Well, seeing how no one else appears to be interested in reading and replying to another gorgonheap navel gazing blog, I'll go ahead and chime in here to make you feel better, there Gorgie.

I don't think its correct to assume science has abolished God or Gods, as you say. I think science does try to work to prove or disprove whether or not a theistic God exists. The evidence is staggering against proving the existence of a God or Gods, but scientist always have to contend that no matter the evidence it would be impossible to prove anything 100%. Anything. Even gravity. Even Earth rotating around the Sun. Etc.

I used to be a theist. I was raised Southern Baptist and Presbyterian. I believed in a personal God back then; one that cared about my thoughts and my personal wellbeing. As I grew a bit older, I started asking questions about my faith. I started researching, doubting, and seeking truth and evidence, but, sadly, religion could not offer any to me. Science could.

I don't completely agree with Richard Dawkins when he refers to religion as child abuse. And, he speaks openly about wishing it gone completely because it is so archaic. I disagree. I've read a lot of Joseph Campbell over the past years, and I believe as he does that cultural myths are important for the development of society and community. I think rituals are important, even if I don't particularly want to participate in them myself. Our subconscious needs to to feel as if it is in this world somehow, and through myth and ritual I think it helps us release those subconscious needs. It's very important.

I was slammed by a Christian friend of mine for calling religion a myth, but that's what it is. I don't mean that to be negative, but it's a myth until proven true. You wouldn't have faith in a fact, would you? No. You'd have faith in an uncertainty, such as a myth. So, don't skewer me for calling religion a myth, because I don't have the patience or the time to argue this.

< wall of text >

I've recently come to the conclusion that in general, religious discussions on internet forums are futile, unless they are in-house discussions. What I mean is that an argument between an avid atheist and an avid theist always goes nowhere because neither side has any trust in the source information used by the opposite side. For example, if I try to argue that the bible can be proven true by collating the prophetic writings of the old testament and comparing them to what was fulfilled in history and in the new testament, most atheists will simply say that it's all fiction anyway, so the argument is moot. Even if I try to cite other historical documentation of said prophecies being fulfilled, their explanation becomes: "the books must have been written after the fact then since prophecy is impossible in the first place." Meanwhile if two atheists are talking or two Christians (say) are talking in this format, the sort of "language" barrier is broken down and some sort of wisdom can be gained in the discussion. The atheists will agree that the bible is impossible because what is written in it is impossible unless you first believe in God..."and we don't". The theists have decided that the bible IS possible and will try to get some knowledge out of its pages in the discussion.

It can be seen the same way with creation and evolution. First off, to be very straight forward in definitions: Evolution - We and all that is in the universe as we know it today is the result of random chance events alone. Creation - At some point in the history of time as we know it, the universe was created as we know it or in a form previous to as we know it by God or some high power outside of time.

The argument ends AT the definitions alone. A pure atheist will say that since there is no god in the first place, the ONLY option is random evolution (via good ole natural selection and drift). There is no alternative. The argument is over and the theist is left going "but there IS a God, so creation IS a possibility." "No there isn't, so no there isn't." Repeat ad nausium. So the only two useful conversations that can be had (unless you have some extraordinarily open-minded individuals who happen also to be unconvinced of either truth) are those between two atheist scientists (who will discuss how evolution occurred, and speculate as to any possible original cause they can imagine) and those between two theistic scientists (who will discuss how what they know of evolutionary science can be meshed with what they believe of biblical revelation). I've had both kinds of these talks and they both go wonderfully well and are quite rewarding. I've also had the sort I first referred to higher above and it was pointless and frustrating.

There is one more major problem that theists and atheists will always run into in science, that is "data." Science is dependent on NEW data to adapt hypotheses. When you have new data, you wire it into what you already knew and come up with the best explanation you can, then you go after more data. In religion (or at least in Christianity), the primary data set is complete and is considered to be concrete; the canon is closed. What remains to be done is to interpret it. Now you can add new data "sets" through scientific means but none will be as authoritative as the primary set by any means.

The theist chooses a primary data set that is special revelation (the bible). What we sense and what logic we think we can muster is limited to our perception and intelligence.
The atheist chooses a primary data set that is sense and logic driven... that is, up is up, hot is hot, white is white, we must trust our senses, and the Mets will never win the world series. ...ok that last one goes with both groups.

The root of the problem is epistemological. Atheists have essentially one source of knowledge, logic. Theists have two, faith and logic. The thought that any knowledge can be gained by faith is so foreign to a pure atheist that they just discount theists as either lunatics, brainwashed drones, idiots, or all of the above and then some. The assumption that your discussion partner is any of these things is a conversation ender every time. That goes both ways.

As for my personal beliefs: It's no secret I'm a Christian. I'm also a creationist at its root definition. However, I acknowledge the profoundly large load of evidence supporting evolution and therefore support it, though not so randomly as an atheist will. I have trouble directly meshing this with Genesis, but I am convinced the bible is true at this point, so I imagine that one day, the synthesis will be found and I will understand it better. In the mean time, I'm patient, and neither story is mutually exclusive given what is known today. Outside of that simple issue, I have never seen a problem between religion and science.

I will admit however, that there are a lot of theists out there that need to brush up on their science if they wanna talk and teach about it. They just don't know their stuff most of the time. Honestly though, how often does a Christian... banker let's say... need to think about evolution? Not much. The whole discussion is academic to someone who doesn't use it.
< /wall of text>

I have problems with religion as created by man but with belief in God subjectively I have no problem with, it's really not my place to tell others what to believe.

I just don't like other religions telling me because I don't worship God or overtly praise him in some way am lesser of a being. I just think frankly God has better things on his mind then indulge himself in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of an atom of an electron of a quark his creation.

Man's belief in relating to a higher God on their own plain is ridiculous I believe, mostly because that relationship has been used and abused to commit various acts of war.

But that is simply because the belief in God was the mechanism of power in the old days, I been told by God to kill all those who oppose him thus you should obey.

But I believe for most people Faith and belief in God is a way of forgiving yourself and your inability to control the situations in life, because it provides a very safe comforting answer to myriad complicated psychological questions. What is my purpose? What will happen in the future? Will everything be okay? Am I part of something more? Belief in God and possessing Faith that a greater being is watching over you is very comfortable in that sense.

That is not meant to say it's stupid or anything like that but simply to illustrate that belief and religion have a very important psychological soothing effect that explains it's hold over Humanity for so many years.

I don't believe religion will ever go away, it will only mutate into newer forms over time. Christianity, Islam, Judaism are just newer forms of older religions, of Pagan traditions that held sway before.

Come the 22nd Century I can fully see us worshiping Black Holes or something, because Faith and God are ultimately unknown figments of our imaginations, we create the image of what we think God will be or is or not. Simply because we are limited by how far we have evolved both physically, mentally, psychologically and the ideas we have so far about the framing of the world.

The Bible is fallible, not because it's made by God but because it's made by Man.

I don't mean to sound offensive or that I'm attacking you, Doc_M, but that sounds like a lot of doublespeak. You write: "A pure atheist will say that since there is no god in the first place, the ONLY option is random evolution (via good ole natural selection and drift)." First off, most educated atheists will concede nothing can be proven 100%, so we still have to entertain the idea that possibly there is a very minute chance that a god exists. This is the same as saying we cannot prove a teacup isn't orbiting the Sun. Our understanding of facts as we perceive them gives us a pretty good idea that that tea cup doesn't exist, but we cannot prove it to be an absolute. Secondly, evolution is not random. Creationists like to shoot holes in evolutionary theory by trivializing it and suggesting it to be random, as if the human stereo optic eye was randomly created overnight by some accidental natural fluke. Ridiculous.

This Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, and simple cell organisms began 4 billion years ago. If you think about the process of life changing for 4 billion years (4 billion!), then it's not an impossible timeline for complex changes from light sensitive membranes to the modern eye. Evolution works not randomly but within the specific needs for a species survival. Sometimes genetic changes happen in short periods, such as with early humans in dairy cultures evolving genetically to digest milk during adulthood. Their bodies started producing lactose-digesting enzyme known as lactase. In areas absent of dairy cultures such as China and parts of Africa the adults could not digest the milk.

