Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Another · 02-14-2003, 02:20 PM

To question how "athiests understood the world prior to evolution" implies that we understand it now. This is either a false assumption or a strawman.

We simply believe it is either in principle understandable or at least we better act that way because that is the only way we are going to get anywhere (achieve theories of which yield progressively better explanations).

We understand evolution. That is not the same thing as understanding "the world" unless your definition is narrow. Abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are plausibly outside the realm of evolution.

That is not to say that we must invoke magic.

The fundemental "operating principle" is simply that natural processes have natural explanations - theories that make sense, are internally consistent and are testable. Experiment and data advance knowledge. Postulating an entity beyond experiment to explain data is an end to knowledge.

Rational men have existed for a long time.

Nic Tamzek · 02-14-2003, 07:16 PM

Quote:

for if you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of the wheat, changes the wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge (from the wheat) and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents� But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which came out were not small mice� but fully grown.

Now there's a Ignobel-prize winning experimentalist if I ever saw one...

nic

Vorkosigan · 02-15-2003, 12:15 AM

See Bowler's Evolution: the History of an Idea. He explains it all very all.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich · 02-15-2003, 10:51 AM

It might be fun to collect "Ig Nobel Classics" like that mouse-production experiment. Any other candidates?

That account is most likely from Ortus medicinae, a collection of van Helmont's work which was published after his death by his son in 1648.

Van Helmont had done lots of good work, like doing quantitative measurements and describing different gases, like carbon dioxide and chlorine. One of his more reasonable experiments was watering a small potted willow tree for 5 years; he showed that the tree's weight gain was much more than the soil's weight loss, and concluded that the tree's material had come from the water. He was partially correct; he had not realized it, but much of its material had come from one of his discoveries -- CO2.

And that early spontaneous-generation skeptic was Sir Thomas Browne:

Quote:

Concerning the generation of Froggs, we shall briefly deliver that account which observation hath taught us. By Frogges I understand not such as arising from putrefaction, are bred ....but they let fall their spawn in the water... In this spawn of a lentous and transparent body, are to be discerned many specks, or little conglobulations, which in a small time become of deep black.... Now of this black or duskie substance is the Frogge at least formed; as we have beheld, including the spawn with water in a glass, and exposing it unto the Sun. For that black and round substance, in a few days began to dilate and grow longer, after a while the head, the eyes, the tail to be discernable, and at last to become that which the Ancients called Gyrinus, we a Porwigle or Tadpole. This in some weeks after becomes a perfect Frogg, the legs growing out before, and the tail wearing away, to supply the other behind.)

(from his debunking book Pseudodoxia Epidemica 1672 6th edition).

jayh · 02-18-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notMichaelJackson
How did atheists explain the formation of the world without an understanding of evolution?

I suppose the same way that non-believers in Thor dealt with the lightning question before the discovery of electricity..... simply did not know

Coleman Smith · 02-19-2003, 08:46 PM

For a relevant read let me suggest 2000 Years of Disbelief-Famous People with the Courage to Doubt by James A. Haught Prometheus Books ISBN1-57392-067-3

Part one deals with the ancients

Samples:

�Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life.� �Aristotle, Politics�

�What old woman is so stupid now as to tremble all those tales of hell which were so firmly believed in�, Cicero (Cardiff)

�It was man who first made men believe in gods� Critias

�It is in the interest of states to be deceived in religion� Diodoris Siculus

�Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.� Seneca

Finally my favorite:

�Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians. Michael de Montainge 1533-1592

Coleman Smith
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The assertion that the universe is surround in grape jelly is more creditable than the assertion that we are the immortal pets of some deity.

lpetrich · 02-19-2003, 09:25 PM

And let us not forget Xenophanes:

Quote:

(11) Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. 99.

(12) Since they have uttered many lawless deeds of the gods, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. ib.

(14) But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form. R. P. 100.

(15) Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds. R. P. ib.

(16) The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R. P. 100 b.

And Plato, who in his Republic suggested that his society's sacred books be banned from his ideal city, because they teach numerous bad examples, like heroes lamenting and gods laughing. And in their place would be an official ideology intended to demonstrate the legitimacy of that city's philosopher-rulers, an ideology he called a "royal lie".

lpetrich · 02-19-2003, 09:47 PM

As to lightning, I think that the most likely theory would have been clouds bumping into each other; Aristophanes's The Clouds mentions that theory.

And the notion of spontaneous generation also goes back to antiquity; no less than Aristotle had advocated it.

jayh · 02-20-2003, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
As to lightning, I think that the most likely theory would have been clouds bumping into each other; Aristophanes's The Clouds mentions that theory.

And the notion of spontaneous generation also goes back to antiquity; no less than Aristotle had advocated it.

I guess my point is, that it is not necessary to have an alternate theory not to believe in a god. It's a false dichotomy {either you believe in god, or you have an explanation}.

This is a common issue with theists, "if you can't explain it, that proves that god is involved", no all it demonstrates is that an explanation is not currently available. In no way is the lack of an explanation an evidence FOR a god.

Coleman Smith · 02-20-2003, 04:56 PM

Jayh said�This is a common issue with theists, "if you can't explain it, that proves that god is involved", no all it demonstrates is that an explanation is not currently available. In no way is the lack of an explanation an evidence FOR a god..�

I agree.

Popcorn was once a miracle.

It didn�t take a deity to explain popcorn and it won�t take a deity to explain what passes for mystery today.

Coleman Smith

02-19-2003, 08:46 PM	#16
Coleman Smith Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: In real time. Posts: 789	2000 Years of Disbelief For a relevant read let me suggest 2000 Years of Disbelief-Famous People with the Courage to Doubt by James A. Haught Prometheus Books ISBN1-57392-067-3 Part one deals with the ancients Samples: �Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life.� �Aristotle, Politics� �What old woman is so stupid now as to tremble all those tales of hell which were so firmly believed in�, Cicero (Cardiff) �It was man who first made men believe in gods� Critias �It is in the interest of states to be deceived in religion� Diodoris Siculus �Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.� Seneca Finally my favorite: �Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians. Michael de Montainge 1533-1592 Coleman Smith +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The assertion that the universe is surround in grape jelly is more creditable than the assertion that we are the immortal pets of some deity.

02-20-2003, 04:56 PM	#20
Coleman Smith Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: In real time. Posts: 789	Popcorn was once a miracle....... Jayh said�This is a common issue with theists, "if you can't explain it, that proves that god is involved", no all it demonstrates is that an explanation is not currently available. In no way is the lack of an explanation an evidence FOR a god..� I agree. Popcorn was once a miracle. It didn�t take a deity to explain popcorn and it won�t take a deity to explain what passes for mystery today. Coleman Smith

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2003, 02:20 PM	#11
Another Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: sicily Posts: 19	To question how "athiests understood the world prior to evolution" implies that we understand it now. This is either a false assumption or a strawman. We simply believe it is either in principle understandable or at least we better act that way because that is the only way we are going to get anywhere (achieve theories of which yield progressively better explanations). We understand evolution. That is not the same thing as understanding "the world" unless your definition is narrow. Abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are plausibly outside the realm of evolution. That is not to say that we must invoke magic. The fundemental "operating principle" is simply that natural processes have natural explanations - theories that make sense, are internally consistent and are testable. Experiment and data advance knowledge. Postulating an entity beyond experiment to explain data is an end to knowledge. Rational men have existed for a long time.

02-15-2003, 12:15 AM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	See Bowler's Evolution: the History of an Idea. He explains it all very all. Vorkosigan

02-19-2003, 09:47 PM	#18
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	As to lightning, I think that the most likely theory would have been clouds bumping into each other; Aristophanes's The Clouds mentions that theory. And the notion of spontaneous generation also goes back to antiquity; no less than Aristotle had advocated it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.