"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[In Bloom]

In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins asserts that the theory of evolution makes is possible to be an "intellectually satisfied atheist". Personally, I think this is nonsense, in the absense of positive evidence for a deity, there is no logical alternative to atheism, whether or not we can explain the diversity of life on Earth. Of course it does make it easier to debate with some theists, who won't take "How the fuck should I know?" for an answer.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Personally, I think this is nonsense, in the absense of positive evidence for a deity, there is no logical alternative to atheism,

Agnosticism

 

[Belushi]

Anyone who doesn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to burn in hell for all eternity

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Surely the Spaghetti Monster would boil the heretics instead?

 

[In Bloom]

Agnosticism

Which kind?

 

[Belushi]

Surely the Spaghetti Monster would boil the heretics instead?

Schismatic!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Which kind?

I'm not sure.

 

[treefrog]

As a Pastafarian (complete with pirate outfit for wearing at religious festivals) the Great FSM does indeed boil heretics, usually with some olive oil and a little salt.

 

[gurrier]

A pretty silly claim if you ask me and one that is typical of Dawkins's grandstanding.

There's no excuse to be intellectually satisfied until you are dead. The world is easily complex enough to ensure that there are always going to be vast numbers of fascinating insights that we have yet to understand, either personally or collectively. Every new insight is of course, satisfying, but a state of 'intellectual satisfaction' is in my eyes synonymous with brain death.

Darwin's clear and lucid formalisation of the theory of evolution by natural selection was certainly one of the most momentous intellectual milestones of humankind and it was one that incomparably increased the potential of everybody to understand the universe around us. However, the theory is neither sufficent nor necessary for an individual to adopt an intellectually coherent position on atheism. There were atheists before Darwin whose positions were entirely coherent and defensible and there are atheists today who have a similar intellectual coherence without caring about Darwin at all. Dawkins is, once again, bigging up himself and his own discipline.

 

[belboid]

its kind of an old story...Darwin, Marx and Freud (or very occasionally, Nietzsche) are widely held up as having between them destroyed any rationale for the existence of god at all, didnt create life (evolution), and doesnt determine how we live (capital/sex&death), and was henceforth of no use.

 

[In Bloom]

its kind of an old story...Darwin, Marx and Freud (or very occasionally, Nietzsche) are widely held up as having between them destroyed any rationale for the existence of god at all, didnt create life (evolution), and doesnt determine how we live (capital/sex&death), and was henceforth of no use.

But evolution doesn't cover the origin of life, evolution assumes that life already exists.

 

[belboid]

Tiny fooking organisms from whci hwe evolved over millions of years, rather than in two days. There's a bit of a difference.

 

[Azrael23]

I`m not sure if someone with a belief in God could be called anymore satisfied (intellectually) than someone with no belief. Even atheists think about God, they must of, to have reached the conclusion it doesn`t exist in the first place.
However pure logic has always been incompatible with spirituality as it cannot function in an environment whose boundaries or foundations are unknown. The concept of God is not one of this world more a concept which has been intuited from "the other side" and has only been experienced in the actions and teachings of those with some kind of direct experience, because this experience is based on an emotional range not usually reached in everyday life it is hard to understand let alone quantify.
Some people are unsatisfied with the personal nature of spirituality but in my opinion it could be no other way. Anyone can have a divine experience its merely a choice of whether or not you want to experiment with your mindset in order to reach a different perspective.
I am of course referring throughout my topic to general spirituality, new age philosophy I suppose. My stance on organised religion is that they were based on truth but although they remain vestors of important knowledge, human egoistic intervention has caused a stagnancy in the general levels of "goodness" in their flock. In the East things fare a lot better mainly due to the fact students are given real methods to have direct experiences through meditation, tantra, reiki, kundalini raising etc. and thus rely less on their apparent spiritual superiors.
Belief in evolution doesn`t necessatate atheism nor do our questions end with belief in evolution. No one is ever intellectually satisfied, people can become dronelike but this is stagnation of the intellect not satisfaction. Its in our nature to want to understand. However not all things can be understood through science or logic. If you`ve ever been in love you`ll understand that, can you put love into numbers or even describe what it felt like? It may sound a bit cheesy but its the nature of truth to repeat itself. Science cannot even prove the existence of our own emotions so what hope has it got with God?

 

[In Bloom]

Science cannot even prove the existence of our own emotions

Actually, that's fairly easy.

Hypothesis: Emotions exist.
Prediction: If emotions existed, people would sometimes do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.
Observation: Even the most cursorary examination of human behaviour will tell you that the above is true.

 

[Fruitloop]

Hmm, it seems to me that you could use the same syllogism to prove the existence of body-thetans, ergo it might need a bit of a polish.

 

[In Bloom]

Hmm, it seems to me that you could use the same syllogism to prove the existence of body-thetans, ergo it might need a bit of a polish.

Fair point, it wasn't entirely serious (though the point still stands, we can observe the effects of emotion, we can't do the same with God).

 

[Azrael23]

Actually, that's fairly easy.

Hypothesis: Emotions exist.
Prediction: If emotions existed, people would sometimes do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.
Observation: Even the most cursorary examination of human behaviour will tell you that the above is true.

Hypothesis: God exists

Prediction: If God existed people would sometimes do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.
Observation: Even the most cursorary examination of human behaviour will tell you that the above is true.

 

[In Bloom]

If God existed people would sometimes do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.

How does that follow?

 

[Azrael23]

Like getting themselves tortured because they refused to denounce their God.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hypothesis: Emotions exist.
Prediction: If emotions existed, people would sometimes do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.
Observation: Even the most cursorary examination of human behaviour will tell you that the above is true.

How about...though experimentation it will be possible to show sbstantially altered chemical and other activity in the brain when the test subject says the are subjectively experiencing an emotion.

The test should show that there is a physical response involved in emotion, or that the physical response is the emotion.

I think evolution makes being an atheist slighltly easier - at least you have something to hang the whole 'life' issue on.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't walk on the cracks in the pavement 'cos the pavement-gremlins will get me

 

[In Bloom]

Like getting themselves tortured because they refused to denounce their God.

Well done, you've proved that people who get tortured to death for their beliefs believe something. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that they're right

 

[Azrael23]

In case you`d forgotten I began by quoting your post In Bloom. I was using your logic, I never said that was my way of looking at it.

 

[In Bloom]

In case you`d forgotten I began by quoting your post In Bloom. I was using your logic, I never said that was my way of looking at it.

The difference is that what I said works for emotions, but doesn't work for God

 

[nosos]

I've always wondered what psycho-emotional need hardline anti-theism serves in people. It often reminds me of the kind of homophobia that may or may not be linked to the person in question secretly wanting to take one up the arse . . .

 

[belboid]

The difference is that what I said works for emotions, but doesn't work for God

except it doesnt really work for either. The second assertion is self-defining and not necessarilly comprehensively covered (are emotions the only reason people will 'do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.'?)

 

[nosos]

(are emotions the only reason people will 'do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.'?)

No but the cognitive category of 'emotions' is the only way we're capable of understanding non-rational actions iyswim.

 

[In Bloom]

except it doesnt really work for either. The second assertion is self-defining and not necessarilly comprehensively covered (are emotions the only reason people will 'do things that aren't necessarily rational or that they wouldn't have done if they'd thought about it.'?)

What other reason is there for irrational behaviour?

(outside of direct control by an outside entity, which we have no evidence for)

 

[belboid]

nonsense. you can deny that there are any non-rational decisions at all, bizarre versions of self-interest, any old thing.

 

[In Bloom]

I've always wondered what psycho-emotional need hardline anti-theism serves in people. It often reminds me of the kind of homophobia that may or may not be linked to the person in question secretly wanting to take one up the arse . . .

What does this have to do with anything?