@FreedomBeforeEquality - Why are you so vested in the word religion? No, if you don't adhere to dogma, and a supernatural, it is NOT religion. Playing with the word is fine, but when people say "evolution IS religion" are just playing with definitions. Some religious can make evolution work in their minds with the existence of a god, but it is still apart from God, or any religion.
Its an element of them. Believing in evolution, as youre putting it, is not just that ... Its believing in evolution AND not believing in god ... Or any variation in between. Fact is there is always going to be that part that evolution cant explain and it will have to be filled with something. If you cant fill it ... That doesnt automatically make the theory complete ... It means the theory is just as (if not more) incomplete or baseless as a religious one.
Its like when people try to say atheism isn't a religion. How at all does that make any sense? Youre still trying to make a statement about creation anytime you mention god ... Whether you think hes there or not or whatever ... Youre still just making guesswork.
Again, I think this highlights an importation difference between the believer and non-beleiver. Any "holes" that exist, I am willing to accept as incomplete knowledge, and work to solve those riddles. The flip-side is to take an irrational God and shove it into every gap in blissful ignorance. I am just fine saying 'well, we are just going to have to work to find that answer".
I agree its very plausible, evolution, but its not any more complete in its explanation. Religion actually attempts to cover so much more than what we can just prove locally. I think when you try to use the theory of evolution to extend the span you are able to even test to (say beyond the oldest skeleton ever found on record or whatever) everything beyond that is just theory again. Evolution is not total fact ... It will always have holes outside of where we can get testable proofs and truths from. Alot of assumptions still have to be made for it to 'work'.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - We can - and I do disagree - about your characterization of the completeness of evolution theory, but that does not address the bulk of my comment to you. Why try to fill the gap with an irrational god?
"The flip-side is to take an irrational God and shove it into every gap in blissful ignorance."
Im not even saying the "god did it its out of our hands" factor. You can use traditional religions to trace how moral consequences played out and how they continue to play out. You can make broad statements about the trend of humanity based on very little and still be very right a majority of the time just by using religion as a guide. Neither set is 100% but there is most certainly valuable data to be attained from the progression of society on in the mental/social/ethical sense as much as there is from the material sense that is evolution.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Well, now you seem to want to mix sociology into evolution. We can talk about what part sociology comes from evolution, but the study of evolution has nothing to do with sociology. Let me put it this way, I will not look to evolution theory to determine when we will become irreligious, at its heart biological evolution has no care if we ever do become irreligious, but it would be a tool in talking about the patterns of any species as it evolves.
It speaks plenty about sociology. The evidence of what exists now versus what used to exist or died of quickly speaks worlds about what types of interactions were more prevalent at that time. Creatures even evolve around what social interactions can be made. I think that we would not have evolved into the beings we are today if that were not true.
I think you are a sane religious guy. I don't think you are being insincere when you think about your God. The God you think exists is a catch-all. That becomes an issue when talking between the groups. That is, when I (we) are talking evolution, it is very common for the religious to start talking big-bang, or other parts of cosmology. The need, the connection to them is, all of these are covered under the umbrella - God. Covered I might add, in one "book" of the bible taking place over a handful of pages. To us, and part of the problem, this is a vast amount of very different stuff. There are "holes" in the knowledge big enough to park a couple billion stars. OK, that's cool with us, just so long as we keep working on the answers, and not ignore them for sake of a "God did it" solution.
I dont think religious types "ignore" them. If that were the case we wouldnt have ever exited ancient eras where religion was at an all time high. And our general knowledge of the universe wouldnt have characteristically spiked around those times either.
Religious governments are the middle man with that though. Funding could be driven towards seemingly ridiculous exploits when you use religion. Its actually the opposite of an inhibitor in some regards. Thinking you already know the answers and not leaping ... That comes from the non religious side of things.
@FreedomBeforeEquality "Thinking you already know the answers and not leaping ... That comes from the non religious side of things." What? You could blow the budget in a thousand different directions if you went on that train of thought.
Hmmm... I think we are talking a left turn somewhere. I am not saying that scientific advancement can not take place while religion exists. It does however take place in-spite of it. There were some awfully clever scientists that were religious, no doubt. Some even credit their religion for the inspiration for their research. It still happens, as I say, in spite of the religious dogma. If I were trying to drive this conversation back on course I might want to say, the God of the gaps dwindles because of the discovery's of good scientists both religious and non-religious. It, the science - the reasearch, has no care for religion. If in the end, you choose to make that fit with your personal interpretation of what a god is, that is your business. I can call it nonsensical, but regardless the god in this discussion, the gaps in knowledge it was filling, get filled with more complete knowledge.
"What? You could blow the budget in a thousand different directions if you went on that train of thought."
You could ... And they did ... And they struck gold several times. What kind of investment was a state sponsored scientist at the time? It was like having a court wizard that would pull out a discovery every once in a while that would totally save everyone's asses.
" the God of the gaps dwindles because of the discovery's of good scientists both religious and non-religious."
I think that's relative really since we only occupy and make discoveries in such a small window of the universe, space and time. If god ever was a solution to the rest of it, it would surely envelop such a massive portion that evolution doesn't begin to cover the scope of things. Our universe is not so small that the scientific discoveries have even met half of what the bible suggests to know about creation.
If we could truncate beliefs as you say TBR, then sure, as its own belief ... God not withstanding ... It is more plausible. Since you intend to say that it as a theory does not imply or deny the existences of things in those holes. But at that alone it would be useless. You need to be able to infer things from the theory and extend beyond its bounds for it to be of any worth. Towards exploring further.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I don't disagree that we have a lot to learn. Putting our fingers in our ears is not the way to learn anything. I hate to use such on obvious example, but Galileo illustrates the point nicely. He was plenty 'religious'. His work was in-spite of the religion, and the negative influence religion had. Eventually, his work would be accepted, and Gods roll in the universe diminished ever so slightly - at least from the perspective of a great number of believers. I have no care that he was a believer, his discovery's stand on their own. If he thought (personally) that he was driven by God, well good for all of us. The flip side, he was oppressed by the very religion he adhered to.
"You can't run a government off luck."
You can if youre lucky. No one will know the difference until the day your luck runs out. All governments have had and will have that day. I presume then that they are all actually luck based under the guise of thinking they know whats going on and being scientific about it.
"The flip side, he was oppressed by the very religion he adhered to."
He was oppressed by individuals running it maybe, but if he was truly being repressed by the religion itself he would not claim to have been religious.
To the last comment. Well, evolution theory is very vital to working biologists. It would be naive to think otherwise. Yes, it has "holes" and what I say is, the hole needs to be researched. What the believer says is, ~"God, good enough". That is the problem. As to, again "worth" of these theory's, if they had NO predictive value, they still have worth. Lets say I make some discovery that is simple a static bit of information. That bit of information is tossed in the bin on knowledge, and may at some point BE the critical bit of information I need? 42?
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Your last comment I could agree with completely, if not for the reductive nature of it. The religion is the whole, not the individual. He may have been fine with his religion, but what is the religion if not the whole? You talk of the social impact and necessity of the religion. His was a clear example where that worked counter to the advancement of knowledge.
Im not saying there isnt corruption there. Nowhere though is god personally staunching a scientists pursuit of discovery (except maybe when they are truly wrong and off base with something ... But that might be god ... Might not be).
Just a flat out question then. If the religion (the people the make up the body, the dogma etc.) were wrong or corrupt about Galileo is acceptable, why resist Darwin? I would be happy if Darwin went to his grave with a bible in his hand saying "Yup, I am right, but God did it all" if only to drag a few more believers along for the ride.
A universal description of the universe driven solely by the concept of Evolution is not as plausible as a universal description based on Religion. As standalone concepts, evolution wins it. As far as predictive value goes (thanks TBR for wording it better) religion takes the cake. Religion has a much broader high level scope than evolution and therefore confers more data, even if some of it is off a bit. There is much more to learn in the metaphysical than in the physical.
'He might of killed her... Or he might not of killed her *ignores all the evidence*'
I wouldnt ignore the evidence ... I would in fact take that evidence and note that I apparently should not do that thing that killed her or I will be punished for it, by death. Then it begs me to look into what it was specifically that the universe had a problem with that it had a negative reaction to her doing, etc. etc. Then you end up coming to gods conclusion ... Gods law on what that thing is.
@TBR I dont know why they dont believe it. I can say that everyone will eventually. Maybe the only reason it made any waves is because it was such a big thing all at once? People generally are opposed to change, creatures of habit.
And its like you said ... Apparently Evolution and Religion can be viewed as mutually exclusive things. So why would it be weird that people would not immediately accept a discovery like that? I know plenty of non religious people who are still against the idea that we evolved from monkeys. They dont like the idea that the theory belittles the idea of what a Human is, god or no god. Some even turn to alien theories and such to preserve the idea that we came from something higher, not lower. Fear over this type of discovery is not surprising to me, really.
Fair enough. It is interesting that Galileo was suppressed for ~100 years. Darwin is dead now about the same. Who knows when the bulk of religion will get on board, but it is of note that the Cathloic church seems to turned the corner. Another note. I had to go look this guys name up. "Nicole Oresme". Who knows of him? His work predated Galileo by a couple hundred years. He was... Well a little bit of everything, but ALSO a bishop. His work predicted the exact results that Galileo would go on to prove. He, the forgotten Oresme, said "God must decide if the earth resolves around the sun." Can you see why that is determent thinking? The guy had it. He had it right hundreds of years before Galileo, but was too subservient to God to just say so.
And turns out his god was right in the timing of it all. Had Galileo tried to unveil it any sooner it might not have taken. Who knows really. I cant argue with the timing of things really. Too many variables to consider to say that things would have gone better 100 years earlier.
That I have to say is an interesting concept. I am sitting her smiling a bit at the thought. We must somehow temper our intellectual progress with a strategy for market acceptance. Like a trickle campaign. OK, I am laughing at it, but its not entirely without merit.
If you had to look at this whole thing from the outside which does it really matter? You follow one belief that says you are built from the bottom up ... Another belief that you come from the divine and are built from the top down. How does it matter really. Generally I would think there is a motivation that comes for some people when they think they are made from something better than themselves ... That why religion works for them. Others like the idea that we rose from nothing and that hard work and persistence can get us farther ... That works for them too. Whatever motivates you in the right direction at the end of the day is all I really care about ... You can be as ridiculous as you want in your beliefs.
Let me ask one more flat out question. Its going to be hard to phrase, but let me give it a shot. If I have one system that is self correcting, another that has a bedrock of resistance to change. We lay these over a populous that must be taken into account, that is to say, they have "sociological needs", or "mental stability" or... Well, this is where I am getting muddled. The thrust is, it could be argued that the population would live "healthy" with the static, and unstable with the former. Would you still prefer the later? OK. I know that is... Diluted, but I am trying to get at something, and I think you can read it.
I believe both of them to be necessary for a 'healthy' existence. Religion too is self correcting ... Just historically in a violent way. In what way does the other side correct itself? Does it ever? It always only seems like an infinite progression. It never has hit it's "wall" of sustainability as of yet ... So its hard for people to say things about it ... Yet everyone voices concern over what negative things come from it. They know the wall exists just ahead somewhere. How do you see it correcting? It has no experience having hit such a wall before. We might find the result at that extent much more violent than the religious alternative.
Maybe even irreparable. Maybe that is the lesson to the whole timing thing. Maybe thats the reason why it helps to have a certain percentage of religious restrainers amongst us to keep things honest and make sure we arent over reaching.
I dont personally think of them as restrainers ... But I think you get the idea. That there must be two sides working synonymously like that ... Both geared toward explaining things from both perspectives. It adds another dimension altogether to things. And they happen to be describing the same things ... Which makes them even better when you can find areas where the two relate ... Thats where real discoveries are made.
Quite honestly, putting evolution on a pedestal like this side by side with religion doesnt make much sense. Its almost trying to make a religion out of something that you even made example to having existed in all men already. Galileo didnt need a scientific theory to get behind to justify his need to explore and break the bounds of his religious views ... It was already there. Theres no reason to get behind it and support that feeling religiously. Religion is about promoting ideas that arent necessarily inherent to all people. To educate. No one needs an education of breaking the norm and thinking outside of the box ... Most do that naturally. At least I hope no one needs that. Maybe we have become institutionalized enough to where thats necessary ... Maybe thats why people get behind theories like this.
"How would living things be magically created by one being?"
Thats the million dollar question right? How would living things be magically created from one explosion in the universe (or being if you want to call it that)? Idk. Lets explore.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I don't think I get the last comment. What I am saying is, when you use words like "explosion" it starts people from a scientific background into thinking you know nothing, and gives the wrong picture to the believers. It would be like me saying.... I don't know, "magic carpenter". It is, unless the intent is to insult and confuse, wrong.
I should say, I am not above making mocking statements about religion. I do it all the time. I don't do it when I am talking with a reasonable debate partner, and that's the point, right? When the conversation slides, it slides for both sides.
I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. One is a theory of how organisms emerge and adapt overtime, while the other is a story (mythological) of how the world, or universe was created. Do they overlap? Yes. However, they both deal with different issues, but it is indisputable that evolution is fact, and creationism is myth with little evidence to support it.
Idk ... It seems like creationism can be construed to having been supported by literally everything all the time. I dont know how you could call that "little evidence". Theres a reason creationism has stayed relevant throughout the centuries.
It stayed relevant this long because the institutions that promote it have become very powerful over thousands of years and their influence is still very much present in modern times. It doesn't take much to get millions of people to believe something, even without evidence for it, especially something as convoluted as creationism. It is essentially a man-made story used to explain what science has yet to determine. And popularity is not really a measure of accuracy.
Freedombeforeequality, if people are so emotionally invested in the concept of evolution, that they would not change their belief when new material and theories becomes available you are correct. And it's not religious to be an atheist, just like it's not a hobby to not collect stamps.
"It doesn't take much to get millions of people to believe something, even without evidence for it, especially something as convoluted as creationism."
Oh it doesn't? Its a wonder you or I aren't in power then.
"Supported by everything? That is just a statement - same could be said of all evolution."
Not all. I thought we had established already that evolution can not be applied to everything, only to its narrow proven scope of things. If you go and try to apply it to everything, even the unproven, it becomes no different than a religion again.
And it would be wrong in a great many things. People could come to some pretty insane conclusions about the world if Creationist type religions never existed and Evolution was the only truth they were ever exposed to. In fact Creationist type religions would be one of those conclusions, ironically.
"And it's not religious to be an atheist, just like it's not a hobby to not collect stamps." -Farare
If you are specifically outlining a course of action to go around having collected a stamp over your lifetime then you have made a hobby of not doing it, yes. If you just weren't doing it without acknowledgement, then sure. Atheism is not that way. It exists in light of its alter ego, Religion, and therefore cannot be believed in without acknowledgement of the former.
"Oh it doesn't? Its a wonder you or I aren't in power then." - I meant for those in power. They already have the ability to influence millions and have been doing so for centuries. (And by they I mean the church)
I was just confused as to why you think what they are pulling 'Isn't much'. Its quite an undertaking really. And if it was totally baseless it would have fallen long long ago, like so many other uprisings. Theres something about an institution that quite literally predates known human history, that has to mean something. I notice a common argument among religion bashers is they seem to presume religion as a whole as some type of fad or phase that humans of the past went through. There is no conceivable start or end to it, so I dont know how that could be viewed as some kind of phase or mistake that we'd just outgrow one day. Its not going to go away.
It's not really "undertaking" at this point. As I said before, they have been doing it for centuries. Religion is not as uniform as most people believe. Many of the things that were commonplace in the church a few centuries ago never survived, people split and started their own sects, eliminated things they disagreed with and so on. Yet, after all of this conflict from within, the institution still stands. Why? Because they use their power to their advantage. They indoctrinate their followers with what they want them to believe and follow, and one of those things remained consistent throughout history, the concept of creationism. It is fundamental, but slowly being debunked by scientific innovations and discoveries. And the more science debunks, the less power it has. And saying this doesn't make me a "religion basher" because it's true, but that also doesn't mean I believe the institution itself will simply go away. People will always be dismissive of the facts and continue to fall victim to indoctrination. Humans simply aren't perfect.
"They indoctrinate their followers with what they want them to believe and follow, and one of those things remained consistent throughout history, the concept of creationism."
I think this is a 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg" type argument. People have used god to explain life/natural laws well before anyone was in a seat of power wielding god's law.
Because someone else most assuradely thought up creationism before there was a Roman Catholic church out there pushing it as a teaching. In fact it took so well because people already had and do have the inclination to believe something created them as no better an explanation for it exists anywhere else. Youre blaming an institution for what people were already thinking.
@FreedomBeforeEquality One of the qualities of humanity is self projection. When we don't have enough information, we tend to look towards ourselves for the answer. You can use a sensory deprivation tank as an example.
Sure, and barring an answer to the meaning of life (which there isn't one per se) we have no reason to expect people to think otherwise and equally we have no reason to expect religion will ever go away.
@FreedomBeforeEquality The meaning of life is just a small part of a much larger process. I say the meaning of the universe is complexification. The More answers we find and the more information we're able can keep and share, the faster religion will fade. I expect if to go away.
Jumping back in. Why is it so necessary for there to be any meaning? What I am asking is, the more we attempt to, or the more we assume that there is some meaning, the more we wish for these fantasy explanations. I have no problem living a (micro) meaningful life knowing that the grand-sum is nothing.
@reece - The meaning is only what we add. We are a clever bunch. We can do that. Its not delusional to think that my life has meaning to my son, or my dog. It does. That is micro. The question to the meaning "of it all" might just as well be 42 because it is meaningless. If that spot, the spot filled by "42" is God... Well, then, it is just as much wish fulfillment as 42. Makes no difference in a universe that is utterly indifferent to... Anything.
"I have no problem living a (micro) meaningful life knowing that the grand-sum is nothing."
I would ask why you would be okay with that then? And you'd answer me with a meaning of life in some form. There is no right answer there really.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I see an obsession from religion, trying to "make sense of it all". I scratch my head and wonder how childish can you be? Do you have a dog? Does it like to go for walks? OK then, all good. Go out for a walk, enjoy yourself a bit, but don't dilute yourself into thinking any of this has some scheme.
"Why project meaning, why think that statement has meaning."
So that we all still wake up and decide life is worth living. So that we make choices to prolong our existence. If there was nothing to struggle for ... Why get out of bed in the morning.
If that is enough meaning then I wonder why you'd advocate that I care for other people through socialist programs. There is no grand design. Why should I help them. I have zero motivation to do so under your model. How can any leftist claim to be atheist if their core belief drives people away from promoting civilization and the human race.