How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[ElanJo]

As you say, they are assumptions. Dawkins has never argued, to my knowledge at least - and, as you have found out, googles knowledge as well, that evolution disproves the existence of (a) God.
It is an answer to a part of the mysteries of life, and in that sense satisfies the non believer on the subject of how we were 'created' - which previously was monopolised by theism, but that's all it is. The understanding and acknowledgement of evolution will naturally lead to one questioning his/her theistic beliefs but, as evidenced, not necessarily abandoning them altogether.

So it’s back to Part 1, it could be a long time before I get to Part 2 at this rate.
First, I do hope you're not one of those who get sniffy about using google or wiki etc, I certainly wouldn't want to add to Dawkins' overflowing coffers by actually buying any of his propaganda. Second, a plea not to write "(a) God" instead of just God. I keep expecting "(b) something else". Thirdly the part I have highlighted above I just can't let pass.

I don’t know whether you a paraphrasing or quoting Dawkins. Either way it is an example of how he leads his admirers away from positive engagement and towards contemptuous arrogance. This is why I think Dawkins is dangerous. He has spent a long time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people yet he persists with a parody. Dawkins constantly takes the most literal, least sophisticated, reading of religious myth as if it were historical truth. He fails completely to understand that religious faith is not primarily a matter of the intellect, that it is essentially an expression of commitment, the acceptance of a particular revelation. (I'm not saying all religious faith is necessarily good of course, but it is not the same as belief in God. You can be religious and not believe in God and vice versa just like Mr Muttley.)

I thought Part 1 was done with? We both now agree that Dawkins does not claim that evolution proves that god does not exist.

I don’t know whether you a paraphrasing or quoting Dawkins. Either way it is an example of how he leads his admirers away from positive engagement and towards contemptuous arrogance.

I'm not sure how my explanation of the quote you brought up does that at all. It's simply that evolution gives the non believer an answer on how humans etc got here. You could imagine a pre Darwin atheist being asked "if you don't believe in God then how do you explain something as simple as your own existence? How did you get here?". The atheist could only say "I don't know". Today the atheist has an answer, and thus the atheist is more intellectually satisfied than s/he previously would have been. Nothing contemptuous or arrogant there as far as I can tell.

I've got no problem with google or wiki, no. They're a great resource. The only thing I'd ask you not to do is link me to and ask me to read entire essays etc. So for instance if you were to say "i believe in X because (and here you link me to a book or an essay)" I'm highly unlikely to read it. If you say "I believe X because (and here you quote the actual argument as mentioned in a book or essay - let's say William Lan Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument) that's fine with me. And, of course, I'd do the same.


As for Dawkins' general tactic with regards to religion. Ther are many people who take the Bible to be literal truth so just because Dawkins may at times take it in this light doesn't mean he is wrong for doing so. It's understandable for an evolutationary biologist to centre his main efforts on undermining those who deny evolution on religious grounds. This is getting off topic tho and I'm not about to defend Dawkins on everything anyway. There are things that I simply do not agree with him on.

 

[johnny crossan]

So it’s back to Part 1, it could be a long time before I get to Part 2 at this rate.
First, I do hope you're not one of those who get sniffy about using google or wiki etc, I certainly wouldn't want to add to Dawkins' overflowing coffers by actually buying any of his propaganda. Second, a plea not to write "(a) God" instead of just God. I keep expecting "(b) something else". Thirdly the part I have highlighted above I just can't let pass.

I don’t know whether you a paraphrasing or quoting Dawkins. Either way it is an example of how he leads his admirers away from positive engagement and towards contemptuous arrogance. This is why I think Dawkins is dangerous. He has spent a long time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people yet he persists with a parody. Dawkins constantly takes the most literal, least sophisticated, reading of religious myth, in this case a creation story, as if it were historical truth. He fails completely to understand that religious faith is not primarily a matter of the intellect, that it is essentially an expression of commitment, the acceptance of a particular revelation. (I'm not saying all religious faith is necessarily good of course, but it is not the same as belief in God. You can be religious and not believe in God (like Theravadin Buddhists) and vice versa (just like Mr Muttley.)

I thought Part 1 was done with? We both now agree that Dawkins does not claim that evolution proves that god does not exist.

I don’t know whether you a paraphrasing or quoting Dawkins. Either way it is an example of how he leads his admirers away from positive engagement and towards contemptuous arrogance.

