Facetime in the San Francisco Chronicle

Congratulations Nick. I'm not surprised that you've gotten the attention. Good luck with your grad applications.

On education I went to Valparaiso University in Indiana. I was raised Lutheran and it's a Lutheran school. On believing I'm agnostic now. An ultimate question like this might just not be answerable. It may be a leap of faith to take either position, either atheism or theism.

"An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it."

I have a feeling this will be our next "Holy Wars" thread.

An evolutionary perspective can only undermine religious belief if the religious belief is anti-knowledge, anti-science, or anti-reality.

Christianity, for example, is none of those. If someone tells you that they found that studying nature undermined their faith, you need to understand that it's not the study of evolution itself that does it.

Instead, my experience with college students is that many of them are quite shocked that people they respected had misled them so badly as to what the facts are for evolution, cosmology, nuclear physics, and often, history. Their faith is shaken not by the facts of science they learn, but instead by the realization that earlier teachers had, with glee and elan, misled them. They regard this as a breach of ethics, and they then question whether they should continue associating with the people who have such ethical issues, and with the ideas that tend to mislead otherwise ethical people to unethical behavior.

One should note, for example, that Darwin never complained about his own understanding of the Bible, but instead he complained about theology that claims evil people get salvation by doing the right theological dance steps, while good people who live Christianity in all ways but ceremony avoid salvation. Darwin thought this unjust, and said so. If you think Darwin was wrong about that, tough. There are times when modern morality is superior to what the ancients thought.

FL, your question should be, "How does the study of evolution affect your sense of justice in the world, what we can know and what we can say about what we know, and how does that lead us to make ethical decisions?" You may want to consider the effects of DNA evidence on the administration of criminal justice, for example, and the effect on criminal justice were it accurate the evolution theory is wrong, and that consequently DNA evidence cannot be used in court. I suspect you'd discover a lot of anti-evolution people had not made such a consideration. Follow up: Ask them what they think about Deuteronomy 16:20 (usually listed as "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue"), and ask whether it shakes their faith to reject scientific means of delivering justice.

And stop trying to hijack the thread.

(Congrats on the profile, Nick -- get one of those nicely printed, non-fading, framed copies, for your kids.)

""An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it."

Only for the literalists.

"An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it."

FWIW, I'm not sure what you mean by "an evolutionary perspective," but the theory of evolution certainly didn't undermine any of my religious beliefs. (The idiots and charlatans who did undermine some of them did it without any help from science, thankyouverymuch.)

"You may want to consider the effects of DNA evidence on the administration of criminal justice, for example, and the effect on criminal justice were it accurate the evolution theory is wrong, and that consequently DNA evidence cannot be used in court."

The use of DNA for identification in legal proceedings doesn't depend on evolution being true but on the accuracy of claims that DNA provides unique identification for individuals (as fingerprints do) and that those markers show up in their children and relatives. That human beings are descended from other human beings is entirely compatible with creationism of even the most literalist forms.

Now, if a court case turned on whether or not a chimp was somebody's cousin, albeit very distantly removed, then the truth of evolution would matter. Perhaps that will be the creationists' next try: to get a case to court where a court will decide that, as a matter of law, a chimp isn't my cousin, so the creationists will claim that evolution has been ruled wrong by a court.

The use of DNA for identification in legal proceedings doesn't depend on evolution being true

The problem of how traits were transmitted from parent to child was not just a problem for Darwin but for everyone at the time. Darwin's contemporaries assumed that the traits of both parents mixed somehow. It was Mendel who sought the actual mechanism by fertilizing his pea pods, finding that some plants were carriers of recessive traits and that some traits bred true. Darwin made no specific "prediction" about this, but it was problematic for him because he had to no concrete alternative to Lamarkism to offer.

DNA use as evidence is predicated, for paternity, on the nested hierarchy idea of evolution -- DNA will accurately reveal for the unique creature tested, half the DNA of each of its parents, allowing positive correlation to the correct set of parents.

That each person has unique DNA (except for idential twins)is a by-product -- but still dependent on the nested hierarchy idea.

In contrast, IDists like to argue about "front-loading" of genes in species. Were that accurate, were we all front-loaded for later eventualities, for later adventures in reproduction, then DNA could not be so unique, and it might be difficult not only to tell children from parents accurately, but it would call into question the idea that everybody has unique DNA. The hypothesis calls into question whether DNA is unique from species to species.

The prediction that DNA provides a unique marker is dependent on evolution theory being accurate, and the fact that DNA is unique for each person is a reification of evolution and a refutation of one of the popular nodes of ID claims.

And stop trying to hijack the thread.

Nick, do they teach evolution at Valparaiso in the biology department? Is creationism in any form taught there, anywhere?

Darwin made no specific "prediction" about this, but it was problematic for him because he had to no concrete alternative to Lamarkism to offer.

— Kristine

The use of DNA for identification in legal proceedings doesn't depend on evolution being true but on the accuracy of claims that DNA provides unique identification for individuals (as fingerprints do) and that those markers show up in their children and relatives.

True only on the gross, empirical level, false in that it's part of a large set of interlocking facts that are made sense of through evolutionary theory. And that its empirical utility in legal proceedings is based on evolutionary theory.

Nick, do they teach evolution at Valparaiso in the biology department? Is creationism in any form taught there, anywhere?

