POTM Is it possible?
Rubystars
back. I regret sharing some of the 'conclusions' I reached during the
journey I was taking in studying evolution. I still accept evolution as
being valid, but some of the comments I made in that piece are no
longer my opinion and I was hoping that I could have some sort of note
added to the end in regards to this.
Who should I contact? I'm concerned that people will fail to realize
that my knowledge gathering was/is an ongoing process and think that I
still hold some of the outdated opinions as shown in that piece.
David Ewan Kahana
The Moving Finger Writes; and; having Writ,
Moves on: Nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall call it back to cancel half a Line
Nor All your Tears wash out a Word of it ...
(from somewhere or other in Fitzgerald's
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam ... too bad
I don't know any Farsi, so I can't tell if
this is a fair translation or not ;->)
Seriously, though, I don't know the answer
to your question.
But after reading your piece, I don't think that
anyone reasonable would be justified in drawing
the conclusion that you at that time held, or now
hold your opinions to be absolutely true and
unalterable.
A foolish consistency ... someone wise once
said it.
Why don't you just make the comments
that you want to make right here?
Maybe, you'll get another POTM ;->
David
Rubystars
It upsets me to think that people might be steered away from being
Christian because I made some statements that come off, now that I read
it a few years later, as being too extreme. For example, I don't think
all of the conclusions I drew were really consistent with one another.
It was fallacious of me to take such liberties in the way I assumed
Genesis to merely be symbolic. I've learned
that the questions surrounding it are much more complex than that, and
require much deeper study. While I still accept
evolution as a valid scientific theory and valid subject of study, I
regret to think I may have steered others from
properly respecting the very Bible I base my belief system upon. There
is symbolism in Genesis, but I no longer
hold many of the same opinions I once did about it as noted in the
POTM. I believe there was an Adam now, for example, though I believe he
was both a literal person and a symbol of mankind. Other such opinions
have also, shall I say, 'evolved'. Please understand that I will
continue to pursue the proper way to synthesize good faith and good
science
and have and likely will make misjudgements along the way.
John Wilkins
The POTM Deity will take care of it...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
SRNissen
This page:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/
has the email address of the person who maintains the POTM archive.
Possibly you can get him to make an amendment or clarifying change to
the post.
- SRNissen
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
David Ewan Kahana
I don't think that you really should let this upset you. You are not
directly responsible for the beliefs of others.
> It was fallacious of me to take such liberties in the way I assumed
> Genesis to merely be symbolic. I've learned
> that the questions surrounding it are much more complex than that, and
> require much deeper study.
For me, the greater part of Genesis is a story that was written,
probably, somewhat more than 3400 years ago, by a late Bronze
age people who were deeply familiar with the major literature, the
scribal conventions, and the various creation myths of the ancient
Near East. In particular they drew on neo-Babylonian tales,
which in turn were derived from the myths of the Sumerians.
The main story line presents a completely original twist on
the Enuma Elish, to the extent that the story is practically
an inversion of that myth in its political content, right up to
the story of the Tower of Babel. The connections between
the story of Noah and the story of Atrahasis seem clear to
me as well, as does the connection between the story of
Joseph and the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe.
I think it is only a historical peculiarity that Christians or
anyone else should regard the story of creation in Genesis
as being anything more than symbolic, though I would not
reject the possibility that there are pieces of heavily
mythologized family history therein, relating to the stories
of the Patriarchs.
I think of the writers as living somewhat in the fashion of
the modern day Bedouin. The error that many people
make in reading Genesis, I think, is the assumption
that all such pastoral transhumants would have been
illiterate. I see these people as probably trading with
both Assyria-Babylon and Egypt and having to understand
the writing systems of both of these civilizations.
There is some recent evidence that the earliest Semitic
writing systems are in fact found in Egypt, and that they
predate the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions of the middle second
milleniium BCE by quite a bit. So I think that there may
have been quite some time for such a people, living
in the areas between these two great civilizations to
have written the stories.
> While I still accept
> evolution as a valid scientific theory and valid subject of study, I
> regret to think I may have steered others from
> properly respecting the very Bible I base my belief system upon. There
> is symbolism in Genesis, but I no longer
> hold many of the same opinions I once did about it as noted in the
> POTM. I believe there was an Adam now, for example, though I believe he
> was both a literal person and a symbol of mankind.
The word Adam appears to derive from the Hebrew ha adamah,
meaning `the clay,' `the mud,' or possibly `the earth.'
