Healthypages

Is evolution an argument for atheism?

Discussion in 'Scientific Matters' started by Principled, Dec 2, 2009.

  1. Principled

    Principled Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    229
    This talk that I heard a couple of weeks ago is a good springboard for a discussion. I wasn't sure whether to put it here, on Philosophy, or on the General Faiths pages - please feel free to move it Mods.

    Daniel asks several questions here, particularly, "Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism?", "What is truth?" and "What is science?"

    In the 19thC, mathematics, metaphysics and theology were all included in what was termed "science".

    “Evolution, revolution: Exploring science and religion/spirituality” by Daniel Scott PhD

    Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism? This lecture argues that not only did Darwin believe in God, but today we can intelligently understand the nature of God without pushing aside scientific discoveries. Daniel looks beyond the popular evolution vs. creationism debate and explores the nature of God as a scientific reality.

    Judy
     
  2. Barafundle

    Barafundle New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi Judy,

    I've always thought it strange that certain fundamentalist Christians can't credit God with more imagination than the limited one they possess themselves, and atheists who think that evolution disproves the existence of God are only reacting to very simplistic evangelical interpretations of scripture and are equally limited in imagination.
     
    2 people like this.
  3. Boson Higgs

    Boson Higgs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    16
    Barafundle, I agree with every word you say and I'll go as far as to say the statement: "Is evolution an argument for atheism?" is a non sequitur.
    Atheism= A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's all the word means, nothing more nothing less. A person can be an atheist and reject evolution, and a person can accept evolution and be religious.
    A fine example of the latter would be: Kenneth Raymond Miller. Miller is as fine a champion of Darwinian evolution as anyone could hope to find, Yet he is a devout roman catholic. Indeed it was Miller's testimony that helped put Michael Behe and the other creationist loons to the sword in the Kizmiller V Dover trial.

    Ken Miller is one wicked smart dude, a lovely bloke. Here is one of the most definitive lectures ever given on the subject of evolution.

    Erm... It's very long and hideously complex.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

    This is a wee snippet from the lecture.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

    And this is the biggest lunatic in the known universe.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs&feature=related

    Enjoy :D
     
  4. meta

    meta New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    An Atheist or a Christian, who talks about God, is like darkness talking about light.
     
  5. sunanda

    sunanda New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,630
    Likes Received:
    10
    Now that's what I call a profound soundbite, meta. You obviously thought long and hard about that one.
     
  6. meta

    meta New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    It took me about 4 billion years come up with that. sorry it took so long.
    Meta is sooooooooooooo slow.
     
  7. Principled

    Principled Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    229
    Yes quite. I might be wrong, but whenever I see him banging on about evolution, it appears that that is Richard Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.

    Hi Bosun,

    2 hours I don’t have to watch a lecture!! Daniel’s is an hour and that’s probably long enough for most people! It’s really interesting from a historical point of view, quite apart from its other content.

    I watched the (too short) clip you gave which was good and the grammatically-wrongly-titled banana one. :rolleyes: Daft!

    Judy
     
  8. Boson Higgs

    Boson Higgs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    16
    Meta. You're referring to yourself in the third person! This is not a good sign fella.
     
  9. Boson Higgs

    Boson Higgs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    16
    No Judy.
    The main argument against the existence of god is the total lack of evidence of said entity.
     
  10. meta

    meta New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fella???? how cute
     
  11. meta

    meta New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prove the non existance of God, and you will discover Him.
    Meta.
     
  12. meta

    meta New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darwin's theory of evolution from a material basis is more consistent than most theories. Mary BAker Eddy
     
  13. Principled

    Principled Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    229
    Can Love be quantified Bosun? Can Love be measured? When did Love begin?
    But there's plenty of evidence for Love (and that is another name for God) ;)

    Judy
     
  14. Boson Higgs

    Boson Higgs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    16
    Judy.
    Your reply was nothing more than rhetorical slight of hand. A red herring.
     
  15. Principled

    Principled Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    229
    Bosun,

    As usual, you side-step my questions.

    I haven’t time to to write any more for a few days (and besides, it's pointless with you) but here are some quotes I like from Daniel’s talk above:
    And I copied this a few years ago as it was so logical and sensible
    Judy
     
  16. Boson Higgs

    Boson Higgs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    16
    Judy.
    The quotes you quote from Daniels talk are not from Daniel.
    Quote:
    1) Thomas Kuhn.
    2) Hilary Lawson.
    3) Paul Davies.

    The whole substance of his website is quoting others. I have spent a considerable amount of time today researching "Dr Daniel R D Scott phd."

    From his website:

    However!
    The University of Cambridge have no record of Daniel being awarded a Doctor of Philosophy, and I can find no publications by the published mathematician "Dr Daniel R D Scott phd."

    Read into that what you will. I don't mean to do the man an injustice, but perhaps you could contact him directly and ask him for a copy of his bona fides.

    His use of the terms "scientism" and "scientific metaphysics". Suggest he knows not of what he speaks.

    Last and by no means least: deacon George.

    Right click and "save as" before I get banned!
     
    #16 Boson Higgs, Dec 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2009
  17. Barafundle

    Barafundle New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    4
    Perhaps it's more accurate to say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God as they conceive Him/Her to be. They make the same mistake as religious fundamentalists who limit the idea of God to being exclusively the one they have.

    As for evidence for God, there are millions of people who have evidence sufficient to convince them of His/Her existence. It's no real surprise if an atheist doesn't see the evidence, they're not looking for it.
     
    #17 Barafundle, Dec 4, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2009
  18. norbu

    norbu New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to me that the need to use language to declare existence or non-existence is really a linguistic trap. We can describe things for sure and come to some consensus about what happens when some set of conditions is observed. If you look for what "exists" you will, I think, find that all you can do is describe processes. I believe that the only meaningful debates that can take place are about "what happens when."

    Norbu
     
  19. calla lily

    calla lily Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    11,453
    Likes Received:
    24
    If you would like to get banned Boson Higgs, I'm sure we can arrange that for you :D, but seeing as it's the season of goodwill, I've done an edit instead to remove the youtube video link. Why? because we have minors/those who might be offended on religious grounds to consider.

    On behalf of the Moderating Team,

    calla lily
     
  20. meta

    meta New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wowwwwwww I never knew that people still think of God as an entity, Thought those days were long gone.
    What a concept. Now I understand why Boston Higgs can't accept the possible.

    Maybe thats why there are Atheists, They reject the impossible, and I don't blame them.

    A disaffected Meta.
     

Share This Page

This site uses XenWord.