I for one agree with FL that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution eats away at religious faith and not just literalist views. It combined with astronomy and a healthy douse of reading lots of history to annihilate my own albeit-generally-thin-minus-one-short-period-early-in-college-of-fervency faith.

First, thanks for being willing to share your religious views openly. Not everyone is willing to do that.

Secondly, although I did read about you going to church "on holidays when I'm back with my family", your comments do look like you've shifted all the way from Christianity (defined here as belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as your personal Lord and Savior) to Agnosticism.

If that's true, it would be the same sort of huge shift that historically took place with Charles Darwin. So I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

(1) Would the aforementioned "shift" be an accurate assessment of what has happened in your case?

(2) If so, what role---what percentage---did your belief in evolution play in causing that shift to take place over the years?

What other factors, if any, were involved in that shift?

The use of DNA for identification in legal proceedings doesn't depend on evolution being true but on the accuracy of claims that DNA provides unique identification for individuals (as fingerprints do) and that those markers show up in their children and relatives.

Some clarifications on another part of the interview at talk.origins.

Bob,

Sorry, but nothing hinged on evolution itself in that paper (and the word doesn't even figure except in the name of a journal in the references), or at least I couldn't spot it. Perhaps you can say where in that paper the analysis depends on the common ancestry of, say, salmon and trout, or of humans and salmon, because common ancestry of even the entire Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population, never mind that of subpopulations, isn't a point on which evolutionists, cdesign proponentists or creationists diagree.

DNA use as evidence is predicated, for paternity, on the nested hierarchy idea of evolution --- DNA will accurately reveal for the unique creature tested, half the DNA of each of its parents, allowing positive correlation to the correct set of parents.

According to the fundie account of the world, shouldn't there only be 5 possible sets of genes, since only 8 people made it off the ark, and the three boys were already mixtures of Mom & Pop Noah?

"And that its empirical utility in legal proceedings is based on evolutionary theory."

In what way? You need to show how DNA identification wouldn't work if evolution weren't true.

It isn't even necessary for DNA to be the means of biological inheritance for it to be useful in identifying someone. All you need is a reliable estimate of the likelihood of two people having the same markers at a particular set of loci, and that depends on empirical evidence of the amount of variability at those loci, not on evolutionary theory. For instance, evolution is true, but using the part of our DNA that codes for a simple but important protein wouldn't be much use since it wouldn't vary much among different people (or, indeed for many proteins, across the entire spectrum of life!).

Just to be clear, I'm as pro-evolution as they come. I just think that the claim that the use of DNA by courts for identification and for determining whether two people are related relies on evolutionary theory is incorrect and thus a bad argument. Heck, even the folk at AIG recognize that bad arguments for a point do no good.

But if you want my personal mental evolution, there it is.

The number of capitalized words in the prior sentence makes me wonder what you might be after here. I do not subscribe to any "Agnosticism" with a capital A. I simply personally don't know the answer to questions like Does God Exist.

For me, the key issue was learning about higher criticism of the Bible in college.

Note to fundamentalists: Let's not have any tiresome attacks on V.U. or the faculty

Funny how mere capitalization allows one to guess an entire worldview...

(2) If so, what role---what percentage---did your belief in evolution play in causing that shift to take place over the years?

— FL

FL, I became a skeptic at 8 when I posed "where did Adam's sons find wives?"

Would you consider this an instance of evolutionary theory interfering with faith? My befuddlement, after all, arises from my knowledge of how babies are made and natural incest taboos, both of which are parts of the TOE.

(I don't actually want to know your answer to the question I posed as a wee one. I've since heard various explanations, confirming my skepticism about a literal reading.)

but the situation is serious enough, and happens often enough AFAIK, to where local churches dare not ignore such things.

Sorry, but nothing hinged on evolution itself in that paper (and the word doesn't even figure except in the name of a journal in the references), or at least I couldn't spot it.

Perhaps you can say where in that paper the analysis depends on the common ancestry of, say, salmon and trout, or of humans and salmon,...

I find it interesting that I attributed the prediction to "evolution theory" and Kristine, seemingly in response, attributed its absence to "Darwin." The validity of each statement is independent, but one might infer that this sequence implies a confusion of the two.

F.L. I became a skeptic at 5 when all my friends started babbling on about g$d, strangely all on the same day....a Monday BTW.

Further enquiry let to the revelation that they all were given that, as it turned out, disinformation on the same day (a Sunday) at the same time, in the same place.

You see, the small rural town, where I was at the time, had been without a foreskin collector for too long.

You can imagine the relief of the parents that it still wasn't too late when he did finally show up, poor little buggers would have grown up atheists.

According to them this new word they learnt could do anything...except tell me it existed.

But I did give g$d a chance I tried praying one day, needless to say it didn't work, so don't say I didn't try.

Ever since then I've been waiting for h$m just to do something .......anything.

Bah ...I prayed for fewer commas, more proof if needed.

I have a feeling this will be our next "Holy Wars" thread.

Make that:

I wonder if he considers the question of whether the Greek, Roman or Norse pantheon exists unanswerable, and if not, how he justifies his answer.

Just wanted her to know that that there was another PhD-scholarly side to that story, and that she did NOT have to stop trusting the Bible and the Four Gospels as historically reliable and accurate.

She seemed grateful for that, and was visibly calmer during the rest of the semester.

Refreshing to have you back, Pops.

Capitalization in Sentences is quite interesting. In German, of course (the Language from which English evolved), all Nouns are capitalized, for Reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained to me (BTW, pronouns are not, unless they refer to Deities, and then only proper Ones). The only Remnant of this peculiar linguistic Tradition is the Retention (hmm...do gerundive Nouns count?) of capital Letters for proper Nouns in English. Now, an interesting Question in this Context is, why are proper Nouns still capitalized in English (unless you're e.e.cummings), and why are some role Names and some Pronouns capitalized (such as God - his proper Name in Hebrew is, of course, J*W*H...remember, no Vowels, only diacritical Marks), but usually only when referring to Deities? Kind of mixes up the logical Categories of proper Nouns, Pronouns, and plain old garden variety Nouns...hmm? Maybe that's the Point.

Damn, this is hard Work! Maybe that's why the Tradition gradually (almost) went (e)Extinct...

Extincted?

Extinctified?

Aw, hell, it just died...

Recognizing in advance the level of hostility I'm calling down upon myself, this statement by Popper's Ghost is profoundly unfair...

"I wonder if he considers the question of whether the Greek, Roman or Norse pantheon exists unanswerable, and if not, how he justifies his answer."

First of all, it's a straw man. Failure to reject the possible merit of all religious positions is not logically equivalent to failure to reject a few very specific religious positions. Do the Dalai Lama or Kenneth Miller find this question "unanswerable"?

It's worth noting, as well, that a fair number of otherwise reasonable people do describe themselves as "pagans" or followers of "Wiccan".

Moving on to what I hope will be less controversial...

The theory of evolution, from its beginnings, does make a number of implicit predictions about the nature of genetic material, all of which were confirmed by molecular biology -

1) Genetic material needs to be prone to adequate but imperfect replication (of course, perfect replication isn't possible, but if it were too perfect the theory of evolution would have been challenged).
2) Genetic material would have to be similar across all of life. If different forms of life used radically different genetic material, the theory of evolution would have been challenged.

Furthermore, what we now know about molecular genetics independently implies evolution. If the the theory of evolution had not existed, modern molecular genetics would have led to it. Here's why -

1) We now know unequivocally that genetic material undergoes imperfect replication.
2) We know unequivocally that phenotypes of offspring differ from phenotypes of parents, for this reason, as well as for a number of othe genetic reasons, such as meiotic reproduction (and some non-genetic reasons, too, of course).
3) It's obvious that some phenotypes will have a reproductive advantage over other phenotypes.
4) Since there is an interaction between imperfect replication of genetic material ("imperfect" meaning "not exactly the same as the template") and selectable phenoytpic traits, evolution must take place.

You can make a strained argument that evolution might not explain "all" of life's diversity (scientists have alread thought of that, though). It's impossible to accept contemporary molecular genetics, forensic or otherwise, and deny evolution.

I was brought up as a biblical-literalist who did not believe in evolution and thought all of biology must be wrong. During my college years I started examining evolution, mostly to either prove it wrong or to make it coexist with Christianity. Also while in college I was searching for the most correct protestant Christian religion and went to a variety of bible studies. While at one in particular, the minister (also a biblical literalist) was explaining why the Catholic bible was different from the protestant bible. This lead me on a long path that where I learned the following.

Early Christians did not carry around the Bible or new testament as I new it, but rather had the Septuagint (Greek), books or letters currently in the New Testament, and many books not in the current New Testament. The writers of New Testament books used the Septuagint to write the books of the New Testament. Many books in the New Testament refer to verses contained in what is called the Apocrypha by protestants. The Septuagint contains an obvious mathematical error in that Methuselah would have been born before Noah's flood but would have died 17 years after Noah's flood without having been on the boat. The genealogy in the Septuagint is different from the genealogy in the Masoretic Text (Hebrew) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Septuagint has over 6000 differences from the Masoretic Text and 4000 differences from the Samaritan Pentateuch. The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is completely different from the genealogy of Jesus in Luke from King David to Mary's husband Joseph. Early Christians were not united in their views. Some thought Jesus was divine, some thought human, some thought both, some thought the god of the Old Testament was different from the god of the New Testament. This problem was solved with the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 A.C.E. when the then powerful Catholic church ruled the 27 books we call the New Testament were divine and others (Infancy Gospel, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Revelation of Peter, etc) were heretical. Prior to Christianity gaining political power via Constantine, early Christian scribes were notoriously bad, made many errors of both little and major importance. There are over 400,000 discrepancies between the early new testament texts - more discrepancies than there are words in the New Testament (see Bart Ehrman for more interesting reads on this). Of course, the protestants did not like Maccabees (it supported Catholic doctrines like prayers for the dead, Purgatory, etc), so they kicked out all Jewish books in the Septuagint but not in Hebrew texts, first printing them as an extra "Apocrypha" (not reliable) texts (originally in the first King James bible) and later removing them altogether (even though they were previously deemed divine for over 1000 years).

In contrast to this, my investigations into evolution were different. Almost all of what I was taught in anti-evolutionary classes at Baptist churches in Texas was false and misleading. The fossil evidence was convincing, but what pushed me over the top was human atavisms, including humans with tails, polymastia and polythelia (more than 2 breasts/nipples - women have been found with 10 lactating breasts), congenital generalized hypertrichosis (wolf man syndrome) and many others that only evolution could explain. There was much more evidence but biblical literalism could not and will not ever explain why sometimes humans have animalistic attributes.

To answer FL's question she asked Nick, yes, for me evolution did help decrease my ability to pretend that the bible was the literal word of God. But the larger problem was not evolution. Evolution and Christianity could have co-existed in my mind. The larger problem for Christianity is that to me the bible is obviously not divine.

Nick,
I notice from the article you are pursuing a PhD in evolution. Care to elaborate?

It also doesn't help when some Christian believer justifies his beliefs via a "true Scotsman" fallacy, claiming that those Christians who, and those Christian dogmas that are, anti-knowledge, anti-science or anti-reality are not real Christians or real Christianity.

Actually, it does help, to the extent that "some Christian believer" might need to distinguish between what he sincerely believes, and something else, uttered in the name of his God, that he may consider embarrassing and contrary to his belief.

Of course, it doesn't help PG to maintain his simple view of what Christians believe, but that's another issue (why did you single out Christian believers there, PG?)...

"Otherwise reasonable," harold? You damn us with faint praise. We in the Pagan/Wiccan/Druid/etc. camp are quite reasonable in that, at the very least, we (a) are consistently pro-science and pro-education; (b) aren't trying to brainwash your kids; (c) support religious freedom; and (d) won't try to make your kids hate themselves for having bodies and noticing them.

Oh look, our support for religious freedom is copyrighted! Eat your heart out, Bill O'Reilly... (c) (c) (c) (c) (c)

Just had a funny thought...just supposing g$d did decide to show up from the (yet to be discovered) 12th dimension after taking a long holiday..... after blowing his eyebrows off at the big bang (well boys will be boys).

Just imagine if everyones past prayers were answered...all at once.

Even the ones that conflict with each other? ;)

after blowing his eyebrows off at the big bang (well boys will be boys).

Just imagine if everyones past prayers were answered...all at once.

Including all the "Dear Lord, please kill my enemies" prayers? And how about the "Dear Lord, please get me the lover I want" prayers? All of those together will make the Second Coming rather freakier than anyone bargained for...

I notice from the article you are pursuing a PhD in evolution. Care to elaborate?

And, heck, there's always that li'l ol' Farm across the Bay if Berkeley is silly enough to pass up the opportunity...

Or I'm sure "Doc" Martin would be happy to put in a word for you at Yale, as soon as he remembers for sure which year and program he was in.

I'm sure Nick considered this program,
http://www-helix.stanford.edu/people/altman/bioinformatics.html#four,
but for "lurkers" who may not have already made their mind up as between the Funny Farm and Berkeley, I'll stick it up here anyway.

Nick:

In what sense does atheism require a "leap of faith". And, is this the same kind of faith required to believe in an anthropomorphic god? I am asking you about this because you've positioned yourself as a publich intellectual and spokesperson regarding issues related to evolution, science, and society. In this position, your statements will need to be very clear and unambiguous if we are to take you seriously.

Yeah, I put in for the Integrative Biology program at Berkeley to do evolution

...I am asking you about this because you've positioned yourself as a [public] intellectual and spokesperson regarding issues related to evolution, science, and society. In this position, your statements will need to be very clear and unambiguous if we are to take you seriously.

Right -- because people dealing with scientific issues can't be taken seriously unless their statements on religion pass muster. Don't forget to grill him on his opinions about the English Monarchy too, while you're at it.

Sir_Toejam,

We know each other, don't we?

No worries, my lips are sealed.

We know each other, don't we?

Raging Bee -

Much as I hate to interrupt a budding romance - consider the "otherwise" to be deleted.

Raging Bee (and all others)

Oops, too much beer (which reminds me - what happened to Lenny Flank - was somebody foolish enough to "ban" him from this site?).

Ignore my comment about romance (although of course, I would hate to interrupt it).

But do consider the "otherwise" deleted.

Lenny is alive and well at AtBC.

Raging Bee: Claiming that atheism might require a leap of "faith" as Nick claimed is not a scientific issue. And as I stated, in Nick's position, he has to address many issues outside of but related to science. I'm not sure how this wasn't clear. I'm all for Nick getting out there and fighting the fight. I just prefer to have those on the side of science avoid saying silly things (such as atheism requiring a "leap of faith").

Including all the "Dear Lord, please kill my enemies" prayers? And how about the "Dear Lord, please get me the lover I want" prayers? All of those together will make the Second Coming rather freakier than anyone bargained for...

— Raging Bee

Middle Professor posted:

Raging Bee: Claiming that atheism might require a leap of "faith" as Nick claimed is not a scientific issue. And as I stated, in Nick's position, he has to address many issues outside of but related to science. I'm not sure how this wasn't clear. I'm all for Nick getting out there and fighting the fight. I just prefer to have those on the side of science avoid saying silly things (such as atheism requiring a "leap of faith").

My reply:

As a fellow agnostic (but of the more capitalized version) I'll take a whack at this one, though I can't pretend to speak for Nick.
Agnostics claim to have no reliable information on the existence or non-existence of any or all supernatural entities / constructs / pantheons / what-have-you. More strongly, some Agnostics claim that no reliable information can ever exist for the existence or non-existence of the above. Asked "Does the God of Christians exist?" an Agnostic must reply 'I don't know'; asked the same question with relation to any other deities, the answer must still be 'I have no knowledge'.
Atheists differ from this stance, and claim to have knowledge of the supernatural world - they claim that it does not exist. This claim (of the non-existence of the supernatural) is, from an Agnostic point of view, a leap of faith... as no evidence is available (and perhaps, no evidence will ever be possible).
Personally, I'd love to be an Atheist; I really enjoy it when the dishonesty of the sleazier cross-worshipers is exposed. But, as much sympathy as I have for Atheists, I do get tired of taking flak from 'em about how Agnostics are slaves to superstition, or that Agnosticism is a belief for weak or lazy minds. It is simply a correct, and rigorously honest, claim to have no reliable evidence.

Christian/Jew/Muslim: I don't care about modern "evidence:" I believe in a particular deity, and particular claims about that deity to be true, based on ancient scriptures.

Deist: Despite lack of objective evidence, I believe in something, but I'm not sure what.

Agnostic: There is no objective evidence in favor of belief, so I don't know if I believe

Atheist: There is no objective evidence in favor of belief, so I don't believe

Middle Prof.: what specific "silly" things has Nick said that need to be duscussed here?

Katarina: you misrepresented, or at least grossly oversimplified, the first three of the four beliefs you "quoted."

Katarina posted:

Christian/Jew/Muslim: I don't care about modern "evidence:" I believe in a particular deity, and particular claims about that deity to be true, based on ancient scriptures.

Deist: Despite lack of objective evidence, I believe in something, but I'm not sure what.

Agnostic: There is no objective evidence in favor of belief, so I don't know if I believe

Atheist: There is no objective evidence in favor of belief, so I don't believe

My response:
I will leave it to followers of the first two viewpoints to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the last two are both a bit off....

Agnostic: There is no objective evidence, so I don't believe. All other positions may be wrong, or one or more of them may be right.

Atheist: Despite (or because of) lack of objective evidence, I believe not. All other positions are certainly wrong.

as far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God".[53] More recently, George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[54]

Bee: I did not "quote" them, I made them up. Just like you make stuff up about Dawkins' views.

But to make it more fair, I suppose we can add "personal belief" and "subjective evidence" somewhere in there. Since we're old comrades and all.

Bee: Did I say I was quoting someone? If it makes you happy, old comrade, we can throw in "personal experience" and "subjective evidence" somewhere in there.

I suppose there are statistical reasons for choosing strong atheism (the subset of "events" we've observed show no sign of "non-natural" causes, and there's no reason to think this subset differs from the whole set, unless god is a deceiver, and who needs a god like that, etc. etc.), as some commenters here have suggested in the past, but I don't understand well enough to take a stand.

In the meanwhile, atheism to most means simply that. Lack of theism. And whether or not they choose to challenge believers may or may not be relevant to their level of conviction in their dis-belief.

Katrina; you are right, this is a rehash. However, the wikipedia article you quoted doesn't support your comment 154304.

From Wikipedia:
Pejorative definition: atheism as immorality.
Positive definition: atheism as the belief that no deities exist.
Negative definition: atheism as the absence of belief in deities.

Immediately after the passage you quoted, the article continues:

"Smith coined the terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism to avoid confusing these two varieties of atheism. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheism---the form commonly held to be the only true form of atheism---is an absence of theistic belief due to conscious rejection."

As (presumably) non-ignorant folk neither you nor I can make the case that we do not know of god... so 'Implicit' or 'Negative' atheism isn't what you seem to be discussing. This leaves us 'Explicit' or 'Positive' atheism.

From wiki, again:
"The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, with many specialized textbooks dealing with atheism favoring it.[42] One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labeled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist---for he is not denying any theistic claims."[43]"

Since you draw a distinction between agnostics and atheists, this (Atheism = Anti-theism) seems to be the position left to you. (*Shrug*) No worries, but it does mean that my criticism of comment 154304 stands.

No worries, but it does mean that my criticism of comment 154304 stands.

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others---including most atheistic philosophers and groups---define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).

As (presumably) non-ignorant folk neither you nor I can make the case that we do not know of god

In my original comment I did not distinguish between weak and strong.

In German, of course (the Language from which English evolved),

English did not evolve from German.

English is a Germanic language, as is German. English is derived from old Saxon dialects spoken along the North Sea coast of Germany. Those dialects that stayed behind became Frisian, not German. Old German was spoken considerably south of that.

Nick said (in the SF Gate interview to a question concerning belief): "An ultimate question like this might just not be answerable. It may be a leap of faith to take either position, either atheism or theism."

The quote is silly because the second sentence is a soundbite (and a favorite one of religiously conservative Christians) that doesn't follow from the statement in the first sentence. I've lost the energy to address this fully. So I'll just leave you with a quote from Atheism: A Short Introduction:

"When people say that atheism is a faith position, what they tend to think is that, since there is no proof for atheism, something extra---faith---is required to justify belief in it. But this is simply to misunderstand the role of proof in the justification for belief.... A lack of proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives."

Re "This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives."

Yup. And, absolute proof of general principles is pretty much limited to formal mathematics, and even there it's relative to some set of assumptions (axioms) which themselves had to be figured out by trial and error to start with.

Henry

Recognizing in advance the level of hostility I'm calling down upon myself, this statement by Popper's Ghost is profoundly unfair...

"I wonder if he considers the question of whether the Greek, Roman or Norse pantheon exists unanswerable, and if not, how he justifies his answer." First of all, it's a straw man. Failure to reject the possible merit of all religious positions is not logically equivalent to failure to reject a few very specific religious positions. Do the Dalai Lama or Kenneth Miller find this question "unanswerable"?

It's worth noting, as well, that a fair number of otherwise reasonable people do describe themselves as "pagans" or followers of "Wiccan".

Atheists differ from this stance, and claim to have knowledge of the supernatural world - they claim that it does not exist.

As (presumably) non-ignorant folk

Thank you PG- I need to actually buy TGD so I can quote it freely.

Asked "Does the God of Christians exist?" an Agnostic must reply 'I don't know'; asked the same question with relation to any other deities, the answer must still be 'I have no knowledge'.

— J. L. Brown

Atheists differ from this stance, and claim to have knowledge of the supernatural world - they claim that it does not exist.

Putting aside questions of whether applied science (medicine, engineering, forensic science, and so on) is "real" science, which is a largely semantic question...

1) Ideally, virtually all physicians should accept the theory of evolution (as should all educated people, but especially those with a science background). There should not be any tendency for people in applied fields to deny basic principles of science. Whether or not physicians are "real" scientists should be irrelevant to this question.

2) Operationally, believing that a deity "guided" evolution, while this is extremely objectionable to some, is compatible with a full understanding of evolution. However, the belief that "God created humans in their present form" is unreasonable from any science-accepting perspective.

3) As a physician, albeit no longer practicing, I am mildly disappointed that 15-20% of my colleagues would claim to agree that "God created humans in their present form". This number seems distressingly high. To be blunt, I suspect that this may reflect cultural and political bias, and/or an older age cohort, and quite possibly some internationally educated physicians.

4) Nevertheless, if the opinion of phyisicians is considered in any way relevant, the message is that we have further evidence that people who study the life sciences are overwhelmingly more likely to accept the theory of evolution than the general population. This does not in itself mean much, but it does further contradict the creationist claim that opposition to evolution is common or increasing among the scientifically educated.

5) I am heartened to note that medical schools are beginning to incorporate evolution into the curriculum. This may actually be an example of creationist political schemes backfiring.

6) Certain aspects of clinical medicine - antibiotic resistance by bacteria, transient reproductive advantage of neoplastic cells, and others - a dramatic illustrations of evolution in action.

PG is calling harold "hostile?"

What a joke!

Make a specific accusation or shut up.

Congratulations, Nick!

No hard feelings on my part toward you.

Best wishes,
Sal

2) Operationally, believing that a deity "guided" evolution, while this is extremely objectionable to some, is compatible with a full understanding of evolution. However, the belief that "God created humans in their present form" is unreasonable from any science-accepting perspective.

Such a belief is compatible ONLY if the believer does not contend that such divine guidance is scientifically provable, or that such belief should be confused with -- or confuse -- actual scientific reasoning. This distinction is important: mixing religion with science is only harmful when done on company time.

3) As a physician, albeit no longer practicing, I am mildly disappointed that 15-20% of my colleagues would claim to agree that "God created humans in their present form". This number seems distressingly high. To be blunt, I suspect that this may reflect cultural and political bias, and/or an older age cohort, and quite possibly some internationally educated physicians.

It might also reflect a certain amount of laziness: they have neither time nor reason to study the issue of evolution in depth, or to get into fights with their friends and family over evolution vs. Genesis; so they settle on the easily-understood "default position" they were spoon-fed and concentrate on the duties at hand. If they are ever forced to confront the issue in a practical manner (i.e., understand evolution in order to understand some new medical treatment), chances are they'll quietly set the literalist stuff aside long enough to get the job done, and not say anything about it to their parents or ministers. (Assuming, of course, that they haven't done this already.)

Sal: why should Nick, or anyone else for that matter, think you have any reason to hold "hard feelings" for him? Are you trying to imply that he's done you some wrong and needs to be forgiven? Or are you just trying to make yourself look big while running away from idiotic and/or dishonest statements you've made but can't defend?

I happen to know a physician who won't insert an IUD based on his religiously based conviction that abortion is wrong no matter how far along the pregnancy may be, since it is possible for the device to dislodge an embedded embryo, thereby "aborting" it.

At least in his case, religion does play a role in professional ethical choices. Strangely, he does offer patients referrals to MDs who are willing to insert the device.

Katarina,
Responding to your Comment #154401:

You had included a quote from Smith in a previous comment, to the effect that a child raised in complete ignorance of god was an atheist. This is implicit & weak atheism. Since we are discussing god(s) and their (non)existence, neither of us can claim to be that child.

Responding to your comment #154429:

You stated: In my original comment I did not distinguish between weak and strong. I should add that I did so consciously.

My response: In your original post, you distinguished between agnosticism and atheism. But, by the wiki article which you cited, agnosticism is indistinguishable from weak atheism. To quote the article:
Weak, or negative, atheism is either the absence of the belief that gods exist (in which case anyone who is not a theist is a weak atheist), or of both the belief that gods exist and the belief that they do not exist (in which case anyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist is a weak atheist).[13][55]
By separating agnosticism from atheism in your original post, you very strongly implied that you were referring to explicit & strong atheism as just 'atheism'.

Since then, you have claimed the weak atheist stance; but I find it disturbing that by some semantic slight-of-hand agnosticism can be made to disappear, apparently 'really' being some flavor of atheism. I disagree, the claim to have no knowledge of the workings, drives, or values of supernatural IS different from the claim that there is no supernatural. If you object to calling the former agnosticism, then perhaps you can suggest a name for the latter....

Anywho, none of this is really on topic. My apologies, Nick, and congrats on the favorable article!

Anton Mates Comment #154662

You wrote:
Why? Some deities are more accessible to investigation than others.
[Snip]
Some deities impact the natural world, and you can decide whether or not they exist by observation of same. If a god is supposed to answer prayers, help the faithful and punish the wicked with any degree of regularity, or to have worked various miracles, then lack of miracles and answered prayers and so forth is evidence against that god's existence.

My response:
The trouble is, the supernatural is, by definition, not amenable to any sort of observation or investigation. Anything which happens in the natural world is.. um.. natural.
If by some miracle you do get to study a genuine miracle (presuming, for the sake of argument that they really do occur), then you can STILL make no judgments about the supernatural. Did the Christian god do it? One of the Norse pantheon? Was it REALLY on of the Greek, Roman, Native American, Aborigines, Hindu entities, or was it some new Papua New Guinean upstart, just getting started in the godding business?
An observer confined to the natural world can draw no conclusions about the supernatural agency(ies) which may or may not be involved... but you can bet your ass that you will observe cults, denominations, faiths, etc stumbling all over themselves trying to claim credit for their pet deity. Sadly, human nature seems to dictate that these mutually exclusive & contradictory claims will gain more adherents than reasonable skepticism.

For what it's worth, as long as we're arguing about the definitions of words like "agnostic" and "atheist," here's some definitions I'd like to offer:

"Nontheist:" one who either has no opinion about god(s) or has no place for any religious thought or action in his life. The baby mentioned earlier is "nontheistic;" so is an adult who doesn't think or care about religious beliefs at all.

"Atheist:" one who consciously and explicitly believes that no gods exist and all theistic beliefs are wrong. (This is how I have always heard the word used. YMMV.)

"Agnostic:" one who has no firm belief or disbelief of his own in any god, but who may acknowledge (in word and/or deed) the possibility that they exist. Granted, the line between "agnostic" and "nontheist" is a bit vague; one might say that "nontheist" = "agnostic leaning toward atheist." Or "nontheist" = "agnostic who just doesn't care enough to think seriously about it at all." Many agnostics think very seriously about theistic beliefs, whether or not they actually embrace them.

"Anti-theist" (hyphen optional): one who is hostile and/or disrespectful toward theistic beliefs. It's probably safe to say that all anti-theists are atheists, but not all atheists are anti-theists.

I offer these definitions because I'm a little tired of people muddying the distinction between "agnostic" and "atheist." Also, I believe (in my own biased way) that my definitions are a bit more descriptive, and more in line with conventional interpretations of the words, than all this stuff about strong, weak, positive, negative, hard and soft atheists. You're starting to sound like Duelling Quarks.

Atheists differ from this stance, and claim to have knowledge of the supernatural world - they claim that it does not exist.

...we haven't brought up specific claims of "gnostic atheists," who may use logic or probability to argue against the existance of a deity or deities in general.

This seems cumbersome to me, but there may be situations where it may be necessary to include, in a label, a reason why one takes the label.

(Note, however, that the phrase "gnostic atheists," may cause confusion, as there is a distinct branch of Christian thought that calls itself "gnostic" (and which the established Church called heretical).)

So in my view the question is, do we define the views of others, or allow them to define themselves?

Wherever possible, we should try to reduce confusion by sticking to, or buiding from, the meanings that most people already associate with the words we use. We should not try to graft a completely new meaning onto a widely-used word; or, if we must do so, we will then have to go out of our way to explain our new definition and why we're using it.

My attempt was prompted by this blatant misrepresentation:

"Atheists differ from this stance, and claim to have knowledge of the supernatural world - they claim that it does not exist."

Why is this a misrepresentation? Are you accomodating people who believe in the supernatural, but not in "gods?" If so, you'd be right (I used to be in that camp, sort of); but I'm not sure what you mean here.

The trouble is, the supernatural is, by definition, not amenable to any sort of observation or investigation. Anything which happens in the natural world is.. um.. natural.

— J. L. Brown

If by some miracle you do get to study a genuine miracle (presuming, for the sake of argument that they really do occur), then you can STILL make no judgments about the supernatural. Did the Christian god do it? One of the Norse pantheon? Was it REALLY on of the Greek, Roman, Native American, Aborigines, Hindu entities, or was it some new Papua New Guinean upstart, just getting started in the godding business?

Suppose that any time you happened to be pointing a telescope at a part of the sky where thunder occurred, you saw a bearded man hurling his hammer at humanoid giants, while riding an airborne goat-drawn chariot loaded with Hostess Twinkies. Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that this was the entity the Norse knew as Thor?

No, because Thor doesn't do Twinkes.

"Nontheist:" one who either has no opinion about god(s) or has no place for any religious thought or action in his life. The baby mentioned earlier is "nontheistic;" so is an adult who doesn't think or care about religious beliefs at all.

— Raging Bee

"Atheist:" one who consciously and explicitly believes that no gods exist and all theistic beliefs are wrong. (This is how I have always heard the word used. YMMV.)

"Agnostic:" one who has no firm belief or disbelief of his own in any god, but who may acknowledge (in word and/or deed) the possibility that they exist.

"Anti-theist" (hyphen optional): one who is hostile and/or disrespectful toward theistic beliefs. It's probably safe to say that all anti-theists are atheists, but not all atheists are anti-theists.

I offer these definitions because I'm a little tired of people muddying the distinction between "agnostic" and "atheist."

Wherever possible, we should try to reduce confusion by sticking to, or buiding from, the meanings that most people already associate with the words we use. We should not try to graft a completely new meaning onto a widely-used word; or, if we must do so, we will then have to go out of our way to explain our new definition and why we're using it.

No, because Thor doesn't do Twinkes.

— Raging Bee

"Atheists differ from this stance, and claim to have knowledge of the supernatural world - they claim that it does not exist." Why is this a misrepresentation?

I suppose if you could find a Satanist who actually believed in God and Satan, you'd have a theist anti-theist.

No, you'd have a worshipper of one "god" (powerful supernatural being) showing hostility to another. Perhaps I should have said "one who is hostile and/or disrespectful toward all theistic beliefs as such," to differentiate anti-theists from theists who worship one god and believe in, but despise, another. (That's not what the Satanists I've heard from believe, BTW, but that's another matter.)

It's not how I've heard [the term "atheist"] used by atheists, which is rather the point. I have heard another atheist say they've met other atheists who explicitly believed no gods existed, but that's about it. Or, to put it another way, under that definition about six atheists exist on the planet, which doesn't make it a very useful term.

If we are to accept the terms "weak atheist" as one who doesn't explicitly believe that gods don't exist, but quietly acts on that default assumption for lack of contrary evidence, and "strong atheist" as one who explicitly believes gods don't exist (am I getting that right?), that's fine. But how much practical difference is there between those two groups? How far wrong would I be in lumping those two groups together as "atheists?" If I'm wrong here, than what's your definition of "atheist?"

I think that clashes with most people who call themselves nontheists---it's usually used just to mean "not a theist." Atheists, agnostics (such as Gould), deists, and many Buddhists (such as Lenny Flank) call themselves nontheists.

Good point. Do you have a set of definitions that can differentiate between the nontheists I described and the ones you mentioned? (I do think we should distinguish those groups -- their "beliefs" or attitudes are significantly different.) As for deists, I would call them theists: AFAIK they do believe in a god, just one who doesn't intervene a lot.

As I explained, very few atheists actually claim to "have knowledge" (gnostic) about the supernatural. Instead, they say something like, since we can't know about this reliably, we may as well abandon the whole concept.

Okay, point taken.

OTOH, how much practical difference is there between those two groups? From what I see, they're both acting on the same premise: for all practical purposes, there is no supernatural, period.

I suspect that no matter how the terms (atheist, agnostic, etc.) are defined, they're going to blur into each other when applied to actual people.

Henry

Perhaps I should have said "one who is hostile and/or disrespectful toward all theistic beliefs as such," to differentiate anti-theists from theists who worship one god and believe in, but despise, another. (That's not what the Satanists I've heard from believe, BTW, but that's another matter.)

— Raging Bee

If we are to accept the terms "weak atheist" as one who doesn't explicitly believe that gods don't exist, but quietly acts on that default assumption for lack of contrary evidence, and "strong atheist" as one who explicitly believes gods don't exist (am I getting that right?), that's fine. But how much practical difference is there between those two groups? How far wrong would I be in lumping those two groups together as "atheists?" If I'm wrong here, than what's your definition of "atheist?"

Do you have a set of definitions that can differentiate between the nontheists I described and the ones you mentioned? (I do think we should distinguish those groups --- their "beliefs" or attitudes are significantly different.)

As for deists, I would call them theists: AFAIK they do believe in a god, just one who doesn't intervene a lot.

Anton Mates: Your location-dependent variation in self-description reminded me of Bertrand Russell (see below). This excert is also relevant to all the self-proclaimed agnostics on this thread.

"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."

Thank you, Middle Prof. Which book/article is this quote from?

Re "yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist"

Xena killed most of them; that was documented on TV. ;)

Henry

Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist".

Thank you, Middle Prof. Which book/article is this quote from?

— Katarina

Never mind, I found the source:

Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas
by Bertrand Russell (1947)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

As a new unbeliever, I have a long reading list to catch up with. But what fun I'm having! Thanks to all of you who cared enough to attack my religious claims!
(warm fuzzy feelings of gratitude)

Thanks Anton, your comment didn't show up until I posted mine.

PG is calling harold "hostile?" What a joke!

— Raging Bee

I support the parallel of the a-fairyist. There's lots of stories about fairies, too, but no particular reason to believe in them.

I'm agnostic now. An ultimate question like this might just not be answerable. It may be a leap of faith to take either position, either atheism or theism.

I wonder if he considers the question of whether the Greek, Roman or Norse pantheon exists unanswerable, and if not, how he justifies his answer.

If the mere inability to offer a logical demonstration of a proposition were sufficient to be agnostic about it, then we would all be agnostic about a great many empirical matters. Was Russell also agnostic about whether Julius Caesar existed, or whether the moon was made of green cheese with a thin layer of dust over it?

— Popper's ghost

I said that few people who have ever posted to PT are as hostile as harold. Even if I were the most hostile person on the planet, that would have no bearing on the validity of my statement.

Actually, PG, it would have a bearing: it would make your statement laughably hypocritical as well as false.

Placed to bookmark!

God site. Thanks!

Thanks 123 adware

;)Nothing happens unless first a dream.