Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[Guy Threepwood]

They did???





Really???

I'd sure like to see your evidence for the above assertions.

they did!!! really!!!

(wiki)
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

 

[dianaiad]

I define a human life as not being living unless their is electrical activity in the brain - until then, they are just organs that cannot process experience.


So accidents, poor sex education, peer pressure, ineffective birth control methods, lack of access to birth control and rape don't happen?

Birth control methods actually work. As in...when used properly they work almost 100% of the time.

You understand, right, that someone who is on trial for murder isn't going to get away with claiming that his peers pressured him into it?

As for rape....my personal opinion is that if the victim aborts, and I honestly can't blame her if she does...the rapist SHOULD be tried for murder.

However, this is very much a side issue. Sorry I brought it up. It needs to be discussed elsewhere.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

they did!!! really!!!

(wiki)
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

All of these criticisms were refuted when it was shown there was scientific evidence to back the theory as well as scientific reasons for proposing the theory to begin with. It was perhaps unfair of people to assume that Lemaitre was basing his idea on religious beliefs, but given his status as a Jesuit priest you can understand where that misunderstanding came from. Lemaitre himself spoke out against the idea that his theory in anyway supported theological beliefs.

 

[dianaiad]

Hitler wanted to eradicate lesser races. Part of his reasoning was that a purer race would benefit future generations.

Godwin's Law. You lose.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow! Kind of off-topic, but my late-uncle, the rocket scientist, was also a devout Mormon. Furthermore, he was also integrally involved with the development of the solid rocket fuel used by NASA. He worked at Thiokol, near Brigham City. I wonder if their paths ever crossed.

Possibly. Dad also worked for Thiokol. I still remember the stories he told about how he and everybody in the company dealt with the earthquake that hit the area in 1961 (or was that 1962? I forget...)

We moved to California shortly after that, where he worked for NASA and JPL.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not true. Atheists prefer testable theories that are supported by objective evidence. That's why atheists accept the modern theory of evolution. Atheists are focused on the method of determining truth which is very different from theism.

Once again you'd have to have argued that with many atheists like Hoyle, they didn't like the implications of a creator in a creation event. that was their argument against the BB, not mine

Theism has absolutely no ideological reservations about uncovering the nature of reality as it has unfolded. Be it finding ever deeper layers of specified information, guiding instructions, explosive events like the beginning of the universe or sudden appearances or of highly evolved phyla. Theism is open to looking ever deeper, with no inclination to try to close the case on the simplest easiest explanation at hand

we can't quite say the same for materialism can we?, these sorts of things do not fit comfortably with preferred predictions. And so they tend to be first written of as 'religious pseudoscience' then 'artifacts of a misleading record' before finally giving in to the evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Once again you'd have to have argued that with many atheists like Hoyle, they didn't like the implications of a creator in a creation event. that was their argument against the BB, not mine

I am an atheist and I am saying that it is about the evidence and the method for me.

Theism has absolutely no ideological reservations about uncovering the nature of reality as it has unfolded. Be it finding ever deeper layers of specified information, guiding instructions, explosive events like the beginning of the universe or sudden appearances or of highly evolved phyla. Theism is open to looking ever deeper, with no inclination to try to close the case on the simplest easiest explanation at hand

So where are the scientific research programs based on these ideas?

we can't quite say the same for materialism can we?, these sorts of things do not fit comfortably with preferred predictions. And so they tend to be first written of as 'religious pseudoscience' then 'artifacts of a misleading record' before finally giving in to the evidence.

What you have are empty claims, not evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am an atheist and I am saying that it is about the evidence and the method for me.

great, so you have nothing against identifying aspects of life that might be perceived to support a theistic conclusion, me neither. I say follow the evidence where it leads, regardless

So where are the scientific research programs based on these ideas?

Oh lots, like the ones that ignored atheist claims of 'pseudoscience' and looked into whether or not the universe actually did have a beginning

Similarly we do have some research programs in life sciences which do not restrain investigation within 'unintelligent' conclusions.

the 'idea' is simply to lift imposed materialistic restrictions on certain implications. why not? As with the BB, nobody was forced to give up their belief in atheism were they?

What you have are empty claims, not evidence.

^ ironic statement!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

great, so you have nothing against identifying aspects of life that might be perceived to support a theistic conclusion, me neither. I say follow the evidence where it leads, regardless

But you don't follow the evidence, as shown by your refusal to engage the evidence in other threads.

Similarly we do have some research programs in life sciences which do not restrain investigation within 'unintelligent' conclusions.

Like what?

the 'idea' is simply to lift imposed materialistic restrictions on certain implications. why not? As with the BB, nobody was forced to give up their belief in atheism were they?

What materialistic restrictions are you talking about?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am an atheist and I am saying that it is about the evidence and the method for me.

. more to the point, you are, I'm assuming, a little less influential in academia and pop science media than people like Dawkins, who's best selling book was not called 'objective evidence for evolution' but 'The God Delusion' ....

He explicitly admits the intellectual gratification he derives from Darwinism as an atheist.... mirroring exactly how Hoyle openly felt about Steady State theory.. you see the problem here..

