Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 01.06.2007 /
In the comments section of “If there is a God, give me a sign!!”, David S wrote:
A basic text on evolution would probably be useful here… these are the very basics of what evolution is and how it works.
And Mike O responded:
That could be because I have by no means studied in depth the process of evolution. That would be akin to an atheist studying in depth Christianity to see for sure whether or not it could possibly be true, when you already know there’s nothing anyone could say or argue to make you change your mind. When you’re already convinced something is not true, how much effort can one be expected to put forth, and for how long, in an effort to come to a conclusion that has already been reached? Isn’t it better, once one’s curiosity is aroused to consider the alternatives (like mine is re: evolution), to attempt to glean basic starting blocks from those much more studied, and much more in favor of the premise? There are not enough hours in the day to study things in depth which you already don’t believe. Better to run to the experts.
I think one thing Mike is saying is, I have limited time and so I’d rather take my specific questions to people who can answer back, than try to find answers in a big textbook.
I think what David S are saying is, I find books a good way to learn the basics of a topic. That’s why I think Mike would benefit from reading one on this topic - since it doesn’t seem like he has the basics of it down yet.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s likely that many of the atheists here have read at least one basic book about Christianity.
There are a couple of problems I’ve run across with reading books:
(These arise with people too but buying a book and reading a whole book is a bigger commitment than asking someone a question)
Regarding the first problem/question: the books about your viewpoint I’m most likely to know about have been written by people with my viewpoint. Unfortunately, in my experience it’s very unwise to trust what someone with one viewpoint writes about another. I’ve found I get much more fair and accurate information about a viewpoint from people who actually hold it. Often people who don’t mistakenly think they are experts. Why? Because people with their viewpoint tend to read their book, who are as uninformed as they are, and praise it, not knowing it’s inaccurate. Or because when people of the other viewpoint read it, the author doesn’t listen to their corrections because he/she thinks they are too biased (!) to listen to.
So, I think books about your viewpoint by people with your viewpoint are the only ones that can be trusted. However, it can be hard to find books by people with your viewpoint which don’t include uninformed or offensive comments about mine. I could disregard those (and generally do, rather than trying to learn from books by people who are nice about my viewpoint but don’t understand what they are talking about). However, I wonder how many of their other assertions are wrong if theirs about my viewpoint are. So, I tend to regard them with suspicion and prefer someone who can discuss their viewpoint without dissing or mischaracterizing someone else’s.
Anyway, if I can find a book that meets my criteria, about something I know little about and want to know more about, I’m happy to learn from a book. But I would still value the opportunity to also have people who are ‘experts’ on that topic, that I can take my specific questions to.
I know that when I joined IIDB I wanted to learn something from people, not books. I think it was something too big to learn just from books. It was - what is it like to see the world through atheist eyes and walk in atheist shoes: to respond to life situations as an atheist; to find meaning in life as an atheist; to find hope in difficult situations as an atheist? The intellectual arguments of atheists about why they have no belief in God/gods were interesting to me and are in lots of books but that wasn’t the main thing I was after.
Comment by: David S
1This isn’t directed at anyone in specific… but I have to get this off my chest.
In my opinion… We’re talking about a rigorous, scientific topic. This isn’t about mere assertions of faith, but a scholarly subject of study based on centuries of observation and study used by people of all faiths in many fields around the world. The place to go is to experts, text books and the like where there are references to studies and evidence. You can have a million casual conversations and still not get what you’d get out of one basic text or an introductory course in college (that would mostly just follow through a text).
I don’t have the patients of Siamang and I find the whole thing sad and disgraceful. You’ve got people claiming they don’t believe in evolution when they don’t even know the first thing about it… this disbelief stems not from evolution itself but from a perceived conflict between a field of science and their religious beliefs where the person decides what the facts must be when they don’t even have a clue about the subject because of their faith. It’s no crime to not understand or care about evolution, but to claim it’s false because of your faith (when most people of your faith with a bit of knowledge accept it!) when you know nothing about it is a disgrace to humanity, your faith, science, god (if he exists), and practically everything else. If you really care about the subject, actually LEARN about it from traditional sources as a start. If you don’t that’s fine too, but don’t fool yourself that you’re an expert on why all the full-time scholars on the subject around the world don’t know what they’re talking about.
Again, this wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. It’s just a general peeve.
Comment by: David S
2Actually on this subject of evolution people or books don’t matter. There has been a decision made by some people based on (a minority view of) faith that evolution can’t be true and that’s it period. The facts don’t matter.
That’s what’s really going on here and everyone knows it.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
3David S, I understand your frustration - I would like to see more people more willing to learn from the traditional sources.
Having said that, I don’t think “everyone knows it” is actually true - just as I don’t think the following would be true if a Christian wrote:
Comment by: David S
4You might be right Ir, but I don’t know… On many subjects both the Christians and atheists here are willing to look at various issues and have their minds changed. I’m willing to have my mind changed on the existence of god. At one point in my life I decided I would follow the evidence (and so far the lack of evidence for god leaves me doubting). Most atheists I know put the facts first in most cases and in the case of god existing in specific. They’ve admitted they would believe in god given sufficient reasons. So your quote above doesn’t seem to fit.
Are Christians willing to follow the evidence or will nothing make them change their faith in God and the views they hold? Do the Christians say they will follow the evidence on issues like evolution? If so, then why do some make *conclusions* about things they don’t know even the basics about?
Am I right? Is evolution wrong to some people regardless of what experts think? Have they made conclusions and it doesn’t matter what the facts are, they already know what is True? I suspect that some people who take a faith stand on these things think that even if the current evidence seems to support evolution, that evolution is STILL wrong and we’re just currently misunderstanding the evidence somehow. So then the facts don’t matter, only faith matters because by faith you already know what is true.
Am I wrong on this? Someone tell me I’m wrong. Someone tell me it’s not a total waste of time to have a scholarly discussion on this subject. Tell me evidence on evolution might possibly trump faith. I’d like to be wrong here, but I think with certain people faith comes first and rational discussion starts looking pointless.
Comment by: David S
5Let me restate the above hopefully simpler and clearer.
If you poll atheists and Christians (I believe we did this on the board early on) and ask what might make someone change their belief, the general consensus is that atheists would change based on evidence while nothing would make a Christian lose faith. Christians see it as a matter of honor, integrity, pride, virtue or whatever to believe particular things regardless. (Atheists see such a stance as dishonest and dishonorable, but that’s beside the point). The fact is some issues are to Christians admittedly NOT two-way discussions when they are tied up in faith.
If evolution is tied up enough into someone’s faith somehow, they hold it as a matter of honor that they will not change their opinion regardless of evidence, fact, argument, etc. Even if the evidence seems strong and conclusive, somehow it must be wrong or being misunderstood because faith cannot be wrong. The only way to have a discussion that might go somewhere is if the person doesn’t see evolution as so tied up in their faith (say for example as Stephan doesn’t seem to). Ironically if it wasn’t tied up in their faith they probably wouldn’t care much about the subject anymore and there wouldn’t be discussions on it.
I think that’s the simple reality of the situation but if I’m wrong somehow someone please let me know.
Siamang if you want to stop wasting your time you need to stop focusing on evolution and start getting the person to admit if they can untie evolution and their faith. If that’s not possible for that person you don’t need to waste your time trying to reason on the subject.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
6David, I suppose this is not so much about how people learn but whether some people are open to learning at all.
I don’t think we can ever be sure someone isn’t open to it. How many of us had things sort of creep under our radar when we thought we were sure of our faith? Maybe at the time we didn’t see it but in retrospect…
And I appreciated people who gave me the benefit of the doubt when I asked questions, and answered in the hope I might learn something - whether I seemed open to it or not.
Having said that no-one has to answer anyone’s questions here. And if it’s getting irritating to do so, I suggest bowing out of that particular conversation. Hopefully before the irritation towards whoever it is becomes very obvious…which is to say: learning from other people requires consent from the question-answerer - he/she needs to be willing to answer the questioner’s questions.
Comment by: NCxian
7David, you said:
I think I generally agree with you on this, David. However, I think that I see in Mike O (you can speak up here Mike, for yourself) that another possibility is that that person who begins by having a strong belief against evolution because it is tied to his religion, may come to want to modify his belief. That would not be a lessening of his religious beliefs at all. It would be a loosening of the “tie” between a strictly literal creationist belief and his understanding of his religion.
On this:
I couldn’t agree more. Although I find the discussions here of the details of evolution sometimes interesting, I don’t find any point in participating. You all know a lot more about it than me, and I don’t disagree with you at all.
Comment by: NCxian
8Back to the question of where do I go for answers, I probably would say I prefer getting information from books. I need to process a while when new information goes in my head, and a book lets me read, cogitate, re-read and so on. Also, I like to have a whole proposition in front of me, with supporting stuff, to think about. Conversation seems a little piecemeal to me. Especially since the advent of the internet (and Amazon and such), I don’t think it is significantly harder to know who to trust when chosing a book as compared to chosing a real-life conversation partner (where there are different risks, I think). In choosing a book, there is plenty of external info at our fingertips, not to mention clues about the author’s position in the text.
Now, on-line “conversation” seems to me to be a nice combination of “reading” and “discussing”. I have found it suits me. I would not be so comfortable having these conversations in person. Not because I would be embarassed or anything, but because I need day-long gaps of talking to think!
Comment by: Rachel
9David, as a Christian who believes in evolution, I can relate to your frustration. I find it very sad that so many religious people feel forced to choose between science and faith. I was encouraged to see a positive review in my latest issue of Christianity Today of the book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” The author is Francis Collins, who is the head of the Human Genome Project. He is an evangelical Christian and an evolutionist. I had first seen him on “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly” talking about how he encounters so many young people raised in religious homes who feel that they must choose between their faith and evolution and how that really saddens him.
In the magazine article he says, My heart goes out to sincere believers who feel threatened by evolution and who feel that they have to maintain their position against it in order to prove their allegiance to God. But if God used this process and gave us the chance to discover it, then it seems anachronistic, to say the least, that we would feel we have to defend him against our own scientific conclusions.
I really relate to that having grown up in a fundamentalist Christian home myself. I remember being taught about evolution and it making sense but yet also feeling that my faith was so real and vital to me that I couldn’t abandon it. I guess I kind of maintained this uneasy truce between the two until I learned that I didn’t have to choose. Anyhow, I was pleased to see Dr. Collins’ book getting good press in a mainstream evangelical magazine.
Comment by: Rachel
10David, I’m struggling on exactly how to articulate this but I think that the thing that is probably so hard for many atheists or agnostics to connect with is how much the person of faith really feels they have to lose if they are caught in this dilemna. It’s not just about a sense of honor - their religious beliefs are so real and valuable to them. I can tell you honestly that IF I thought I had to choose between my faith in Christ and accepting a particular scientific theory, no matter how well proven, I would choose my faith in Christ. Because it is so real to me that it is like breathing oxygen and I can’t imagine existing without it. I expect that that sounds totally irrational to an atheist and there is no way for me to make it rational or proveable. But it is true for me. Thankfully I don’t believe that faith and science are at odds. And like you I get frustrated by the debate. But I can genuinely sympathize with those who get caught in that trap and choose their religious beliefs. Because I understand what it is like to have your faith be so vital to you that you cannot bear to lose it.
Comment by: David S
11That’s a hopeful perspective. That’s worth taking into consideration and suggests my above case might be stated too strongly for some cases.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
12Rachel wrote:
Thanks for sharing that, Rachel. In fact, thanks for venturing over here to the eBay atheist blog!
Comment by: David S
13I have a pretty good idea what it means to lose faith as I went through it. My experience is one reason I have so little expectation that the typical person will abandon a belief of faith. It’s not a fun thing to say the least.
Comment by: Rachel
14David, I’m curious to hear more of your journey if you feel like sharing.
I can see that an atheist who has gone through a process of losing faith would understand what a religious person feels is at stake and be sympathetic to that struggle. But I guess I have this stereotype (which may be totally inaccurate) that most atheists think that religious people are foolish and unenlightened, clinging to archaic superstitions that they need to be freed from. So say that the scenario is one where the atheist is urging the fundamentalist religious person to accept evolutionary theory or whatever and the religious person is frightened and resistant because they think they must abandon God to accept science. I would expect that the atheist typically thinks the religious faith is a crutch, kind of like Dumbo’s feather that he mistakenly thinks he must cling to so he can fly. But the person of faith feels that his beliefs are beautiful and inspiring and life-giving so he feels insulted and defensive and unwilling to have any dialogue about science or other matters of reason.
I guess this goes back to what you were saying, David: The only way to have a discussion that might go somewhere is if the person doesn’t see evolution as so tied up in their faith. I totally agree with you there.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
15Rachel, I seem to remember David sharing it on the discussion board but I don’t remember where. Maybe he does.
Comment by: David S
16I posted a little bit in my introduction in this thread Here
Comment by: MTran
17Books or people? That’s a worthy question. For me it depends on the both the subject matter and the nature of the question. But my own experience has been, with few exceptions, that no-one has been willing or able to answer my questions. So I more often search for information, “clues”, and sometimes even answers in books.
The internet has been, dare I say it, a “godsend” for me as far as ease and speed of getting information that can lead to answers. And although people are always happy to tell me what to do and to think, those types of people seem to be congenitally incapable of understanding or answering any question that interests me.
I try to be more directly helpful to my own friends, family, colleagues, clients and students. And when I don’t know the answer, I simply say so, then outline possible ways of finding one.
Comment by: Rachel
18Thanks, David!
Comment by: MTran
19I understand that this is true for many believers but it was not for me. The change in my thinking and orientation happened gradually and whatever belief I had metamorphosed a few times before it eroded away completely. None of the churches I attended or bible study classes I took as a kid were literalist or fundamentalist. They were main-line protestant churches. I enjoyed the ethical and moral discussions that they engaged in. I really have no bad memories or hard feelings about those churches or those who still believe in their teachings.
Still, I never saw “God” as adding anything positive to the scheme of things. Jesus was fine with me, but that “God” fellow struck me as being a capricious, violent nut job who I didn’t want to have anything to do with. From a young age, I could not bring myself to “worship” a creature I found abhorrently evil. Beyond that, “god” was not an answer for any of my questions. And the harder I looked, the more clear it came to me that God wasn’t an answer for anything.
Comment by: JG
20At the risk of possibly revealing my own ignorance, I think part of the problem may be confusion over terms.
When someone says they believe in creation, are they insisting on an absolute literal interpretation of Genesis or simply expressing their belief that life has not come about by mere chance but that there is some form of God behind it all?
When someone says they believe in evolution, are they simply refering to the clear evidence that evolution is at work in this world or are they expressing a belief that evolution is the complete answer to how life started?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
21MTran wrote:
Hmmm…we might know some of the same people ;-) (I’m not referring to people who post comments on here, I hasten to add)
Comment by: cautiousmaniac
22JG wrote
I would assume (and thus this means this is totally IMHO):
A person who says they believe in creation is probably just saying that they are of the belief that life is too complex to have just gotten here.
A person who says they believe in evolution has no idea wth belief actually means.
If asked if I believe in evolution, I say that I accept science, which is a fairer representation of how science should be approached. No one here believes in gravity.
PS No one thinks that evolution is the complete answer to how life started, since…evolution only works on living things. So life had to start somehow (such as through, say, abiogenesis!) and then evolution could start.
Comment by: MTran
23cautious maniac said: A person who says they believe in evolution has no idea wth belief actually means.
This is one of my chronic complaints as well. I think that much of the animosity, confusion, and frustration in these discussions is that people tend to use equivocal phrasing with no idea that they are mis-using or mis-applying alternate definitions for common words. Those few who actually do recognize the differences all to often use them in order to engage in sophistry rather than honest conversation.
Comment by: Siamang
24Here’s my difference… when I’m learning an academic subject I prefer books. Be it history, science, politics, etc.
But when I’m learning about life experience, I can’t stand books. I really cannot stand to read a book about someone’s journey through cancer, or through spiritual enlightenment or whatever. For that, I want to learn it from the person.
Comment by: MTran
25Siamang,
I can definitely agree with your approach here. Some things are best understood through books, others through conversation.
Comment by: JG
26I’m not sure about this. Presumably what you are saying is that gravity is a fact rather than something we believe in. But what is “gravity”? If I throw a ball in the air, I know from experience, it will fall down to the ground. I am told by others and read in books that this is the law of gravity at work. But I also understand that it is not always the case. So if an astronaut throws a ball in the air in his spaceship, it will not fall to the ground but will float. This is actually consistent with the law of gravity because in the spaceship there is nothing with a sufficient gravitational pull to cause the ball to “fall” to the ground.
So we can’t say balls always fall to the ground because in some cases, they don’t. So when we refer to gravity as a fact, we are presumably referring to the law of gravity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity - much is still theoretical rather than certain about gravity.
For me, the question is how much do we believe what we are told and what we read about in books etc. Do we take it that something is true just because it says so in say Wikipedia?
Take the execution of Saddam. I have no doubt in my mind that this event took place. If someone claimed he was seen today in Pakistan, I would not believe them. I am not aware of anyone claiming it did not happen. But I can’t be 100% certain of this. I choose to believe what I have been told and what I have seen with my own eyes. But even sight can be deceptive - eg we see a magician saw someone in half but then find they are in fact still alive.
The British government led the country to believe certain things about Saddam and Iraq as justification for going to war. It claimed the experts were satisfied as to the evidence for Saddam having WMD. Only later did it transpire that in fact the experts did NOT support this view and it had been manipulated by people with an ulterior motive.
I feel it is better to “believe” even things we are sure are facts. It means we do not accept things at face value but remain open to new discoveries. Sometimes it is only through lateral thinking and perhaps thinking the unthinkable that new discoveries have been made.
I think we can learn from both books and people but I am very wary about taking anything at face value.
Comment by: JG
27This illustrates my point. I see the real issue as being over what caused this starting point rather than as being faith/creation v evolution.
Comment by: Stephan
28I agree with Siamang with one caveat - if I want a quick fix of information on a new topic I’ll ask someone who knows the topic. For instance, I trust Siamang about evolution. If I have a quick question I’ll put it to him. If, however, I want a depth of knowledge I will always go to a book for two reasons. First, the book will be more complete than a person, and second, I really don’t want to bother Siamang that much.
Comment by: Siamang
29Ha!
You can bother me, it’s not bother.
Comment by: Rachel
30You make a good point, cautiousmaniac. When I scrolled up to one of my earlier comments, I noticed that I referred to myself as “a Christian who believes in evolution.” I guess a better description would be “who accepts the theory of evolution.” But then, of course, even the word “theory” has become politicized and misused by literal creationists. So I could just say “who accepts evolution” but that sounds kind of weird. Or does it just sound weird to me because I grew up always hearing the phrase “accept Jesus”. And I don’t like THAT phrase either because it implies that being a follower of Jesus is to simply give intellectual assent to a set of propositions.
Comment by: Mike O
31Sorry I’m so late to the party here! David S said in #4
You’re wrong. At least in my case. I know many (most?) Christians for whom this statement is all too true. But as a blanket statement to “all Christians,” it’s wrong. Or at least it’s becoming less true as time goes on.
In #5
If they ever found the body, I would stop believing.
That’s not true. That’s “blind faith,” which we’ve talked about before. I wish atheists could undertand that their definition of faith is not accurate.
True too often.
Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. My stance is that there is a God. If he did all of this using evolution, what do I care? Evolution fits in science. I don’t think I’ve EVER said it didn’t (I may be wrong here … it’s 4:30am). But there are things outside of science (psychology, morality, choice, parenting, emotion, the appearance of design etc.) that are more than chemistry and biology.
I think this conversation spins on evolution becuase evolution is within the physical realm of science. Evolution is conceivable to both parties.
In #6, Helen said,
I’m 43 years old. I’ve believed what I believe since I was four. My family believes it. My friends believe it (that circle is now widening!). Please don’t require me to just throw away everything and reconsider from scratch the whole thing. If change comes, there will have to ba an “undoing” of an entire world view, and that’s not something that should come easy or I will have simply traded a real faith in God for a blind faith that there’s no God. It takes time if it’s going to happen at all. Why is that so hard to understand?
In #7, NCxian said
Thanks for that, NCxian. All I can say here is that it is a topic that fascinates me. And like I said in the original thread, I see signs of God’s hand everywhere in science. Atheists don’t. Is that so wrong?
I just realized that I’m replying to every post here, which is not my intent, but they are riddled with misconceptions which, if left unanswered, will be assumed to be true. Please understand that I do not speak for all Christians or even for God. I speak for Mike O. Many of the accusations here are true for many Christians, and that is sad. It was true for me 6 months ago. It’s not true now. But I still believe in God. In fact, this understanding of science I’m gaining here is more helpful that you might believe.
It gets frustrating for me, too, that atheists require me to do a complete 360 on everything I believe or it’s not worth the hassle. If I never believe in evolution, can we be friends? If that answer is “no,” then the discussion is pointless. But if it’s “yes,” then this is just an exchange of ideas among peers. And that does have value regardless of the outcome. This is what will make the world a better place and allow us to coexist, when atheists and Christians can talk about this stuff and walk away in disagreement, but as friends and peers.
Comment by: JG
32As stated previously, I see the issue as being over the starting point for life.
cautiousmaniac said:
This reflects my understanding - ie no one has the definitive answer as to how life began. This is why I don’t see evolution and faith as necessarily being in conflict other than for people who insist on Genesis being read as a literal account of HOW and WHEN God created the world.
Karen in her reply to the Backlash post referred to an article, which on pages 2 contains the following:
This is something on which I have an open mind. So far as I am aware, none of us were around 150 years ago let alone 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. As best as I can understand it (and this article bears this point out), the scientific arguments are based on how long things take. We observe today eg how long it takes for eg trees to decay and project backwards. We observe that trees acquire an additional ring for each year of growth so we count the rings and that tells us how old the tree is etc etc.
But this involves a number of presumptions and we simply do not know for certain whether or not those presumptions are correct. They may well be, it may well be right for us to work on the basis that they are right. But when someone insists that it is definitely right, I start to object just as I do when someone tries to insist their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation.
I observe that when young children cut themselves, the wound heals very quickly. A similar wound on an elderly person can take a long time to heal. How do we know that the time things take today is the same as the time it took 10,000 years ago? I say this not from a faith position but from a common sense viewpoint. It matters not one jot to me whether the world is 6,000 years old or millions of years old. My faith is in no way linked to how old the world is.
Comment by: Rachel
33Mike, if you do decide that you would like to read a book about evolution, I would suggest “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, which I referred to in comment 9. It is written by an evolutionist who shares our evangelical beliefs and I think you would be able to feel comfortable with his perspective. You might be surprised to discover how many people there are who both accept evolution and believe in God.
I think you mean a 180 degree turn. Because if you make a 360 degree turn, you end up right back where you started. ;-)
Although…I think I actually like that concept because if you do a 360 and end up in the same place at least you turned and hopefully looked at all the other points on the circle while you were turning. And isn’t that why we are all participating in this discussion?
Comment by: MTran
34I learn something new just about every day and adjust my thinking accordingly. But a major change in a key position, well that take’s more than a single headline or conversation.
When I have already spent a great deal of good time and effort to arrive at a well thought out conclusion, it takes an awful lot of reliable information and well considered argument(s), marinated together for quite some time before I am willing to change my opinion. Plus, I might need some incentive to reconsider alternatives in the first place. For me, simple curiosity drives most of my inquiries. But not all.
Perhaps we could compare it to changing political parties. Plenty of people stay with “their” party in spite of all the idiots and crooks who carry the party label. Only when the party has abused its members for quite some time is it likely to for them to switch their party affiliation.