From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:38:44 CDT

Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick) writes:
: >Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
: >: 
: >: What I was trying to point out here is a logic trap.  The "evolution"
: >: side of this debate takes the approach of:
: >:     - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
: >:       God is not relevant to the topic at hand.
: >
: >We, on the "evolution" side of this debate, wish someone would design
: >a gun that could shoot a thought through the armored skulls of the
: >Soldiers of Creation Christianity, so that an idea would finally stick.
: 
: I did use a clear form so that you (or whoever) could pick the specific
: part which was disagreeable.  I am surprised that you picked this,
: though.

That is exactly my point.  You are surprised, because I disagree with
something that you firmly believe that I would gladly agree with.

Here is what I see as our problem.  Evolution is a current scientific
paradigm, and although I do not claim to be an expert in that paradigm,
I do understand a great deal about it.  Especially some of the 
philosophical issues, which you brought in above.  Now if you wish
to talk about your own religious paradigm, I may disagree but I won't
say you are making incorrect statements about it.
If you believe that Christ appears to you 300 feet tall in a white
suit, I may doubt you, but I won't tell you that it didn't happen.
I especially will not try to tell you that you do not believe that
it didn't happen.  If you believe that the bread turns into human
flesh in your stomach, I will not tell you that you do not believe
it to be true.  Why then, won't you afford "the 'evolution' side of
the debate" the same courtesy, and refrain from telling us what we
believe, especially when you are so completely incorrect?

You make statements about my paradigm, and they are
categorically wrong.  They are stereotypes of beliefs in evolution.
In some sense, they are bigoted beliefs because they are false
facts used to ridicule believers in the evolution paradigm.
If we were talking about race, then, your remarks would be racist.

You wrote:
: >: The "evolution" side of this debate takes the approach of:
: >:     - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
: >:       God is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Strangely enough, in a strict sense of logic, your statement can be true.
Such is the strength of many bigoted beliefs.  You tie a falsehood to
a truth with an "or", and thus make the statement true.  Yet the
falsehood remains to color the thought and to spread your attitude.
In rhetoric, this is a 'guilt by association' tactic.

Breaking down your sentence:

	We will start with the assumption that there is no God.
	We will start with the assumption that God is not relevent to
		the topic at hand.

The first sentence is false.  The second sentence is a qualified truth*.
In strict logic, your 'or' makes the whole sentence true.  In my reality,
it is just a trick of rhetoric to advance your own agenda.

Unless I am wrong about your use of the word 'or', which does have
two definitions:  1. an alternative, which is my usage above, and
2. an equivalent expression.  If you meant the 2nd definition, then
you are saying that "there is no God" is equivalent to "God is not
relevent...hand".  And you are still wrong, because they are not.

Either way, your statement is wrong, but yet it is a statement about
my paradigm and my beliefs.

*(I say qualified, because many researchers on the "'evolution' side
of the debate" do assume from the gitgo that God exists, and is the
creator of the universe, and therefore is relevent, but that one
should not assume that a given process is directly moved by God
without a very good reason!  This allows them free access to all
evidence and research, because they are not bound to forbid a 
paradigm doctrinally.)

: If the doctrine of evolution is not atheistic (in the strict sense --
: existing without God, not denying God's existence),

Is that what atheism means?  I thought an atheist was a person that
did deny the existence of God.  I was not aware that, "in a strict
sense", an atheist was a person who existed without God.  How do
you support that definition?

And what exactly does that mean, "existing without God"?  Sounds
like a pretty slipperly statement.  You can use it in numerous ways
to imply all sorts of things.  It is wonderfully ambiguous.  I can
see why you would want to define atheist that way.  But there you
go again, defining other people's paradigms for them, in terms of
your own beliefs, and that way you can then make statements about
those people based on your fallaciously derived logic.

:                                                 ... how does God fit
: in?

How does God fit into agricultural research?  Medical drug research?
Jet engine design?  Nuclear weapons research?  AIDS research?  Do you
advocate as some do, the Religious Doctrine that AIDS is God's curse on 
homosexuals and is therefore a cure should not be actively sought?
That is what some people's belief is about the role of God in research -
to determine God's will and forbid research in such areas.  This has
been the Christian Church's main role in science for the last
1000 years -- to direct where science and humans may look.  Now if 
a Christian Scientist wants to endure a bout of a ruptured appendix
alone without medical intervention, then I am all for their freedom
to choose pain and death for themselves.  But if that same group
of Christian Scientists tries to make laws that forbid me and mine
the same choice, that is where I stand up.

How does God fit into government?  Do you believe we should abolish
religious freedom in this country and institute a national religion?
How does God fit into the notion of "freedom of religion".  Does
freedom of religion exist without God?  Is freedom of religion
atheistic?

Does God help scientists who use their religious doctrine to guide
their research?  Are better discoveries made by believers than 
non-believers?

You ask how God fits in, but you single out only Evolution.  Why?

Why do you believe God has to fit in?  Is it just as important and
valid that God fit into the design of your automobile?  Do you believe
that you should only drive a car that was designed with God fitted in?
Can you possibly tell me how God fits into the principles of
internal combustion?  If not at all, then are automobiles atheistic?

Drew, of the computer you are writing on, the principles of
electronics that are enabling you to utilize it, the principles of 
chemistry and metalurgy and manufacturing and marketing and
distribution that have come together to put this device in front
of you, exactly how was God fitted in?

Does this seem absurd to you?  It should.  That is the name of
the argument.

: >:     - We will not allow religious doctrines to guide our thoughts or
: >:       provide possible interpretations.
: >
: >There is nothing wrong with allowing your religious doctrines to
: >guide your thoughts, as long as your doctrine doesn't pre-ordain
: >your thoughts.  Mendel was a mildly religious man, and managed
: >just fine.
: >
: >: After this, they reach a conclusion which they find logicly consistant
: >: and branch out from that to the conclusion that their first point (no
: >: God) is proven.  That is not logicly sound.
: >
: >You are so right.  Your statement is not logically sound, for the simple
: >reason that it describes a 'logical conclusion' that takes place only
: >in minds such as yours that try to explicate the minds of those whom
: >you would gladly destroy, and of whom you are utterly ignorant, and
: >of whom you are irrationally afraid.
: 
: I'm afraid that that conclusion is presented opten by the anti-creation
: faction in these discussions.  "We have evidence.  Who needs your God."

Two different conclusions, Drew.  Again, you want to conflate the two
into one.  You said, "conclusion ... (no God)".  But this is not
what you say above.  You say "Who needs your God", not 'there is
no God.'  They are not the same.
 
: IMO, the existence, or lack thereof, of God cannot be proven
: using logic.  It is the wrong domain.

I agree completely.  And any idiot who claims that Evolution or any
thing else proves that God does not exist is... well, they are an
ignorant idiot.  And I will support you in trouncing them.

: I don't recall refering to an "evolutionist" individual.  I refered to

An unfortunate construct of my own, which I should have avoided...

: the "evolution" side of the debate.  Are you trying to say that there
: is not a group stating that life (and specific forms thereof)
: originated by evolution rather than special creation?

No, I am not trying to say that.  But then, neither were you.  You
were trying to say that the people in that group were atheists, and
then providing your own definition of atheistic that included the
people that you were talking about, conjoined by an 'or' that 
allowed ambiguous interpretation.  This is not a valid form
of logic.

Nor am I denying that God did not create.  I am denying that God
created in the manner proposed in the 'Theory' of Creation Science,
AKA Special Creation.

rob derrick
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins