But why assume something that is infinitely more complex than the parsimonious statement of “I don’t know, until I see evidence?”

You’re adding to the problem, not solving it.

I’m not a statistician, but something seems really weird about throwing in something that unnecessarily complicates a formula which, when applied in every other circumstance, but this one based on some flimsy evidence, and proofs that aren’t quite up to par, say, arbitrarily adding something that is essentially the equivalent of 1/0.

Or another way to look at it: If you were conducting a survey, and you had 5 responses to it by X number of people, and you assigned a percentage to each of those, would you then add a sixth topic to the results you publish because it’s one that you think people wanted to say? Because that’s what asserting God does. You’re adding something that adds more questions than it answers: How do you know that they wanted to say that, but couldn’t? Can you read their minds? If so, how does that work? What was their reason for not saying what they thought? And etc.

Why wouldn’t it be sensible to yoke the two together? Have you forgotten Seneca the Younger?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful

Look, the long and short of it is that the creepy Randians and the religious fundamentalists need the same thing to truly succeed. Both benefit from a society with large numbers of ignorant, desperate people. Both stand to gain everything if they can roll back time, preferably to 1890.

Because we are finite human beings we both make assumptions, do we not? Why, because we do not know the answers with any certainty. You assume a “natural” process (whatever that is) and I assume a Creator. Every scientific discipline (mine is Statistics) makes assumptions. You assume the appendix is not efficient and an element of a proof against intelligent design. I recoil from that and would say given what we know of biology we know the human can survive without it and there appears to be no function to the organ. I would say we do not know if and how the appendix is utilized during gestation. I would extend my conclusion no farther.

Do you realize how far man is from any understanding of the cosmos? Do you realize how little we understand about how the mind functions? About the energy of life? About conception? This is where I base my assumption that man is unable to employ our tools to fully understand or master our reality.

Value <> Potential. Value is intrinsic and shared equally amongst us all. Potential, in your view is subjective and uneven.

You may find it arrogant to believe we can apply the scientific method to the universe, but I find it incredibly insulting and baseless for you to assume we are incapable of understanding it. As far as inefficiency, in that category I was speaking specifically of human and other bodies, not the universe as a whole. A classic example is the appendix (why would an intelligent designer give us an organ we don’t need?), but there are many others.

The statement “mankind was not an accident” is still anthropomorphism. When an action is performed by a being, it is either intentional or accidental. The thought that man’s existence must, then, either be intentional or accidental, is a false dilemma, because it assumes man’s existence was the result of the action of some being, rather than natural processes whose results can’t be described as accident or intention. Evolution does include random mutation, but the processes that compose it are “directed” by natural law.

It is not correct to say the atheist believes in “no God”; the atheist _does not believe_ in God. There is a major difference there (and one that’s been heavily discussed in this comment thread already). Yet again, our perception of a reality does not necessarily imply a creator for that reality.

There are many sources of value for a human that do not exist for an earthworm. The ability to reason, to imagine, to create… these all contribute to the human potential. As far as challenging a view that I have no value, it’s actually quite simple: “I disagree.”

Regarding the first point, I assume that man did not create “all of this”. Someone / thing / force (call it what you will) other than man must have – I attribute that to “God”. I also assume that man is incapable of understanding the why and how of creation. I think it is laughable arrogance to apply the scientific method to that which we are so incapable of understanding or testing. Also, how can we judge as inefficient that which do not understand?

You misunderstand the phrase ‘in the image of God’. Certainly it does not argue that a being like ourselves created the universe. Far from it. Instead, it argues that we are, in all of creation, set aside. Mankind was not an accident and that we were created through the will of God.

The atheist view is that no God / deity exists. It seems to me a backwards null hypothesis given that we perceive a reality. Say you are agnostic, but to claim the negative is untenable.

The second point I could not disagree with more. Without the concept of a soul, there is no difference in value between you and an earthworm. Your value is then in my eyes. If I say you have none, how can it be challenged? We have witnessed the manifestation of this throughout history and we know well the fruits it bears.

The “arguments” you make for such forms of creationism are pure anthropomorphism. When you ask “who created all of this,” you are _assuming_ that some kind of creator being exists. This assumption is not only baseless, but actually irrational. The only model our minds have for a “being” is humanity itself, so in conceiving of God as a being you are actually making God in our image (the exact reverse of what the Bible claims). Furthermore, there are two things to realize. First, we have no basis to believe that any being like ourselves could create any system even remotely close to the size and complexity of the universe. Second, on the level of our own existence, there are thousands of areas in which humanity and life in general should be more efficient if, in fact, we were “intelligently designed.”

Secondly, it is actually religion which devalues man, by claiming that all of his value is a mere grant from some outside being (God). The ability to reason and reflect is man’s greatest strength, and from this ability we may and should give value to ourselves. The idea of having some value that will last for eternity may be a comfort to you, but unfortunately no such thing actually exists (as far as we know). All we can do is make as much of an impact we can in the areas important to us in the time we have, and our memory will last in the minds of our loved ones (and maybe, if we’re lucky, in some contribution to the general knowledge of humanity). _Everything_ is dust in the long run.

I would ask the so-called men of science to look in the mirror. Then to look outside at the starry night. Then to think about the thoughts you have had in your mind today. Look within yourself and around at the world. You must realize (i) man understands and is capable of understanding, but a grain of sand in the desert of all there is to know of himself, his inner workings and of the complexity of the natural world (ii) man can create nothing that does not already exist (iii) if not God who created all of this – then who? No-one? Laughable.

I describe the mindset here as a cancer because the secular-humanist view, over all else, devalues the human being, while proclaiming the opposite! If man is not made in the image of a Creator, if there is not existence beyond the grave, then there is nothing and man is without soul and without value. He is but dust in the long run.

I believe that learning only intensifies the belief in God, not the opposite which is so often described. The more I learn about Mathematics for example, the more I find I do not know and the more I marvel at the architect.

Thank you for repeating what I said.

(sigh)
Ahah, now I understand your confusion!
Atheism is NOT materialism.

Talking about materialism is not the same as talking about atheism.
Talking about atheism is not the same as talking about materialism.
Don’t conflate the two.

There is no “worldview” of atheism.

“Atheist worldview” is meaningless gobbledy-gook.
“A-pinkunicorninism worldview” is meaningless gobbledy-gook.
“A-fairiesinmygardenism worldview” is meaningless gobbledy-gook.

No set of rules. No handbook with easy-to-read instructions.
No creed to recite before bedtime. No single ideology or set of behaviours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=803X0iiiX0c&feature=related

“I suppose I am a Bright, by the stated definition (naturalistic worldview, etc.). But I’m not sure what the benefit of joining groups like this might be, and I’m very sure that attaching the label “Brights” to people with naturalistic worldviews was one of the worst PR moves of all time.”

I couldn’t agree more. A PR disaster of very high magnitude. The only book I’ve read by
Dawkins is “The God Delusion”, which I enjoyed, though of course in my case it was
preaching to the choir. (I admit that I am hesitant about reading his books on evolution
since I am strongly influenced by Stephen Jay Gould, who claims that Dawkins
over-emphasises certain things, to put it mildly. Of course, Gould ties in to the post
on randomness and the link to Peter Coles’s blog.)

There is the analogy with “gay” (take a positive word and attach it to something you think
is positive but most people don’t), but the difference is that most people don’t mind if they
are deemed to be not gay (in the traditional sense), whereas most would probably take
offense at being deemed not bright (or being deemed dim).

Somewhere on the web, I ran across the term “secular pagan”. That says it all. It is SO
much better than “bright”. Getting back to cosmology, all the world (especially people
who write about cosmology, whether or not they are cosmologists) should realise how
much better Sean’s coinage “smooth tension” is than the now ubiquitous “dark energy”.

Yeah… your right (in my mind). It’s just that this doesn’t need to be about convincing the religious about the failings of faith. I think “Post-Christian America” would be the complete and strict separation of state and religion, not some attack on religion. If that was done, such an achievement would change the world.