At 03:05 PM 06/27/2000, you wrote:
>From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
>
> >A while back Stephen Jones claimed that atheists had no choice
> >but to believe in evolution. I gave two alternatives, one based on
> >the idea that the universe might be infinite (though, obviously, it
> >would only need to be very large for my argument to work). I did
> >not claim that either of these alternatives was in fact true, though
> >Stephen consistently treated my exposition of them as claims of
> >their truth, apparently because he has not yet resolved his
> >problems with reading that were pointed out to him over a year
> >and a half ago by others and myself (perhaps he was unable to
> >read our remarks pointing out that he had this problem!).
>
>Indeed. One can think of any number of alternatives to evolution that an
>atheist *might* believe. An atheist might believe, for example, that the
>species just popped into existence from nowhere. An atheist might believe
>that he is the only conscious entity to exist, that he has always existed
>(but has a bad memory), and that everything he experiences is an illusion.
>An atheist's beliefs don't *have* to be rational and well-informed, any more
>than a theist's do.
>
>I would say that any rational, well-informed person, whether atheist *or*
>theist, has no choice but to believe in evolution.
Given the evidence, yes. However, *if* naturalistic evolution were to be
found to be truly inadequate to explain life on Earth, such alternatives as
I proposed would then become candidates for more serious consideration.
>Stephen's point is a red herring anyway (surprise, surprise!). Most atheists
>become atheists as a result (in part) of accepting evolution; not
>the other way around.
I'm not sure about that, but I agree that it's not really relevant whether
one is an atheist or not; what's relevant is the empirical evidence and the
general scientific grounding for evolution, not one's belief or non-belief
in a Big Guy in the Sky. Of course, Stephen's problem, and that of many
others, is that they take their belief in their *particular* Big Guy to be
the basis for evaluating both evidence and theories. Since their particular
Big Guy is a creationist, all they can do is try to find ways to reject or
reinterpret the facts, no matter how arbitrary and ad hoc this all gets.
--Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 12:41:26 EDT