Religious scientists
Grano Salis
simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
rupert....@gmail.com
I'm an atheist (just filled out a census form to that effect), but I'll
respond anyway.
You don't have to apply the scientific method to everything. There are
some areas where it simply doesn't make sense. I have a hypothesis that
I love my wife. It's certainly falsifiable, in certain interesting
situations, but I don't intend to try. I don't need to know this in the
same way that I know the planets move in ellipses around the sun, or
that we share common ancestors with everything living on earth today.
Theistic evolutionists, from what I understand, practice a different
sort of compartmentalisation. They place their theistic beliefs beyond
the limits of the scientific method. If it can be tested, then it's not
god, for them. This approach is clearly superior to the
god-of-the-gaps, since you can be assured that science will never
disprove what you believe.
I don't see a lack of self-respect in choosing to believe something for
which there can never be any contradictory evidence. The choice to
believe in Jesus, Allah, Invisible Pink Unicorns or the Flying
Spaghetti Monster is obviously personal, and there's some interesting
psychological research to be done explaining why we believe what we do.
So long as it doesn't turn you into a crazy who hates people who
believe in a different set of unfalsifiable ideas, I don't have a
problem with it.
John Wilkins
Any religion that has a skerrick of sense has to accommodate the real world,
but accommodating the merely *physical* world is not the task of religion, but
of science. Whatever the functions of religion are, if you accept that it
plays these roles legitimately, you must deal with the physical ("natural")
world by making the two domains coherent.
A religious believer who accepts that science is, in fact, the best way to
deal with the physical reality of things will therefore ensure that whatever
is claimed by their religion in their own mind does not conflict with science.
But empirical evidence is not the foundation for religion, necessarily. At
best, a well-articulated religious belief system must not be in contradiction
with empirical data, but it doesn't thereby depend on it.
However, and this point is often not emphasised enough, in order to make one's
beliefs cohere, one has to take a fair bit of time educating oneself, and
working it through, and it isn't necessarily the case that one can do this
globally or evenly. This is as true of the atheist and (like myself) agnostic,
as it is of the theist.
So one can hold "irrational" beliefs because one simply hasn't yet got to that
corner of the mind to tidy up yet. That said, it is not, prima facie,
irrational to believe that the world has meaning or order because of the
actions of a god. At least, not unless you question-beggingly assume that to
be rational is to use only physical explanations and inferences.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
VoiceOfReason
Many religions and/or denominations don't cross into areas where one
would expect to find evidence, in the scientific sense. In fact, to
some theists, looking for evidence for their deity would be considered
heresy, as one should believe by faith alone.
Science - well, it appears you have a handle on that. Evidence,
scientific method, falsifiability, etc., are parts of it. Considering
that the two disciplines (religion and science) exist in two distinct
environments, there's no overlap between the two. As such, belief or
nonbelief in one has no bearing on the other. In short, they're
"apples and oranges." This is the case for most mainstream Christian
denominations.
Where one finds a problem is with those denominations whose beliefs
*do* cross into areas where science has contrary evidence, such as
evolution of humans, the age of the Earth, etc. For folks whose
denominations require belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth and a special
creation for all species, science is obviously a problem. The minority
of Christians that are members of fundamentalist or evangelical sects
have that problem.
For another take, see the God and Evolution FAQ at the t.o archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Milan
"Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
Religion is not about choice or about rationally accepting assertions as
valid; it is part of the cultural package received in the form of childhood
indoctrination. People learn to live with the contradiction by the simple
procedure of not thinking too much about it.
regards
Milan
HoopyFrood
I'll jump in here, since I am a Christian and, much to the chagrin of
some, consider myself a skeptic (little "s") and a follower of science.
While I'm not in a 'hard' science field (I'm and engineer with a power
company), I have studied plenty of science in my day.
I really like what each of the previous posters have said. While the
scientific method is invaluable, it is an enquiry into the natural
world. To possess a belief that is purely "supernatural", by
definition it is not subject to natural (i.e. scientific) enquiry.
That is not to say reason and logic play no role in accepting a purely
supernatural belief, but there are no quantitative means of verifying
the veracity of such a belief. (I hope that makes sense).
Now if a supernatural belief contradicts the natural evidence
(astrology, dowsing, etc) it can be disregarded (from a naturalistic
view point). But if the supernatural belief has no natural evidence
(e.g. theism) then scientific enquiry will lend no evidence for or
against it. It all comes down to judgment call, and, in the case of
theism, must be determined by subjective interpretation of personal
experience.
For example, I've had experiences that lead me to think (not know) that
there is a God, but Michael Shermer has had experiences that lead him
to think (not know) that there is no such thing as a god.
We have investigated the evidence, and it is fairly obvious that Common
Descent occurred; we know this. A supernatural belief could run along
the lines of "why did it occur". Was it God that set the universe in
motion? Did the FSM get bored and make it happen? etc, etc. These
would be "beliefs" and can never be "known".
My approach to my beliefs has been rational and logical, IMHO, but at
the end of the day I know they are based on my own subjective
reflections on my experiences in life. Therefore I cannot hold it
against anyone if they don't share my beliefs. However I can, and do,
take great exception to people's beliefs when those beliefs cause pain
to others.
And, VoiceOfReason, I think you will appreciate this:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
Science rocks...
Grendel
"Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
You will get limited answers on that. But very predictable ones.
The atheists will of course be happy to proudly display their atheism.
Nothing to lose.
Theists will come in three categories here. The ones who have some kind of
milk toast "faith" Some kind of personal belief grounded in a willy nilly
flower child concept of "live and let live" No set rules as long as you
don't offend anyone and accept evolution to be true.
Some theists actually do have a more intelligent faith, and will give a
lengthy emotionally based sob story justification of why they have not lost
their marbles to have a faith and believe in evolution. The audience on this
forum typically holds their nose at those sorts of things, but accepts them
on the basis of common ground in believing evolution. Those theists are
willing to accept all others as long as they believe in evolution as well.
The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their Creator
and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are mutually
exclusive.And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
HoopyFrood
Since Milan beat me to the post, I'll make one change. I don't
necessarily agree with Milan. While this certainly can be the case
(living with contradiction because you don't think about it to much),
it isn't the case with me, nor anyone I know. If a person is a
Theistic evolutionist (and maybe that is a big IF) they are probably
not one because they haven't thought about it. If a person is a
Christian and not inclined to think, I think they're much more likely
going to be a Creationist.
Theistic evolutionists kind of get knocked around more than other
groups because many naturalists think of them as self-deluded, and
fundamentalist and evangelical Christians often think of them as evil.
Kind of a lose-lose situation :-)
Robert J. Kolker
> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> absolutely beyond my comprehension.
Render unto science them that things which belong to science and unto
Gawdddd them thar things which are Gawdddd's.
Religion is about righteousness, salvation and eating kosher food.
Science is about how the physical world works. One has nothing to do
with the other.
Do you comprehend it now?
Bob Kolker
Grano Salis
to believe something for which there can never be any contradictory
these reasons: First, persons grounded in scientific methodology
cannot, without copping out, "choose" to "believe." Such persons can
only hold, more or less strongly, tentative conclusions, which are open
to change with new data. Second, belief in a god, if held despite a
scientific education, is very probably held for reasons of felt
personal security. This often places one's personal emotional comfort
in opposition to societal welfare -- because gods are extremely prone to
the issuance of arbitrary behavioral restrictions and requirements.
Thus we have the religious opposing stem cell research, denying rights
to homosexuals, interfering with others' education, reproductive
decision, end-of-life decisions --- the list goes on and on and on. All
due to unsupported and unsupportable "beliefs" to which they
presumptively have a "right." Phooey! I say. A pox upon them!
Grendel
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:1141181793....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Grano Salis wrote:
>
> For another take, see the God and Evolution FAQ at the t.o archive:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
<snip>
Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a site by
evolutionists for other evolutionists. Most if not all are atheists and
probably not a good place to go for an good answer about God and evolution.
If you are looking for a Christian perspective, this is a much better place
to go.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
and this is a good Christian perspective too.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c022.html
>
Robert J. Kolker
> Many religions and/or denominations don't cross into areas where one
> would expect to find evidence, in the scientific sense. In fact, to
> some theists, looking for evidence for their deity would be considered
> heresy, as one should believe by faith alone.
Galileo warned the Church fathers not to base any conclusions about the
physical world on Scripture. He said Scripture tells you how to go to
heaven, not how the heavens go. He further warned that if the Church
Fathers made a statement about how the physical world works based on
Scripture and it should later be falsified, then they would look foolish
indeed. The Church folk disregarded Galileo and later had to eat some crow.
>
> Science - well, it appears you have a handle on that. Evidence,
> scientific method, falsifiability, etc., are parts of it. Considering
> that the two disciplines (religion and science) exist in two distinct
> environments, there's no overlap between the two. As such, belief or
> nonbelief in one has no bearing on the other. In short, they're
> "apples and oranges." This is the case for most mainstream Christian
> denominations.
Religion and Science, as you point out, have an empty intersection. One
has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.
Bob Kolker
Chris H. Fleming
A different, non-believer scientist here.
Many people do believe for the sake of comfort.
But there is also the teleological god.
That is, believing in god because the universe exists, is orderly
(mathematically beautiful), and begat us. It all seems too perfect.
Many scientists couple this teleological explaination (which really is
begging more than anything) to their traditional religious beliefs.
Some simply leave the teleological god as a nonpersonal, areligious
concept.
Ken Rode
<snip>
> And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
But isn't this precisely what you want us to believe that God did?
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Or alternatively, to think about it and come to uncomfortable
conclusions. I was raised fundamentalist, but perhaps because I am not
very social by nature, I found nature to be more persuasive than the
folks at church. Eventually, at 13 I decided that there was no God like
Jimmy Swaggart imagined him to be.
I found Zen Buddhism appealing, but since enlightenment is not the
result of any effort, there was no goal to reach, so no reason to
consider my life a religious path. I still see much benefit in effort
and practice, and try to be a decent person.
My workout partner in the university for four years was a devout
Catholic, and a grad student in plant virology. He taught me much -
informally - about evolution, and seemed to have no trouble
maintaining separate compartments. As an atheist philospher, I had
many interesting discussions with him. He never thought that he
"should" be able to convert me, however. He knew that reasons which he
found compelling (mostly upbringing) would not be persuasive for me.
Mostly we argued about ethical issues and such.
He said doing science was studying how God does things (in the physical
world). He got his PhD and moved on.
I think there is a spiritual (for lack of a better word) impulse in
some people which is best expressed in a religious path. An intelligent
or subtle thinker can follow such a path devoutly, but also realize
that it is arbitrary (like country music vs jazz vs reggae) and
cultural and personal, and it could easily be another path for
different people. This is no more a subject for science to determine
for that person than it would be for a choice in music or mate.
To argue that one's own religion (especially one which one is born
into!) is the one others must follow is rather like insisting that
people stop listening to Coltrane or Mozart and turn to Earl Scruggs.
(All of whom I listen to, BTW)
Kermit
Kermit
Ken Rode
I suspect that the definition of "good Christian perspective" includes
the idea that the ideas pur forward don't conflict with one's already
established Christian world view.
Ray Martinez
You falsely assume that science can only be pursued when atheist
suppositions are employed. I suggest you abandon the needs of your
worldview and consider all evidence or ***your*** science and its
conclusions are entirely predictable.
Ray
Grendel
"Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aR8Nf.4039$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
That is my choice. I don't want you to believe anything.
If you want to choose the magic quantum hat as the explanaton for your
origins, that is up to you.
>
HoopyFrood
Grano Salis wrote:
> tRupert Morrish wrote: "i don't see a lack of self respect in choosing
> to believe something for which there can never be any contradictory
> evidence." For someone who accepts the scientific method? I do -- for
> these reasons: First, persons grounded in scientific methodology
> cannot, without copping out, "choose" to "believe."
I disagree. As others have said science may shed no light on a
supernatural matter. If a person is interested in the "supernatural"
for whatever reason, science does not hold jurisdiction there. Your
saying a scientist must adopt a naturalist or materialist philosophy.
But those philosophies are only reached by investigation.
Some people's (who were scientists) philosophical investigations lead
them to Theism. Some people's (who were scientists) philosophical
investigations lead them to Atheism (or naturalism or materialism).
You can't say those of the first kind are categorically wrong unless
you ask each one to explain their lines of reasoning.
> Such persons can
> only hold, more or less strongly, tentative conclusions, which are open
> to change with new data.
Agreed. And this also applies to the philosophical beliefs they hold
too. I used to be a YEC. Now I'm not. I used to believe in "turn or
burn" evangelical theology. Now I don't. My views on God, the Bible,
human nature (and many other things) have never been static, nor will
they be. Dogmatism in religion is a sign of hubris and a closed mind.
