Connections

[BornAgain]

Yes, I would also say that most of the Christians I spoke with had completely lost the ability to engage in rational thought. 

Of course, TX, this remark of mine was meant to parody your similar comment on atheists at the site you visited.  In thinking about it more I realize that it is a matter of having trouble thinking outside the box.  This can hold true for anyone, not just the religious.  Take continental drift.  The evidence for it on the surface of the Earth was pretty obvious, but researchers had a hard time accepting it.  Wikipedia says:

The hypothesis that continents 'drift' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. However, it was not until the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the 1960s, that a sufficient geological explanation of that movement was understood.

I was in highschool in the early 1970s but my geology teacher seemed not to have heard of it.  We were given several possible explanations for mountain building but never once was continental drift included in the explanation.

We can talk about gradualism.  Most earth scientists were locked into a mind set of gradual change.  There was evidence that sometimes change must be rapid but if you believe the opposite is true then the evidence for rapid change is difficult to see.

In evolution most biologists were locked into Darwin's notions of adaptation and for a long time other possibilities were difficult to see. 

But it is not just scientists this is true for.  The religious have the same problem.  Many are locked into believing certain things about their faith and have a difficult time thinking outside the box.  It's a human failing.  Those from outside the discipline, or outside the faith, might not have the same constraints.

[txpiper]

Hi BA,

"I think TX, it might be more a matter of people being annoyed that someone comes along and insists that they must have no sense of purpose when in fact they do."

No, they were annoyed with my questions about mutations and selection. The TOE hangs hopelessly and completely on those, and the biology folks got very agitated when I pointed out the statistical problems that go along with the idea of accidental DNA replication errors producing functional proteins and millions of species with millions of specialized features. Plus, the dawkinites are the orthodox camp, which emphasizes natural selection. They have inflated that concept into a personality.

I tried repeatedly to get one of them to list the intermediate purpose that the TOE demands for something like an eardrum, which would be useless until the integrated system was functioning. What they would do was 1) post some sappy commentary they thought addressed the issue 2) tell me that I just don't understand how evolution works 3) try to change the subject to the antichrist or something like that 4) point out my "personal incredulity" 5) assure me there are "mountains of evidence" for the theory. Everything but respond to my question. It was interesting, but it would be a lot more fun to debate them in front of an auditorium full of people.

[BornAgain]

Hi TX,
First of all... TOE?  I Googled it and got 'theory of everything', a term from physics.  I do seem to recall you mentioning it before, but I don't recall what it means.  If it is from physics is it applicable to evolutionary biology?

On the matter of purpose in our lives, most people, atheists included, have plenty of that.  It sounds like you got under their skin for other reasons, but having purpose does not require that one believe in God.  You believe in a creator God, this belief, and other things associated with it, give you purpose.  Atheists, must of necessity believe in a purposeless universe.  Do you think as a consequence atheists cannot have purpose?  Did I understand you properly or did I misconstrue your meaning?

[txpiper]

BA,

“First of all... TOE?”

Theory of evolution


“On the matter of purpose in our lives, most people, atheists included, have plenty of that.  It sounds like you got under their skin for other reasons, but having purpose does not require that one believe in God.  You believe in a creator God, this belief, and other things associated with it, give you purpose.  Atheists, must of necessity believe in a purposeless universe.  Do you think as a consequence atheists cannot have purpose?”

I barely got into philosophical or “religious” stuff with them, though some of them would not let up on things like the antichrist.

A purposeless universe does, by definition, necessitate the elimination of a lot of conceptual things that I think humans are programmed with. One of those, and I did have a brief exchange with one of the dawkinites about this, is atonement and subjects related to it like justice and vindication. I think atheists have to work to get rid of things like this and are by and large unsuccessful in doing so. Survival of the fittest sounds good in sterile scientific terms, but it is not an appreciated norm in any human culture. I’ve pointed out before that most atheists I’ve ever encountered have acute ethical awareness, but that does not square with evolution. The science journals routinely have articles in them that struggle with how and why humans acquired “right and wrong” sensibilities.

[BornAgain]

Atheists, must of necessity believe in a purposeless universe.  Do you think as a consequence atheists cannot have purpose?”

I am not sure you answered this.  Earlier you said,

I'm afraid most of them are unreachable cultural religious casualties with absolutely no sense of purpose.

Are you backing down on this earlier comment.  How would you know whether someone had no purpose unless they told you this?  I was guessing that you were just stabbing blindly in the dark and making a comment based on your knowledge that atheists believe in a puposeless universe.

You said:

A purposeless universe does, by definition, necessitate the elimination of a lot of conceptual things that I think humans are programmed with. One of those, and I did have a brief exchange with one of the dawkinites about this, is atonement and subjects related to it like justice and vindication.

I don't think these things matter much to atheists, at least in the sense that they don't believe in a creator god that doles out consequences for human actions.  Personally I have never wrestled with these ideas.  When God goes out the door so does any notion of atonement.  It is a non-issue.

What is a dawkinite?  What does a dawkinite believe?  Would you speak of a gouldite or a margulisite?  I don't think this an accurate way to portray evolutionary theory proponents.  Did this individual identify himself as a dawkinite?

I think atheists have to work to get rid of things like this and are by and large unsuccessful in doing so.

No TX.  They are non-issues.  You are talking about religious constructs that have no meaning without God.

Survival of the fittest sounds good in sterile scientific terms, but it is not an appreciated norm in any human culture.

I don't follow.  Are you saying that in evolutionary terms survival of the fitest never applied to humans?

I’ve pointed out before that most atheists I’ve ever encountered have acute ethical awareness, but that does not square with evolution.

Sure it does.   Can you give me an example of what you mean?

The science journals routinely have articles in them that struggle with how and why humans acquired “right and wrong” sensibilities.

Dawkins and others see evolution at work here.  I think in choosing the word struggle you are creating a false sense of uncertainty for evolutionists.  The articles I've read show that evolutionists are not puzzled at all by this.  Ethics can be a problem for those of faith, though.  I say this because there are no universal ethical behaviours that apply across the board.  Even 'thou shall not kill' really only means 'you shall not kill members of the tribe'.  The Old Testament demonstrates over and over that neither the Israelites nor Yahweh had any problem with killing non-Jews.  Even in slavery Jews could be slaves only for set time periods but non-Jews were slaves for life as were the children of non-Jewish slaves.  This may be the one common denominator.  Rules put in place to protect and set limits on behaviour often did not apply to outsiders.

[txpiper]

BA,

“Are you backing down on this earlier comment.  How would you know whether someone had no purpose unless they told you this?

I think Prof Dawkins himself admits that something is missing for atheists when he says that evolution provides them with intellectual satisfaction. I don’t buy that idea. I think it just provides a distraction that helps numb the awareness that they can only have a fate, since they aren’t allowed to believe in a destiny.

But how could you know that you have a purpose in a purposeless universe?


“I don't think these things [atonement and subjects related to it like justice and vindication] matter much to atheists, at least in the sense that they don't believe in a creator god that doles out consequences for human actions.”

I think this is an illusion. I don’t think there are very many atheists who completely ignore the restraints of conscience, even though they are philosophically bound to disregard the idea that there is such a thing. I expect they use the word “wrong” as often as believers do.


“When God goes out the door so does any notion of atonement.  It is a non-issue.”

Any legitimate system of justice you might care to name is about atonement.


“What is a dawkinite?  What does a dawkinite believe?  Would you speak of a gouldite or a margulisite?  I don't think this an accurate way to portray evolutionary theory proponents.”

Dawkins emphasizes selection, while some other evolutionists see selection as a weak spot in the paradigm. I see the camps divided into orthodox Darwinists and neo/reformed factions.

Mao’s fans had his little red book, Scientologists have Dianetics…, Marxists have the Manifesto, Dawkins devotees have The God Delusion. This is not about acceptance of evolution. It is ideological/religious pursuit, not a scientific one. Dawkins paranoia about religion attracts a particular variety of inpenitent people.


“No TX.  They are non-issues.  You are talking about religious constructs that have no meaning without God.”

I don’t think so. If someone in your family is a victim of a violent crime, I expect you will want justice like everybody else. The constructs do have meaning, and it isn’t about survival of the species or any other such nonsense. It is because humans come with a conscience installed. They know it if they’ve been victimized just like they know if they are guilty.


“I don't follow.  Are you saying that in evolutionary terms survival of the fitest never applied to humans?”

Oh I’m sure it applies to humans in certain circumstances all the time. But in a normal, un-distressed cultural setting, it is aberrant behavior. Conditioning to the idea that humans have an evolutionary past prompts you to say “never applied” which infers that there was a time when the strong destroying the weak was a reasonable, species-enhancing thing. I don’t think it has ever been normal. 


“Dawkins and others see evolution at work here.” 

Altruism being “selected for” is the only thing Dawkins would be able to see. That’s one of the things that I argued with his fans about. Natural selection has been morphed into a discriminating personality. This came up several times, once was when I asked why genes that deliberately cause aging were selected for. I didn’t think they managed that particular question very well.
 

“I think in choosing the word struggle you are creating a false sense of uncertainty for evolutionists.”

Oh I don’t think so at all. If they weren’t disturbed by the paradox involved, they wouldn’t still be publishing awkward proposals to account for it. The dilemma is that they have to appreciate “nature red in tooth and claw” for getting us here, but they want it to stop now. They just can’t quite put their finger on why.

[BornAgain]

Are you backing down on this earlier comment.  How would you know whether someone had no purpose unless they told you this?

I think Prof Dawkins himself admits that something is missing for atheists when he says that evolution provides them with intellectual satisfaction. I don’t buy that idea. I think it just provides a distraction that helps numb the awareness that they can only have a fate, since they aren’t allowed to believe in a destiny.

TX, you can't presume to know how other people feel.  If they say they are self-satisfied they are.  Second, Dawkins speaks for himself, he can't speak for others.  He has never said that something is missing for atheists.  If you think he has then give me the exact quote; and, besides, if he thinks something is missing from his life that doesn't mean the same thing is missing from mine.  Anything I am missing he could well have in spades.  You cannot make generalizations.  I have never read that Dawkins thinks this way and I did read The God Delusion where he discusses these matters at length.  I don't imagine you have read more than excerpts from the book.  Have you read it?  I shouldn't presume to know what you've read. 

I want to return to your assumption that Dawkins thinks atheists are missing something in their lives.  What does he say exactly, that evolution provides intellectual satisfaction?  Well, what if it does.  It's rewarding to know something of human origins.  Don't you think this much is true.  Admittedly you believe that God created man by gathering clay from the ground and moulding it to form a human.  You think that God put Adam to sleep, removed a single rib, and then fashioned woman from the rib.  Do you receive satisfaction from knowing this?  Would you say that you receive more satisfaction from knowing this than from knowing nothing?  I think you would admit to that. 

You may know that I am interested in genealogy.  It has been an interest of mine since I was in my early teens.  I've learned, for example, that I have ancestors who were Puritans.  They arrived in Salem some thirty years after the Mayflower dropped anchor and an uncle of mine was involved in the infamous witch trials.  I receive a certain satisfaction from knowing this, in fact it propels me to learn even more.   Do you think that my admission that I receive satisfaction from this knowledge points to a hole in my life.  Does it mean I am missing something?  Does your satisfaction from knowing the story of Adam and Eve mean you are missing something in your life?  Is there a hole there TX?  I suspect there might be (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).  Does Dawkins claim that he receives satisfaction from knowing the evolutionary origin of life mean he too is missing something?  No.  Receiving satisfaction from knowledge we possess does not mean there is a void in our lives, TX.  It only means we have received joy from what we have studied and learned.  Don't try to read anything more into it than that. 

I will say it once more; you cannot presume to know how others feel.  You cannot presume that those who don't believe the things you do are suffering some emptiness just because they don't believe what you believe.   

But how could you know that you have a purpose in a purposeless universe?

Let's narrow down what it is you actually mean.  You are asking how I could sense that I have a purpose beyond this life if the universe itself is purposeless?  I think this is what you are asking.  It is not my death that has purpose, TX; it is my life.  I do not think I live on.  Death is final for all of us, even for yourself, though you do not know it.  It is your beliefs (your interests) that give you purpose.  My children and a host of other things give my life purpose. 

I am on holiday right now.  During the work year I wake up at 6:30 AM and just lie there wishing I had more time to sleep.  Now that I am on holidays I find myself jumping out of bed to get the day started.  I have so many things I would like to do there is no way I can fit them all in.  I am enjoying myself, TX.  The weather report called for a cool mourning, but clear, and in anticipation I went out and purchased some cool weather cycling threads last night.  I was hoping to wear them today, but alas it is overcast and raining.  Ah, well, tomorrow they are calling for fair weather and sun.  I'll go tomorrow.  Today I will get other things done. 

Canada's best know scientist is David Suzuki, a geneticist and by chance, an agnostic, I think.  I read his biography a few years back, and now he has a new one.  I should tell you, though he lives life without reference to God his enthusiasm for life, science and environmentalism is palpable.  Purpose, TX.  Purpose.  It comes from many arenas and, though belief in God and an afterlife provides it for some, others have their own sources.

The following is a very interesting interview with Suzuki done in the USA in 2006.  Many of the issues raised are on things we have discussed.  Suzuki shows that he has a purpose and that it is possible to have purpose in arenas that are independent of belief in God.  He does not discus his personal beliefs regarding God in this interview, he simply makes no reference to God, but his enthusiasm for life is obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWtBkZSBpX0

[BornAgain]

But how could you know that you have a purpose in a purposeless universe?

I'll try this another way.  If you are happy and feel excited about tomorrow then your life has purpose.  I am not talking about an afterlife.  That doesn't exist, not from my perspective. 

[bookworm]

But how could you know that you have a purpose in a purposeless universe?

I'll try this another way.  If you are happy and feel excited about tomorrow then your life has purpose.  I am not talking about an afterlife.  That doesn't exist, not from my perspective. 

I think you have oversimplified things here. If this is true, then is it true that if you are sad and don't feel excited about tomorrow, then your life has no more purpose to it?

[BornAgain]

But how could you know that you have a purpose in a purposeless universe?

I'll try this another way.  If you are happy and feel excited about tomorrow then your life has purpose.  I am not talking about an afterlife.  That doesn't exist, not from my perspective. 

I think you have oversimplified things here. If this is true, then is it true that if you are sad and don't feel excited about tomorrow, then your life has no more purpose to it?

That's pretty much it.  It is called depression.  Though there may be various causes someone who suffers depression often feels their life has no value or that life isn't worth living.  Someone who feels like this probably has lost their sense of purpose.

You could also be right in saying I haven't thought this through.  I was responding to the thought from TX that without God we live in a purposeless universe and as such atheists can have no purpose in their lives -- which is clearly wrong. 

[BornAgain]

TX, it has occurred to me I never asked you what you meant by purpose.  I just presumed to know.  You were talking about what happens in the afterlife?  Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[txpiper]

BA,

“TX, it has occurred to me I never asked you what you meant by purpose.  I just presumed to know.  You were talking about what happens in the afterlife?  Anyone else have thoughts on this?”

When I brought this subject up, it was in reference to the folks I have been talking to. They have what I consider and inordinate enthusiasm for evolution and things related to that idea. I suppose what I mean is that if I was a truly convinced atheist, and felt sure that there is no afterlife, the last thing I would be concerned with would be the creation/evolution debate. There would be no point in it. It would not be a critical issue, because in a purposeless universe, correctness has no value. This makes me think that the people I was engaging are to a large degree, whistling ideologically in the dark.
 
You wrote that “Suzuki shows that he has a purpose and that it is possible to have purpose in arenas that are independent of belief in God”. This is not what I mean by purpose. I consider having a purpose to be more than having interests. I see it as having to do with reasons for why we exist, not just enjoying or enduring existence.

For me, as a regenerate person, the dynamics of purpose work completely differently. It isn’t about temporary stimulus or anything like that. I see human life in the context of Romans 9:15-28, which I think is an extremely profound (disturbing for some people) commentary on what is really going on.

[Havok]

TXPiper:

No, they were annoyed with my questions about mutations and selection. The TOE hangs hopelessly and completely on those, and the biology folks got very agitated when I pointed out the statistical problems that go along with the idea of accidental DNA replication errors producing functional proteins and millions of species with millions of specialized features.

Actually TX, what you said was along the lines of "I can't believe this could happen". Not once have I seen you provide evidence to back up your assertions that mutations, replication errors etc couldn't produce functional proteins. As the guys on RD.net have told you, that constitutes an argument from incredulity.

Plus, the dawkinites are the orthodox camp, which emphasizes natural selection. They have inflated that concept into a personality.
You're talking here of the use of "personal" language when talking about evolution? As has also been pointed out to you there, this makes it easier to explain to laymen, but is in no way a necessary part of the explanation.

I tried repeatedly to get one of them to list the intermediate purpose that the TOE demands for something like an eardrum, which would be useless until the integrated system was functioning.

What they would do was 1) post some sappy commentary they thought addressed the issue

You were pointed towards actual peer reviewed research papers which demonstrated all that you had asked for. It was you who quoted sections without providing the surrounding context, in the hopes it would support your case, without understanding the actual content of the paper.

2) tell me that I just don't understand how evolution works

Following along with your assertions and arguments from personal ignorance, it is pretty clear that you don't

3) try to change the subject to the antichrist or something like that 4) point out my "personal incredulity"

Actually, they were not subject changes, they were demonstrating that you saying evolution was ridiculous, while holding such ludicrous beliefs (ice shield) was absurd. I'm not surprised it sailed over your head

5) assure me there are "mountains of evidence" for the theory.

You were assured there was mountains of evidence while being given links to papers which would demonstrate that evidence.

Everything but respond to my question.

Your questions were responded to. I didn't see too much evidence of you responding to their questions. In fact from memory you still owe an explanation of the floor theory you carry around, given your previous assertions concerning it were thoroughly debunked.

It was interesting, but it would be a lot more fun to debate them in front of an auditorium full of people.

Live debates can be fun, but they're not the best way to determine the accuracy of something - too much showmanship. Now, putting time an effort into a research paper, and publishing it so anyone can read it, learn from it, take it apart etc seems to be a much better way to determine this. You've been asked for research papers (preferably peer reviewed) supporting your position. You're yet to supply any.

[Havok]

TXPiper:

Survival of the fittest sounds good in sterile scientific terms, but it is not an appreciated norm in any human culture.

You obviously don't understand what the term means. It doesn't mean strongest. It means msot able to pass on genes.

I’ve pointed out before that most atheists I’ve ever encountered have acute ethical awareness, but that does not square with evolution.

Social animals have evolved this awareness, which is why they are and can be social. Chimps have it. Wolves have it. How does it not squeare with evolution?

The science journals routinely have articles in them that struggle with how and why humans acquired “right and wrong” sensibilities.

There is actually a lot of good research showing how and why that came about. You could pick up "The origin of Virtue" by Matt Ridley, for a good read. You might learn something.

[Havok]

TXPiper:

I think Prof Dawkins himself admits that something is missing for atheists when he says that evolution provides them with intellectual satisfaction. I don’t buy that idea.

Meaning there is no requirement to invoke Yahweh to account for the origin and diversity of species. Prior to evolution, special creation was still a going concern scientifically, though change over time was accepted, there didn't seem to be a mechanism for it.

I think it just provides a distraction that helps numb the awareness that they can only have a fate, since they aren’t allowed to believe in a destiny.

I have no idea what you mean here.