A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Stuu]

Evolution by natural selection is not an issue. Creationism is fine with that.

Good, so that's settled then.

What is at issue is your idea that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor. That is false.

Would you care to humour Stripe and substantiate that claim with evidence? It is a falsifiable claim, so it is open to disproof if it's wrong.

AND that life "created itself" from non-life. That is also false.

I agree. No one is saying that.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

All right, I’ll make a worthless, hollow promise to do that sometime.

Until you do that, you'll just continue to manifest yourself to be the worthless, hollow idiot you are, who is proud to go about meaninglessly parroting the word 'god', and many other words.

 

[Stuu]

Then, by all means, Professor, do tell us, according to you, just when--under what condition(s)--it is right to use the word, 'proved', regarding the proposition, P, such as in "P has been proved," or "It has been proved that P".

It is right to use 'proved' in:
-Logical statements (science is a combination of evidence and logic, and the evidence part of that precludes the use of 'proved')
-Mathematics (a self-referential system in which terms are mutually defined)
-Common usage when there is no commitment to speaking precisely ('proved', 'theory' and so on).

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

You're obviously taking out of context what I have written. But then, Darwin cheerleaders have always had a penchant for quote-mining.

Here you can see just how easy it is for a non-fool such as myself to mimic a fool such as yourself.

And consequently make a fool of yourself unnecessarily.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

<repeat post deleted>

 

[Stuu]

Until you do that, you'll just continue to manifest yourself to be the worthless, hollow idiot you are, who is proud to go about meaninglessly parroting the word 'god', and many other words.

I didn't bring up gods. Have you no commitment to your own OP?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

And subsequently make a fool of yourself unnecessarily.

Subsequently? Hopefully I'll not make a fool of myself in the sequel. Thus far, however, I've not made a fool of myself. And as for you, I'd like to think that all this time during which you've been making a fool of yourself, you've only been doing so unnecessarily, but, alas....I fear it may well have been necessary for you to do so. It's not necessary for one to be such as you are: a Darwin cheerleader. However, it is necessary for one such as you are--a Darwin cheerleader--to make a fool of oneself.

 

[Stuu]

Subsequently?

Indeed, I had changed it to consequently.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Then, by all means, Professor, do tell us, according to you, just when--under what condition(s)--it is right to use the word, 'proved', regarding the proposition, P, such as in "P has been proved," or "It has been proved that P".

<NO ANSWER>

Logical statements

What (if anything) do you mean by "logical statements"? Please give some examples of what (if anything) you'd call "logical statements", and try to explain why you'd call them "logical statements". I, for one, consider statements to be statements; I've not been made aware that some statements need to be segregated into a subclass by means of the modifying word "logical". And, then, please give some examples of what (if anything) you'd call "non-logical statements", since you have made this artificial distinction.

(science is a combination of evidence and logic

Remembering that you are a despiser and enemy of logic, as you showcase (among other ways) by your hilarious debacle in which you flout the law of the excluded middle (which law is logic), I'm quite curious as to what (if anything) YOU are calling "logic", here. Especially inasmuch as you have, just now, excluded whatever you call "evidence" from whatever it is you call "logic".

, and the evidence part of that precludes the use of 'proved')

So evidence does not prove? Is that what you're saying?
Does evidence evidence (verb)?
Would you say that evidence is not proof?
Would you say that proof is not evidence?

What (if anything) would you say is the difference between evidencing the proposition, P, and proving the proposition, P?

In the OED entry you quoted earlier, we are told that evidence "indicates" a proposition to be true. What (if anything) would you say is the difference between evidencing, proving, and indicating that P is true?

-Mathematics (a self-referential system in which terms are mutually defined)

What you wrote, here, is more gobbledygook. Not only that, but the only things that are self-referential are things that think. Things that don't think are, ipso facto, things that don't refer. And things that don't refer are, ipso facto, things that are not self-referential.

-Common usage when there is no commitment to speaking precisely ('proved', 'theory' and so on).

Please tell me why you say it is right for someone not committed to speaking precisely to say "proved". Why do you consider it right to speak with no commitment to speaking precisely, other than that you wish it were so, inasmuch as you're obviously not only not committed to speaking precisely, nay, you seem regularly committed to speaking imprecisely?

 

[7djengo7]

I didn't bring up gods.

Do you mean something by your use of the word, "gods", here? I do not assume that you do; thus, I do not assume that you mean something by saying, "I didn't bring up gods." Which is why I cannot meaningfully respond to you by saying something like, "True, you didn't bring up gods," or "False, you did bring up gods." Unlike you, I make it a point to not say things meaninglessly.

Why do you keep saying the word, "gods", meaninglessly? If you want to have a conversation, you have to mean things by your use of words.

Have you no commitment to your own OP?

I don't follow what (if anything) you're trying to get at, here. Please inform me.

I don't see the word, 'god', occur once in my own OP. And, even if it were there, I don't know what (if anything) you're trying to get at.

 

[7djengo7]

Indeed, I had changed it to consequently.

Too slow. And false, anyway. But I get it, I really do; I get that you're angry and trying to vent. No problem.

 

[Lon]

As I mentioned to RD, and in the light of Stripe’s demands to discuss evidence, the god-based explanation for common descent would also need evidence of the god in question. Occam’s razor removes assumptions that do not improve an explanation. So if we add a god to common descent then that god would need to be answering more questions than it caused to be asked.

We disagree. It is essential to questions. We are looking at things of beauty, complexity, intelligence, and seeing such as the hand of like being. Imho, cutting out something like that is not superfluous, but essential.

Think of how many unanswered questions arise once you invoke a god. What is a god? How does it interact with matter? What is the origin of the god, and of its ability to organise biochemistry? Do gods arise by natural selection like the life we know about? I personally think gods do arise by natural selection, but for the present the discussion is simply about the evidence for common descent, regardless of what interpretations people may make of it.

For meaning, or specifically for science? Science can be done without a knowledge of God, but with a rather narrow scope.

I was thinking of discussing molecular clocks in the context of common descent. Haven’t quite worked that up into a thing yet.


That’s very interesting. Thanks for the link.

:up:

That would have to be a point of departure, I think. Not that science respects opinions, but nonetheless my opinion is that science is fundamentally incompatible with religious belief.

Stuart[/FONT][/SIZE]

I'm not sure that's true, Stuart. You've been here on a Christian Website for quite awhile. While 'faith' is certainly a different approach, it isn't completely blind. Kierkegaard's 'blind leap' didn't mean uncalculated, rather that some things have to be seen from the inside. All truth is circular and encapsulated of itself. Its its own veracity. There is a bit of humor among philosophy students: 1 claims nothing is real and the other lines up with a baseball bat and says 'let's test that theory.' My assertion that God exists is definitely a baseball bat: it is inevitable that His presence will be proven. I've been hit a number of times with that bat, if I ever felt the leisure to think something isn't real, that part is pretty much gone now. I've too many lumps that speak, and for me, are 'proof enough' not to ask again. It isn't always nor necessary that faith is a school of hard knocks, but those lessons have particularly stuck with me longer. He does exist.

Back to the thread: I'm convinced you've looked at animals, Fall colors, etc. and have been amazed. A sunset, a sandy beach, something. Think even longer: Why SHOULD you be impressed or amazed by anything that isn't 'meant' to be that way, UNLESS it is 'meant' to be that way.

 

[Stuu]

We disagree. It is essential to questions. We are looking at things of beauty, complexity, intelligence, and seeing such as the hand of like being. Imho, cutting out something like that is not superfluous, but essential.

Yes,we should see the hand of like beings in human-made things of beauty, complexity and intelligence.

For meaning, or specifically for science? Science can be done without a knowledge of God, but with a rather narrow scope.

Speaking personally, I find absolutely no intellectual satisfaction in ‘god knowledge’ whatever. For me that is the narrowest scope there is. If you want to know about the universe, ask an expert in a scientific field. If you want to know about the human condition, read Shakespeare and PG Wodehouse.

I'm not sure that's true, Stuart. You've been here on a Christian Website for quite awhile. While 'faith' is certainly a different approach, it isn't completely blind. Kierkegaard's 'blind leap' didn't mean uncalculated, rather that some things have to be seen from the inside. All truth is circular and encapsulated of itself. Its its own veracity. There is a bit of humor among philosophy students: 1 claims nothing is real and the other lines up with a baseball bat and says 'let's test that theory.' My assertion that God exists is definitely a baseball bat: it is inevitable that His presence will be proven. I've been hit a number of times with that bat, if I ever felt the leisure to think something isn't real, that part is pretty much gone now. I've too many lumps that speak, and for me, are 'proof enough' not to ask again. It isn't always nor necessary that faith is a school of hard knocks, but those lessons have particularly stuck with me longer. He does exist.

Leaves me cold, sorry. To me faith is a substitute for having something substantial to say. It is a celebration of ignorance.

Back to the thread: I'm convinced you've looked at animals, Fall colors, etc. and have been amazed. A sunset, a sandy beach, something. Think even longer: Why SHOULD you be impressed or amazed by anything that isn't 'meant' to be that way, UNLESS it is 'meant' to be that way.

Yes, sexual selection is probably responsible for appreciation of beauty and things like skill in various arts. It’s not directly essential for survival and reproduction, but skills in these things are signs of fitness that give an advantage in attracting a mate.

While clearly the way you feel about things is part of the lived human experience, I recommend not assuming things really are the way you feel about them. Separated twin studies show a strong genetic component to devout religious belief. I would have put you in the devout category, in which case it is possible that the way you think about your experiences is genetically directed towards religious interpretations, whereas mine might be genetically directed away from that. So it is therefore important that I not dismiss religious claims out of hand because it could be that my perception isn’t up to it. The only answer I can find is in the attempts science makes to establish objective knowledge. Since there is apparently no objective knowledge of gods to be had I carry on as if there is no such thing. It’s over to believers to be convincing. They’re not.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that your statement above is completely reasonable when considering the nature of scientific knowledge. It is a fact based on the inference from observing flies, for example. It is so good a fact it would be perverse to deny it, but as a scientific conclusion it is always provisional on the possibility that further evidence comes to light that causes us to change our view. Science is about finding the most probable explanation then attempting to disprove it: this is a very high probability explanation, and spontaneous generation of life on rotting meat is a very low probability explanation. It is right that you have not used the word ‘proved’. I know it sounds pedantic but it is the right way to consider scientific theories.

No!

We know for a FACT that maggots are fly larva. There is exactly zero chance that there even COULD be any evidence to the contrary sufficient to cause it to ever come into question, never mind sufficient to "cause us to change our view".

The light is still travelling in straight lines. It’s just the spacetime it is travelling through has been bent by the massive objects.

No, it is bending around the sun, star or other body. We KNOW this for a FACT because of repeatedly observed empirical evidence (i.e. we have observed it doing so). The idea of spacetime is the theoretical explanation for the bending, which has not yet been proved.

Are you saying that ‘The luck of the Irish’ has been replace by ‘Rare genetic mutation’? Each is a different category.

No they aren't different categories. The previous theory, which was based on superstition has been disproved by science (i.e. it has been scientific PROVEN to be false) and the true cause has be proven to be a fact through a logical investigation of the empirical data.

Let’s not forget that Galileo was put under house arrest for life by the Roman Catholic church for advocating for the heliocentric model.

The people who arrested him were Christian in name only. Neither their actions nor their doctrine where based on the bible nor anything else that could be rightly called "Christian".

And when you say ‘Hung on nothing’, that wouldn’t be a scientific description of the interaction between mass and spacetime that results in an apparent gravitational force that causes the observed motion.

Of course it would. Space, even so called "spacetime" has no substance. It has no mass, no energy nor anything else that is empirically observable, measurable or detectable in any way. Indeed, both space and time are, in fact, abstractions. They are ideas and have no ontological existence outside a thinking mind.

You can see that there is discussion between you and I on each of these, and if scientists were in the habit of writing the last word on each and closing the book with the word ‘proved’, then science would be stuck with a load of useless and out-of-date knowledge.

Nonsense! Just the opposite is true. The book is utterly closed, not only on the things I mentioned but on a million other facts of nature that are absolutely known for the hard facts that they are. "Closing the book" isn't even the right analogy, anyway. It's more of a turning of the page. There could be no advancement if ever hard fact of nature was left in the undecided (i.e. unproved) column. You do perhaps tens of thousands of things a day that all depend on facts that someone discover and proved to be true hundreds of years ago, which led to the discover of yet more facts and then more again which led to not only my ability to type this sentence on this computer I'm sitting at but your ability to see, read and respond to it on yours.

Things ‘proved’ in the past would make sat nav impossible today, unless all relevant knowledge was provisional on new evidence. Einstein improved on Newton, that was necessary for sat nav.

This is just flat out not true! It is a gross over generalization. Einstein didn't come up with Relativity as an alternative to Newton. Einstein didn't question Newton, toss out his conclusions and begin again. Einstein's work had nothing at all to do with Newton's, at least not in any direct manner. On the contrary, it was the portion of the empirical data that Newton's Law of Gravity didn't explain that created questions that needed answering. Just as Copernicus picked away at the errors that showed up when the prevailing theory was the planets orbit in perfect circles and eventual figured out and PROVED that the orbits were elliptical. Now, there is no one trying to prove that planetary orbits are something other than elliptical and they'd rightly be laughed out of the room if anyone tried it.

In other words, there are questions that science has answered and there are questions that it hasn't. Einstein was after answers to the latter, not the former.

In layperson’s terms, climate change by anthropogenic carbon emissions and evolution by natural selection (the two that you are thinking of) are proved beyond any doubt.

This is so unbelievable false that in actual fact, there is NO EVIDENCE for either!

NO EVIDENCE!!!

Anything you think is evidence is either a made up lie or is question begging stupidity. I have yet to see a single exception.

In scientific terms, they are theories that represent the best explanations we have for the observed phenomena, and are always open to further evidence.

Bull!

It is politics and nothing associated with science whatsoever.

Knowledge of both is constantly changing in subtle ways but the overall body of evidence only builds up in favour of each, and not to the contrary.

It's all cherry picked, question begging, religion based politics.

Of course you would have no objection to theories about the atom or electricity, but they should be much more controversial than either evolution or climate change.

On the contrary! Such theories are almost entirely based on observation and experiments that can be replicated in a lab or in nature itself. No computer models needed.

It is only the politics of conservative America that presents these two to you as bogey men because of your political prejudices about what ‘should be’.

Stuart

A good example of what you would call a "bald assertion" if either I or Judgerightly said it.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Stuu: Indeed. It doesn't prove anything.
If you read carefully you might see I’ve only ever used the word ‘proved’ to highlight the difference in the common usage and the scientific non-usage of that term. See my reply to Clete for more.

You’re repeating yourself. The ad nauseam fallacy. It’s really just repetition of bald assertion. I refer you to Stripe. Get back to us when you are willing to discuss evidence. I can only imagine his disappointment at this part of the conversation.

Stuart

Of course I repeat myself (just has you also have), since you're not listening.

A common coding system is NOT, ipso facto, evidence that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

It just isn't and no amount of YOUR ad nauseam fallacy will change that.

 

[Right Divider]

Good, so that's settled then.

Always has been... don't know where you've been.

Would you care to humour Stripe and substantiate that claim with evidence? It is a falsifiable claim, so it is open to disproof if it's wrong.

YOU are the one CLAIMING that ALL life is descended from a SINGLE common ancestor... YOU lack evidence to support THAT CLAIM.

I agree. No one is saying that.

Stuart

That is the atheist story of the creation of life... are you not in the atheist camp?

 

[Stuu]

We know for a FACT that maggots are fly larva. There is exactly zero chance that there even COULD be any evidence to the contrary sufficient to cause it to ever come into question, never mind sufficient to "cause us to change our view".

I would have to agree. Not exactly zero chance, but it may as well be zero. This is exactly the status of evolution by natural selection too.

No, it is bending around the sun, star or other body. We KNOW this for a FACT because of repeatedly observed empirical evidence (i.e. we have observed it doing so). The idea of spacetime is the theoretical explanation for the bending, which has not yet been proved.

If you could ride those photons of light you would see it differently. You would swear you were travelling straight. There is a similar sort of effect in the Large Hadron Collider. From an observer’s point of view there are protons whizzing around a track of 27km circumference, something like 11,000 times a second. My understanding is at that speed there is so much dilation of spacetime that the track is about four metres long, from a proton’s point of view. The effect you are describing was a prediction of Einstein that was confirmed in 1919 by Arthur Eddington, who took photos of the sky at night and during a solar eclipse, and showed a change in the apparent position of a star due to the presence of the sun. There are similar effects visible in Hubble photographs. But the point is, this is relativity, and so you can’t only see things from one frame of reference and expect to comprehend the whole picture.

No they aren't different categories. The previous theory, which was based on superstition has been disproved by science (i.e. it has been scientific PROVEN to be false) and the true cause has be proven to be a fact through a logical investigation of the empirical data.

You wrote:

It was once believed that finding a four leaf clover meant you had the luck of the Irish. Now we know for a fact that, rather than luck, it is a rare genetic mutation that accounts for it.

Are you sure you wish to stick with your assertion that ‘finding a four leaf clover meant you had the luck of the Irish’ is a scientific theory that was disproved?!

The people who arrested him were Christian in name only. Neither their actions nor their doctrine where based on the bible nor anything else that could be rightly called "Christian".

Are you saying that No True Scotsman would have locked up Galileo?

Of course it would. Space, even so called "spacetime" has no substance. It has no mass, no energy nor anything else that is empirically observable, measurable or detectable in any way. Indeed, both space and time are, in fact, abstractions. They are ideas and have no ontological existence outside a thinking mind.

That is exactly how I would describe your god. Meantime, if you are interested in what spacetime is, I recommend reading about it.

Nonsense! Just the opposite is true. The book is utterly closed, not only on the things I mentioned but on a million other facts of nature that are absolutely known for the hard facts that they are. "Closing the book" isn't even the right analogy, anyway. It's more of a turning of the page. There could be no advancement if ever hard fact of nature was left in the undecided (i.e. unproved) column. You do perhaps tens of thousands of things a day that all depend on facts that someone discover and proved to be true hundreds of years ago, which led to the discover of yet more facts and then more again which led to not only my ability to type this sentence on this computer I'm sitting at but your ability to see, read and respond to it on yours.

So no scientific theory has been subsequently proved wrong ever? What happened to the theory of the Luck of the Irish?

This is just flat out not true! It is a gross over generalization. Einstein didn't come up with Relativity as an alternative to Newton. Einstein didn't question Newton, toss out his conclusions and begin again. Einstein's work had nothing at all to do with Newton's, at least not in any direct manner. On the contrary, it was the portion of the empirical data that Newton's Law of Gravity didn't explain that created questions that needed answering. Just as Copernicus picked away at the errors that showed up when the prevailing theory was the planets orbit in perfect circles and eventual figured out and PROVED that the orbits were elliptical. Now, there is no one trying to prove that planetary orbits are something other than elliptical and they'd rightly be laughed out of the room if anyone tried it. In other words, there are questions that science has answered and there are questions that it hasn't. Einstein was after answers to the latter, not the former.

Newton’s physics is generally applicable to common practical situations for humans and other species, and is still the basis for most engineering and so on. But Newton’s physics would not have worked for satellite technology because satellites move fast enough that relativity becomes significant. Yes, Einstein answered new questions, but he also showed the limitations of Newton.

Regarding Copernicus, aren’t you confusing him with Kepler? Kepler used Brahe’s data to formulate the laws of planetary motion that describe elliptical orbits. Copernicus was heliocentrism. And isn’t a circle just a special case of an ellipse? Given the incomprehensible number of bodies in orbit around other bodies in the universe, there must be at least one that is orbiting in a circular path within the error of measurement. Or perhaps there are thousands or millions that are.

Stuu: In layperson’s terms, climate change by anthropogenic carbon emissions and evolution by natural selection (the two that you are thinking of) are proved beyond any doubt.

This is so unbelievable false that in actual fact, there is NO EVIDENCE for either! NO EVIDENCE!!! Anything you think is evidence is either a made up lie or is question begging stupidity. I have yet to see a single exception. Bull! It is politics and nothing associated with science whatsoever. It's all cherry picked, question begging, religion based politics.

It looks like I picked quite accurately the two you were thinking of.

On the contrary! Such theories [of atoms and electricity] are almost entirely based on observation and experiments that can be replicated in a lab or in nature itself. No computer models needed.

If you find the use of computer modelling shocking, you should stay away from scientific research facilities (Spoiler: they are used all the time to make testable predictions). Of course you are right to champion experiment and the collection of empirical evidence; evidence rules all else in science. But my point is about controversy. For example, the physics that explains the composition and behaviour of atoms comes from ideas in both quantum physics and relativity, two areas that are notoriously difficult to reconcile.

Electrons in the inner shell of mercury atoms move faster than in lighter atoms like hydrogen, and so their mass is greater which means the radius of their orbit is smaller which then allows the nucleus to attract the outer electrons more. This means the outer electrons are less able to be attracted to other atoms so the metallic bonding is weaker, and the melting point is lower: mercury is a liquid metal at room temperature. However, quantum physics says that the electron occupies its orbital space and doesn’t plummet into the nucleus because electrons are standing waves with a wave function that defines the space they occupy. Atoms are ‘possible’ because of this effect. Working out how the relativistic effects and the quantum effects work together has been controversial and the source of much argument for well over 100 years.

By comparison, evolution by natural selection is so simple it’s almost obviously right, although of course that’s not good enough for something to attain the status of a proper scientific theory, so it still took the genius and courage of Charles Darwin to collect evidence, formalise the theory and publish it.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

A common coding system is NOT, ipso facto, evidence that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

Let's translate so your claim is fully in English:

A common coding system is NOT, by that very fact, evidence that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

That is true, but it's not a very good argument.

The fact of all life sharing the same, inter-readable molecular system of heredity is indeed a fact. And because it is a fact, it is therefore evidence.

So, what is it evidence for? What can we say is consistent with that fact?

1. A creator god that uses the same system in all its created species? Yes, it's evidence for that.

2. Common descent, so that the same system was inherited from common ancestors? Yes, it's evidence for that.

3... some other possbility

You are confusing the concept of matching evidence to models with the concept of making a conclusion, ipso facto, about the origins of species, for example, concluding which is the best explanation choosing from possibilities 1-3...

Ipso facto, you cannot make a conclusion. To make a conclusion you require corroborating evidence for one that disproves the others.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Always has been... don't know where you've been.

Have you tried telling others here that creationists don't have a problem with evolution by natural selection?! It might be news to some of them.

YOU are the one CLAIMING that ALL life is descended from a SINGLE common ancestor... YOU lack evidence to support THAT CLAIM.

Firstly, all living species use the same system of genetic storage and transmission, and the cell machinery of one species can read the DNA of any other species.
Secondly, amino acid sequences for the same protein in different species show that some pairs of species are more closely related than are other pairs of species

So you should actually be claiming that I haven't yet presented enough evidence to conclude common ancestry from a single cell, but so far the evidence presented is entirely consistent with that model. With the third, fourth and fifth lines of evidence (give me time: you might consider not repeating the same objection over and over, unless your intention is to filibuster) you might see how the evidence starts to exclude other models in favour of common descent from a single-celled ancestor. I appreciate your impatience, but do keep those horses steady.

That is the atheist story of the creation of life... are you not in the atheist camp?

We are both atheists of a kind: we both reject tens of thousands of gods believed in by humans. I just go one god further than you.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Yes,we should see the hand of like beings in human-made things of beauty, complexity and intelligence.


Speaking personally, I find absolutely no intellectual satisfaction in ‘god knowledge’ whatever. For me that is the narrowest scope there is. If you want to know about the universe, ask an expert in a scientific field. If you want to know about the human condition, read Shakespeare and PG Wodehouse.

It begs the question. I'm not sure how your mind works. There is no way something can have deep meaning without explaining that deep meaning and it amounts to circular reasoning: Meaning is in the universe BECAUSE meaning is there, else there is none. Same with beauty or any other enjoyment. You know by more than just intuition, a sense that something with meaning made something meaningful when you eat a vanilla (or other) ice cream cone. There is no question in your mind (mind you: sight unseen ) that something happened "on purpose." Do you turn your mind off simply because you didn't see anybody make something you enjoy? I've a suspicion: You don't like "Who" but that figure is very much a 'good' being else you'd just end your life without enjoyment etc. You SHOULD become a bit more philosophical. You stop short when the REALLY important questions start being asked. A baseball bat is a quick and real reality upside the head, but without philosophy, its a bludgeon instead of equipment for something good. You lose the whole point by not asking.

Leaves me cold, sorry. To me faith is a substitute for having something substantial to say. It is a celebration of ignorance.

Sorry, shallow. There is no 'happy' in ignorance. It is my intention to tell you, you have it completely backwards. Such is the problem every atheist I've ever met. Not only no desire for imagination, but a problem with its existence. There is more than a reason (plausible, pliable, and real) for appreciations of things unseen or hard to test. Once you dissect a thing, it is dead and something of the other is lost: the life, habits, patterns, beauty. Science BETTER get with the program and not have its head in the sand else it is missing AND denying things that make life worth the effort in the first place. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" but also makes Jack miss life and the very meaning to it.

Yes, sexual selection is probably responsible for appreciation of beauty and things like skill in various arts. It’s not directly essential for survival and reproduction, but skills in these things are signs of fitness that give an advantage in attracting a mate.

It is more than that. You are trying to reason from a shallow pool instead of appreciating the thing. I'd challenge every person I know, before they get clinical, to remember that most clinics are in the employment of extending life and quality. What for? Just to keep you preoccupied until the inevitable? Not really living, just elongating dying and watching the next television episode without realizing or asking why it is you enjoy such in the first place. In many ways, it is really just selective. You find religion to be the narrow view but really haven't looked at how narrow your own is. We gravitate where we are comfortable and should work a bit at entertaining, at least, another's thought and worldview. '

How is your worldview going? Happy, satisfied and complete? Why then join a theology website? Just to cement your convictions further? Why do you believe many of us aren't satisfied with just the physical universe? I've had God interact in my life way too often to not know Who is doing it. The Bible talks about wheat and tares. Maybe tares cannot see the point of wheat and perhaps wheat cannot see the reason for the existence of tares, simply because they really are two different things, akin to a blind man not being able to see colors nor knowing if he/she can trust someone who says they see. :idunno:

While clearly the way you feel about things is part of the lived human experience, I recommend not assuming things really are the way you feel about them.

Questioning how I 'feel' is fine, but TOTALLY different than denying I'm actually, really, feeling. The analogy of the baseball bat works very well. It isn't that you don't ask some questions, its that you've grown comfortable in only asking ones that are safe and comfortable or simply not outside your fields of interest.

Separated twin studies show a strong genetic component to devout religious belief. I would have put you in the devout category, in which case it is possible that the way you think about your experiences is genetically directed towards religious interpretations, whereas mine might be genetically directed away from that.

See, this is why you SHOULD entertain ideas a bit further, like Genesis 2 coming from dirt. The bible also talks about wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc. If there is genuinely a different between us, then genetically you 'could not' change your spots nor could I. I don't think this way. The story of the wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc all are written in the hope that spots can change. I tend toward B.F.Skinner and Pavlov in my psychology, but there is a good reason why tabula rosa is given in the same class: it forces us to consider another's point of view and it forces Sociology as the next class.

So it is therefore important that I not dismiss religious claims out of hand because it could be that my perception isn’t up to it. The only answer I can find is in the attempts science makes to establish objective knowledge. Since there is apparently no objective knowledge of gods to be had I carry on as if there is no such thing. It’s over to believers to be convincing. They’re not.

Stuart

It shows no appreciation for 'different.' Science is about most often finding commonality/reproducibility, classifications and shared information but it is also important to see what isn't the same, what has changed, and importantly, 'why' such should be. Simply 'surviving' isn't a sufficient drive in life. "Survival of the fittest" is its own moral value and presupposes 'reason.' MANY science assumptions are carried by reason and meaning, implicit in the universe AND most often without wondering 'why.' Such minds stop short of continuing to ask the more pertinent and most important questions such as "why" and "bother?" The 'reason' why and bother is because there is a 'reason' for why and bother.