People who reflect those tendencies are probably not scientists.
> Second, belief in a god, if held despite a
> scientific education, is very probably held for reasons of felt
> personal security.
The belief, if held for the reasons you state, is not a rational one.
Again the people who hold such beliefs are probably not scientists and
are most likely religious fundamentalists.
>This often places one's personal emotional comfort
> in opposition to societal welfare -- because gods are extremely prone to
> the issuance of arbitrary behavioral restrictions and requirements.
> Thus we have the religious opposing stem cell research, denying rights
> to homosexuals, interfering with others' education, reproductive
> decision, end-of-life decisions --- the list goes on and on and on. All
> due to unsupported and unsupportable "beliefs" to which they
> presumptively have a "right." Phooey! I say. A pox upon them!
I agree with your dislike of such behavior. But, again, such behavior
from "believers" is a glaring sign that says "Irrational, Dogmatic,
Sanctimonious, Bigoted". In other words, not rational, subject to
enquiry and revision upon insightful findings. These people are not
likely to value science to highly.
You can summarize my position thusly: If you come across a Christian
that loves science, acknowledges evolution and understands reason, they
are not likely to be picketing Planned Parenthood clinics or voting
"Yes" on state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage (as my
state is going to put to the ballot this November).
Michael Siemon
Arrecti...@webtv.net (Grano Salis) wrote:
I just read two replies to your question, one from an agnostic
and one from an avowed atheist -- both with fairly good answers,
even when read from my perspective. I guess I am one of them
there mystery types who seem to be beyond your comprehension.
I particularly like Rupert Morrish's lines:
> ... I have a hypothesis that I love my wife. It's certainly
> falsifiable, in certain interesting situations, but I don't
> intend to try. I don't need to know this in the same way that
> I know the planets move in ellipses around the sun, or that
> we share common ancestors with everything living on earth ...
This begins to delimit the way that religion operates, in general.
It is mostly a social/relational and on-going activity, not one of
"fact finding".
Some few religions (Christianity most prominently) may _appear_
superficially to be "about" a lot of "assertions" about the world.
This is a bit deceptive, even in the extreme case of fundamentalist/
literalist Christian "dogma" (i.e., assertions of "fact" that are
beyond any possible test, though in form they may be blatantly
contradictory to any reasonable result of critical objective study.)
I am not a believer because of any form of "critical, objective
hypothesis testing". But also not, by contrast, because I simply,
blindly accept what others tell me. There is in fact lots of testing,
a lot of "doubt" -- and vast numbers of unresolved questions.
And the engagement with the questions is absolutely bound up in
subjective judgments with no clear methodological recourse to
decision procedures as effective as those of science (or even of
the more tenuous procedures of critical historiography). In my
case, that subjectivity is -- of course -- heavily biased by my
background in a Christian (and largely Protestant) culture. My
current Episcopalianism is a sort of "Anglicanism as a second
language", as it involves "Catholic" elements rather alien to
my upbringing (that's not counting my 15 years of adolescent
and early adult atheism in between...)
I won't try to explain the socio-cultural dynamic that leads to
people adopting fundamentalist/creationist beliefs. That is too
alien to me to deal with at all reasonably. In my case, belief
is largely a product of two things:
* trust in people whom I love and believe to be both informed and
honest (honest ignorance in the "simple fool" tradition may, in
some views, be religiously admirable, but it is not something I
regard as helpful in resolving my own doubts and questions).
* apparent "rewards" or "justification" or "proof" even, from
engaging in liturgy or prayer or other "spiritual disciplines"
as urged by those I trust. The Christian mystical tradition,
for example, is quite as rich as the Buddhist tradition, and
is one way people make their way "to" the God of Christianity.
As I said above, all this is intensely, inherently subjective.
And even if, as sometimes happens, the "mystical" approach leads
one to regard "objective reality" as somehow insubstantial or
"unimportant", it does not in any way reduce the value, nor the
power, of objective investigation of that objective reality. I
can't spend my working life in _satori_, after all... the meetings
alone are more like hell than the paradise of the Boddhisatvas.
The sorts of assertions that I accept "for which there is, and
can be, no empirical evidence" are not open to scientific or
other critico-objective investigation -- e.g. "God is Love".
Or that we are, as human beings, made in the "image of God" as
complex persons bound in loving relation to other persons, just
as the Father/Son/Spirit are bound in the Trinity. I haven't a
clue how anyone could even _pretend_ to investigate such claims
"objectively". Prayer, liturgy, interaction with other persons
(both those we love and those we do not love, those who share our
beliefs and those who do not) -- all of that provides _experience_
that may (or may not!) support our beliefs. But this "experience"
is not "experiments" with reportable objective conclusions.
In point of fact, people _lose_ their faith in some cases, because
of their experiences. And others gain (or re-gain) faith, again
from different subjective experience.
I don't know if that answers your question in any way. It is true
that some kinds of critical, objective investigation could, in
principle, rule out some things I believe. The development of
critical historiography of the Middle East raised serious reasons
to disbelieve the purported history in the Jewish writings, and
to doubt that the gospel stories of Jesus' Nativity and the
Resurrection are quite what they are naively read to assert.
Something like a solid and well-supported "counter" narrative
on the lines given in garbage fiction like the "Da Vinci Code"
crap would strike a blow at any simple form of Orthodox Christian
credal statements, but it is not entirely clear that even that
would undercut my faith -- I have no need for Immaculate
Conceptions, or Virgin Births, or Jesus in the Sky with Diamonds
(sorry, with Moses and Elijah) or other "miracles" to believe as
I do in a Trinitarian God of Loving Persons, and a grounding of
my own life and love in that God. I really _don't_ believe in
"miracles" in any classical sense. The only "essential" miracle
in Christianity is the Resurrection, and that is so bound up in
myth as to be almost impossible to deal with. For myself, it is
enough to "recognize" (sometimes) when two or three are gathered
in the Name of Christ, that the Risen Christ is somehow there
amongst us, and the Kingdom of Heaven is present. And one either
has that experience, or not. And nothing changes because of that,
unless it makes it easier to love others.
Grendel
Read my reference links and then the others. Then compare with the Bible.
You can then decide for yourself.
>
Robert J. Kolker
> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their Creator
> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are mutually
> exclusive.And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
> spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
Christianity is a snare, a delusion and a superstition. You are a
foolish person.
Living things don't spring from rocks, that is true. But all living
things are made of the same kinds of atoms as non-living things. Men and
rocks are the same at the subatomic level.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> My workout partner in the university for four years was a devout
> Catholic, and a grad student in plant virology. He taught me much -
> informally - about evolution, and seemed to have no trouble
> maintaining separate compartments. As an atheist philospher, I had
> many interesting discussions with him. He never thought that he
> "should" be able to convert me, however. He knew that reasons which he
> found compelling (mostly upbringing) would not be persuasive for me.
> Mostly we argued about ethical issues and such.
I will bet you found at least 80 percent agreement on what is good and
what is bad.
Every intelligent being knows the difference between right and wrong.
Bob Kolker
Lee Oswald Ving
news:EG8Nf.4029$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a site
> by evolutionists for other evolutionists. Most if not all are atheists
> and probably not a good place to go for an good answer about God and
> evolution. If you are looking for a Christian perspective, this is a
> much better place to go.
Such as the Catholic Church, since it is the largest denomination by far.
Which, coincidentally, obviously does NOT agree with the "Christian
Answers" pages, making the very name a complete lie.
This also means the T.O. page is much more accurate, whether you like it or
not.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> You falsely assume that science can only be pursued when atheist
> suppositions are employed. I suggest you abandon the needs of your
> worldview and consider all evidence or ***your*** science and its
> conclusions are entirely predictable.
Science has nothing to do with gods, ghosts, spirits, angels and
celestial domains beyond the physical kosmos. The onlys thing required
to be scientific, is to hold fact as primary, and to reason logically.
Bob Kolker
HoopyFrood
Grendel wrote:
[snip - I agreed with most of that BTW]
> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their Creator
> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are mutually
> exclusive.
I have to say you are way off here, Grendel. I could be described
perfectly by your stock phrase "the theists who have actually read the
Bible and know Jesus as their Creator and Lord..." but here I am
saying how bad YEC is. I have devoted my life to God (and don't think
I don't realize how corny that sounds), but I strongly disagree with
the Scientific Creationist viewpoint. The Bible says NOTHING about
evolution and was never written to be a scientific textbook. They are
not mutually exclusive; as far as origins go they are mutually mute.
The Bible says nothing of science, science says nothing about God.
>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
Well I wouldn't call science a belief system. It deals with facts and
empirical evidence. So of course I buy into it. You can't get away
from natural conclusions based on natural evidence. You'd be an idiot
not to accept science.
> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
> spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
I'm actually not sure who you're referring to...
Tom McDonald
Grendel wrote:
> "Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
> > Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> > simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> > absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
> > and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> > assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> > compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
>
<snip unsolicited comments>
Jist, I'm curious as to why you have chosen to disrespect the OP in
this way? S/he clearly asked for responses from 'dualists' which, in
this case, you are not.
If you are for respecting your wishes about who should reply to whom,
why would you act in such an apparently hypocritical manner here?
Grano Salis
simply hasn't yet got to that corner of the mind to tidy up yet." Well,
yes, But how much time are you willing to allow these scientists to do
the clean-up? Usually a doctorate takes at least to the mid-twenties,
and in many cases much longer. And how about the oldsters who still
hang on to their dusty "beliefs." They may not be irrational, but one
can hardly consider them wise.
Also, John, don't forget that the "natural world" encompasses not only
the physical world but also the social world and that of human behavior.
It is in these worlds, both of which are amenable to scientific inquiry,
that religious beliefs do the most damage, and I find it particularly
egregious that some scientists fail to tidy up their minds and recognize
this.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> That is my choice. I don't want you to believe anything.
> If you want to choose the magic quantum hat as the explanaton for your
> origins, that is up to you.
There is currently no working theory that accounts for the origin of
life on this planet. There are some educated guesses but that is as good
as it is right now.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Grendel wrote:
> [snip - I agreed with most of that BTW]
>
>>The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their Creator
>>and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are mutually
>>exclusive.
>
>
> I have to say you are way off here, Grendel. I could be described
> perfectly by your stock phrase "the theists who have actually read the
> Bible and know Jesus as their Creator and Lord..." but here I am
> saying how bad YEC is. I have devoted my life to God (and don't think
> I don't realize how corny that sounds), but I strongly disagree with
> the Scientific Creationist viewpoint. The Bible says NOTHING about
> evolution and was never written to be a scientific textbook. They are
> not mutually exclusive; as far as origins go they are mutually mute.
> The Bible says nothing of science, science says nothing about God.
>
>
>>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
>>has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
>
>
> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system. It deals with facts and
> empirical evidence. So of course I buy into it. You can't get away
> from natural conclusions based on natural evidence. You'd be an idiot
> not to accept science.
There are some underlying unprovable posits that ground science:
1. A world external to our senses and wills exists. It will be there
after we are gone.
2. We formulate hypotheses based in induction and abduction. There is no
guarantee that hypotheses based on induction and abduction will be true
in all generality.
3. We believe that the "laws" of physics hold everywhere and everywhen.
There is no way we can prove this, but we MUST assume it to do sciences
at all.
4. The future will be substantially like the present and the past. There
is no way to prove this empirically. Just because the sun has risen on
this planet for 4.5 billion years does not mean it will do so tommorow.
But we must believe that it will in order to do science.
These are some of the unprovable assumptions one MUST make in order to
do science at all.
Bob Kolker
Grendel
"Lee Oswald Ving" <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9778E09A68254...@208.49.80.124...
Oh..so the T.O page agrees with the CC? Doubt it...doubt it very much.
Either you don't know what T.O teaches or what the CC teaches.
Real History
The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered
topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis,
it is argued, would have understood it as such.
Even if Genesis 1 records God's work in a topical fashion, it still records
God's work-things God really did.
The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator
symbolically as a succession of six days of divine 'work,' concluded by the
'rest' of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe
its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God's word drew it
out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human
history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the
world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They
are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical
writing that Westerners do not typically use.
Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the
fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is
whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings
(a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a
teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of
another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church
by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion
which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men
who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from
the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first
parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled
that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching
authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds
from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through
generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis
37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written
entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The
account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a
primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of
man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human
history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
parents" (CCC 390).
Science and Religion
The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist
between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own
limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be
remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly 'the Spirit of God who
spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner
structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation'; and
that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition
of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a
somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times
required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst
most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge,
provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not
override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things
of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The
humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led,
as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the
conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The
Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
>
Elf M. Sternberg
> Some theists actually do have a more intelligent faith, and will give a
> lengthy emotionally based sob story...
I'm usually jaded to Usenet viciousness, but Grendel's attack on
men who simultaneously hold deep and abiding theistic beliefs on the one
hand and can do marvelously detailed science on the other is simply
beyond the pale. He owes this group an apology.
Elf
HoopyFrood
I think I answered this in my last post to you. (The scientists who
believe in God aren't the ones raining the bad consequences of religion
down on the world -- the fundamentalists are). Please don't equate
belief in God with rabid religiosity.
It appears the religious fundamentalists have shown up here now, too.
You asked a good question and I think I gave a halfway decent answer.
You didn't ask this question to those who don't accept evolution, so
I'd ignore them. If you're interested in talking further, e-mail me.
I gets pretty tedious to see the same sad extremist arguements pop up
in the middle of a good conversation, so I'm going to move on. Hope
this helped in some small way.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Not all scientists need be Skinnerian, as you suggest. There is a
separation between motivational responses to need fulfillment on a
strictly behavioral level. Some people are perfectly capable of looking
to faith for answers to questions that they realize that the scientific
method can't address. And it doesn't cause cognitive dissonance in them
as it does you.
Grendel
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46kisrF...@individual.net...
> Grano Salis wrote:
>
>> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
>> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
>> absolutely beyond my comprehension.
>
> Gawdddd them thar things which are Gawdddd's.
>
> Religion is about righteousness, salvation and eating kosher food.
>
> Science is about how the physical world works. One has nothing to do
> with the other.
>
> Do you comprehend it now?
Yes, and I am *starving* Got anything to eat around here?
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Grendel
"HoopyFrood" <benitos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141186242.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Grendel wrote:
> [snip - I agreed with most of that BTW]
>> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their
>> Creator
>> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are
>> mutually
>> exclusive.
>
> I have to say you are way off here, Grendel. I could be described
> perfectly by your stock phrase "the theists who have actually read the
> Bible and know Jesus as their Creator and Lord..." but here I am
> saying how bad YEC is. I have devoted my life to God (and don't think
> I don't realize how corny that sounds), but I strongly disagree with
> the Scientific Creationist viewpoint. The Bible says NOTHING about
> evolution and was never written to be a scientific textbook.
The Bible dear person , explains exactly how everything we see got here.
If you have never read it, it can be found at the beginning in a Book called
Genesis.
Chapter one would be a good start. If what the Bible says there is
true....evolution is one great big fat lie.
They are
> not mutually exclusive; as far as origins go they are mutually mute.
> The Bible says nothing of science, science says nothing about God.
The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is correct
on areas that it touches on. Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
others?
>
>>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
>> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
>
> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
It deals with facts and
> empirical evidence.
Science does yes. Evolution is simply an "interpretation" of the evidence
based upon pre-conceived notions of how the Universe came into being.
So of course I buy into it. You can't get away
> from natural conclusions based on natural evidence. You'd be an idiot
> not to accept science.
You are confusing science and evolution. Evolution is not science,
evolution is a belief system of how things came into being.
>
>> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
>> spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions
>> of
>> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
>
> I'm actually not sure who you're referring to...
Evolutionists believe that all known matter space and time came into
existence from something called the "Big Bang" According to evolutionists,
that Big bang was the result of a quantum fluctuation in the emptiness
before anything existed.
They believe that everything we observe (space, matter, time) sprang from
that little magic quantum hat.
On that one alone, the Bible is so true.....Only a fool in his heart says
there is no God.
>
rich hammett
> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
I'm gonna call loki withougt even reading the thread...
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
Grano Salis
eating kosher food. Science is about how the physical world works. One
Often annoying but never unamusing. Yes, Bob, I comprehend the meaning
of your asseverations. But I don't agree with them. If one defines
"science" to include those disciplines having to do with how human
beings work, then the intersection of science and religion is most
definitively not empty: the religious have far too much to say, and
suck up far too much money and manpower saying it, about
"righteousness," or how people should behave. And, of course, it is
only they who know: godsaidit and physiologists, physicians,
sociologists, research psychologists, biologists etc. should be capped
if their findings are in disagreement. This is a point that I think has
not been given sufficient attention in the arguments about science and
religion here.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote: "So one can hold "irrational" beliefs because one
> simply hasn't yet got to that corner of the mind to tidy up yet." Well,
> yes, But how much time are you willing to allow these scientists to do
> the clean-up? Usually a doctorate takes at least to the mid-twenties,
> and in many cases much longer. And how about the oldsters who still
> hang on to their dusty "beliefs." They may not be irrational, but one
> can hardly consider them wise.
I was talking about individuals. Each person has a life to be getting on with
(philosophers excepted), and so they spend only so much time doing the
conceptual housework as they can afford.
And at some point in one's life, the effort is too costly to go further - as a
rule of (evolved) thumb, we tend to take what worked well enough in our
learning phase as being sufficient in the remainder of our lives. And this
works, most of the time.
As a cost-benefit analysis, it may indeed be a rational bet to stick by old
beliefs.
> Also, John, don't forget that the "natural world" encompasses not only
> the physical world but also the social world and that of human behavior.
> It is in these worlds, both of which are amenable to scientific inquiry,
> that religious beliefs do the most damage, and I find it particularly
> egregious that some scientists fail to tidy up their minds and recognize
> this.
>
Religion can do damage, sure. And so can economics, philosophy, medicine, and
sports. But it can also be a benefit a can all the others, for people who have
problems in some areas.
I was once religious, and I know from direct experience how helpful it is to
have the support of a community like a religious community. Not all problems
are down to religion - indeed it is my view that religion expresses both the
best and worst of human behaviour because those who make it up are humans.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Dana Tweedy
"Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
news:MA9Nf.4062$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "HoopyFrood" <benitos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141186242.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Grendel wrote:
>> [snip - I agreed with most of that BTW]
>>> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their
>>> Creator
>>> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are
>>> mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>
>> I have to say you are way off here, Grendel. I could be described
>> perfectly by your stock phrase "the theists who have actually read the
>> Bible and know Jesus as their Creator and Lord..." but here I am
>> saying how bad YEC is. I have devoted my life to God (and don't think
>> I don't realize how corny that sounds), but I strongly disagree with
>> the Scientific Creationist viewpoint. The Bible says NOTHING about
>> evolution and was never written to be a scientific textbook.
>
> The Bible dear person , explains exactly how everything we see got here.
But not in a scientific sense. The creation stories in the Bible are
written form of oral traditions handed down over centuries, combined with
other culture's creation stories bleneded in. No one who lived at the
time the Bible was written down expected these creation stories to be
factual, in the modern sense.