And, atheists don't have only one source of "knowledge", as you say. They have all sources. They study, test and debate all these sources, and through doing so they cannot base anything in this physical world against the bible. It's irrelevant to science. Christians, in my opinion, tend to be anchored to one source of "knowledge": the bible. They're largely inflexible, whereas science is always flexible. Science wants to be disproved so it can learn why it was wrong. Someone please tell me of a Christian who wants their beliefs to be disproved.

Blankfist,
Our seeming disagreement is only one of syntax, a simple miscommunication. First, evolution IS purely random in terms of events, that does not mean that these events cause a random web of results. Natural selection (as I believe I said above) is the process that results from the random events. Genetic mutation is random. The only thing not random about it is that only certain types of mutation are possible, so that limits the number of random events. Not trying to be an ass, but this is sort of my area. The result is still random in essence, but selective, so it appears non-random. Evolution is not an intelligent entity. It is the seemingly intelligent synthesis of totally random mutation that is selected by advantage to the organism. For every advantageous mutation that occurs in a species, there are thousands of ones that are phased out over evolutionary time because they are disadvantageous and millions of others that are benign and essentially do nothing. I've personally observed this myself in rapidly evolving viruses. You give them a disadvantageous mutation, they will eventually compensate, but that actually mutation occurred totally randomly. It was just immediately selected for. If you put Herpes virus in the presence of gancyclovir for example, it will spontaneously generate mutants who are resistant and those "advanced" mutants will grow, while the "older" version of the virus dies out. These mutants however, occurred TOTALLY randomly. They were just lucky.
That is what I meant when I said Evolution is random. Syntax.

You also seem to have referred to the idea of "irreducible complexity" like Michael Behe loves to argue. I don't know if his argument is working. I think it is more likely that Behe is just not imaginative enough to come up with a "one step more basic eye." Most atheists however would never even consider the possibility that at some points in evolution, God stepped in to give a nudge here and there. You might consider it, but most atheists would go "um, no." Looking at the eye and bacterial motor does make me go "wow". The complexity is absolutely mind-boggling. I wouldn't be surprised to find out these devices were nudged into being.

The other argument is purely syntax. You seem to have been offended that I said atheists only have one source of information, but it is not a negative statement. I was reducing the epistemology of atheists and theists to their single most elemental base. "Pure atheists" (by this phrase I'm referring to those who have rejected the idea of God or any reality beyond what we can see and measure) reduce ALL knowledge intake to logic. Think of anything you believe to be true that is not based on some logical progression of thought. You will probably not be able to come up with anything. The theist meanwhile has the additional primary source of knowledge that is faith. An atheist gains "data" from everything, but only gains "knowledge" from the logic that follows. The thought of taking data to knowledge by any other means seems odd and... illogical. The theist has two avenues from data to knowledge, logic or faith. And if God is real and his revelation and Spirit are real, then both avenues are reasonable and reliable. Otherwise, it just looks stupid. Hence many atheists' opinion of Christians as a group in general. (BTW, I didn't come up with this particular world-view interpretation comparison method. I forget where I encountered it however)
This might not apply to all atheists, some are agnostic enough to say "there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis." That is essentially what an agnostic IS, someone who considers both science and the possibility of the supernatural. Heh, maybe you're more agnostic than you thought.

You are partially right that Christians consider the bible as a primary base of knowledge as I said. They will naturally be skeptical of anything that opposes it. The better response would be to consider both sources. Christians FAR too often seem to think they are smart enough to properly interpret scripture perfectly. Looking at science as a whole, it's generally inaccurate more often than it is accurate. 60% of the time in fact. That doesn't mean that it should be rejected, but if you believe one book happens to be God-breathed and absolutely correct, the priority of what is truth becomes obvious. Science is then treated with patient skepticism if it seems contradictory.

I hope this is clear. There's no attack meant, it's just cold philosophy.

Are you sure you didn't mean semantics instead of syntax? Okay, that was a dig. The truth is I wasn't angry at you - there's no reason to be angry on a silly blog page. Sorry if it sounded like an attack - it probably was to some degree, so I apologize.

You're right, it was irreducible complexity I was thinking of. Richard Dawkins explains irreducible complexity in his book The God Delusion as a creationist way of disassembling biological adaptation based on a "jackpot or nothing" fallacy. Either a wing flies or not. Either an eye sees or not. All or nothing. In other words (and to continue to paraphrase Dawkins) it's like a large bank combination. If a burglar spins that tumbler, there is a chance he could luckily and randomly hit the correct combination, though the odds are stacked against him greatly. That's the jackpot or nothing fallacy that creationists term irreducible complexity. They claim evolutionist's explain biological adaptation as randomly spinning the combination lock and coming up with the winning combination for every species.

But, imagine if it was more as a "you're getting warmer, you're getting colder" type of process. Imagine that burglar (here we go with Dakwins again) spinning the tumbler and as he gets closer to the correct number bits of money fall out. The burglar would easily be able to hone in on the right combination in no time. Your explanation could be that God gave that burglar the nudge, or in this case, the bits of money. I think it has more to do with what you conceded earlier by saying "selected by advantage to the organism". The bits of money falling from the combination lock, in this analogy, would be triggers the species would find advantageous to the survival of its species.

I do believe genes mutate randomly and that there's no intelligence behind biological adaptation from a genetic perspective. So, here I agree with you. I think it's arguing semantics (not syntax to say I was wrong in pointing out evolution as not being random, because I was speaking about creationists' deploying the "jackpot or nothing" argument, not that genes mutate with an intelligence or not. My point was it's not random like the combination lock, and I think you know that's what I meant, right?

I do know (or I believe I know) species pick mates based on what's best for survival. If a species lives in an extremely frigid environment, they would probably be more attracted to a furrier mate than one with less fur. Though, if that same species were in a tropical environment, the opposite would probably be true. Still, through this selection process, it is clear to me biological adaptation is not random but instead a very calculated process. The wing didn't appear overnight by chance (randomly), it was carefully selected, most likely.

And, I'm both atheist and agnostic. I tend to believe there is absolutely no personal god or no intelligent creator, and I'd say I'm about as close to believing that as any human is possible of knowing anything. I remain agnostic only because I cannot absolutely disprove the presence of a Abrahamic God anymore than I can disprove there's a tea cup orbiting the Sun right now. But, I'll save you that tangent.

I'm not quite sure what to make of your theist/atheist knowledge philosophy just yet. I think I'll need more of an explanation to understand exactly what you mean by that. That was the part in particular that sounds like doublespeak, but I don't think I can say that without sounding offensive, so I'll wait to hear more of an explanation from you, if you would offer one. Anyhow, I really enjoyed reading your rant, Doc_M. I like a nice dose of cold philosophy every now and again.

semantics, aye. dah!

So, gorgie, what gives? Where are my comment upvotes? You're not going to hold my atheism against me, are you? Come on, I'm a secularist not a bible-basher!

woo, I've never actually had to defend this idea before so bear with me a bit. Here's a shot at least:

Let's say 2 scientists have a problem to solve (one is a theist, one is an atheist) and their first experiment gives the result 1 + 2 = 3. Let's say we don't know what number value the number "symbols" have. Both scientists have the data that 1+2=3 using a logic-based experiment. They thus accept it as knowledge. However, the theist happens to have a sacred God-breated text that he believes full-well by faith he has gained throughout his life by some means or another... and that text says "1+1=2". Since he believes the text to be true, he accepts this as knowledge and not only this, but now by logic he can deduce the relative values of the number symbols AND the order in which they fall in a general number line. He has gained knowledge via his faith plus his logic that logic alone could not provide. The atheist rejects the "sacred" text so he rejects these conclusions. Suppose there is not technology in the world to determine that 1+1=2 and there won't be for ages. During those ages, the theist maintains knowledge and conclusions by faith that were unattainable via logic alone. Is this looking loosely familiar?

Now of course he could be wrong about the 1+1=2, but if he is not, and if the theism is true, then he has had great knowledge for a great deal of time that logic alone could not deduce. Thus Faith + Logic and Logic alone are not the same and have resulted in different knowledge.

In a more real world setting, let's look at a Christian who believes Revelation prophecy as something that has not yet occurred and is set for some date in the future. By faith, he considers this to be knowledge. The atheist considers it nonsense, unsupportable by logic until the event itself occurs. The theist claims to have knowledge that an atheist will not consider.

Now let's back up a few millennia. This is gonna get circular for a second, sorry. If biblical history is in fact correct historically... let's just say that it is for a second... this distinction between faith knowledge and logic knowledge is seen very frequently and very loudly. Several major prophets were called by God to deliver messages to both believer and unbeliever kings pertaining to events that would befall their kingdoms and what they should/shouldn't do. The trust these kings had in these prophets was key to the fate of their kingdoms. They had to choose whether to trust the faith-knowledge of this prophet or reject it as illogical nonsense. These prophets were most certainly taken gravely serious by the Jews of the period and allegedly several of their friends and enemies as well.

Anyway, this over-explains the idea. Other's have said it better. That's why they write books and I confuse syntax with semantics. hehe

I see what you're saying, Doc_M, though I disagree with it fundamentally. If the theist and atheist were scientists, then they would apply the scientific method to all their hypotheses, which means (according to wiki) "gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." You hence make observations and test the hypothesis while collecting data. So, if the first experiment renders 1+2=3 then the empirical data would show 1+2=3. If they don't know the value of the numerical symbols in that equation, then by reason they'd understand those numerical symbols to be representative of the truth based on tested and proven fact. 1+2 will always render 3 as the outcome.

If the theist believes the numerical symbols are 1+1=2, for the sake of this argument, then it is up to them to apply scientific method to prove that hypothesis. If it cannot be proven, it cannot be a theory, right? It remains a hypothesis. Creationism remains a hypothesis because it has not been proven into a theory, whereas Evolution has been properly accepted as theory due to facts and adequate testing. So far, there are no facts that can prove or disprove the existence of a God or truth in the allegories of the New and Old Testaments (aside from historical accuracies of people's existence noted in the books). There are facts, however, that reasonably prove the history of life on Earth to begin 4 billion years ago.

That aside, the term knowledge is speciously ambiguous in this context, because colloquially we accept knowledge as being something familiar to learned fact or truth, but it is not necessarily a fact or truth. It can be quite the opposite. One of the definitions of knowledge is a familiarity with a specific subject. Therefore, if you're familiar with the text of the bible, I guess you would be knowledgeable and therefore you can freely note that as personal knowledge. It's also completely unproved knowledge, and therefore in the eyes of scientific method, wouldn't and shouldn't it be rebuked?

Faith is not fact. Faith is, so far, unproved. To me, this "faith knowledge" is a learning of the scriptures, therefore a learning of belief in a myth, which could be considered the same as someone knowledgeable of Gilgamesh (and I use that as an example of knowledge based on literary comprehension, NOT to compare your beliefs to a fictional story. That's important you understand that.). Therefore, the "logic knowledge" must be the learning of accepted theory, therefore the learning of fact (or reasonably proven and generally accepted fact).

If we cannot prove to theory the numerical values of 1+2=3, then we continue to observe and test and observe and test until we can. If it is proven that 1+1=2 like the bible says, then you will prove faith is fact. To prove the existence of God would be the biggest scientific achievement in the history of the planet. I maintain it cannot be done, though only time will tell. Godspeed, dear scientist.

damn, it looks like we won't be unifying science and religion here today

A miracle, by definition, has to be something that couldn't have happened without divine intervention, so by definition miracles contradict the laws of nature.

for example:
1. the sun stopping in the sky and the whole Jericho fiasco.
2. Jesus' resurrection
3. The fish & loaves story has issues conservation of mass/energy.

Deism is compatible with science but other forms of religion are not.

It's not that science is inherently trying to disprove religion, thus always resulting in an epic struggle, rather, religion seems to have been derived as a way to explain the universe around us and as the scientific method makes leaps and bounds in demonstrating, empirically, how the universe works, a lot of times, these "discoveries" contradict our old explanations. This isn't exclusive to just religion either. A lot of times new findings lead to a revision or restructure of what we've learned from science too.