Let me offer you a suggestion. The writer(s) of the parts of
Genesis dealing with creation were very well aware that
they were writing a symbolic work, and on top of it, they
were a bunch who very deeply _loved_ making puns and
engaging in wordplay.
> Other such opinions
> have also, shall I say, 'evolved'. Please understand that I will
> continue to pursue the proper way to synthesize good faith and good
> science
> and have and likely will make misjudgements along the way.
Errare humanum est ...
Best,
David
CreateThis
Two steps forward, one step back, eh? Just kidding - I don't begrudge
you your irrational beliefs (as long as you keep them out of our
government and schools).
I would enjoy a followup to your past POTM, but I think it should be
done here. Maybe it wouldn't have been POTM if you had written it the
way you want to now.
CT
Martin Crisp
> I don't think that you really should let this upset you. You are not
> directly responsible for the beliefs of others.
<plants tongue firmly in cheek>
You should read the book of Matthew carefully, paying particular attention
to passages concerning millstones.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792 Almost always SMASHed
AIM: Hypercube3141592
MSN: hypercube3141592 at hotmail dot com
ICQ: 137333576
Yahoo!: EAC_uberpope_of_tasmania
email: martincrisp at ozemail dot com dot au
ph: http://www.whitepages.com.au/
Richard Clayton
Rubystars, I'd be very grateful if you'd write up a full post on the
subject. You've always been one of my favorite posters to t.o, and heck,
you might even get another PotM. (^_^) Besides, I'd be fascinated to
read more about the "spiritual evolution" of a theistic evolutionist.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Richard Clayton
What a deliciously jackass thing to say. Why not "I don't begrudge you
your filthy sodomite ways, as long as you keep them out of our
government and schools"? Rubystars's beliefs require neither your
approval nor your permission.
As far as I can tell, none of her beliefs are inconsistent with the
scientific evidence; why then should you sneer at her theological
convictions? You only help to promote the creationist lie that
"evolution is anti-God!"
> I would enjoy a followup to your past POTM, but I think it should be
> done here. Maybe it wouldn't have been POTM if you had written it the
> way you want to now.
--
Robert Grumbine
Rubystars <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Ewan Kahana wrote:
>> Rubystars wrote:
>> > I would like to add a note to the post of the month that I had a while
>> > back. I regret sharing some of the 'conclusions' I reached during the
>> > journey I was taking in studying evolution. I still accept evolution as
>> > being valid, but some of the comments I made in that piece are no
>> > longer my opinion and I was hoping that I could have some sort of note
>> > added to the end in regards to this.
>> >
>> > Who should I contact? I'm concerned that people will fail to realize
>> > that my knowledge gathering was/is an ongoing process and think that I
>> > still hold some of the outdated opinions as shown in that piece.
>>
>It upsets me to think that people might be steered away from being
>Christian because I made some statements that come off, now that I read
>it a few years later, as being too extreme. For example, I don't think
>all of the conclusions I drew were really consistent with one another.
>
>It was fallacious of me to take such liberties in the way I assumed
>Genesis to merely be symbolic. I've learned
>that the questions surrounding it are much more complex than that, and
>require much deeper study. While I still accept
>evolution as a valid scientific theory and valid subject of study, I
>regret to think I may have steered others from
>properly respecting the very Bible I base my belief system upon. There
>is symbolism in Genesis, but I no longer
>hold many of the same opinions I once did about it as noted in the
>POTM. I believe there was an Adam now, for example, though I believe he
>was both a literal person and a symbol of mankind. Other such opinions
>have also, shall I say, 'evolved'. Please understand that I will
>continue to pursue the proper way to synthesize good faith and good
>science
>and have and likely will make misjudgements along the way.
My own two cents are first to second the notion that you write up
how your thoughts have evolved and post it here, and second that it
then be made an epilogue or addendum to the archived POTM.
Insofar as it's a POTM for representing the evolution of your
thoughts to that point, I do think it relevant to provide an update
on the further evolution of your thoughts.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Deadrat
news:wnTlg.12248$DR1.11002@trnddc02:
> CreateThis wrote:
>> Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>> David Ewan Kahana wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rubystars wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
>>> It upsets me to think that people might be steered away from being
>>> Christian because I made some statements that come off, now that I
>>> read it a few years later, as being too extreme. For example, I
>>> don't think all of the conclusions I drew were really consistent
>>> with one another.
>>>
>>> It was fallacious of me to take such liberties in the way I assumed
>>> Genesis to merely be symbolic. I've learned
>>> that the questions surrounding it are much more complex than that,
>>> and require much deeper study. While I still accept
>>> evolution as a valid scientific theory and valid subject of study, I
>>> regret to think I may have steered others from
>>> properly respecting the very Bible I base my belief system upon.
>>> There is symbolism in Genesis, but I no longer
>>> hold many of the same opinions I once did about it as noted in the
>>> POTM. I believe there was an Adam
>>
>> Two steps forward, one step back, eh? Just kidding - I don't
>> begrudge you your irrational beliefs (as long as you keep them out of
>> our government and schools).
>
> What a deliciously jackass thing to say.
And, pray tell, why is that? Certainly there isn’t the slightest
scientific evidence to conclude that a literal Adam existed. The Bible
doesn’t count, especially if Rubystars is counting backward from 6000.
So the belief is irrational, but that’s no surprise: it’s a *religious*
belief.
> Why not "I don't begrudge you
> your filthy sodomite ways, as long as you keep them out of our
> government and schools"?
Oooh! I know this one. Because “filthy” and “irrational” aren’t
synonyms. People think other people’s religious beliefs are ridiculous.
As H. L. Mencken said, “We say we respect another man’s religion. But
we mean that only to the extent that we do when we say is wife is
beautiful and his children are clever.” Would that fundies didn’t
begrudge others the holding of idiosyncratic religious beliefs.
> Rubystars's beliefs require neither your approval nor your permission.
And neither was suggested.
> As far as I can tell, none of her beliefs are inconsistent with the
> scientific evidence;
Well, that may be true, but that’s because you can’t tell very far. A
literal Adam would leave a bottleneck genetic signature that we don’t
see.
> why then should you sneer at her theological convictions?
He’s not. He’s saying that they’re theological conclusions, which are
just fine with him as long as he doesn’t have to pay for them. What’s
your problem with that?
> You only help to promote the creationist lie that "evolution is
> anti-God!"
Cretinists don’t need or rely on evidence to promote their lies.
Deadrat
<snip>
Ye Old One
Why not post a new article and see if it gets nominated as well :)
--
Bob.
CreateThis
Because I don't know as much about her personal habits as you seem to,
and because sodomy isn't promoted here as appropriate for our schools or
government. But antievolution creationism is promoted here.
> Rubystars's beliefs require neither your approval nor your permission.
Nor do I require her to report to me about her religious beliefs. But
she did, so I'll respond as appropriate to this forum and its topic
matter - in the same way she might appropriately respond to my
exposition of my atheist belief on a board that discusses the advantages
of religion.
> As far as I can tell, none of her beliefs are inconsistent with the
> scientific evidence; why then should you sneer at her theological
> convictions? You only help to promote the creationist lie that
> "evolution is anti-God!"
Religious convictions are irrational by nature. That's not a dirty
word; it's descriptive and appropriate on a board where the difference
between religious belief and science are often the main topic.
Rubystar sounds like a reasonable person - I expect she already knows
her religious belief is irrational. That doesn't mean it's wrong, and
maybe she's not as hypersensitive about the terminology as you are.
Walking on eggs around Christians and their beliefs isn't productive either.
CT
Frank J
I hope you are able to add an update, and maybe stop by here more often
to share your views on recent developments in anti-evolution activism
(Dover, Kansas Kangaroo Court, etc.).
BTW, do you still think that Adam & Eve had biological parents, even if
they may not have had knowledge of good and evil?
rev.goetz
Their parents had a sloping forehead.
James Goetz
Rubystars
is the outrageously aggressive attitude I've seen by many in t.o. and
the evc debate in general. I've been to many forums and I've always
seen the same bait and switch tactics going on.
It's like good cop, bad cop. The nicer people will be helpful and
friendly and try to explain how the science works and be encouraging
and reassuring, and then once someone is reasonable enough to accept
that evolution has a lot of good evidence to back it, the other guys
move in and attack them and try to destroy every ounce of faith they
ever had and/or the same people who were so helpful before then turn on
them and try to rip into them.
I had both happen to me but it didn't shake my core, but I still find
this absolutely repulsive and the glowing praise that I gave t.o. in my
original POTM is very outdated.
Even though I think evolution is a valid evidence-based theory, I
hesitate to try too hard to convince people of it anymore, because I
know that doing so opens them up to these kinds of attacks.
I think I went a little bit too far in some of the conclusions I
reached in my previous post because I failed to see at the time what a
complex subject Genesis really was. The early parts are definitely made
up of symbolism and do hold striking similarities to the other stories.
What exact connection it has to them, I'm still trying to read up on. I
have read some things about how it's linked to the Epic of Gilgamesh
and other texts and I don't deny that it may be responding to some of
what was said in these, but I didn't express myself very well in some
parts of the original post and I come off as being dismissive, which I
didn't intend to be. I don't and never did dismiss Genesis as being a
spiritually relevant text, but I doubt that all readers will pick up on
that.
Rubystars
Rubystars
Frank J wrote:
> BTW, do you still think that Adam & Eve had biological parents, even if
> they may not have had knowledge of good and evil?
I don't know. Probably in any kind of formal work I'd be taking that
position that humankind originated the way other species did.
Privately, I speculate about different ideas but I won't share all my
speculations since I don't have enough data to back them up right now.
-Rubystars
Rubystars
> word; it's descriptive and appropriate on a board where the difference
> between religious belief and science are often the main topic.
I used to concede the point that religious convictions are inherently
irrational, but I'd rather not do that anymore. My continued faith is
what I feel to be a logical conclusion of my life experiences. I know
that people on here will not be likely to understand those experiences,
but I observe the world that I live in and draw conclusions from it.
Your conclusions probably won't be the same as mine, and I'm not
claiming that religious belief can be scientifically backed, because I
don't think it can or ever will be able to be. That doesn't make it
irrational, just a different sphere of knowledge from hard science.
The problem comes in, I would think, when people would confuse that
with science, and/or claim it is science.
> Rubystar sounds like a reasonable person - I expect she already knows
> her religious belief is irrational. That doesn't mean it's wrong, and
> maybe she's not as hypersensitive about the terminology as you are.
>
> Walking on eggs around Christians and their beliefs isn't productive either.
I don't want anyone walking on eggshells, but I do wish that people
would all be very honest and upfront about the way they think rather
than hiding it and unleashing it later in the bait and switch tactics I
mentioned in the other post.
-Rubystars
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Rubystars wrote:
> One of the reasons I feel a little differently than I did in the past
> is the outrageously aggressive attitude I've seen by many in t.o. and
> the evc debate in general. I've been to many forums and I've always
> seen the same bait and switch tactics going on.
I agree with you that the very aggressive anti-theists are as
irritating as the very agressive Christians. These forums tend to bring
out the less polite and tolerant folks, certainly. In the same way that
I resist the temptation to dismiss Christianity out of hand because of
Goodrich or Pagano or Logos, I'd hope you would find ways not to let
the Christian-bashers get under your skin. There are a lot of
reasonable people here who are not interested in mocking or savaging
anyone's faith or lack of it. Presumably you are not afraid that a
critical look at your faith would destroy it, else you wouldn't
consider it much of a faith, so I'd guess it's just the vitriol that
bothers you. It's easy enough after a while to recognize the unpleasant
folks and just not read their posts.
>
> It's like good cop, bad cop.
Well, maybe not quite. The two cops are always working together. Here
you just have people who are helpful and people who are rude; they
aren't in collusion to undermine your faith.
>The nicer people will be helpful and
> friendly and try to explain how the science works and be encouraging
> and reassuring, and then once someone is reasonable enough to accept
> that evolution has a lot of good evidence to back it, the other guys
> move in and attack them and try to destroy every ounce of faith they
> ever had and/or the same people who were so helpful before then turn on
> them and try to rip into them.
>
> I had both happen to me but it didn't shake my core, but I still find
> this absolutely repulsive and the glowing praise that I gave t.o. in my
> original POTM is very outdated.
>
> Even though I think evolution is a valid evidence-based theory, I
> hesitate to try too hard to convince people of it anymore, because I
> know that doing so opens them up to these kinds of attacks.
Outside of usenet do you find yourself getting attacked either about
your faith or your interest in evolution?
CreateThis
wrote:
> > Religious convictions are irrational by nature. That's not a dirty
>> word; it's descriptive and appropriate on a board where the difference
>> between religious belief and science are often the main topic.
>
>I used to concede the point that religious convictions are inherently
>irrational, but I'd rather not do that anymore. My continued faith is
>what I feel to be a logical conclusion of my life experiences. I know
>that people on here will not be likely to understand those experiences,
>but I observe the world that I live in and draw conclusions from it.
>
>Your conclusions probably won't be the same as mine, and I'm not
>claiming that religious belief can be scientifically backed, because I
>don't think it can or ever will be able to be. That doesn't make it
>irrational, just a different sphere of knowledge from hard science.
I think a belief that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny is
'irrational' by definition, but the choice to hold such beliefs can be
rationally made.
CT
Frank J
If Adam and Eve did not have biological parents, then they were
products of a fairly recent abiogensis of eukaryotes. Sure, one could
speculate about it, even hypothesize, but what's the point? As you say,
there's no evidence of it, and most religions admit that it's all about
the souls anyway.
wade
RobinGoodfellow
> Nomiated for a POTM
Seconded.
[snip]
David Ewan Kahana
> On Jun 20, 2006, David Ewan Kahana spake with (apparent) authority:
>
> > I don't think that you really should let this upset you. You are not
> > directly responsible for the beliefs of others.
>
> <plants tongue firmly in cheek>
> You should read the book of Matthew carefully, paying particular attention
> to passages concerning millstones.
>
<tongue in cheek mode on>
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from
thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye,
rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
(Plucks out tongue)
<tongue in cheek mode off>
David
Frank J
I suspect you are kidding, and know that if A&E didn't, that would be
evidence *against* evolution.
>
> James Goetz
Rubystars
It's better to tell you I don't know everything about what the text
implies than to tell you I do know and not back it up with anything,
and it's also more honest to tell you I don't know because I don't.
There are so many facets to understanding this that even experts tend
to disagree with each other on it so who am I to tell people exactly
how they should understand it? All I can do is try to understand it the
best I can for myself. The real trick for me is trying to get to the
original intent of the author/s, which has been interesting, but I'm
far from finished in it.
As I said before, in any kind of formal debate, I'll take the position
that humans originated just like any other species. In fact, I have no
good reason to doubt that humans have non-human ancestors and lots of
reasons to accept that as established fact.
Rubystars
> 'irrational' by definition, but the choice to hold such beliefs can be
> rationally made.
>
> CT
I have trouble with the concept of something being both irrational and
true at the same time. That's why I won't say that beliefs are
irrational. If, for example, Jesus healed a blind man's sight, then it
wouldn't be irrational for that blind man to believe he was healed by a
miracle. It would simply be the truth. Now on the other hand,
describing such a thing scientifically would be pretty difficult and of
course when using the scientific method, supernatural causations are
automatically disqualified. So I think there's a place for both in a
rational mind.
Rubystars
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
> Rubystars wrote:
> > One of the reasons I feel a little differently than I did in the past
> > is the outrageously aggressive attitude I've seen by many in t.o. and
> > the evc debate in general. I've been to many forums and I've always
> > seen the same bait and switch tactics going on.
>
> I agree with you that the very aggressive anti-theists are as
> irritating as the very agressive Christians. These forums tend to bring
> out the less polite and tolerant folks, certainly. In the same way that
> I resist the temptation to dismiss Christianity out of hand because of
> Goodrich or Pagano or Logos, I'd hope you would find ways not to let
> the Christian-bashers get under your skin. There are a lot of
> reasonable people here who are not interested in mocking or savaging
> anyone's faith or lack of it. Presumably you are not afraid that a
> critical look at your faith would destroy it, else you wouldn't
> consider it much of a faith, so I'd guess it's just the vitriol that
> bothers you. It's easy enough after a while to recognize the unpleasant
> folks and just not read their posts.
What bothers me is that people will hold back or distort their real
opinions sometimes in order to get people to accept evolution and then
move in and try to destroy their faith. You could be friends with
someone, respect their choices, and assume they respect yours, and
then they could suddenly say the equivalent of "Now, you seem like a
rational person, so you don't really believe in all that silly Jesus
stuff now do you?"
It wouldn't uspet me as much as it has if I hadn't seen fellow
Christians on various forums worn down and destroyed. I saw them go one
by one, put under enormous pressure and made to feel stupid, though not
everyone cracked. Enough did to upset me and make me feel angry about
these tactics.
The pro-evolution side is split, either they encourage believers to
accept evolution and are happy with that result, leaving them in peace,
or they aren't happy until creationists completely give up on all
'irrational' beliefs.
What I find repulsive is that members of the latter group pretend to be
members of the former one and then reveal their true selves later on,
once someone has accepted evolution and rationally, can't go back to
being a creationist again.
> > It's like good cop, bad cop.
>
> Well, maybe not quite. The two cops are always working together. Here
> you just have people who are helpful and people who are rude; they
> aren't in collusion to undermine your faith.
>
> >The nicer people will be helpful and
> > friendly and try to explain how the science works and be encouraging
> > and reassuring, and then once someone is reasonable enough to accept
> > that evolution has a lot of good evidence to back it, the other guys
> > move in and attack them and try to destroy every ounce of faith they
> > ever had and/or the same people who were so helpful before then turn on
> > them and try to rip into them.
> >
> > I had both happen to me but it didn't shake my core, but I still find
> > this absolutely repulsive and the glowing praise that I gave t.o. in my
> > original POTM is very outdated.
> >
> > Even though I think evolution is a valid evidence-based theory, I
> > hesitate to try too hard to convince people of it anymore, because I
> > know that doing so opens them up to these kinds of attacks.
>
> Outside of usenet do you find yourself getting attacked either about
> your faith or your interest in evolution?
I've visited many EvC forums outside of Usenet, and I've also discussed
the topic offline in the real world. It's not just USENET that has the
problem, it's a problem with the debate itself. The best way to remedy
this problem, is for people to be honest from the beginning, about
what they think and not to hold back or hide it. Hiding your true
feelings about religion only makes you seem dishonest in the long run.
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Well then these are folks in a category I've not come across yet. I've
seen plenty of hostile Christian-baiters, and none of them seem to me
to have the self control or intelligence to hide their anti-Christian
stance long enough to convince anyone that they were simply reasonable
folks interested in the origin of species.
On the other hand, you are so very reasonable that I can imagine
someone who knew both you and a lot of the less reasonable creationists
might, after some discussions on evolution with you say something like
"OK, you seem reasonable, how on earth can you believe anything so
weird as Christianity?" Christianity does seem mighty strange to
someone who is not under its spell, so to speak. So it's possible that
someone is simply surpized to find a rational, intelligent Christian,
particularly if their entire experience with Christians has been with
the Mike Goodriches and Tony Paganos of the world.
>
> It wouldn't uspet me as much as it has if I hadn't seen fellow
> Christians on various forums worn down and destroyed. I saw them go one
> by one, put under enormous pressure and made to feel stupid, though not
> everyone cracked. Enough did to upset me and make me feel angry about
> these tactics.
Their "cracking" may have been inevitable. Though I do not know this
for sure, I often suspect that many of the Christians who come looking
for a religious tussle are ones who are, on some level, unsure of their
faith and somehow hope to have it strengthened by the debate. There is
something odd about coming to an anonymous group to discuss your faith
- it may be that doing so is an indication that one isn't quite sure
about it. Most Christians I know just go about their faith and their
business without putting themselves in situations where they can
reasonably expect to be constantly challenged about their beliefs.
>
> The pro-evolution side is split, either they encourage believers to
> accept evolution and are happy with that result, leaving them in peace,
> or they aren't happy until creationists completely give up on all
> 'irrational' beliefs.
And then there are the members of the"pro-evolution side" who are
already believers themselves.
>
> What I find repulsive is that members of the latter group pretend to be
> members of the former one and then reveal their true selves later on,
> once someone has accepted evolution and rationally, can't go back to
> being a creationist again.
It's certainly possible to be a Christian without being a creationist
(or anti-evolutionist). There's no need to go back to creationism.
That may often be true. It is certainly true, though, that before I
know someone well I will invariably avoid challenging or even
discussing their religious beliefs. Once I get to know them and feel
comfortable with them, though, I may do so. And if I respect them a
good deal and feel very comfortable with them I might say something
along the lines of "How on earth can you believe that silliness?"
though I would certainly phrase it more politely. But I would truly be
asking out of curiousity rather than out of a desire to make them
"crack".
wade
Rubystars wrote:
> What bothers me is that people will hold back or distort their real
> opinions sometimes in order to get people to accept evolution and then
> move in and try to destroy their faith. You could be friends with
> someone, respect their choices, and assume they respect yours, and
> then they could suddenly say the equivalent of "Now, you seem like a
> rational person, so you don't really believe in all that silly Jesus
> stuff now do you?"
>
> It wouldn't uspet me as much as it has if I hadn't seen fellow
> Christians on various forums worn down and destroyed. I saw them go one
> by one, put under enormous pressure and made to feel stupid, though not
> everyone cracked. Enough did to upset me and make me feel angry about
> these tactics.
>
> The pro-evolution side is split, either they encourage believers to
> accept evolution and are happy with that result, leaving them in peace,
> or they aren't happy until creationists completely give up on all
> 'irrational' beliefs.
>
> What I find repulsive is that members of the latter group pretend to be
> members of the former one and then reveal their true selves later on,
> once someone has accepted evolution and rationally, can't go back to
> being a creationist again.
I believe I understand your perspective but it raises a few questions.
Raising questions is rather central to this. Once you supply
reasons for believing or concluding something, there they
are on the table for examination. Those reasons invite response.
<snip>
> I've visited many EvC forums outside of Usenet, and I've also discussed
> the topic offline in the real world. It's not just USENET that has the
> problem, it's a problem with the debate itself. The best way to remedy
> this problem, is for people to be honest from the beginning, about
> what they think and not to hold back or hide it. Hiding your true
> feelings about religion only makes you seem dishonest in the long run.
There's an implication here. If I say I don't believe in your
God up front, you will dismiss my arguments about why
evolution is a solid scientific theory. You basically say
you aren't going to listen to the reasons independent of
the speaker's beliefs or lack of beliefs.
That's not a novel stance. Clearly, you could source examples
of atheists not trusting anything said by someone who led
with a statement of faith just as one can find believers
who will inheritly mistrust anything said by non-believers.
But I do think it provides a motive, far from dishonesty,
for not leading with or even providing a testimonial about
how you feel about a different topic. So here, I mean
that how one evaluates the evidence for the theory of
evolution is disjoint from whether or not one believes
in or doesn't believe in any particular God or gods. That's
backed up by the fact that people of many faiths and
people with no faith agree on the scientific facts of
evolution. It isn't dishonest to shun the discussion of
points that will only prejudice your listener.
Maybe there's more to your point than you wrote. And I
wouldn't deny the possibility of people being out there
committed to destroying any belief system they don't
agree with using any means to acheive that objective.
But you tar with too broad a brush with the comments
you actuall posted.
rev.goetz
First of all, I will clarify that according to population genetic
studies, wise humans never had a population bottleneck less than a
number of the effective population size roughly equal to 10,000. And I
am not sure about what would be cut off between a sloping forehead and
a nearly vertical forehead. And I am sure that the first nearly
vertical homine foreheads would not necessarily have all of the
characteristics of what we call anatomically modern human foreheads.
And all new phenotypes in homine forehead development started as
polymorphisms till they fixed or became extinct. But such a regulatory
mutation would *not* be evidence *against* evolution.
James Goetz
Robert Grumbine
[snip]
>It wouldn't uspet me as much as it has if I hadn't seen fellow
>Christians on various forums worn down and destroyed. I saw them go one
>by one, put under enormous pressure and made to feel stupid, though not
>everyone cracked. Enough did to upset me and make me feel angry about
>these tactics.
>
>The pro-evolution side is split, either they encourage believers to
>accept evolution and are happy with that result, leaving them in peace,
>or they aren't happy until creationists completely give up on all
>'irrational' beliefs.
Same split exists among Christians. Some Christians are happy
enough if you go about living a good life, being good neighbors.
Others won't leave you alone until you convert to their brand.
I think that, as is the case for Christians w.r.t. Christianity,
_most_ people who accept the science on evolution are happy enough
to leave it there. As is the case for evangelical Christians,
the evangelical atheists won't leave it there.
They're actually much of the problem for the public acceptance
of evolution, as they speak directly to the worst fear of many --
that you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. They're
wrong, and they're tactically and strategically stupid to pull
that in a country that is ca. 85% Christian even if they weren't.
>What I find repulsive is that members of the latter group pretend to be
>members of the former one and then reveal their true selves later on,
>once someone has accepted evolution and rationally, can't go back to
>being a creationist again.
I think wade put in some good points. But some other sides to the
picture...
One thing is, I think the evangelical atheists show up on day
one. Being who they are, what else could they do? But in the
early days, those who don't have a conflict between religion
and science also show up and speak to the lack of conflict and
to the actual content of the science. As you accept the science
for what it is, they post less and the proportion shifts more
strictly to the evangelical atheists.
The other thing is, I think there's an observer selection effect.
In the early days, it is easier to ignore the evangelical atheists
(or that part of posts) because there is science content new to you
being posted. That new and meaningful material can take more of
your attention. As it falls off (because you understand enough more
to not have such readily answered questions) the evangelicals become
harder to ignore.
[snip]
SRNissen
Although not necessary, I'll third this.
--
- SRNissen
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
Frank J
I see what you mean. What I had in mind was a radical morphological
change that could be evidence of "saltation," especially if it
coincided with a dramatic increase in mental processing that allows
knowledge of good an evil. But forehead slope is, relatively speaking,
not that radical. And even the current population has a range of both
forehead slope, as well as understanding of good an evil.
Ironically, it's areas like these where anti-evolutionists would be
doing all sorts of fascinating research if they truly believed that
there was a recent dramatic event that produced the first modern
humans. But the fact that they are even retreating from committing to
an abrupt (abiogenesis or saltation) recent appearance of very few (2?)
modern humans, let alone testing it, is further evidence that they know
that they are misleading people.
rev.goetz
On the other hand, I suspect that the development of the of the nearly
vertical forehead correlates to the development of the neocortex that
can distinguish wise humans from our closest paleontological relatives.
But as we know the neocortex typically does not fossilize.
James Goetz
Deadrat
news:1151038736....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
>
> bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
>> Rubystars wrote:
>> > One of the reasons I feel a little differently than I did in the
>> > past is the outrageously aggressive attitude I've seen by many in
>> > t.o. and the evc debate in general. I've been to many forums and
>> > I've always seen the same bait and switch tactics going on.
>>
>> I agree with you that the very aggressive anti-theists are as
>> irritating as the very agressive Christians. These forums tend to
>> bring out the less polite and tolerant folks, certainly. In the same
>> way that I resist the temptation to dismiss Christianity out of hand
>> because of Goodrich or Pagano or Logos, I'd hope you would find ways
>> not to let the Christian-bashers get under your skin. There are a lot
>> of reasonable people here who are not interested in mocking or
>> savaging anyone's faith or lack of it. Presumably you are not afraid
>> that a critical look at your faith would destroy it, else you
>> wouldn't consider it much of a faith, so I'd guess it's just the
>> vitriol that bothers you. It's easy enough after a while to recognize
>> the unpleasant folks and just not read their posts.
>
> What bothers me is that people will hold back or distort their real
> opinions sometimes in order to get people to accept evolution and then
> move in and try to destroy their faith.
I challenge you to cite one example of this happening on t.o. Not only
can you have little evidence from a newsgroup about posters’ "real
opinions," but the people who post here about science have little
interest in your faith.
> You could be friends with
> someone, respect their choices, and assume they respect yours, and
> then they could suddenly say the equivalent of "Now, you seem like a
> rational person, so you don't really believe in all that silly Jesus
> stuff now do you?"
Again, I'd like you to cite a single example of this. I assume here that
by "silly Jesus stuff," you mean the belief in the divine and miraculous
nature of Jesus Christ. I simply don't believe that you or anyone else
has been attacked for holding to this religious belief. If, on the other
hand, you mean, for example, that the Gospels are contemporaneous and
reliable evidence for your beliefs, then you can expect to have your head
handed to you.
> It wouldn't uspet me as much as it has if I hadn't seen fellow
> Christians on various forums worn down and destroyed. I saw them go
> one by one, put under enormous pressure and made to feel stupid,
> though not everyone cracked. Enough did to upset me and make me feel
> angry about these tactics.
I suspect that his is simply the usenet version of American fundies need
to feel persecuted. It's not enough that they pretty much control all
the power centers of the country; they need to feel victimized at the
same time. And I note that your absurd claim is now not limited to t.o,
but includes "various forums." How exactly can one feel "enormous
pressure" from a usenet post? How can you be "made" to feel stupid? In
this context, what does it mean to crack?
> The pro-evolution side is split, either they encourage believers to
> accept evolution and are happy with that result, leaving them in
> peace, or they aren't happy until creationists completely give up on
> all 'irrational' beliefs.
The "pro-evolution" side merely contests misrepresented science. This,
by definition, cannot include irrational beliefs such as the religious.
> What I find repulsive is that members of the latter group pretend to
> be members of the former one and then reveal their true selves later
> on, once someone has accepted evolution and rationally, can't go back
> to being a creationist again.
Please name one of this "repulsive" group. Once someone has "accepted
evolution," by which I assume you mean accepted the scientific evidence,
then by definition one cannot be a creationist in the AIG sense. As has
been pointed out here: 1) honest, 2) informed, 3) creationist. Choose
two.
Sorry, but I still don't know what the problem is. But I note that your
complaint now encompasses extra-usenet forms plus "the real world." On
t.o, your best bet is to refrain from guessing what people really think
about some topic, and look at the evidence and logic of the arguments
presented.
Deadrat