Kansas BOE Chair - It's either the evolution or the Bible, not both

I think a lot of red-state conservatives strongly disagree with Abrams and see no need to believe there is a conflict between evolution and religion. Those conservatives could get some help in dispelling the notion that there is a conflict if scientists like Richard Dawkins were not so in league with Abrams in fostering it by insisting that evolution proves atheism.

It is, of course, not "the Bible", Abram's interpretation of the Bible which is in conflict with science. Many religious authorities accept science...

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

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

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htm

However, Abrams shows dishonesty by completely changing his message according to his forum.

Dishonesty violates the ethical teachings of the Bible. That's pretty much true under any Biblical interpretation.

ID - neither valid science, nor valid Christianity, either. Just a politically motivated, self-serving con game.

I think you mean "It's either the evolution or the Bible, not both" in both the title and the hyperlink to the extended article.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

I think a lot of red-state conservatives strongly disagree with Abrams and see no need to believe there is a conflict between evolution and religion. Those conservatives could get some help in dispelling the notion that there is a conflict if scientists like Richard Dawkins were not so in league with Abrams in fostering it by insisting that evolution proves atheism.

— Ken Willis

Ken Willis -

"Those conservatives could get some help in dispelling the notion that there is a conflict if scientists like Richard Dawkins were not so in league with Abrams in fostering it by insisting that evolution proves atheism"

This is partly true. But people should have some judgment as well.

It is more or less guaranteed that at any given time in a free society, someone will be a prominent atheist, and that hard core atheists (including prominent ones) will claim that science "supports atheism".

The idea that science deals only with the vast but limited sphere of things which are, at least in principle, observable (directly or indirectly), measurable, and testable, appears to be a subtle one, at least for some people.

Rather than wish that Dawkins would stop exercising his perfect right to express himself, a more rational answer would be to recognize the difference between his testable scientific ideas and his religious ideas.

I'm in shock.

Those conservatives could get some help in dispelling the notion that there is a conflict if scientists like Richard Dawkins were not so in league with Abrams in fostering it by insisting that evolution proves atheism.

"At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe," Abrams said. "That's the bottom line."

It is, of course, not "the Bible", Abram's interpretation of the Bible which is in conflict with science.

The critical difference between Dawkins and Abrams is that Dawkins is not voting on (nor devising) proposals to change what it is taught in public schools. Everyone is free to have your opinions, but an elected official has legal responsibilities when acting in his official capacities. Therefore Abrams' beliefs are significant here in a way that Dawkins' aren't.

Also, to Lenny: if the current BOE creationist majority is overturned in next year's elections, the Kansas situation won't wind up being settled in the courts either. However, if they retain their majority so they're in power for two more years (until early 2009), then I think you'll see the Kansas situation in court; and remarks like Abrams' will be evidence of a sectarian purpose behind their actions.

By the way, I highly recommend you bookmark Red State Rabble as a concise and thoughtful blog for regular news and commentary on ID, evolution and related topics.

— Jack Krebs

I ran my last post through spell check. It doesn't like "blog" and it doesn't like "Pharyngula." Can the dictionary be modified to add these & other words we're likely to use?

Also, to Lenny: if the current BOE creationist majority is overturned in next year's elections, the Kansas situation won't wind up being settled in the courts either. However, if they retain their majority so they're in power for two more years (until early 2009), then I think you'll see the Kansas situation in court; and remarks like Abrams' will be evidence of a sectarian purpose behind their actions.

One of my worst fears is that, after the Dover judge laughs the IDers out of his courtroom, the school board elections kick out all the nutters, and a new board composed of sane members drops the case before it goes to the Supreme Court and kills ID once and for all.

Ken Willis: ... scientists like Richard Dawkins ... insisting that evolution proves atheism.

Lenny Flank et al -

I'm not so sure I trust the upcoming Roberts court. I'll be happy when the ID school board nuts are booted out by the voters. A bird in the hand...

ID, Discovery Institute version, cannot be "killed" per se, not even by a supreme court decision. Fortunately, it will undergo exponential decay. Right now, people are realizing that it is garbage from a scientific, political, or religious point of view, and that bilking "supporters" out of money is a big part of its function. There will be a rapid decline in popular support for ID. Things like school boards pushing ID, "conservative" teen-agers declaring themselves ID advocates, "ID groups" at colleges other than Liberty U and BJU, and editorials that take ID seriously, will rapidly drop off the radar. Funding for the DI will suffer less, since it comes disproportionately from brains that have been exceedingly well-washed, and since DI has other sleazy products to tout, but DI funding will fall as well.

However, as time goes on, the rate of decline will decrease. Twenty years from now, Dembski will still be preaching ID to a very small group of supporters, whose numbers will decline only very slowly. The DI will be there as well. But they'll be yesterday's nuts, about as influential as the "Chariots of the Gods" crowd is today.

As for nutjob attacks on teaching science, especially from would-be authoritarians who want their own opinions taught to children as "science", those will continue to arise. They'll prosper in times when the politicians in charge are hostile to science for short-term self-serving reasons (as was the case for ID in the period that we are now seeing the end of); they'll do more poorly when the public sees a need for science (as in the "Sputnik era", or as may happen soon if the public begins to realize that science could have largely prevented or greatly lessened the impact of the recent hurricane-related tragedies). But they'll always be there.

Classic Kent Hovind style, rip-off-the-poor-and-uneducated, theme-park-and-"debate" creationism will continue on, unabated, largely unaffected by the decline of ID.

Well, as Lenny always points out, it is just asking too much of these creationist types to conceal their evangelical motives for five minutes, even if their whole political success depends on it...

"Oh. Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." -Voltaire

Granted!

I think a lot of red-state conservatives strongly disagree with Abrams and see no need to believe there is a conflict between evolution and religion. Those conservatives could get some help in dispelling the notion that there is a conflict if scientists like Richard Dawkins were not so in league with Abrams in fostering it by insisting that evolution proves atheism.

I'm not so sure I trust the upcoming Roberts court.

At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe

I hope someone has the good sense to go depose a few of the attendees at that affair, quickly, to get their views on what Abrams really said. Abrams, being not of the scientific view, will deny he said it, at trial, later. Get him on the record now.

The critical difference between Dawkins and Abrams is that Dawkins is not voting on (nor devising) proposals to change what it is taught in public schools. Everyone is free to have your opinions, but an elected official has legal responsibilities when acting in his official capacities. Therefore Abrams' beliefs are significant here in a way that Dawkins' aren't.

— Jack Krebs

'I think a lot of red-state conservatives strongly disagree with Abrams and see no need to believe there is a conflict between evolution and religion. Those conservatives could get some help in dispelling the notion that there is a conflict if scientists like Richard Dawkins were not so in league with Abrams in fostering it by insisting that evolution proves atheism.'

Look, let's be honest here. Evolution does serious damage to Christianity. Maybe not Buddism, Hinduism, Deism and others but it does throw a monkey(no pun intended) into the workings of Christianity. Just because many Christians accept evolution doesn't make their position any more tenable. It most cases it creates even more questions that cannot be answered.

But it does show the flexibility of the religion. But trying to fit evolution into the religion creates problems either on the front end or the back end. Particuarlly when evolution is accepted as the continuim that it is. I mean is it only homo sapiens that has a soul while neanderthal had none?

Chance has a good point. Christianity generally seems to brim with hubris. They concocted not just any old god(s), but one who made our species the crown of creation, the purpose of that creation, in a miracle of poof, and designed to look just like him. Christianity goes to considerable lengths to make people not only vastly and specifically above the "lower animals" (who in turn were specifically created for our pleasure), but very nearly gods in our own right.

And though some claim to be Christians and also claim to see no conflict, I can't see how this incredibly lofty pedestal can be reconciled with the scientific position that people are Just Another Accident, essentially a transient and purposeless outcropping of a totally indifferent creative process which has for billions of years and may for billions more produce one such contingent accident after another, for no better reason than that's what the process does.

The idea that science deals only with the vast but limited sphere of things which are, at least in principle, observable (directly or indirectly), measurable, and testable, appears to be a subtle one, at least for some people.

Rather than wish that Dawkins would stop exercising his perfect right to express himself, a more rational answer would be to recognize the difference between his testable scientific ideas and his religious ideas.

The idea that there exists anything other than the "limited" sphere of things observable by science is an assumption for which there is no justification.

I think you are making a category error here, in what you are regarding as a "thing". So here we go again: science can tell us if person A killed person B. But science can never tell us if this was the right thing to do.

We recognize multiple circumstances where this behavior is acceptable (for example, self-defense) or even worthy of awards and decorations. In other words, rightness or wrongness is very real, very meaningful, and very much outside the limits of science.

And though some claim to be Christians and also claim to see no conflict, I can't see how this incredibly lofty pedestal can be reconciled with the scientific position that people are Just Another Accident, essentially a transient and purposeless outcropping of a totally indifferent creative process which has for billions of years and may for billions more produce one such contingent accident after another, for no better reason than that's what the process does.

Just because you cannot understand it does not make the positions of Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway Morris, or Howard van Till any less coherent.

As a matter of interest, there is no "scientific position that people are Just Another Accident".

Don P:

Actually, it's not hard at all. If one posits that we are here because of a cosmic Grand Plan concocted by the Intelligent Designer Formerly Known As YHWH, then the dinosaurs HAD to give way, and their extinction was preplanned like everything else.

Don't fall in the trap of accepting the reversal of the burden of proof: it isn't science that has to show that those were chance events; it's those who claim otherwise who need to show evidence of their teleology.

Aureola:

Yes. What I meant by "reconcile" is that it's hard to reconcile rationally from the evidence. If you make the right assumption, you can reconcile any evidence with any hypothesis.

A young-earth creationist might reconcile his religious belief in a young earth with the evidence that the earth is very old by assuming that God planted the evidence to make the earth appear much older than it really is. A "theistic evolutionist" Christian might reconcile his religious belief that the existence of human beings is part of some Grand Plan by an omnipotent and benevolent God with the evidence that human beings arose by chance through indifferent natural processes by assuming that we are misinterpreting the evidence because we don't understand the Plan well enough. In neither case is the assumption rational or justified.

Science cannot disprove Christianity or any other religion because Christianity and other religions are not about what is true or not true but about what people believe through their faith. It hardly matters whether religious myths are true. "Intelligent design" is pernicious dogma because it purports to bring matters of faith into the realm of scientific proof.

There is no need for a specific reference of Dawkins claiming that evolution proves atheism, one cannot read far in his writings without knowing for certain that is what he believes and that is what he wants his reader to believe. And evolution can no more prove atheism is true that it can prove Christianity is false because both atheism and Christianity depend not upon proof or disproof but upon faith.

The ID'ers really get up my nose, but it should be admitted that they do have a case to make that science popularizers like Dawkins are trying to teach their children atheism and they'd like to put a stop to that. If we want true separation of church and state it ought to be acknowledged that atheism is just as must a religion as Christianity and should not be taught in public schools.

Science cannot disprove Christianity or any other religion because Christianity and other religions are not about what is true or not true

There is no need for a specific reference of Dawkins claiming that evolution proves atheism, one cannot read far in his writings without knowing for certain that is what he believes and that is what he wants his reader to believe.

Don P

You seem to be falling into a common pitfall of creationists they criticize evolution without a deep (usually even a shallow) understanding of the current ideas. They say it just doesn't make sense to them to believe - insert standard misrepresentation of evolution here - so evolution just cannot make rational sense.

You don't seem to have a good grasp of what theistic evolutionists believe but you can't really come up with a rational explanation that satisfies you so there must not be one. Maybe you should/could do a little research. Learn what some of the current thinking in the field is then decide to post/read posts on a blog about theistic evolution and then come back and tell us why it doesn't make sense.

The idea that there exists anything other than the "limited" sphere of things observable by science is an assumption for which there is no justification.

(yawn) We're not gonna have yet another religious war, are we?

ID isn't science, whether there is a god or not.

ID doesn't belong in a science classroom, whether there is a god or not.

It's illegal to teach religious opinions in public schools, whether there is a god or not.

So what difference does it make in this fight whether there is a god or not?

Really.

Please use the scientific method to determine for us whether or not murder is wrong.

You don't seem to have a good grasp of what theistic evolutionists believe

Please use the scientific method to determine for us whether or not murder is wrong.

I can't. I have no idea what you think that has to do with the statement of mine you quoted.

The evidence from science is inconsistent with the doctrine of a benevolent and omnipotent creator God for the reasons I have explained.

Indeed, I am quite sure you don't.

My statement concerned beliefs about what exists, not beliefs about how one ought to behave.

Huh? Why are moral beliefs any more "outside the limits of science" than any other kind of belief?

Just because you cannot understand it does not make the positions of Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway Morris, or Howard van Till any less coherent.

As a matter of interest, there is no "scientific position that people are Just Another Accident".

There is also a commonly accepted, but disputed (see "Life's Solution" by Simon Conway Morris) scientific hypothesis that given the existence of life on earth, the evolution of sapient bipeds with dextrous appendages is stastically improbable.

And yet others think it is perfectly consistent. (shrug)

That's the problem with opinions, isn't it. You say yours is right; they say theirs is right --- and, unless you can find a way to apply the scientific method to questions of opinion, such as "is murder wrong?" or "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" or "is god benevolent?", science can't help us, and simply has nothing to say on the matter.

But that wasn't how it was phrased. You said there was "no justification" for claiming that *anything* lay outside the boundaries of science.

But beliefs about how one ought to behave indeed exist,

We may need some definitions here, I think. If I believe that if I release a brick it will drop, this sort of belief can be evaluated by science, which presumably can fully explain (and perfectly predict) the action of the brick. But if I believe that dropping the brick is immoral under some particular circumstances, science can't help me.

Don P:

I'm not sure if I'm being incomprehensible, or you're being deliberately perverse. You spoke about what exist. Beliefs exist. I agreed that beliefs can be investigated, and science might explain them completely, but this does NOT address whether a belief in something is worth holding. That's an extremely important personal matter, by no means irrelevant or trivial. Also completely beyond the scope of the scientific method.

I have no idea what you might mean by "an objective moral fact or truth". You remind me of an engineering student who signed up for a public policy analysis class. He came in with his calculator ready to determine the answers, and after a few classes dropped the class in disgust. Any answer that couldn't be calculated wasn't worth the effort, as he saw it. To at least three decimal places!

But the question "is murder wrong" MUST have an answer, and that answer must be coherent, must make sense to people. There are protocols by which societies must live, if they are to be workable. WHAT those protocols are is within some wide range irrelevant. But they must be agreed on as workable and "right" by a high enough percentage of the polity nonetheless.

And so I repeat: There is a very large class of answers science can't provide. I think one could make a strong argument that the answers most important to us, both as individuals and as members of a social group, fall into this class. Science can do no more than provide pertinent data and accurate explanations. What people choose to DO with what science provides is what matters. And science is completely useless for telling people what to do. Science can tell people HOW to do it, it can tell people what works and why. But the ultimate decisions are based on values, on preference, on hopes and dreams, on perceived needs.

And yes, religion can help in these matters a great deal. Religion can be viewed as a vehicle of social glue; a source of shared goals and values. It does not matter that these goals and values are irrational or arbitrary. It matters that they are accepted and shared. In practice, the question "is murder wrong" has an answer: that whatever we decide, we agree to abide by our decision, as a society. The answer is to establish a procedure for making these decisions, and to believe in the procedure and accept its output. Science is how the facts are collected and organized. Civilization is what we DO with it. Different "thing", but if anything even more "real".

I'm not sure if I'm being incomprehensible, or you're being deliberately perverse. You spoke about what exist. Beliefs exist. I agreed that beliefs can be investigated, and science might explain them completely, but this does NOT address whether a belief in something is worth holding.

That's an extremely important personal matter, by no means irrelevant or trivial. Also completely beyond the scope of the scientific method.,

I have no idea what you might mean by "an objective moral fact or truth".

Don P: ... The world we actually find ourselves living in is not the world we would expect to see if it were the creation of an omnipotent and benevolent God. Science doesn't disprove Christianity, but it does make it very implausible.

Ken Willis: There is no need for a specific reference of Dawkins claiming that evolution proves atheism, one cannot read far in his writings without knowing for certain that is what he believes and that is what he wants his reader to believe.

But the question "is murder wrong" MUST have an answer, and that answer must be coherent, must make sense to people. There are protocols by which societies must live, if they are to be workable. WHAT those protocols are is within some wide range irrelevant. But they must be agreed on as workable and "right" by a high enough percentage of the polity nonetheless. And so I repeat: There is a very large class of answers science can't provide.

I think one could make a strong argument that the answers most important to us, both as individuals and as members of a social group, fall into this class. Science can do no more than provide pertinent data and accurate explanations. What people choose to DO with what science provides is what matters. And science is completely useless for telling people what to do.

And yes, religion can help in these matters a great deal. Religion can be viewed as a vehicle of social glue; a source of shared goals and values.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist. As an atheist Dawkins states emphatically, "I know there is no God." He does not say "There might be a God or there might not be, I just don't know." If he said the latter he would be an agnostic. But he says, and he believes, that he knows.

Can any of you show me, by the scientific method, just how Dawkins or any other atheist knows this?

No you can't. Because atheism is a religion. It is what Dawkins and other atheists believe. And when they claim to know, they are doing the same thing the ID'ers do. They are trying to put their religion on a scientific footing. It is just as pernicious and dishonest when they do it as when the ID'ers do it.

Pierce R. Butler, do you really think it is worth arguing over what Richard Dawkins believes? If it isn't clear to you from all of his many books and writings, I think Dawkins himself would take issue with you. "Flimsy Illogic?" Man, get a life.

As noted by many others, the scientific method is unlikely to be able to prove the existence of a god.

However, the many lines of historical evidence suggest that the common concept of the Christian god is an evolving entity. Amongst other things it appears to have moved from a pantheon of gods and earth spirits (e.g. Elohim) to a single all powerful and jealous god that was revealed to a primitive and nomadic middle eastern tribe (the chosen people) that originally feared and revered the Elohim, taking on and modifying characteristics of earlier and (then) contemporary gods along the way. It then became flesh (adopting characteristics of other gods e.g. virgin birth). It has then split off into an Islamic god, and other "incarnations" along the way. Forgive us for being skeptical of the current biblical god.

It is what Dawkins and other atheists believe. And when they claim to know, they are doing the same thing the ID'ers do. They are trying to put their religion on a scientific footing. It is just as pernicious and dishonest when they do it as when the ID'ers do it.

— Ken Willis

I never claimed that science can answer the question "Is murder wrong?"

As I said, moral beliefs can be investigated by science just like beliefs about anything else, so they're not an example of something beyond the scope of science, are they?

Do you claim that religion can answer it?

If so, what is that answer from religion

, and how do know the answer is correct?

But the question "is murder wrong" MUST have an answer, and that answer must be coherent, must make sense to people.

We know from the Rev Dr Flank's writings on this forum that an anarcho-syndicalist political stance causes a constant craving for pizza (or maybe the other way around),

since he regularly orates on both those topics.

Would you prefer "Rant"?

;)

Ken Willis:

"Richard Dawkins is an atheist. As an atheist Dawkins states emphatically, "I know there is no God." He does not say "There might be a God or there might not be, I just don't know." If he said the latter he would be an agnostic. But he says, and he believes, that he knows.

Can any of you show me, by the scientific method, just how Dawkins or any other atheist knows this?

No you can't. Because atheism is a religion. It is what Dawkins and other atheists believe. And when they claim to know, they are doing the same thing the ID'ers do. They are trying to put their religion on a scientific footing. It is just as pernicious and dishonest when they do it as when the ID'ers do it."

Your description of what atheists "must" believe and say is very wrong. An atheist is, at a minimum, one who does not believe any god exists. What you describe as the atheistic position is indeed held by a tiny minority of atheists, called "strong atheists".

This is not the right venue for this sort of discussions, but you are offending a lot of people (and being irrational to boot) by claiming to know what they think and say better than themselves.

Atheist-bashing, albeit very popular, is a despicable occupation, and I suggest you stop it.

Ken Willis:
"If we want true separation of church and state it ought to be acknowledged that atheism is just as must a religion as Christianity and should not be taught in public schools."

Didn't someone once say that "calling atheism a religion is like calling not stamp collecting a hobby"?

Actually,

the quote I've heard was "Calling atheism a religion is like calling 'bald' a hair colour".

"I suggest you stop it."

Or else what?

Some atheists (not all, nor so many as to be in the majority) are to the evolution side like the Creationists in the Dover case are to ID. They are inconveniences and hinderances to the pro-science advocacy movement precisely because they are too stupid to know when to shut up. To the extent many of us are here to fight against ignorance and stupidity, "bashing" the incredibly stupid, hardcore/extremist atheists is just par for the course, I imagine. These atheists should get it through to their thick heads that they hold minority viewpoints which many find disagreeable or offensive (just like Creationists). They should stop hijacking science as a vehicle for their own metaphysics/philosophies (just like Creationists). And they should stop playing out the role of the helpless victim routine (just like Creationists).

In science, as in science advocacy, there is no such thing as a protected inner circle immune from criticism. Hardcore atheists need not apply.

Lurker,

Ken Willis was not "bashing" the incredibly stupid, hardcore/extremist atheists. He was claiming (without support) that "atheists" per se "think" something which simply isn't true.

"Some" atheists may be a liability, but not more so than "some" theists; and nobody's been playing the "helpless victim routine".

"I suggest you stop it" or else be shown as an ignorant atheist-basher, one who does not hesitate to lie in order to pretend that people who simply lack a god-belief are somehow guilty of something-or-other.

In science, in philosophy, in religion or anywhere else, one would do well to know what he is attacking before attacking it.

Aureola: "I suggest you stop it" or else be shown as an ignorant atheist-basher, one who does not hesitate to lie in order to pretend that people who simply lack a god-belief are somehow guilty of something-or-other.

Interestingly, no-one has suggested Don P to stop his irrational Christian-bashing which is even more hurtful to the cause of science that atheist defense through science could ever be.

For the record, Mankind being the chosen species is not an a priori conclussion for all Christian evolutionists, and thus poses no problem to evolution. In my particular case, I understand that we are the chosen species because we're intelligent enough to need guidance. A lion, or a zebra, or a bacteria lives their lives fully without any need of moral teachings. We are intelligent enough to be stupid enough to purposedly destroy ourselves (and take a big chunk of Life with us). We were chosen to be taught - by a long string of prophets ending in Jesus Christ who gave the ultimate rule (which doesn't exclude, mind you, other people for having come up with it independently in other times and places - I talk of what I know. Ask Lenny about the Asiatic beliefs). That makes us special, to my knowledge. It doesn't, however, make us *better* than the rest of the living creatures in the planet.

Sincerely, Don P is an *ss that for some reason believes that he knows the private understanding of some 2 billion people enough to rant about it. I will not bash atheists, even if I disagree with their ideas because this is neither the place nor the time, and would manage nothing. Some kind of mutual respect, however, seems to be out of place in trolls like Don.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: *Anyone* uttering the phrase "Science doesn't disprove Christianity, but it does make it very implausible" better be an expert in Christian theology (including every possible religious belief, not just that of the vocal extremist minority) or will look like an *ss.

So what if religion can be a source of shared goals or values?

That doesn't mean those goals are moral.

And it doesn't tell us anything about what exists.

A religion might promote slavery or child sacrifice, but that doesn't mean those things are moral.

A religion might claim that God exists, but that doesn't mean he does.

A religion might claim that there is something beyond the natural world we can investigate using the methods of science, but that obviously doesn't mean that there is such a supernatural reality.

What makes you think moral questions have objectively true or false answers? Even if they do, what makes you think we can discover what those answers are? The claim that morality lies outside the scope of science presupposes that morality consists of something more than subjective moral beliefs.

Grey Wolf,

It looks to me as if several people have taken Don P to task for his opinions, including some (like Flint) who are definitely not Christians.

There's yet another similarity between Creationists and hardcore atheists -- the endless nitpicking over labels. To nitpick whether it is atheists stritu sensu who declare there is no God is like IDists nitpicking over whether they are Creationists. In the end, extremists, whether atheist or religious, always miss the bigger picture: the stereotypes associated with a particular label are often in place because some morons within the stereotyped group have popularized and perpetuated them. Blame the hardcore atheists who have shaped Ken Willis' perception of atheism, not Ken Willis, as I have no evidence Ken Willis is so close minded as hardcore atheists. Are there philosophies which declare that there is no God, to which atheists subscribe? You betcha. Can it be helped that Ken is not aware of the proper terminology for those people? Absolutely. Is calling him a liar the way to do it? Only if one wants to help perpetuate Ken Willis' stereotype that hardcore atheists are smug, self-righteous, putridly offensive bastards, I suppose.

Lurker:

in other words, you have already decided, a priori, that what atheists themselves think and say does not count; what counts is your opinion of them.

Now that you've clarified who's really close-minded, you can go back to lurking.

By the way, I wouldn't dream of claiming that anyone right-of-centre has to agree with the Nazis, or that anyone left-of-centre must be a Stalinist, or that Christians of course are murderous crusaders.

Most likely, what shaped Ken's misperceptions about atheists is not atheists themselves, not even the incredibly minority group of strong atheists; it is the convenient lies spread about atheists, dating back to Saul of Tarsus himself.

Putting words in my mouth is a deliberate attempt at a lie. Shame on you.

I have expressed opinions of hardcore atheists. Of course, having patiently explained to you the problem, you miss it completely in your response. Ken has specific complaints about his perception of atheists. To many of us, his complaints have merit, regardless of whether the appropriate label applies. This does not excuse Ken from not learning the appropriate label, next time around. But your quibbling over Ken's use of the label can only be seen as a diversion from the issue. After all, the easiest way to correct him was to offer an alternative label, materialists, naturalists, antitheist bigots, whatever. But that's not what you did. Rather, you go on this meaningless rant of martyrdom about Ken purposefully "misrepresenting" atheism, throwing in the obligatory diversions about Nazis, Stalinists, and Christians as muderous crusaders.

You can only believe Ken is "misrepesenting" atheism if you believe Ken knows what atheism is. Yet, you are clearly arguing that Ken has no knowledge of atheism. So, at this juncture, the only course of action is to slam him as a liar? I hope other lurkers can see the growing parallels between Creationists rhetorical ploys and those of hardcore atheists.

Putting words in my mouth is a deliberate attempt to lie. Shame on you.

Despite my patient explanation of the issue, you completely miss it and go on this meaningless rant of martyrdom, throwing the obligatory references to Stalinists, Nazis, and murderous Christian crusaders.

I am not excusing Ken from misusing the label, or not knowing better the next time. But the only way for Ken to be "misrepresenting" atheism, as you argue, is if he actually knew what atheism is. Yet, you clearly argue that he has no knowledge of atheism. So, naturally, the only course of action is to belittle his ignorance as a lie? The only way to see your quibbling over labels is to create a diversion from the issue at hand. After all, the easiest option to clear up this minor detail was to provide Ken with alternative labels: materialists, naturalists, antitheist bigots, whatever. That's not what you did. One has to wonder why not.

Ken has made good points about atheist extremists, regardless of whether or not he has selected the appropriate labels. The bigger picture is that there are subgroups who are eroding the pro-science advocacy movement from the inside, specifically by antagonizing theists. Some of these vocal idiots are atheists. And they, like the Creationists, need to be stopped.

Putting words in my mouth is a deliberate attempt to lie. Shame on you.

Despite my patient explanation of the issue, you completely miss it and go on this meaningless rant of martyrdom, throwing the obligatory references to Stalinists, Nazis, and murderous Christian crusaders. [yawn]

I am not excusing Ken from misusing the label, or not knowing better the next time. But the only way for Ken to be "misrepresenting" atheism, as you argue, is if he actually knew what atheism is. Yet, you clearly argue that he has no knowledge of atheism. So, naturally, the only course of action is to belittle his ignorance as a lie? The only way to see your quibbling over labels is to create a diversion from the issue at hand. After all, the easiest option to clear up this minor detail was to provide Ken with alternative labels: materialists, naturalists, antitheist bigots, whatever. That's not what you did. One has to wonder why not.

Ken has made good points about atheist extremists, regardless of whether or not he has selected the appropriate labels. The bigger picture is that there are subgroups who are eroding the pro-science advocacy movement from the inside, specifically by antagonizing theists. Some of these vocal idiots are atheists. And they, like the Creationists, need to be stopped.

By the way, I am an atheist strictu sensu. So there is no further need to address further Aureola Nominee's misrepresentation of my views.

Lurker:

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You, on the other hand, did. Case closed.

By the way, since those miserepresentations have already been addressed countless times, even on this forum, repeating them regardless is a lie. Strawman fallacies are not the exclusive domain of IDiots, as Ken and you amply demonstrate.

I am sorry, you do not get to close the case on your own whim. As I stated, hardcore atheists do not have special privileges in this forum. The case on hardcore atheists who wish to hijack science for anti-Christian/anti-theist missions is quite open, and fair-minded people will continue to prosecute it it to the fullest extent possible.

Go ahead, Aureola Nominee, keep calling us names. It is quite apparent that is your substitute for poor argumentation.

I don't see Dawkins as being harmful to biology. Sure, rabid Christians who abhor evolution and atheists equally can try to equate the two, and Dawkins can be used to symbolize both. But this approach is only effective in persuading those who are already seated in the choir. Certainly Dawkins is no more strident in his atheism than any and all creationists are in their devotions. Indeed, if the views Dawkins holds were in the overwhelming majority and believers were the ones swimming upstream, the standard creationist output would look indistinguishable from genuine organic brain damage, while they'd be reduced to getting funny haircuts and obstructing people at airports.

I also don't like the notion that for tactical reasons, the creationists get to snort and bray and wave Jeezus around like drunks on New Year's Eve, while those not sharing that particular faith must tiptoe around, pretending that their OWN firm beliefs somehow never cross their minds. Some theists seem to walk around looking for anything they can use as an excuse to become antagonized, secure in the knowledge that the overwhelming majority can be persuaded to feel "persecuted" because someone, somewhere, doesn't share their faith.

Dear Lurker,

you keep mentioning these semimythical "hardcore atheists". Yet, they are nowhere to be seen. Don P's positions were not strongly atheistic; Flint's were not strongly atheistic; mine are not strongly atheistic.

The burden of proof is on someone claiming that anyone here is a strong atheist.

I'm sorry, but hardcore atheists do not enjoy special privileges especially because nobody here was proposing they did.

But I'll agree, they are a convenient strawman. Keep bashing them. Keep pretending they exist and are a significant force in science. And keep attacking atheists like me, who really am an atheist strictu sensu, because of what this strawman of yours allegedly does.

...and by the way, the case is closed because you have yet to present one teewny tiny shred of evidence that your claims do in fact correspond to reality.

Until you do, there's not even a case to be opened.

Some of these vocal idiots are atheists. And they, like the Creationists, need to be stopped.

— Lurker

The point, qetzal, is that these "vocal idiots" are nowhere in sight, but make for a very convenient punching ball.

Can anyone here please point me to a prominent atheist thinker who has advocated teaching that"no Gods exist"?

Maybe I'm ignorant, after all I've only studied theism and atheism for a mere 30 years now, but since neither the American Atheists (USA), nor the British Humanist Association (UK), not the Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists (Italy), nor the late Bertrand Russell - possibly the most influential atheist thinker of the 20th century - ever advocated anything even remotely close to what "atheists" have been accused of thinking...

well, "fair-minded people" can draw their own conclusions.

The genesis of this discussion was the false, unnecessary and destructive conflict that creationists set up between science and religion. My purpose is to acknowledge and deplore this phenomenon but to also point out that atheists such as Richard Dawkins are equally guilty.

Having bought and read all of his books, I'm hardly a Dawkins Basher or even an atheist basher. To observe the nature of something is not to bash it.

I guess there may be degrees of atheism. But then there must be degrees of pregnancy also, because atheism is not a complex dogma. Whatever degree of atheist one may happen to be, all atheists believe, know, surmise, and are pretty darn sure that God does not exist. Since there is no way, by the scientific method or any other method, to prove that claim it falls into the realm of religious dogma.

Maybe the best way to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist is to simply admit that it is what you believe through faith alone and not because of evolution. To claim that evolution is the source of your intellectual fulfillment as an atheist is to do exactly what creationists do, to set up an unnecessary and destructive conflict between religion and science.

If evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest, then presumably one would not be an intellectually fulfilled atheist were it not for evolution. Therein lies the conflict, same one the creationists claim. Both camps find faith alone inadequate to sustain their beliefs.

Ken:

"Whatever degree of atheist one may happen to be, all atheists believe, know, surmise, and are pretty darn sure that God does not exist."

Once again, you are wrong, and I challenge you to defend this incredible claim you are making.

Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than the lack of belief in god-claims. Then you have red-haired atheists (atheists who also happen to have red hair), left-handed atheists (atheists who also happen to be left-handed), vanilla-ice-cream-liking atheists (atheists who also like vanilla ice cream), strong atheists (atheists who also happen to believe that no god exists), and so on and so forth.

The one thing all these people have in common is not a belief but the lack of a belief. If you need to think that atheists have religious dogmas, I'd say that your opinions must be pretty shaky.

Whatever degree of atheist one may happen to be, all atheists believe, know, surmise, and are pretty darn sure that God does not exist. Since there is no way, by the scientific method or any other method, to prove that claim it falls into the realm of religious dogma.

Maybe the best way to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist is to simply admit that it is what you believe through faith alone and not because of evolution. To claim that evolution is the source of your intellectual fulfillment as an atheist is to do exactly what creationists do, to set up an unnecessary and destructive conflict between religion and science.

If evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest, then presumably one would not be an intellectually fulfilled atheist were it not for evolution. Therein lies the conflict, same one the creationists claim. Both camps find faith alone inadequate to sustain their beliefs.

I guess there may be degrees of atheism. But then there must be degrees of pregnancy also, because atheism is not a complex dogma. Whatever degree of atheist one may happen to be, all atheists believe, know, surmise, and are pretty darn sure that God does not exist. Since there is no way, by the scientific method or any other method, to prove that claim it falls into the realm of religious dogma.

My notion of a hardcore atheist does not fall neatly between the strong/weak atheist dichotomy. I am, and have been, speaking specifically about atheists who use science as a vehicle to badger Christians/theists. In fact, I gladly apply my attention to any person who politicizes science to attack another group. But in this particular instance, it happens to be an atheist, and on this forum, there have been many other instances of atheists engaging in this behavior. I will call them as I see them.

It is part of a developing society to figure out how to deal with each other's diverse collection of firm beliefs. Oftentimes, this entails people figuring out what we dislike about an opposing group's behavior... and then not doing it ourselves. If we dislike Creationists for wearing their religion on their sleeves, then should it not occur to us that our doing so is equally distasteful? Or is the agreed upon solution to resolving differing, firmly held beliefs to always have an all out shouting match and war?

The specific goal of this forum is to promote evolution and good science. It should not be seen as an opportunity for hardcore atheists to coopt the message for their philosophical and political purposes. Ask yourself. What is the political difference between a Creationist who believes that evolution promotes atheism, and a hardcore atheist who is promoting evolution? Is it really only that one tends to sit on a school board, and the other one doesn't? To a Christian parent who is voting for a school board member, does it matter to her whether she hears a Christian claiming evolution destroys God or a hardcore atheist claiming evolution destroys God?

But, qetzal, in my wildest dreams I would not think of stifling opinions. I think we can stop an idiotic message by opposing it vigorously. I do however resent people who purposefully sidetrack discussions by engaging in meaningless rhetorical ploys. In that regard, all politically active minority interest groups, whether Creationists or hardcore atheists, more or less engage in the same behavior.

'No you can't. Because atheism is a religion. It is what Dawkins and other atheists believe. And when they claim to know, they are doing the same thing the ID'ers do. They are trying to put their religion on a scientific footing. It is just as pernicious and dishonest when they do it as when the ID'ers do it'

Stupid beyond belief.

Whatever degree of atheist one may happen to be, all atheists believe, know, surmise, and are pretty darn sure that God does not exist. Since there is no way, by the scientific method or any other method, to prove that claim it falls into the realm of religious dogma.

You are one confused fella. Your correct the scientific method cannot dissprove Gods existence. But as usual your like forgets it cannot disprove the FSM, Zeus, or flying turtles, santa or many other things either. All these atheists are saying is you have zero evidence hence they lack your belief. Absecnce of a belief is not the same thing as you are positing. You are an atheist to many Gods. Does that mean your religion is athesim as well?

Religion is a group activity, belief is not. Your a theist who happens to be a Christian. Christianity is your religion. Your a theist by belief. An atheist is an atheist as he lacks belief. He has no religion.

"I propose that if gods DID exist, the evidence for that existence would be so overwhelmingly self-evident you'd have to be in a persistent vegetative state not to notice. It is NOT religious dogma to remain skeptical of the existence of anything for which there is no evidence."

Flint, I rather think this is a theological argument about the nature of God. Or perhaps that was your point?

''No you can't. Because atheism is a religion. It is what Dawkins and other atheists believe. And when they claim to know, they are doing the same thing the ID'ers do. They are trying to put their religion on a scientific footing. It is just as pernicious and dishonest when they do it as when the ID'ers do it''

Stupid beyond belief.

'Whatever degree of atheist one may happen to be, all atheists believe, know, surmise, and are pretty darn sure that God does not exist. Since there is no way, by the scientific method or any other method, to prove that claim it falls into the realm of religious dogma.'

You are one confused fella. Your correct the scientific method cannot dissprove Gods existence. But as usual your like forgets it cannot disprove the FSM, Zeus, or flying turtles, santa or many other things either. All these atheists are saying is you have zero evidence hence they lack your belief. Absecnce of a belief is not the same thing as you are positing. You are an atheist to many Gods. Does that mean your religion is athesim as well?

Religion is a group activity, belief is not. Your a theist who happens to be a Christian. Christianity is your religion. Your a theist by belief. An atheist is an atheist as he lacks belief. He has no religion.

'What is the political difference between a Creationist who believes that evolution promotes atheism, and a hardcore atheist who is promoting evolution?'

Evidence. Evolution is a fact creationism is not. He who is promoting it is of little matter. The fact that it matters to some shows how little they care for truth and evidence.

'To a Christian parent who is voting for a school board member, does it matter to her whether she hears a Christian claiming evolution destroys God or a hardcore atheist claiming evolution destroys God?'

Of course it matters to her but the question is, as an honest voter, should she not seek to be informed rather than giving over to the false rhetoric of 'evil' atheists. Perhaps if she knew more atheists she wouldn't think the preachers drones about them were correct.

Flint, I rather think this is a theological argument about the nature of God. Or perhaps that was your point?

This harks back to the discussion about whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And I think in a very real sense, this is the case. When Sherlock Holmes observed that the dog did NOT bark in the night, absence of barking was evidence for non-barking (which must be explained). The burden lies on anyone who believes without evidence, that this belief can be supported (by something more than citing a Biblical verse to the effect that faith is the evidence for the non-evidenced).

Make up your damn mind, Don. Can science answer the question "is murder wrong", or can't it?

You don't. After all, religious opinions are just that --- opinions. Just like yours.

So these are what holds society together and gives our lives meaning.

On the contrary, that's *exactly* what it means. Without that framework, nothing is moral. Within the framework, what is declared moral is what is moral.

This terminology is confusing you. Does god "exist"? Let's presume there is nothing in the physical universe meeting that description, that gods are nothing more than a shared delusion. Now, do they exist? Of course they do. Long and bitter wars are fought over them.

'Which is why your claim that science cannot answer moral questions is completely irrelevant. There is no way of answering them'

For an interesting read try Shermer's 'The Science of Good and Evil'

Then we'll all come back and discuss.:-)

Personally I see no reason why science will not unravel the root of moral questions. After reading the above mentioned book there are some pretty good research starting points.

My 2 cents, murder is wrong in the majority of cases simply because it removes genes from the pool that may prove beneficial to the species. Whether it state sanctioned murder(war) or a homicide, murder has the potential to damage the species biologically and the social order which again is a biological construct.

Looking at the issue at this point in human history it is hard to see it's origins but imagine a smaller band of humans and one overly aggressive individual who had no qualms about wooping you for your food or mate. Such actions are counterproductive to the species. Hence the majority of 'weaker' individuals have a vested interest in preventing murderous individuals from prospering and removing them from the herd so to speak has been our answer.

But I could be wrong.:-)

As I already told you, no, it can't. As I also told you, moral beliefs can be investigated by science.

If they're just "opinions," then they're not "answers" in the sense of knowledge or fact.

Religion may offers guesses or hopes or wishes about these questions, but it cannot answer them.

The fact that religion can be a source of goals or values does not mean that religion is a source of knowledge. It doesn't mean that religion can tell us anything about the nature of the world. Nor does it mean that religious values and goals have merit.

If Gods are nothing more than a delusion, then no, of course they don't exist.

murder is wrong in the majority of cases simply because it removes genes from the pool that may prove beneficial to the species.

They're not necessarily "incoherent." They're irrational. The world we actually find ourselves living in is not the world we would expect to see if it were the creation of an omnipotent and benevolent God. Science doesn't disprove Christianity, but it does make it very implausible.

Yes there is. The scientific evidence suggests that human beings exist at all only because of a series of cosmic accidents, such as the impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If it had not been for this string of chance events, human beings would never have evolved. It's hard to reconcile this evidence with the Christian doctrine that human life is part of some grand plan by a benevolent and omnipotent God.

As I intended the phrase, of course there is such a position. This is what evolution SAYS, plain and simple. The evolutionary process throws out entirely contingent life forms due to nothing beyond what random effects made available for selection, and what an unpredictable environment happens to select under any given set of transient conditions.

To be sure. In fact, the probability of the evolution of ANY particular life form is statistically infinitesimal. The probability of SOME life forms evolving is unity. The variety of possible forms is essentially infinite. Which ones have, and shall, come to pass is sheer accident.

As for no gods existing, I wouldn't regard this as a belief so much as a working assumption that acceptance of the existence of anything attestable by evidence should be withheld pending the appearance of such evidence. For example, dark energy is accepted quite easily because it does NOT "violate a belief" that it doesn't exist. It's simply something unexpected that cropped up in our continuing examination of our universe.

(yawn)

I will simply state once again:

ID is not science, whether god exists or not.

ID offers nothing to science, whether there is a god or not.

ID is nothing but religious apologetics, whether there is a god or not.

It is ilelgal to teach religious apologetics in US public schools, whether there is a god or not.

So (1) what the hell difference does it make in this fight whether there is a god or not, and (2) why are we wasting time arguing over it?

Make up your damn mind, Don. Can science answer the question "is murder wrong", or can't it?

As I already told you, no, it can't.

As I also told you, moral beliefs can be investigated by science. You seem to think that investigating moral beliefs is the same thing as answering moral questions. They're not the same thing.

he idea that there exists anything other than the 'limited' sphere of things observable by science is an assumption for which there is no justification.

But what is the probability, not of a particular lineage, nor of a particular exhaustive set of characteristics, but of a tool using, language using species simpliciter?

Lenny: "So then ... you agree there are things that lie outside the arealm of scientific investigation?"

There's a great difference between saying that science cannot answer a question and saying that science cannot investigate it. As Don P said, science cannot ANSWER the question of murder's morality. This does not, however, place it "outside the realm of scientific investigation," because the morality can be investigated in a scientific manner.

There's a great difference between saying that science cannot answer a question and saying that science cannot investigate it. As Don P said, science cannot ANSWER the question of murder's morality. This does not, however, place it "outside the realm of scientific investigation," because the morality can be investigated in a scientific manner.

There's a great difference between saying that science cannot answer a question and saying that science cannot investigate it.

The evidence from science is inconsistent with the doctrine of a benevolent and omnipotent creator God for the reasons I have explained.

— Don P.

So then ... you agree there are things that lie outside the arealm of scientific investigation?

I have asked you if science can answer the question "is murder wrong". You said, "No, it can't". That sure sounds to ME like something "other than the limited sphere of things observable by science".

One does not need science to think life is incompatible with a benevolent and omnipotent creator God - people have been dying and suffering, and Jews and Christians defending God's goodness in the face of such suffering, for millenia. Modern science, including evolution, doesn't really provide any novel arguments against theodicy.

Furthermore, it seems to me that you are making the exact same error the ID people make: you are basing an argument based upon the statistical probability of an event (that if God exists, He is omnipotent and benevolent) for which you have no possible way of calculating the odds.

You can't say, "well, in this universe, which was created by an omnipotent and benevolent god, things work much differently, and it this one over here, which just appeared randomly, things look more like our universe, so that means it is more likely than not that our universe was not created by an omnipotent and benevolent creator." You are making this claim based upon various assumptions about what a benevolent and omnipotent creator would or wouldn't do, but those assumptions might as well be pulled out of your ass.

I will be more explicit. Each of Kenneth Miller, Howard van Till and Simon Conway Morris hold certain (distinct) theological beliefs, and also hold the belief that evolution through random mutation and natural selection is the best explanation of the diversity and adaptation of life on earth.

Sorry, but you are simply missing the point completely, over and over and over and over and over. Do you never tire of it? Religion's job has nothing to do with answering testable questions. Religion's job is to provide us with hopes and dreams, with values and preferences, with agreements and good will.

"make factual claims, truth claims, about the existence of various kinds of supernatural being and reality, about the nature of human beings, about the origin of the universe, and so on"

— Don P

Don P: "The idea that there exists anything other than the "limited" sphere of things observable by science is an assumption for which there is no justification."

The idea that there doesn't exist anything other than things observable by science is also an assumption. In your opinion, as Lenny was trying to point out, it is a plausible assumption, but by its very nature it is one neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to prove. It is in this way that the belief there is no God is also accurately considered an article of faith.

Then, the concept that some questions are not answerable by science (such as moral questions) is a fairly obvious one. You kept saying that religion nor any other non-scientific method provides an objective way of answering questions of morality, but you discount (with help from others who did not point this out) the presence of subjective methods.

Religions do make factual claims about this or that, but they also serve a function by providing a conceptual framework that helps people make these subjective analyses of morality. You can bash religion all you want, but as stated there is no way to disprove theism in general, and it does serve the function stated above, and has for millenia. My personal theory is that religions with their dictums have helped societies survive, and part of the reason they are so persistant is because cultures that embraced them have had a selective advantage. You can correctly claim science has disproven their beliefs in the past, but religious beliefs have always eventually accepted these findings and will adapt to the theory of evolution.

Finally, atheists generally aren't as "pernicious" (as Ken Willis stated) as IDists for a couple good reasons: 1. they aren't nearly as powerful 2. to my knowledge they aren't leading a nationwide movement to pass off their religious beliefs for science in schools. You claim Dawkins is equivalent of an IDer, but do you have an example of where he claims atheism to be demonstrable by the science then makes up some baloney pseudoscience fraudulent methodology to justify the statement? That is what IDists do, and that is our biggest qualm with them.

I should also have qualified the statement "Religions do make factual claims..." as Ron Zeno pointed out. Probably some religions and religious people accede their beliefs are in the subjective or speculative realms only, which would make my statement false. Although generally, it is true, as Don P said as well.

When it's convenient, religions are said to make no factual claims. Since, with trivial exceptions, none of the claims made by any religion are factually true, it's pretty much always convenient.

I don't know if it even makes sense to talk about probability in this context. We know that, at least by our definitions, such a thing happened after 4 billion years of random results. But what is the probability of any such category?

Personally, I don't think your species description is any more nor less likely than any OTHER description. Are you saying that because it describes YOU, it's special in some way that a description that describes the bacteria in your gut is not? Do you really NEED to pound your chest and struggle to convince yourself that you are superior? Why?

Then I would ask them why they think their theological beliefs are plausible in light of what science and ordinary human experience reveals to us. If we were created by an omnipotent and benevolent God, why is there so much suffering?

If we are the planned creation of an omnipotent and benevolent God, why does the scientific evidence suggest that we exist only because of a series of accidents, like the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs? Did God deliberately plant false evidence to mess with our heads?

If God wants us to believe he exists, why doesn't he make his existence self-evident to us, or at the very least provide some clear evidence of it?

As I have pointed out before, the clear tension between the premises of Christianity and the nature of the world as revealed by science is illustrated by the fact that so few scientists are devout Christians, especially top scientists. The more you learn about the world from science, the harder it is to believe that the claims of Christianity are anything more than primitive stories and wishful thinking.

So then ... you agree there are things that lie outside the arealm of scientific investigation?

Yes.

Unfortunately for you, those things cannot be investigated by religion either.

We humans are without question of moral significance; for we are the only beings on this planet capable of having moral values, of acting morally or immorally. That simple fact both acts as a counterexample to the fallacy, and underwrites as well as could be hoped any claim to religious significance by homo sapiens.

'But how about self-defense? How about military exercises? How about public safety? How about capital punishment?'

I think you missed the point. I mentioned war-it's tribalism plain and simple. All the other examples you mentioned help to enforce the social aspect of our species and hence our survivability. We are a social species. Again I see no reason why science could not one day uncover the answer to this question. To say that it is outside the realm of science from the get go if a faulty argument.

'All of these remove genes from the pool, but not nearly so many as some childhood diseases.'

yes they do. But they are not a direct result of a dismarmony in our social structure. All species deal with them.

'I suspect you may have decided a priori that murder is wrong (because we are taught this from infancy), and are now pasting a thin justification on it.'

I feel killing another is wrong. I personally don't remember any direct instruction on this issue. I feel wanting our species and it's members to survive is a natural instinct. I doubt many ants, bees, whales, and chimps contemplate the morality or murder of have to be taught not to do it. I think it is more likely an instinct to help the members of one's species survive.

' And so you say "in the majority of cases" but not in ALL cases, even though the genetic effect is identical in all cases.'

Not really, although I tend to agree with you here. A war, in nature and in us, is often one sect/nation against another for a variety fo reasons most often over resources. In that regard our wars are not so different than other animals.

'In any case, evolution works because NOT every organism survives to breed. That is, by selection.'

I agree, which is why the social costruct that makes us call murder bad is important. Evolution occurs across a population. Eliminating overly aggressive murderous individuals is a successful strategy in a social species.

'Personally, I don't accept your implication that being a murderer is genetic. In fact, I think that's absurd. Murder is a social convention; all organisms die.'

Your actually making my argument here. You have misunderstood my intent to some degree. Murder is a social convention. It is one deemed unaceptable by a social species as it creates a disharmony and is harmful to the population as a whole.

Having said that I don't think there is much doubt that some individuals are more prone to violent acts than others. The field is not level in this area. One simply has to visit any school and it is plain to see out of every 100 kids a few will be aggressive a few placid and many in between. There is obviously a genetic component. The same component seen in many animals from dogs, to birds, to whales.

Again, I think science will figure out the root causes of all of this, a good start is already there. We are a biological system. So even our thoughts of what is right or wrong are inherently biological. There is nothing about us that isn't.

Chance:

I seriously doubt that morality has the sort of biological reality I infer that you are saying. Or perhaps I see it the other way around: there is (IMO) such a thing as "human nature" which is biological. That nature places loose constraints on the sort of social organization we can sustain in a stable manner. So I think that to this extent our biology informs our morality, but I don't see a feedback happening, where our morality is doing any meaningful breeding selection.

It is clear that morality does influence selection, which we presume from observations of altruism and fairness in animals. Kin selection can account for this. But, Chance nevertheless seems to be making a presumption here. Just because moral systems generally can have a selection advantage, doesn't mean science has answered the questions of what is right an wrong. We can even investigate how our minds evolved to ask and answered some moral questions in certain ways, but that still doesn't make the answers right. In almost ever species, including our own, Nature's way is brutal and only mildly tempered by evolved morality. We will definitely try to improve on that basis, and even our current state, and that process is only informed by science rather than defined.

Morality is a word and it varies from person to person.Culture to culture. Nation to nation. All our actions are of a biological origin. They can be nothing else. If an action is performed, morality is simply the opinion placed on that action. Nothing more.

The action itself originates from a biological starting point. I'm trying not to presume anything. I'm trying to take it down to the base level. Science can discover and describe reasons for our biological responses. Our opinions, while based in our biological origins, will vary from tribe to tribe(culture to culture). Each having evolved to appreciate different survival aspects.

'I seriously doubt that morality has the sort of biological reality I infer that you are saying'

Why? If it's not biological what is it? Our thoughts are biological, our instincts, everything.

' So I think that to this extent our biology informs our morality, but I don't see a feedback happening, where our morality is doing any meaningful breeding selection.'

I disagree. I think there are plentiful examples. Again read Shermers book as he delves deeply into it.

' That nature places loose constraints on the sort of social organization we can sustain in a stable manner. '

The social organization IS our biology. Your making my argument, the biology of social constraint enables stability withinour species.

'Just because moral systems generally can have a selection advantage, doesn't mean science has answered the questions of what is right an wrong. '

Science will likely tell us WHY we think things are right or wrong and WHY we have formed such revulsion of certain behaviours. But I don't think science has even scratched the surface yet. So this is a conversation we should resume in say 20 years or so? See you then gang.:-)

An omnipotent and benevolent creator God is one of the premises of Christianity.

— Don P

I seriously doubt that morality has the sort of biological reality I infer that you are saying. Or perhaps I see it the other way around: there is (IMO) such a thing as "human nature" which is biological. That nature places loose constraints on the sort of social organization we can sustain in a stable manner. So I think that to this extent our biology informs our morality, but I don't see a feedback happening, where our morality is doing any meaningful breeding selection.

PS, not Chance's last comment anymore, but the one preceding Flint's that I quoted. I'm behind.

There is a common creationist fallacy that because humans are religiously important, therefore they must also be scientifically important, ie, in some sense the end of any biological process which produces them. Because evolution does not have humans as an end (as opposed to a product), theists who commit this fallacy are certain that evolution cannot be the story of how humans got here. There is also, unfortunately, a distressingly common fallacy amongst atheists: that because humans are not scientifically important (ie, not the "end" of the evolutionary process any more than bacteria or birds are), therefore they are not religiously important. This is supposed to be the essential discordance between religious belief and science - that religions assert the religious importance of humans, but that science shows they are not "anything special". Thus while creationists assert "If religiously important, then scientifically important"; these atheists assert the contraposition - but it is a fallacy in either case. The most that can be legitimately be asserted is that science does not provide independant confirmation of the suposed religious importance of humans. I think that is largely irrelevant, however. We humans are without question of moral significance; for we are the only beings on this planet capable of having moral values, of acting morally or immorally. That simple fact both acts as a counterexample to the fallacy, and underwrites as well as could be hoped any claim to religious significance by homo sapiens. The claim to religious significance fails not because it is without basis in the facts about humans; but because there is no God to underwrite it.

— Tom Curtis

If top scientists were noted for their theological sophistication, you might have a point. There is, however, no such thing as universal competence; and indeed, scientists in general are not noted for their theological (or philosophical sophistication). Nor should they be. A life devoted to studying science is, ipso facto, a life not devoted to studying philsophy or theology. The typical scientist's understanding of theology, therefore, is not likely to be much better than a typical theologians understanding of evolution. So while the data is evidence that science is incompatible with naive theologies (ie, fundamentalism); it is not relevant to the issue of the compatibility of science and religion in general. Being a scientist no more puts you in a priviliged position to judge theology than being a lawyer puts you in a privileged position to judge science.

— Tom Curtis

Tom Curtis:

We humans are without question of moral significance; for we are the only beings on this planet capable of having moral values, of acting morally or immorally. That simple fact both acts as a counterexample to the fallacy, and underwrites as well as could be hoped any claim to religious significance by homo sapiens.

— Flint

May I question this assertion? We observe "social norms" operating in other species, and we observe violations of those norms by individuals. We observe punishment meted out to the violators if they are caught. Should we project that we are seeing the operation of "moral values" in these behaviors, or should we insist that we are the only species so capable because WE SAY SO?

In my personal model, a moral tenet is a social protocol, nothing more. Social protocols are implemented in two ways: by convincing individuals from birth that they are the "right thing to do" so that we do them pretty much without thinking, or are appalled by the idea of breaking them, or at the very least feel guilty and unworthy if we do break them (enforcement by morality). And by declaring civil penalties for violation (passing laws against something) whereby the motivation to behave "properly" is disconnected from our sense of self-worth, and associated with the probability of getting caught times the penalty if we are. The first enforcement mechanism is what religion strives to instill, the second is entirely secular.

While there has been a great deal of interesting information and view points shared on this thread.....

In summary, the arguments:

Argument 1.

Atheist: There is no god.

Non Atheist: Is too.

Atheist: Is not!

Non Atheist: Is Too!

Atheist: Is Not!

Non Atheist: Is TOO!

Atheist: Is NOT!

IS TOO!

IS NOT!

Continue ad infinitum.

Argument 2.

Theist: There can be no morality without a belief in God.

Atheist: Sure there can.

Theist: Can not.

Atheist: Can Too.

Theist: Can Not!

Atheist: Can TOO!

Theist: CAN NOT!

Atheist: CAN TOO!!!

Continue ad infinitum.

Have I missed the basic grist?

Shenda

It's "gist", unless you meant your post to be grist for the mill.

And I'd like to think there's been a little more substance than that, but I'm not about to go back and read any of it again, tell you that.

Mike S with all due respect you are all wet.

'I think this exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding that many critics of Christianity (or of religious beliefs in general) have. Christianity is a combination of revelation (the Scriptures), rational argumentation (Christian philosophy and theology), and tradition.'

I'll give you the first one, the rational argumentation is just funny and then tradition is simply an argument from authority saying nothing about whether the underlying premises are correct or not. The critics are not wrong, whatever it is it still posits the omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Which is not a bad thing, but it is what is presented.

'Many critics of Christianity start with the assumption that its adherents have some sort of ulterior motives for their particular beliefs (e.g. control over people, economic power, political power, to explain away unpleasant aspects of reality, or to explain natural phenomena).'

OK, but your forgot about simple indoctrination and cultural forces. The simple fact is your religion is a product of your culture. And you haven't proven any of the assumptions incorrect.

'Thus your claim that an omnipotent and benevolent creator God is a premise of Christianity implies that someone set out to create a religion, and for whatever reason (e.g. to placate people insecure about their place in the world) developed a set of premises for it, one of which was that God must be omnipotent and benevolent.
But that is counterfactual - the theological claim that God is both omnipotent and benevolent has roots in revelation, rational arguments, and tradition within the church.'

Not rational arguments, arguments. What value is revelation really? I mean it could be revealed to me that you are totally wrong and you could provide no defense whatsoever outside of faith. And again tradition could just be building on the mistakes of a previous generation. No way to smell them out if you give deference to tradition as some form of idealistic endeavor. In science tradition is virtually nonexistent and an idea can be toppled with evidence and reality.

And whether you like it or not someone did set out to found each and every religion that exists in the world today. They were created and nursed by humans.

'ut why should any given individual care whether society is ordered? Especially if they would gain more personal power in a more anarchic society. If everybody adopted your "personal model", your personal model could not exist.'

This is so naive' I'm suprised to actually read it on a science board. An individual will care is society is ordered for the same reason any social species does, it's hardwired. We are social, it causes us emotional pain to be seperated or shunned from our 'herd'. You have a common misunderstanding of human behaviour and seem to think ALL humans seek more personal power. We have some aspects of 'alpha' or dominant males in our culture but the majority of humans seek to provide good lives for their families and concentrate more on subgroups/ aka families.

This was not always the case, as smaller populations tend to favor more concentrated power to a few individuals. You see a similiar event in communes and among certain religious groups where a leader emerges who monopolizes the commune and eventually the reproduction.

A good argument could be made that those who give their minds over to 'tradition' are simply following the perceived alpha leader without actually thinking for themselves. From a biological perspective that is.

In order to act morally or immorally, one must understand the difference between right and wrong, and be capable of freely choosing one or the other free of coercion.

Do you see the problem here?

Free societies depend upon people following social protocols - the alternative is either chaos or a totalitarian state.

And people following these social protocols depends upon them being inculcated in children, such that they learn to follow the norms instinctively.

But the way they are inculcated is by telling children that it is imperative that they follow these norms, even if nobody is watching.

Yet your "personal model" states that these norms don't have any external reason for existence, aside from keeping society ordered.

But why should any given individual care whether society is ordered?

Especially if they would gain more personal power in a more anarchic society.

If everybody adopted your "personal model", your personal model could not exist.

It is clear that morality does influence selection, which we presume from observations of altruism and fairness in animals.

Just for the record I'm a theist and I think you can have morality as a natural construct. As mentioned. So I guess it blows the gist.

This is the thread that will never die. Maybe it should now.

Later folks.

"It's "gist", unless you meant your post to be grist for the mill."

From Merriam-Webster OnLine:

Main Entry: grist
Pronunciation: 'grist
Function: noun

3 : matter of interest or value forming the basis of a story or analysis

Huh. Thanks. never seen it used thataway.

' I agree with you that we are *observing real moral behavior* in these animals (although Mike S disagrees), but I still don't see the feedback being significant.'

See here we go, I think you folks see it but don't A. want to accept it B. can't see the origins of 'morality' among simpler life forms.

You can see traces of what we call moral and immoral behaviour among many animals-higher and lower if such a term has validity at all. I mean what is 'real' moral behaviour. Morality is an opinion and nothing more. What you are actually talking about is behaviour among an animal species- homo sapiens. Then assigning a value to it.

Imagine if you were an alien field researcher studying homo sapiens. Through that lens you would make observations of behaviour minus the 'moral' opinion. Using said observations your determining nature for an action would have a biological origin. Just as when we see ants attack another colony, chimps hunting monkeys or making war, etc.

It's only our language and our prejudices which keeps this from being fairly obvious.

'I'm sure there is some, but I consider morality to be a general category of behaviors not very reducible to genetics. In other words, I think gregariousness is heritable, so perhaps morality in the abstract (institutionalizing what works through socialization) reduces breeding opportunities for non-gregarious individuals. But specific behaviors (though shalt not do X, but always do Y) are highly cultural.'

But again ones actions in said culture is often determined to a large degree by ones genetic predispositions. It's unlikely a timid individual will rise to the alpha position, likewise the overly aggressive individual may not succeed do to the 'herd' response to their actions.

Thats it for me, great conversation but man this thread is to long.

20 years we'll pick it up folks.

"Huh. Thanks. never seen it used thataway."

An English degree is occasionally (but not often) useful. :(

An English degree is occasionally (but not often) useful.

— Shenda

Well, in either case it's better than a degree Celsius. %:->

In science tradition is virtually nonexistent and an idea can be toppled with evidence and reality.

A good argument could be made that those who give their minds over to 'tradition' are simply following the perceived alpha leader without actually thinking for themselves. From a biological perspective that is.

I think we are talking past one another, which often happens in discussions of this sort.

In the cases I had in mind, this is *exactly* how I interpret the known behavior. The individuals know they're violating norms. They know they risk punishment by doing so. They calculate the odds, and sometimes cheat. As I see it, the only way to dismiss this behavior as "not understanding what they're doing" is to DECLARE that they don't understand, behavior be damned. These species are by all indications making moral choices.

Totalitarian states ARE societies. I said nothing about "free"; this is a loaded political term.

And people following these social protocols depends upon them being inculcated in children, such that they learn to follow the norms instinctively.

Yes, this is one way. Speaking generally, moral rules won't work otherwise. Our efforts to legislate morality are worse than a failure, they are the poster child for the Law of Unintended Consequences. It doesn't work.

But why should any given individual care whether society is ordered?

You are assuming your conclusion. There is no such thing as an "anarchic society", since anarchy is the absence of any society. And in such an absense, personal power is meaningless. Personal power is a *social construct*, and makes sense only within that framework.

It's only "loaded" if you want to argue that there is no moral difference between totalitarian and free societies. If that is the case, there really is a chasm between our respective understandings of morality.

My point was precisely that our legal system would be moot without the vast majority of people instincively obeying the rules. If all we had was the coercive power of our legal system to control people's behavior, either the system would break down or the state would have to completely control everyone's lives - hence, a totalitarian state.

I don't understand why this statement and the previous one are not contradictory.

Not to the person with power. Iraq was such a society when Saddam was in charge, but it was great for him

This is an artificial distinction. Places like Liberia, or Haiti, are anarchic, but there are still groups of people there interacting with each other.

personal power in such a context may seem meaningless to you, but it's not to the warlord, or 16 year old thug

Not to insult the several rather thoughtful people who have contributed into turning this thread into a discussion of morality, but discusssing morality with a Christian is kind of like discussing sexual technique with an eighty-year-old virgin: they have neither knowledge of the subject nor the ability or courage to act upon any useful information offered to them.
To set forth my ultimate indictment of many humans, and most Christians, and all Xians: they have no interest in seeing things working out in their own compromsed-but-increasingly-reasoned-ever-disorderly way, in a human and therefore very "imperfect" (by their standards) world, but in their ideals, which they have no stake in save pride, being proclaimed supreme, at varying costs of (others') life.

(Get'm here, folks! Long, convoluted sentences!)

Have I missed the basic grist?

I'm recycling my electrons.

May I question this assertion? We observe "social norms" operating in other species, and we observe violations of those norms by individuals. We observe punishment meted out to the violators if they are caught. Should we project that we are seeing the operation of "moral values" in these behaviors, or should we insist that we are the only species so capable because WE SAY SO? In my personal model, a moral tenet is a social protocol, nothing more. Social protocols are implemented in two ways: by convincing individuals from birth that they are the "right thing to do" so that we do them pretty much without thinking, or are appalled by the idea of breaking them, or at the very least feel guilty and unworthy if we do break them (enforcement by morality). And by declaring civil penalties for violation (passing laws against something) whereby the motivation to behave "properly" is disconnected from our sense of self-worth, and associated with the probability of getting caught times the penalty if we are. The first enforcement mechanism is what religion strives to instill, the second is entirely secular.

So what difference does it make, in the fight against ID, if there is a god or not, and why the hell are we wasting so many electrons arguing over it?

Not to insult the several rather thoughtful people who have contributed into turning this thread into a discussion of morality, but discusssing morality with a Christian is kind of like discussing sexual technique with an eighty-year-old virgin: they have neither knowledge of the subject nor the ability or courage to act upon any useful information offered to them.

Given the above, I am prepared to concede for the sake of argument that higher primates and some cetaceans (and possibly some other animals) are capable of moral agency. This would just mean a putative god would have reason to be interested in them also. It would not challenge humanities special status on this planet. The moral capacity of humans for good or ill far outstrips that of any other animal without question.

Finally, this stark (as I see it) moral contrast between humans and other animals is not a significant biological contrast.

Well, we aren't going to agree here. I see it as a PURELY biological result of the computing power of a given brain. I'm not sure what to think about your associating this power so tightly to the ability to articulate our thoughts. I wonder --- do you think dogs think in words, because they can trained to obey verbal commands? How about parrots? I personally have a hard time regarding the behavir as "moral" of any organism incapable of constructing a behavioral model --- IF I do this, THAT will happen. That is, organisms that are strictly stimulus-response.

As I read it, what you are describing is the mental horsepower necessary to think abstractly enough to be able to (more or less) predict the consequences of one's actions. With that predictive ability comes a corollary - the notion that we can (more or less) *control* those consequences by behaving differently. And in this context, morality is one step more abstract: given that we are able to exercise this control, we can encourage organized behavior which by trial and error turns out to produce what we approximate as the greatest good for the greatest number, within a society. And the more clearly any desired behaviors are codified, the larger the society that can operate under them.

　　Dear Tom,

Um, I believe it's being pointed out that your posing has become tiresome, especially as it seems grossly out of place.

Now, c'mon! Have you been talking with Dr. King recently? You little pompous ass! As you have exposed yourself here, you are a VERY silly person. No doubt you scanvenge the bottom of web sites around the world, sucking up comments you can hold in contempt, and yet remain unsatiated.
I'll just be moving on now. Believe me when I say I'll never knowingly bother reading or responding to you again: today's contempt for me will have to be made to last!

darwinfinch,

Apparently you are unable to notice a past tense when it hits you in the face. I will revise my estimate of your intelligence accordingly.

I notice also that you have total disregard to how offensive your remark would have been to Christians, some of whom are very valuable contributers to the PT. The obvious offence with which you took my remark marks you as a hypocrite. Duly noted.

I have noticed that on the PT there are a clique of atheists who believe their atheism gives them the right to be offensive to all, and shallow thinkers to boot. If you wish to include yourself in that group, it will not lessen my opinion of you.