The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Devil and the odds of chance?
Quote:
Thanks for your concern for my soul, or my sanity, whichever motivates you to want me to believe and would consider it a gift. Let's say that my allelle for religiosity more fully expresses itself next week and I verbally acknowledge the God of Spinoza and Einstein (the one that doesn't play dice and without whom science is blind). Let's say He is something slightly more ethnic than the one revered by the cult of Pythagoras and Penrose (it's all in the math!) ... but not quite a robed Father who listens to and answers prayers individually. Let's say he is also not quite the one who gives up His Son for His beloved job creating and redeeming mortal souls, since that one is not even part of my Jewish upbringing and has never seemed any sort of an option for me given the free choice of belief. I don't quite see why this apparent change would make a difference to you, do you think it would change the way I act toward or think about other people? Let's say my religiosity allele then fully expresses itself a year later, and I recognize that God listens to our prayers and sometimes answers them. I now not only pray with my children for their comfort, and with my wife for the harmony of our home life, but now also in private. In what other way have I changed as a result? Have I suddenly become more compassionate? Wiser? More reliable friend, husband, father? Have I "grown up" spiritually? Is that what you are looking for or expecting here? Would you think I'd come to my senses in that case, or would my atheist friends think I've begun the descent into senility? Perhaps both. I'm not a militant atheist, in fact those folks sometimes give me the creeps nearly as much as militant evangelicals. I'm just someone for whom that sort of belief has thankfully never become a "live option." My strong belief in Jeffersonian secularism does put me in conflict with activist evangelicals who oppose it, but that has little to do with the mathematics or the Spinoza-Einstein deity. As Jim said, it's a different computation entirely. Were I born in the 18th century under similar favorable circumstances to my current life, I suspect I almost certainly would have been Deist rather than atheist or evangelical. As for the three options, I don't know of any way to distinguish them empirically, although my own bent gene is similar to Jim's in that I find something like Kauffman's theory the most persuasive, leading me to believe in the likelihood of option 2 even though evidence of multiple similar evolutionary outcomes in all the universe or universes is obviously not available. Joyous Christmas to you anyway ... Todd |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: there’re more things out there
Todd, you indicate that you’re led to believe in the likelihood of option 2—“that there might be more things similar to ourselves out there than we generally imagine.†Ahhh, yeah, sure Todd, whatever . . . don’t think I’d necessarily disagree that there’re more things out there….
Anyway, great question isn’t it—what are the odds that the universe and we are here by chance? Seems to be something of a stumbling block for those professing atheism. Nevertheless Todd, as we’ve already determined, and as documented in my August 22, 2004 post in your Evolution of Ernst thread, once we get thru all your bluster, “you’re actually agnostic, or somewhere between agnostic and atheist, which is still agnostic.†Therefore I’m not concerned for your soul; and for your sanity we have drugs—yes Todd, my Christmas will indeed be joyous. You too have a blessed holiday, and ponder the odds. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Famous Atheist renounces atheism
JimB and Todd, the breaking story from abcnews.com, Associated Press, below, is probably somewhat distressing for those professing atheism. Do y’all think this guy’s “bent gene†underwent a random mutation, or is this just one of them there “emergent outcomes?â€
Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Flew flies the militant atheist chicken coop?
Very interesting. He crossed the very line that we keep arguing over, from atheism to deism. I admire him for it, it must be making his most dedicated fan base very uncomfortable.
It's a little like Sharon giving up the Gaza strip! Todd |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Richard's Daughter, Juliet: Review of A Devil's Chaplain
Also, be sure to let us know when Dawkins is caught by the National Inquirer praying the rosary and Dennett does an ad for Scientology ... it's bound to happen eventually now, you know how these things tend to snowball once you make a small concession to the enemy ...
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
More on Flew's "deism," and his own words.
Flew's actual comments reveal an additional twist, that he considers the response of both theists and atheists to recent scientific developments to be rational. This seems to allude to something like the underdetermination thesis where the same evidence can rationally lead to different conclusions. I tend to agree with this.
Here is an article where Flew responds to all the buzz over his apparent "conversion" to some sort of deism. First, it seems I was wrong about him previously being what I could call a militant atheist (though he is one of their favorite sources), he says he was always only a "negative atheist" in the sense of claiming that deity can never be verified or disconfirmed. I certainly go that far as well. He also makes the comment that theism is a rational response to scientific developments given the assumptions of believers, just as it is rational for "positive atheists" to deny any such conclusion. He apparently doesn't consider his recent comments to represent a conversion of any sort, just an elaboration of his continuing "negative atheism" (deity can neither be verified nor disconfirmed) plus his acknowledgement of the persistent mystery of things like the origin of the first reproducing organism. I agree with him that it is not that much of a stretch from "negative atheism" to a Spinozan pantheistic deity. I feel pretty much the same way, simply in the sense that the origin of something like "autopoeisis" and the existence of extraordinary natural systems are a much harder problem than the things Darwinian adaptation directly deals with, for example. They do merit a different order of explanation than natural selection alone. I'm not sure they require "intelligence," depending on what that really means, but surely more than "positive atheists" (as fans of thoroughgoing simplification to known natural processes) are comfortable admitting to. My willingness to consider Peter Corning's "synergism" as a scientific hypothesis, for example, seems to be something that seems outside of science by many people. It largely comes down (for the technical explanatory aspect) to the sorts of explanations we are willing to allow for apparent mysteries. kind regards, Todd Here are Flew's own words ... Quote:
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Flew’s schizophrenia
Flew indicates that he’s still a “negative atheist,†but that he is best labeled a deist like Jefferson, and that he now also believes that intelligence was involved in producing life. Hmmm, he sounds schizophrenic too.
Difficult to let go of old beliefs, to admit that you’ve been so wrong about so much. Kind of how I felt when Clinton revealed that BJs aren’t sex. And Todd, don’t look at this as a “small concession to the enemy,†rather think of it as the twilight of atheism, and perhaps a returning to the fold. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Flew: courageous, big deal over nothing, or schizophrenic?
Quote:
And as an aside, I don't think of Sharon's efforts as a small concession to the enemy, I think of it as a big risk of compassion and an act of good faith almost unprecedented in the history of the struggles in that area. If Flew really "converted" from a strict atheism to a secularist deism as some are claiming lately, I view that as not a concession but a remarkable act of courage to acknowledge it. On the other hand, I don't know what the universe having "intelligence" means to an atheist, so I can't really be sure that it isn't some minor form of schizophrenia. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Wrong approach!
Hello, Gentlemen
Science ("repeatable" proven experiments) is the wrong test to prove the existence of a Creator. The proper approach is a method lawyers use. A historical legal evidence or documented proof. Since, scientifically you cannot prove what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday ( you could most likely produce a few witness's to testify to the fact of what & where you ate your breakfast and the actual time.) or the last thought that passed through your mind (unless spoken to someone else). The date you were born (other than the proof of your own existence and documentation). Or, that George Washington lived and breathed or Socrates; we cannot give scientific facts or produce scientific evidence. What we do have is historical evidence and proof. That these two men in history walked on this earth, the actions and philosopies of their legacys' and documented accounts, remain to this day as proof of their existence. We have more proof of the existence of Christ, and His life on this planet has done more to change the course of history and the lives of men to this very moment in history, than any character of our human existence througthout mankinds history. It narrows down to what Jesus said of Himself "If you have seen Me; you have seen the Father ( God ) " " My Father and I are one" ( God / Creator ). HHHHMMMM??? So now it rests on what does one believe about the claims of Christ and how they relate to the existence of God ( His Father in Heaven ). From His life and His testimony, not excluding the apostles, other believers or the historical accounts of non-believers. What really tics off atheists, perplexes skeptics & stumps evolutionists; about whether there is a God or not? Is Jesus the Messiah is the only emperical / historical proof God gave us, and the evidence is irrefutible. Freewill is not an allusion. Merry Christmas, Mike ps I voted for "W" as well. Go figure, it must have been something about the moral / ethical issues. Oh Yeah!, that "Lurch" would sell us out to enemy, would have had anything to do with it? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Law and Theology vs. Scientific Inquiry
Hi Mike,
Thanks very much for your reply! I agree with you. A shared goal of theology and law is to build the best possible case for a particular pre-determined interpretation of particular historical events. I agree that the legal model is more suitable to theology than is scientific inquiry. For a Christian theologian to interpret historical evidence to falsify the divinity of Christ would be like a lawyer arguing the case to convict his client. They would appear insane or incompetent. It's just not their job. A scientist or philosopher who argues a completely different position from previously confuses us at first because it seems contrary to human nature, but unlike the theolgian or lawyer, they are eventually applauded for their integrity if they manage to make their case well. The goal of scientific inquiry is indeed different from both law and theology, the goal is explaining the natural world better, not proving or disproving God or convicting or exhonerating a client. kind regards, Todd |
|
|