So, in short, don't feel that scientists are always "neck and neck" with religion, trying to persuade everybody away from religion. A scientist's job is to adhere to the scientific method, no matter what the outcome. I just can't understand how anybody can be so sure about anything...especially something as old and set-in-stone as the stories in the bible. There's no breathing room and the whole premise has become 'believe despite evidence otherwise'. Pretty much the book is the truth because it claims that it is the truth and that is kind of fishy to me. It promotes ignorance of the world around, but I guess that's what you want when you're in bed with the monarchy and you're trying to maintain social order.

As blankfist has described above, science is a method for gaining knowledge. Religion is merely a hypothesis, or rather a huge amount of smaller hypotheses, which can be tested with the scientific method. Thus there is no direct confrontation or contradiction between the two. That being said, religion demands faith of its followers, which is the belief of something in spite of evidence, and this means that it is corrosive to the scientific method. This is bad. And this is why religion hold up to any scientific fact. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

The example of 1+2=3 is an overly simplistic one and not very useful, because there is only one correct answer; there can never be other answers, because math is a logical system. The world is not a logical system, and science is not merely logic.

An example which I think would be more apt, is the theory of a geocentric universe. Until Copernicus people had faith in the Bible's hypothesis that the universe circled around the Earth. His observations shattered that hypothesis and thus a new hypothesis was made, that the earth was circling around the sun. This has proven to be true through repeated observations and is as such regarded as a theory, or what we lay-people call fact. Every hypothesis that the bible has presented, which have been testable have turned out to be false, and thus it is within reason to regard the whole thing as bunk.

Evolution
Evolution is a theory, or what we lay-people call a fact. It has been observed in fossil records and is happening constantly every time any creature or life form has offspring. Evolution is the theory that life forms changes shape, abilities and such over generations.

Natural selection is a theory that tries to explain how evolution happens, which is why people call it Evolution by Natural Selection. Natural Selection says that the more you spread you genes, the more of your type there will be. (Seems pretty down to earth and intuitive, right?)

Evolution by Natural Selection is therefore NOT RANDOM, at all. Yes, any given mutations are random, but they are merely the catalyst by which natural selection works. Of all those random mutations, some are inherently better adapters than others and will procreate more than others, and that means more life forms with that mutation (which is no longer considered a mutation) will appear in the next generation. But I think we all agree on that particular point, but it is important to make it as clear as possible.

I have yet to see any knowledge gained from the bible that turns out to be true. Of course the things lifted from common sense, "Thou shalt not kill", that fact that gravity existed in the stories and so on are true, but any given hypothesis that the bible has made is always proven false, when it can be proven either way.

If something cannot be proven either way, there is no basis for evaluating it and thus it should not be considered in any situation. Doc_M, you say an agnostic says:

"there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis"

That is false. An agnostic does indeed not consider the things he is agnostic about. I am technically an agnostic, but I am technically agnostic about many, many things. I don't consider them, why should a possible god be considered, more than the pixie-faeries of bubblegum forest? (sorry, I'm being a bit snide there)
--
When religion is evaluated with scientific terms, we have to break it down into smaller hypothesis. One such hypothesis, which is pretty basic to almost all religions is, "is there a God?"; the term "a God" must then be defined, so that we can test that hypothesis. If it is defined like in the bible, that there is a being which created everything and continually watches and judges humans, then the evidence until now clearly point to the hypothesis being false.

As I've written above, no hypothesis derived from the bible has yet been proven true. Thus there is no real reason to consider any of it true, and therefor no reason to live by its laws.

I sadly lost half my message in a cataclysmic accidental closing of notepad, so the above is the truncated version.

It's good stuff...and I agree 100%

Before I'm crucified too much, I should say that I guess I wasn't exactly clear on my position, which is my own fault partially because eloquence is not exactly my finest gift and because I chose a few words poorly. I'll try to clear it up a bit later tonight. In preview, we disagree less than you think about science and religion, though of course we will disagree on the truth and value of the latter. I'm not gonna argue that in a forum. I've given up on that essentially. Apologetics don't work in forums unless everyone is an expert and I'm not one. ...that and I'm outnumbered a hundred to one. heh

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Interesting discussion. I too do not have a problem with people believing in a god. My problem is when religion injects itself into science as an alternatives answer to question about the natural world.

There is a lot of history of the conflict between religion and science- and up until now it has always ended up with religion looking sheepish about past recalcitrance and going for a "well that was then, we're much more progressive now" kind of stance.

In particular I'm thinking of Galileo, the Scopes monkey trial, Salem witch trials (they were herbalists) and most recently the Intelligent Design movement.

If religion could just stay in its corner of life- centered around faith, unsubstantiated belief and the supernatural I would be quite happy.

dag: Indeed.

The main problem I see with religion is that it wants to be taken as seriously as science, or rather replace science, which it has no basis for doing.

Doc_M: It was probably good I lost half my message because of notepad; the first version was quite a bit more scathing, but in retrospect there is no reason for any animosity as such, our mindsets are just different, I suppose.

I got a little off-topic/carried-away rambling about epistemology. And I'll say right off the bat that referring to the two people in my 1+2=3 story as "Scientists" and putting the story in a scientific context was a mistake. It was a distraction from the idea I was trying to posit. Religion is most certainly not directly applicable to the pursuit of science. It may be a lens through which a person can look at what they observe in science should they choose to, but in order to call something "scientifically true," it must be bound to the logical epistemology, founded only on the assumptions of "trust in the reliability of the senses" and "trust in the solidity and constancy of physical reality," which are both inevitable for scientific pursuits. In other words, we have to just go on the premise that this isn't the Matrix, and that "I" am not a lunatic, so to speak. Obviously.

As Blank said (sort of), religion on the whole is stuck in a perpetual state of the "working model" for the believer. A believer might look at the world and never see anything that directly contradicts their beliefs, and by that he may claim to have a "faith knowledge" of these things, but he cannot say they are scientifically sound conclusions as he cannot likely test them.

In at least the Christian faith, we're all living in the "working model" phase until either death, or--if you happen to be a pre-trib or even post-trib millennialist--until "end-times" prophecy begins to be fulfilled. Even then, said prophesied occurrence are really "data" supporting the "working model"... though plainly more obviously. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least, the only time when a conclusion can finally be made "scientifically" is when "the end" (and consequently the new beginning) occurs, an event that all three religions share to some extent.

As we all know, "working models" are subject to constant re-interpretation and adjustment. Those who refuse to allow for this are going to have trouble explaining what science tells them is almost certainly true. For some reason they are totally convinced that they have perfectly interpreted scripture... which is sadly ironic. Exuberantly religious people need to be sure that they are not so arrogant that they think they understand the Word as well as its Author. I will say though, that some understand it better (read "more correctly") than others. Some of these people are NOT following sound biblical doctrine.


Now, about evolution and natural selection. There is still a solid random factor involved in evolution AND even in natural selection. The non-randomness of it can often be seen as an illusion.

For example, yes, natural selection selects ultimately for not only "who has the most babies," but "who is the most fit." There can be thousands of tiny changes in lower organisms that might make them "more fit" (or "more fertile"). Which changes are made and in what way they change is random. This is a major reason for "genetic drift" and diversification in populations. Now, there are instances, where it is less random, such as when a required change is needed for survival or growth, such as a change in climate or nutritional availability. Those equipped to survive that change in condition will survive, blah blah blah, we know this already, get on with it. The method by which these adaptations occur may be limited, but within that list, it is a random choice and several organisms in the crowd can "choose" differently and consequently diversify. If you want to insist upon calling it non-random, I guess at this point you can, if you at least concede that the "option list" is enormous.

I think it's kind of ironic that if anything in the short term for humanity, our compassion has wound up causing us almost laughable evolutionary problems. For example, if I were born a million years ago as I am, quite nearsighted, I'd likely be dead as soon as that nearsightedness got bad enough for me to screw up and get hurt or eaten or something. Now-a-days more people seem to have poor vision than good vision (genetic traits). We also strain to keep literally everyone alive and well and in the gene pool, no matter what. Morally and Ethically, this is great, but evolutionarily, hehe, not so much.