pz

There's the reason. Theistic evolution isn't "truth", it is wishful thinking. One reason people believe in it is because they find it consoling to have a big daddy in the sky who will be nice to them.

There is no defensible, logical reason to bolt this theistic kludge on to the side of naturalism. There is good evidence that the universe is a harsh and uncaring place, quite contrary to what people "want".

If anyone wants to believe in this superstitious baloney because it makes them feel better, go ahead; just don't try to claim that this is a position justified by logic, reason, or science, or that it is 'truth'. It's nothing but an invisible friend or a blankie to cuddle up with at night.

emotional

I hold that all conscious organisms go to an afterlife when they die. Bacteria don't. Horses do. Humans do.

emotional

Wishing something to be true does not make it false.

It is not justified by logic, reason or science, but it is truth; I cannot prove it, but it is truth. Since the supernatural is outside the range of scientific evidence or proof, there can never be evidence or proof for it, but that does not make it any the less real. I cannot prove that the afterlife exists; you will believe in the afterlife when you get there.

Lobstrosity

So where is the line drawn with regards to "conscious" organisms? Are insects conscious? What's the cut-off point?

Oolon Colluphid

Nor does it make it true. No matter how fervently I wish for there to be leprechauns, it matters not the slightest to their reality.
Then perhaps you can define 'true' for us.

And can you explain how someone ascertains the truth?

And just as importantly, how can one tell whether something's true, if not by reference to the outside world? If instead we rely on 'intuition' or some internal thought process, how do we know that that is not misfiring and misleading us? What of the truth of someone convinced they are Napoleon? And so back to the original point: wishing doesn't produce truth.
The supernatural is defined as being outside the range of science. But we're talking about real-world phenomena, about whether something's real or not. Thus if telekinesis, for instance, were real, no matter what laws of physics it meant throwing out, science would have to investigate it. If the laws are temporarily suspended, we'd have to try to see how and why.

It's not a case of something being outside what science currently knows: if something's real, science will have to adjust to accommodate it.

However, there's no point in trying to accommodate that which is unverified, and in fact unverifiable.

It all comes down to, how do you know?
Nope. We then wouldn't be 'believing' it. There would be evidence, so it would be accepted.

TTFN, Oolon

emotional

You got it backwards. It should be:

-- Wishing something to be true does not make it true.
-- But it does not make it false either.



I don't know. I believe.

I stand corrected.

Lobstrosity

You're completely missing the point here. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true, but instead can explain why someone might believe it is true. You wish there was an afterlife, so you are willing to believe in the truth of that afterlife's existence. Wishing can lead to believing even though wishing itself has no bearing on the overall truth of the matter. This is the point people are trying to make. It's obvious that wishing something is true does not make it false. This clearly does not need to be stated so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

wdog

emotional,

you are simply reducing your god as the 'author' of the laws of nature, and after that he stood by and watched his experiment. I originally was excited to look for god in there (science) so it certainly wasn't unspeakable for me at least. But after a while one realizes that such a marginalized god isn't necessary in our explainations of the evolving universe (as you seem to be pointing out) therefore occams razor dictates that we leave him out as that is simpler. also you have removed your god from abiogenisis which happened after the big bang event, or can you show me, justify to me, where god appears as a natural cause?

my 'attack' on theistic evolution is simply a demand for the evidence that would justify my belief. All i can find is major problems with it as a working hypothesis.

if god was so active, show me just one result of physics where we have to appeal to god. you should also read up on the latest in quantum cosmology where (after theists like you have been retreating all the way to the big bang) god is not necessary there either, although william lane craig is trying his darndest to insert him.


I honestly do not care one whit if you want believe in something, my wife for instance describes a being of 'energy', and we have fun talking about that. What I do care about is the hordes of theists who want to rewrite biology textbooks and describe evolution and sometimes science as evil. I am comfortable that you are not one of those so our discussion is pretty friendly. There is a danger that humanity will sacrifice its best source of knowledge, science, in favor of someone's theology. Think it can't happen thesedays like it did in the past? well i do, and I hold that science has served us far better than religion so we need to defend it

emotional

I can't deny the natural universe works according to rigorous application of natural cause and effect.



God is not a scientific explanation. God just is.



I don't give a rat's ass about Occam's Razor. That's just another idol people worship.



God is the initiator of a giant program called The Universe. He is also the One people stand before after they die. That should be enough. I'd like God to be in full control as the Bible and Qur'an say He is, but I can't deny the fact of naturalism. It suffices to me to have a promise of meeting the Personal God in the afterlife.



Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, it's a metaphysical theory, so you should know better than to ask for evidence of it.



My attitude towards science is very much one of mistrust, contempt and fear. Man had many comforts of faith in the past, such as geocentrism and special creationism, and science has done all to violate those shrines. I concede heliocentrism and evolution, but I will not let science touch God and the afterlife. If science says there is no God and no afterlife, then science can go to hell.



I'm not on their side, but I well understand them. Were it not for the option of theistic evolution, I'd unhesitatingly go the side of creationism. I suspect there are many more such faithheads who think like me.

Science should be defended just as freedom of speech or freedom of thought should be defended. I don't hold science as sacred, but I do believe freedom of scientific enquiry is as much a human right as any other. And I also believe I have a right to ignore science when it conflicts with my personal happiness. Scientists have the freedom to give naturalistic interpretations to Near-Death Experiences, and I have the right to ignore those interpretations completely. I accept heliocentrism and evolution because the price to pay is not unbearable; but I will never accept a scientific finding that points to the absence of life after death - that's really too much to bear.

wdog

interesting post emotional....

don't be offended but you really do frighten me, ...my observation is that rational thinking like science has saved us from an existence something like the dark ages and you remind me that people really haven't changed much in their needs to have such beliefs. your handle is chosen well, I think you trust your feelings more than reason, and that is what scares me.

but best of luck to you anyway, I'm leaving for awhile.