Reflectorites
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:17:42 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
RW>I will (again) break my resolution not to respond to Stephen's nonsense
If Richard really thought my posts were "nonsense" he would put a filter in
his emailer so he need not even see them.
Therefore I regard all such claims as mere bluff and a sign of weakness
not strength.
RW>any
>more. Since he has misrepresented me, I wish to set the record straight.
I have not "misrepresented" Richard (but see below).
[...]
>SJ>In any event Richard confirms my point "that atheists had no choice
>>but to believe in evolution":
RW>I did not confirm any such thing. I specifically referred only to "rational,
>well-informed" atheists (and theists). In fact, I clearly stated my view
>that: "An atheist's beliefs don't *have* to be rational and well-informed,
>any more than a theist's do."
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:05:10 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>RW>I would say that any rational, well-informed person, whether atheist
>*or*
>>>theist, has no choice but to believe in evolution.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>My meaning was that rational, well-informed atheists have no choice but to
>believe in evolution because they are rational and well-informed, not
>because they are atheists. It seems Stephen was unable to grasp even this
>simple logical argument.
[..]
I was taking it for granted that atheists who "believe in evolution" are
"rational and well-informed". Is Richard saying that there are some atheists
who "believe in evolution" yet who are *not* "rational and well-informed"? If
so, who are they? And on what grounds would they "believe in evolution" if
they are not "rational and well-informed"?
However, let's assume for the sake that Richard's meaning was "that
rational, well-informed atheists have no choice but to believe in evolution
because they are rational and well-informed, not because they are atheists".
In that case Richard would not be supporting my claim "that atheists had
no choice but to believe in [some form of] evolution".
But then Richard's claim is self-evidently false, because there are plenty of
"rational, well-informed" "theists' who don't believe in "evolution". Me for
example.
To make his case, Richard would have to show *non-circularly* (i.e. not
using "evolution" as a criterion) that I am either: a) "not rational"; or b) not
"well informed".
Because if Richard does use "evolution" as a criterion in assessing me
against a) or b), his claim that:
"I would say that any rational, well-informed person...has no
choice but to believe in evolution"
would reduce down to a tautology:
"I would say that any... [person who believes in evolution] ...has no
choice but to believe in evolution".
So I would be interested in hearing how Richard would substantiate either
that: a) I am "not rational"; or b) I am not "well informed", without using
belief in "evolution" as a criterion.
In the meantime, I find it interesting that "evolution" seems to the only
scientific theory which needs to pronounce those who don't believe in it as
either "ignorant, stupid or insane...or wicked" (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money
on Evolution", New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will
arise to serve the needs of the coming era. Just as stomachs are bodily
organs concerned with digestion, and involving the biochemical activity of
special juices, so are religions psychosocial organs concerned with the
problems of human destiny, and involving the emotion of sacredness and
the sense of right and wrong. Religion of some sort is probably necessary."
(Huxley J.S., "The Humanist Frame," in "Essays of a Humanist," [1964],
Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1969, reprint, p.91).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 18:03:05 EDT