When Faith and Science Clash

[Tobie]

The logic that applies to an obviously man made grouping of rocks (the creation of which is very probably documented) does not apply to the universe.

Why? I can (when I get home) provide information that seems pretty clear to indicate intelligent design on the part of our universe. The fine tuning of the initial conditions of our universe to support life is simply incredible.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption that a group of rocks spelling "Welcome to Orlando" were put there by people to mark the entrance to Orlando - it is pretty unlikely that rocks would randomly spell it out (though not impossible - there's the old adage in quantum physics that "Everything that can happen, does happen") and what other purpose would spelling "Welcome to Orlando" have? With the universe it is different, because there is no obvious purpose for it's existence (if there even is one at all) and no obvious method of how it came to be in it's current state. Scientists searched for this method, and came up with the current theories (big bang, supernovae etc.) and in doing so, have come up with no evidence of intelligent design (and don't try and palm that fact off by saying that scientists would just ignore it because they are all atheists - you probably very well know that most of the physicists before the last 100 years were christian). Now given that there is no evidence for intelligent design, and no discernible purpose for intelligent design, will you be willing to accept that the same logic can't be applied?

Most atheists (the ones on here at least) won't claim explicitly that the universe is as it is due to unguided processes, just that this explanation is the best one science has.

The ones I've encountered are extremely commited to evolution. I've often seen/heard it referred to as "the fact of evolution."

That's because evolution is pretty much confirmed to occur. We may not be completely certain of everything about it, but it does happen.

What you've done here is create a strawman for atheism as a whole.

What part is the stawman? The rocks? Or is it evolution? I agree that I am calling into the implications of evolution. If you do not adhere to evolution this line of thought is void.

The strawman is you saying that atheism is, at it's core, "a deep faith in one's own cognitive abilities and their ability in determining truth." Atheism is no such thing. It's simply not having faith in the ages-long build-up of various extraordinary claims that is modern religion.

Face it, intelligent design has many problems with it, and I doubt anyone will ever be able to iron them out.[/quote]

[genkaus]

It seems to me that at the core of atheism is a deep "faith" in one's own cognitive abilities and their reliability in determining truth.

Nope. Belief in cognitive abilities is not a prerequisite for atheism.

If atheism is true, then your cognitive abilities have evolved with the aim of survivability....not truth.

It's not an either/or option. Our cognitive abilities can help us survive only if they can determine the truth. And since they do help us survive, it stands to reason that they can determine what's true.

To think that your own thoughts really are true is irrational.

Thoughts? I thought we were talking about cognition.

Ex:

If I am driving down the road wanting to get to Orlando, FL and I see rocks on a hill near the road that spell out "Welcome to Orlando" I can either assume:

a.) the rocks were placed there by intelligent design
b.) the rocks rolled there by unguided processes and just have the appearance of design

If I assume (a) then it is rational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks really is true since an intelligence placed them there. It is rational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.

However, if I assume (b) it is irrational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks is true. They just happen to look like a message, but they really aren't a message. It would be irrational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.

Really? Those are the only two possibilities that occur to you? How about some intelligence did place them, but that is not the boundary of Orlando. Or, the rocks did fall there by chance and as it happens it is also the boundary of Orlando. Or some intelligence did place the rocks when it was the boundary of Orlando and since then the boundary has been changed. Or maybe you thought that the rocks spelled Orlando, but on a closer look, you discover that they spell nothing at all.

The rational thing to do here is to check your GPS and assume nothing. If you really want to solve the mystery of the rocks, then figure out if the potential physical forces that could have caused the rocks to fall, figure out if it could've happened naturally.

Given atheism, if your own cognitive abilities have evolved, they have evolved with the aim of survival. On this system calling your conclusions "true" seems arbitrary and irrational....an act of blind faith.

Actually, the reason in specific and rational - it's because our cognitive abilities can help us determine the truth that they are able to achieve the aim of survival. Let me tell you a story.

Two cavemen are taking their usual walk in the woods when suddenly, all the miscellaneous jungle voices such as birds chirping, go silent. The first caveman, having better cognitive abilities notices this sudden change in the environment, while his dumber companion doesn't.

Caveman 1: Something coming. Danger. Run.

Caveman 2: No danger. Birds just tired.

Caveman 1: Look, tiger tracks. Tiger coming. Run.

Caveman 2: No tiger here for days. See nothing.

Just then they both hear a low rumbling sound.

Caveman 1: Hear. That tiger. Run.

Caveman 2: Just wind.

Exasperated, the first cave man gave up on his friend and ran back to his cave, while the second one - out of simple curiosity - decided to see where those tracks led.

The moral of the story is, because the first guy was able to use his abilities to determine the truth that he survived to go home, fuck his wife and have lots of kids who got his abilities. Whereas the second one became pussy-chow.

---

Umm...no. One of the main reasons I am an atheist is that I am well aware of the unreliability of my cognitive abilities. Any notion that I have experienced the divine would be dismissed as a result of that unreliability. It is theists that rely too heavily on their mental faculties thinking they can determine the difference between errors in the brain and feeling the presence of god.

I think you are confusing cognitive facilities with something else. "Experiencing the divine" sounds like an emotional state - not a cognitive one.

[Simon Moon]

If atheism is true, then your cognitive abilities have evolved with the aim of survivability....not truth.

i almost stopped reading right here.

Atheism makes NO statements on the 'truth'. Atheism is simply the response, "I don't believe you. Please provide me with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim", when a theist claims a god exists.

As an atheist, I am not making the truth claim that a god does not exist.

If I am driving down the road wanting to get to Orlando, FL and I see rocks on a hill near the road that spell out "Welcome to Orlando" I can either assume:

a.) the rocks were placed there by intelligent design
b.) the rocks rolled there by unguided processes and just have the appearance of design

If I assume (a) then it is rational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks really is true since an intelligence placed them there. It is rational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.

However, if I assume (b) it is irrational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks is true. They just happen to look like a message, but they really aren't a message. It would be irrational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.

False analogies are false.

Now I wish I did stop reading...

[genkaus]

[quote='Tobie' pid='339023' dateline='1348139258']
The logic that applies to an obviously man made grouping of rocks (the creation of which is very probably documented) does not apply to the universe.

Why? I can (when I get home) provide information that seems pretty clear to indicate intelligent design on the part of our universe.

There is a Nobel prize with your name on it if you can.

The fine tuning of the initial conditions of our universe to support life is simply incredible.

You know, I once saw this weird shaped glass which was triangular at the bottom, circular in the middle and square at the top. And it was filled with ice!!! I wonder where they'd found the ice of that exact shape to fit into the glass.

The ones I've encountered are extremely commited to evolution. I've often seen/heard it referred to as "the fact of evolution."

That might have something to do with the fact that it is a fact.

What part is the stawman? The rocks? Or is it evolution? I agree that I am calling into the implications of evolution. If you do not adhere to evolution this line of thought is void.

The comparison to rocks is a strawman.

[Simon Moon]

The ones I've encountered are extremely commited to evolution. I've often seen/heard it referred to as "the fact of evolution."

Oh, please....

Evolution is an OBSERVED fact.

The theory of evolution explains the observed fact of evolution.

Gravity -

Fact of gravity - object fall when dropped.
Theory of gravity - General Relativity. The theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity.

Evolution -

Fact of evolution - Allele frequency changes over time in populations.
Theory of evolution - The theory of evolution explains the observed fact of evolution.

Please don't go down the road of 'evolution is only a theory". You will only succeed in proving yourself ignorant of science. It won't help your position at all.

You can educate yourself here - http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[Darkstar]

If I am driving down the road wanting to get to Orlando, FL and I see rocks on a hill near the road that spell out "Welcome to Orlando" I can either assume:

a.) the rocks were placed there by intelligent design
b.) the rocks rolled there by unguided processes and just have the appearance of design

If I assume (a) then it is rational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks really is true since an intelligence placed them there. It is rational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.

However, if I assume (b) it is irrational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks is true. They just happen to look like a message, but they really aren't a message. It would be irrational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.

Given atheism, if your own cognitive abilities have evolved, they have evolved with the aim of survival. On this system calling your conclusions "true" seems arbitrary and irrational....an act of blind faith.

...huh? Are you really trying to suggest that truth is inherently arbitrary, and therefore unreliable? If that is the case, then I guess nothing we ever do can matter because we can never prove if anything has any meaning. This reminds me of David Hume a bit. He is the perfect example of what happens when one becomes too skeptical (ironic, in that I am comparing him to a theist).

David Hume

...he argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding instead that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. Thus he divides perceptions between strong and lively "impressions" or direct sensations and fainter "ideas", which are copied from impressions. He developed the position that mental behaviour is governed by "custom", that is acquired ability; our use of induction, for example, is justified only by our idea of the "constant conjunction" of causes and effects. Without direct impressions of a metaphysical "self", he concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.

The fine tuning of the initial conditions of our universe to support life is simply incredible.

About that...two things:
1. We don't know that other forms of life couldn't have appeared in a different form of universe.
2. If the conditions that need to be met in order to support simple organisms are great, and the conditions are greater for superior life forms, like humans, wouldn't the conditions for an omnipotent being to arise be infinitely more strict?

[Minimalist]

It seems to me that at the core of atheism is a deep "faith" in one's own cognitive abilities and their reliability in determining truth.

Excuse me but we ALL evolved from the same group of ape-like creatures. It just seems that some have allowed their reason to atrophy in favor of facile explanations of holy bullshit.

[Mystic]

Evolution would reward where reasoning and memory is true and reliable, would it not?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not always, no. There is no reward, there is no preset list of conditions which are "good, or "bad" to even determine a reward that does not exist in the first place, nor is there a reward-er.

[Minimalist]

Evolution would reward where reasoning and memory is true and reliable, would it not?

In the sense that he who remembers NOT to swim in a crocodile-infested river will survive to reproduce, yes.