Refuting the ARGUMENT BY DESIGN.

by nicolaou 122 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Nickolas

  Isn't it all philosophy, though? Other ologies don't require belief at all. You don't have to believe in biology to become a biologist. Same with chemistry, although the earliest form of chemistry, alchemy, did. Another is astronomy and, again, it finds its roots in astrology, which was a study that also required belief, as did alchemy, in something irrational. You don't have to believe in myths to study mythology - it is usually a given that you do not - just as you don't need to believe the fantasies written by J. R. R. Tolkien in order to become expert in them. I appreciate that there will inevitably be atheist theologians, but are there any theologians who were atheist when they set out to become theologians? I would guess not, per your answer above. I studied and got my HBScF because I was in love with the forest. In order to find out as much as you can about God, it helps a great deal if you love Him first. Why else would you bother?

  An observation, though. I don't know anyone who became a graduate forester who decided afterward that they don't love the forest.
• 

  PSacramento

  I appreciate that there will inevitably be atheist theologians, but are there any theologians who were atheist when they set out to become theologians? I would guess not, per your answer above. I studied and got my HBScF because I was in love with the forest. In order to find out as much as you can about God, it helps a great deal if you love Him first. Why else would you bother?

  An observation, though. I don't know anyone who became a graduate forester who decided afterward that they don't love the forest.

  I know of soem that started atheist and became theologians, but AFTER they became believers not during the process of study.

  It seems to me and this could be just my circle of people I know, that more religious people read athiest books and writings than the other wat around.

  It may be only me though...

  I think that many people go into theology or religious studies with a set idea, preconceived notions and can tell you this, theological studies is NOT the place for that because they WILL get tested and shown to NOT be "concrete" as you may think they are.

  At least that has been my expereince.
• 

  sizemik

  Not to put down any comments that have been made but I think it's a shame that the author of a thread can't click a button to close the discussion.

  Nic I'm astounded! . . . Larsinger and OBVES are not even here. You really must get past this "censorship of all that irritates" crap. Seriously dude . . . you're better than that. Tell me your just kidding . . .
• 

  Nickolas

  It seems to me and this could be just my circle of people I know, that more religious people read athiest books and writings than the other wat around.

  I think you're right there, Paul. Maybe that's why more theists become atheists than the other way around, because the honest ones are more inclined to test their faith, whereas most atheists I know have pretty much made up their minds. Could it be that theists in general have a more open mind than atheists in general? I'll think on that while I get ready for dinner.

  Later.
• 

  nicolaou

  Wasn't kidding sizemik, just really, really tired and posting from the hip. You were quite right when you posted in my other thread about censorship, guess I need to chill out a little more.

  Pass the scotch buddy . . . .
• 

  JonathanH

  @ nickolas,the math adds up to more people converting to atheism than theism without any psychology necessary.

  You aren't factoring in that most atheists were religious to begin with (the majority of the earth's population is religious, so most are born into a religion and convert as adults), but not many religious were atheists to begin with. So for an atheist to become a theist it means he had to go from theist, to atheist, and then back to theist. Statistically that sequence is less likely than going from theist to atheist. And given the paucity of atheists in the world, the number of cultural atheists converting to theism would be negligible.

  Or if you do want to throw some psychology into it, the likely hood of throwing off your cultural bias by examining the evidence, and then putting it back on by re-examining the same evidence isn't particularly likely.

  Furthermore the logic of the statement isn't sound. If you change it from atheism-theism, to anything else, does it sound reasonable? Alot of geocentrists convert to heliocentrism, but not many heliocentrics convert to geocentrism. Perhaps all those smug heliocentric bastards are just close minded compared to their more open honest geocentric counterparts? Or is it that modern science leaves little room for geocentrism?

  Either way the hypothesis that atheists are more close minded than theists based on the evidence that more theists convert to atheism than the other way around is flawed.
• 

  Hoffnung

  So Jonathan, what do you believe in?
• 

  JonathanH

  I try not to "believe" when it comes to reality. Belief is holding something to be true without evidence to back it up. For instance, I don't "believe" in gravity, there is ample observable evidence, and mathematical models showing that the theory of gravity is significantly more likely to be true than any alternative. I do not "know" how life got started (that is to say I do not possess evidence that suggests a particular model is significantly more likely to be true than other specific alternatives), but there is ample evidence for evolution of common descent through natural selection once life is started. I try not to insert "belief" into the gaps of my knowledge, though I have no problem logically positing possibilities until more evidence is gathered. However, special note must be made for the "logically positing possibilities", which means one cannot just make anything up and have it be equally likely to everything else. Meaning for instance life was more likely the result of autocatalytic feedback loops in early earth chemistry than say...a magic hippo from dimension X pooping life onto earth.

  Belief is fine for literature, art and poetry, but when it comes to objective reality of the universe, I try to go where the evidence leads. Which in the case of origin of life, is murky, but I would more likely posit early autocatalytic chemicals having selective pressures over billions of years until it crosses some imaginary grey line where it is considered self replicating life rather than self replicating chemistry, and from there ample evidence is provided for common descent through natural selection. Some mysterious intelligence having a hand in anything raises far more questions than answers, and as I previously pointed out, they are answers that for reasons of the nature of the question, cannot ever be answered by any means, unless you assume from the get go that the intelligence exists and then try to extrapolate out from what it did to define what the intelligence is like and wants, and then infer from that what exactly it did and why, which was used as evidence for the nature of the intelligence in question in the first place. A bit like putting Descartes before de horse, if you'll forgive a terrible pun.
• 

  sizemik

  Pass the scotch buddy . . . .

  I get it bud . . . after 6700 earthquakes in the last 9 months care of our benevolent designer LOL . . . I know what tired means.

  I'll raise a glass for ya . . .
• 

  JonathanH

  This seems relevant to the discussion at hand.

  http://youtu.be/_atdMNKiBB4

  It's Biology professor PZ Myers in a debate about "should Intelligent design be taught in school", he shows what would be required in order to even begin finding out if life was designed, and why ID isn't even a hypothesis right now.

  Sorry, not sure how to get it to embed here.