> If you have never read it, it can be found at the beginning in a Book
> called Genesis.
Yes, Genesis contains two separate creation stories, plus some other
lengendary events.
> Chapter one would be a good start. If what the Bible says there is
> true....evolution is one great big fat lie.
Unless the Bible was never meant to be taken as science. Evolution is a
scientific theory that explains and coordinates a set of observations, many
of which were made well after the Bible was written down. Also, at the
time the Bible was written down, concepts such as "history" as a factual
telling of past events, and "science" as a factual study of nature, did not
exist. What the Bible says is not science, therefore there is no reason
why a scientific finding that contradicts the legends in the Bible would be,
or should be "a great big fat lie".
>
>
> They are
>> not mutually exclusive; as far as origins go they are mutually mute.
>> The Bible says nothing of science, science says nothing about God.
>
> The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose.
Because science did not exist at the time the Bible was written down.
> But it is correct on areas that it touches on.
As long as you realize that the Bible is unscientific, and isn't required to
be held to scientific rigor.
> Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
As long as you remember that biology, geology, astronomy and so on are much
later constructs which are held to a different standard than religious
writings are. If one expected that the biology of the Bible was "correct"
by modern standards, one would have a difficult time explaining how viewing
different colored sticks would cause goats to bear spotted coats. (Gen
30:37-40) Modern biology confirms that this does not happen. If we hold
the Bible to modern standards of science, it would be incorrect. Likewise
bible verses touching on geology which are not correct, (so called "flood
geology) by modern standards, and bible verses which the Earth is described
as being immmobile in space, are wrong according to modern astronomy.
> If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
> others?
perhaps, because as someone said above, the Bible is not a science book?
>
>>
>>>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
>>> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
>>
>> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
>
> Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
Then you'd be calling science a belief system.
>
>
> It deals with facts and
>> empirical evidence.
>
> Science does yes.
Evolution, of course is a scientific theory, which rather makes it part of
science.
> Evolution is simply an "interpretation" of the evidence
Actually, a theory coordinates and explains the evidence.
> based upon pre-conceived notions of how the Universe came into being.
Evolution doesn't deal with how the Universe came into being. That's
cosmology.
>
>
>
>
> So of course I buy into it. You can't get away
>> from natural conclusions based on natural evidence. You'd be an idiot
>> not to accept science.
>
> You are confusing science and evolution.
Since evolution is a scientific theory, there is no way to "confuse" the
two.
> Evolution is not science, evolution is a belief system of how things
> came into being.
Hmmm another false statement.... a clear pattern in emerging here.....
>
>
>
>>
>>> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
>>> spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions
>>> of
>>> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
>>
>> I'm actually not sure who you're referring to...
>
> Evolutionists believe that all known matter space and time came into
> existence from something called the "Big Bang"
Actually the "Big Bang" is a concept from astronomy and cosmology. It's
not relevant to the theory of evolution.
> According to evolutionists, that Big bang was the result of a quantum
> fluctuation in the emptiness before anything existed.
That's one possible explanation for the Big Bang, but not the only one.
Also, it's not "evolutonists" it's astronomers and cosmologists.
> They believe that everything we observe (space, matter, time) sprang from
> that little magic quantum hat.
Quantam physics is not "magic". Perhaps you are getting confused here, as
you are the one offering magic as an explanation.
> On that one alone, the Bible is so true.....Only a fool in his heart says
> there is no God.
Modern science, which includes evolution, and cosmology and astronomy, does
not say there is no God. Why are you so lacking in faith that you can't
accept God's existance on belief alone?
DJT
Lee Oswald Ving
news:sl9Nf.4057$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> "Lee Oswald Ving" <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9778E09A68254...@208.49.80.124...
>> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in
>> news:EG8Nf.4029$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>
>>> Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a
>>> site by evolutionists for other evolutionists. Most if not all are
>>> atheists and probably not a good place to go for an good answer
>>> about God and evolution. If you are looking for a Christian
>>> perspective, this is a much better place to go.
>>
>> Such as the Catholic Church, since it is the largest denomination by
>> far.
>>
>> Which, coincidentally, obviously does NOT agree with the "Christian
>> Answers" pages, making the very name a complete lie.
>>
>> This also means the T.O. page is much more accurate, whether you like
>> it or
>> not.
>
> Oh..so the T.O page agrees with the CC? Doubt it...doubt it very
> much.
Good for you. That means you should be able to show *exactly* where this
single document you love so much is in conflict with the "God and
Evolution" T.O. page.
Oh, and John Paul II's statement linked from the T.O. page.
You should probably first deal with the fact that Catholic schools teach
mainstream science, since you've been dodging that one for so long. But
anything that actually addresses reality would be a pleasant change.
> Either you don't know what T.O teaches or what the CC teaches.
Then again, there is the more likely option that you are simply in
denial.
Lee Oswald Ving
news:1141185143.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
> You falsely assume that science can only be pursued when atheist
> suppositions are employed. I suggest you abandon the needs of your
> worldview and consider all evidence or ***your*** science and its
> conclusions are entirely predictable.
What is this evidence that you allege is ignored by science?
Be specific, please. And for brevity you could skip further elaborating
your irrational hatred of atheists.
HoopyFrood
Dana Tweedy is a faster typer! So some of this is redundant with that
post. But Grendel wrote me so I'm replying in entirety. And this will
be the end of it, Grendel. BTW, very astute Dana!
Grendel wrote:
> The Bible dear person , explains exactly how everything we see got here.
> If you have never read it, it can be found at the beginning in a Book called
> Genesis.
> Chapter one would be a good start. If what the Bible says there is
> true....evolution is one great big fat lie.
Is it any wonder you're a thread jacker? The original question wasn't
even addressed to you. Furthermore, your response to my post will
indicate to any Bible scholar that you have no idea what you're talking
about.
Read Gen1. Then read Gen2. The write an analysis that reconciles the
course of events between those vastly different accounts of creation.
It can be done, and logically, but if you adhere to you interpretation
of the Bible you will have a VERY hard time doing it. For extra credit
try to identify all the points Greek philosophy that infiltrated Gen1
in the translation for the Septuagint, which pretty much doomed honest
translation of the OT for 1500 years.
> The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is correct
> on areas that it touches on. Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
No it's not. Again you betray your lack of understanding. The Bible
hardly makes any mention of science. There was no such this as
"science" when it was written. Why do you think it calls a bat a bird?
