We Will if You Will

_{Barry Arrington
March 18, 2011

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In response to Dr. Torley’s post here, commenter Graham asks: “Can we now drop the pretense and just declare UD/ID to be religious”?

Well Graham, let’s think about that. ID theory posits that some observations are best explained as the result of the acts of an intelligent agent. The theory does not posit any particular agent and the agent need not be a deity. It could, for example, be the aliens Dawkins speculated about in his interview with Ben Stein.

To be sure, many ID proponents believe the intelligent agent is God. But that is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

Neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE) posits that unguided material forces are sufficient to produce all that we see and thus there is no need for a designer. The obvious implication of the theory is that atheism is a valid scientific conclusion. Again, Dawkins: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Many proponents of NDE are atheists. But atheism is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

You ask if we can declare ID to be religious because some people take ID and run with its implications in theological directions. Well, a lot of people take NDE and run with its implications in theological directions. (Atheism is nothing if not a “religous” position)

Tell you what, I am happy to call ID religious if you will also call NDE religous to the same extent. Deal?

Comments

Matteo:
Not collecting stamps is nothing if not a “hobby” Except for the fact that those who don’t collect stamps don’t crash the comment sections of those who do in order to proclaim that THEY! DO NOT! COLLECT! STAMPS!!!!!!! AND, BTW, EVERYONE WHO DOES IS AN IDIOT!!!!!
Who here has ever said anything to that effect? I certainly haven't. Two of the three smartest people I know are Christians. Almost my entire family are Christians. I was a Christian for almost 30 years. And I wouldn't say that participating open discussion message boards is 'crashing', is it? What are the point of comments on a blog? So that posts that pat the author on the back can be collected with all others discarded, or is the purpose of comments to be able for a group of people interested in the same subject to be able to exchange ideas? The comments section of this blog is heavily curated, so I don't think a statement like that would make it up even if someone did say things like that. I reply on posts where I think I have something to add to the conversation. This post made some particular claims about atheism and atheists, and being a (recent) atheist, I thought I would try to correct what I consider to be a misunderstanding/misrepresentation
In that respect, atheism bears no resemblance at all to not collecting stamps.
Well of course the analogy breaks down at some point. If analogies mapped to reality at every conceivable point, they wouldn't be analogies.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

To the moderators: I understand fully that posting here is a privilege, not a right. I understand that that this blog is the equivalent of private property, subject to the wishes of the authors. My motives for posting here are to be able to freely exchange ideas with others. I am not dogmatic in my views; my mind is always subject to change. I respectfully request to have my comments not have to wait (sometimes days) to go through moderation, as this inhibits conversation. I will do my best to be on topic, respectful and courteous. I understand that if abuse this privilege, then the hosts have every right to kick me out of the party. I wish only to be able to join in the conversation in this subject. Like many of you, I find this to be the most interesting subject in world. for your consideration, and thanks for your time, Jurassicmac. Feel free to remove this post, whatever your decision is.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac:
It is inconsistent to think that your God as you describe him would create things that look like they are the end result of common ancestry & natural selection.
Michael Behe said this in The Edge of Evolution:
Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades the red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. …What sort of designer is that?
Dr. Behe has inferred design from the purposeful arrangement of parts. His reasoning may be flawed, and it is certainly legitimate to point out where he has gone wrong. The argument that a benevolent God would not have created the malaria parasite does nothing to help us understand the origin of the parasite. We learn nothing new from the argument.NeilBJ_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

"You can’t just lack a belief about God. Trees lack belief. Rocks lack belief. Cats lack belief. . Humans do not. . If you have ever heard or thought about God, you believe something about God. Is it really that difficult to understand?" Naa, the understanding of it business isn't at all difficult -- what these "atheism is simply lack-of-belief" people/parrots-for-Dawkins are having a problem with is the intellectual honesty business end of it.Ilion_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

You beat me to the punch, Matteo.Ilion_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Not collecting stamps is nothing if not a “hobby”
Except for the fact that those who don't collect stamps don't crash the comment sections of those who do in order to proclaim that THEY! DO NOT! COLLECT! STAMPS!!!!!!! AND, BTW, EVERYONE WHO DOES IS AN IDIOT!!!!! In that respect, atheism bears no resemblance at all to not collecting stamps.Matteo_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

@Collin.... & everybody else I guess Just so we're all in agreement with what the word 'religious' means, I went and checked Dictionary.com. The def's they gave are: 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion. 2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly. 3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious. 4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order. 5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances. Any of these work for everybody? - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
Seqenenre, Does it help make your little story about children seem more valid to you by assuming your conclusion from the outset? I am guessing that is why you did so, is that correct?
Ok, let's modify Seqenenre's example: "If children come up with an imaginary friend and their social environment does not accept the existence of this imaginary friend, are you then suggesting that not believing in the existence of this imaginary friend is on the same level as the introduction of the imaginary friend by the child?jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Barry:
The issue is not whether belief in God is reasonable or unreasonable. The issue is whether belief in God is a religious belief. By definition, it is. Accordingly, atheism is a religious belief.
Barry, let's take your criteria for labeling a position a 'religious' belief and see if it holds in any other scenario: "The issue is whether belief that my toaster is God is a religious belief. By definition, it is. Accordingly, not believing that my toaster is God is a religious belief." Err...not so much for that one. Let's restructure it: Claim: My TV is an archangel in the form of a TV. Response: I do not believe your TV is an archangel in the form of a TV. Is the response a religious claim by default? Nope. Now, the reason for rejecting the claim is important. If the response were "I do not believe your TV is an archangel because I happen to believe that archangels always appear as forks, not as TVs," then yes, that would be a religious argument. If, however, the response was "I do not believe your TV is an archangel because you have not provided sufficient evidence that your claim is true," then that would obviously not be a religious argument. Since pantheist believe everything is God, then by your criteria Barry, saying that I don't believe my iPod is God is a religious statement. By your criteria, any statement is a religious statement, and like I said, that strips the term of any meaning whatsoever.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Collin:
Jurassicmac, I think that if you lack a belief in God then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Correct me if I’m wrong.
No, agnostic means "I don't think the existence of God is knowable." It is not a midpoint between theism or atheism. One can be both a Christian and and agnostic: "I believe that God exists, but I can't know for sure," or an atheist and an agnostic: "I don't believe that God exists, but I can't know for sure," or somewhere in between: "I have no strong leaning one way or the other on God's existence, but I don't think it's knowable." I am not an agnostic. I think that If a God existed it could (not necessarily would) be possible to know for sure. If a God did not exist, it would not be possible to know for sure. (You can't prove a negative) One can test the veracity of testable claims made about Yaweh.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

kornbelt888:
Atheism is a belief *about* God, and therefore, a religious *position*.
Ok, let's see if that concept holds up elsewhere: That lightning is caused by electrical discharge and not by Thor is a belief *about* Thor, and therefore, a religious *position*. Uh, nope.
Your soccer analogy is invalid because people who don’t play soccer (usually) don’t have anything *against* soccer.
What in the world does liking something have to do with whether not playing it is it's a sport? Or a religious belief?
Atheists have something against the existence of God. It is contrary position *about* theism.,
You could not possibly be more mistaken. I don't have anything against the existence of God; in fact, having been a Christian for most of my life, I freely admit that I would even prefer that He existed. I (and many other) atheists are atheists for 1 reason, and 1 reason only: We are not convinced that the proposition "God exists" is true. It's no different than not being convinced that the proposition "Bigfoot exists" is true. It wouldn't matter If I preferred that God existed or preferred that he didn't, in my opinion, the available evidence does not warrant belief. I obviously could be wrong about the evidence, but that is the sole determiner of my position. For what it's worth, I don't consider ID to be a religious argument. The statement "The complexity of life is best explained as the result of an Intelligent Designer" is an empirical statement through and through. However, It's apparent that in most cases (myself included when I was an ID proponent) ID proponents are religiously motivated.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

