mturner

**

Isn't anyone here going to say anything sufficiently rational, reasonable, and intelligent, to be worthy of a response? I can't believe the stuff you people are posting, it's so poorly thought out!!

Hopefully Bill, whom I know to be intelligent, will offer something I can get my teeth into. Otherwise, another potentially good thread down the drain.

mturner

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: mturner ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Given your comments thus far, it seems reasonable to conclude that your response is not thought to be of sufficient worth.

Bill Snedden

I think it was the part where you said:

I was merely pointing out that this was incorrect; Buddhists and Taoists are, for all practical purposes, atheists. They are certainly not physicalists. Neither is non-"spiritual" atheism necessarily physicalist (or materialist). Idealism clearly denies the objectivity of physical reality yet some forms are compatible with atheism.

To get back to the opening post, I think that whether or not "atheism" necessitates acceptance of "evolution" depends upon two things:

1) what type of "atheist" one is
2) what one means by "evolution"

Clearly non-materialist atheists need not be evolutionists. If materialism is false and reality is in fact the product of consciousness(es), then I suppose "evolution" merely becomes part of the subjective construct (I'm not sure, of course, as I don't happen to be an Idealist, but it seems to me that if all that really exists are minds, then the question of the evolution of the physical body becomes moot).

If by "evolution", one means what has come to be known as "Neo-Darwinism", then one could even be a materialist or metaphysical naturalist and still deny it. One could hold to some type of Lamarckian or other model.

However, if "evolution" is more loosely defined as say, "a change in the frequency of alleles over time", with the mechanism of change unspecified, then I imagine most atheists who are also metaphysical naturalists would consider themselves necessarily bound to the model. I can't immediately imagine any other rationally acceptable alternatives. Of course, if one were to be suggested, I think most of us would surely consider it.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

hezekiah jones

Hey, that's our job.

Lizard

Two comments:

First, IMO the more important question is, is a person who accepts the evidence for evolution necessarily an atheist? The creationist/ID crowd have long claimed flatly that acceptance of evolution = atheism. However, the existence of many theistic evolutionists belies that assertion.

Second, no one has distinguished philosophical materialism/naturalism (belief that matter is all there is) from methodological naturalism (acceptance of the fact that scientific methodology requires observable data, which only exist in the physical realm).

The ID promoters conflate the two, PN and MN, intentionally, to indict the "elite scientific priesthood" for having created an atheistic religion around naturalism. Distinctions are necessary, however.

A scientist may be a theist and a methodological naturalist. In fact, to be a scientist and to pursue useful research, one *must* operate as a methodological naturalist. This is where the rub occurs for ID. ID promoters want to re-define science so that it doesn't require methodological naturalism. In one stroke, that would render "science" useless. If non-natural (supernatural) forces have to be taken into account, how would you do it? You would never know when "God," Allah, aliens or Invisible Pink Pixies might intervene to overturn predictable laws of physics. As it happens, scientific observation is based on a large body of observed facts which assume the laws of chemistry and physics are constant. Once you introduce gremlins of any kind, any unpredictable element, then you might as well throw up your hands and say, "Well, we can never understand this."

So, in short, I wish to raise the issue of distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism in science. The former is a philosophical position which doesn't affect how scientists pursue scientific investigations. The latter is a necessary method of pursuing those scientific investigations.

mturner

**
This is where the confusion arises. I do not consider Buddhists and Taoists to be atheists, nor, from those few that I have spoken with, do I get the sense that they think of themselves as atheists. I am a Panentheist, a belief system with a great deal in common with Buddhism and Taoism, and I certainly do not think myself an atheist. A Theist is not always someone who, in the Judaeo/Muslim/Christian tradition, asserts a Divine Being, an anthropomorphic Creator, as a separate and distinct entity. The Divine can be seen as an all-embracing Spirit or Divine Principle. The Tao, or the Atman, or in my case, the Logos. An atheist would have to assert that these spiritual entities do not exist. Therefore, Buddhists, Taoists, and Panentheists are not Atheists. Neither are Pantheists, come to that.

**
I can't pursue this further on the basis of your "non-materialist atheist" concept. As shown above, your examples don't withstand scrutiny. I cannot envisage such a thing as a "non-materialist atheist". To me that's an oxymoron, unless and until you can come up with a better example.


**
Of course, so long as it is every bit as ateleological and mechanical as "Neo-Darwinism". The minute the dynamic becomes intelligent, purposive, and directed, (even if internally and unconsciously), it goes beyond Mechanism and its mechanical explanations.

**
You can't get any more loosely defined than that.
It's so loose it's pointless. Anything and everything is evolutionary.

**
Ah, you sly fox, you just want me to bring out my Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis hypothesis. Well, I'm sorry, but months ago I tried to talk about it here at Infidels, as you well know, and was immediately set upon by a pack of mad dogs, many of whom are still here.
(My apologies to the intelligent, informed, and courteous posters here at Infidels, but you are a minority. And I know that my reaction to the flaming I got was equally bad. I'm not about to demean myself like that again.)
At the moment, I'm discussing it over at ARN, where hysterical yahoos are quickly evicted. I'd be happy to go over it with you,-- there.

pax,

mturner

Jayhawker Soule

Why would you consider this to be "the more important question"? Have you read anything here to suggest that anyone holds such a position?

Actually, the distinction is made repeatedly.

Yes, but what does this have to do with the question at hand?

Bill Snedden

Hmmm...I consider myself a Pantheist, although also an atheist. I suppose it means what one means by "theist" or, more precisely, what qualifies as "theos" so that one who believes in it is a "theist".

Even if you define it as "all-embracing spirit" or "divine principle", Buddhists still don't fit the definition. The Buddhist tradition has no such concept. The "reigning paradigm" (if you will) within Buddhism is that of samsara; the "wheel" of existence. They use a wheel to show the eternal nature of existence (no need for a first cause).

Similarly, while the Tao is a concept of "divinity", it is neither conscious, nor intelligent, nor purposeful; it merely is.

Most people define "theist" as one who believes in a conscious, intelligent, purposeful deity who is generally supposed to have created (or who sustains) the universe. Neither Taoists nor Buddhists fit this definition.

But your definition of "theist" appears to be a good bit wider. Indeed, if your definition of "theos" need not necessarily include the attributes of consciousness or purpose, then I'm a theist as well!

But I did. Even if one grants that Buddhists and Taoists are "theists", there may still be atheists who hold to an Idealistic philosophical outlook.

According to Idealists, all that exists are minds. What appears to us as reality is a sort of "illusion" created by the mind. While the concept has its roots in the decidedly theistic philosophy of Berkeley, there are Idealist philosophers whose ideas are compatible with atheism (like Schopenhauer, Blanshard, etc.). In other words, the Absolute need not be a conscious, purposeful deity.

And, again, if all that exists are minds, the evolution of physical bodies is moot.

But Darwinian evolution is internally "directed". That's what natural selection is all about. It has a "purpose", just not in the teleological or transcendent sense.

Actually, I used that definition on purpose. It happens to be the biological definition of evolution.

Hmmmm....no, not really. At least not in this forum.

As far as I'm concerned, evolution is a fact. The mechanism by which it occurred (was it RM&NS or something else) is still being debated and I'm somewhat "agnostic" on that (although the evidence, IMHO, currently supports RM&NS).

At any rate, I would agree with you that those atheists who are also metaphysical naturalists are most likely committed by necessity to some form of naturalistic evolution, be it Darwinian, Lamarckian, or some other non-teleological model.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This is where the confusion arises.

No, you seem to have brought the confusion with you.

I do not consider Buddhists and Taoists to be atheists, nor, from those few that I have spoken with, do I get the sense that they think of themselves as atheists.

Well, let's see, I live among Buddhists, Taoists, Folk Religionists and others of this ilk. I do not know any Buddhists who worship gods, although I know some who believe in them, while others deny them wholesale. This is not their fault; the great Master Hsing Yun, a highly influential Buddhist leader, sometimes talks as though gods exist, while he has written a book saying that they are an impossible concept.

Of course you could skip that, and simply note that the Dalai Lama has described his Buddhism as an atheist religion.

As for Confucians, they are covered in Vol II of Needham's Science and Civilization in China. Note that when you speak on this issue, you have to be careful to differentiate between Folk Religion, which thinks of itself as simultaneously Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist, and the ritual beliefs of the scholarly class, which were decidedly atheist. Certainly Confucian scholars did not worship gods as Confucians, although they might have when wearing their folk-religionist hat. There's an excellent book on Taiwanese folk religions that touches on the manifestations of religion in Chinese culture called The Flying Phoenix.

I am a Panentheist, a belief system with a great deal in common with Buddhism and Taoism, and I certainly do not think myself an atheist.

Nor would anyone force you to. Just for informational purposes, what gods do you worship?

A Theist is not always someone who, in the Judaeo/Muslim/Christian tradition, asserts a Divine Being, an anthropomorphic Creator, as a separate and distinct entity.

Many of us above gave non-Abrahamic examples of theism.

The Divine can be seen as an all-embracing Spirit or Divine Principle.

Sure.

The Tao, or the Atman, or in my case, the Logos. An atheist would have to assert that these spiritual entities do not exist.

No, a metaphysical naturalist would have to ask for evidence of these entities. An atheist might have differing attitudes toward them, depending on whether they were Buddhist, Confucian, pantheist, or whatever.

Therefore, Buddhists, Taoists, and Panentheists are not Atheists. Neither are Pantheists, come to that.

Good argument, but my Buddhist wife says she is an atheist. So does the Dalai Lama. So does Master Hsing Yun, a major Buddhist teacher. And many others. So my rather extensive experience with Buddhists (I go to temples frequently; my wife's extended family owns several) convinces me that Buddhism can accomodate various positions on gods, atheism being prominent among them.

I can't pursue this further on the basis of your "non-materialist atheist" concept. As shown above, your examples don't withstand scrutiny. I cannot envisage such a thing as a "non-materialist atheist". To me that's an oxymoron, unless and until you can come up with a better example.

In addition to the Confucians, several other philosophical schools in China, seem to have denied the existence of gods. Of course, many modern Chinese deny the existence of gods while deeply believing in luck, fate, ghosts... Many modern believers in ESP and psychic powers deny gods; on this site I believe Draygomb falls into that category.

You seem to want to make atheism coterminus with maetaphysical naturalism. This is not actually the case, for many who deny the existence of gods hew to beliefs that are supernatural in nature.

Michael

mturner

**

Hi Bill;

I guess it does come down to semantics. "Theos" used to mean "god", a broad general category including all different kinds of spiritual explanations for existence and its vagaries. But it appears to have narrowed to, as you say, a personal, caring, spiritual entity. In which case Deism, Pantheism, Idealism, and Buddhism would be considered atheistic. I'm just old-fashioned enough for the out-of-date, broad concept, that I was taught way back when. That makes me odd man out, I guess. Oh, well.



**
If you are going to make Darwinian Natural Selection, that is, the abstraction, "Nature", or its anthropomorphization, "Mother Nature", purposive and intelligent, aren't you re-creating God, or at least, 'a god/dess'?. In the Animist tradition, perhaps?

It's beginning to look to me as if the quarrel between theists and atheists, Darwinists and Creationists, and even Darwinists and some IDists (though not all), has nothing to do with the existence of a god or gods, but solely with the proposed nature of "God". God can exist, or not, just so long as God is irrelevent to existence. It's the idea of a concerned, caring, conscious God, involved in the unfolding of existence, (a theist god, as you say), that infuriates and disgusts atheists. For me, if you can't believe in that, there's no point in believing in anything. All is absurd. There is no criterion by which to measure the intrinsic value of anything. Life has any value that you arbitrarily decide to attach to it. With all that that implies. IMHO

**
I know. And what a sorry reflection on biology that is!

pax,

mturner