« I always hated homework | Main | How much is politics in the genes? »
Theism vs Evolution II
Rather than answer all the objections put forward to my theism and evolution post let me state the argument in another way which should make it clear that I am (obviously) correct.
Suppose that God came down from the heavens tomorrow in all his glory, throwing thunderbolts, raising the dead, turning water into wine, whatever it takes to convince everyone of his existence. If this were to occur I have no doubt that even Richard Dawkins, precisely because he is a rational scientist, would say 'hmmm, perhaps I wasn't quite right about all this evolution stuff.' My point in the post is that many religious people don't need the demonstration - they already believe and in so doing they logically question evolution just as Dawkins would if he came to believe as they do.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on June 21, 2005 at 08:05 AM in Religion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e550834a408833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Theism vs Evolution II:
» Tabarrok still doesn't get it from Pharyngula
He has just made his errors worse. Rather than answer all the objections put forward to my theism and evolution post let me state the argument in another way which should make it clear that I am (obviously) correct. Suppose that God came down from the ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2005 9:59:59 AM
» Evaluating the God Hypothesis from Neurath's Boat
There has been considerable discussion on some of the blogs I frequent of the view of Alex Tabarrok that, for someone who believes in God, doubting evolution is rational. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2005 5:07:03 PM
» Necessary But Not Sufficient from Signal + Noise
Alex Tabarrok considers [and see update below] the implications of knowing God exists on the evolution-creationism conflict, but in the process, he ignores a staggering case of asymmetric information. Alex's basic argument is that if we assume God exis... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2005 10:47:55 PM
» So what if God exists? from Pub Sociology
What was Alex Tabarrok thinking when he wrote this post? [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2005 11:49:52 PM
» So what if God exists? from Pub Sociology
What was Alex Tabarrok thinking when he wrote this post? [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 22, 2005 12:30:17 AM
Comments
And your point is trivial in the extreme.
It is a fundamental fact of logic that false implies everything.
From false premises anything can be logically derived.
Think about it a bit.
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Shirley Knott at Jun 21, 2005 8:15:48 AM
And who says what is false? Can you say with 100% certainty
that there is no God, or no purple unicorns on the far
side of Jupiter? Without the info, I think agnostic is the
best you can do, with a statement of some probability..
I THINK there is no God, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: pb at Jun 21, 2005 8:22:39 AM
No. No. No. No.
Look Alex, you don't get it. The existence of "God" in and of itself doesn't mean that the earth is flat or that 2+2=5. How could it? This whole argument makes you look embarrassingly ignorant. The whole exercise is bewildering and logically blinkered which is why so many confused onlookers think you are arguing in favor of Creationism (or are grotesquely apologizing for it). Just quit while your behind. You are inadvertently taking a position in the culture war that you don't support.
Dawkins, I am most certain, would not reject evolution just because a big scary God exists, anymore than he would reject the freezing point of water. Your math just doesn't add up.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Jun 21, 2005 8:41:45 AM
Dawkins and others would have some sharp questions for that god as to why things were made to look exactly like evolution were taking place, and would ask if it did indeed take place. The answers might change your mind as to whether you enjoy worshipping that god (I assume a Pascal wager would make you do so for fear of getting on the bad side of an omnipotent being).
However, your conclusion, that religionists "logically" question evolution only addresses the first twenty seconds of any of their thought about it. What about that part when they consider evidence? Or do they assume that away because of the god hypothesis? Do they make that assumptions about other areas, such as procreation? Why use a condom, when a god will create or not create a pregnancy, assign disease, etc.? Why not organize the economy along lines of religious-derived rules, since the invisible hand of markets could as easily be the invisible hand of god.
In short, by your own argument, the position of economist is vacant because there is no limit to the assumptions of action by an omnipotent and omniscient god, and those who believe should question any non-theological explanation of phenomena.
So is it your proposition that it continues to be logical to question evolution once they begin educating themselves about it, or do you think they should question it and then accept what the evidence leads to, as I assume you would in the case of economics?
Posted by: Sandy Smith at Jun 21, 2005 9:03:42 AM
You are obviously wrong.
If an eccentric and powerful god was proven to exist, that could certainly mean that all the evidence for evolution was an illusion that the god had created for whatever weird reason.
By the same reasoning, if such a god existed, it could mean that all the evidence for a spherical Earth that orbits the Sun was an illusion that the god had created for whatever weird reason.
If the existence of a god is a reason to doubt evolution, then it's a reason to doubt practically every single piece of human knowledge.
Posted by: Martin R at Jun 21, 2005 9:06:10 AM
A few quick thoughts ...
I don't necessarily believe in evolution in the strictest sense. I believe that evolution happened in that creatures evolved, natural selection, etc. But as a Catholic, the critical part for me is that _none_ of this happened by chance. No accidents. Every soul and thing was specifically created and set in motion by God.
As far as believing, see Occam's Razor.
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Christopher Meisenzahl at Jun 21, 2005 9:09:54 AM
As they say in less erudite circles: Bump.
The argument that was levelled against your first post was that God or not, evolution is a mechanism that explains far too much...not just the origin of life, but little other mechanisms about disease control and such. Medical researchers rely on insights gleaned from pursuing experiments assuming evolution daily.
Now, I agree that you have a good point. Evolution was some amount of the lever that helped create Atheism in the first place. People needed a creation-story to take the place of the standing myths before they could take Atheism seriously. Post Darwin, non- philosophers could hold an Atheist view without too much trouble. However, that's only because it was psychologically difficult to disbelieve something that most of your compatriots believe, with no alternate explanation.
Darwin allowed us to have said alternate explanation, and a comfort zone. I would make a different claim than yours: if Evolution were proven false...many Atheists would lose part of their justification, and convert. However, God's existence doesn't impact theory of evolution, in those who have a reasonable understanding of what is actually said.
Posted by: Kyle at Jun 21, 2005 9:19:51 AM
I had essentially the same reaction as some of the posters above. Assuming what you say transpires, and God doesn't smite me for not believing in him/her so far, (s)he would have some serious explaining to do. For example, did he trigger the DNA code and mutation mechanisms so that homo sapiens would eventually arise ? Why do it this way etc etc ? I am perfectly willing to grant that possibility, if God can prove it logically. But its highly unlikely that merely his existence will raise any doubt in my (or Dawkins's, I'm sure) mind about evolution; evolution has too much evidence and logic behind it to just ignore it.
Posted by: Anon at Jun 21, 2005 9:34:44 AM
Part of your problem is that you're using the wrong terminology. What you are defending is a form of belief known as Deism. This is the God of Nature - Creator beloved of many Enligthnment intellectuals like Jefferson. There is a version of Deism quite compatible with modern sicence but it excludes biblical inerrancy and almost every other prop of modern religion. Darwin was well aware of this, as have been many theologians and philosophers. Even the minimal Deist position consistent with evolution, however, has major defects. These are primarily epistemic defects and are discussed well in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Posted by: Roger Albin at Jun 21, 2005 9:38:21 AM
Okay, so if there is a god...
and I wash my hands with anti-bacterial soap...
then it won't be the bacteria that are most resistant to the anti-bacterial agent that survive…
and they won’t pass their genetic information on to the next generation….
And this then won’t create a generation of bacteria with greater resistance than the prevous generation…
Because there is a god.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY FREAKING SENSE!!!
Posted by: josh at Jun 21, 2005 9:39:24 AM
I think your missing a point of the counter-arguments. Evolution does not preclude the existance of God, but it does preclude the existance of a 10,000 year-old earth. If God appeared and said, "Hah! Fooled you! The world is 10,000 years old", then Richard Dawkins would probably scream, "Then why the **** did you make everything look so old?".
If God came back and said, "I leave my molecules alone for a measly 4 billion years and wound up with this mess?!!" Dawkins would have to recant his atheism, but not evolution.
Posted by: Independent George at Jun 21, 2005 9:41:13 AM
Depends on what God said, and whether you believe him. Two things you've left out :)
If God said nothing at all other than to demonstrate his existence, and you're an optimist who thinks he's basically a good guy-- all the rationalists will still believe in what creationists call "evolution" which means -- 4 billion years of earth, descent with change, natural selection, modern genomics. And maybe there was a plan. Fine with this current atheist.
After all if He's not going to deny all the evidence he has provided us, we should probably assume he's not trying to deceive us.
If he said "nope-- 7 days, 6000 years ago", then he (as Lucy) would have "some 'splaining to do"
Posted by: Jim W at Jun 21, 2005 9:42:03 AM
I would say that even if god came back and said that he created the world 5 minutes ago billions of years worth of evolution had still occurred. It just would have occured in the mind of god rather than in the "physical" world. Now I suppose that if evolution is not ultimately chaotic in a strong sense it might be possible that god used algorhythmic tricks that skipped over the need to do some of the calculations explicitly, but the physical universe may do the same thing, using quantum mechanics.
Posted by: michael vassar at Jun 21, 2005 10:06:11 AM
I think the chorus has you Alex. You are confusing theism with evolution. Again, biblical literalism is not even a majority view among CHRISTIANS. And it is only a very particular modern interpretation of Biblical literalism that stands in direct contradiction to what science tells us about the natural world. The existence of god would not magically invalidate all the evidence for an old earth or for the particulars of common descent. All that evidence is there and remains there even if God's holy chariot comes roaring through. In fact, for many theists (again, read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God), a God who basically sets the rules of the universe and lets it go on it's own, and then answers the prayers and offers salvation to those creatures that reach out for the divine, is perfectly consistent with their understanding of Christianity: even superior, because it finally allows us to see a creation free from God's micromanagement, hence leaving room for the free choices that God supposedly wants us to make.
Posted by: plunge at Jun 21, 2005 10:53:20 AM
Bah, why not think that 9.11 was wanted by God then. Or why he shouldn't directly manage the unemployment rate.
Posted by: Filter at Jun 21, 2005 11:05:49 AM
All the sciences have phenomena they can't fully explain. But no scientist would abandon his "scientific" research into these phenomena if a god's existence were suddenly proven.
Why? Because the astounding track record of science to date gives us reason to think that scientific explanations will be found eventually.
And there is nothing that a proven god might add to such explanations.
Posted by: Threejack at Jun 21, 2005 11:21:58 AM
Arthur C. Clarke once pointed out that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
So, how would you "know" that you are in the presence of god? what miracles would be so contrary to the laws of physics/biology/chemistry as we know of them today that would prove to you that you are in the presence of god and not the wizard of oz?
and instead of giving up all scientific endeavor, wouldn't it be more interesting to ask him how he does it? why is it that physical laws don't apply to him? what does it mean to be outside the universe? do other gods run other universes? why Stalin? how can we travel faster than light?
Professor, i have to agree with the other commenters that you haven't really thought these posts all the way through.
Posted by: Francis at Jun 21, 2005 11:44:54 AM
Have to join the chorus here, Dr. Tabarrok, saying that you haven't thought this one all the way through. Dawkins has excellent empirical reasons for his belief in evolution. If he were confronted with an irrefutably Divine presence, he'd probably ask God for a historical narrative and compare it to the evidence with which he's already familar.
Only a rather small part of Christians believe that this hypothetical God would answer "I created it in 7 days in 4004 BC". If God gives an answer more in line with the majority Xian belief, there's no reason for Dawkins to revise his views.
Posted by: Doug at Jun 21, 2005 11:57:27 AM
But *which* god? Yahweh? Thor? Apollo? Quetzocoatl? Coyote? Morrigan? Cthulhu? Superman? Neo?
Posted by: JeffE at Jun 21, 2005 12:04:02 PM
Pretty much more of the same:
I understand your point, I think. The flaw here is that atheism is not the reason to accept evolution, the evidence is, and this evidence is completely independent from the fact or falsehood of God. That God can create wine does not lead me to believe wineries are a massive hoax. I've seen all the evidence that wine can be and is created by mundane means.
If the evidence for evolution was terribly weak, and there were stronger reasons to support claims that Christianity is contrary to evolution, then yes, I think I could see your scenario occurring.
I agree with the others here that religion does not inherently conflict with evolution, but I wouldn't care if it did. The evidence is the reason we have evolution as a science, and we can't ignore it. Evolutionary science is all about questioning and testing that evidence anyway. Confirming God would not cause us to question the evidence any more, it would cause us to question God. Not his existence (I'm assuming here that his appearance would be definitively convincing, somehow negating the possibility of super-advanced aliens masquerading as a deity) but what he knows about evolution. After all, he's the ultimate science experiment. "What's all this Evolution, then, sir? Did you do this? Is it an illusion? How and why? If we were just wrong that all this evidence was evidence in the first place, that's quite amazing, please explain how we were mistaken!" And we would be tripping over ourselves to ask these questions. The Interview with God would be the ultimate scientific paper.
Posted by: rrt at Jun 21, 2005 12:04:23 PM
If god came hurling thunderbolts and raising the dead, I would probably question the principle that lightning is the result of charges building up on clouds. Is any rational theist therefore to believe in Zeus?
I'm just adding my voice to the chorus that you have this completely wrong. Calling your own point "obvious" doesn't help the matter, and it just makes it clear that you're not taking the other side seriously.
Posted by: Joe Viola at Jun 21, 2005 12:05:31 PM
Shirley Knott (great name, btw) has nailed you twice on this. You start from the premise that there is a god/there are gods and then proceed to type drivel. Perhaps you ought to follow the advice of your right-wing brethren: what happens at the meetings of the Association of Christian Economists stays at the meetings of the Association of Christian Economists.
Posted by: SavageView at Jun 21, 2005 12:07:07 PM
this is arguably true:
no evolution --> god
this is the contrapositve:
no god --> evolution
but this does not follow from the above:
god --> no evolution
Posted by: Eric at Jun 21, 2005 12:59:58 PM
OK just to play Devil's advocate-
The objection voiced in these comments seems to be that belief in God, which is a given in this argument, does not equate with belief in all doctrine and therefore creationism.
But I don't think that is the only necessary route. Consider instead belief in a God, belief that creationism is possible. Step from there to belief that creationism is as likely as any other explanation. Then compare the competing 'theories' to the evidence.
Evolution has lots of holes. Even some atheists don't fully accept it as an explanation, merely default to it for lack of an alternative, much like a pre-Darwin deist. To my knowledge the biological big bang still remains to be demonstrated persuasively.
It seems that, given the belief in God and therefore the acceptance of creationism as a possibility, a fair and reasonable comparison could have creationism winning out.
Yes there are competing theolgical philosophies. Yes perhaps more theories in addition to evolution would be questioned, that all seems beside the point, or rather outside the premise. The idea is that a potential creator exists, does then the theory of random generation and devlopment of life seem likely? Yes a thousand monkeys in a thousand years could produce Hamlet in theory. But once Shakespeare is a given, what seems more likely?
Posted by: vince_card at Jun 21, 2005 1:28:10 PM
Tabarroks argument makes sense to me (an atheist). Shirley Knott sort of had a point. Given that an omniponent, all-powerful God exists (not necessarily that statement is true), then you can conclude whatever you want.
Posted by: Ethan at Jun 21, 2005 1:35:32 PM
