Separating Evolution from Atheism

[Jepne]

Great statement, JR!

''You are thinking this is the 15th century if you think religion causes people to not love or pursue science, if anything discourages people I know from science, it is the astonishment of working with and listening to those who would believe intelligence comes from non intelligence.''


I put it on my facebook page along with this: (Or, I might add, 'consciousness is a product of cells moving around and growing in different directions' - ah, but just give it a few more million years and that will explain it - as though Time has creative power)

[MMathis]

The Big Bang is the accepted scientific theory of how the universe got here. In 1/3000th of a second the universe came to be. That means matter had to travel way above the speed of light to reach the edges of the universe from a space smaller than the head of a pin.

The speed of light is roughly 670 million miles per hour. We can only make stuff go around 30,000mph. So, science says "poof" the whole universe is born. Now, if that doesn't sound supernatural, I'm not sure what does.

I am a believer in the Big Bang. Science just can't agree on what triggered it. I think "Let there be...." fits nicely.

[SteveF]

morbo3000 wrote:

When he says he is trying to separate evolution from atheism, he is differentiating between the *methodology* of naturalism necessary for scientific inquiry and the *philosophy* of naturalism that atheists take to explain things that can't be tested by science.

I like your succinct distinction and explanation morbo3000.

Here’s an interesting article I read in a national Canadian newspaper last year. In it, atheist and philosophy professor Thomas Nagel questions some of the stances of what you would call philosophical naturalists.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/23 ... darwinism/

I think too many unanswered questions exist for a scientist to be an honest philosophical naturalist if he/she is solely basing their conclusions on scientific discovery. One thing that still blows quantum physicist's minds (and mine) is how particles react differently when they are observed verses when they are not observed. It seems to me there are many depths of scientific discovery still to come.

If I were an atheist, I think I’d be much more tentative in my scientific conclusions than many are.

I agree about Jon's videos. They are good.

I also agree.

[morbo3000]

I came across a phrase in my study (OCD, that is) on this subject.

"Only acceptable observation."

I will grant to scientific study methodological naturalism. I don't see that there is any other way.

But, the challenge to people of any faith tradition is the notion that for reasonable, rational, modern, enlightened people, the "only acceptable" observation is naturalism. Modernism has continuously pushed religion into a smaller and smaller compartment it has called faith.

But naturalism is never going to explain consciousness. Any attempt to quantify the neural processes that go into that are going to fall down. And even further, it is the naturalist duality that sees the mind as separate from the body. So, understanding consciousness goes beyond neurons to every atom of an individual.

Take that complex system, and when you add one more person at a time, in a conversation, or a joint venture, or a nation, you get an exponential rise of "data" necessary to understand that is impossible.. infinite in my opinion.

Interacting, then, with human relationships and systems, is not a matter of faith. It is impossible to quantify using a mechanistic model. And naturalistic observations are not adequate. That dichotomy has broken down.

Which means that religion does not have to be relegated to the island of "faith" anymore. It just doesn't need to justify itself by trying to move onto the naturalistic mainland. Naturalism is simply not the "only acceptable observation" anymore.

[morbo3000]

Did anyone watch "Cosmos?"

I was going to, and then discovered that it is hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson who is one of those rabid anti-religion scientists. Sagan was no theist, but he wasn't nearly as antagonistic as the new-Atheists.

Anyone see it? Thoughts?

[jonperry]

In these video I am very concerned about presenting the information in a way that is welcoming to creationists. I want people to think about the discoveries that have been made and what they might mean, rather than force them to accept evolution as fact.

I will be creating a series of questions for each video and asking people for feedback. If you'd like to participate, please email me jon@statedclearly.com with "video review participant" as the subject title.

I have one on life origins that I'm currently testing with audiences and would love your thoughts.

Thanks
Jon