h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<<
>I find myself staring atheism in the face
Say it ain't so!>>

Well, yes, because it's clear that evolution has happened, and, as Clive describes, is happening to this day, and it seems to happen by itself, which means that God seems not to be necessary in this process ---> deism ---> atheism.

There are still gaps. How did life start in the first place, and how does consciousness work? But the God of the gaps has less room for himself.

Hi Ed, I've had another think about your previous reply to me and your other post over the page (#28789), this morning:

>>Hmm.

Im sorry..but its not a totally daft answer. Its the *wrong* answer, but looked at in a lenient way not fundamentally daft. It boils down to:

~Let the process of evolution by natural selection = god.~

or

~Let physical laws = god.~

OK - admittedly the boy wraps up a lot of nonsense with it. ~God is not a monkey~ fer chrissakes! But what are the objections to the above formulations?<<



I agree Pantheism is not obviously daft, there are some rather sophisticated pantheisms out there, you mentioned Spinozas's.

This in fact reminded me, that I've had this discussion with Warner before (what's that definition of insanity again?) wherein Warner revealed that he wasn't a pantheist and hadn't even heard of Spinoza.
So this idea of god = the totality of all physics / reducible down to a single substance, is with him a non starter.

Amazingly we both have that in common, though we still differ over whether or not such a god exists.

Warner's conception of god, if I grasp it at all, is something closer to a panentheism, the sort you find in the Eastern traditions of divinity and the Vedic scriptures - God is substantially omnipresent in the physical universe but also in a sense exists "apart from" or "beyond" the universe as its Creator and Sustainer (look up Brahman for a tradition that pre-dates the Qur'an by about a thousand years) - the problem as always is evidence and thereby utility as a basis for better, more proximate explanations.

You can have "god did it's" all the way down but it's a stupefying and stultifying becuase of it's metaphysical claim of a god above the world.

This is a problem if one is attempting to find the simplest, most parsimonious explanation, that values evidence. If evidence evidence is not valued then there is no conversation to be had.

Take the "god makes water possible" example from over the page - in that it makes the relationship between elemental interactions more and not less complex and has further problems, notably that lurking within this is the familiar old Ontological argument an a priori assumption that god simply must be this way, utterly and forever without demonstration.

When have you ever known Warner "god is not a monkey" to hold a position as intellectually as sophisticated? If he has alighted on panentheism as set of concepts I'm minded to think it is by happy accident than on purpose.



>>The Chiclids are easy stuff that we (if not warner) can take as a given. Lets have a go at demolishing some harder theological questions<<


I just wanted to get Warner to admit that "God is the evolver." means "God doesn't 'evolves something' in the way that he is making it happen .. as you say, it's a 'natural process" - I am satisfied that he doesn't think "God is tweaking the genes at the very moment of fishy conception."

I still don't fully understand nor accept as reasonable his concept of a god who makes it so animals can reproduce and DNA be translated and converted actually adds to our understanding.

It is an irrational leap to go from a lack of understanding about how DNA arose (as oppose to works) or why there is sex instead of direct cloning and go "ah-ha" that is where god is located! And, as ever, the god of the gaps shrinks further still: I read an article recently that some biologists think the presence of parasites is what drove the emergence of sex as a mechanism in the diploid/haploid distinction as a means of reducing susceptibility, therefore nutrition, survivability etc....

So the 'why is there sex at all' question might yet admit of an answer, but no doubt as the 'will of god' makes water, so too 'by the will of god' did those parasites infest the early organisms driving their diversification leading directly and purposefully to cichlid fish in the lower congo just doing their thing while the river thunders past.

Becuase "science is not in contradiction with theological conclusions, except when it concludes there is no god."



P.S I do just bristle a little at this easy / hard distinction. I kind of know what you mean but I think this stuff does need challenging even if it's "easy" becuase science is complex and needs popular, accessible explanations to give people access to it and put out in such a way so they can understand it. I think the video I linked to is an excellent example of that. And I think the Cichlids of the lower congo is is just a good example to run through the scenario of what "god did it" actually means, and as demonstrated, it doesn't mean very much.

Furthermore faith needs to be challenged when it over-reaches and claims knowledge that it cannot know and is in all probable likelihood false.

>I find myself staring atheism in the face
Say it ain't so!<

>>Well, yes, because it's clear that evolution has happened, and, as Clive describes, is happening to this day, and it seems to happen by itself, which means that God seems not to be necessary in this process ---> deism ---> atheism.

There are still gaps. How did life start in the first place, and how does consciousness work? But the God of the gaps has less room for himself.<<



I think that deserves *this* round of applause.

>> it's clear that evolution has happened, and, as Clive describes, is happening to this day, and it seems to happen by itself, which means that God seems not to be necessary in this process

You can say that about anything
ie. it happens by itself
but what does that really mean? If it wasn't *arranged* to (apparently) happen by itself, then it wouldn't happen!

So it IS necessary for Almighty God to exist .. yes .. first cause.

Why people generally seem to choose between either evolution or God is due to their rigid understanding of Genesis.

Neither scientists OR theologians have all the answers or are 100% accurate in their theories .. so what?
Faith is a personal thing .. for the pious, they are satisfied that Almighty God will guide them .. and the impious simply turn away from 'the trail'

They therefore have different goals, different attitudes and consequently different ways of life.
Does this 'happen by itself' as well?

