From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:07:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <22488@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:

>Here is my view, open to public critique/discussion.  I sincerely mean no
>offense to anyone who's beliefs differ from mine.  But I wish to make a strong
>statement.  
>
>I believe that science is completely and utterly at odds with any but the most
>generic, nonpredictive belief in God.  With the exception of the statement " I 
>believe in a God who created the laws of the universe and then sat back to
>watch," I don't see how you can accept the facts of science and the methods of
>the scientific search for truth while "believing in God" at the same time.

   You seem to be making some very 'unscientific' assumptions about what the
nature of god must be if one exists.  I believe both that evolution is the only
rational explanation of life on this planet (though the mechanism still
needs many decades of study to be ironed out) and that there exists some
form of 'god' (interactive forces, realities, existence beyond the
physical) that are currently beyond our knowledge and may not even be
measurable through scientific method.  The term 'god' itself is often
used to refer to a possible being with capabilities and powers many
times that of humans and their technologies.  It is entirely possible
such beings exist - though I have no opinion one way or another on
whether they actually do.  It is not 'unscientific' to speculate on the
possiblity.

>Certainly most interpretations Judaism/Christianity/Islam are at odds with 
>scientific fact.  Granted, the mainstream Christian churches have backed 
>off from hardline nonscientific interpretations of cosmology as the weight 
>of scientific data has grown.   But it really takes someone willing to bend
>over backward to accomodate both the Bible (name your version) and scientific
>fact.

Well, for one the belief in god does not have to be accomanied by the
notion that one of those religions (or a particular book) is the final
absolute authority.  But how much backwards bending does it take to
acommodate a text like the bible and modern science.  Seen as a
psychological of social / cultural study or seen as a basis for a moral
code or an attempt at a structure for positive (productive - both
individually and socially) there can be a lot of value in these
religious structures.  For a notion to be legally valid it must be true
95% of the time.  For Scientific validity 99% is required.  How much of
the bible is in contrast to scientific notion?  Less than 1%?  How much
of a science text from half a century ago is valid?
  You have mentioned a disbelief in the spirit, so it is of no value to
you but my observations are that the common moral systems expoused
across religions do tend to foster spiritual growth.

>More importantly, I find that the very notion of God suspect.  I can see very
>plainly why ancient (and even modern) people invented (reinvent) God to sooth 
>their fears, mostly of death.  And there is no scientific justification for 
>adding God to the universe, as it explains nothing.  So on what justification
>will a rational person accept the existence of God?  

There is no scientific justification for dismissing God as non existent
except by defining God withing very limited parameters and saying that
these are contradictions therefore god doesn't exist.  Why must God be
defined by those parameters which are contradictory?
   If my beliefs are proven wrong my whole world view will not collapse
I am not totally threatened by beliefs different than my own.  But there
do seem to be people on both sides of this issue who are extremely
threatened.  People adopt science as the end all and anything which
doesn't fit current scientific knowledge (and over half the posters on
here fit in this category) and are just as bigoted "blind faith"
extremists insisting their opinions are correct and must be the only
ones taught as the most extreme fundamentalist christians. 

>Perhaps my definition of "rational" or "scientific" are too extreme.  But it
>seems patently obvious to me that you don't make things up which have no hope
>of refutation or proof and which add nothing to your understanding of the
>universe.  

I'm not sure of your definition of 'rational' or 'scientific'.  I would
make the definition to include not disbelieving in things just because
they are not currently understood by modern science.  Your disbelief in
any sort of God doesn't appear to be scientific.  I base my belief in
obervation of the world around me, patterns of existence and human
interaction, and personal experience.  Could I scientifically prove the
existence of god?  Probably not - though I could point of personal
experiences, anecdotal evidence of others, and observations that I have
based my conclusions on. (many of them admittedly unscientific)  But I
have no desire to engage in the exercise of trying to prove 'god' or of
forcing others to believe as I do.
  Also, I ask what is wrong with people speculating, fantasizing, and
theorizing?  What is wrong with being creative?  Must everything add to
the understanding of the universe to have value?

>I have had plenty of moments in my life when I badly have wanted to be able to 
>believe in God.  It is so reassuring in difficult times.  But I never have been 
>able to do it.  It's just too irrational.  And it seems like exactly the
>lapse of logic that created religion in the first place.  
>-Scott

Well I've certainly been there.  It took me a long time to develop a
faith that works for me, that doesn't just feel like I'm blindly
believing what someone else said is true, and is consistent with a
rational world view.  But I disagree that religion was founded by an
irrational lapse of logic.  People looked to the world around (and
within) them and formed a basis of living based on what they were able
to observe to the best of their ability and the information that was
available to them at the time.  Just because some aspects of their
beliefs became invalid with a greater understanding (and technology to
understand) doesn't mean that the whole system is wrong.
 
I'll leave you with a quote:
     The notion that there are no truths except those of science is not
of itself a scientific truth.
                    -Huston Smith
  
     I have read nothing and know nothing of Huston Smith except for
that one quote.  But it makes a good point.  Those who believe that only
things that can be explaned by science or who believe that science can
ultimately explain all possible phenomenon are acting on a "blind faith"
unscientific belief system.  There is no scientific evidence (and even
evidence to the contrary) that science can explain all phenomenon.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************