs. More generally, nearly all beliefs with any complexity are first accepted on authority by nearly all people. That is simply a fact of life.

no one, or even several experiments, will today convince scientists that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong, regardless of the results.

Which brings us to third point -- many people of faith have contributed to science and evolution. Let me quote from H Allen Orr, a scientist who should need no introduction to PT readers...

If, for example, a rabbit fossil was found in pre-Cambrian rocks it would be blamed on fraud, or explained as a misdating or scientists would express amazement that a species that was so similar to rabbits had evolved so early.

Thus it is wrong to claim, to the creatitionists, that the theory of evolution is being tested all the time since even if the results of teh experiments went exactly as the creationists claimed science would not move closer to ID.

Well, of course, Orr is stacking the deck. His sample, though certainly eminent, is far too small to be meaningful.

Since atheists are the new Jews, a despised minority that can suffer real social disabilities in this failing Weimar Republic of ours, it is perfectly possible that young scientists will decide that they better not admit to their disbelief. The politicians have already absorbed the lesson.

Responding to Mr. Curtis, I think I "misspoke" when I said that common descent was in the air around Darwin's time; I should have said evolution. I do not understand the comment that Lamarck thought all lineages remained extinct.

As for religion being irrational: I think we should make a distinction between irrational and nonrational. Some religious beliefs are irrational, but some are nonrational. Those that are irrational include but are not limited to those that deny known fact such as evolution and probably those that think they are the Only Right Ones. There is nothing surprising or reprehensible about the fact that children generally follow their parents' religion (yes, they do so, else religions would not be clustered geographically).

Merely believing in a creator, however, is neither rational nor irrational but rather nonrational. Why not say that your own religion is an approximation to some transcendental truth, better for you than someone else's, but not demonstrably closer to the truth? Or treat it as a hypothesis whose consequences you will follow unless it is shown wrong? These are nonrational religious beliefs that do not cross the line into irrationality.

Why oh why do I always end up defending religion? For the record, I do not believe in a deity of any kind but have very mild sympathy for those who do.

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is a weak argument, inasmuch as we have not the foggiest idea whether the constants are finely tuned or not. Victor Stenger has chosen 4 constants and varied their values randomly over several orders of magnitude. Very briefly, he calculated the lifetimes of the universes so "created" and found that around half were long-lived enough to generate heavy elements and therefore the possibility of life.

The free-will dodge has always amused me - the concept that God allowed evil in order to give us free will. OK, that excuses deliberate or human evil, but what about misfortune that is not evil? ALS did not give Lou Gehrig free will; if his intention was to play baseball, ALS took away his free will. If the hypothesis is that God is benevolent, then the lack of a convincing theodicy seems to me to falsify that hypothesis.

Theory being a higher form of life than a law: Good point, thanks! Still, it is unfortunate that we chose an ambiguous word like theory, which also means hypothesis or conjecture.

ts seems to me to be correct about falsifiability - a theory has to be falsifiable in principle, but that does not mean it will ever be falsified in fact. Mr. Richter is correct that a single disconfirming fact (or a few) will not necessarily sink a well-established theory - and perhaps it should not. Scientists can develop an ad-hoc hypothesis (neutrino), or temporarily ignore the unpleasant fact (perihelion of Mercury), or modify the theory in some detail.

All that comes to mind. Thanks to everyone for commenting on and clarifying my essay and also for the general civility of the comments. I have a suspicion that Dr. S (who has not answered my snail-mail) does not use the Internet, so I will send him a printout after comments slow down.

Posted by Don P on July 28, 2005 03:06 PM (e) (s) PvM: Because He wants to accept Him on faith? Why would God want us to accept him on faith? Why should we accept him on faith? Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God if, after he died, he found himself (much to his surprise) in God's presence. Russell answered, "Why didn't you give us any evidence?" It seems to me an obvious question.

ts commented on the "fact that new evidence can't wipe out old evidence." Up to a point. There is such a thing as systematic error. Example that's usually trotted out is observations of canals on Mars.

Re: Lamarck,
I agree: I was a little perplexed at that "remain extinct" bit.
But, the clear distinction between his views and a common descent model like "the tree of life" is that Lamarck believed that lineages were continually evolving into "higher" forms, and so had to be replenished at the "base" of "the chain of being." Leastways, I think the poster was trying to get at that distinction.

So, instead of a branching bush, you'd have several, parallel, lineages evolving at the same time, while the mechanism, acquired characteristics, often identified erroneously with Lamarck exclusively, actually was shared in the thought of early Darwinians and Lamarckians.

If the hypothesis is that God is benevolent, then the lack of a convincing theodicy seems to me to falsify that hypothesis.

ts commented on the "fact that new evidence can't wipe out old evidence." Up to a point. There is such a thing as systematic error. Example that's usually trotted out is observations of canals on Mars.

"Extant", I think, instead of "extinct".

"Extant", I think, instead of "extinct".

"If the hypothesis is that God is benevolent, then the lack of a convincing theodicy seems to me to falsify that hypothesis." And yet you say that religion is merely nonrational, not irrational. I think that this example, among many others, establishes nearly all religious belief as irrational.

I once had an argument with a guy about whether Faust met Hamlet at Wittenburg so I guess I shouldn't be too hard on grown ups who debate the finer points of theodicy as if talking about omipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent beings made any sense in the first place. And what does happen when the irresistable force meets the immovable object?

Matt Young:

The only kind of God that I think may be compatible with science and reason is the God of Deism, an evil, indifferent and/or limited deity who set things in motion and then stepped back. Miller, Polkinghorne, and most other "theistic evolutionists" are of course Christians, not Deists.

Not all people who disagree with us are necessarily irrational (though I agree it may help).

Besides, note the qualifying clause. Harold (When Bad Things Happen to Good People) Kushner has said, in effect, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence - choose any 2. Kushner chooses the last 2.

before Jesus made his messianic claims

If man could explain natural phenomena without invoking the supernatural

the Church's power would evaporate.

No, they believe they feel God's presence. But there is no evidence that they actually feel God's presence.

Second, those who believe in theistic evolution are NOT trying get ID or other alternatives "taught" in the K-12 science curriculum across the USA. Nor are they interferring with scientific research, funding, etc. Regardless of your opinion regarding theism, etc., these people -- the theisic evolutionaries -- are NOT the enemy.

But this general war against all forms of theistic belief has to end. It has nothing to do with promoting or advancing science.

Since atheists are the new Jews

Since atheists are the new Jews Where can we see atheists being rounded up and gassed? Don't be an asshole.

As if there weren't plenty of forms of anti-semitism that didn't involve genocide...

