Did Darwin Kill God?

[David B]

TV prog of that title now on BBC2, presented by a Christian.

Spose I'd better watch it.

Should be on iplayer for a week, for brits who miss it.

More later.

David

[Ronin]

I can smell the burning straw from over here!

:cool:

[Lisa0315]

Uhm, nope. Not even close. ;)

[Ronin]

Didn't even try.

:cool:

Priests and scribes did that.

[David B]

I found it to be a bit of a curate's egg of a programme. Good in parts. There was certainly stuff in it that I didn't know. I wish I'd taken notes.

Anyway, the guy started by showing that the early church didn't take Genesis as literal history, referring to Augustine in particular.

He looked at Ussher as basically a nut job, and regretted that his chronology got into the KJV.

Moving on, he pointed out, reasonably enough, that the development of the science that showed an old earth was largely the result of the scientific endeavours of clergymen, pointed out that evolution was pretty much accepted by educated people at the end of the 19th C, and digressed into Darwin's loss of faith in Christianity (though not some sort of vague theism) was more to do with the death of his daughter than with the Origin.

There was some interesting stuff about the Scopes trial. I didn't know that the prosecutor was both a socialist and an OEC, for instance, who was horrified by the robber barons of American industrialism using Social Darwinism to justify it. Nor was I familiar with his claim, right or wrong, that both sides in the trial agreed that evolution killed God.

Moving on, he had a look at the creation museum, which he thought bizarre and theologically unsound, as well as scientifically naive, and chatted to someone from AiG, that he looked at as if in the company of a dangerous lunatic.

And had a chat with a couple of people he described as ultra Darwinists, Dan Dennett re evolution in general, and Susan Blackmore re memes. I mentioned her in my post in Black 5's Buddhism thread yesterday.

Ignoring the possibility of reality checks, he pounced on the idea that memetics showed that Darwinism was just another meme, silly sod.

He also found an atheist philosopher, can't remember name, who said science had nothing to say about religion, and hence couldn't disprove God. Well, duh!

Not being able to disprove is not the same as disproving some conceptions of god, and giving a pretty good idea, short of proof, that there isn't a god.

Had a chat with Simon Conway Morris, who said that evolution is incomplete, and talked about what I'd paraphrase as a neoplatonist view of music. The sort of thing I still puzzle about actually.

And a chat with some chap called Collins (Francis?) who was on the human genome project, is a Christian, and saw evolution as evidence of the elegant way his God worked. Didn't say why he saw it like that.

And concluded that Evolution did not kill God in general, or his own (comparatively sophisticated) Christian conception of God, all the while giving not the least reason why the God idea in general, and the Christian one in particular, were good ideas.

The order might be a bit out, but that's about it in a nutshell.

A good thing in that it blew the YEC's out of the water.

Not good otherwise.

David

[Ronin]

Just to give you some local insight as a sly smilin' southern boy in Billy Graham's court...the Scopes trial was to defeat The Butler Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Act)

If you get a chance, watch Inherit The Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/) as a primer for the frame of mind of my deep south Biblical brethren and belles...which, truth be told, breathes strong even today..

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:
and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Ah, sweet, sweet bliss.

[BigEvil]

Well, in a sense, Darwin did kill god for me....although more accurate to say that Darwin and Newton killed god. God was rendered to the status of an archaic concept that had outlived its use.

I can't think of a reason to accept a supernatural explanation over a natural one. Natural explanations appear to be the only ones that can be verified as accurate. Supernatural explanations can't be verified till after you are dead.

The only place I could accept a supernatural explanation is in an area where there can be no natural explanation. Newton's explanation for the moon's orbit and Darwin's theory of evolution convinced me that there is no such area. It makes no difference, whether either were correct. Natural explanations were available. If they are wrong, there would be other natural explanations to replace them.

I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect.

[lpetrich]

I think that that gentleman was making Augustine and other such theologians in his likeness, because what they considered allegorical was the theological anthropomorphism and suchlike -- stuff like God walking in the Garden of Eden.

