E_muse

I think that in order to embrace mainstream scientific explanations for observed phenomena one must embrace the theory that natural processes are blind.

Characteristics, such as the ability to think, are inherited, of course.

Until we get to what?

As I understand it, we are the product of accumulated small changes.

bd-from-kg

This exact question was debated at length recently in the Philosophy forum on the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000001" target="_blank">Why Should A Metaphysical Naturalist Trust Her Reason?</a>.

The "Niagara Falls" analogy is a carbon copy of the "Welcome to Wales" flower pattern example from Richard Taylor's Metaphysics.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

MadMordigan

We do not know that our reason give us true knowledge.

But it hurts too much not to act as if it does.

James AD

Where did that quote come from? I'd like to check the content and accuracy. Creationists are not trustworthy when it comes to quotes.

I'd say you have a sarcastic tour guide.

And when you arrive he say's, "That's not Niagara Falls. It's just a lot of water running over a cliff."

Others have already posted to explain why an evolved brain would be just as useful as any other part of the body. I don't need to restate it.

There beauty of Intelligent Design theory is there is no way to disprove it. It doesn't say anything useful. I goes like this: An intelligent (whatever intelligence means) being (whatever a being is) created (by whatever means) whatever, whenever.

If you what to debate the existence of god, you must lay down a definition. The argument from design commits the fallacy of four terms.

Scientiae,
Cool graphic!

LinuxPup

Scientiae:

This can be tested naturally... what are the chances of someone correctly solving 100 math problems consecutively? Now, let's say they're even easy ones like addition and subtraction. Is it likely that "random" causes will correctly solve them all? Not a chance. Do believe this is to have incredulity beyond that of a belief in God.

Faith is not incredulity, but rather believing something you have *reason* to believe is true. The Biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." You'll notice two words here: substance and evidence. The Greek word for "evidence" is "elegchos", which means "a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested". So you see, faith is not blind, it's founded upon reason.

An example would be time, or an electron. I cannot see either one, but I have every reason (I have faith) that they exist, through testing.

Vorkosigan:

However the atheism belief has many beliefs:

Does Allah exist? No.
Is Jesus God? No.
Does Brahman exist? No.

etc. Yes those beliefs can be summed in your statement, but they are still multiple beliefs... and atheism (as well as Christianity, agnosticism, etc.)has many *profound* results in the way you see life and take part in life. So it's not only a worldview, it's a very popular and major one.

I have to go now...

Philosoft

Are you really going to insist this is the way it works? As soon as someone asserts something exists, the rejection of that assertion automatically becomes a belief? So what are the parameters? Does it have to be logically possible or can I just go around asserting that square-circles exist and snicker to myself that you must believe they don't?

Principia

Invalid test: In fact, there is a current example that shows how 'random' causes can indeed solve mathematical problems. Take a 100 bp sequence of DNA. For each base pair, the corresponding mathematics problem is to find the complementary base pair (a boolean test). Suppose that there are other strands, can the original DNA strand find an exact complement? <a href="http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/www/users/faculty/ogihara/research/DNA/dna.html" target="_blank">You bet you can</a>. And the underlying principle is random diffusion of the DNA strand, guided only by electrostatic interactions.

BTW, I am slightly confused here. How far are you willing to take this example? To what extent is human intelligence (or lack of it) measured by mathematical aptitutde? Take <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2002-04-18_poincare" target="_blank">Poincare's conjecture</a>. Can you prove it? Is your inability a sign of poor design or rather a lack of it?

That is quite an interesting definition of faith, but for the purposes of the discussion, it is irrelevant. Please, by all means, provide us with the reasons/evidence for believing that the human mind must necessarily be a product of intelligent design. Your attempt above was a dismal failure.

SC

Goliath

No. However, I do not believe that your god does not exist, either.

Wrong. Atheism is not the belief that your god does not exist. Your preferred definition of atheism will not be privilidged here.

It is neither. You are demonstrably wrong.

I make no claims, and therefore need prove nothing. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Sincerely,

Goliath

sandlewood

But where IS the evidence? Yes, we can see that the Bible mentions the words “substance” and “evidence”. Anyone can do that. It’s just a claim. It doesn’t mean there IS any evidence. Besides, does that sentence even make sense to you? Faith is the evidence of things unseen? Faith is evidence itself?
You cannot see an electron with your eyes. But there is evidence that electrons exist. But most importantly, there is objective evidence that they exist. Anyone can build or use the tools to see the evidence of electrons. In the case of the Bible, there is no objective evidence.

Also, be careful not to switch in different meanings of the word “faith”. You do not believe electrons exist because of faith. Rather you have reasons to believe they do. You are free to do cyclotron experiments yourself to confirm it. Many different people everywhere have done independent tests that all confirm that electrons exists. You can read about these, and that’s why you believe electrons exist.
You really seem to be pushing this atheism-is-a-worldview argument. A world view would contain beliefs about politics, morality, health, science, literature, philosophy, human rights, etc. Atheism says nothing about these. All you know about an atheist is that he doesn’t believe a god or gods exist. That’s it. Atheists can and do have different worldviews.

Anyway, none of that is relevant to the main point.
Natural selection is blind in the sense that it does not have a specific direction or long term goal. This is not the same meaning as Linuxpup had when he said “blind chance”. Natural selection may select from genetic mutations that have occurred randomly, but that doesn’t mean natural selection is random.

Our ability to reason could certainly have evolved, since those humans that correctly reasoned the truth of reality would be more likely to survive to reproduce. That’s natural selection.

Vorkosigan

Well, good luck with your atheism is worldview approach. I am sure you will wind up quite confused.