doGoN said:
As I said, anybody using ID as a Christian argument against Evolution is only hurting themselves... The biggest problem is that Creationism attempts to assert a miracle where science "lacks evidence", if you look at any argument against Evolution it always boils down to that.
I have come up with this definition: Science is the abundance of evidence, Creationism is the lack there of.
I tend to avoid generalizations about a whole belief system, but that one did make me chuckle. It seems to have an element of general truth to it ;-)
vic C. said:
So Jayls5, let me ask; do you actually think your existence, your flesh and blood and ability to function in a human manner, is some random act of this so-called theory of evolution? Then you would say that's logical and our faith isn't? How does one function day in and day out believing they have no specific purpose in life? The mathematical odds of your theory and it's end results are far more astronomical and incomprehensible than our belief in God as creator and sustainer. I wonder, who has more faith here, atheists or believers? One of us have a lot to lose if we're wrong.
Even Einstein, one of the wizards in mathematics, conceded to a God created type of design. What about Newton? Both men did not see Faith as their enemy. Both believed in a higher power, especially Newton, who was a man of great Faith and one of our most influential scientist of all time. You seem to be driving a wedge between Faith and science that these men just didn't see or feel they needed.
I'm not venting on you, but on this idea that Faith is illogical. But I shouldn't be surprised, this is the way of the secular world. :-?
Well you asked quite a few questions that require some detail. I don't mind answering though.
Let me start with your talk of the scientists. Math, according to Einstein himself, was actually his weak point. I think it's important to note that Einstein was a pantheist. He specifically stated that he believed in "Spinoza's God." You might find a quote of his interesting. Einstein said, "It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God, and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
That was his religion. In that sense, you could consider
me religious. Obviously his use for the word "religion" was entirely metaphorical and nontraditional.
Einstein once famously tried to speak for God (personifying Him), where he stated, "God does not play dice." This was metaphorical as well. It was also ironic that the one main time he spoke for God without scientific investigation, he turned out wrong. He was directly referring to a chance-driven universe, one which we now have confirmed as reasonable and even demonstrable by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Newton, aside from his scientific work, did like his religion. He had a doctrine similar to Leibniz' monadology, which I invite you to read if you feel like wasting time on something nearly unintelligible and riddled with inconsistencies. Newton's religion involved a rational God guided by principles we could investigate and discover. Regardless, Newton was not a typical theist. I will happily admit that not every religious position will conflict directly with science, at least in a way I care about (by inhibiting its progress). Both Deism and Pantheism are great religions to drive the pursuit of scientific investigation.
To get into the personal issues:
You mentioned that you were not venting on me, but on the idea that Faith is illogical. Well, it depends. Faith is an incredibly vague term with mounds of definitions. I use one in particular from the American heritage dictionary, which claims a "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." In that sense, faith is most certainly illogical. I do no not speak of any other type of faith you might have, which could simply reference a code of ethics.
To answer your question: yes I find it reasonable to conclude that, my flesh, blood, and ability to function is a result of some conception of evolution. The exact details might not be precise due to gaps, but the general position seems agreeable to me. We are always filling these gaps, and the moment there is irrefutable evidence against evolution, I will abandon the position like any true scientist.
Being a man with no belief in a personified deity, you ask how I function from day to day while believing I have no purpose in life. By this question, I'm assuming you mean no "objective" purpose. It is an existential quandary indeed, to which many existentialist philosophers have answered similarly. I create my own purpose in life, and I feel absolute freedom by it. This statement usually scares a theist, and spawns them to bring up morality. My morals really aren't all that different from a Christian. I generally don't steel, kill, lie, etc. This is not because God tells me to, but because I feel good contributing to my community. I sometimes enjoy helping someone while getting nothing in return, other than the satisfaction of helping them. This might be from societal upbringing, or it could be genetically hardwired because it was evolutionarily useful. In the end, I don't think it matters. Assuming something is
objectively good as many theists believe, I don't think it really matters where it was grounded. It's the action that matters. When I disagree with something on a moral level, I don't appeal to God. I merely say "I feel this way, and I'm willing to argue why my position is better for society." It might sound a bit arrogant, but I think my method is a bit more fruitful than stubbornly sticking to literal scripture - not to say you do.
The mathematical odds of my theory are really not all that improbable, especially when viewed with the alternative. I'm not sure that many theists understand all of the principles involved in calculating the probability of intelligent life as we know it. First of all, I'll admit that it is speculative and more qualitative than quantitative. However, think it is important to illustrate some important principles so there is no confusion as to what exactly I'm basing my position on. I don't want to bring in a long winded evolutionist argument. The basic tenants of the position are important to cover though. This is not some cliff of improbability that must be ascended from the base in one leap (thank Richard Dawkins for that analogy). This is a slow, gradual sloping mountain with individual ledges and peaks, ascended one at a time, resulting in new creatures and further complexity. We are not at the top of this mountain, but we can reasonably say that we are higher than other forms of life with all that we have accomplished. This is not solely a random leap. The randomness is SELECTED by nature as better for survival, and it slowly causes speciation. There are few evolutionary leaps here and there. But it was not an instant change of one species without vision to one which randomly mutates a highly complex eye. Countless complex structures we can reduce further back, each being useful for survival over an animal without this trait.
Now, admittedly, the biggest ledge of this mountain is the first one... from natural substances to life. I don't claim to know precisely how this occurred. I certainly consider it a possibility when taking into account the anthropic principle, the size of our universe, and the scope of time. I also consider fact that one of our first crappy experiments to recreate basic building blocks of life was successful... we we able to produce
some of the significant amino acids necessary for life without much trouble at all. I haven't truly subscribed myself to a specific version of abiogenesis just yet because I don't think the evidence is substantial enough like evolution.
To answer your last question, I have frequently heard this "what if you're wrong" argument. And I'm inclined to answer with the same question. There are almost countless religions to choose from, some more popular than others. The Aztecs believed in a Sun God, while an African tribe might believe in some tree god on a local hill. What if you are wrong, given all of the choices? If we are to actually assume one religion is correct, and take each religion as equally probable, the chances of you being right about Christianity is infinitesimally small. What if there is no God, and you wasted your life adhering to morals you didn't personally want to subscribe to? What if? It's a speculative question at which I will give you my speculative answer: If I am wrong about God, you are probably wrong about God too. There is no criteria for examining the correctness of most of the religions, and that is precisely why we call them religions instead of reasonable, substantiated beliefs. If a good God designed me to be logical, and put me in the position that reason would show me it was correct, then I don't think it makes sense that he would punish me for not believing. If he did, it wouldn't be a good God by my standards. I don't see the point of living in fear. After all, I'm free.
.