They did not consider the Biblical-history timeline allegorical; they believed that the Universe is less than 6000 years old. St. Augustine said as much in his City of God, where in Book 18 he harrumphs at some Egyptians for maintaining that the Universe is much more than 6000 years old.

If they wanted to, they could have claimed that the Biblical timeline is only for this particular epoch of the earth's existence, or else that the Biblical creation stories are allegories for timeless processes.

[Ray Moscow]

SNIP

A good thing in that it blew the YEC's out of the water.

Not good otherwise.

David

Thanks for the review. I was thinking of recording it, but it turns out much as I expected.

It does puzzle me that so many liberal Christians seem ignorant or in denial of how strongly the TOE was attacked by, well, the liberal Christians of the day.

Genesis does not describe actual events? Well, just flush most of Christian doctrine, then, because that's its basis. No fall? No need for a "saviour". No first "Adam"? No need for a second one. No creation? No need for a "Creator", either. No special creation of humankind? Goodbye Christianity, except a few fringe and unpopular variations.

[Codec]

I found it to be a bit of a curate's egg of a programme. Good in parts. There was certainly stuff in it that I didn't know. I wish I'd taken notes.

I watched it last night - some bits were good, and there were some interesting new bits in it I thought.


Moving on, he had a look at the creation museum, which he thought bizarre and theologically unsound, as well as scientifically naive, and chatted to someone from AiG, that he looked at as if in the company of a dangerous lunatic.

I thought the rather telling argument about intelligent design was good. Intelligent design suppose a god who interferes in all manner of things to make bacterial flagellum, clotting cascades and various other intricacies of all organisms. However this same tinkering god who is constantly busy making new devices doesn't intervene in the cases of suffering, child abuse etc.



And had a chat with a couple of people he described as ultra Darwinists, Dan Dennett re evolution in general, and Susan Blackmore re memes. I mentioned her in my post in Black 5's Buddhism thread yesterday.

Have to say I didn't understand his meme argument, despite him repeating it a couple of times.


Had a chat with Simon Conway Morris, who said that evolution is incomplete, and talked about what I'd paraphrase as a neoplatonist view of music. The sort of thing I still puzzle about actually.

I was interesting to see Simon who I've read so much about. He equated to evolution to something like gravity before Einstein. It works well enough but it may well be there is a lot more to discover about its mechanisms. Something I sort of agree with.

And a chat with some chap called Collins (Francis?) who was on the human genome project, is a Christian, and saw evolution as evidence of the elegant way his God worked. Didn't say why he saw it like that.

Yes, Francis Collins head of the human genome project (well one of them!).
He rather dismissed the selfish gene metaphor, which when you think about it the way he described it is reasonable I think. I'm not sure you can really say and individual gene is, or appears to be selfish, its really the genome as a whole that's selfish. You can't really say PAX6 is selfish on its own, but only as part of the genome.

A reasonable program in many ways, although obviously coloured by his views.

[Oolon Colluphid]

He rather dismissed the selfish gene metaphor, which when you think about it the way he described it is reasonable I think. I'm not sure you can really say and individual gene is, or appears to be selfish, its really the genome as a whole that's selfish. You can't really say PAX6 is selfish on its own, but only as part of the genome.
I doubt Dawkins would disagree.

[DMB]

For some reason the idea that Darwin's grief over his daughter's death destroyed his faith is popular with liberal Christians, perhaps because they want to hang onto the idea that evolution does not rule out their God. But it ignores the fact that he is on record as thinking that a benevolent god was incompatible with the extreme cruelty of nature. Of course, the death of Annie probably helped that along, but it seems to have been biology wot dunnit.

I have always thought that before OoS, atheism stood on shaky ground, but that once Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species, the creator god was pushed into being the god of the gaps. And in the 150 years since, the gaps have narrowed. Of course, there were impressive atheists such as Hume in the pre-Darwin period, but everything to do with life was a rather big gap then.

[RBH]

He rather dismissed the selfish gene metaphor, which when you think about it the way he described it is reasonable I think. I'm not sure you can really say and individual gene is, or appears to be selfish, its really the genome as a whole that's selfish. You can't really say PAX6 is selfish on its own, but only as part of the genome.I doubt Dawkins would disagree.Hm. Recall that Dawkins said once that "The Selfish Gene" could have been retitled "The Cooperative Gene" with no change in content.

[espritch]

I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect.

I pretty much agree, but I'd call them "naturalistic" explanations, not "atheistic". Atheism isn't really an explanation for anything; it's just the rejection of the "God did it" explanation for everything.

[espritch]

There was some interesting stuff about the Scopes trial. I didn't know that the prosecutor was both a socialist and an OEC, for instance, who was horrified by the robber barons of American industrialism using Social Darwinism to justify it.

I read an article some years ago by Steven Gould about this. He mentioned that Bryant had traveled to Europe and had been appalled by the social darwinist ideas popular among German military leaders and aristocracy at the time.

Of course Bryant did what a lot of Creationists do today; he confused social Darwinism with Darwinian evolution. Despite the name, they really don't have much to do with each other.

[BigEvil]

I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect.

I pretty much agree, but I'd call them "naturalistic" explanations, not "atheistic". Atheism isn't really an explanation for anything; it's just the rejection of the "God did it" explanation for everything.

Naturalistic would be the more appropriate term. However, if I said that I was a naturalist, my friends would think I was saying that I am a nudist. Saying atheist or atheistic would be the more comprehensible description to them. Hence I say atheistic, though I mean something naturalistic.

That may seem silly, but it works for me.

[Philosophickle]

I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect.

I'm pretty sure that this is the wrong place for me to wanna talk about this, but I'd like to kick around this idea sometime. I just don't want to take the thread offtrack that far.

[David B]

Carry on, Philosophickle.

If it causes the thread to go off track with an interesting derail, splitting it off would be no big deal:)

David

[Barefoot Bree]

Ignoring the possibility of reality checks, he pounced on the idea that memetics showed that Darwinism was just another meme, silly sod.
Does scientific verifiability or reality checks have anything to do with the "memeness" of an idea? Are scientific theories memes, too?

Or is "just another" the operative phrase in your sentence?

[Philosophickle]

Carry on, Philosophickle.

If it causes the thread to go off track with an interesting derail, splitting it off would be no big deal:)

David

I'll take that as a blank check.

I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect.

I'm pretty sure that this is the wrong place for me to wanna talk about this, but I'd like to kick around this idea sometime. I just don't want to take the thread offtrack that far.

This question- of explanations and such- has always intriqued me. I don't understand why people would think that atheistic (naturalistic, materialist) explanations are the only kind of potential correct or incorrect explanations. Disbelieving someone's reasons for God is one thing, but dismissing the question out of hand as somehow anti-truthiness is another. Minimally, for a non-naturalistic explanation to be true a non-naturalistic fact needs to be the case. Even if you don't happen to believe God exists, surely it is coherent or possibly true to say God exists.

Ignoring the possibility of reality checks, he pounced on the idea that memetics showed that Darwinism was just another meme, silly sod.
Does scientific verifiability or reality checks have anything to do with the "memeness" of an idea? Are scientific theories memes, too?

Or is "just another" the operative phrase in your sentence?

I have mixed fillings about the "self-defeating memetics" argument. For many people it is and ought to be a non-issue. But a few people- Dennett, Blackmore etc.- think the following proposition is true:

Our mental content can be explained in virtue of our memetic history.

If true, then one only needs to add the following obviously true proposition to get the desired self-referential argument against memetics:

Memetic theory is a part of our mental content.

If you think both of those are true, then you have a solid case for supposing that the reason we believe memetic theory is true is because we were caused to believe it is true, not necessarily because it is factually plausible.

[BigEvil]

Philosophickle wrote:

This question- of explanations and such- has always intriqued me. I don't understand why people would think that atheistic (naturalistic, materialist) explanations are the only kind of potential correct or incorrect explanations. Disbelieving someone's reasons for God is one thing, but dismissing the question out of hand as somehow anti-truthiness is another. Minimally, for a non-naturalistic explanation to be true a non-naturalistic fact needs to be the case. Even if you don't happen to believe God exists, surely it is coherent or possibly true to say God exists.

How can one establish whether a non-naturalistic explanation is correct or incorrect?

That was the point of my post. Supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false.

I dismiss "the question" out of hand for the same reasons that I dismiss solipsism out of hand.

Non-naturalistic explanations appear to be as useless as solipsistic explanations.

[Philosophickle]

That was the point of my post. Supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false.

Why do you assert that supernatural explanations could never be established as true or false? I know what you are saying, I just don't know why you are saying it.

[BigEvil]

That was the point of my post. Supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false.

Why do you assert that supernatural explanations could never be established as true or false? I know what you are saying, I just don't know why you are saying it.

How can they be?

Or better yet, which one ever has?

[Philosophickle]

That was the point of my post. Supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false.

Why do you assert that supernatural explanations could never be established as true or false? I know what you are saying, I just don't know why you are saying it.

How can they be?

They can be explanations in the exact way all explanations are. Surely it isn't impossible for an angel to cause something to happen, even if it is implausible or unlikely.

Or better yet, which one ever has?

I'm not sure, but one could be certain aspects of the mind. Qualia aren't inexplicable even though they may be non-physical. There are naturalists who believe physical things aren't the only things (E. J. Lowe (http://www.dur.ac.uk/philosophy/staff/?username=dfl0ejl), for example). It isn't that he wants to believe in non-natural properties but rather that he thinks it is a powerful explanation of known facts about the human mind.

[Ray Moscow]

If an angel did cause something to happen, that action would be detectable by naturalistic means -- "science".

Of all the actions we've ever studied, which ones were angelic in origin?

Find one, and then we'll talk about the possibility of angels existing.

[Philosophickle]

If an angel did cause something to happen, that action would be detectable by naturalistic means -- "science".

Of all the actions we've ever studied, which ones were angelic in origin?

Find one, and then we'll talk about the possibility of angels existing.

One doesn't determine possibility by asking if there have been occurrences of that happening. That is completely besides the point. I'm not asking if angels exist and if they cause/have caused anything in the world. I'm just asking if it's logically possible. Do you see the difference?

ETA: This principle is just wrong (or at least unsupported):

All facts (of things or events or causes, etc.) are scientifically verifiable.

It's an assertion, and one I doubt you'd be able to verify scientifically.

[Ray Moscow]

Yes, gods, angels, fairies, and leprachans that do not interact with this universe are logically possible.

Those aren't the sort of deities that people actually believe in, but they are logically possible.

Do you see the difference?

[Philosophickle]

Yes, gods, angels, fairies, and leprachans that do not interact with this universe are logically possible.

Those aren't the sort of deities that people actually believe in, but they are logically possible.

Do you see the difference?

Of course. But that isn't the point. I'm saying that there is nothing prima facie incoherent about non-naturalistic explanations. They be in fact wrong, but that is miles away from impossible or incoherent. Further, this is a defeater for the earlier claim that "I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect."

[Ray Moscow]

My point is rather that "non-natural" explanations become natural and detectable if they affect our universe. If we don't find evidence of such "non-natural" things, it is unlikely that they exist.

However, they are still logically possible. They just don't affect us or our universe.

[BioBeing]

They can be explanations in the exact way all explanations are. Surely it isn't impossible for an angel to cause something to happen, even if it is implausible or unlikely.

This is why non-natural explanations are not even wrong.

You can give an angel as an explanation for something. Someone else might say it was an imp. No says a third, it was a fairy. A teeny tiny elephant? God? A demon? And so on, ad infinitum.

