How do you reconcile Original Sin and Evolution?

[PeterMP]

It occurred to me the last time this topic came up the definition for what the person believes was relatively irrelevant. I did not want to go in that direction because I was trying to keep that thread about the definition of the word and not related to religion, but as this thread started as a thread more directly on religion, I think I will go ahead and make my point.

Essentially, given alexey's definition of atheism, you have somebody that is not making any claim about god. However, what is more important in terms of discussions and public discourse is how that affects their actions w/ respect to larger society. There is the reality of what the person actually practices.

For my purposes, I'm going to use the word unsure and let's change the topic to climate change because it will at least alleviate some of the issues (I think) amongst the current active participants at least.

Somebody states they are unsure about climate change and the degree of human causes. Realistically, at some level, this is a reasonable position. Even I, while understanding some of the basic research, don't really understand everything (I don't have knowledge, which therefore affects my level of belief (I have stated before, I'm pretty sure at some point all of the models are likely wrong just because as you get further from the "base line" (i.e. current conditions of CO2, ice, etc), it is harder to make good predictions.))) and therefore have some unsuredness (i.e uncertainity).

However, I don't have detailed expertise in most climate models, therefore have issues with my knowledge on the topic and therefore I am unsure of where that position really is.

And realistically, everybody should have some level uncertainty (i.e. some level of being unsure) simply due to the limitations of any scientific process/method/under taking.

From there though, practically, it appears to me there are 3 possibilites:

1. I may realize that there is a possiblity of substantial human induced warming, and despite being unsure, becuase I realize there is a possibility advocate for some larger societal action (thought that might be pretty minimal and even that minimal action might anger those that are less unsure). Essentially, I'm unsure, but at a reasonable cost, I'm willing to do somethings to hedge my bets and advocate for such a position. Where it would be reasonable for the cost to be directly associated with my level of suredness. However, I unless I am completely sure there is NO warming or human component to it, it might be reasonable for me to support a societal hedging of bets at some level.

2. I may state becuase I am unsure, I am not going to advocate for anything on either side for the most part.

3. I might state that because I am unsure, I am going to advocate against action. That I need to have "credible evidence" to act and I feel that is lacking causing my level of being unsure and that puts me in a situation where I don't have feel that I have reasons to act. However, I also consider more general societal actions, actions on my behalf (because they are likley to affect me at some level) so I am going to advocate against action (potentially strongly).

Now, with respect to religion, we could talk about certainly the same three levels.

1. While I am unsure, I recognize that a god might exist and therefore there are reasons on a societal level to try and hedge our bets. I might for example generally adovate for people that do have faith in some context and some conversations and for churches to be treated as tax exempt institutions, while taking other positions that anger people that are more "sure" (of a particular religious belief (e.g. Christianity) (i.e. I might support gay marriage). I am willing to do some small things in order to hedge the bets on a societal level. This level of action that I support though might anger some more ardent believers.

2. I am more neutral in nature. I don't really advocate one way or another for the most. These are the people that traditionally have seemed to label themselves as agnostic, but would likely be scooped into atheism using alexey's more comprehensive position.

3. I state that I am unsure, but in practice advocate against at a societal level. That the absence of what I feel to be "credible evidence" is enough for me to just not believe, but to advocate against religion. I generally advocate that religion should be done away w/ (or at least very much marganalized) and that society should start taking steps to move in that direction (where there might be different levels of strenth and then that would relate to how fast or robustly we should move this process).

It occurs to me that in most discussions and public discourses, for those that would be generally considered agnostic, atheist, unbelievers, or whatever other term you want to use, the position of their personal beliefs is less meaningful, then where they stand on what we as a society should do w/ respect to religion.

And therefore how they interact with society.

(And obviously, then we could do something similar for theist, believer, etc.)

[alexey]

Peter,

There are things we are very sure about. We are sure about greenhouse properties of CO2. We are sure about who is releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We are sure about science-defying properties of Creationism. We are sure about who is releasing tons of Creationism.

I think it is tempting to see New Atheists, for example, as people who's primary purpose is to attack religion. Did they wake up one day, decided to attack something, and religion came along? I do not think so. I think they saw some problems, analyzed them, and decided that religion is the root cause.

I think it is clear that religion causes some problems in some cases. I do not want to point fingers or argue how prevalent these cases are; it is sufficient that they exist. And when I bring it up, I get either no response or something along the lines of "blame the people, do not blame religion". It would be nice to see religious folks at least acknowledge some problems and find some way to meaningfully talk about them.

Each human society has God(s) and stories and myths. Those things are natural and common. I just do not understand how people can hold one of these as truth. Don't you need a good reason to select one out of many?

As a side note, the "disbelief in God" definition of atheism is in the dictionary, it has been in the dictionary for 100+ years based on my research. I do not see a good reason for you to call it "alexey's definition".

[PeterMP]

I think it is clear that religion causes some problems in some cases. I do not want to point fingers or argue how prevalent these cases are; it is sufficient that they exist. And when I bring it up, I get either no response or something along the lines of "blame the people, do not blame religion". It would be nice to see religious folks at least acknowledge some problems and find some way to meaningfully talk about them.

What problems do you want to talk about?

Since I've been here I've been talking about issues realted to creationism and doing things like teaching it (or intelligen design) in school and that's longer than you have been here.

Previously, we've talked about and I gave you a bunch of links to Christian organizations that are trying to do something about climate change.

I've seen techboy essentially tell some evengelicals to shut up (more politely then that because that's techboy's style or maybe was worried about getting banned).

On more than one occasions, I and others have suggested to that it is likely that any extremeist is going to be more responsive to somebody that is knowledgable and respectable to their belief that suggest to them that said extremism isn't compatible w/ their belief rather then simply telling them their belief system is wrong (especially when you can't actually prove that).

Start threads on problems and see who supports you, which you aren't doing, unless you are going to claim that religion is a problem (which is related to a thread I am starting right now).

**EDIT**

With respect to the New Atheist, an improper action in response to an improper action is still an improper action.

We shouldn't take 'the other side did it first' as an excuse for stupidity and a mis-representation of the facts as we know them by anybody.

[Jumbo]

Peter, great closing on that previous post as far as I’m concerned.

I’m going to add onto this “definitions” thing. ‘New atheists” are said to be wanting to modify the way that term is defined, with the likely motive being to frame dialogues for their views more favorably.

I keep emphasizing the including and sometimes specification of the term Christian in these discussions in much the same spirit as Peter (and TB in his own way) challenges alexy (appropriately IMO, and then alexy is free to counter to his best ability if he wants). BTW, per Peter’s mentioning TB’s “politeness”, TB has never been within a light year of any mod action and I could only wish that people (including myself at times) conducted themselves with his manner and also made arguments at the level he regularly does (though he’s hardly perfect, of course :evilg:).

By the above, I mean that I think when these discussion have Christians framing matters from their stance as a “believing in God v. not believing in God” argument, there is a type of co-opting of a much larger alliance than really exists. The discussions of god v. no god is open to everyone of course. But if you’re a Christian, then there’s really no spiritual distinction according to the faith for the loss of salvation (without proper conversion) between the atheist, the agnostic, the Muslim, the Jew, or any other non-Christian faith (obviously), including groups like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, at least some Quaker groups etc.

If there were no atheists or agnostics, the Christian would have just as much core “issue” belief-wise with the Muslim etc when it comes to “being right about God” as they do with the former about whether or not there is a God. And, as we earlier noted, if all believers disappeared, no doubt atheists and agnostic would fall to intense bickering or worse (see South Park episode on the Atheist League ).

Again, this is not to suggest that there isn’t a separate “religion bad/religion good” argument to have where it matters much less which religion someone believes, but when it comes to “god or no god” as I often point out over the years, there is a usually abandoned exploration of “which construct of God or what kind of God (God's nature)” that should be pertinent.

I might absolutely not believe in Zeus or the God of Abraham, yet be willing to believe there’s some sort of conscious entity involved in some way that man has mischaracterized through his religions, even taking all of the Jesus/Mohammed story into account.

Whether everyone will buy this or not, such a case can be made with very reasonable content (and it's not my case, but its been done long and often before and by minds as competent as many given credence in these matters).

And I'm not trying to cause any trouble :pfft: but I wanted to cover this angle (and I've referred to it more briefly in the past) whether my intent and the relevance is clear to everyone or not. Now I least I can cut and paste it when I want it like TB does all the time.

[techboy]

As a side note, the "disbelief in God" definition of atheism is in the dictionary, it has been in the dictionary for 100+ years based on my research.

And what you do not seem to grasp is that "disbelief" is NOT the same as "lack of belief". It is active.

Seriously, answer this question: If I am displeased, do I simply lack pleasure? Or is it something more active?

Your position confuses me, anyway. Your position is that there is a "conspiracy" of theists who are making every attempt to oppress atheists, to the point of denying them their very identity. Theists control the country, and have for centuries, causing such despair that atheists can't even give blood at a blood bank (to draw from a different conversation for a moment).

Presumably, theists in this scenario would also control the dictionary, yet they did not change the definition to something that meets the goals of the "conspiracy"? Bertrand Russell, an eminent philosopher of the 20th century struggled mightily with which term to use to correctly convey his position, yet was unaware that the solution to his dilemma could be found in the dictionary?

Does this make any sense at all?

Or maybe, your understanding of what "disbelief" entails is a little off?

And why does it matter to you anyway? Aren't you trying to change how the theist "conspiracy" uses the word NOW? Why do you care what the usage was 10 (or 100) years ago? Should gay rights activists care how the word "marriage" was used in 1985? Is that a valid argument against gay marriage now?

*EDIT* I do not want to give the impression, though, that I think that non-Christians don't face problems in this country, or that I think this is okay. I don't.

I've seen techboy essentially tell some evengelicals to shut up (more politely then that because that's techboy's style or maybe was worried about getting banned).

I think the more accurate term for the individual I believe you are referring to is fundamentalist, and he actually sent me a rather irate PM telling me I was damaging the faith.

I thought about bringing that up, but I refuse to humor alexey's conceit that there is only one "intellectually honest" way to approach certain issues, and if it leaves him "suspicious", I trust that others who are more observant will know the truth.

By the above, I mean that I think when these discussion have Christians framing matters from their stance as a “believing in God v. not believing in God” argument, there is a type of co-opting of a much larger alliance than really exists. The discussions of god v. no god is open to everyone of course. But if you’re a Christian, then there’s really no spiritual distinction according to the faith for the loss of salvation (without proper conversion) between the atheist, the agnostic, the Muslim, the Jew, or any other non-Christian faith (obviously), including groups like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, at least some Quaker groups etc.

This is another point which I have found amusing when pondering the vast Christian "conspiracy", which is that those most likely to participate (fundamentalist Christians) are also most likely to lump atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, etc. into one big camp of "non-believer" anyway. In other words, they're the ones most likely to agree with the New Atheists' attempt to broaden the term!

[Jumbo]

Yup, TB, there has never been a shortage of irony (that's one fitting term) in sociopolitical/theological threads in the tailgate.

And as I often say, you should see the PMs and e-mail I get (or the staff at large).

I seem to have offended every demographic possible while showing favoritism to every agenda, no matter how competing. Not bad for a volunteer who's mainly about the football. :pfft:

And, unfortunately, there is also no shortage of seriously bent folks, too.

[wysknz1]

Funny how science always seems to disprove itself over and over again, yet people fall back on science over and over again. I find that hard to believe in. Personally "inteligent design" as it seems to be called now, makes more sense to me than the so called science thrown out all the time. And yes, I take the Bible at 100%. Do I understand it all? No. To claim to understand God would be to lower Him to my abilities and intelligence. Discussions like this don't seem to change anyones minds. But you asked.

[Jumbo]

Dude, science doesn't "disprove itself." And you find it hard to believe in science? Have you ever noticed the world you actually live in and the things you see, do, and use every day of your life that exist because of science? You don't believe in the concept that science has changed innumerable significant aspects of everyone's actual existence, in the last few centuries in particular? Did you make your post through the power of prayer? Well, what you believe is what you believe.

To claim to understand God would be to lower Him to my abilities and intelligence.

For those who engage in such discussion, this "bottom line" for those who hold it can never be pointed out too often to those who would challenge it seeking some sort of meaningful capitulation. If, as a non-believer, capitulation is what you seek, I suggest (in this matter) devoting the energy to self-exploration or expanding your knowledge base.

Discussions like this don't seem to change anyones minds.

It's beyond rare, but it doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose. The most likely common one is it allows people to affirm their self-identity and there's a strong drive in most folks to do such. There is a personal identity strength (or ego if you like old school) or in feeling efficacy/security gains in intellectually honing supports for what you already think.

For those with sufficient critical thinking skills, and especially among the percentage that are genuinely able to suspend their bias to a manageable extent and find enough objectivity to really recognize and entertain worthy but opposing data and concepts, they can actually add things that expand the scope of their outlooks. So that too is quite the pay off.

Such dialogues can also serve to advance a positive socializing experience of how to discuss very personally important matters with those you strongly disagree with, yet remain respectful and even amiable, and (the ultimate), actually find value in the thoughts of "the other side" that do add to the meaning in your life in one way or another. Now that's the positive side. :pfft: