Biological Predisposition To Faith?

[INDY500]

It is because science is inherently uninterested in what is not material. You may make some kind of trite, coy slur that science is "materialistic"; but it is what it is.

Right. Science operates in the empirical domain of the observable. It's realm the material or natural world. The supernatural, if it exists, might not be observable by the same methods or bound by the same laws of physics and time that govern us.

Therefore, science alone cannot be atheistic, only, as you say, disinterested. So, the atheism and hostility towards religion now associated with the theory of evolution can only be borne out of ideology, not science.

That was my only point.

 

[INDY500]

"the Creation is placed in a much larger context of ongoing creations of innumerable inhabited earths with their respective heavens.... <>

I don't argue faith or doctrine unless asked to but this really catches my eye as it seems to fall into the physical universe.
Is there any physical evidence at all (geological, astronomical) to support this?

 

[diamond]

I don't argue faith or doctrine unless asked to but this really catches my eye as it seems to fall into the physical universe.
Is there any physical evidence at all (geological, astronomical) to support this?

If you take a leap at things like Stone Hedge, ancient paintings of flying saucers and so forth one could speculate, however we're told that it's really not perinent to man's salvation.

Things that matter are not how many planets God has created or is about to create but Faith in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ and understanding He is both the Messiah and Savior of this world and almost equally important show that faith by and helping our fellow men.

<>

 

[INDY500]

Nicely said.

I just find "innumerable inhabited earths" interesting. And not just because Genesis 1:1 reads "the heavens and the earth." Implying only one.
Are the earths, as you understand it, inhabited concurrently or consecutively?
Because the former would signify extraterrestrial life which might be contacted or might be trying to contact us -- while the latter would seem to promise a continued physical, as opposed to spiritual, life beyond death on this earth.

Just curious, fell free to drop the matter if you wish.

 

[Irvine511]

So, the atheism and hostility towards religion now associated with the theory of evolution can only be borne out of ideology, not science.

don't you have this backwards? insofar as science is disinterested in religion/theism, whereas religion seems to feel itself to be under siege from science and that the hostility is mostly perceived by the devout, it's not actually there (just disinterest ... which in and of itself might be maddening ... "take me seriously!" a fundamentalist might cry). certainly there are aggressive atheists, but most actual scientists are simply uninterested in science and their disdain for fabrications like Intelligent Design aren't so much due to their theistic claims but to their anti-science, anti-intellectual agendas.

 

[diamond]

Nicely said.

I just find "innumerable inhabited earths" interesting. And not just because Genesis 1:1 reads "the heavens and the earth." Implying only one.
Are the earths, as you understand it, inhabited concurrently or consecutively?
Because the former would signify extraterrestrial life which might be contacted or might be trying to contact us -- while the latter would seem to promise a continued physical, as opposed to spiritual, life beyond death on this earth.

Just curious, fell free to drop the matter if you wish.

Don't know, I want to say consecutively as far as our finite understanding is concerned. Also I could surmise is that God is the only God of this earth and that is all we really need to focus on.

I think God would focus on one planet at a time too, for the very simple reason that my drama alone with my heavenly petitions could freeze the universe in it's tracks.



<>

 

[melon]

Nicely said.

I just find "innumerable inhabited earths" interesting. And not just because Genesis 1:1 reads "the heavens and the earth." Implying only one.
Are the earths, as you understand it, inhabited concurrently or consecutively?
Because the former would signify extraterrestrial life which might be contacted or might be trying to contact us -- while the latter would seem to promise a continued physical, as opposed to spiritual, life beyond death on this earth.

Just curious, fell free to drop the matter if you wish.

Watch "Battlestar Galactica" sometime. It is very loosely based on obscure Mormon views on this subject. The creator of the original 1978 series, Glen A. Larson, is a Mormon himself.

Here's a very detailed essay on the subject, if you're interested:

http://www.michaellorenzen.com/galactica.html

 

[diamond]

Watch "Battlestar Galactica" sometime. It is very loosely based on obscure Mormon views on this subject. The creator of the original 1978 series, Glen A. Larson, is a Mormon himself.

Here's a very detailed essay on the subject, if you're interested:

http://www.michaellorenzen.com/galactica.html

Yes and before there was Logan's Run in the 1970s that LDS folk warmed up to, rumored to have a few LDS producers.

Because the LDS are Unorthodox Christians we automatically think outside of the box.

Another example:

One of the most popular self help books of all time is called:

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R Covey, a devout Mormon.

It's a staple in the business world that CEOs and executives are encouraged to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People

What most people don't realize outside of the LDS religion is that all the ideas or 7 Habits that Covey uses can be found in the Book of Mormon.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But atheists have taken the theory of evolution -- injected their own philosophies and politics into it -- to create their own 100% materialistic version of Genesis. Which is then masqueraded as 100% science, which it most certainly is not.

Nothing in the theory or science of evolution is hostile or disproves in anyway a supernatural Creation or Design. That is only the atheistic spin on Darwin. Evolutionary science does explain why older fossils show less complex forms and accounts for the unity of all life on earth. But evolution and biology alone can never explain the origin of life, how the unconscious became conscious, human morality or what happens after death.

Not that we shouldn't try anyhow. By all means, let's fill in the details. We're all just seeking the truth right?

You are wrong, evolution provides a mechanism for the origin of new species and of a biological trait like sentience without the need of God. The universe functions as if God does not exist, God doesn't answers the questions at all. You take it as a matter of faith that there is life after death but everything points to the brain being the seat of conciousness and self; when the brain shuts down the person ceases to exist.

 

[INDY500]

You are wrong, evolution provides a mechanism for the origin of new species

Mechanism for microevolution yes, but title aside, did Darwin actually document the "origin" of a single species? Even kick-starting natural selection by intelligent design (Man's in this case) breeders have never been able to breed across lines to create a new species. Lots of spectacular hybrids and interesting polyploids but the end result is still a horse, dog, fly or tomato.
But even so, what if someday we can? Well, evolution still will not provide a mechanism for the origin of life or the uniqueness of Man.

The universe functions as if God does not exist,

Or it functions exactly like God exists.
From the singularity of the creation of all matter from nothing 15 billion years ago to our anthropic position in it.
Christians have searched for a unified, ordered universe because we believe a rational God would create just such a world. Others believed that the heavens, mountains or seas themselves were deities, or that nature was an illusion and thus inaccessible to inquiry.
Physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy has undercut those notions, but not the Christian notion of nature and Man and their origins.

 

[Irvine511]

Or it functions exactly like God exists.

not that A_W can't more than answer for himself, but to an observer of this conversation, it strikes me that he's putting forth science and you're putting forth philosophy (or, more bluntly, wishful [hopeful?] thinking).

 

[A_Wanderer]

Mechanism for microevolution yes, but title aside, did Darwin actually document the "origin" of a single species? Even kick-starting natural selection by intelligent design (Man's in this case) breeders have never been able to breed across lines to create a new species. Lots of spectacular hybrids and interesting polyploids but the end result is still a horse, dog, fly or tomato.
But even so, what if someday we can? Well, evolution still will not provide a mechanism for the origin of life or the uniqueness of Man.

Your notes from creationist websites overlook the molecular evidence, why would an "intelligent designer" have the divergence of populations and species recorded in DNA? Why is it that the comparative anatomy based phylogenies (trees of life) can be tested against molecular evidence.

Your argument isn't based in reality, it takes this conciliatory tone of respecting evolution in an area that is basically undeniable which is micro-evolution but just junks the aspects that have been established that are hostile to your view of a creator. What of evolutionary developmental biology? that the very genetic tool kit for building animals has been found - and the mechanisms for macroevolutionary change. What of deep time? that the ammount of geological time does allow for the origination of new forms. What about observations of recently separated populations that have diverged through allopatric speciation.

Or it functions exactly like God exists.
From the singularity of the creation of all matter from nothing 15 billion years ago to our anthropic position in it.
Christians have searched for a unified, ordered universe because we believe a rational God would create just such a world. Others believed that the heavens, mountains or seas themselves were deities, or that nature was an illusion and thus inaccessible to inquiry.
Physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy has undercut those notions, but not the Christian notion of nature and Man and their origins. [/B]

No, your religions creation myth is not an accurate match to the real world. It has to become subjective and twisted around as a metaphor to even reconcile with the facts. It doesn't give a description of everything (certainly not the origin of man). The fact that in the post above you just took a stand that God made man and that intelligence and morality are not products of biology just highlights the disconnect.

 

[INDY500]

Your notes from creationist websites

Cheap shot? Or is it a dodge?

Either way, if you think my opinions plagiarized and my beliefs based on myth rather than fact, then I won't take up anymore of your time on the matter.

Did you really think religious faith to be nothing more than a surplus of neurotransmitters in the brain? Yes, I suppose you would.

 

[INDY500]

not that A_W can't more than answer for himself, but to an observer of this conversation, it strikes me that he's putting forth science and you're putting forth philosophy (or, more bluntly, wishful [hopeful?] thinking).

God created man in His own image. Was this design accomplished through material evolution alone? I'm not convinced, but perhaps. You see, to explain the origin of Man, I don't need evolution to be untrue as much as some need it to be true beyond a doubt.

To this goal, A_W is a fine defender of the faith. His faith.

 

[Irvine511]

God created man in His own image. Was this design accomplished through material evolution alone? I'm not convinced, but perhaps. You see, to explain the origin of Man, I don't need evolution to be untrue as much as some need it to be true beyond a doubt.

again, this is philosophy. it is not science.

To this goal, A_W is a fine defender of the faith. His faith.

that's a cop out. you cannot say that scientific rationalism is anything like a faith. that's like saying that evolution is "just a theory." it completely misunderstands what science does and does not do.

what i think he's saying is that the "God question" is simply irrelevant. it's unnecessary to the study of science. it's unnecessary to understanding the workings of the universe, or even the secrets of the universe.

it matters to man, but it doesn't matter to that rock over there. science matters to both.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is not true beyond doubt, that is the point of science, there is always room for doubt and adjustment. The philosophy of science is different than the philosophy of religion. It is that science is self-correcting and has the capacity to change that negates the arguments that it is a religion. It is faith that allows a religious believer to accept that the truth revealed in their religious text is from God and absolute. It is not faith to reduce the goings on of the world to explanations that fit the evidence and hold those positions at a variety of confidence thresholds that can never reach certainty.

That you suppose man is created in the image of God is an initial assumption, if you believe this to be the case then it must temper your view of evolution even though there is nothing to support the initial assumption.

In the case of evolution the bones of the theory such as variation of offspring and heritability of traits were tested. That the model itself fits the real world observations only provides further strength and improves the confidence level of the theory. The nuances of evolution are discriminated from the natural world with observation and experiment.

That one can see the evidence for evolution and weigh up the odds is what removes it from faith, I am not certain of evolution but I think that it is a very strongly supported theory that has a higher confidence level in my mind than the big bang or standard model. I take no leap of faith in that assessment other than some of the fundamental assumptions about reality that mean what is being measured is real, and that form of assumption is a step apart from supposing an infinitely complex creator deity that may well be an interventionist for which there is no evidence to point to or explanation for the existence of.

 

[A_Wanderer]

My practical atheism is conditional, it is a possibility that God created the universe; but there is no reason to suppose it in the absence of evidence. The mere fact that the dominant model for the origin of the universe points to inflation from an undefinably small point (a model which has it's own holes and flaws) does not mean God exists. It simply suggests that the universe progressed from a point source, how that originated may have an explanation beyond what we consider to be the universe; higher dimensions of existence. At this point in time it is beyond the scope of investigation, we lack the tools; but that does not mean you can pull God as an answer like a rabbit out of a hat and say that it explains anything at all. It is just as valid as me saying that I invented the universe in my room next year then sent it backwards in time 13.7 billion years to trigger the big bang. In each case you can't verifiably disprove it, the claims are utterly unfalsifiable and in each case apologists can throw out make believe reasons why it can't be disproved (obviously I can't show you how I made the universe again because it would destroy the fabric of reality etc.).

The universe is as though energy is condensed into matter which is stable as particles which become atoms and join to make molecules and that interactions are mediated with energy. In which the means of interaction are restricted and behave in a fashion that can be described mathematically. There is room for the apparently weird and a complete model has not been nailed out, but do not mistake weird things like the supposed dark matter to be supernatural.

That the world is material and that evolution is a mechanical process acting upon any varying replicator (even in computer simulations of evolving "organisms") is a reasonable fit of the universe from what is understood and known to a high confidence level. Whatever fundamental assumptions one makes they are a step aside from ones that suppose a creator.

The last final flaw that the creation assumption suffers is the what created God problem. Now you may say that God is eternal and that as time is a dimension of the universe it does not effect him as he exists outside our 4D reality. But that explanation of the exterior cause not being subject to the laws of time and neccessitating a creator is just as valid for some normal process in a higher dimension. There is nothing to identify what the process may be and a God one at that level throws up a lot of problems in terms of how a consciousness could exist; problems that in the absence of evidence are inherently unanswerable (but not neccessarily if evidence was found and a model could explain it).

The false equivalence generated by many believers and agnostics alike that God or no God is a 50-50 proposition and that to think either way is a leap of faith is flawed. If we were to be anally literal then I am agnostic but it would be 99.9999 ad infinitum against the existence of God without and I would hope without any thoughts that I wouldn't abandon if faced with a superior explanation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Onto a pertinent matter which is that you feel evolution cannot explain morality in man that is where unfounded belief cannot reconcile to evidence. There is no reason to think that there is an immaterial soul. The brain is a material organ made up of neurons. That we are starting to be able to see the workings of the active mind with imaging technology points to it as a seat of conciousness without any supernatural spark. That other animals live and function using a nervous system fits well with man being no different. It is not as if a soul gives man the capacity to live or to think. Animals are capable of rudimentary thought processes as well as complicated behaviour patterns for Darwinian ends (signalling in mating games would be an obvious example). These processes are required to survive and enable offspring to both be bred with your genes and to survive. Animals demonstrate traits such as reciprocal altruism as well as acts of kin selection where a truly altruistic behaviour is done for a relative.

That humanity has a brain that has exploded in size over a rapid period of time in what may have been some sort of social evolutionary arms race can frame aspects of human behaviour well. It accounts for some of the very best aspects of humanity and can encompass the most vile without the need of invoking a soul hypothesis that is both untestable, lacks any evidence and produces contradictions (the problem of evil for example).

This fundamental assumption about an immaterial soul is very widely held. But no matter how many people believe it, no matter how good it can make people feel and no matter how much they think it approximates the reasons for human behaviour (Freud had approximations too) it doesn't make it accurate. A naturalistic explanation for human behaviour reconciles the gut feelings of morality and the philosophical grounding of ethics to the real world and it can do it without the assumptions of the supernatural.

We are animals.
We are social animals with elaborate behaviour and the capacity for complex social interaction.
Accepting that we are that type of animal does not make us go against our gut instincts or negate our acceptance of the rule of law that we implicity commit to be engaging with civil society.

 

[INDY500]

Ok, as you've returned to a civil tone of mutual respect I'll be happy to respond. And I do respect your positions.
Thank you for your acknowledgment that science can be only agnostic and that some aspects of our existence will always remain undiscoverable, opening the door for philosophy to creep in. This is important for it is for this reason that many otherwise intelligent Americans do not fully embrace evolution. The anti-religious tone. The fear, not without foundation, that Darwinism the science has become a Trojan horse loaded up with philosophies and ideologies which seek to totally secularize society and undermine religion and religion based morality. (Which I argue has served us very well) An attack not just on religious institutions, which no one argues are beyond criticism, but the very bedrock of religion, personal faith. I think it's also safe to assume some, just as scientifically illiterate as the stereotypical mouth-breathing creationist, support evolution for these very same reasons.

I grew up in the Space Age. I read every book Carl Sagan wrote and watched Cosmos when it originally aired while I was attending college. In fact, my roommate and I were the devil's advocates whenever the college proselytizers came calling to the dorm. It was I that argued against a young earth and for evolution! And I'm afraid I wasn't always respectful of them -- often cranking-up AC/DC's Highway to Hell as they were leaving. While I have never been atheistic per se, I do plead guilty to being an agnostic 19 year old asshole.

The point being, I no longer subscribe to the entire theory of evolution (for reasons given earlier) and I now believe in a Creator, but I'm no creationist. I believe all of what you and Dr. Sagan believe about our universe except for what happened the instant before (is there a word for events preceding time itself?) the Big Bang. Then it's metaphysical philosophy time and you have yours and I have mine.

Sagan famously said "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be."
Genesis reads "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Not at all compatible and only one can ultimately be true.
So which is more probable?

Well, as much as I might struggle to answer the classic problem of infinite regress in explaining a Creator so to must you struggle with this question about our universe.
Why not nothing?

 

[Irvine511]

[q]This is important for it is for this reason that many otherwise intelligent Americans do not fully embrace evolution. The anti-religious tone. The fear, not without foundation, that Darwinism the science has become a Trojan horse loaded up with philosophies and ideologies which seek to totally secularize society and undermine religion and religion based morality.[/q]


isn't this what ID does?

 

[diamond]

.

Sagan famously said "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be."
Genesis reads "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Both are correct.
As far as our beginning in this realm on earth we are to concern ourselves only with God who authored the Creation with the matter that always existed and what his only Son did for us to get right with Him and back to His presence from where our souls once sprang.

The tricky or fun part in this existence is exercising our free will to be most intune with all of the things He created; therin lies happines and the most joy for man to hopefully achieve.

dbs

 

[nathan1977]

Interesting conversation.

Is there only what is?

By this question I mean, is the world only material? I notice an awful lot flying back and forth here about religion/philosophy and science. When it comes to reality, is this a false dichotomy?

 

[diamond]

Interesting conversation.

Is there only what is?

By this question I mean, is the world only material? I notice an awful lot flying back and forth here about religion/philosophy and science. When it comes to reality, is this a false dichotomy?

No the world existed spiritually even before God started creating it, and matter existed before that.

Yes our reality is a false dichotomy, and the life is but a blink of an eye compared to how long your soul had lived with God before the earth was even constructed and how long it will continue to live.

A good book to read re the false dichotomy or sphere we're now living in is :

The Four Agreements.

<>

 

[INDY500]

No the world existed spiritually even before God started creating it,
<>

Then you cannot say "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be."

The universe is either a closed materialistic system with a naturalistic cause for it's creation or it's not.

 

[INDY500]

x

 

[INDY500]

[q]This is important for it is for this reason that many otherwise intelligent Americans do not fully embrace evolution. The anti-religious tone. The fear, not without foundation, that Darwinism the science has become a Trojan horse loaded up with philosophies and ideologies which seek to totally secularize society and undermine religion and religion based morality.[/q]


isn't this what ID does?

Sure, I suppose that's true. And you'd be rightly troubled if it was the ideology seeking to monopolize theories in textbooks and classrooms regarding the origin of life and the universe?

 

[A_Wanderer]

God isn't an answer for the origin of the universe, as I stated before it could literally be any mechanism but in the absence of evidence supposing God is flawed. Scientists are not all leaping on board any explanation for that very reason; we simply don't know because we cannot know at this point in time. But this current limit of knowledge does not mean that God creeps in as a valid explanation.

Your problem with secularism of public society highlights a major issue that I have with many believers, the rejection of the secular state. The religious freedoms that are guaranteed are overlooked because they don't get special treatment or it allows things that are at odds to their subjective morality.

Having no line of distinction between man and animal is the core of why Darwinism may get pilloried. But natural explanations function a lot better than religious ones to model peoples behaviour. Attempts to separate us from our decent are doomed because of what our ancestors left us.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And yes I fully support undermining religious based morality, the good deeds may be done for the wrong reasons and the bigotry enshrined in bronze aged texts lingers to this day. I do not support burning down churches or mosques in the name of atheism, I do support a secular state with freedom of religion and a common law that does not derive justification from an eternal and unyielding lie.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Then you cannot say "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be."

The universe is either a closed materialistic system with a naturalistic cause for it's creation or it's not.

No, we can't say that the universe is definitely a closed system and we can't say definitely if it had a beginning (however with the rate of cosmic expansion it seems like the end is doomed to be infinite space).

The implication I get from the statement is that if the universe is not closed then there is no natural cause for it's formation and it must have a special creator. That science hasn't approximated an answer yet does not give a God based solution any validity.

 

[Irvine511]

Sure, I suppose that's true. And you'd be rightly troubled if it was the ideology seeking to monopolize theories in textbooks and classrooms regarding the origin of life and the universe?

you propose an alternative to science in a science classroom? are you worried about the monopoly the Theory of Gravity or Plate Tectonics has on the minds of our children? or is it because certain facts don't sit comfortably and reality isn't so easy to reconcile with a 2,000 year old book?