Is there a formal possibility that one of these explanations is correct? Sure. But so the fuck what? How are you going to tell which explanation is the correct one?

No, non-natural explanations are not even wrong: they are useless.

[Preno]

Angels have wings. Imps are small and can't fly. Fairies are small, can fly and live underground. Are you saying you can't tell a fairy from an imp?

I seriously don't understand what's so inconceivable about the possibility of, say, ghosts existing. I can easily imagine scenarios which would force us to conclude that ghosts exist. Can't you?

[David B]

Angels have wings. Imps are small and can't fly. Fairies are small, can fly and live underground. Are you saying you can't tell a fairy from an imp?

I seriously don't understand what's so inconceivable about the possibility of, say, ghosts existing. I can easily imagine scenarios which would force us to conclude that ghosts exist. Can't you?

Sure I can. I can imagine scenarios that would force me to believe that Superman exists, too.

However, these scenarios seem a bit thin on the ground outside the imagination.

David

[BigEvil]

I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

Yes, I suppose one could come up with a logically consistent supernatural explanation as to why my coffee is cooling down.

Is that your point?

[BioBeing]

Angels have wings. Imps are small and can't fly. Fairies are small, can fly and live underground. Are you saying you can't tell a fairy from an imp?

Angels have wings, and so do faeries. Can you tell a fairy from an angel?

:dunno:

I seriously don't understand what's so inconceivable about the possibility of, say, ghosts existing. I can easily imagine scenarios which would force us to conclude that ghosts exist. Can't you?

I can imagine lots of stuff. Doesn't mean it is real. But if you can imagine some specific scenario, that means you have hypothesis, so go test it out.

[Preno]

Sure I can. I can imagine scenarios that would force me to believe that Superman exists, too.

However, these scenarios seem a bit thin on the ground outside the imagination.Well, obviously. What does that have to do with the claim we're discussing, viz. "supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false".
I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

Yes, I suppose one could come up with a logically consistent supernatural explanation as to why my coffee is cooling down.

Is that your point?My point is that it's blatantly false to say that "supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false".
Angels have wings, and so do faeries. Can you tell a fairy from an angel?I'm pretty sure I can. For example, iirc fairies live underground while angels live in heaven.
I can imagine lots of stuff. Doesn't mean it is real.Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

[BigEvil]

My point is that it's blatantly false to say that "supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false".

How about if it was changed to "supernatural expanations are assertions with little hope of being established as true or false".

[David B]

Sure I can. I can imagine scenarios that would force me to believe that Superman exists, too.

However, these scenarios seem a bit thin on the ground outside the imagination.Well, obviously. What does that have to do with the claim we're discussing, viz. "supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false".

It terms of pure logical proof, not a lot.

Induction (except mathematical induction) is not proof.

However, in terms of reaching a working idea of how the world works, I'd suggest that induction can be a good working guide, and the fact that there no scenarios which do force the acceptance of the existence of ghosts or Superman, when looked at critically, has a practical relevance, IMV.

Not put as well as I'd like. Feeling muzzy headed as slowly recovering from migraine.

David

[BioBeing]

My point is that it's blatantly false to say that "supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false".
Are you trying to say then that supernatural explanations can be proven true?


Angels have wings, and so do faeries. Can you tell a fairy from an angel?I'm pretty sure I can. For example, iirc fairies live underground while angels live in heaven.
Well then, you would be totally wrong. Faeries live in flowers and trees. Of course, though since they are both made up, they can live anywhere you want them to. So I really see no point in discussing this.

My point was if there are 50 supernatural explanations for a phenomenon, they are all equally likely a priori to be true. But we have no way of knowing which - if any of them - is true.

No. way. at. all.

Unless you are trying to tell me that you have a mechanism for distinguishing between true supernatural and false supernatural. Do you?


I can imagine lots of stuff. Doesn't mean it is real.Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

It means that imaginary shit - supernatural explanations - are worthless as explanations of real-world events.

[Preno]

How about if it was changed to "supernatural expanations are assertions with little hope of being established as true or false".Well, depends on what you mean by hope. It's quite obvious that there are, in fact, no angels and fairies. That doesn't mean that saying they do is making an unfalsifiable or unverifiable claim, it means that it is a false claim.
It terms of pure logical proof, not a lot.

Induction (except mathematical induction) is not proof.

However, in terms of reaching a working idea of how the world works, I'd suggest that induction can be a good working guide, and the fact that there no scenarios which do force the acceptance of the existence of ghosts or Superman, when looked at critically, has a practical relevance, IMV.Well, yes, if by "there aren't" you mean that there in fact aren't, that's obvious, but irrelevant; if you mean that there couldn't be, that's imo obviously false.
My point is that it's blatantly false to say that "supernatural explanations are assertions with no hope of being established as true or false".Are you trying to say then that supernatural explanations can be proven true?They could, sure, in the same sense that any other empirical explanation could.
My point was if there are 50 supernatural explanations for a phenomenon, they are all equally likely a priori to be true. But we have no way of knowing which - if any of them - is true.No, it doesn't work like that. There is no "a priori likelihood".

And I don't understand why we would have no way of knowing which of them is true.
Unless you are trying to tell me that you have a mechanism for distinguishing between true supernatural and false supernatural. Do you?I don't have a mechanism for distinguishing between true natural and false natural, either. But yes, supernatural statements are verifiable/falsifiable.

(In fact, I think the whole natural/supernatural distinction is kinda silly and basically boils down to mythological/non-mythological, but we can keep using it if you wish.)

[BioBeing]

(In fact, I think the whole natural/supernatural distinction is kinda silly and basically boils down to mythological/non-mythological, but we can keep using it if you wish.)

Well, it is meaningful in that when *most* people talk about supernatural, they mean things that are not natural, and are therefore not subject to normal empirical examination. Basically, if the supernatural were testable by science, it would be natural and not supernatural. If you are using it to mean something else, then we are talking at cross purposes.

[Preno]

Well, yeah, so you would win by definition. But surely your definition is flawed if it doesn't include fairies? Surely fairies are perfectly observable beings (or at least they would be, if they existed)?

[DMB]

I think this thread has got into Russell's teapot territory.

[RBH]

Of course. But that isn't the point. I'm saying that there is nothing prima facie incoherent about non-naturalistic explanations. They be in fact wrong, but that is miles away from impossible or incoherent. In fact, I think that the notion of a "non-naturalistic [i.e., supernaturalistic] explanation" is itself incoherent, or at least does so much damage to the notion of what an "explanation" is that it becomes vacuous.

Further, this is a defeater for the earlier claim that "I am convinced that atheistic explanations have a monopoly on the truth. Not that they are correct, but they are the only ones that have the potential to be shown to be correct or incorrect."That's not at all a defeater, because it depends not on the nature of the explanation but rather on the way one determines the correctness of an explanation, a quite different issue. The 'potential to be correct,' at least in human operational terms, requires accepted procedures for determining 'correctness' that we have some reason to believe deliver reliable results, but those who offer supernatural 'explanations' have no such accepted procedures. Hence their favorite conflict-resolution techniques like burning those who don't accept the explanation or (in more benign times) schism. That last is empirical evidence that supernaturalists have no way of determining correctness. In order to establish that it's a defeater, you must establish that there are reliable methods of determining the correctness or incorrectness of supernatural explanations.

[Febble]

I just saw the program. I really enjoyed it up till half way through.

What the heck is "ultra-Darwinism"? Did he make it up?

[HinduWoman]

Darwin provided an alternative explanation for life.
Goddidit was no longer the only explanation available and Darwin's theory had lots more facts backing it up.

So while Darwin does not neccessariliy kill God he provided the weapons with which humans can cut off God surgically. :evil: