why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
It has been falsified. There are many non-supranatural explanations for the origin of life, such as the metabolism-first and the genetics-first theories. I like, for instance, Wächtershauser's iron-sulfur world theory with its brief recipe for life:
From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?
why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
The book argues that the new creation theory is testable scienceThe testable supranatural. Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
The book (1993) "Shows that some statements about the supernatural [creation by a creator outside of nature] can be testable science." Such as "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life [from non-life]."-This would be falsified by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life. B.T.W. this demonstrates that the claim of prominent anti-creationist Kenneth Miller that intelligent design has produced "no testable hypothesis" is false. Here he is making such a false claim in an interview. The Colbert Report: (4:40 to 4:55) in the clip http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/173859/june-16-2008/kenneth-miller
i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
The God Delusion book is crafty in that when it uses the phrase "statistically improbable" in relation to God*, it doesn't define it explicilty, as it does much earlier in the same chapter as referring to statistical improbabilityas to coming about by chance** . Thus, alllowing "statistically improbable" in reference to God to be easily equivocated in the minds of readers as statistically improbable as to existence, -the thrust of the chapter.
*For example the book says: "a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."
** "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."
i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
F.Y.I., The fallacy is the same in both the above arguments. That is equating improbability of coming about by chance, with improbability of existence, for something that need not have come about by chance. Such an argument in reality can only be used to show that God, or Dawkins is improbable as to coming about by chance, and not necessarily also improbable as to existence.Note what happens to the same arguments when the consistent phrase "by chance" is added (and not omitted) to premise #3.
Example A
Example B
Observe how how the arguements now at best only prove improbability of coming about by chance and not also improbability of existence, since the creators in question (i.e.Dawkins, Hitchens, God,) need not also have come about by chance). Threfore the concluding point that they "almost certainly do not exist" is now easily seen as an invalid deduction.
i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
Hehe Funny to see the contortions and contradictions needed by those of faith to make their worldview seem less infantile. Christians are idiots, and arrogant little liars.
And what of those who embrace "reasoning" against God that if applied consistently also disproves the existence of their own "new atheist" leaders? Note the following argument used by the "new atheist" book "The God Delusion" to disprove the existence of God:
Now lets apply the same argument to the existence of the New atheists (Dawkins etc.)
.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php.
to see: click on "how life began".
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
to see: click on "How Life Began"
why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
Seriously though, If indeed a true understand and acceptance of Darwin's
theory does NOT challenge the idea of a interested creator, then why was
Charles Darwin's faith slowly eroded away to nearly nothing?
And many others since as well. See even Dawkin,s comments on this (and his expose on the tactics of the "evolution defense loby" on this very issue!) in this brief (few minutes) online clip from Ben Stein's Expelled the Movie
Go to:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
and then click on "The Darwinian Gospel"
why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
To a large extent, we are all naturalists, no matter our ideological background. Therefore, it's very important to distinguish between scientific and ontological naturalism, as most contemportary philosophers of science do.
Actually, on the issue of evolutionary naturalism the two "brands" of naturalism operate exactly the same way and produce the exact same result -that is only naturalistic ("nature by itself, only") "explanations" are considered. With for example "design by an outside entity" excluded apriori by definition, and not by evidence.
Many modern philosophers of science [ 3 ] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that explanations of observable effects are practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality.
One need not embrace methodological naturalisms restriction of naturalistic only ("nature by itself, only") explanations in order to use the scientific method. http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).
many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.
it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.
Why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming Darwin anniversaries.The problem is that a person can have a religious view that is compatible with dawinian evolution only if the religious view (as to biological history) is indistinguishable from atheism's naturalist viewpoint. Any, and all others, (such as straight forward history as recorded Bible, any ID theory, etc, etc.) are directly challenged by neo-darwinism.
Likewise, neo-darwinism is directly challenged by all the other viewpoints , hense atheists have been afraid of any upcoming alternatives, or even evidence against evolution.
i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.
most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.
this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.
I'd have to agree to an extent with Burn the Ships regarding God is Not Great, although I found it extremely entertaining. Hitchens is a contrarian. If you want a more precise and cutting polemical essays on religion you'd do better to read the Portable Atheist by far. Particularly fun for me was to notice how so many of the arguments made by some of the leading figures in the "new atheism" are really old arguments that have yet to be refuted by the religious, and they are often more eloquently stated in that compendium.
I'm sorry, but according to the reasoning in the "new atheist" book The God Delusion Christopher Hitchens "almost certainly does not exist".
