Susan
>>TG>You will rightly observe that such a perspective puts belief in God prior
>>>to any evidence from the natural world. So, if we look at the biological
>>>world and see that the evidence points to evolution, we conclude that God
>>>did it that way. It is no stranger in biology than in physics or chemistry.
>
>SB>I am a flat out Bertrand Russel-style atheist and I have no problem with
>>that. As you imply elsewhere in your post, what's out there is wonderful. If
>>some god or other is the author of it all, then so be it. It's the
>>anti-evolutionists who ignore what's out there, misrepresent what's out
>>there or refuse to accept what's out there that infuriate me and keeps me in
>>this debate.
Stephen:
>If so, since opinion polls show that 40% of the general public are "anti-
>evolutionists" and another 40% don't believe in the same type of atheistic
>"evolution" that Susan believes in, this would be an extraordinary claim
>which would require extraordinary evidence. I would therefore appreciate
>it if Susan clarified her claim above.
Be glad to. There are "professional" creationists who know the truth and who
misrepresent, lie and conceal. There are the innocent creationists who are
being betrayed by people they should be able to trust. Most of the
creationists fall into the latter category. American science education is
abysmal. Few Europeans could be fooled by a transparent lie like "evolution
violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
>If not, maybe Susan would state what is her criteria for deciding which
>"anti-evolutionists": 1) "ignore what's out there"; 2) "misrepresent what's
>out there"; or 3) "refuse to accept what's out there".
I've never met an anti-evolutionist who didn't do one or more of the above.
I've never seen a creationist publication or website (written by
"professional" creationists) that didn't do all three.
>SB>I don't believe in the actual existence of any of the gods, even my beloved
>>Kuan Yin. Therefore I don't oppose the gods (it would be a bit like opposing
>>the Tooth Fairy).
>
>If Susan is not opposing God, she is doing a *very* good imitation of it!
I oppose creationists. That's different from opposing God. Though most
creationists get that confused.
>Actually Susan touches on an interesting thing. If atheists think that God is
>the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, why do they bother arguing against
>God? Do they spend equal time arguing against the Tooth Fairy?
They are fools? I would find it incredibly boring to do either.
>Personally if I went back to being an atheist again, and I thought that God
>was just a comforting illusion like the Tooth Fairy, I would not see there
>was any good reason on atheist premises for robbing my fellow human beings
>of their comforting illusions
You are so fond of quoting, here's a quote for you from Bertrand Russell:
"I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to
the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort
of a fenced-in dogmatic creed? To this the answer is many-sided. In the
first place, I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be
obtained by the abdication of reason. I do not say that I can offer as much
happiness as is to be obtained from drink or drugs or amassing great wealth
by swindling widows and orphans. It is not the happiness of the individual
convert that concerns me; it is the happiness of mankind. If you genuinely
desire the happiness of mankind, certain forms of ignoble pesonal happiness
are not open to you. If your child is ill, and you are a conscientous
parent, you accept medical diagnosis, however doubtful and discouraging; if
you accept the cheerful opinion of a quack and your child consequently dies,
you are not excused by the pleasantness of belief in the quack while it lasted."
>That atheists like Susan persist however in doing so, is to my mind good
>evidence that deep down the atheists *know* there really is a God, . . .
an example of the breathtaking arrogance of some theists
>The sort of atheist who would really impress me would be one whose life
>was consistent with his/her creed. Atheists who rage against their fellow
>human beings (who on the atheists' own premises are just evolved apes
>with minds that are ultimately chemical reactions), for not obeying capital
>`T' Truth, are in my book *deeply* and *absurdly* inconsistent!
:-) we are a social species and we evolved to be altruistic. People who
behave in uncompassionate and unaltruistic ways are being "unnatural." Also
true information is important to survival. In medieval times it was thought
that disease was caused by sin. They were wrong. Nasty old materialistic
science has introduced the idea of the germ theory of disease and developed
the antibiotics to kill the germs. I'm sure design theory will produce even
more useful stuff--once a theory of design is formulated.
>SB>What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
>
>See above. I assume Susan is speaking specifically of "anti-evolutionists"
>here. If so, is Susan claiming that *all* "anti-evolutionists" are guilty of
>"deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance"?
See above. I make a distinction between the anti-evolutionists who know the
truth and lie, and the anti-evolutionists who believe them. I am against
rapacious ignorance where ever I find it. Religionists who wish to protect
their mythology from reality are not exempt, but they aren't unique either.
>If that is the case, why does she not think that at least some of them might
>just be simply *mistaken*? Why does Susan assume that to not believe in
>"evolution" is a *moral* error, instead of just an intellectual error?
Cuvier was simply mistaken, for lack of information. Some people I discuss
this subject with simply don't know enough science. Others are duped by the
people who do know enough science but lie. (For example, Henry Morris
understands thermodynamics very well and chooses to lie. I'm pretty sure
Phil Johnson falls in the same category. He's not ignorant of evolution as
his critics claim. He understands it very well and chooses to misrepresent it.)
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb