Society & Culture1 min ago
If God did not exist...
46 Answers
Suppose athiests like myself were right and the Universe were not created by God, if we did not have immortal souls and all the religious people were continuing on under a mistaken misaprehension.
How would the world look? What would be different?
How would the world look? What would be different?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately, jake these types of threads fizzle after just a little debate. For two reasons, they soon go off the front page and secondly, it becomes difficult to have a genuine dialog when nugatoristic, nearly ad hominem responses counter a serious, seemingly well presented position. Waldo for example, as usual responds with vacuous statements attacking positions that were never inherent ot implied in the original post.
I can (and used to) respond in kind, but soon learned (to my regret) that that response advances neither my position or any further exchange of ideas.
Actually, in one sense, my point to naomi has been reinforced. Re: Wilberforce, et al... I agree that many involved in slavery were christian (little "C")... however, when the willingness to place one's life, family and fortune on the line was required, it wasn't an athiest (I've never characterized my opponents as "dirty filthy"... etc.) that took the lead, but a Christian (big "C"), driven by his belief in the common humanity of all men found in Scripture that finally brought an end to it. The exact same thing happened here in the U.S. Even the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's was totally driven and guided by the churches, black and white both, against terrible odds of, yes other christians.
Contd.
I can (and used to) respond in kind, but soon learned (to my regret) that that response advances neither my position or any further exchange of ideas.
Actually, in one sense, my point to naomi has been reinforced. Re: Wilberforce, et al... I agree that many involved in slavery were christian (little "C")... however, when the willingness to place one's life, family and fortune on the line was required, it wasn't an athiest (I've never characterized my opponents as "dirty filthy"... etc.) that took the lead, but a Christian (big "C"), driven by his belief in the common humanity of all men found in Scripture that finally brought an end to it. The exact same thing happened here in the U.S. Even the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's was totally driven and guided by the churches, black and white both, against terrible odds of, yes other christians.
Contd.
Contd
The fact remains, that in a completely naturalistic worldview, the logical outworking of Darwinistic evolution that has as it basic tennet "chance" we should expect domination by the "fittest" as exampled in the animal world. Waldo surely knows that Darwin's own position was one of racisim... go no further than the full title to his first edition tome The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection�or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and this quote from the one on my desk "...At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178). "... Seems much more than "strawman twaddle" to me.
This thread began as an opportunity to provide answers, or at least thoughtful views, for jake to consider or not... to bad it devolves (pun only slightly intended) into what you Brit's call a slanging match...
Have a really nice day!
The fact remains, that in a completely naturalistic worldview, the logical outworking of Darwinistic evolution that has as it basic tennet "chance" we should expect domination by the "fittest" as exampled in the animal world. Waldo surely knows that Darwin's own position was one of racisim... go no further than the full title to his first edition tome The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection�or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and this quote from the one on my desk "...At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178). "... Seems much more than "strawman twaddle" to me.
This thread began as an opportunity to provide answers, or at least thoughtful views, for jake to consider or not... to bad it devolves (pun only slightly intended) into what you Brit's call a slanging match...
Have a really nice day!
Oh, but it is absolutely strawman twaddle. There is little more twaddlesome among all the tiresome twaddle in the anti-evolutionary canon. It is a giant wickerman of twaddle.
It's boring and lazy anti-evolutionist twaddle copied and pasted direct from a thousand and one lazy websites without a jot of understand of what it is they are citicising.
It is, in short, the very worst twaddle in all of twaddledom, and since we both know that you post this eggregious and mendacious crapola with a deliberate aim to miscredit evolution, it can hardly be wrong to call you out on it.
The abusive ad hominim of Darwin's alleged racism, then:
Darwin was unquestionably racist by today's standards. However, by the standards of the day he was something of a liberal and was a vocal opponent of slavery and endorsed the notion of full legal rights for all races, and contrary to the thinking of the day, states in the Descent of Man that he considered all humans to be of the same species:
It's boring and lazy anti-evolutionist twaddle copied and pasted direct from a thousand and one lazy websites without a jot of understand of what it is they are citicising.
It is, in short, the very worst twaddle in all of twaddledom, and since we both know that you post this eggregious and mendacious crapola with a deliberate aim to miscredit evolution, it can hardly be wrong to call you out on it.
The abusive ad hominim of Darwin's alleged racism, then:
Darwin was unquestionably racist by today's standards. However, by the standards of the day he was something of a liberal and was a vocal opponent of slavery and endorsed the notion of full legal rights for all races, and contrary to the thinking of the day, states in the Descent of Man that he considered all humans to be of the same species:
"But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having inter-crossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."
