[...]
>TG>You will rightly observe that such a perspective puts belief in God prior
>>to any evidence from the natural world. So, if we look at the biological
>>world and see that the evidence points to evolution, we conclude that God
>>did it that way. It is no stranger in biology than in physics or chemistry.
SB>I am a flat out Bertrand Russel-style atheist and I have no problem with
>that. As you imply elsewhere in your post, what's out there is wonderful. If
>some god or other is the author of it all, then so be it. It's the
>anti-evolutionists who ignore what's out there, misrepresent what's out
>there or refuse to accept what's out there that infuriate me and keeps me in
>this debate.
No doubt there are "anti-evolutionists who ignore what's out there,
misrepresent what's out there or refuse to accept what's out there". Such
anti-evolutionists are rightly criticised by *both* atheists and theists.
But what Susan seems to be saying is that *all* "anti-evolutionists...ignore
what's out there, misrepresent what's out there or refuse to accept what's
out there"?
If so, since opinion polls show that 40% of the general public are "anti-
evolutionists" and another 40% don't believe in the same type of atheistic
"evolution" that Susan believes in, this would be an extraordinary claim
which would require extraordinary evidence. I would therefore appreciate
it if Susan clarified her claim above.
If not, maybe Susan would state what is her criteria for deciding which
"anti-evolutionists": 1) "ignore what's out there"; 2) "misrepresent what's
out there"; or 3) "refuse to accept what's out there".
SB>I don't believe in the actual existence of any of the gods, even my beloved
>Kuan Yin. Therefore I don't oppose the gods (it would be a bit like opposing
>the Tooth Fairy).
If Susan is not opposing God, she is doing a *very* good imitation of it!
Actually Susan touches on an interesting thing. If atheists think that God is
the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, why do they bother arguing against
God? Do they spend equal time arguing against the Tooth Fairy?
Personally if I went back to being an atheist again, and I thought that God
was just a comforting illusion like the Tooth Fairy, I would not see there
was any good reason on atheist premises for robbing my fellow human beings of
their comforting illusions
That atheists like Susan persist however in doing so, is to my mind good
evidence that deep down the atheists *know* there really is a God, and are
trying to convince others that there isn't a God in order to convince
themselves.
The sort of atheist who would really impress me would be one whose life
was consistent with his/her creed. Atheists who rage against their fellow
human beings (who on the atheists' own premises are just evolved apes
with minds that are ultimately chemical reactions), for not obeying capital
`T' Truth, are in my book *deeply* and *absurdly* inconsistent!
SB>What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
See above. I assume Susan is speaking specifically of "anti-evolutionists"
here. If so, is Susan claiming that *all* "anti-evolutionists" are guilty of
"deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance"?
If that is the case, why does she not think that at least some of them might
just be simply *mistaken*? Why does Susan assume that to not believe in
"evolution" is a *moral* error, instead of just an intellectual error?
But if Susan is not claiming that *all* "anti-evolutionists" are guilty of
"deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance", what is her criteria for deciding
which "anti-evolutionists" are and which aren't?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The purpose of science is not to find "facts" or discover "truth," but rather
to formulate and use theories in order to solve problems and ultimately to
organize, unify, and explain all the material phenomena of the universe.
Scientists attempt to avoid the use of "fact, "proof," and "truth," because
these words could easily be interpreted to connote absolutes. Nothing in
science is deemed absolute. Science deals only with theories or relative
"truth,"-a temporary correctness so far as can be ascertained by the rational
mind at the present time." (Stansfield W.D., "The Science of Evolution",
[1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p7)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------