I'm not sure how my explanation of the quote you brought up does that at all. It's simply that evolution gives the non believer an answer on how humans etc got here. You could imagine a pre Darwin atheist being asked "if you don't believe in God then how do you explain something as simple as your own existence? How did you get here?". The atheist could only say "I don't know". Today the atheist has an answer, and thus the atheist is more intellectually satisfied than s/he previously would have been. Nothing contemptuous or arrogant there as far as I can tell.

I've got no problem with google or wiki, no. They're a great resource. The only thing I'd ask you not to do is link me to and ask me to read entire essays etc. So for instance if you were to say "i believe in X because (and here you link me to a book or an essay)" I'm highly unlikely to read it. If you say "I believe X because (and here you quote the actual argument as mentioned in a book or essay - let's say William Lan Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument) that's fine with me. And, of course, I'd do the same.


As for Dawkins' general tactic with regards to religion. Ther are many people who take the Bible to be literal truth so just because Dawkins may at times take it in this light doesn't mean he is wrong for doing so. It's understandable for an evolutationary biologist to centre his main efforts on undermining those who deny evolution on religious grounds. This is getting off topic tho and I'm not about to defend Dawkins on everything anyway. There are things that I simply do not agree with him on.

Surely not off-topic EJ, the real creationists are few and far between outside the old Bible Belt but to Dawkins everybody is at least a closet creationist. I dimly recall myself being included in their ranks ......

Right, I'll begin my studies for Part 2 and no links CMHAHTD.

 

[ElanJo]

I thought Part 1 was done with? We both now agree that Dawkins does not claim that evolution proves that god does not exist.



I'm not sure how my explanation of the quote you brought up does that at all. It's simply that evolution gives the non believer an answer on how humans etc got here. You could imagine a pre Darwin atheist being asked "if you don't believe in God then how do you explain something as simple as your own existence? How did you get here?". The atheist could only say "I don't know". Today the atheist has an answer, and thus the atheist is more intellectually satisfied than s/he previously would have been. Nothing contemptuous or arrogant there as far as I can tell.

I've got no problem with google or wiki, no. They're a great resource. The only thing I'd ask you not to do is link me to and ask me to read entire essays etc. So for instance if you were to say "i believe in X because (and here you link me to a book or an essay)" I'm highly unlikely to read it. If you say "I believe X because (and here you quote the actual argument as mentioned in a book or essay - let's say William Lan Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument) that's fine with me. And, of course, I'd do the same.


As for Dawkins' general tactic with regards to religion. Ther are many people who take the Bible to be literal truth so just because Dawkins may at times take it in this light doesn't mean he is wrong for doing so. It's understandable for an evolutationary biologist to centre his main efforts on undermining those who deny evolution on religious grounds. This is getting off topic tho and I'm not about to defend Dawkins on everything anyway. There are things that I simply do not agree with him on.

Surely not off-topic EJ, the real creationists are few and far between outside the old Bible Belt but to Dawkins everybody is at least a closet creationist. I dimly recall myself being included in their ranks ......

Right, I'll begin my studies for Part 2 and no links CMHAHTD.

You'd be surprised just how many people in the US deny evolution outright. 40% of Americans If I remember correctly.

"CMHAHTD" lol, what's that stand for?

edit:
Here's one example:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

Many studies have been done and they don't tend to deviate much from this.

 

[johnny crossan]

Thought you'd never ask - Cross My Heart And Hope To Die
Dawkins should be sacked immediately if that chart's right btw - I mean what would the rest of the world be voting - the man's campaign is an unmitigated disaster!

Well on to Part 2 with a quick reminder then.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]

But what is his evidence for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God. I must admit that all this savagery and blind chance is disconcerting but as the Victorians used to say about sexual intercourse: "if God decided that we should reproduce in such a disgusting way, then it is for us to accept this fact and put it in context."

As for Dennett, you posted a video and then claimed that his answer as to why evolution is unguided is because there is no god. I don't know what to say to this... it's just beyond pathetic. I've got no patience for you.

If Dawkins believes that evolution (properly understood) entails atheism but can’t bring himself to say it there are no such qualms with Dennett. He is happy to be introduced as someone who has spent his long career using Darwinism to justify atheism. He uses “Darwin’s Strange Inversion” as a shorthand to introduce the familiar God killer syllogism beloved of all the ultras and offered as the principal argument against the existence of God in The God Delusion. No place for purpose, intelligence, design, morality or God in the theory of evolution. Naturalism plain and simple and unadorned, not smart, just a mechanical struggle by warring genes to make the best survival vehicle. My point is simply and obviously that for the theist by definition evolution must be guided by God. Religious faith is logically and chronologically prior to evolutionary theorization. Ruse makes exactly the same point in the final video snatch when he says that people "make religious or non-religious commitments" for reasons other than science.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wQYDJuUys[/youtube]

I think Plantinga put it best just a few months ago in the Higher Education Chronicle:

“God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.”

 

[ElanJo]

Thought you'd never ask - Cross My Heart And Hope To Die
Dawkins should be sacked immediately if that chart's right btw - I mean what would the rest of the world be voting - the man's campaign is an unmitigated disaster!

Well on to Part 2 with a quick reminder then.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]

But what is his evidence for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God. I must admit that all this savagery and blind chance is disconcerting but as the Victorians used to say about sexual intercourse: "if God decided that we should reproduce in such a disgusting way, then it is for us to accept this fact and put it in context."

As for Dennett, you posted a video and then claimed that his answer as to why evolution is unguided is because there is no god. I don't know what to say to this... it's just beyond pathetic. I've got no patience for you.

If Dawkins believes that evolution (properly understood) entails atheism but can’t bring himself to say it there are no such qualms with Dennett. He is happy to be introduced as someone who has spent his long career using Darwinism to justify atheism. He uses “Darwin’s Strange Inversion” as a shorthand to introduce the familiar God killer syllogism beloved of all the ultras and offered as the principal argument against the existence of God in The God Delusion. No place for purpose, intelligence, design, morality or God in the theory of evolution. Naturalism plain and simple and unadorned, not smart, just a mechanical struggle by warring genes to make the best survival vehicle. My point is simply and obviously that for the theist by definition evolution must be guided by God. Religious faith is logically and chronologically prior to evolutionary theorization. Ruse makes exactly the same point in the final video snatch when he says that people "make religious or non-religious commitments" for reasons other than science.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wQYDJuUys[/youtube]

I think Plantinga put it best just a few months ago in the Higher Education Chronicle:

“God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.”

lol, to be fair to Dawkins religion had a slight head start on him ;)

I could take issue with a number of things you've wrote here, and would be happy to if you want to discuss these sorts of things (ie. the notion of guided evolution, reasons for belief etc.) further but the main thing here is your initial claim that Dennet believes that Evolution via natural selection cannot be guided because there is no God. It seems to me that you're straying away from this. Infact the only part of your post directly relating to this claim, as far as I can tell, is the following:

He is happy to be introduced as someone who has spent his long career using Darwinism to justify atheism.

Even if he was happy with the introduction (I'm not sure how you would know this?) how does it show the following claim of yours...

But what is his evidence for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God

to be a valid one?

I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring everything else you wrote, as I said I'd be happy to talk about such things, it's just that the bulk of your post is not centred on defending your claim about Dennett.


PS. What is the name of this programme? I've seen it before but can't remember the title.

 

[johnny crossan]

Thought you'd never ask - Cross My Heart And Hope To Die
Dawkins should be sacked immediately if that chart's right btw - I mean what would the rest of the world be voting - the man's campaign is an unmitigated disaster!

Well on to Part 2 with a quick reminder then.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]

If Dawkins believes that evolution (properly understood) entails atheism but can’t bring himself to say it there are no such qualms with Dennett. He is happy to be introduced as someone who has spent his long career using Darwinism to justify atheism. He uses “Darwin’s Strange Inversion” as a shorthand to introduce the familiar God killer syllogism beloved of all the ultras and offered as the principal argument against the existence of God in The God Delusion. No place for purpose, intelligence, design, morality or God in the theory of evolution. Naturalism plain and simple and unadorned, not smart, just a mechanical struggle by warring genes to make the best survival vehicle. My point is simply and obviously that for the theist by definition evolution must be guided by God. Religious faith is logically and chronologically prior to evolutionary theorization. Ruse makes exactly the same point in the final video snatch when he says that people "make religious or non-religious commitments" for reasons other than science.

I think Plantinga put it best just a few months ago in the Higher Education Chronicle:

“God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.”

lol, to be fair to Dawkins religion had a slight head start on him ;)

I could take issue with a number of things you've wrote here, and would be happy to if you want to discuss these sorts of things (ie. the notion of guided evolution, reasons for belief etc.) further but the main thing here is your initial claim that Dennet believes that Evolution via natural selection cannot be guided because there is no God. It seems to me that you're straying away from this. Infact the only part of your post directly relating to this claim, as far as I can tell, is the following:

He is happy to be introduced as someone who has spent his long career using Darwinism to justify atheism.

Even if he was happy with the introduction (I'm not sure how you would know this?) how does it show the following claim of yours...

But what is his evidence for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God

to be a valid one?

I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring everything else you wrote, as I said I'd be happy to talk about such things, it's just that the bulk of your post is not centred on defending your claim about Dennett.


PS. What is the name of this programme? I've seen it before but can't remember the title.

I don't see the problem here. To me when Dennett says there is no purpose, direction etc etc involved in evolution he is saying that it is unguided and Godless. The give-away is his reference to the "strange inversion" - God's purpose becomes random survival, God is not required to give meaning to existence. That just doesn't follow if you happen to believe in a God who directs His creation. Evolution to a believer like me is His mechanism. If Dennett did believe in God he wouldn't say evolution is unguided! My point is simply that Dennett is wrong to assert that evolution is a Godless process, for him as an atheist it is but that's just a bolt-on bit of philosophical theology of his own, it doesn't follow from the theory of evolution at all.

The clips are from one of the films in the BBC Darwin season last year it's called "Did Darwin Kill God?" I think its conclusion would give us a long argument!

 

[ElanJo]

lol, to be fair to Dawkins religion had a slight head start on him ;)

I could take issue with a number of things you've wrote here, and would be happy to if you want to discuss these sorts of things (ie. the notion of guided evolution, reasons for belief etc.) further but the main thing here is your initial claim that Dennet believes that Evolution via natural selection cannot be guided because there is no God. It seems to me that you're straying away from this. Infact the only part of your post directly relating to this claim, as far as I can tell, is the following:



Even if he was happy with the introduction (I'm not sure how you would know this?) how does it show the following claim of yours...
to be a valid one?

I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring everything else you wrote, as I said I'd be happy to talk about such things, it's just that the bulk of your post is not centred on defending your claim about Dennett.


PS. What is the name of this programme? I've seen it before but can't remember the title.

I don't see the problem here. To me when Dennett says there is no purpose, direction etc etc involved in evolution he is saying that it is unguided and Godless. The give-away is his reference to the "strange inversion" - God's purpose becomes random survival, God is not required to give meaning to existence. That just doesn't follow if you happen to believe in a God who directs His creation. Evolution to a believer like me is His mechanism. If Dennett did believe in God he wouldn't say evolution is unguided! My point is simply that Dennett is wrong to assert that evolution is a Godless process, for him as an atheist it is but that's just a bolt-on bit of philosophical theology of his own, it doesn't follow from the theory of evolution at all.

The clips are from one of the films in the BBC Darwin season last year it's called "Did Darwin Kill God?" I think its conclusion would give us a long argument!

The problem is the causal nature you ascribe to Dennetts reasoning. You're saying that Dennett thinks evolution is unguided because he, according to yourself***, says that no God exists.

But what is his evidence for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God

You haven't shown this to be the case.

***I'm sure that he doesn't believe in a God but I doubt that he makes the claim that no God could exist.

BTW, plenty of religious people, even Christians - such as Kenneth R. Miller - view evolution as unguided. There's a distinction to be made between "guided" evolution and a God using the laws of nature to create sentient life. Evolution is not "guided", without even getting into specifics within the field we can just look to Occam's razor, but I suppose a God could have set the laws of the universe and then sat back and watched the resulting processes uncoil so to speak. A very wasteful and extremely violent (and unnecessarily so) way to go about it I would have thought tho.

Ah, yes, I remember that title. Did Darwin kill God? I think we can say that he killed some conceptions of God but not all.

 

[Skashion]

Would you agree that God isn't needed for evolution to function?

 

[tonea2003]

Would you agree that God isn't needed for evolution to function?

absolutely, if he/she/it isn't there in the first place!!

 

[johnny crossan]

Would you agree that God isn't needed for evolution to function?

No - God is needed for the universe (or multiverse) to function and evolution is a process within that. Nothing could function if there was nothing. Fortunately for us there is something.