Thank you for the , but as you can imagine this line of reasoning is leading me to thinking overtime at the moment. The fact that evolution happens wouldn't lead so heavily in the direction of atheism if only the holy books made more sense. If for example the bible gave a clear indication that evolution was how it happened, then we'd have to marvel at how prescient the bible writers were, but as it is reconciling the bible account of creation with the scientific facts is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Xanatic
>>Going back to an earlier post, I would suggest Kuzushi looks at homology. It´s a nice and easy way to see the relationship between the species, and how they have changed over time.<<


For Kuzushi, I would recommend in addition to looking at homology they also look at phylogeny.

The phylogenetic relationships between homologous and diverse organisms is THE knock out punch for creationist explanations.

Homology at the level of say, anatomy gets you so far into seeing the relationships in nature that exist, but to *really* grasp how intricate a web of common ancestry there is, and why evolution - common descent with modification - is the leading explanation for why this is so, I think a further step into acknowledging what genetic evidence there is, only further illuminates what you can learn from anatomy alone.

A good book I would recommend in this regard is "Your inner fish" by Neil Shubin.

And here are a couple of youtube videos which expound on the "phylogeny challenge" to creationism.


Phylogeny Challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

Caniform Carnivore Cladograms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8&NR=1

Foundation on Feliform Families.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

>>Thank you for the ,<<

It is deserved.

>>as you can imagine this line of reasoning is leading me to thinking overtime at the moment.<<

I think thinking for yourself is a good thing - tell us what is on your mind: I am sure many of us who have come to grasp what the theory of evolution is and why it is so powerful an explanation can be a source of support.


>>The fact that evolution happens wouldn't lead so heavily in the direction of atheism if only the holy books made more sense.<<

Well quiet!

We know more or less how the bible was compiled, when and why - it's what is little more unclear is "by whom" - but what should be apparent is that there is no good reason to think that those authors would have had any great insight in the world that we should acknowledge.

Indeed their ignorance (not used pejoratively but literal sense of 'not knowing') is evident from how they make their descriptions describe the earth as an infinite plain but the sky overhead as bounded. We today know that to be the reverse! Note how genesis has the earth created BEFORE the rest of the stars and other galaxies. This is on it's face simply incorrect. See how the bible states that bats are birds! One can legitimately ask, given all that we know about the the different species of cats (extant and extinct) and how their phylogeny shows them to be related and distinct (see the 3rd video above) - how many cats did Noah take onto his ark?

That there is no sensible answer to this question is becuase the story of Noah's ark doesn't make sense in light of what we know about the different genera of families of cats.


>>Reconciling the bible account of creation with the scientific facts is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole<<

Indeed. And a truly herculean effort is expounded in trying to make the damn thing fit - but not for want of trying, it is I maintain a thankless and impossible task riven through with dishonesty and charlatans who will lie to people such as yourself about what the evidence is in order to steer you away from THINKING FOR YOURSELF and EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE which is what you are now doing. Hence the and why I give it unreservedly.

kuzushi,

For more on how, when and why the bible was written, check out these videos by an ex Southern Baptist, essentially summarising what is known as the documentary hypothesis of bible formation.

History of God: Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

History of God: Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8&feature=related

"it happens by itself"

>>but what does that really mean? If it wasn't *arranged* to (apparently) happen by itself, then it wouldn't happen!<<

Why do oxygen and carbon dioxide move through cellular walls across a concentration gradient?

This does 'just happen by itself' it's a fact of the distribution of the molecules dissolved in solutions - and yet this is how cellular respiration occurs, before the krepps cycle, before the production of ATP. This requires no energy, no ATP *it just happens* because of how diffusion across membranes work. All cellular life is based upon this or analogous processes (e.g. photosynthesis where sugars are manufactured first) *just happening* becuase of the physics involved.

No gods required or in evidence!

To you Warner, you just insist whatever natural process are before you that 'god made it so' because how else could it be so?

But that is no argument - it is assumptive of a conclusion already drawn and an argument based upon ignorance. There is no evidence to support your claim and it is contradicted by the brute observable fact that it appears to just happen naturally!

>> To you Warner, you just insist whatever natural process are before you that 'god made it so' because how else could it be so?

Absolutely!

I have submitted myself to Almighty God (in Islam) for over 30 years, and have gained knowledge and experience during this time.
Do you think that I'm going to turn my back on wisdom, and spiritually lose my way because I have no *physical* proof that God exists?

You must be barmy!

That is just such scary talk.

Though hopefully it shouldn´t come as a surprise to anyone.

Surprised, no. But delighted to see warner taking a new
and positive approach to the cruelly insensitive atheists
who belittle his intelligence, his faith and his humanity.

~jwf~

Denial is a positive approach?

Actions are more important than beliefs.

@Clive.

Good answer. Will cogitate and get back.

>>whatever natural process are before you that 'god made it so' because how else could it be so?<<

>>Absolutely!

I have submitted myself to Almighty God (in Islam) for over 30 years, and have gained knowledge and experience during this time.
Do you think that I'm going to turn my back on wisdom, and spiritually and lose my way because I have no *physical* proof that God exists?

You must be barmy!<<




The prosecution rests. No further questions for the witless ... sorry witness. Typo.

Honest.

Prosecution? For what?

Are you really looking for physical evidence of God's existence?
I would have thought that you knew better than that, by now

A figure of speech. Nevermind.


I am curious however since I consider you Warner, to be the very opposite of wise, what wisdom it is you claim to know from something which, as far as I can tell, does not exist.

>> what wisdom it is you claim to know from something which, as far as I can tell, does not exist.

Not a very wise question, I'm afraid
Most people gain some wisdom during their lives, but people who seek spiritual guidance and try to follow it
are likely to gain substantially more.