Pure gold is clear? It touches on natural observations that are
sometimes right, sometimes not "literally" right, but the *point* is
always made.
> If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in others?
Because the Bible is not God. The Bible tells us what life is like in
a relationship with God. It's not a textbook. It's not the
"Encyclopedia Divinica". It doesn't have all the answers. We rely on
the Holy Spirit to fill in the blanks. You don't even appreciate
faith. You require 100% certainty to hold to your dogmas and if the
Bible is in error in one tiny area you won't know what to do.
Also it is evident that you will no doubt say you believe in the
doctrine of inerrancy. But have you even studied the realm of 'copyist
errors'?. Please do. And try to avoid pat answers...
> >>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
> >> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
> >
> > Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
>
> Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
>
This proves you don't even know how science works or what a scientific
theory entails. Are you approaching "evolution" with such ill-defined
notions as Kent Hovind? That pretty much makes the rest of your post
pointless.
But this has probably been written to you many times before. Unless
you start showing a little intellectual initiative, and stop
regurgitating what all the evangelistic apologists are saying, I'm
going to stop paying attention to anything you say. As do many around
here already.
Denis Loubet
"Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
> and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
I tried to bring that up a couple of months ago. Unfortunately it met with
unexpected knee-jerk vehemence, and I was compared to a nazi for even asking
the question.
I wish you better luck.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
John Wilkins
> "HoopyFrood" <benitos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141186242.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
>
> Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
Well *I* call belief an evolved system. So there.
VoiceOfReason
Grendel wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:1141181793....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Grano Salis wrote:
> >
> > For another take, see the God and Evolution FAQ at the t.o archive:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
>
> <snip>
>
> evolutionists for other evolutionists. Most if not all are atheists and
So, you're still telling lies about people's religious backgrounds, I
see. BTW, NCSE is not happy that you claimed they were all atheists.
It might be a good idea to keep that in mind. Are you ever going to
explain why you said the 10,000+ clergy on the Clergy Letter Project
are atheists?
> probably not a good place to go for an good answer about God and evolution.
> If you are looking for a Christian perspective, this is a much better place
> to go.
What type of "Christian" perspective supports bearing false witness?
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
Religious bigotry is your idea of a "Christian" perspective? Curious.
> and this is a good Christian perspective too.
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c022.html
It's the perspective of a small minority of Christians.
VoiceOfReason
Grendel wrote:
> "Lee Oswald Ving" <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9778E09A68254...@208.49.80.124...
> > "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in
> > news:EG8Nf.4029$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> >
> >> Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a site
> >> by evolutionists for other evolutionists. Most if not all are atheists
> >> and probably not a good place to go for an good answer about God and
> >> evolution. If you are looking for a Christian perspective, this is a
> >> much better place to go.
> >
> > Such as the Catholic Church, since it is the largest denomination by far.
> >
> > Which, coincidentally, obviously does NOT agree with the "Christian
> > Answers" pages, making the very name a complete lie.
> >
> > This also means the T.O. page is much more accurate, whether you like it
> > or
> > not.
>
> Oh..so the T.O page agrees with the CC? Doubt it...doubt it very much.
> Either you don't know what T.O teaches or what the CC teaches.
Bearing false witness again I see. You're nothing if not consistent.
> Real History
<snip>
So you're still spamming that same quote-mined version of what you
found on a Catholic site.... Any reason you keep omitting the part
where the RCC accepts the possibility that human being evolved from
previous biological forms? Doesn't that strike you as dishonest,
especially since you were nailed doing the same thing just recently?
You're fully aware that the RCC teaches biological evolution in its
schools, as it's been pointed out to you by several posters.
VoiceOfReason
Lee Oswald Ving wrote:
> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in
> news:sl9Nf.4057$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> >
> > "Lee Oswald Ving" <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9778E09A68254...@208.49.80.124...
> >> "Grendel" <try...@here.com> wrote in
> >> news:EG8Nf.4029$972.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> >>
> >>> Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a
> >>> site by evolutionists for other evolutionists. Most if not all are
> >>> atheists and probably not a good place to go for an good answer
> >>> about God and evolution. If you are looking for a Christian
> >>> perspective, this is a much better place to go.
> >>
> >> Such as the Catholic Church, since it is the largest denomination by
> >> far.
> >>
> >> Which, coincidentally, obviously does NOT agree with the "Christian
> >> Answers" pages, making the very name a complete lie.
> >>
> >> This also means the T.O. page is much more accurate, whether you like
> >> it or
> >> not.
> >
> > Oh..so the T.O page agrees with the CC? Doubt it...doubt it very
> > much.
>
> Good for you. That means you should be able to show *exactly* where this
> single document you love so much is in conflict with the "God and
> Evolution" T.O. page.
Here's the location of the NON-quote-mined version of the document. As
you can see from the part he omitted, the RCC accepts that humans
evolved from previous species, but is more restrictive on the origin of
the soul.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
VoiceOfReason
HoopyFrood wrote:
> Yes, John Wilkins hit the nail on the head.
>
> I'll jump in here, since I am a Christian and, much to the chagrin of
> some, consider myself a skeptic (little "s") and a follower of science.
> While I'm not in a 'hard' science field (I'm and engineer with a power
> company), I have studied plenty of science in my day.
>
> I really like what each of the previous posters have said. While the
> scientific method is invaluable, it is an enquiry into the natural
> world. To possess a belief that is purely "supernatural", by
> definition it is not subject to natural (i.e. scientific) enquiry.
> That is not to say reason and logic play no role in accepting a purely
> supernatural belief, but there are no quantitative means of verifying
> the veracity of such a belief. (I hope that makes sense).
>
> Now if a supernatural belief contradicts the natural evidence
> (astrology, dowsing, etc) it can be disregarded (from a naturalistic
> view point). But if the supernatural belief has no natural evidence
> (e.g. theism) then scientific enquiry will lend no evidence for or
> against it. It all comes down to judgment call, and, in the case of
> theism, must be determined by subjective interpretation of personal
> experience.
>
> For example, I've had experiences that lead me to think (not know) that
> there is a God, but Michael Shermer has had experiences that lead him
> to think (not know) that there is no such thing as a god.
>
> We have investigated the evidence, and it is fairly obvious that Common
> Descent occurred; we know this. A supernatural belief could run along
> the lines of "why did it occur". Was it God that set the universe in
> motion? Did the FSM get bored and make it happen? etc, etc. These
> would be "beliefs" and can never be "known".
