Why We Believe in Gods

[_Calculus Crusader]

The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

You are full of ****, as per usual. The greatest scientists have been theists, by a wide margin.

[_EAllusion]

The listing of Descartes was odd. Important mathematician? Yes. Scientist? Not so much. On an aside, Rene Descartes thought logic was contingent on God's will so God could do things like make square circles.

If you look to the pre-1900 period where a lot of basic scientific groundwork is being layed out, virtually everyone believes in God so any scientist is likely to be a believer. There are notable exceptions, but in the 20th century is when you see atheists becoming very common among scientists, and especially among the "elite" of science. Whether a scientist believes in God doesn't have much to do with how well they can perform their profession per se, so it's weird to assert either way whether atheists or theists are forwarding the best science.

[_Calculus Crusader]

The listing of Descartes was odd. Important mathematician? Yes. Scientist? Not so much.

No, it's not odd; mathematicians are scientists.

On an aside, Rene Descartes thought logic was contingent on God's will so God could do things like make square circles.

Not quite. Once God willed the eternal truths they were set.

[_solomarineris]

The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

You are full of ****, as per usual. The greatest scientists have been theists, by a wide margin.

What does that tell you?
Just because they believe in God, so?
All of those Scientist you might mention have something in common;
The Results they produce from their observations are quantifiable. Otherwise we'd act like Smithsonian and throw
their works to garbage like Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham or Bible.
Those people are Scientists, I don't care if they believe in Spagetti Monster, as long as their calculations are proven over and over.
bottom line is Science delivers results, Supernatural delivers anecdotal fairy tales.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Somebody needs to get Dan Peterson in here posthaste, because you're just talking out of your ass. The Muslim empire came close to conquering the Western world precisely because it was more advanced at the time. In the Middle Ages, science in the Muslim world outstripped science in Christendom pretty handily. Funnily enough, Thomas Aquinas probably wouldn't have known who Aristotle was if the Muslim barbarian boogeymen hadn't preserved ancient Greek texts. But you apparently get your information from bigoted revisionist websites, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Don't pretend to knowledge you clearly do not have, junior. First of all, Muslims did not conjure their science out of thin air; they took it from the peoples they conquered and exploited. (Of course, they expanded on it but they had that luxury, since Muslims had their foots on the necks of the peoples they conquered.) Muslims conquered North Africa and Spain because the Vandals and the Visigoths dismantled Roman civilization in those regions and the petty, factious Gothic kingdoms were no match for the unified Saracen horde. Even so, their alleged superior science did not help them against Charles Martel, who completely thumped them. Nor did it help them against the Crusaders, who thumped them a few hundred years later on their "home turf." (Or, rather, turf they conquered and claimed for their home.)

Moreover, the Byzantine Empire preserved Greek learning, so your suggestion that it would have been lost without the Muslims is bs.

Finally, when Mehmed II wanted cannons to destroy Constantinople, he ordered them from a backstabbing Hungarian Christian, not a Muslim.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, how nice of you to finally admit it. Good for you. Kudos!

Yeah, lets just pretend you didn't pick up on the sarcasm. It is ridiculous to say my inference is proof of bigotry. If I started a thread entitled, "Why acerolas are better than oranges," it wouldn't be bigotry to suppose I claimed to know the answer. After all, it wasn't presented as a question. To be sure, your presentation does pretend to know why humans are religious. For you to sit there and say "no claim" has been made, is rather stunning.

I'm hardly surprised you completely missed the point of what he was saying and decided that was where you'd stop. Pretty funny though.

I got the point he thought he was making, I just found it silly. I quickly recognized this pseudoscience for what it was. I endured more than ten minutes of it, but I wouldn't expect you to sit through an hour long presentation on ID. The two are equally pseudoscience.

So, yes, now we've established that you've judged the video not on experience, but on what you thought your were seeing. Again... shocker!

Oh geez, let's counts the ways I could pummel you with your own logic here. I guess we should expect you to watch an hour long presentation on (pick the topic you despise) before ever commenting on the subject again.

Yes, Hoyle's analogy did at first pertain to abiogenesis, but when you made that comment, you were talking about evolution.

Uh, no I wasn't. I was always referring to the first emergence of life.

Go back and read it.

I just did.

You later tried to backtrack and claimed you were talking about abiogenesis all along. I pointed that out in the other thread, but I noticed you failed to respond to it. I wonder why.

You just contradicted yourself. In one breath you accuse me of disappearing as well as backtracking. So which is it? I was absent for a few days and the thread was lost on me. But I'm glad you pointed it out.

And the fact is, creationists have been using that argument against evolution for quite some time now, so I can understand why you're confused.

I can assure you I'm not the confused one. A careful reading of what I said would make it perfectly clear that it wasn't I who was alluding to evolution, but rather those who were trying to find fault with Hoyle's analogy. I said (now pay close attention to the words you didn't highlight):

I've read the so called "refutations" and the primary objection is that the tornado takes place in one event whereas evolution takes place in gradual steps over the course of thousands of years.

You highlighted the word evolution as if that were the only word you could make out. Apparently, understanding context is too much to ask, but it is obvious that I was referring to those offering the "primary objections" (i.e. the atheists!). They are the ones appealing to evolution principles in an attempt to undermine the analogy addressing abiogenesis. You really can't tell that my use of the word evolution, was in reference to their objections? Seriously? Apparently, they assume abiogenesis undergoes some kind of incremental process, akin to evolution. I adjusted the analogy a bit just to satisfy their quibble.

As it is the analogy stands firm. The reason people tend to criticize it as if it were an anaolgy about evolution, is because that is precisely how Richard Dawkins represents it in his book:

"Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding, and other mistakes in biology ... suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.117).

So clearly atheists who attack Hoyle along these lines are simply following Dawkins' lead by creating a straw man and then knocking it down.

Of course, all this is based on the first 5 or so minutes of the video, after you had already formed an opinion of what you were hearing. Gotcha

No it is based on my reading of Gould and others who criticize the enterprise. But I watched roughly twelve minutes of it, when the overt bigotry bored me to death. I can get enough of that right here.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but you don't know sh*t. There are two reasons: 1) You don't know that what they said really properly expresses what they think due to whatever limitations they have communicating their thoughts, and 2) You don't always interpret what they say properly. You may think you know, but you don't know.

More rhetoric, no substance. Why are you refusing to take the Pepsi challenge? If you can point out how I misrepresented Einstein or whomever, then just do it. Just reiterating the same accusation over and over isn't doing yourself any favors.

You're a quote miner if I ever saw one.

Is that your way of dissing a desire for education on a given matter? I generally quote books that I've read and own. I know it bugs you that some of these citations give you and your ilk fits, but that's the whole point of a debate forum. You guys want to claim the side of science, hold the rest of the forum in contempt, while at the same time refusing your opponents the right to present scientific opinions to the contrary. You want to rig the game in your favor, and I'm not letting you. So what do you do? Just accuse me of being a "quote miner" ad nauseum, as if all I do is scroll the web looking for "quotes," or worse, Youtube clips. Oh wait, that's your job.

And the fact that you don't think you've "never been shown to misrepresent either of them" hardly means it isn't so.

Wow, you accuse me of something and its my job to prove I didn't? What arrogant laziness. If you can't point to a specific example, then just buck up and say so. It will be quick and relatively painless.

Just because you're unsatisfied with what people say says more about you're rigidness than others' ability to persuade.

Who says I'm unsatisfied with what's been said here? What's said is said. No reason to take it personally.

Please, point me to the reference where Gould commented on the content of this specific video. I'd be very interested in reading that.

From the grave? Why would he need to when he alredy rebuked the enterprise this presentation was based upon.

I still think it's hilarious you are commenting on something you barely watched. LOL

So I guess you're equally critical of atheists here who criticize ID, without ever having sat through Ben Stein's movie? No, of course not. Hell, there have been threads here dedicated that rebuking that movie, when it became clear none of the lead atheists had ever bothered to watch it. Who
needs one standard when two means twice the fun?

I see. You think I need to lash out, and that's the reason I started this thread? Is that it?

It couldn't possibly be because I thought it was interesting, and I wanted to share it with others whom I thought might also be interested?

Sure, its possible, but the way you responded to my criticism (directed at evolutionary biology, not at you) suggests you hold the subject dear to your heart.

The fact is, watching the video made me rather sympathetic to supernatural belief.

Yes, I could see how that would be a natural reaction by atheists. But the "sympathy" is more along the lines of, those poor people don't realize how deluded they are.

I suppose it would also surprise you to hear that I have several religious friends and that they are among my favorite people.

Why would that surprise me? Are you as open and upfront to them as you are here, regarding the contempt you have for religion? Probably not.

You think you've got me so pegged, you've ascribed my motives for starting this thread, and you haven't a clue. If that's not bigotry, I don't know what is.

I just said I don't know anything about you aside from the fact that you're british and you hold religious people in contempt. How is that believing I have you "pegged"? Everything I said about you - which isn't much - is verified right here on this forum. Now you want to pretend you're a tolerant lad, just so you can say I misjudged you, and you can muster some kind of evidence for my so-called bigotry. Too funny.

The problem with your thinking is that you're so convinced that “what you believe” is “who you are”, that you equate criticism of belief with personal criticism. You should try to let that go

But I believe I am just an animal no different from monkeys and crickets. Why let go of such a beautiful doctrine?

I have never argued that no Christians had a hand in coming up with the philosophy of science. What I criticize is the implication that without religion, it never would have happened.

Well I never said that. It probably would have eventually happened, but the point is that it happened as early as it did because of Christian civilization. We don't have any atheistic civilizations to really compare with, all we can do is look at other viable alternatives during that time, such as being overrun by Islamic forces. Anone who truly loves science needs to appreciate the impact Christianity had on its rise.

And you took his joke to heart, despite the fact that he was talking about all human beings.

Uh, that's the point. He made exception for atheists, who were not included in the rest of humanity
who he thought would be "vulnerable" to it. No, atheists are smarter and therefore immune. Your attempt to defend this as a mere joke, is telling.

And we have finally come to dart's true issue with atheists. He doesn't like that they think they're smarter than he is (even though they don't all think that... bigotry anyone?) This explains so much.

Thanks for proving my point. You really do think you're smarter! And no, not all atheists, just your lot who frequently post the same condescending drivel. How many times do we have to hear about the rise of atheism in the scientific community? Particularly among the "elite" scientists.

I ridicule you specifically, dart, for the reasons I've stated on several occasions

I'm the same guy I've always been. You only started attacking me when I first criticized a post you made a couple of years ago. Ever since then you'e had it out for me. We know what this is. Your reasons are undermined by the fact that you never attacked me before that first point of criticism.

[_Kevin Graham]

JSM:

This is Kevin's favorite game: exclude from "science" everything that he doesn't agree with. There! Now Kevin isn't against science! Pretty neat, huh?

WTF? I have been accused of being anti-science on numerous occasions. When I ask for specific examples, you accuse me of I'm offering a game?

I don't know that evolutionary psychology can always be classed as science

WHAT? You haven't even watched that hour long clip and you say it isn't science. How dare you!

but it certainly fits with current scientific understanding in a way that theological speculation like "sugar is intrinsically sweet" does not.

I agree, whoever made that argument is being ridiculous, but I doubt they tried to present it as science.

If we know we need calories to survive;

We also need Vitamin K, and yet we have to make a cartoon to encourage kids to eat their spinach.

and that people tend to consume more of what tastes good to them; and that 90,000 years ago, the people who consumed more calories usually were more reproductively successful, then it's pretty absurd to not at least tentatively believe that we crave sugar because it contains calories.

Just don't pretend it is science, in the context of criticizing your opponents for relying on pseudoscientific theories, and you'll be free from criticism - at least from me.

Incidentally, it is interesting that those who eat the most today are less likely to reproduce due to biological effects directly related to their overconsumption of calories. Some people haven't seen their reproductive organ in years.

You castigated Dawkins for not treating extraterrestrial panspermia with skepticism, even though he does, because he thinks it is a species of the genus Intelligent Design:

I said he said it was more probable than God. That's what he said.

I don't have the time or inclination to go through your countless other misrepresentations.

Countless! Wow. And you don't have the time? Hmmmm.... something smells fishy here.

Somebody needs to get Dan Peterson in here posthaste, because you're just talking out of your ass.

Wow, you really don't know my background on this subject do you? LOL. In a debate with me on things Islamic, is about the last place you will find Dan Peterson.

The Muslim empire came close to conquering the Western world precisely because it was more advanced at the time.

That's not accurate. The fact is Islam is militant from start to finish. It had its own army. Christianity did not, which is why it sat by and watched Islamic forces overrun its most precious intellectual and religious hot spots. For centuries Islam moved across north Africa and western Europe, overruning Christian strongholds by force.


During the crusades, the Church had to rely on volunteers because there was no such thing as a Christian army. They had to quickly make one out of necessity.

In the Middle Ages, science in the Muslim world outstripped science in Christendom pretty handily.

Well sure, after it pounded Christianity by stealing its bastions of scientific achievement, particularly Alexandria, western civilization was left intellectually crippled. It was also cut off from trades to the east which mae progress difficult. Most of the subsequent achievements were technically within Islam's territory since they pretty much conquered it, but these accomplishments were for the most part derived from non-Muslims serving their masters.

But my point remains true. The idea of natural laws in the universe was anathema to Islamic philosophers. Al Ghazali was clear on this point. A universe with set laws would limit Allah's freedom.

Funnily enough, Thomas Aquinas probably wouldn't have known who Aristotle was if the Muslim barbarian boogeymen hadn't preserved ancient Greek texts. But you apparently get your information from bigoted revisionist websites, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Don't go there dude. You're wading in waters too deep for you to swim. Head on back to the shallow end because you're in way over your head. I own more books on this topic than perhaps any other. SUre, Muslims preserved Aristotle for Aquinas. So what? This has become such a standard "argument" it makes on wonder if this is the best accomplishment that could be listed. And who preserved Aristotle for the Muslims? The Christian priest Probus of Antioch introduced Aristotle to the Arab world. So what?

Huneyn ibn Ishaq translated Aristotle, Plato, Galen and Hippocrates into Syric and his son then translated them to Arabic. Don't let the name fool you, because he was a Christian. So Christianity gave the Muslims Greek philosophy - which ended up being instrumental in their own theological developments.

Incidentally, did you know that medical science was hampered under Islam since it was crime to publish books that had illustrations of the human anatomy? This is a weakness directly attributed to Islamic theology.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Somebody needs to get Dan Peterson in here posthaste, because you're just talking out of your ass. The Muslim empire came close to conquering the Western world precisely because it was more advanced at the time. In the Middle Ages, science in the Muslim world outstripped science in Christendom pretty handily. Funnily enough, Thomas Aquinas probably wouldn't have known who Aristotle was if the Muslim barbarian boogeymen hadn't preserved ancient Greek texts. But you apparently get your information from bigoted revisionist websites, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Don't pretend to knowledge you clearly do not have, junior. First of all, Muslims did not conjure their science out of thin air; they took it from the peoples they conquered and exploited. (Of course, they expanded on it but they had that luxury, since Muslims had their foots on the necks of the peoples they conquered.)

You could say this about ANY scientific civilization, including Europe under the Enlightenment.

Muslims conquered North Africa and Spain because the Vandals and the Visigoths dismantled Roman civilization in those regions and the petty, factious Gothic kingdoms were no match for the unified Saracen horde. Even so, their alleged superior science did not help them against Charles Martel, who completely thumped them. Nor did it help them against the Crusaders, who thumped them a few hundred years later on their "home turf." (Or, rather, turf they conquered and claimed for their home.)

None of this changes the fact that Arab astronomy, medicine, and philosophy were all more advanced than their European counterparts at the time, and that without this sophistication, the Muslims wouldn't have come as close to conquest as they did.

Moreover, the Byzantine Empire preserved Greek learning, so your suggestion that it would have been lost without the Muslims is bs.

This is a transparently invalid argument. That the Byzantine Empire preserved Greek learning does not contradict the idea that it could have been lost without Arab preservation.

[_Kevin Graham]

If you look to the pre-1900 period where a lot of basic scientific groundwork is being layed out, virtually everyone believes in God so any scientist is likely to be a believer. There are notable exceptions, but in the 20th century is when you see atheists becoming very common among scientists, and especially among the "elite" of science. Whether a scientist believes in God doesn't have much to do with how well they can perform their profession per se, so it's weird to assert either way whether atheists or theists are forwarding the best science.

Good point. I only argue that modern science owes its foundations to Christianity since it would not have flourished as it has under any of the other alternative civilizations. It is therefore ironic that so many atheists would attack religion while praising science, and creating this imaginary war between the two.

[_Kevin Graham]

You could say this about ANY scientific civilization, including Europe under the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was born from Christian civilization for a reason. Natural rights, superiority of reason, individual liberties, etc, could only be born from Christian civilization. It took a while to take hold only because of the political systems that ruled throughout the centuries.

Do you think for a second that an enlightment of this magnitude could ever get off the ground under Islamic rule?? LOL. Even today there are no universal human rights under Islam.
.

None of this changes the fact that Arab astronomy, medicine, and philosophy were all more advanced than their European counterparts at the time, and that without this sophistication, the Muslims wouldn't have come as close to conquest as they did.

Yes, it s best to call it Arab rather than Muslim. But you're wrong if you think the progress that took place within the Arab world had anything to do with their successful conquests. Islam had succeeded in conquering Christian lands long before their first meaningful scientific contribution. The reason they succeeded is a matter of military might. Their armies were much larger, and far more experienced in fighting in deserts.

This is a transparently invalid argument. That the Byzantine Empire preserved Greek learning does not contradict the idea that it could have been lost without Arab preservation.

I think the point is that your anecdote about preservation is a meaningless one. It doesn't say anything about Islam's superiority in the sciences. All it tells us is that Aristotle managed to survive in the Arab world. Whoopty do. The only reason his preservation was considered to be at risk in the first place is because the Arabs ransacked Alexandria, destroys what they didn't want and stole the rest. You make it sound like Christianity had no use for Aristotle, and that they had to rely on Islam for his writings, when just the opposite is true. For teh most part, Islam ruled by force, and achieved by conquering. What innovation they offered was usually built upon the achievments of those they subdued. Also, you'd be surprised how many of these famous Arab achievers were not Muslims.