There are a great many similar quotes from all over the book that reinforce this point.
Even if Darwin were the most reprehensible man on earth it has not one jot of bearing on whether evolution is correct. Martin Luther was an virrulent anti-Semite, therefore by your logic you would have to argue his views on religion were wrong. Of course, you won't because we all understand that theories, particuarly scientific ones, stand and fall on whether they can be falsified and whether they can tested and predictions made from them. It would be like Bletchley Park refusing to accept Alan Turing's solving of the Enigma machine, claiming his homosexuality must affect his ability to crack codes.
There are a great many similar quotes from all over the book that reinforce this point.
Even if Darwin were the most reprehensible man on earth it has not one jot of bearing on whether evolution is correct. Martin Luther was an virrulent anti-Semite, therefore by your logic you would have to argue his views on religion were wrong. Of course, you won't because we all understand that theories, particuarly scientific ones, stand and fall on whether they can be falsified and whether they can tested and predictions made from them. It would be like Bletchley Park refusing to accept Alan Turing's solving of the Enigma machine, claiming his homosexuality must affect his ability to crack codes.
Incidentally, the creationists Louis Agassiz, George MacCready Price and Henry Morris were all racists. I trust you'll campaign against what they say too as a result of your laudable anti-racism stance?
'Race' as used in "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection�or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" means 'varieties', and doesn't even refer human races (which are barely mentioned in the book anyway).
I notice again you repeat the basic error that evolution works by chance. Do you need this explained why this is incorrect (or at the very least imcomplete) again? I can only wonder at your motives for repeatly claiming the same thing in the face of correction, particularly since you seem to have access to plenty of sources that would prove your view is wrong.
Sigh... struck a nerve there, did I, Waldo? And you don't consult sources? My admiration is unbounded!
Be that as it may, just a little later in the publication under discussion, Darwin writes:
"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."
As I'm sure you know (without consultation) Thomas Henry Huxley, the friend and consumate defender of Darwin, states:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites..."
Secondly, you're the one that corrected yourself to state (on another thread) : "That doesn't preclude the mutations in the population being random". Which, I took at face value, and with which I agree. So, is that another example of something only you can understand, since, obviously I cannot? Or is it just, well... twaddlesome? Amicitiae nostrae memoriam spero sempiternam fore... Cicero
Be that as it may, just a little later in the publication under discussion, Darwin writes:
"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."
As I'm sure you know (without consultation) Thomas Henry Huxley, the friend and consumate defender of Darwin, states:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites..."
Secondly, you're the one that corrected yourself to state (on another thread) : "That doesn't preclude the mutations in the population being random". Which, I took at face value, and with which I agree. So, is that another example of something only you can understand, since, obviously I cannot? Or is it just, well... twaddlesome? Amicitiae nostrae memoriam spero sempiternam fore... Cicero
The issue isn't with the use of sources, FFS. Of course I use sources. The issue is with repeating stuff without seemingly understanding it. You apparently are incapable of understanding what is fallacious about standard anti-evolutionist claptrap like 'Darwin is racist'.
If Darwin were the most racist man to have ever lived, it wouldn't affect whether evolution is right or wrong one jot. That is a classic logical fallacy; an abusive ad hominim. It implies there is a logical connection between the person and the argument. Given that evolution doesn't even recognise 'race' as a valid term and that genetics proves that so-called racial differences are at best trivial, there is no case to answer here.
To try and suggest that because Darwin's friend had unpleasant views evolution suffers merely compounds the fallacy.
Incidentally, starting about ten years before Origin of Species was published, there was indeed an attempt to justify racism using science, a thing called 'scientific racism', used by devout Southerners who already believed the bible gave justification for slavery (which, as already discussed, it does) such as Reverend Richard Furman and Thomas R. Cobb. Darwin was against it.
Of course, that he did so says nothing either way about the validity of evolution.
Evolution certainly does no such thing, and cannot since it is a naturalistic process.
I did not 'correct myself' in any previous thread, merely expanded upon something after you apparently experienced difficulty in following what Chakka and I were discussing so you could understand. Any basic primer on evolution would explain the same concepts in the same way, so I find myself back at the issue of using sources once more.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant
If Darwin were the most racist man to have ever lived, it wouldn't affect whether evolution is right or wrong one jot. That is a classic logical fallacy; an abusive ad hominim. It implies there is a logical connection between the person and the argument. Given that evolution doesn't even recognise 'race' as a valid term and that genetics proves that so-called racial differences are at best trivial, there is no case to answer here.
