Posts by Coded Logic

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

Coded Logic

One is the explanation for the diverse speciation we see on our planet.

The other is a lack of a belief in a God.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

KateWild,

But doesn't the paper Crofty cited show that using simple organic materials an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product? Wouldn't that imply the process doesn't have to be guided?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

KateWild,

Let me make sure I'm understanding your position correctly as we're talking about what is more likely. On one hand you have the odds of racemic mixtures proceeding with no guidance. On the other hand you have the odds of an intelligent being guiding the process.

Is that correct?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

Yes, a claim can "match" reality. It can be an accurate descriptor of that which exists. I'm quite shocked you're trying to play hide the ball with the definition of truth. When people use the word "truth" this is what they mean. It's what I mean. It's the definition you'll find in the dictionary.

Under Coherence Theory the Harry Potter novels would be "true" since they're internally consistent. That's not what I'm talking about when I'm addressing God claims. Many God concepts are coherent. That doesn't make them real.

noun, plural truths

[trooth z, trooths]

1.

the true or actual state of a matter:

He tried to find out the truth.

2.

conformity with fact or reality; verity:

the truth of a statement.

3.

a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

mathematical truths.

4.

the state or character of being true.

5.

actuality or actual existence.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

I assesd the probability of an intelligent being guiding evolution by my study of chemistry.

What in your study of chemistry led you to the conclusion that an intelligent being was guiding evolution?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

The definition of "knowledge" is justified true belief.

We've gone over at least a dozen times before, truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. In order to see if a claim matches reality - we LOOK AT REALITY! e.g. - evidence.

That's not circular reasoning. It's modus ponens. And without that assessment a belief can't be justified.

I genuinely don't know why you have such difficulty getting your head around this. The validity of any tool is how well it performs its intended function. It's not circular reasoning to asses a hammer by how well it drive nails. The same is true of reason and evidence. Their validity is assessed by their explanatory and predictive abilities.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

KateWild,

My question isn't just one of chemistry. It's how did you asses the probability of an intellectual being guiding evolution? How can you tell the difference of naturally occurring evolution from guided evolution? And how did you determine that guided evolution was more likely?

Also, why are you calling the intelligence "God". How have you ruled out more naturalistic explanations such as aliens?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

KateWild,

How have you determined "it's more probable there is an intellectual being responsible for guiding evolution in the early stages of amino acid formation"?

And how does an "intellectual being" get you to God?

6

Reduce people's religosity through transcranial magnetic stimulation...

by Thursday in

found this interesting article in the december 2015 issue of the australasian science journal, on whether it might be possible to change a person's beliefs by stimulating their brain via transcranial magnetic stimulation (tms).. "the study by us and uk researchers recruited 38 undergraduate students, with each reporting they held significant religious beliefs and conservative political views.

participants in the experimental condition received tms to the pmfc for a period of 40 seconds, a process that reduces neural activity in this region for up to an hour.

control participants underwent a similar process, but with a low level of tms that has no effect on the functioning of the pmfc.. the researchers found that those who had received tms reported significantly less conviction in their beliefs concerning god, angels and heaven following a reminder of death than those in the non-tms control group.

Coded Logic

TMS can help us get rid of cognitive bias? Sign me up!

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

What if using evidence to try to find out of there is a God is like using a metal detector to try to discover a heavy metal band? It is based on a misunderstanding of how reality works.

Then we could never be justified in believing there is a God. Because I know of no method to tell the difference between things which don't exist and things for which there is no evidence. If we can't find out about something with evidence then what can we find out about it with?

Imagine for a moment that I propose the existence of a square circle. And when you point out such a thing is not possible I say "Well you're being arrogant because you haven't ruled out that it could exists outside of all geometric planes. How do you know in the future we won't have the necessary mathematics to describe a square circle?"

I think you would find such postulations tedious and blatantly ad hoc. The very notion that I'm having to go outside of geometry to make my square circle work is a huge red flag I don't have good reasons for believing such a thing exists.
The same is true of the God hypothesis. If we have to redefine what existence means or postulate evidence is the wrong tool for the job - then that should be a red flag we are not on a path to knowledge.

Philosophy is a great tool for making sure we're using the right epistemological methods and asking the right questions - but untempered by real world data it can only explore the theoretical. Never the actual. And arm chair speculations and ontological arguments are never going to get us to a justified belief in God(s).

Most importantly, it's not my fault if believers can't find a way to verify or falsify their beliefs. It's not my fault they can't think of a set of evidence that would prove the existence of the creator they claim exists. Because it's the person making the claims responsibility to provide evidence - not my responsibility to design tests for them. Onus Probandi: burden of proof / burden of persuasion falls to the person making the claim.
For example, I don't believe in the Multiverse. And simply saying "Well scientist don't have a way to test the theory therefore we are justified in believing it." - is NOT a valid argument. If someone claims the Multiverse is real it is up to THEM to provide the evidence. And if the hypothesis is unverifiable and or unfalsifiable then their belief is unwarranted.