The current treatment of atheists doesn't reminds me of what the Jews went through because I expect things to get completely out of hand, but because one encounters some of the same rhetorical moves used against atheists that were formerly employed against the Jews, in particular the way in which well-meaning trimmers recommend that atheists accept their second-class status here in a country of believers, aka the Real Americans. The heck with that.

How would you test, scientifically or logically, whether or not I actually feel love for my girlfriend?

No, they believe they feel God's presence. But there is no evidence that they actually feel God's presence. I believe I feel love for my girlfriend. But there is no evidence that I actually feel love for my girlfriend.

Moses's point was that the first sentence implies the existence of God

Responding to Mr. Curtis, I think I "misspoke" when I said that common descent was in the air around Darwin's time; I should have said evolution. I do not understand the comment that Lamarck thought all lineages remained extinct.

As for religion being irrational: I think we should make a distinction between irrational and nonrational. Some religious beliefs are irrational, but some are nonrational. Those that are irrational include but are not limited to those that deny known fact such as evolution and probably those that think they are the Only Right Ones. There is nothing surprising or reprehensible about the fact that children generally follow their parents' religion (yes, they do so, else religions would not be clustered geographically).

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is a weak argument, inasmuch as we have not the foggiest idea whether the constants are finely tuned or not. Victor Stenger has chosen 4 constants and varied their values randomly over several orders of magnitude. Very briefly, he calculated the lifetimes of the universes so "created" and found that around half were long-lived enough to generate heavy elements and therefore the possibility of life.

I agree with Don P that deism is the only religious belief compatible with science. But lots of rational people believe in a personal God who encourages them, tells them the right things to do, gives them strength. To my mind such a God is an allegory, but they do not agree.

I must appeal to Mr. Flank not to use invective on any of my threads. I will, as I have occasionally in the past, excise any further abusive comments.

Regarding your love for your girl friend: Emotions are an internal reality and, as ts suggests, we can reasonably accept your word for it. I can nevertheless suggest an ethical experiment to test the hypothesis that you truly love your girl friend: watch your behavior and see how you treat her. You could be lying or misinterpreting lust as love.

God, if he, she, or it exists, is an external reality, and your feeling is irrelevant. ts is correct in pointing out the distinction between your love for someone and God's love for you. That you think God loves you does not make that thought veridical.

I agree with Mr. Curtis that it is rational to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but that rational belief is based on the nonrational belief in God or the veridicality of the so-called New Testament. Thus, any religious belief (presuming it is not treated as a hypothesis) is at best nonrational at its base. I cannot agree that a belief in a deity is rational, but neither do I intend nonrational to be pejorative.

I further agree that acceptance of the fine-tuning argument is rational but wrong. Still, it seems to me that it is a very weak argument whose apparent strength is based on the nonrational need to posit and defend a god. I spent a week at a conference of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (a AAAS affiliate) a few years ago. I was impressed by how very, very bright the attendees were, but I was impressed as much by their fundamentalism: they were determined to find "transcendence" whether it was there or not.

There was never any evidence of canals on Mars beyond people's claims of what they observed. If we had such evidence, such as photographic plates showing canals or canal-like structures, that evidence would not be wiped out by new evidence lacking such structures. Rather, we would need an explanation for the change.

N.T.Wright's belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead is a rational belief. It is grounded in as complete a knowledge of the relevant evidence as is possessed by any living person; and it coheres well with that evidence. It is true that the evidence does not support that belief unless we assume there is an (approximately) Abrahamic God, as Wright does. But that belief is not itself irrational (or necessarily a-rational) so it does not render his belief in the ressurection irrational (or a-rational).

We ought to be able to recognise that people can have good reasons for believing false beliefs.

I have an entirely different attitude to theistic evolutionists such as Miller who are swayed by the fine tuning argument, and those creationists who try to present it as an overwhelming argument by denying the existance of, or plausibility of naturalistic alternatives, and/or denying that future physical theories may significantly alter the percieved rarity of conditions suitable for life. The former is a rational belief that I think on other grounds is wrong; the later is an irrational position that needs to undermine rational thought to sustain its plausibility. It is because Miller recognises this distinction that he so actively opposes ID creationism.

Actually, photographs of the so-called canals were supposedly taken by professional astronomers, on at least three occasions that I know of (in 1905, 1907 and as late as 1954) - here's some info. I've never seen any copies of these so I don't know how convincing they were (or weren't), but apparently some canal-skeptics were impressed by them. But just like the visual observations, they were at the limit of detectability - the canals in the photos were too fine to show up in magazine reproductions.

here's some info

I agree with Don P that deism is the only religious belief compatible with science. But lots of rational people believe in a personal God who encourages them, tells them the right things to do, gives them strength. To my mind such a God is an allegory, but they do not agree. I must appeal to Mr. Flank not to use invective on any of my threads. I will, as I have occasionally in the past, excise any further abusive comments. Regarding your love for your girl friend: Emotions are an internal reality and, as ts suggests, we can reasonably accept your word for it. I can nevertheless suggest an ethical experiment to test the hypothesis that you truly love your girl friend: watch your behavior and see how you treat her. You could be lying or misinterpreting lust as love. God, if he, she, or it exists, is an external reality, and your feeling is irrelevant. ts is correct in pointing out the distinction between your love for someone and God's love for you. That you think God loves you does not make that thought veridical. I agree with Mr. Curtis that it is rational to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but that rational belief is based on the nonrational belief in God or the veridicality of the so-called New Testament. Thus, any religious belief (presuming it is not treated as a hypothesis) is at best nonrational at its base. I cannot agree that a belief in a deity is rational, but neither do I intend nonrational to be pejorative. I further agree that acceptance of the fine-tuning argument is rational but wrong. Still, it seems to me that it is a very weak argument whose apparent strength is based on the nonrational need to posit and defend a god. I spent a week at a conference of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (a AAAS affiliate) a few years ago. I was impressed by how very, very bright the attendees were, but I was impressed as much by their fundamentalism: they were determined to find "transcendence" whether it was there or not.

I must appeal to Mr. Flank not to use invective on any of my threads. I will, as I have occasionally in the past, excise any further abusive comments.

I was referring, in comment 40231, to comment 40230, not 40236, wherein Mr. Flank likens another debater to a rectal orifice. My apologies to Mr. Flank if the rest of the entry made it appear as if he was the subject - I was using the personal pronoun "you" instead of the impersonal "one" and did not intend it to refer to anyone in particular. There had been discussion earlier regarding the difference between love for your girl friend and the feeling that God loves you.

Oops: 40321 not 40231. I am sometimes a little dyselxic. Or else I can't type.

Sorry to contribute to any confusion.

I just get very nervous whenever there's any apparent indication that Lenny's pizza boy might be stayed in his rounds...

I think it may have something to do with comment #40236, in which a donkey's concavity was invoked.