To try and suggest that because Darwin's friend had unpleasant views evolution suffers merely compounds the fallacy.
Incidentally, starting about ten years before Origin of Species was published, there was indeed an attempt to justify racism using science, a thing called 'scientific racism', used by devout Southerners who already believed the bible gave justification for slavery (which, as already discussed, it does) such as Reverend Richard Furman and Thomas R. Cobb. Darwin was against it.
Of course, that he did so says nothing either way about the validity of evolution.
Evolution certainly does no such thing, and cannot since it is a naturalistic process.
I did not 'correct myself' in any previous thread, merely expanded upon something after you apparently experienced difficulty in following what Chakka and I were discussing so you could understand. Any basic primer on evolution would explain the same concepts in the same way, so I find myself back at the issue of using sources once more.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant
Seems to me the sanctuary of a weak argument is to forcefully declare that the opponent has no concept or even the most basic of understanding of the subject under discussion. That, used with a selection of perjoratives, serves to dismiss any further discussion.
The idea that Eugenics, especially as used by the Third Reich to justify racial cleansing is not mine. Nor is the clear connection, at least for those in a position of unquestioned power within the Reich, with Darwinian Evoloution. You can do the research, since, obviously I would not be able to understand the contents.
You could start here, for example: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was released in 2004 (paperback edition in 2005) with Palgrave Macmillan in New York, a major publisher of historical scholarship. (On my desk, by the way).
"In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality."
The clarification discussed was an example of a pardigm shift from "Evolution is not random".
followed by another accusation that the subject isn't comprehended.
Contd.
The idea that Eugenics, especially as used by the Third Reich to justify racial cleansing is not mine. Nor is the clear connection, at least for those in a position of unquestioned power within the Reich, with Darwinian Evoloution. You can do the research, since, obviously I would not be able to understand the contents.
You could start here, for example: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was released in 2004 (paperback edition in 2005) with Palgrave Macmillan in New York, a major publisher of historical scholarship. (On my desk, by the way).
"In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality."
The clarification discussed was an example of a pardigm shift from "Evolution is not random".
followed by another accusation that the subject isn't comprehended.
Contd.
Contd,
From TalkOrigins (definitely not a Creationist site: "The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote [1972:114]:
"The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.
But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms."
The author of the essay , Jay Wilkins then spends the balance of the lengthy tome defending a position similar to yours, but, with some major disagreements. Here, you can, if you choose, read it yourself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance. html
Point being, just as the task of defining the term species has no consensus, neither does any conciseness concerning "randomness". And, that, my worhty opponent, has been my point all along...
From TalkOrigins (definitely not a Creationist site: "The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote [1972:114]:
"The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.
But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms."
The author of the essay , Jay Wilkins then spends the balance of the lengthy tome defending a position similar to yours, but, with some major disagreements. Here, you can, if you choose, read it yourself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance. html
Point being, just as the task of defining the term species has no consensus, neither does any conciseness concerning "randomness". And, that, my worhty opponent, has been my point all along...
It's interesting that though you imply I am taking sanctuary in a weak argument that stifles debate, you continue to post replies of several thousand words, which rather suggests the contrary. You then post further logically flawed 'arguments'.
If you�d been paying attention, you may have noticed what I said about Social Darwinism on page 1 of this thread. There is no suggestion that SD doesn't exist and hasn't been used to justify atrocities. I don't have your book on my desk, but I wonder whether you can tell me whether your book discusses the fact that SD isn't based in the ideas of Darwin but on those of the Larmarkian Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism. You can take it back further to Hobbes, via the Rev T Maltus. Does it say how the only thing SD has in common with Darwinism is the name?
I note you missed the author's name of "From Darwin to Hitler". Would this be because Richard Weikart is a fellow of the anti-evolution, pro-Intelligent Design Discovery Institute?
His book has been described thus: "This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs � such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history." Ann Taylor Allen, Prof of history, Uni of Louisville.
If you�d been paying attention, you may have noticed what I said about Social Darwinism on page 1 of this thread. There is no suggestion that SD doesn't exist and hasn't been used to justify atrocities. I don't have your book on my desk, but I wonder whether you can tell me whether your book discusses the fact that SD isn't based in the ideas of Darwin but on those of the Larmarkian Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism. You can take it back further to Hobbes, via the Rev T Maltus. Does it say how the only thing SD has in common with Darwinism is the name?
I note you missed the author's name of "From Darwin to Hitler". Would this be because Richard Weikart is a fellow of the anti-evolution, pro-Intelligent Design Discovery Institute?
His book has been described thus: "This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs � such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history." Ann Taylor Allen, Prof of history, Uni of Louisville.
I'm sure it was simple oversight that made you forget to mention your book was in no sense whatsoever a balanced view, written by a ding dong with an axe to grind, and definitely not a completely bog-standard failure by an IDer to be intellectually honest.
The quote from Talk Origins can be found on this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance. html
You will note - because you have, of course, read it - that stated conclusion of the entire article is "Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.".
You will also note - because you have apparently read it - that the very next sentence after your quote from Jacques Monod reads "This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed".
Your point about randomness is essentially BS and I grow tired of being told by someone as intellectually dishonest as you that I do not understand the evolutionary equivalent of 1+1=2.
By the way, again in that article on Talk Origins that we all know you've read, there's a wonderfully concise explanation that should at least give pause for thought in your mantra about 'species'. It starts at "Several important conclusions fall out from this way of modelling change". Perhaps you could read that bit again..?
The quote from Talk Origins can be found on this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance. html
You will note - because you have, of course, read it - that stated conclusion of the entire article is "Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.".
You will also note - because you have apparently read it - that the very next sentence after your quote from Jacques Monod reads "This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed".
Your point about randomness is essentially BS and I grow tired of being told by someone as intellectually dishonest as you that I do not understand the evolutionary equivalent of 1+1=2.
By the way, again in that article on Talk Origins that we all know you've read, there's a wonderfully concise explanation that should at least give pause for thought in your mantra about 'species'. It starts at "Several important conclusions fall out from this way of modelling change". Perhaps you could read that bit again..?
Did I mention pejoratives? Thought so.... As usual, any counter claims and presentations are deemed, in light of your superior knowledge, to be non-valid and worthy of only disdain and dismissal out of hand. (Perhaps you could illuminate us less fortunate mortals on the subject of genetic drift and it's non-randomness).
Numerous authors disagree with your understanding, and I'm sure they all have nothing worthy to say. However, in the interest of balance I believe it's important that they are at east considered. You are certainly welcome to your position and if it weren't so dismissive of all other offerings, I would think it might have merit and say, in departing, we must agree to disagree. However, since I'm so intellectually dishonest (there must be a descriptor in there somewhere) with no ability to comprehed 1 + 1 = 2 (are we sure), then it's probably best to leave the discussion where it lies. Did I mention slanging match, jake?
Numerous authors disagree with your understanding, and I'm sure they all have nothing worthy to say. However, in the interest of balance I believe it's important that they are at east considered. You are certainly welcome to your position and if it weren't so dismissive of all other offerings, I would think it might have merit and say, in departing, we must agree to disagree. However, since I'm so intellectually dishonest (there must be a descriptor in there somewhere) with no ability to comprehed 1 + 1 = 2 (are we sure), then it's probably best to leave the discussion where it lies. Did I mention slanging match, jake?
I tried to follow Clanads and Waldos arguments line by line, and although I could understand each line, by the time I got to the end of each post, I thought, "What did that really say?"
I don't consider myself to be a complete knuckle dragger, in fact, on a bell curve measuring intelligence, I would probably come somewhere in the middle, but I do have tremendous difficulty trying to follow the pro and con arguments in the posts above.
I don't think that prohibits me from holding my Christian viewpoint, as I am sure that Jesus Christ did not require his followers to hold a Phd in order to comprehend His simple message.
However, I would like to thank both Clanad and Waldo for raising the game, and I sincerely hop that both will return on this and other threads to impart their deep knowledge of the subject.
Thank you both.
I don't consider myself to be a complete knuckle dragger, in fact, on a bell curve measuring intelligence, I would probably come somewhere in the middle, but I do have tremendous difficulty trying to follow the pro and con arguments in the posts above.
I don't think that prohibits me from holding my Christian viewpoint, as I am sure that Jesus Christ did not require his followers to hold a Phd in order to comprehend His simple message.
However, I would like to thank both Clanad and Waldo for raising the game, and I sincerely hop that both will return on this and other threads to impart their deep knowledge of the subject.
Thank you both.
Latest Posts
Crosswords15 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
Road rules37 mins ago
Business & Finance38 mins ago