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

. more to the point, you are, I'm assuming, a little less influential in academia and pop science media than people like Dawkins, who's best selling book was not called 'objective evidence for evolution' but 'The God Delusion' ....

Dawkins talks again and again about following the scientific method and using evidence to reach conclusions.

He explicitly admits the intellectual gratification he derives from Darwinism as an atheist.... mirroring exactly how Hoyle openly felt about Steady State theory.. you see the problem here..

Atheists do get intellectual gratification from following the evidence to a well supported conclusion that gives us new knowledge about how the universe works. That's the whole point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you don't follow the evidence, as shown by your refusal to engage the evidence in other threads.

I try to answer anything where people have put effort in and avoided ad hom, . I don't always have time for every question (if I had a nickel for all of mine that are ignored) but I certainly don't 'refuse to engage'! - let me know which thread and I'll respond to you

Like what?

discovery institute

What materialistic restrictions are you talking about?

where conclusions must follow naturalistic guidelines

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dawkins talks again and again about following the scientific method and using evidence to reach conclusions.



Atheists do get intellectual gratification from following the evidence to a well supported conclusion that gives us new knowledge about how the universe works. That's the whole point.

he was talking about gratifying the atheist position explicitly, not knowledge without qualification

 

[SkepticThinker]

. more to the point, you are, I'm assuming, a little less influential in academia and pop science media than people like Dawkins, who's best selling book was not called 'objective evidence for evolution' but 'The God Delusion' ....

He explicitly admits the intellectual gratification he derives from Darwinism as an atheist.... mirroring exactly how Hoyle openly felt about Steady State theory.. you see the problem here..

Are you not aware of another of his bestselling books, "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution." ??

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you not aware of another of his bestselling books, "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution." ??

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

'his best selling book' as in literally his best selling book, which I believe it still is,

I could be wrong, but Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion' though having actually contributed something major to science itself, which directly refuted atheist positions at the time, he would have been arguably far more justified in doing so.

And he certainly never suggested anyone was stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked for disagreeing with him

But he did the exact opposite, he went out of his way to make clear that his work had nothing to do with any conclusion of God or atheism or name calling or selling books, it was to do with science. Even telling the Pope to quit gloating about it!



Now isn't that a classy and refreshing approach for a scientist?! (who wasn't taken seriously as one)

 

[SkepticThinker]

'his best selling book' as in literally his best selling book, which I believe it still is,

I could be wrong, but Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion' though having actually contributed something major to science itself, which directly refuted atheist positions at the time, he would have been arguably far more justified in doing so.

And he certainly never suggested anyone was stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked for disagreeing with him

But he did the exact opposite, he went out of his way to make clear that his work had nothing to do with any conclusion of God or atheism or name calling or selling books, it was to do with science. Even telling the Pope to quit gloating about it!

Now isn't that a classy and refreshing approach for a scientist?! (who wasn't taken seriously as one)

You seemed to be suggesting that he does not write books about the evidence for evolution, rather he is more interested in pushing atheism and insulting people who don't accept evolution.




P.S. If that is his bestselling book, that says less about him and more about the people buying it, wouldn't you say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

'his best selling book' as in literally his best selling book, which I believe it still is,

I could be wrong, but Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion' though having actually contributed something major to science itself, which directly refuted atheist positions at the time, he would have been arguably far more justified in doing so.

And he certainly never suggested anyone was stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked for disagreeing with him

But he did the exact opposite, he went out of his way to make clear that his work had nothing to do with any conclusion of God or atheism or name calling or selling books, it was to do with science. Even telling the Pope to quit gloating about it!



Now isn't that a classy and refreshing approach for a scientist?! (who wasn't taken seriously as one)

What makes you think that Lemaitre wrote anything which directly opposed atheist positions? That seems to be a rather odd claim to make.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seemed to be suggesting that he does not write books about the evidence for evolution, rather he is more interested in pushing atheism and insulting people who don't accept evolution.

P.S. If that is his bestselling book, that says less about him and more about the people buying it, wouldn't you say?

As in the OP, it's about personal beliefs in God /atheism and evolution, atheism and evolution go hand in hand for Dawkins,

not sure how we'd measure relative levels of 'interest' but I don't think any amount of pushing atheism or insulting skeptics exactly helps with the scientific method being rigorously followed..

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

he was talking about gratifying the atheist position explicitly, not knowledge without qualification

No, he wasn't.

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."--Richard Dawkins

Nowhere does he say that evolution gratified the atheist position.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I try to answer anything where people have put effort in and avoided ad hom, . I don't always have time for every question (if I had a nickel for all of mine that are ignored) but I certainly don't 'refuse to engage'! - let me know which thread and I'll respond to you

Read the opening post in this thread and actually address the evidence in that post, not go on tangents about computer software.

The Evidence for Random Mutations

Thus far, your participation in that thread has been to try and avoid all of the evidence in the opening post and to change the topic.

discovery institute

"discover institute" is not a scientific research project.

where conclusions must follow naturalistic guidelines

How does the Big Bang theory not follow naturalistic guidelines?