Evolution a religion?

[Tarantism]

i believe that you just ended all doubt or need for disussion in my mind.

[Pyrotex]

i believe that you just ended all doubt or need for disussion in my mind.

 

Gosh! :cup: I finally said something right? :D

[cwes99_03]

The lack of a deity does NOT imply that everything must occur in a random fashion. Order does not typically originate because an "orderer" pulled it out of his magic hat.

 

Take a "random" collection of rocks, gravel, pea gravel, sand, in a rigid container. Vibrate the container with "random" vibrations. The rocks will order themselves, with sand on the bottom, followed by pea gravel above that, with the largest rocks neatly on top. No intelligent "orderer" required.

 

And oddly enough, we have a theory for why this happens. And we have no need to assume a God in that theory either.

 

Of course this doesn't deny either that a God might have created the laws which govern the "self-ordering" system you have proposed (note quotes because there is no "self" in that order. The sand nor the gravel presumes to put itself in order, but rather the "random" oscillations cause it to move.

 

Let's try this experiment again. Only let's say that we put about 100 sets of watch parts in the box and then shake it randomly. How many fully assembled watches are we gonna get?

 

Interesting thoughts, carry on.

[Pyrotex]

...Let's try this experiment again. Only let's say that we put about 100 sets of watch parts in the box and then shake it randomly. How many fully assembled watches are we gonna get?

 

Ahh, the old watch parts in a wind storm analogy. Okay. You will almost certainly get no assembled watches, or even any sub-assemblies.

 

The difference is this: in the box of sand and aggragate, after the experiment is performed, what you see is just an order. That's all.

 

In the box of watch parts, if you perform the experiment and see an assembled watch, you would see far more than just 'order'. You would see 'order' AND 'design'. The 'design' of the assembled watch is easy to see as it has an obvious purpose--to measure time. The layers of sand and rocks have no purpose.

 

There are vastly trillions and bazillions of ways that sand and rocks can order themselves into neat layers. There is only ONE way that watch parts can assemble into a working watch. Therefore the two experiments are not directly equivalent.

[cwes99_03]

Actually there is only one way for the rocks and sand to "organize" or "arrange" themselves. That is with the smallest aggregates at bottom and the largest aggregates at the top, given random (albeit low amplitude) oscillations from all sides. This suggests to me a law that states how they must interact with each other, and guess what Newton saw that same law at work and wrote about it.

Now does that law mandate a creator? It alone, I would say does not make a case for a creator.

EDIT: Excuse me, a designer.

[Pyrotex]

Actually there is only one way for the rocks and sand to "organize" or "arrange" themselves. That is with the smallest aggregates at bottom and the largest aggregates at the top,...

Now does that law mandate a creator? It alone, I would say does not make a case for a ...designer.

 

Consider the following. Let us confine ourselves to a box with 100 identical grains of sand and 100 identical pebbles. Let us define a 'state' as any specific configuration of those 200 items. If I take pebble #3 and swap it with pebble #77, then I really have a new 'state'. Even if all the grains are at the bottom of the box and all the pebbles are on top, I can swap grains around or swap pebbles around to produce a gazillion new 'states'--that all look the same. I think that is what confused you.

 

In fact, the total number of identical-looking states is (100!)^2. That is the square of: 100*99*98*97*...*4*3*2*1. This number is vastly huge.

 

With the watch parts, there is only one configuration, one 'state' that makes a working watch. If you swap ANY two parts, even similar parts, the watch will in all likelihood not work any more. In fact, if you take just ONE part, and flip it around, the watch won't work.

 

I agree that the existance of a natural law does not say anything about there being a 'designer' or not.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I wasn't confused by it. I understood your point, though you had not enumerated it. I simply wanted to point out that no matter how you wanted to mathematically determine it, it followed the simple rule that sand would make its way to the bottom. Of course, we have to allow for the possibility that a single pebble gets lodged in a corner or some how doesn't get vibrated to the top of the pile and every grain of sand will not likely be below every pebble, but that is because the laws are so complex that they allow for this too happen. Now some say that the sheer complexity of such a law indicates that there is a creator, others say that there is no reason to make such an assumption.

I missed the point though where this became the topic in this thread.

Has it been decided whether one can choose to define evolution (or maybe science) as a religion, or does this stretch the meaning of the word religion too far?

[Pyrotex]

...Now some say that the sheer complexity of such a law indicates that there is a creator, others say that there is no reason to make such an assumption. ...Has it been decided whether one can choose to define evolution (or maybe science) as a religion, or does this stretch the meaning of the word religion too far?

 

Lessee. I could go back and check all the posts, but I am lazy and this is a work day. I believe several folks arrived at a consensus that science is not a "religion" in any meaningful sense, without as you say, stretching the word too far. The same would go for evolution, as it is merely one of the topics of interest in science.

 

I would like to know why is there so much determination (among some folks) to have science or evolution considered a "religion". Can you say?

[cwes99_03]

Nope. I just wanted the discussion out of the thread that I had created as it had nothing to do with it. If you note my thread on religion vs. philosophy, my definition would not allow for science or evolution to be titled a religion.

I do however see the point of some scientists treating the almight human intellect as something to be worshipped. My problem isn't in saying that some may worship science just like some worship money, but to call it a religion would be stretching the definition a bit far.

Instead I would include it in idolatry, or idolizing something that is not a god. In this definition we cover both sides of the issue, as idols do not necessarily make for a religion, nor does it omit the idea that some think more highly of science than they do of anything else.

[Pyrotex]

Nope. I just wanted the discussion out of the thread that I had created as it had nothing to do with it. If you note my thread on religion vs. philosophy, my definition would not allow for science or evolution to be titled a religion.

I do however see the point of some scientists treating the human intellect as something to be worshipped. My problem isn't in saying that some may worship science just like some worship money, but to call it a religion would be stretching the definition a bit far.

Instead I would include it in idolatry, or idolizing something that is not a god. In this definition we cover both sides of the issue, as idols do not necessarily make for a religion, nor does it omit the idea that some think more highly of science than they do of anything else.

 

I haven't seen your other thread. But the idea of starting a new thread (somewhere else far away) to get an irrelevant conversation out of your way is clever.

I feel the same way to the word "worship" as I do the word "religion". I used to hear my preacher talk about people "worshiping money" and treating science "like an idol". Even at the age of 12, it sounded very wierd to me.

I treat "worship" as a specific religious attitude--having an object or entity be the center of one's life and existence, AND behaving so as to earn the favor of that object or entity. (This raises the question of whether or not the "object" is capable of having favor.)

As a young man, I decided that what the preachers meant (or meant to mean) was this: those folks' love of money (or whatever) is so Intense, Devout, and Unquestioning, that they have no love for anything else; single-minded devotion. But not "worship" in the religious sense of trying to earn favor and adulation.

The preachers went so far as to call this "idolatry", but here again, I would say that this kind of single-minded pursuit of wealth can be called "idolatry" only as a metaphor. They don't actually bow down to a bank statement set on an altar with incense sticks burning.

 

I tend to avoid metaphor when I can, or at least be up front that I'm using metaphor, in my arguments because it can be very confusing. Do I mean that someone is "playing ball" in the sense that they are cooperating, or do I mean they belong to a real ball team?

 

So, though I have read many (MANY!) books and articles by scientists, I have never seen one "worship" the human intellect.

[cwes99_03]

I can see your point about the word worship if you think it has to involve doing something to attain adulation.

Wordnet.princeton.edu defines it as

idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol; "Many teenagers idolized the Beatles"

 

show devotion to (a deity); "Many Hindus worship Shiva"

 

the activity of worshipping

 

attend religious services; "They worship in the traditional manner"

 

a feeling of profound love and admiration

So among those is the idea of woship = showing devotion to a deity. However in the English language, the word has also come to mean idolize, or devote so much time to one thing, so that it consumes a great amount of your time.

 

It is interesting to think of the following linguistic paradox though. If one were to worship science, using the first definition above, one would be 'loving science (the questioning of everything) unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess. Maybe we'll just stick with the to excess part.

 

So to say one worships science, or money, or the Beatles, one would be saying that they love these things to excess. Having had that Biblical background, you can probably see the truth in the statement that one cannot slave for two masters, or eat from the table of two masters equally, right? I guess if this were true, we each would have to chose which thing in our life we devote the most time too and see if that is what we want to be "worshipping".

[Pyrotex]

I can see your point about the word worship if ... the word has also come to mean idolize, or devote so much time to one thing, so that it consumes a great amount of your time....So to say one worships science, or money, or the Beatles, one would be saying that they love these things to excess. Having had that Biblical background, you can probably see the truth in the statement that one cannot slave for two masters, or eat from the table of two masters equally, right? I guess if this were true, we each would have to chose which thing in our life we devote the most time too and see if that is what we want to be "worshipping".

Okay, I go along for the most part--that's pretty coherent. IMO, we are still edging awfully close to what I call the Metaphor Fallacy:

 

"We accept the figure of speech that 'those people do X', where X is a metaphor; therefore, we can conclude that they really DO X, where X is taken literally."

 

This is a very persuasive argument, but it CAN be wrong, even when it persuades.

 

Question: when does love or fascination or devotion become "in excess"? Does this not boil down to opinion--at least most of the time?

 

22 years ago, I spent 100 hours a week developing a computer program for NASA. For 18 months I had no time or energy to do anything else, but eat and sleep. It was the finest piece of work I ever did, and contributed significantly to the space program. Was that to excess? Was that worship?

 

What if I spent the same time and effort and devotion to my potato chip collection? Would that be in excess? :eek2: Let me think... uh... YES!

[Pyrotex]

...what I call the Metaphor Fallacy

I just read a couple of the Fallacy Articles available from Hypography. This is properly called the "Equivocation" Fallacy.

[cwes99_03]

Question: when does love or fascination or devotion become "in excess"? Does this not boil down to opinion--at least most of the time?

 

22 years ago, I spent 100 hours a week developing a computer program for NASA. For 18 months I had no time or energy to do anything else, but eat and sleep. It was the finest piece of work I ever did, and contributed significantly to the space program. Was that to excess? Was that worship?

 

What if I spent the same time and effort and devotion to my potato chip collection? Would that be in excess? :eek2: Let me think... uh... YES!

 

Well, I can provide at least one good example. If you are traveling 56 in a 55, the law states that you are traveling at an excessive speed, because your speed exceeds the limit.

This example I guess means, where do you set a limit? Which I believe is the question you were asking above.

Most people would say that, if it consumes your time to the point where you have to give up your otherwise normal routine it is to an excess. Of course when that thing becomes your normal routine, then you can't use that definition any more. Instead we turn toward the normal person (what is a normal person anyway?), or we turn toward necessity.

Was it necessary for you to spend 100 hours a week in the lab writing a program? Could you have taken an extra 6 month and only spent 50 hours? If so, then you were being a bit excessive in your work on that project. (Does this constitute worship/idolizing? Hmmmmmmmmmm. I would vote yes, but only because you gave up everything else for 18 months of your life, see the below.)

No I wouldn't go so far as to say speeding 1 mile/hour over the limit, makes you a worshipper of speed/adrenaline (unless if you were obsessed with always being exactly 1 mph over the limit, but that is just OCD (but what is obsession, but the idea that something deserves all of your time/energy.))

No, to worship to me, means devoting your life to something. If you devote your life to being the smartest person you can be, then you are worshipping yourself/your own intellect. If you devote your life to proving evolution, then you are worshipping science/Darwin. If you devote your life to proving the existence of God, you are worshipping God.

[Pyrotex]

...No, to worship to me, means devoting your life to something. If you devote your life to being the smartest person you can be, then you are worshipping yourself/your own intellect. If you devote your life to proving evolution, then you are worshipping science/Darwin. If you devote your life to proving the existence of God, you are worshipping God.

But you said that excess devotion to something was 'idolatry'. So excess devotion to proving God would be 'idolatry'.

 

This is the land mine you create by depending on metaphor too heavily.

 

Let's back off from this a moment. What would the person themself say about what they do? Would they say they 'worship' a computer? No. And they have a right to define themselves to the world. Would they say they 'worship' evolution? Not at all. They would say they study or teach evolution, or use it in predictive epidemiology.

 

I have a suspicion that whenever someone declares that someone ELSE 'worships' so-and-so, it is intended as an insult: "They don't have the same set of values as I do, therefore, whatever they do value must take the (inappropriate) place of a religion."

 

Think about it, cwes. Do you ever tell yourself that someone 'worships' X (where X is NOT your God) without a twinge of contempt or self-righteousness? Don't you always use this turn of phrase as a put-down, to some extent?

 

Perhaps you don't mean what you think you mean.

[cwes99_03]

No, I don't think I use it as a put down. I am simply pointing out where they spend the majority of their time. Would I be putting someone down for saying they worship God?

To worship also has taken on the meaning of to worship at or eat at the table of.

But you said that excess devotion to something was 'idolatry'. So excess devotion to proving God would be 'idolatry'.

You missed one point, and I know you know you missed it. Idolatry simply is the worship of something other than God, or at least that is how I've always understood it. To idolize, or hold in very high esteem, something other than God. I suppose you could extend that to any God you like, but then I only know that the God of the Bible opposes idolatry, and not necessarily other gods of other religions. So once again, to idolize means to expend excess devotion to a non-god. Devotion means to place high value on the time spent doing a certain act (i.e. increasing knowledge of the universe, increasing ones possessions, eating rich and luxurious foods, consuming alcohol). Each one of these things in and of themselves are not necessarily bad things (at least according to my religious beliefs) but when one does them to an excess, these things become more important than God to that person, as is demonstrated by the amount of time and energy given to them.

[Pyrotex]

Well, I can provide at least one good example. If you are traveling 56 in a 55, the law states that you are traveling at an excessive speed, because your speed exceeds the limit...

 

I don't agree that this is a "good" example. Your example appeals to a measurable LAW with precisely defined limits. One's devotion to science, making a living, loving one's children, and trying to win a marathon, are NOT governed or adjudicated by a measurable LAW. There is no way to "measure" my dedication to finishing a marathon and say, 'woops, you are over the limit. You are hereby charged with worshiping the marathon.'

 

Cwes, let us get serious, shall we. If you want to be taken seriously by intelligent, well educated, thoughtful people, then you are going to have to deal with this: your devotion to using the Metaphor Fallacy (also known as the Equivocation Fallacy) is hereby judged to be IN EXCESS!

 

You are charged with "Worshiping Fallacious Arguments".

 

You are hereby fined 45 cents and two days of community service.

 

[gavel bangs twice] :) :)