The strange thing is the theists always say "evolution doesn't explain the beginnings of life"...
Evolutionary theory has never claimed to do that.
Theists always attack Darwin as if his work 250 years ago was the be all and end all of evolutionary theory.
As i've said before in this thread. Noone attacks the theory of flight on Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings of a flying machine so why do it on Evolutionary ideas that are 250 years old?
Originally posted by RobtardI wouldn't include theist in that statement, just because you are a theist doesn't mean that you are not rational. If you take the Bible literally then the concept that God created evolution will never work for you, there are many well respected Christian Evolutionist.
Rational people could, theist could not. Am I reading your emotes correctly?
Originally posted by jaden101The part that gets me and I've talked about it before is that they many that try to disprove Darwin will use the same math and reasoning that he used to come up with the theory to prove their conclusions.
The strange thing is the theists always say "evolution doesn't explain the beginnings of life"...Evolutionary theory has never claimed to do that.
Theists always attack Darwin as if his work 250 years ago was the be all and end all of evolutionary theory.
As i've said before in this thread. Noone attacks the theory of flight on Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings of a flying machine so why do it on Evolutionary ideas that are 250 years old?
The only way that the Earth could be 6,000 years old is if all the math and current science is wrong such as the Speed of Light, carbon dating and so on and so forth but they will use the same things to prove the age of Noah's Ark and so on.
Originally posted by jaden101
Or was that you using another strawman?
I'm glad you've conceded my points. Thank you.
Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't the rational people and the theist find a common area and just say God(pick your version) created evolution?
No where else are we forced to compromise truth for half truths. I don't pretend that the Holocaust "sort of happened" to please Ahmadinejad.
Originally posted by jaden101Well, if they understood it, they'd have a much harder time figuring out a way to attack it eh?
The strange thing is the theists always say "evolution doesn't explain the beginnings of life"...
Originally posted by jaden101Its the only way they feel they can win.
Noone attacks the theory of flight on Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings of a flying machine so why do it on Evolutionary ideas that are 250 years old?
I'm glad you've conceded my points. Thank you.
If that thought comforts you, go with it.
Well, if they understood it, they'd have a much harder time figuring out a way to attack it eh?
I think they're caught between a rock and a hard place. If they don't understand it then they can't attack it on a plausible basis but I don't believe they even want to understand it because it may dent their belief system.
Its the only way they feel they can win.
And even when doing that, they lack the understanding of Darwin's work to even attack that.
Quite sad when you think about it.
Originally posted by Ordo
No. See, the problem is, half those people aren't (in your words) "rational"No where else are we forced to compromise truth for half truths. I don't pretend that the Holocaust "sort of happened" to please Ahmadinejad.
Not really the same thing. Letting theists believe something is hardly the same thing as saying "evolution sort of happened", it's merely acknowledging that there are people who think that and that you don't really have the right (or the power) to force them to think differently. It wouldn't even totally preculde saying that they're wrong.
I think the point is that if you back up for a second it becomes evident that getting people to understand that they agree on a lot of things is more important and productive that driving a wedge between them on one issue.
Originally posted by Robtard
Rational people could, theist could not. Am I reading your emotes correctly?I wouldn't include theist in that statement, just because you are a theist doesn't mean that you are not rational. If you take the Bible literally then the concept that God created evolution will never work for you, there are many well respected Christian Evolutionist.
According to Kant, metaphysical knowledge is impossible to acquire. By this definition, any theist claiming to know God (or what He wants us to do) is irrational, or has used irrational means to gain this knowledge. Under this view, assertions about God fall outside the realm of logic. Any religious doctrine or statement therefore also falls outside of logic (is illogical).
If we reject Kant and assert that religious concepts do fall within the realm of reason, then the theist faces another problem: predictions made do not match the world we live in. This is why science is so damning to religious faith: faith in spite of facts is usually untenable.
That theists can be widely respected for their intelligence (see C.S. Lewis) does not mean that they are automatically rational. It is possible to be completely rational in every part of life except as it pertains to religion. Lots of intelligent people believe in god. That doesn't mean that believing in God is rational.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not really the same thing. Letting theists believe something is hardly the same thing as saying "evolution sort of happened", it's merely acknowledging that there are people who think that and that you don't really have the right (or the power) to force them to think differently. It wouldn't even totally preculde saying that they're wrong.I think the point is that if you back up for a second it becomes evident that getting people to understand that they agree on a lot of things is more important and productive that driving a wedge between them on one issue.
I'd agree with you on almost every other issue. It does no good for scientists or anyone to try and impose their beliefs on anyone, and there is a very good argument to be made that the current attention on evolution as a "battle ground" between science and religion has had the effect of increasing the understanding of evolution for many people entering many fields of science. Not to use myself as an example or anything, but almost because of Dawkins et al, I'm far more interested in evolutionary or functional psychology, and a lot of research is coming out under this paradigm.