The problem I have is that if something is "religious" then it gets banned from public schools while something not religious is allowed. So under jurassicmac's view, atheism can be taught in school but no counter arguments would be allowed. Jurassicmac, I think that if you lack a belief in God then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong. The term "religious" isn't very well defined in our discussion I think. We should define it first and then argue about whether something is a religious belief or not.Collin_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Barry, I respectfully submit that you're in error about this. Belief about something that some people consider a religious issue is not necessarily the same thing as a religious belief. As I said above, this needlessly elevates teh non-religious. You're giving too much credit to atheism in order to make a tu quoque argument.QuiteID_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre continued; Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47 Please note Seqenenre, the '4-Dimensionality' that pervades every measurement for 'power scaling'; The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/#comment-369806 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for 'random' Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this 'four dimensional scaling' of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional 'expectation' for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an 'emergent' property of the 3-D material realm. As well Seqenenre, please note the uniqueness of this 3-Dimensional image on this 2-Dimensional surface: Shroud Of Turin's Unique 3 Dimensionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg Seqenenre, you state 'imaginary friend' to denote non-conformity to reality, but perhaps it is your belief in a 'absolute material frame of reference' that is what is truly 'imaginary' in the first place? Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist. Then again I'm not a professor of physics at a major university as Dr. Henry is.) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Seqenenre, I would hope that this would give you enough solid reason as for you to look up, to that 'higher dimension' which is more real than this dimension, and to ask Christ, who has conquered death, into your life.bornagain77_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre, to suggest 'imaginary' denotes what you think is a non-conformity to reality. Yet, there are several lines of evidence that point to the reality of a 'higher dimension' above this 3-Dimensional (3-D) reality; Please note how 3-D reality folds and collapses into a tunnel shape, in direction of travel, as the constant for the speed of light is approached, in this following video. Please pay particular attention to the full relativistic effect at the 3:22 minute mark; Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Note how the full relativistic effect at the 3:22 mark matches the 'light at the end of the tunnel' effect noted in many Near Death Experiences; The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience - The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ As well Seqenenre, please note mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light, whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight. Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY As well Seqenenre, please note how special relativity also confirms the reality of a higher 'eternal' dimension for time, which is also noted in very many Near Death Experiences; ,,, when traveling at the speed of light time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. speed of light travel gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension 'eternal' inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest http://www.readersdigest.co.za/article/10170%26pageno=3 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences As well Seqenenre, please note how quantum entanglement cannot be reduced to this 3-D material framework; Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 and please note, Seqenenre, how this quantum entanglement, which blatantly defies any constraints of this 3-D material realm, is found to be integral and foundational to molecular biology; Quantum Information In DNA & Protein Folding http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Further evidence that quantum entanglement/information is found throughout entire protein structures: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rescue-proteins-leave-evolutionists-in-the-ditch/#comment-373214 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/bornagain77_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac writes: “Atheism is not: ‘I do believe god does not exist,’ (although an atheist can think this as well) but rather, atheism is: ‘I do not believe that God does exist.’” The Dread Pirate Robert to Vizzini: “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.” Seqenenre, your “imaginary friend” sophistry gets you nowhere. You and jurassicmac have both failed to heed Wittgenstein: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” The issue is not whether belief in God is reasonable or unreasonable. The issue is whether belief in God is a religious belief. By definition, it is. Accordingly, atheism is a religious belief.Barry Arrington_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre, Does it help make your little story about children seem more valid to you by assuming your conclusion from the outset? I am guessing that is why you did so, is that correct?Upright BiPed_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

As a Christian, I believe atheism is a philosophical, not a religious position. Religious positions imply more than simply belief; they imply moral and self-obligations as a result of that belief. Even Buddhism, though it has no position on God, is a religious system in that sense. Deism, by this reasoning, is also a philosophical position. To say that atheism (or agnosticism, or deism) are religious is to elevate them beyond their proper sphere.QuiteID_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac Atheism is a belief *about* God, and therefore, a religious *position*. Your soccer analogy is invalid because people who don't play soccer (usually) don't have anything *against* soccer. Atheists have something against the existence of God. It is contrary position *about* theism. A better analogy for you would be liberals and conservatives in politics. Opposite viewpoints.kornbelt888_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

If children come up with an imaginary friend their social environment will not accept the existence of this imaginary friend. Are you suggesting that not believing in the existence of this imaginary friend is on the same level as the introduction of the imaginary friend by the child?Seqenenre_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