I was referring, in comment 40231, to comment 40230, not 40236, wherein Mr. Flank likens another debater to a rectal orifice.

I think this argument is just nonsense. A belief is not rational simply because it follows rationally from irrational premises. But I deny that the irrational premise in this case (the assumption of "an Abrahamic God") rationally supports the belief (that Jesus physically rose from the dead) anyway.

As far as I'm aware, this claim enjoys no more support amoung professional historians than the claims of IDers do amoung professional scientists, so I'm not sure why you think it any more worthy of respect. But I'm not really sure what you mean by historical evidence for the resurrection, anyway. If you're talking about the claim of physical, bodily resurrection of Christ, that claim necessarily implicates science, since it is so extraordinary.

Yes, sometimes they do. If their false belief rests on information that they have no reason to particularly doubt but that is nevertheless factually incorrect, for example. With respect to most religious beliefs, I deny that people in general have good reasons for them, and I most certainly deny that any reasonably intelligent and educated person has good reasons to believe the teachings of a religion like Christianity.

Seems a rather fine line to me. Does the Discovery Institute deny "that future physical theories may significantly alter the percieved rarity of conditions suitable for life?" Perhaps you could show me where you think this alleged difference in basic attitude towards the fine-tuning argument by theistic evolutionists like Miller and Polkinghorne vs. ID proponents like Johnson and Dembski is made clear. I haven't seen it.

There had been discussion earlier regarding the difference between love for your girl friend and the feeling that God loves you.

There had been discussion earlier regarding the difference between love for your girl friend and the feeling that God loves you.

Well, the point of that had more to do with the whole "rational" v "irrational" thingie.

But mostly, it makes me sad. It must eb awful to go through life as a humorless colorless emotionless heartless, rational logical scientific pedant.

Since I'm the guy who was identified as a rectal orifice, perhaps I'm entitled to make another comment.

One of the reasons that I think that atheists are in the same boat as Jews in the 20s is that you don't have to be a practing atheist in order to qualify as a public enemy, just as you didn't have to be a practicing Jews to qualify as a Jew. I don't in fact believe in God, but I don't think that's a very remarkable opinion and it doesn't define my point of view about things. I'm not the kind of guy who shows up on the cable networks denouncing the inquisition. I think the existence or non existence of God is a rather uninteresting question precisely because I recon that the probability of the existence of God is negligable so that His (or Her) non existence doesn't make much difference one way or the other to figuring out how things work. And I don't think that organized religion is the root of all evil. Although I regard their beliefs as fantasies, I think the Christians, Muslims, or Jews have been, if you don't mind the joke, on the side of the angels as often as anybody else as far as political issues are concerned. They are definitely not my enemies. If they are going to go out of their way to make me an ememy, on the other hand, I'm not going to have any compunctions about pointing out the errors of their ways.

Given the existance of an Abrahamic God, however, that probability rises significantly.

Well, N.T.Wright is one of a number of professional historians who conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead; or that the evidence is equivocal, and the conclusion that he did represents an act of faith in an Abrahamic God (ie, approximately the position I have outlined).

First, what do you mean by "the teachings of a religion like Christianity"?

Christianity, like most major religions, exists in a variety of forms, some of which are transparently irrational, but some of which are not.

Second, my wife became a Christian (from a non-Christian background) after seeing a vision of Jesus. Now, I think there are various good psychological reasons for that, and that the vision was generated by her own brain. She, however, points out that she is not prone to illusions (only ever having had the one vision), and thinks the vision was veridical.

Tacitly, they do deny it. That is, they no more come out and say "our belief in the fine tuning of the cosmological constants is unfalsifiable" then they admit to the non-falsifiability of thier belief that "specified complexity proves design".

However, they consistently emphasise that the fine tuning is scientific evidence of design, and dismiss alternative theories in a line or two of spurious argument (when they mention them at all. In contrast, Miller is happy to acknowledge the non-scientific nature of his belief.

Perhaps that is why they spend so much time on the Internet.

Yes, photos were taken; but there were no canals visible in them, regardless of whether canal-skeptics were impressed. We know this, for the very simple reason that there are no canals on Mars -- a fact that your account above seems to overlook.

Given the right assumption, the probability of anything, no matter how absurd, irrational, and contradicted by science, rises significantly. In fact, given the right assumption, the probability rises to 1. The whole point is that the assumption is not justified. It is irrational. If you're going to make such irrational assumptions, why not spare yourself the burden of trying to argue from the existence of "an Abrahamic God" to the resurrection of Christ and simply assume that he rose from the dead, period.

But I deny that the irrational premise in this case (the assumption of "an Abrahamic God") rationally supports the belief (that Jesus physically rose from the dead) anyway.

I don't for one second believe that N.T. Wright has rationally concluded from historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. He holds this belief as an article of religious faith, and any appeals to "historical evidence" are just attempts to rationalize that faith. We have a mountain of evidence that 3-day-old decomposing human corpses cannot just come back to life, and the idea that "historical evidence," by which I assume you mean records of alleged eyewitnesses to the event and the like, is more persuasive on this matter than basic principles of chemistry and physics and biology is just ludicrous.

I would tell your wife that she is most likely misunderstanding the nature of the experience she attributes to a vision of Jesus and that science and reason provide an alternative explanation of that experience that is more consistent with the evidence and that involves fewer assumptions. To put it another way, I would tell her that I think her belief is irrational.

The fine-tuning argument is most definitely an argument from science and reason, whatever Miller says. The argument is that various properties of the universe that we have discovered using the methods of science cannot be accounted for by any known natural laws, and that they are too finely balanced to plausibly be the result of chance, and that one may therefore rationally infer from this observation that the universe probably had an Intelligent Designer. I think it's a bad argument, but it's silly to say that it's not an argument from science.

Tom Curtis:

I think I may need to start treating you like Lenny Flank.

I have no idea why you think I no longer believe that the premise that there is "an Abrahamic God" does not rationally support the belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I assure you I do believe that. And I'm not sure what "evidence" you think is needed to support the claim that belief in "an Abrahamic God" is irrational. It's irrational because there is no evidence to support the existence of such a being, and a mountain of evidence that renders the claim that he exists highly implausible. As I said, the only kind of God that I think may be consistent with science and reason is the God of Deism--an impersonal, limited, indifferent and/or evil deity that created the universe and then stepped back. But I don't think the evidence we have actually supports even that kind of God.

As for the ressurrection of Jesus Christ, I do not preclude it as a logical possibility, just as I do not preclude the logical possibility that Young-Earth Creationists are right about the age of the earth. Perhaps there is a God, and he suspended the laws of nature to permit these things. Or perhaps he planted false information to make it appear to us that these things are scientifically impossible when in fact they actually did happen. But there is no reason to make those irrational assumptions. The evidence from science and reason overwhelmingly refutes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, and that is why the belief that he did rise is irrational.

Really, exactly were might I find this consensus psychological theory that constitutes the alternative explanation provided by science?

People who liken their treatment to that of "the Jews in Germany" ARE rectal orifices. The fundies are when they go off their nut about how "oppressed" they are. The atheists are when THEY go off THEIR nut about how "oppressed" they are. I bristle, *strongly*, whenever anyone belittles what happened in Nazi Germany. And I make absolutely no apology for that whatsoever.

It seems to me that Don P (comment 40505) is correct, and the argument against a vision's being veridical is simply this: We know that people have hallucinations. We do not know that they have visions. Therefore, unless a vision can be proved to be veridical, it must be presumed to be a hallucination. Can anyone cite a vision that has been supported by empirical evidence? For example, to borrow Popper's terminology, has anyone ever had a vision that made a daring prediction that was subsequently verified?

A further argument against visions being veridical, by the way, is that they are culturally determined. As Louis Pojman has noted, Christians see Jesus, certain Hindus or Buddhists see Nirvana, and atheists see a deep void. It seems that no one ever has a vision that is wholly at odds with his or her cultural milieu.

A further argument against visions being veridical, by the way, is that they are culturally determined. As Louis Pojman has noted, Christians see Jesus, certain Hindus or Buddhists see Nirvana, and atheists see a deep void. It seems that no one ever has a vision that is wholly at odds with his or her cultural milieu.

The current treatment of atheists doesn't reminds me of what the Jews went through because I expect things to get completely out of hand, but because one encounters some of the same rhetorical moves used against atheists that were formerly employed against the Jews, in particular the way in which well-meaning trimmers recommend that atheists accept their second-class status here in a country of believers, aka the Real Americans. The heck with that.

In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

I have no idea why you think I no longer believe that the premise that there is "an Abrahamic God" does not rationally support the belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I assure you I do believe that. And I'm not sure what "evidence" you think is needed to support the claim that belief in "an Abrahamic God" is irrational. It's irrational because there is no evidence to support the existence of such a being, and a mountain of evidence that renders the claim that he exists highly implausible. As I said, the only kind of God that I think may be consistent with science and reason is the God of Deism--an impersonal, limited, indifferent and/or evil deity that created the universe and then stepped back. But I don't think the evidence we have actually supports even that kind of God.

As for the ressurrection of Jesus Christ, I do not preclude it as a logical possibility, just as I do not preclude the logical possibility that Young-Earth Creationists are right about the age of the earth. Perhaps there is a God, and he suspended the laws of nature to permit these things. Or perhaps he planted false information to make it appear to us that these things are scientifically impossible when in fact they actually did happen. But there is no reason to make those irrational assumptions. The evidence from science and reason overwhelmingly refutes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, and that is why the belief that he did rise is irrational.

The two cases are not equivalent. In the case of a young earth, all relevant evidence is contrary to that view. In the case of the ressurection, the available historical evidence strongly supports the idea that Jesus rose from the dead.

The only reason it is disputed that Jesus rose from the dead is because it is a very improbable event.

The question is, does the improbability of the event mean we should reject it as fiction.

I didn't say anything about a "consensus psychological theory." I said that science provides an alternative explanation for your wife's experience that is more consistent with the evidence and that involves fewer assumptions. One obvious possibility is that she was simply hallucinating. Hallucinations are a common natural phenomenon. Though they are popularly associated with mental illness, there is a large body of evidence that hallucinations frequently occur in normal, healthy people. "Religious" experiences of the kind your wife says she had are commonly associated with conditions that we know are likely to induce hallucinations, such as fasting, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, rhythmic chanting, self-infliction of pain, and the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs. We also know from science that it is likely that the human body naturally produces certain chemicals that induce hallucinations, and others that suppress them. The anthropological literature is full of accounts of religious seekers deliberately creating these hallucination-inducing conditions in order to provoke an experience that they attribute to some supernatural agent.

It's irrational because there is no evidence to support the existence of such a being, and a mountain of evidence that renders the claim that he exists highly implausible. As I said, the only kind of God that I think may be consistent with science and reason is the God of Deism--an impersonal, limited, indifferent and/or evil deity that created the universe and then stepped back. But I don't think the evidence we have actually supports even that kind of God.

I am quite aware of these facts. ... I am also aware of the cultural basis of hallucinations. These provide good reasons to think that there is a naturalistic explanation for visions.

I am also aware, as you are not, that the closest she came to an inducing condition is she had eaten one peice of chocolate (a hallucination inducing drug) after a pleasant meal.

But thinking that there is a naturalistic explanation, and having a naturalistic explanation are not the same thing.

The claim that there is no evidence for an Abrahamic God is transparently nonsense.

The third [claim of resurrection] is from a person of good judgement and impeccable integrity, who had significant knowledge of the community in which the ressurection was purportedly performed, and was an eye witness. If that ressurection did occur, it would be evidence for the existance of an Abrahamic God.

Now, the fact is, in any major city in the English speaking world, thousands of purported miracles and/or visions occur. I think that the miracles can be accounted for as frauds, illusions or psychosomatic reactions; and that the visions are hallucinations. But that does not mean the evidence does not exist, but only that it can be rebutted.

We do not have a theory of how psychosomatic cures could take effect; we just expect that such a scientific theory will be developed. And until we have such a theory, we do not have a rebutal of all the "miracles".

Hume and Kant told us that such thinking is natural, but not scientific. It is extravagant, and it is not falsifiable, since it generates no new predictions. It merely represents a primitive preference for explaining the unknown in terms of agency rather than in terms of nature--a tendency that science had to suppress and to overcome before it could develop.

If evidence of the reality of God suddenly showed up in reproducable laboratory experiments, it still wouldn't help the faithful because in that eventuality God would just be another natural fact, albeit a big one. People believe in the supernatural not because miracles are plausible or well attested, but precisely because they aren't and never will be. Relgious belief is belief in statements that are counterfactual or at least in perpetual doubt by definition. That's the kick of it. Which is also why it is mostly useless to question the documentary evidence for events like the virgin birth and the resurection. Nonbelievers are hardly going to credit writings that report impossible happenings, especially works like the Gospels that are demonstrably wrong about many non-miraculous things as well. Meanwhile, the implausibility of scripture is actually a selling point to believers. A sensible Bible? Who'd read it?

Nonbelievers are hardly going to credit writings that report impossible happenings

One can perfectly well appreciate mythology without thinking it's journalism. The Greeks had a sense of humor about their own sacred tales, often treating them as if they were moral or metaphysical allegories if they took them seriously at all. Quite a few Christians have had a similar attitude towards Bible stories and not just modern liberal theologians but Church fathers like Origen. You could even argue that St. Paul, whose letters contain virually no biographical information about Christ, wasn't especially interested in the literal.

Tom,
Re #39880 "He believed that all lineages remained extinct,"
I wonder if you meant to say "distinct"?

(My hypothesis confirmed by #40282. :) )

--

Johan,
Re "But I would still argue that it is not today, at least not in the simplistic sense the word falsifiable is sometimes used. What I mean is the following: no one, or even several experiments, will today convince scientists that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong, regardless of the results."

Of course one experiment by itself wouldn't do it. The theory is supported by patterns in a huge amount of evidence; to falsify it would require enough contrary evidence to disrupt that.

Also, evidence against one of the hypotheses involved in evolution wouldn't necessarily be evidence against another. If somebody has something they say is counterevidence, they need to specify which hypothesis it's supposed to be contradict.

Henry

One can perfectly well appreciate mythology without thinking it's journalism.

St. Paul, whose letters contain virually no biographical information about Christ

Neither did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, who, so I've been told, wrote some time after Paul.

Neither did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, who, so I've been told, wrote some time after Paul.

Neither did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, who, so I've been told, wrote some time after Paul.

It should perhaps be made clear that none of these books was written by the Apostle whose name they carry. It is also perhaps worth pointing out that Mark was copied, almost word for word, in both Matthew and Luke, while John has no literary conenction to any of the other three. It seems clear that Mark was written first. It's not clear whether Matthew copied Mark and was in turn copied itself by Luke, or whether both Matthew and Luke independently copied Mark. What IS clear is that none of the writers, whoever they were, ever met Christ, and everything they attributed to Christ was decades-old hearsay.

People believe in the supernatural not because miracles are plausible or well attested, but precisely because they aren't and never will be. Relgious belief is belief in statements that are counterfactual or at least in perpetual doubt by definition.

This is a fair summary, except that the belief that the books were not written by the people whose names they bear is not well founded. Although they were written approx 40 (Mark and parts of Matthew), 60 (Luke and the compilation of Matthew) and 70 years after the death of Jesus, there is nothing in that dating alone to preclude there having been written by contemporaries of Jesus. The traditional authorships are well testified in early Christian tradition; and no significant counterargument to that tradition has been mounted except an insistence that the traditional authorship be denied unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes. That is why your wife's belief that her experience was a vision of Jesus is irrational. There are other explanations that are more consistent with the evidence and that involve fewer assumptions.

Hallucination is a naturalistic explanation. It is an altered state of consciousness caused by physical changes in the brain.

Huh? I assume that by "resurrection" you mean a person who is clinically dead spontaneously returning to life, or coming back to life after the recitation of a religious incantation or prayer, or something of that nature. How would such an event constitute evidence for the existence of an Abrahamic God? You should also define "an Abrahamic God." You keep using the term but you have yet to explain what you mean by it exactly. And why should we believe that the alleged resurrection in this case was real, rather than a lie or a mistake of some kind?

Yes, we do. A miracle, by definition, is an event that is inconsistent with science and reason. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a miracle, it would just be an ordinary, natural event. It is simply irrational to attribute unexplained claims of miracles to supernatural agency rather than as-yet-unknown natural causes.

The arguments about the rationality of Christianity in this thread are like a swordfight conducted at thirty paces. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to convince anybody of the falsity of their faith. That's no affair of mine; and, anyhow, false or not, religion is not going away. I'm only interested in religion as a sociological and political phenomenon. For somebody operating from my standpoint, such skeptical notions as the factual falsity of miracles and the imaginary nature of gods and spirits are not a conclusions but premises. For example, when a philologist encounters an ancient text that makes a more or less accurate prophesy, he or she automatically assumes that the text has been predated since people can't predict the future.

No doubt such procedures strike a traditional believer as high-handed, but arguing the issues with folks whose beliefs won't change in any case is a waste of time, rather like asking a geometer to trot out a proof every time she wants to use a theorem. As Hippocrates said, art is long, life is short, occasion fleeting...

When you don't understand something, it's magic, not a miracle. When you understand something and know it's impossible, but there it is in front of you, that's a miracle. My digital camera is a case in point.

The arguments about the rationality of Christianity in this thread are like a swordfight conducted at thirty paces. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to convince anybody of the falsity of their faith. That's no affair of mine; and, anyhow, false or not, religion is not going away. I'm only interested in religion as a sociological and political phenomenon.

Everyone in this thread who has been "defending religion" is an "evolutionist". Every single one.

There was photographic evidence for Martian canals, just not very good evidence.

Contrary to the whines of the fundies (and the smirks of the ideological atheists), "science" does not equal "atheism".

It seems to me that Don P (comment 40505) is correct, and the argument against a vision's being veridical is simply this: We know that people have hallucinations. We do not know that they have visions. Therefore, unless a vision can be proved to be veridical, it must be presumed to be a hallucination. Can anyone cite a vision that has been supported by empirical evidence? For example, to borrow Popper's terminology, has anyone ever had a vision that made a daring prediction that was subsequently verified?

— Matt Young

The third is from a person of good judgement and impeccable integrity, who had significant knowledge of the community in which the ressurection was purportedly performed, and was an eye witness.

By Bayesian reasoning, given the occurence of the reasoning, our estimate of the probability of the existence of a Christian God

When you understand something and know it's impossible, but there it is in front of you, that's a miracle.

Well, in the same way, many people have evidence that a Christian God exists. There is sufficient other evidence, however, to show that that is unlikely - and one day science may sufficiently close the gap, by establishing effective theories of hallucination and of psychosomatic cures, such that belief in a Christian God will necessarilly be irrational or a-rational.

The existence of such a God invalidates all Bayesian reasoning. It throws all empirical inference out the window. Humean skepticism is no longer a philosophical conundrum that we can sidestep with Popper's pragmatism, but becomes the un-law of the land. It is implicit in the concept of rationality that we can make empirical inferences, so even if an Abrahamic God is a fact, it cannot be rational to believe it.

Why would you want to take the word of Paul over the massive evidence of reality (and even the rest of that book of collected notes) to the contrary?

This claim either amounts to a claim that an emperical fact could contradict a mathematical theorem, which is absurd

or to a claim that an Abrahamic God must necessarilly act unpredictably (so that past regularities are not projectable).

If the latter, the claim is itself irrational in that it purports that a suposedly rational being must inevitably act irrationally just because they are not themselves constrained by physical law.

Further, it is a breath taking straw man in that, as Paul puts it, the Abrahamic God "is not a God of disorder, but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14: 33)

This claim either amounts to a claim that an emperical fact could contradict a mathematical theorem, which is absurd

or to a claim that an Abrahamic God must necessarilly act unpredictably (so that past regularities are not projectable).

He doesn't necessarily act unpredictably

Given the existance of an Abrahamic God, however, that probability rises significantly.

God can't or doesn't raise Abel, his professed favourite. So either the idea that other people, eg Jesus, can be raised or raise more people is contradictory in the fairy stories or that Abrahamic god is being irrationally callous again or is learning on the job instead of being such a great creator/interferer all along.

Don Curtis

God can't or doesn't raise Abel, his professed favourite. So either the idea that other people, eg Jesus, can be raised or raise more people is contradictory in the fairy stories or that Abrahamic god is being irrationally callous again or is learning on the job instead of being such a great creator/interferer all along.

I think this argument is just nonsense. A belief is not rational simply because it follows rationally from irrational premises. But I deny that the irrational premise in this case (the assumption of "an Abrahamic God") rationally supports the belief (that Jesus physically rose from the dead) anyway.

Anyway, science doesn't equate atheism. Rather, a very different thing is true: the findings of science undercut the empirical claims that almost all religions make, cutting away at the reasons for adhering to religious beliefs.

One can perfectly well appreciate mythology without thinking it's journalism.

Apparently, the fundies can't. Apparently the ideological atheists can't, either.

Your claim is absurd, certainly. What emperical (sic) fact and what mathematical theorem are you referring to? "Bayesian reasoning" is not a mathematical theorem, and to mistake it for one is some wild category mistake.

As this Abrahamic God of your acts outside of physical law, he is indeed unpredictable, by definition. Certainly we can't use a line from Corinthians to predict his behavior. He doesn't necessarily act unpredictably; we might predict how he behaves and occasionally be right. But it's impossible to have a mechanistic model of his behavior because he's outside the reach of such models. Certainly being told that this God of yours is a suposedly (sic) rational being doesn't provide us with such a model. There is no requirement on rational beings that they behave in ways that are predictable to other rational beings. And it isn't possible to know what constitutes rational behavior of a being without knowing what its values and goals are -- aspects which are truly "non-rational".

Oops, sorry, I should have written "He doesn't necessarilly (sic) act unpredictably". My apologies.

Not quite. Since Matthew and Luke are largely cribbed from Mark (only 24 of the 661 verses in Mark are not themselves quoted in either Matthew or Luke), it seems pretty likely they they were written by people who never met Christ and never heard his words on their own (if they had, it's difficult to imagine why they'd have to copy someone ELSE'S account of them). It's also pretty apparent that the writer of John did not know of the existence of the three other gospels and vice versa, which is unlikely if they were all written by the actual apostles, who were all acquainted with each other.

If Lenny wishes to pursue the subject, I am happy to continue there

This is becoming tiresome and pointless. When you can direct me to a consensus psychological theory of hallucinations, I will consider reopening the discussion. In the meantime, it seems to me that you insist on confusing the situation in which you desire to have a naturalistic explanation with your actually having one.

Presumably God who could create heaven and earth could alter physical states in someones brain. In that case, in principle, a hallucination of "Jesus" could be caused by God in order to communicate with someone, ie, the hallucination would be a vision. So, on this definition calling a vision a hallucination does not offer an alternative explanation at all.

A person rising from the dead following prayer to a Christian God would, if it actually occured, be stunning evidence in favour of the existence of that God. (Any coherent Christian God is also an Abrahamic God.) This follows because, theories of the existance of a Christian God predict ressurections following prayer with significant probability (order of magnitude approx -9); the a priori probability of of a ressurection is very low (order of magnitude much, much less than -9). By Bayesian reasoning, given the occurence of the reasoning, our estimate of the probability of the existence of a Christian God following a ressurection which followed Christian prayer should rise significantly (it must have been very low for the above probability assignments to be consistent); and hence such a ressurection would be evidence of such a God.

Arsehole!

You would not be so justified because you would be contradicting the views of those who believe in an Abrahamic God on that matter WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT CONTRADICTION.

As you cannot determine absolutely whether you are internal to such a simulation, or in a fully naturalistic material universe, it cannot be a sound epistemic principle that science is the only path to knowledge

Rather, a very different thing is true: the findings of science undercut the empirical claims that almost all religions make, cutting away at the reasons for adhering to religious beliefs. One can perfectly well appreciate mythology without thinking it's journalism. Apparently, the fundies can't. Apparently the ideological atheists can't, either.

That doesn't follow. You might want to read David Chalmers' "The Matrix as Metaphysics" http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html...

— I

As you cannot determine absolutely whether you are internal to such a simulation, or in a fully naturalistic material universe, it cannot be a sound epistemic principle that science is the only path to knowledge

what is true is that the interventions of the turring machine God are not predictable by science within the simulation

This illustrates one conceptually possible way to have an Abrahamic God that is not just predictable, but fully deterministic.

although it can (given a low average rate of intervention) determine the internal laws of the simulation

internal to the simulation, the interventions may be predictible, or approximatly predictable by adopting what Dennet calls the "intentional stance". That is, a model which treats the intervener as a supernatural person may be an effective predictor.

To sum it up, while "science" cannot accurately predict the behavior of an arbitrary god, Tom argues that human beings, by adopting Dennett's intentional stance (treating the object as a rational agent), somehow can. This suffers from two major problems:

1) It's a glaring category mistake. Science is done by human beings, it's not an alternate epistemic source. The intentional stance, as with Dennett's other stances, the physical stance and the design stance, is available to science. Human brains do not have special ways of knowing that are not accessible to science.

2) The intentional stance is only valid and warrantable when the object satisfies the assumption of being a rational agent. In order to apply the intentional stance successfully we must have an accurate model of mind for the agent. The model of mind that we have for humans is a given, as a consequence of our development. Some people, such as autistics, don't possess such a model. It's theoretically possible to infer a model of mind for some other sort of agent, but not from a single data point. If one seriously thinks about what one would do in any given situation if one were Abraham's God, it quickly becomes apparent that there's no single answer, and that everyone will give somewhat different answers, even if they've all read the same ancient scrolls.

I wrote: That doesn't follow. You might want to read David Chalmers' "The Matrix as Metaphysics" http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html...... Hmmm ... this isn't relevant because I misconstrued the statement I responded to (it must have been all those "turring"s that caused my eyes to glaze over).

I don't know whether the Creation Hypothesis is true. But I don't know for certain that it is false. The hypothesis is clearly coherent, and I cannot conclusively rule it out. The Creation Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. Even if it is true, most of my ordinary beliefs are still true. I still have hands, I am still in Tucson, and so on. Perhaps a few of my beliefs will turn out false: if I am an atheist, for example, or if I believe all reality started with the Big Bang. But most of my everyday beliefs about the external world will remain intact.

Indeed, science is no longer available as a path to knowledge -- that was my point about the breakdown of "Bayesian reasoning"; science only works in universes in which its underlying assumptions hold. The notion that Dennett gives warrant to a claim that the intentional stance can provide an alternate in a world in which science can't work is absurd -- our day-to-day inferences are, per Dennett, a form of folk science, not some alternate epistemic source.

The intentional stance is only valid and warrantable when the object satisfies the assumption of being a rational agent. In order to apply the intentional stance successfully we must have an accurate model of mind for the agent. The model of mind that we have for humans is a given, as a consequence of our development.

It's theoretically possible to infer a model of mind for some other sort of agent, but not from a single data point. If one seriously thinks about what one would do in any given situation if one were Abraham's God, it quickly becomes apparent that there's no single answer, and that everyone will give somewhat different answers, even if they've all read the same ancient scrolls.

Determinism does not imply predictability.

Bayesian reasoning depends on epistemic access, and the mere existence of a God program has no bearing on that.

In other words, the degree to which science can provide accurate predictions is the degree to which God doesn't exercise his arbitrary powers.

Since the latter is completely unpredictable, probability estimates cannot be reliably assigned.

May??? Or may not -- in fact, will not be, as there is nothing at all to warrant this utterly sophistic "may". Will not be, to the degree that God acts Godlike. In all cases, science is no worse than this supposed use of the intentional stance, as use of the intentional stance is not foreign to science -- in fact, it's been a major part of Dennett's life work to address the use of the intentional stance in science. But applying heterophenomenology to God will fail, to the degree that God acts God-like -- that is, un-law-like.

It doesn't matter if God is modelable as a deterministic machine, as the workings of that machine are inscrutable. Turing Machines are not inherently reverse engineerable; reverse engineering a machine requires that the machine adhere rigidly to our a priori assumptions about it. But for any TM for which we have a model of its behavior derived from finite observation, there are an infinity of TM's that would have behaved identically but otherwise violate every single prediction of the model. Bayesian reasoning does not apply to such TM's.

ID advocates and other theologians can certainly make a consistent case for creation ex nihilo, but what that mostly shows is that anybody with a reasonable amount of native wit and enough ad hoc assumptions can harmonize any piece of evidence with any theory. Consistency is a very cheap commodity indeed. Which is why apolegetics is such lousy approach to inquiry. It's a defensive strategy.

Tom Curtis:

Your posts seem to be getting progressively longer and progressively more opaque. Repetition and long-windedness will not make a false argument true. Jim Harrison, in four lines, sums up the fundamental problem with what you're saying. You're confusing assumptions with evidence and wishful thinking with rational inference. Before you dash off a response that is even longer than your last one, I suggest you stop and think about that for awhile.

I can understand why ts now does not want us to read Chalmer's essay.

Dennet discusses the example of using the intentional stance when playing with a chess computer. In that case, it is known that the object is not a rational agent, but the intentional stance still applies.

In the meantime, scientists (as all people) quite properly have the a-rational belief that the world is not capricious; and theists are entitled to the same a-rational belief about their God.

Don, I like brevity, but find when disputing with YEC's and other fundamentalists that the result is creative misinterpretation, such as I have experienced here. Unless a point is drummed in line by line, it is ignored or dismissed with an ill informed wave of the hand.

One example for brevities sake. When ts absurdly claimed that there can be no mechanistic model of a God's behaviour, I could have responded. "A turing machine can model a God's behaviour." He would have dismissed that without consideration. As it is he simply ignores it, and changes his point of attack with such absurdities as "But applying heterophenomenology to God will fail, to the degree that God acts God-like -- that is, un-law-like." I feel like I have been subjected to a Gish gallop.

Harrison, by the way, has not correctly summed up the fundamental problem with what I am saying. Like ts and you, he has confused what is with what must be.

Unless a point is drummed in line by line, it is ignored or dismissed with an ill informed wave of the hand.

"A turing machine can model a God's behaviour."

As it is he simply ignores it

changes his point of attack with such absurdities as

Like ts and you, he has confused what is with what must be.

Gee, I didn't even know I was addressing Tom Curtis! Well, to each his own delusions of reference. I'm sure I've got plenty of my own. Meanwhile:

All I'm protesting is the tendency to think that the problem with creationist and ID arguments is some sort of logical fallacy when the deeper issue has to do with pragmatics. Specifically, when folks try to determine whether God the Father can be modelled by a Turing machine or even go off on five paragraphg pothead Matrix riffs, the really bad thing that happens is that the apparent salience of God talk in explaining the universe is reinforced by volleys of latinate words and sheer repetition. The God idea is advertised so much that folks get to thinking that its great familiarity counts as a substantial prior probability. What you need to do is to take the right pill (at this hour, I can't forget which was which), so that you finally come to and realize that the very notion of creation is extraorinarily bizarre, bizarre like the larva baby in Eraserhead.

All I'm protesting is the tendency to think that the problem with creationist and ID arguments is some sort of logical fallacy when the deeper issue has to do with pragmatics.

As you cannot determine absolutely whether you are internal to such a simulation, or in a fully naturalistic material universe, it cannot be a sound epistemic principle that science is the only path to knowledge

I hadn't read the link before I posted the above. Now that I've read it, I can note that it only mentions two people, Percival Lowell and Earl Slipher, who claimed to have seen canals. There's also a statement from Lowell that "History of the canal problem shows that every skilled observer who goes to the best available site for his observations has had no great difficulty of seeing and convincing himself of the reality of the canals. I am not aware of a single exception to this." But we know, from this article alone, that Lowell's claim is false. From other sources, it's clear that many of Lowell's statements were false. The article suggests, and even concludes, that there was an optical illusion -- from Lowell and Slipher's claims alone. There is, in fact, no reason to think that there is any optical illusion that produces the appearance of canals on Mars, any more than there is reason to think that there is an optical illusion that produces the appearance of alien abductors and their medical instruments. Rather, these are most likely the product of delusion and/or dissembling.

There actually is some evidence (there's that word again) that the canals were optical illusions rather than outright delusion or dissembling - not least Maunder's well-known experiment.

What [Lowell] found, though not directly relevant to Mars, had important consequences for the credibility of his Mars observations ... His basic description of the planet was unlike anything reported by previous observers.... Instead of acquiescence to his views, Lowell found on his return from Mexico in April 1897 that they had met with almost universal incredulity.

There is, in fact, no reason to think that there is any optical illusion that produces the appearance of canals on Mars

When the great continental areas, the reddish-ochre portions of the disk, are attentively examined in sufficiently steady air, their desert-like ground is seen to be traversed by a network of fine, straight, dark lines. The lines start from points on the coast of the blue-green regions, commonly well-marked bays, and proceed directly to what seem centres in the middle of the continent, since most surprisingly they meet there other lines that have come to the same spot with apparently a like determinate intent. And this state of things is not confined to any one part of the planet, but takes place all over the reddish-ochre regions. The lines appear either absolutely straight from one end to the other, or curved in an equally uniform manner. There is nothing haphazard in the look of any of them. Plotting upon a globe betrays them to be arcs of great circles almost invariably, even the few outstanding exceptions seeming to be but polygonal combinations of the same. Their most instantly conspicuous characteristic is this hopeless lack of happy irregularity. They are, each and all, direct to a degree. The lines are as fine as they are straight. As a rule, they are of scarcely any perceptible breadth, seeming on the average to be less than a Martian degree, or about thirty miles wide. They differ slightly among themselves, some being a little broader than this; some a trifle finer, possibly not above fifteen miles across. Their length, not their breadth, renders them visible; for though at such a distance we could not distinguish a dot less than thirty miles in diameter, we could see a line of much less breadth, because of its length. Speaking generally, however, the lines are all of comparable width.

Rather, these are most likely the product of delusion and/or dissembling.

No, there was never any photographic evidence at all, unless every observation is "not very good" evidence for every claim.

It's worthwhile to consider that the person who originally made the claim called what he saw "canali" (he was Italian). "canali" means "grooves". He thought he saw some lines joining craters on Mars. Percival Lowell, who believed and promoted the view that there had been a civilization on Mars, repeatedly claimed to have observed "canals". It was a delusion -- almost all other observers never saw any canals.

One needs to know quite a few facts in order to interpret claims that there is or was evidence for some claim or another.

"History of the canal problem shows that every skilled observer who goes to the best available site for his observations has had no great difficulty of seeing and convincing himself of the reality of the canals. I am not aware of a single exception to this."

This sounds similar to statements Lowell made. However, it is not hard to find observers who did not see Martian canals and it isn't reasonable to dismiss all of them. The best example was the astronomer Edward Barnard. Barnard and Lowell were good friends who respected each other. Barnard was one of the best observers of the time, but Barnard was never able to see canals.

If I take a photo of a blurry saucer-shaped object in the sky, surely it is evidence for flying saucers

But it's not evidence for the Loch Ness monster

You are committing the grave historical sin of hindsight.

I doubt that Schiaparelli thought the lines were joining craters

Yes! However, even the most "interventionist theories" of God in the world today do not predict frequent interventions on a scale sufficient to undermine science. Pentecostalists predict miracles every Sunday, and frequently in the week. But that means they predict that less than 0.01% of all events will involve supernatural intervention. Most of them also predict that God is not malicious or capricious, and that therefore their will be no supernatural interventions in testtubes. If their theory were correct, the level of intervention would be so low as to create no effective impediment to successfull scientific research. And they are the radicals. Most theists predict much lower rates of intervention.

— Tom Curtis

Since the latter is completely unpredictable, probability estimates cannot be reliably assigned. But this is just the same unsupported nonsense refuted above.

Gee, I didn't even know I was addressing Tom Curtis! Well, to each his own delusions of reference. I'm sure I've got plenty of my own. Meanwhile:

The God idea is advertised so much that folks get to thinking that its great familiarity counts as a substantial prior probability. What you need to do is to take the right pill (at this hour, I can't forget which was which), so that you finally come to and realize that the very notion of creation is extraorinarily bizarre, bizarre like the larva baby in Eraserhead.

The truth is, we have no way of objectively determining the a priori probability of any logically possible world.

The truth is that this is irrelevant. You persist in failing to grasp the point the Jim (and I and Don) made.

The scientific method has an astounding record of successful prediction.

Therefore, it has proven to be an epistemic source, regardless of whether scientific predictions are necessarily true.

The success of scientific thinking is something we rely on because, well, it's reliable.

OTOH, religion doesn't provide successful predictions.

It is thus irrational to depend upon religion rather than science as a source of knowledge.

This is a fact about the world we do live in, and what is true of all possible worlds isn't relevant.

You are buried ankle deep in a logicist fallacy, mistaking deduction for rationality.

But a theist could rationaly accept the report as veridical, and count it as a confirming instance for theism.

suggests the supressed premises underlie your thinking is so dogmatic and incoherent a form that you are unable to rationally assess them

P.S. The word is "suppress".

"History of the canal problem shows that every skilled observer who goes to the best available site for his observations has had no great difficulty of seeing and convincing himself of the reality of the canals. I am not aware of a single exception to this." But we know that he was aware of exceptions, from the article that gave that quote:

self-deception and desperate rationalisations!

This might have been difficult for Lowell to explain, a good observer (Barnard) who couldn't see canals. However Lowell was never short of explanations. According to Lowell, only people with "acute" vision were able to see the canals. He explained that Barnard had "sensitive" vision which allowed him to see dim objects, but not fine details on bright planets. It is unfortunate that Lowell never considered a better explanation, that the canals were optical illusions.

"blurry saucer-shaped object" is an interpretation phrased to make your case. Since neither of us has seen those photographic plates of Mars, we don't know what sort of description either of us would offer upon seeing them, but I doubt very much that it would be "blurry canal-like objects".

Your position seems to be here that any evidence gathered for the object of determining whether we have been visited by flying saucers -- or perhaps any photo we take of the sky -- is evidence for the proposition that we have been visited by flying saucers. People have interpreted photos taken with dirt on the camera lens as evidence of flying saucers. The issue of evidence is a very tricky one in epistemology, but I believe, given what we know that, were we to see these plates, we would be disinclined to call it evidence of canals.

It is not a sin to use current knowledge to evaluate the truth value of statements made in or about the past.

Your fearless moderator has let us wander off task for several days now, perhaps because we aren't as far off task as it looks - in a way, we have merely expanded the title from "Is Evolution Religion?" to "Is Empiricism Religion?"

My good friend Eric, a theoretical physicist, claims that the less evidence there is for a given proposition, the harder people will fight over it. I think that may be so because they talk past each other, as is sometimes happening here.

So let me reiterate what I claimed in an earlier essay: Antonio Damasio has taught us (well, taught me) that you can't make a supposedly logical decision without an emotional component. Thus, those whose political inclination is toward the supremacy of the individual simply cannot understand what, say, a democratic socialist is going on about, and vice versa.

Here it seems that those whose inclination is toward strict empiricism (or perhaps materialism) cannot understand those who incline toward an underlying theological explanation. All sides draw "logical" conclusions that are informed by their underlying philosophies and think the other sides are being stubborn or obtuse. (I know that's how I react when I read a defense of the so-called free market. Can't they see that there is no such thing as a free market? Haven't they ever heard of the robber barons? Rhetorical questions, but perhaps you see what I mean.)

If I allow further comments, we will go on forever, so let's stop here. Thanks to all who contributed and to almost all for the polite tone of the comments.