However, this one isn't an issue of live and let live. A wedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) is being driven between the two camps, actively. While religious people might see secularism as an assault on their values, it is inarguable that those prominent in the "intelligent design" movement are going out of their way to attack the theory of evolution. They do it in their churches, in their homes, and in the schools.
I honestly believe that appeasement or middle-ground on this issue (and largely on most issues regarding empirical fact) is not beneficial. Not because anyone should force people to believe something that they don't, but because whether or not scientists want to fight about evolution, it is being made a battleground that literally undermines science to the rest of the public.
For example, Canada has a very small creationist population. We do have a creation museum in Alberta (our "south"😉, but the issue is pretty much politically irrelevant. Because of how high profile these debates are, there are instances of Canadian high school teachers teaching the "conflict". I had a social studies class in 12th grade (not a biology class mind you) where the merits of evolution vs intelligent design were discussed. imho, that is what a middle-ground approach means. It is the literal selling out of the future of one's nation [as, at least I believe, science is what makes countries do well], not to mention the lives of the individuals .
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd agree with you on almost every other issue. It does no good for scientists or anyone to try and impose their beliefs on anyone, and there is a very good argument to be made that the current attention on evolution as a "battle ground" between science and religion has had the effect of increasing the understanding of evolution for many people entering many fields of science. Not to use myself as an example or anything, but almost because of Dawkins et al, I'm far more interested in evolutionary or functional psychology, and a lot of research is coming out under this paradigm.However, this one isn't an issue of live and let live. A wedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) is being driven between the two camps, actively. While religious people might see secularism as an assault on their values, it is inarguable that those prominent in the "intelligent design" movement are going out of their way to attack the theory of evolution. They do it in their churches, in their homes, and in the schools.
I honestly believe that appeasement or middle-ground on this issue (and largely on most issues regarding empirical fact) is not beneficial. Not because anyone should force people to believe something that they don't, but because whether or not scientists want to fight about evolution, it is being made a battleground that literally undermines science to the rest of the public.
For example, Canada has a very small creationist population. We do have a creation museum in Alberta (our "south"😉, but the issue is pretty much politically irrelevant. Because of how high profile these debates are, there are instances of Canadian high school teachers teaching the "conflict". I had a social studies class in 12th grade (not a biology class mind you) where the merits of evolution vs intelligent design were discussed. imho, that is what a middle-ground approach means. It is the literal selling out of the future of one's nation [as, at least I believe, science is what makes countries do well], not to mention the lives of the individuals .
I wasn't really advocating appeasement (Hitler comparison here) though I see how it comes off that way. The problem is that when people focus on the metaphorical wedge they start to think of science and theism into evolution and creationism, which isn't true. There's a lot more to both than a single debate and it's equally harmfull to both sides to let that happen.
There should be a debate, that's a good thing. Debates foster thought, and even if people don't agree with you at least they're thinking. However, making one part of a battle stand for the war (so to speak) doesn't work, in my opinion because it's inaccurate and forces people further into their own circles.
Up above Red points out that you can be rational in every aspect of life except religion. If the other side insists that any irrationality (or any disagreement) makes you totally irrational then people start turning toward the group that will accept them, typically either the center or the other side. (for example: Just recently a Republican senator became a Democrat because they would accept him while the Republicans, who he agreed on 70% of the time, had started to reject him)
The discussion isn't the problem it's the language and attitude that cause the damage. Aknowledging that the other side exists isn't appeasement and neither is avoiding absolutism.
/rant as you would say
Originally posted by Red NemesisJust because you believe in God doesn't automatically make you irrational, just as because you don't believe in God make you rational. Many people that do not believe in God are far from being rational or having any understanding of anything, you could even say that if you believe in the VSL theory you are not being rational because there is no supported evidence of it. I know lots of people that believe in God but also supports how the universe and evolution works and that it was God that started the ball rolling, all evidence is still supported but even science can not prove how it all began IE the "God Effect".
I certainly would include theist in that statement. Theism is irrational.According to Kant, metaphysical knowledge is impossible to acquire. By this definition, any theist claiming to know God (or what He wants us to do) is irrational, or has used irrational means to gain this knowledge. Under this view, assertions about God fall outside the realm of logic. Any religious doctrine or statement therefore also falls outside of logic (is illogical).
If we reject Kant and assert that religious concepts do fall within the realm of reason, then the theist faces another problem: predictions made do not match the world we live in. This is why science is so damning to religious faith: faith in spite of facts is usually untenable.
That theists can be widely respected for their intelligence (see C.S. Lewis) does not mean that they are automatically rational. It is possible to be completely rational in every part of life except as it pertains to religion. Lots of intelligent people believe in god. That doesn't mean that believing in God is rational.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Just because you believe in God doesn't automatically make you irrational, just as because you don't believe in God make you rational. Many people that do not believe in God are far from being rational or having any understanding of anything, you could even say that if you believe in the VSL theory you are not being rational because there is no supported evidence of it. I know lots of people that believe in God but also supports how the universe and evolution works and that it was God that started the ball rolling, all evidence is still supported but even science can not prove how it all began IE the "God Effect".
That's not what he's saying though. The clue is in the last bit.
It is possible to be completely rational in every part of life except as it pertains to religion.
He's not saying believing in God makes you completely irrational. He's saying the belief that God exists is irrational in itself. The rest of your knowledge and beliefs can be perfectly rational because they can be based on something that is possible to prove and understand.
Originally posted by jaden101I know what he is saying, and just because you believe in god doesn't make that irrational. There are so many things that must come into account that just the belief in a god or supernatural thing doesn't make the belief necessarily irrational of illogical, it is how you come to that belief that will make it so not the belief itself.
That's not what he's saying though. The clue is in the last bit.He's not saying believing in God makes you completely irrational. He's saying the belief that God exists is irrational in itself. The rest of your knowledge and beliefs can be perfectly rational because they can be based on something that is possible to prove and understand.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I know what he is saying, and just because you believe in god doesn't make that irrational. There are so many things that must come into account that just the belief in a god or supernatural thing doesn't make the belief necessarily irrational of illogical, it is how you come to that belief that will make it so not the belief itself.
That's not what you said originially though.
How is believing in something which you have never seen, heard or experienced in anyway and cannot be proven not irrational?
It's as irrational as believing in fairies or the boogeyman. I don't believe it has anything to do with how you come to have those beliefs.
Originally posted by jaden101It is what I said as with the example of VSL, there is no proof or evidence of it just a theory but you wouldn't call them irrational or illogical. You also put in some key words to your statement "you have never seen, heard or experienced in anyway" which illustrates my point that it is the method of your belief that makes it irrational. If you have had a personal experience (for what ever reason) and you saw God and believed it was him/her/whatever then believing in God is not irrational for that person. The observer may see it as being irrational if they didn't experience the same "vision" but the other person is not.
That's not what you said originially though.How is believing in something which you have never seen, heard or experienced in anyway and cannot be proven not irrational?
It's as irrational as believing in fairies or the boogeyman. I don't believe it has anything to do with how you come to have those beliefs.
The same can be said about most anything, it is the lack of understanding in any subject and making the decision based off that knowledge or lack of it. I have seen some very logical conclusions for the existence of God, it doesn't make them true by any means but through observation and personal experience it holds true which doesn't make it illogical or irrational.
If you believe that a spider will eat your brain while you sleep is irrational because it is proven that it can not. Believing in aliens and some would say that you are being irrational because there is no evidence of this but you can use logic to state that their is a good mathematical chance of life existing in the universe besides us though we have never seen it.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
It is what I said as with the example of VSL, there is no proof or evidence of it just a theory but you wouldn't call them irrational or illogical. You also put in some key words to your statement "you have never seen, heard or experienced in anyway" which illustrates my point that it is the method of your belief that makes it irrational. If you have had a personal experience (for what ever reason) and you saw God and believed it was him/her/whatever then believing in God is not irrational for that person. The observer may see it as being irrational if they didn't experience the same "vision" but the other person is not.The same can be said about most anything, it is the lack of understanding in any subject and making the decision based off that knowledge or lack of it. I have seen some very logical conclusions for the existence of God, it doesn't make them true by any means but through observation and personal experience it holds true which doesn't make it illogical or irrational.
If you believe that a spider will eat your brain while you sleep is irrational because it is proven that it can not. Believing in aliens and some would say that you are being irrational because there is no evidence of this but you can use logic to state that their is a good mathematical chance of life existing in the universe besides us though we have never seen it.
Yes it is irrational for that person. Particularly when there are many other explanations for "visions" other than attributing them to God.
the reason "I saw God therefor I believe God is real" isn't rational in anyway. An individual may try and rationalise it to themselves but it doesn't make it rational.
Originally posted by jaden101I think that you are missing the point, if they are trying to rationalize it to themselves that means that they have evidence that it was not real, if they believe it to be real then that is evidence that it is real the same like looking at something for yourself. I said that the outside observer could say that it is irrational and illogical because they have information that the other person does not.
Yes it is irrational for that person. Particularly when there are many other explanations for "visions" other than attributing them to God.the reason "I saw God therefor I believe God is real" isn't rational in anyway. An individual may try and rationalise it to themselves but it doesn't make it rational.
Now you can go and tell them that they were false images but if they truly believe that it was real then you would be hard pressed to convince them such as people having hallucinations. If you believe that you saw something weird with your own eyes and someone gave you a probable explanation as to what you saw which would have more weight to you, your own experience or something that someone says that it could have been?
It comes down to the weight of the evidence that is known about the thing in question, now if there is barely any evidence to prove one or the other is it irrational to think that one could be true and the other is not? As with the case of the God of the Bible, there is lack of evidence to prove or disprove that he could exist as in the being itself but lots of evidence to prove that his actions according to the Bible are not such as the time some believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.