I realize that Darwinists have a terrible time understanding the context of a rational discussion, but I will, once again, try to illumninate the subject matter for them. [A] In order to justify their special brand of Theistic Darwinism, badly educated Catholics try to argue against ID science by twisting and obfuscating Aquinas' arguments on Divine causality. To correct the errors of those badly educated Catholics, well-educated Catholics must untwist and clarify those arguments so as to give a fair account of what St. Thomas actually said. Just to provide a little repetition for the sake of the Darwinists: In order to untwist and clarify the religious subject matter that has been artificially injected into the discussion, one must also discuss that same religious subject matter that is to be untwisted and clarified. [B] For those uninitiated Darwinists who think ID methodology is "about religion" [a mindlessly vague phrase], I always ask this question: How do you extract religion from "Irreducible Complexity" or "Specified Complexisty." So far, no one has ever taken up the challenge.StephenB_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Atheism is an active belief. The atheist has weighed the evidence and made a conclusion about God, i.e., that he does not exist. You can say many things about that conclusion, but you can’t say it is not a conclusion about a vitally important religious issue.
That is simply incorrect. Even Richard Dawkins has pointed out on several occasions that he is not 100% sure that God does not exist. He has stated several times that if belief were mapped on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being absolute certainty that God exists, and 7 being absolute certainty that God does not exist, he would be a 6, or perhaps a 6.5. Atheism is not: "I do believe god does not exist," (although an atheist can think this as well) but rather, atheism is: "I do not believe that God does exist." The atheist has weighed the evidence and made the conclusion that there is insufficient reason to believe in God. Some go on to say that it is therefore safe to believe that God probably doesn't exist, and a small fraction (I can name only one) go on to say that God certainly doesn't exist. And regardless of how you define it, disbelieving a religious claim is not automatically itself a religious view itself. If someone told me that my bowl of cereal had an immortal soul, and I told them that I had insufficient evidence to accept their claim, am I making a religious claim? Do I have a 'religious' belief about cereal bowls? If so, then everything is a religious belief, and the term is meaningless.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Leslie:
You can’t just lack a belief about God. Trees lack belief. Rocks lack belief. Cats lack belief. Humans do not.
Leslie, do you lack a belief in the magical half-dinosaur, half-turnip creatures called boingalfluffins? I'm willing to bet that prior to reading this, you did; It is therefore quite possible for humans to lack specific beliefs. (and what reason do you have to think that cats lack beliefs? My sister's cat believes that the sound of a can opener means food is coming, or at least, he acts like he does) Barry says in the OP that atheism is a religious belief; That's like saying that believing lightning is caused by electric discharge, and not Thor, is a religious belief. Believing in Thor is a religious belief. Not believing in Thor is not also a religious belief, It's the lack of one; else everybelief would be a religious belief, and that would render the phrase meaningless.
If you have ever heard or thought about God, you believe something about God. Is it really that difficult to understand?
Is it accurate then to say: "If you have ever heard or thought about Thor causing lightning, then you have a religious belief about what causes lightning."jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

HT to Pez. As if it had to be said-
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1
…
The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2
…
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4
click here for a hint:
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5
Thank you for your honesty Will Provine. 1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 † 2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 † 3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 † 4- No Free Will (1999) p.123 5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.Joseph_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

In "The Design Revolution", page 25, William Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
Joseph_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion
Joseph_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac The dictionary defines atheism as: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Both definitions undercut your argument. Atheism is an active belief, not a state of being. You write: “atheism itself isn’t a ‘religious’ belief any more than ‘not playing’ soccer is a sport, or ‘not being a doctor’ is a profession.” You are correct. Not playing soccer is not a sport, and not being a doctor is not a profession. Neither of these propositions has any bearing on what we are talking about. Atheism is an active belief. The atheist has weighed the evidence and made a conclusion about God, i.e., that he does not exist. You can say many things about that conclusion, but you can’t say it is not a conclusion about a vitally important religious issue.Barry Arrington_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Hey, Jurassicmac, You write: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and therefore a lack of a religious belief." While I think your overall point - that the word 'Athiesm' isn't a religious statement - may have some merit, 'Atheists' themselves tend to be pretty religious when it comes to their beliefs as well. I mean think about it. You have an origin story (several actually), You have texts to read (God Delusion, God is Not Great', Origin Of Speicies), men & women in funny dress telling you how we came to be and how to live life (scientists in lab coats and what not) and you even have an apocalypse predicted (universal heat death, ne?). You believe all of these things (or at least most of them) are absolute truth, and for many of you the idea that you may be wrong is something to sneer at... an attitude which 'religious' people have down to a science these days unfortunately. You may be 'godless', but you're certainly still religious. - Sonfaro P.S. If you 'lack belief' that a God exists, it means you believe no God exists, which is a positive statement that should be defended. Belief isn't the same as a sporting event. By not believing one thing you take an opposite position. Either you believe, you don't believe, Or you're unsure. And anyone who calls him/herself an Atheist isn't unsure.Sonfaro_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

I would characterize atheism as a philosophical belief, not a religious one (and certainly not a scientific one!)QuiteID_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

There is a growing questioning of intelligent design based upon Augustinian beliefs as well, based around the phrase fides quaerens intellectum faith seeking understanding. Alister McGrath for instance wants to recover a Trinitarian Natural Theology from Augustine's theology. Alvin Plantinga argues for Augustinian science where Christians may begin science from what is known from Christian faith. This is because all start from a place of belief, whether religious or non-religious belief. Atheists may not have religious beliefs, but they do have beliefs that shape science. Most creationists today have adopted pressupositional apologetics as opposed to the evidential apologetics that still seems characteristic of ID.Steno_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next