Atheism causes creationism

robindch

Well, according to William Reville in today's Irish Times anyway:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/1117/1224307697758.html

William Reville wrote:

The paradox is that New Atheism must prevent many people, who sincerely believe in God as a core value, from also believing in evolution because one of the world’s keenest scientific minds (Dawkins) persistently preaches that the theory of evolution makes God redundant.

Reville's been reading Chris Mooney, a prominent accommodationist who spent some time last year working for the Templeton Foundation, an organization (for those who are not familiar with it) which spends a lot of time and money promoting the idea that science and religion are compatible. A conclusion that Mooney continued to endorse after receiving Templeton's money.

Duke Leonal Felmet

There isn't enough space in the universe to contain the BS that comes out of that man's brain.

UCC is a fitting university for him.

Dades

Atheism causes creationism in theists who might otherwise accept evolution.

That's his whole point? Yawn.

Anyone who due to any catalyst accepts creationism is a cause lost to reason waiting to happen.

MagicMarker

However, the situation is also exacerbated by the extremely aggressive campaign against religion being waged by the New Atheists, led by Richard Dawkins. This movement is the flip-side of the fundamentalist coin to creationism. It aims to get rid of all forms of religion, no matter how moderate or diffident they are

It does? That's news to me.

The Quadratic Equation

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

There isn't enough space in the universe to contain the BS that comes out of that man's brain.

UCC is a fitting university for him.

Would Dawkins want a post there though ?

smokingman

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Would Dawkins want a post there though ?

So are you a creationist tqe?

Duke Leonal Felmet

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

There isn't enough space in the universe to contain the BS that comes out of that man's brain.

UCC is a fitting university for him.

Would Dawkins want a post there though ?

Why would I care?

Mark Hamill

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Would Dawkins want a post there though ?

The Quadratic Equation

smokingman wrote: »

So are you a creationist tqe?

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

Do you think only theologians should argue against the existence of a god?

Genghiz Cohen

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

How do you know what he knows?

Duke Leonal Felmet

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

smokingman wrote: »

So are you a creationist tqe?

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

Nice one...


Ok, back on topic. I have never been a fan of Reville, seems very closed minded, to me.

swampgas

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

Now you're just trolling.

*Sheesh* - another one to add to my ignore list.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

He does stick to evolution, which is why he rejects religious claims and is an atheist.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056452042

Zombrex

Everytime I read a piece like Reville's I'm always reminded of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

They are about to jump off into a river and Sundance is saying that he can't swim, to which Butch asks are you crazy, the fall will kill you.

The point being don't worry about the small stuff when you have much bigger problems.

The fixation with the evolution from simpler life forms and the age of the Earth is the small bit of evolution, most believers have managed to adapt their beliefs around such an idea (except in America and Arabia), yet it is what people like Reville fixate on.

Of course this is like worrying about not being able to swim. Coming around the corner very soon is the fall that is going to kill, in the form of an natural theory of religion within evolutionary psychology.

That is going to be HUGE and it is something every religious person on the planet is going to have to face and it is going to be much much harder to adapt beliefs around it because it is basically going to say that their religious beliefs are all imaginary.

It is going to make the Creationism debate look like a polite discussion about the weather

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

He does stick to evolution, which is why he rejects religious claims and is an atheist.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056452042

Evolution is another interesting field of the naturally limited known physical sciences. It rightly does not attempt to explain or deal with any concepts outside its own field including any metaphysical concept.

Duke Leonal Felmet

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

He does stick to evolution, which is why he rejects religious claims and is an atheist.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056452042

Evolution is another interesting field of the naturally limited known physical sciences. It rightly does not attempt to explain or deal with any concepts outside its own field including any metaphysical concept.

A perfectly reasonable answer. I don't get what your issue is.

mikhail

MagicMarker wrote: »

It does? That's news to me.

That quote is disappointing. There is no question that many groups like Atheist Ireland and famous atheists like Dawkins are vocal supporters of secularism in society. Some of them are even speak and write passionately about why they think atheism is correct. To interpret that as a desire to "get rid of all forms of religion, no matter how moderate or diffident they are" is extremely ignorant.

No one calls out Catholicism for wanting to get rid of all competing forms of religion, no matter how moderate or similar they are. And yet, Catholics speak about their faith. Catholics vigorously defend a school system which indoctrinates the youth of the country. Any number of posters here can tell of their personal experience too of how Catholics put enormous social and familial pressure on people to be at least nominally Catholic. The hypocrisy is beyond pathetic.

To believe you're correct and wish others would see reason is not a crime. Active oppression of others or standing in the way of the government treating everyone equitably are reprehensible, but these things don't seem to get the same attention as Christopher Hitchins professing to what he believes in.

Dades

Zombrex wrote: »

Of course this is like worrying about not being able to swim. Coming around the corner very soon is the fall that is going to kill, in the form of an natural theory of religion within evolutionary psychology.

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. Religion is like one of those irritating trick candles on a birthday cake that keeps relighting itself.

As long as religion offers something that no-religion doesn't offer people will continue to (want to) believe in it.
Reason can go get it's coat.

Sarky

I think tqe just finds it jarring that non-religious people can lead fun, fulfilling regret-free lives without all the nonsensical ritual stuff that religious people have to do. He seems puzzled that we aren't miserable and whining about the emptiness of our lives. It's like believing that all fat men are jolly and suddenly meeting one who isn't.

Knasher

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No, and Dawkins should stick to what he actually knows about, i.e. evolution.

If we lived in a properly secular society where people made decisions based on what we know rather than unfounded religious beliefs, I'm reasonably confident that Dawkins et al. wouldn't consider debating religion a reasonable use of their time. However seeing as religion consistently intrudes into the lives of people who don't want it and is used to make decisions on a governmental level that effect everybody, as well as it's constant meddling in science (and especially evolution), it is hardly unreasonable that Dawkins might have an opinion on it.

The Quadratic Equation

Knasher wrote: »

If we lived in a properly secular society where people made decisions based on what we know rather than unfounded religious beliefs, I'm reasonably confident that Dawkins et al. wouldn't consider debating religion a reasonable use of their time. However seeing as religion consistently intrudes into the lives of people who don't want it and is used to make decisions on a governmental level that effect everybody, as well as it's constant meddling in science (and especially evolution), it is hardly unreasonable that Dawkins might have an opinion on it.

Just as long as we agree with your opinon as to what is moral, what we should believe, how we should believe it, and how you think we should live.

swampgas

Sarky wrote: »

I think tqe just finds it jarring that non-religious people can lead fun, fulfilling regret-free lives without all the nonsensical ritual stuff that religious people have to do. He seems puzzled that we aren't miserable and whining about the emptiness of our lives. It's like believing that all fat men are jolly and suddenly meeting one who isn't.

Warning: very bad maths joke ahead ...

Maybe The Quadratic Equation is a complex character, and only has imaginary solutions to offer ?

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Evolution is another interesting field of the naturally limited known physical sciences. It rightly does not attempt to explain or deal with any concepts outside its own field including any metaphysical concept.

Biological evolution deals with humans, since we are biological animals.

And you will probably notice that religion is a purely human concept, the evidence of which exists purely in the perception of humans.

Thus biological evolution, and the specific field of evolutionary psychology, is very relevant to religion, despite the protests of theists who don't like their beliefs being challenged.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. Religion is like one of those irritating trick candles on a birthday cake that keeps relighting itself.

As long as religion offers something that no-religion doesn't offer people will continue to (want to) believe in it.
Reason can go get it's coat.

Sorry I didn't mean it was going to kill off religion, that was just an analogy with the movie.

What I meant was the PR war between evolutionary psychology and religious faith is going to make the PR war between evolution and creationism seem like a quaint scuffle.

I've no doubt that millions, if not billions, of theists are going to refuse to accept the science and make a heck of a lot of noise about it.

The days when most religious people could just simply push God out passed the latest scientific discovery and continue on as normal happily deluding themselves that they are pro-science are coming to a close. Religious faith itself and the justifications for religious faith are being analyzed and exposed as a mental delusion. Atheists like ourselves may one day long for the day when it was only rednecks in America making a fuss about science teaching, rather than what could happen, every major religion on Earth complaining about science teaching and calling on it to be banned or censored.

mcmoustache

swampgas wrote: »

Warning: very bad maths joke ahead ...

Maybe The Quadratic Equation is a complex character, and only has imaginary solutions to offer ?

Not all quadratic equations are like that: the expression x^2 + 2x + 1 = 0, for example, has -1 as its solution

Knasher

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Just as long as we agree with your opinon as to what is moral, what we should believe, how we should believe it, and how you think we should live.

You are free to believe and act however you wish so long as it doesn't intrude into the rights of others. If it does, it is then your responsibility to justify your actions to society and explain why they should be condoned. That is the very basis of how a free society functions, and I doubt you'd have an issue with that.

The problem is when people want to use a supernatural deity to justify their actions but refuse to either demonstrate that such a deity exists or that said deity wants individuals to act the way they say it wants them to. I'm sure it is entirely coincidental that said deities commands always seem to coincide exactly with the wishes of the person who is explaining the commands and that the commands seem wildly contradictory from person to person.

We live in a cooperative society and the rules apply to all of us equally (at least ideally) and nobody, including the religious, deserve a pass on the responsibilities that come from that.

Galvasean

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Just as long as we agree with your opinon as to what is moral, what we should believe, how we should believe it, and how you think we should live.

????????????????????????????????

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

Biological evolution deals with humans, since we are biological animals.

And you will probably notice that religion is a purely human concept, the evidence of which exists purely in the perception of humans.

You're still confusing the physical, a limited field, with the non physical.
Biology, rightly, does not attempt to decide concepts such as love, morality, democracy, thought, spirit, existance.

Zombrex wrote: »

Thus biological evolution, and the specific field of evolutionary psychology, is very relevant to religion, despite the protests of theists who don't like their beliefs being challenged.

Actually, the real problem is, other than the tired old ad homiem arguements, I have never seen anything else put forward to challenge them.

Galvasean

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You're still confusing the physical, a limited field, with the non physical.
Biology, rightly, does not attempt to decide concepts such as love, morality, democracy, thought, spirit, existance.

With the exception of 'spirit' it does touch on all of those subjects.

aidan24326

Galvasean wrote: »

With the exception of 'spirit' it does touch on all of those subjects.

Quite right. Even if concepts such as love and morality don't fall within the domain of biology per se, they have their basis within a biological system and in theory could probably be fully understood if enough was known about the workings of the brain.

Sarky

And it doesn't touch on spirit because it's a bullsh*t concept.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You're still confusing the physical, a limited field, with the non physical.

I'm not. Religious belief is a physical phenomena, it manifests itself in the action and behavior of humans.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Biology, rightly, does not attempt to decide concepts such as love, morality, democracy, thought, spirit, existance.

Actually it attempts to understand all those concepts since they also are all physical phenomena.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Actually, the real problem is, other than the tired old ad homiem arguements, I have never seen anything else put forward to challenge them.

Given the wealth of research done in this are I would imagine you are confusing not seeing something with not looking for or not understanding something.

It is up to you to attempt to understand the science, this will depend on how interested you are and how genuinely open minded you are to the new ideas presented, ideas that might challenge your preconceived beliefs and notions about religion. Unfortunately in my experience deeply religious people seem to be lacking in both those qualities. Here's hoping that isn't you.

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

And it doesn't touch on spirit because it's a bullsh*t concept.

Well it touches on it indirectly, it touches on why people believe in concepts like the spirit in the first place. This is mostly dealt with in the theory of mind, the evolved instinct of humans to view a persons body and their mind as two independent entities that exist appart from each other.

This can lead to the quite odd phenomena of some people, particularly religious people, taking it almost as an assumed given that something like the spirit exists without any evidence for such a proposition.

They literally cannot imagine an alternative, the instinct to view the mind independently to the body is so strong and enforced in their mental processing.

The Quadratic Equation

Galvasean wrote: »

With the exception of 'spirit' it does touch on all of those subjects.

In a mechanical way, and it only barely touches the how, not the why. Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.
You guys really are the living dead.

The Quadratic Equation

Sarky wrote: »

And it doesn't touch on spirit because it's a bullsh*t concept.

Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

In a mechanical way, and it only barely touches the how, not the why. Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.
You guys really are the living dead.

And a sun set is "only" photons cascading through the atmosphere. A water fall is "only" water droplets being pulled to Earth by gravity.

This constant need by (some) religious people to invent made up reasons to find something beautiful or wondrous other than because it is simply beautiful or wondrous is really quite distasteful. You can't enjoy something for what it is you have to make up a reason for why you should enjoy it as if you are embarrassed to simply find pleasure in things as they are.

Virgil°

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

In a mechanical way, and it only barely touches the how, not the why. Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.
You guys really are the living dead.

Much like the way all of us here regularly remind children that although its fun riding a bike, that they're inevitably going to die. Sigh.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

You're obfuscating our attempt to challenge the concept of a spirit(which has no scientific merit nor evidence of any kind) by using a common turn of phrase to associate tangible human characteristics with the intangible.
Ie...."There is a strong spirit of charity within this community" simply implies that people in the community are charitable. Not that people in the community are charitable because of their "spirits".

Galvasean

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.

Eh, how about no?
Not saying it isn't true, just that it seems dull to reduce something like that to s science lecture.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You guys really are the living dead.

Not this horse cack again.... :rolleyes:

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

So you don't mean 'spirit' as in an everlasting soul sort of way? Could you please clarify as it appears two different things are being discussed.

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

This constant need by (some) religious people to invent made up reasons to find something beautiful or wondrous other than because it is simply beautiful or wondrous is really quite distasteful. You can't enjoy something for what it is you have to make up a reason for why you should enjoy it as if you are embarrassed to simply find pleasure in things as they are.

Claiming we only find something beautiful or wondrous because we believe God created it is rubbish. The question you desperately avoid is why. Claiming we only find something beautiful or wondrous because we believe in God created it is rubbish. The question you desperately avoid is why.

Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ? Nothing created something.
Now thats what I call deluding yourself.

Genghiz Cohen

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ? Nothing created something.
Now thats what I call deluding yourself.

Yawn.

Sarky

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ?

Close enough. Isn't it beautiful?

The Quadratic Equation

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Yawn.

I yawn at your yawn. Yawn.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Claiming we only find something beautiful or wondrous because we believe God created it is rubbish.

You say that and then straight away you say this ...

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ?

So you can only enjoy something if you think God created it? You can't enjoy it if it is a "multi-trillion to one uncaused totally random cosmic accident"?

Did you just say that wasn't the case, you could enjoy it simply for what it was, not based on what caused it to happen?

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

You say that and then straight away you say this ...



So you can only enjoy something if you think God created it? You can't enjoy it if it is a "multi-trillion to one uncaused totally random cosmic accident"?

Did you just say that wasn't the case, you could enjoy it simply for what it was, not based on what caused it to happen?

What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Nothing created something.
Now thats what I call deluding yourself.

Where did God come from again?

Ellis Dee

OK, I get it. Sanity causes insanity. Reason engenders irrationality.:D:D

Why didn't I see that before?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

MagicMarker

Newsite wrote: »

What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?

Purple monkey dishwasher.

aidan24326

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

Not the way religious people normally use the word spirit and you know that very well.

Knasher

Newsite wrote: »

What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?

This question is usually meant to be a gotcha, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are honestly asking. The simple answer is that we don't know what the trigger was or, more importantly, if there even was a trigger to begin with. But research is ongoing, there are a number of theories, most of which I only have a passing familiarity with and so I wouldn't do you the disservice of mangling them.

The point is that there is a certain tendency to view any lack of knowledge as an excuse to insert a god as the answer (my favorite example of this is Bill O'Reilly's ongoing confusion about the moon). If there is one think I'm absolutely certain of, it's that if we ever want to discover the answer to these questions, assuming that the answer is god won't help.

The Mad Hatter

There's this ludicrous idea that some religious people hold that because we understand a certain thing, we don't feel it. Just because we know that love is caused by chemical reactions in our brains doesn't mean we can't fall in love.