What do you believe?

[Irish Oisin]

The interesting thing is that science is about repeatable results, without the capability to do repeatable experiments involving the "chain of life" evolutionary theory has always been in a tricky philosophical position. That an it violates several rather more tested theories, including Information Theory. 

 

Ok, there you are saying the first part, the second part of what I said about you saying creationism agrees with tested theories was implied. Now, if you weren't implying that, I would love for you to clarify this point.

 

Evolution involves a lot of mutations as well, so yes, some of them aren't perfect and can be inefficient while the next step can be an improvement. That's why it's evolution and not "intelligent design". To say that evolution is hysterically unlikely while claiming that creationism is the answer is, well, hysterical in itself, "we are here, therefore we must have been placed here because a god wanted to create life" it is intellectually dishonest because it's a closed discussion. This way, every question has the same answer; "God did it", and that, logically, is inherently flawed.

[Artinum]

So nobody actually disagrees with a), in terms of b, the idea that God will not change the outcome is part of the birth of rationalism and science as I said. It's based on the premise that because God is perfect and consistent he has no reason to. Even though being outside the system he can without changing the rules.

 

Nobody disagrees with (a) as the concept is entirely hypothetical. IF God exists AND God is omnipotent/omniscient, THEN God could do anything. That's not exactly helpful. If I had a time machine I could have invented the bicycle. The logic is perfect; the conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong. I do not have a time machine.

Likewise, saying an omniptent God could have created everything is fine in a logical sense. But the initial assumptions are just that - assumptions. If we accept those, there's nothing to argue. And you've made three - 1. existence, 2. omnipotence, 3. intent - any one of which could be disputed.

Point ( is indeed the point of rationalism - that God does not change the outcomes, because this would make them inconsistent. It's not based on any premise about God being perfect. It's based on the grounds of God not being involved (whether because he's not interested or because he's not actually there being another topic of discussion).

 

Also, the thing we don't disagree on is that we are here. I disagree on the origins and timescales but you can't advance the argument "we are here, therefore we must have evolved" it is intellectually dishonest to propose to hold to rationalism and science then advance a faith in evolutionary theory. I do understand that without a belief in God it must seem the only possible answer and all I'm trying to say is that the idea of creation doesn't violate the observed laws of the universe because they would have been put in place by the same creator, at the same time. Setting initial conditions and then letting it run as it were.

 

That's one hell of an assumption you're making there. I do not have "faith" in evolutionary theory. I've seen the evidence supporting it, and my conclusion is that it is more likely to be correct than incorrect. There is exactly zero evidence for creation. There can never BE evidence for creation unless God decides to put in a personal appearance. I thus dismiss creation as unlikely because I have no reason to believe it.

Besides, since God apparently created such things as tapeworms, malaria and the parasitic wasp, I would have to worry about his state of mind. An amoral, non-sentient process producing such creatures is understandable. A being that invents a wasp designed to propagate by paralysing a cockroach, then planting its offspring inside to eat the cockroach alive from the inside out, is a being with seriously sadistic tendencies.

 

Yes I have seen fractal sets, no they are not the same thing. However in all the cases you mention the emergent property is chosen by the experiment designer but the mathematical model and interaction equations used.

 

The emergent property is not chosen. The whole point of an emergent property is that you can't predict it - the only way to identify it is to go through the process. Langton's Ant has such a property, but no-one knew about it until it was programmed onto a computer. Humans would give up long before the required number of steps to activate it. Similarly, fractals were virtually unknown before computers could display them graphically.

 

Your argument of the second factor doesn't hold water, indeed it is a problem for research as there are a number of structures quite common in the world which at several proposed stages of development would present a large disadvantage to survival. The classic example is the eye, the theory suggests development from a light sensing pit to the current structure but at multiple necessary stages along the way it would be render useless for a generation or 10. This means your light sensitive fish suddenly can't sense light or shadow, yet has a fleshy bulge just waiting to get caught on something. Hardly the competitive advantage required to propagate the genes.

 

This is such utter nonsense that I'm wondering whether you're serious. For a start, you're thinking in terms of a rational engineer with a set design. The eye wasn't the result of a committee meeting and a research grant - it was something that got bodged together by accident and stuck around because it was useful. For another thing, there's nothing saying changes have to be made one at a time - or even in whole jumps. You don't need to jump straight from a non-lensed eye to a lens, for instance - an eye with a proto-lens that only partly focuses the light is still more effective than no lens.

 

In addition, the trend for efficiency does not drive the trend from lower to higher, rather the reverse, as extra structures use more energy without providing any benefit at least initially.

 

It's one driving trend, not the only one. Evolution has often surged forward as the result of disaster - such as the Cambrian Explosion. A big ice age, for instance, will wipe out thousands of established species - and suddenly there's a gap, during which the surviving species have much less competition, fewer predators, and so on. Any changes that would have got them eaten in the past now survive longer - and may adapt into new niches.

It's not about efficiency, anyway - it's about survival. Having thicker hide is less efficient than thinner hide, but it provides protection and can help you live long enough to propagate. But all things being equal, a creature that can do the same thing with fewer resources will cope much better when resources are limited.

 

All I'm saying is evolution is hysterically unlikely, that's why so much time is demanded for what we see around us, and that for a Christian, a rational case can be made for creation. If you don't believe in God of cause you'd find it ridiculous.

 

Evolution is not only likely, it's pretty much an established fact. It's been seen to happen - such as the bacteria that evolved to eat nylon, or the colouration of the pepper moth. We have a very good analogue in the selective breeding of dogs, horses, cows, sheep and so on - Darwin's favourite was probably the pigeon. We have strong evidence from the fossil record, and modern DNA analysis has supported evolution. We can't say exactly how we get from A to B, because most of the steps taken are long since gone. We have very little data on the early days of life, because those lifeforms don't fossilise (no bones) - we have to figure out what we can from modern equivalents, like the thermal vents in the deep oceans.

Detractors of evolution are usually mocking a "strawman" theory - such as that it works by random chance. No, it really doesn't. There's also nothing in evolutionary theory about how life started - that's an entirely different debate, and creationists would be better off putting God behind that bit. What I find hysterically unlikely is that any decent God would create life in such a complicated, high-maintenance way as to zap it all into being as it is now. Creating life that enhances and updates itself as it goes along is far more impressive.

[Timmy M]

there are plenty of religious people of all faiths who believe in evolution, why is it so hard to contemplate that you follow something that you don't know anything about except what you believe or a bronze age fisherman wrote down and yet can't believe in beings having the ability to change?

as Artinium mentioned with the parasitic wasp etc that's one screwed up mentality that created it, the same thing with the whole 'believe in me and blindly follow my rules or spend eternity in hellfire' i refuse to believe in such a thing that would punish a good person because he had a different opinion on life etc (also what happens to those that have never known of any organised religion and yet are good people? hellfire or get out of jail free card?... at least until a missionary comes in and damns them)

 

P.S. typically missionaries are damn good people but if by telling someone who doesn't know about god that god exists etc and that person doesn't believe in him/her you damn them to hell then... that's pretty screwy logic

[Irish Oisin]

Artinum, I love you. 

[BarefootViking]

I will claim Theist Agnostic with no particular religious affiliation.  In my book, religious doctrines are by and large a human creation to help conceptualize something that is technically beyond our full comprehension.  Then of course there is the whole "controlling society" aspect that comes with the European religions...  Never have played well with that.

[RisenPhoenix]

Artinum, I love you. 

Quoted for a +1 and massive emphasis.

So, getting away from the current discussion... Question for my atheist brother apostates (or, if you will, bropostates):

Had a funeral this weekend for my grandmother, who was *really* Catholic. She more-or-less passed that on to her kids, and I'm the only out-and-out atheist/non-Christian in the family. So last night at the reception, I was told by a few people that they "wanted me to find religion" (obviously theirs) or something like "Well you'll find it when something bad happens." My (extremely nice and generous response tempered by a dead grandmother in ash form in pockets nearby) was "Why do all the Christians I meet think I just woke up one day and went 'nah', as opposed to having my own bumpy theological road?"

Now, some people just looked confused at that. Do you guys get the same from your families? And how blunt can you be you figure?

[Irish Oisin]

To older people I respectfully decline their suggestion but to people in my own generation I'm a bit firmer and if they push me I get annoyed with them and call them stupid.

 

My parents aren't practicing catholics and are more agnostic nowadays. My older brother seems to be catholic these days and when he tells me to go to mass I just say no at first and when he presses me on it I usually say "Fuck off god-boy" and walk out of the room.

 

I have a friend who is very catholic and when me being an atheist comes up she says she'll pray for me. My usual response to that is "And I will ask Thor to protect you from the ice giants"

 

Older generation, respect. Same generation, ridicule and sarcasm.

[timtitan]

Ok woah, just woah. I wanted to comment and hopefully to amuse the forum. I have a relationship with God, and I believe that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. I also see no conflict between being a Physicist and these beliefs, and I have spent a lot of time through the years reading up on the subject. I like a discussion as much as the next nerd but I didn't intend to kick off a heated discussion. I especially didn't want to create an environment where I would be insulted for believing what I do. I came to this forum to learn more about diet and fitness, and to encourage and be encouraged by others walking a similar journey to fitness and better health. I realise that if I didn't intend to really discuss it I should not have written that second post essentially saying that I wasn't mad, and have my reasons. But I was a little tired and cranky at the time. I respect people, and would like to get you know you guys better. You don't have to respect my beliefs, that is your right, just as I do not respect particular belief systems. But please let us accept as gentlemen that we each have our sincerely held and we believe reasonable beliefs, and be polite to one another.

[Irish Oisin]

I completely agree, we won't agree on the point of evolution or creationism so let's just put it aside and agree on fitness and healthy living being great!

[Artinum]

Ok woah, just woah. I wanted to comment and hopefully to amuse the forum. I have a relationship with God, and I believe that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. I also see no conflict between being a Physicist and these beliefs, and I have spent a lot of time through the years reading up on the subject. I like a discussion as much as the next nerd but I didn't intend to kick off a heated discussion. I especially didn't want to create an environment where I would be insulted for believing what I do.

 

Amusement is always appreciated. I gave God a fair crack at a relationship, but he never called, so we agreed to see other deities. If he's working out for you then that's great. Tell Jesus I said hi.

 

Evolution is a massive, massive subject. I only know the broad strokes - if you're into advanced biology, the level of knowledge humanity has goes much deeper. Did you know, for instance, that DNA is only part of the process? It's often referred to as a blueprint for creating a lifeform, but it's far more complicated than that. A lot of the stuff that makes us us is not in our DNA. Things like prions, or the billions of microscopic organisms that live within us and we couldn't live without. Women could not carry a baby through to term without a particular virus that was co-opted into our biology millions of years ago - their own immune system would reject the foetus, and this virus counteracts that process.

 

Point is, a subject like this is so vast and so complex that very few people (perhaps none) actually understand all of it. Even the leading experts in this field are investigating new mysteries and making new discoveries. If even these people don't know how it all works, how can someone with little or no biological knowledge say it doesn't work with any authority? And yet many do, and this makes us sad. I am always saddened by people spreading misinformation.

 

As a final point - who has insulted you? Your beliefs are being challenged - this is a good thing, as it forces you to reconsider them and test them. We all need our beliefs challenged now and again. If your beliefs are wrong, this doesn't make you stupid - just misinformed. I and many others would be happy to address any concerns you may have to the best of our ability.

 

I am curious as to how you square being a physicist with the six-day creation concept. Cosmology maintains that the universe is very old and the Earth formed over a much longer period than six days. I've heard a number of arguments of varying strength - would love to know which, if any, you subscribe to.

[timtitan]

It could boiled down into "it's all in the assumptions you take into the game" Researcher sensibly enough assume no God, and try to work out how it all began. It's no surprise that their results are structured in a way that they believe shows how we got here. Just as the assumptions that my life and beliefs and those of many other believers around the world who happen to be scientists are different, therefore we interpret the data differently.

Plus, describing what I say as utter nonsense rather than pointing out what you believe are flaws, and describing my heavenly father whom I love as sadistic? This doesn't seem kind of insulting to you?

[ModernSpartacus]

I'm an atheist but I like to look into various religions to find stuff I like but I don't believe in a deity. I've been involved with Christianity, Buddhism  Satanism and Hellenismos but nothing really clicked.

[Zorch]

I tend to not classify myself, but if I were to, I'd probably label my philosophy as something like "Agnostic humanist". I was brought up in a Christian(Episcopal) church, but my beliefs have since diverged - I'm open to certain philosophies, as long as they are logically consistent, and consistent with what we observe in the world - but I'm the type the requires evidence as a foundation for my beliefs.. In a nutshell, my beliefs are as follows:

-The(literal) 6/7 day Creation story and the younger world it would imply is inconsistent with the current body of scientific knowledge. There may be less-literal versions of the creation story that do not have these inconsistencies.

-An alternate mode that's theoretically conceivable given the existence of an omnipotent God, is what one might call the "snapshot" model - we have our model about how this world evolved and it's actually consistent, BUT - God basically created the universe in a certain state(the "snapshot") and hit the "Play" button, so the past looks longer than it actually is. This raises all kinds of interesting philosophical questions, but it wouldn't be beyond the power of an omnipotent being to do such a thing.

-There is one fundamental tenet of many major religions I outright reject due to the fact that it's logically impossible - the "believe/do this or you go to Hell" principle. Religions generally put forth their God as a being who is infinitely wise and powerful, and also benevolent(or at least fair/just). An infinitely wise being who is benevolent and just would not condemn someone to Hell/Oblivion for rational skepticism in our modern world. Not to mention the concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes is also an inherently non-benevolent, unjust concept. This aspect of many religions is absolutely logically inconsistent and I outright reject it as such.

-There's an interesting theory that the universe could actually be a giant computer simulation(or perhaps a "fishbowl" of sorts within a larger universe). I don't subscribe to this theory, but I find it at least as plausible as many of the alternatives, and it's actually interesting in that it sort of marries some of the above ideas, and could theoretically allow them to coexist - there would be a "God" in this scenario - just a God in a very different form than what many have conceived - and one who could have created the world in a certain state, but also stealthily "injected" various modifications at certain times during the simulation. But this is getting a ways off track(and it sounds like the plot from some kind of bad sci-fi novel), so I'll stop there.

 

 

In the end though, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and so long as people treat each other decently, they can believe whatever they want and I'm cool with that. 

[Timmy M]

-There's an interesting theory that the universe could actually be a giant computer simulation

 

so you're saying we live in Simcity?

[Schmopey]

Hello all,

 

I have really enjoyed reading this discussion.

 

I am Roman Catholic and fairly devout (though there were times when I was much less so). I believe that God created the universe and that evolution is a part of that creation. I do not believe that God condemns anyone to eternal damnation, though He allows us to choose damnation if we wish. If heaven is spending eternity in the presence of God and hell is being excluded from God's presence, then God would have to allow someone who chooses unbelief to languish in hell. To do otherwise would violate the free will with which He created us. For those who do believe in God, we will have to reconcile all that we have done and not done during our time here on Earth with the knowledge of what we were created to do and decide whether or not we can abide in God's presence. This reconciliation would be something along the lines of purgatory.

 

I do not believe that professing faith in Jesus Christ (and actually living what He taught) is the only way to make it to heaven, but it is the fullest way to enter into close relationship with God while on Earth.

[FyreFlies]

Some posts in this thread have gotten ewwy.. and here I was thinking we'd avoid the conflict altogether.

 

*sighs*

[Irish Oisin]

In fairness though, it was a brief conflict and it ended as quick as it started. Plus it didn't get personal or resort to unnecessary aggression. I'd say it was handled well

[Anamal]

I hope this doesn't degrade into an internet argument where there can be no possible winner, ever.

 

We all have different beliefs, but right here, on an internet forum, is not the place to express some pointless anger!

 

We're all people, descended from space tacos.

I think when choices are made with the heart and not with logic there can be no way to convince somebody of your views through logic. Its how most religious/political/philisophical things are, people have a very hard time being convinced of another view point when their beliefs are something that they hold very close to their emotional center and not their logical/scientific center.

 

That being said I am an athiest, always have been, and the older I get I cannot see ever becoming religious. I have friends who have very strong faiths and we simply don't discuss those things. I've found taking the silent option is the best way to preserve these friendships. I believe the best approach is live and let live, as long as you're not hurting anybody else; do what makes you happy.

 

However, if you try and force your opinion on me, or bully other poeple or alienate them through your religion, then so help me god-I-don't-believe-in, I will fight you tooth and nail. I went through a phase where I was what you would probably call "anti-theist" as in I felt that most religion brough bad things to those who dissagreed (ummm, cruased much?) but now I've mellowed a lot, and actually really enjoy discussing and debating religion. The only minister whom I've ever become close to was from my friends church  and would debate religion with me for hours and never belittled my beliefs or questions, he really was in every sense of the word a christian in both his acts and words and it saddens me how un-christain people can be in the name of their religion (and not to pick on christians you guys are just the most vocal/seen).

 

One last momento: When I was young, maybe 7 or 8 years old and I saw that many of my friends went to church I asked my mother why our family didn't. I thought it was somewhat odd, especially knowing that both my mother and father had attended catholic schools until college. She responded simply "we though it important to teach you how to think, before we taught you what to think" and that has informed a large part of who I am today.

 

But if anybody wants to continue discussing I'm more than open!

[Irish Oisin]

Your parents win. Life.

 

I just can't stand people denying evolution. It's the very same as how they thought Jerulsalem was the centre of the world and the Earth was flat and the earth was the centre of the solar system. It's just another scientific advancement that religion resists because it doesn't understand it and it makes the world less "magic". Although if you ask me, evolution and space and the universe is fucking magical.

[Timmy M]

don't you watch QI? apparently no that many people (christians included) thought the world was flat, just a rumour i think to discredit some explorer i reckon

[Irish Oisin]

Ok, if that's a common misconception then I was wrong on that point. But my main point was that the church, and various churches, have often resisted a scientific advancement because they think it undermines the idea of creation OR that the idea is new, radical and scary to them.

 

Denying evolution is like denying gravity

[Anamal]

Yeah my parents are pretty rad people.

 

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson says it best:

[in response to the view beholden by some religious people that God is the cause of various inexplicable events...] If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument

 

oh and:

I don't have an issue with what you do in the church, but I'm going to be up in your face if you're going to knock on my science classroom and tell me they've got to teach what you're teaching in your Sunday school. Because that's when we're going to fight.

[guinnesshero]

Im agnostic

[Irish Oisin]

I don't have an issue with what you do in the church, but I'm going to be up in your face if you're going to knock on my science classroom and tell me they've got to teach what you're teaching in your Sunday school. Because that's when we're going to fight.

 

A-fucking-men.

How would we say that without the ironic "Amen"? Right on?

 

Right fucking on!

[Timmy M]

i think Amen is a rough translation to hebrew for 'so be it' so it doesn't require religious connotation 

 

AMEN to that brotha!