>Rich:
>>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.
>
>>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 disagree. I think most atheists become nonbelievers because they can't
believe the unbelievable. They've seen prayer be no more effective than
crossing one's fingers and making a wish. They've seen all the religions of
the world having similar beliefs and all but "that one" (identical to the
others) are false. Why make an exception? All the gods throughout history
but "that one" are false. How hard is it to disbelieve just one more? I
became an atheist decades before I discovered evolution and the evol/crea
debate.
Bertvan:
>This is quite an admission if true. (That most atheists become atheists as a
>result of accepting evolution.) . Actually, I would correct the statement to
>say people become atheists "as a result of accepting Darwinism".
"It is indeed remarkable that [The Theory of Evolution] has progressively
taken root in the
minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different
spheres of
knowledge.
"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken
independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument
in favour of this
theory."--Pope John Paul, Oct. 24, 1996
so is the Pope about to become an atheist? Why is it that Jesuits have been
teaching evolution in Catholic high schools since the sixties? because they
had become atheists? I kinda doubt it. The link between evolution and
relgion is and has always been spurious. Dawkins is an idiot. I know I've
said that before, but I think it can't be repeated enough. He may be a fine
zoologist, but philosophically he's an idiot. I find it hard to believe
Richard fell for his silliness.
>There should be room in science for both
>materialists and those of us who suspect there is more to reality than will
>ever be described naturalistically.
There are lots of scientists who suspect there is more to reality than what
can be observed and verified in the peer reviewed literature. But those
suspicions are not part of their scientific life. Science is an observation
of what is there. Verifiable observation--we can both observe it. We can go
out and get six or seven other people and they can observe it too. People
who speak different languages and who are from different cultures can
observe it too. That's science.
The warm fuzzies I feel for the Magic Muffin in the sky is *not* observable
(nor is the Magic Muffin) and there's no room for either things in science
>If some theists somehow manage to convince themselves that a view of nature
>as being the result of a series of random events, devoid of all purpose, is
>compatible with theism, I have no objection--as long as they weren't coerced
>into such a belief.
it is impossible to coerce belief. Copernicus believed the earth revolved
around the sun. He was coerced into keeping his findings secret until after
his death (in order to avoid hastening that death), but coercion could not
change his belief.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 12:57:57 EDT