>
> My approach to my beliefs has been rational and logical, IMHO, but at
> the end of the day I know they are based on my own subjective
> reflections on my experiences in life. Therefore I cannot hold it
> against anyone if they don't share my beliefs. However I can, and do,
> take great exception to people's beliefs when those beliefs cause pain
> to others.
>
> And, VoiceOfReason, I think you will appreciate this:
> http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
Eek! Holy fruit baskets, Batman... Does this mean I have to look for
another analogy?!?
:-)
> Science rocks...
VoiceOfReason
John Wilkins wrote:
> Grendel wrote:
> > "HoopyFrood" <benitos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1141186242.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> >> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
> >
> > Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
>
> Well *I* call belief an evolved system. So there.
I see your evolved system and raise you a gravitational constant.
*Surreptitiously pulls ace from sleeve*
Matthew Isleb
> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
> and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
Not everyone takes their work home with them.
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their Creator
> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are mutually
> exclusive.And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
> spring from rocks.
You mean like Adam springing from dust?
> And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
Let there be light...
-matthew
Glenn
snip
>
> Here's the location of the NON-quote-mined version of the document.
> As you can see from the part he omitted, the RCC accepts that humans
> evolved from previous species, but is more restrictive on the origin
> of the soul.
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
>
evolved from previous species*?
"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official
position on whether various life forms developed over the course of
time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so
under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation
must be ascribed to him."
"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
It allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous
biological forms, under God's guidance, but it insists on the special
creation of his soul."
[...]
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and
the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this
context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of
two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early
human couples (a teaching known as polygenism)."
Is no official position and allowing for the possiblity, "accepting"?
VoiceofReason?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>news:1141181793....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Grano Salis wrote:
>>
>> For another take, see the God and Evolution FAQ at the t.o archive:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
>
><snip>
>
>Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a site by
>evolutionists for other evolutionists.
Nope - it is a site by scientifically minded people designed to
provide a resource for other scientifically minded people and an
educational resource for those wishing to learn the facts about our
origins.
> Most if not all are atheists and
>probably not a good place to go for an good answer about God and evolution.
About evolution, there are few better places to go. For god? Well you
have your books of fairy stories.
[snip the crap links to brain-dead sites]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Adam and Eve: Real People
Yes, but they lived 60,000 years apart moron.
--
Bob.
mcv
> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
> and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
It's not about accepting as valid assertions, it's about belief.
Everybody, including you, believes in a lot of things that have
never been scientifically proven, and probably never will, yet
might very well be true.
Or false. I'm very aware of the fact that everything I believe in
might be false. I think most of them contain at least some element
of truth, but I've been known to be wrong before.
Also keep in mind that even science itself is based on some assumptions
that cannot be proven: that the universe we live in is real and behaves
according to certain rules that are the same in controlled experiments
as in parts of the universe that are not being directly observed by
scientists. It's impossible to prove, but it makes sense and seems to
work.
mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
>> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
>> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
>> absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
>> and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
>> assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
>> compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
>
>You will get limited answers on that. But very predictable ones.
>The atheists will of course be happy to proudly display their atheism.
>Nothing to lose.
>
>Theists will come in three categories here. The ones who have some kind of
>milk toast "faith" Some kind of personal belief grounded in a willy nilly
>flower child concept of "live and let live" No set rules as long as you
>don't offend anyone and accept evolution to be true.
>
>Some theists actually do have a more intelligent faith, and will give a
>lengthy emotionally based sob story justification of why they have not lost
>their marbles to have a faith and believe in evolution. The audience on this
>forum typically holds their nose at those sorts of things, but accepts them
>on the basis of common ground in believing evolution. Those theists are
>willing to accept all others as long as they believe in evolution as well.
>
>The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their Creator
Nowhere in your stupid bible does it claim JfirkingC is a creator.
>and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are mutually
>exclusive.
Which is just another nail in the bible's coffin.
> And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
>has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
>Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
>spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
>galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
Oh dear, you are bing silly. Back to the meds old boy, you really need
them.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"HoopyFrood" <benitos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1141186242.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Grendel wrote:
>> [snip - I agreed with most of that BTW]
>>> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their
>>> Creator
>>> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are
>>> mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>
>> I have to say you are way off here, Grendel. I could be described
>> perfectly by your stock phrase "the theists who have actually read the
>> Bible and know Jesus as their Creator and Lord..." but here I am
>> saying how bad YEC is. I have devoted my life to God (and don't think
>> I don't realize how corny that sounds), but I strongly disagree with
>> the Scientific Creationist viewpoint. The Bible says NOTHING about
>> evolution and was never written to be a scientific textbook.
>
>The Bible dear person , explains exactly how everything we see got here.
No, it hase two very poorly written creation myths, neither of which
have any connection with the real world.
>If you have never read it, it can be found at the beginning in a Book called
>Genesis.
>Chapter one would be a good start. If what the Bible says there is
>true....evolution is one great big fat lie.
Then, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, old Earth, even
older universe and of course the Big Bang, we can safely say the lies
are those in the bible.
>
>
>They are
>> not mutually exclusive; as far as origins go they are mutually mute.
>> The Bible says nothing of science, science says nothing about God.
>
>The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is correct
>on areas that it touches on. Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
>If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
>others?
The bible is a book of fairy stories - learn to live in the real
world.
>
>>
>>>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
>>> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
>>
>> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
>
>Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
Evolution is science.
>
>
>It deals with facts and
>> empirical evidence.
>
>Science does yes. Evolution is simply an "interpretation" of the evidence
>based upon pre-conceived notions of how the Universe came into being.
Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.
>
>
>
>
> So of course I buy into it. You can't get away
>> from natural conclusions based on natural evidence. You'd be an idiot
>> not to accept science.
>
>You are confusing science and evolution. Evolution is not science,
>evolution is a belief system of how things came into being.
Evolution is a very strong science based on a vast amount of evidence
and scientific research.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
>>> spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions
>>> of
>>> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
>>
>> I'm actually not sure who you're referring to...
>
>Evolutionists believe that all known matter space and time came into
>existence from something called the "Big Bang" According to evolutionists,
>that Big bang was the result of a quantum fluctuation in the emptiness
>before anything existed.
Liar - you are confusing, deliberatly in order to spread confusion,
evolution and cosmology. Evolution has nothing to do with the BB,
though it is true that most scientists would believe in both Theories
considering the overwhelming evidence for both.
>They believe that everything we observe (space, matter, time) sprang from
>that little magic quantum hat.
Better something based on evidence than a simple "goddidit".
>On that one alone, the Bible is so true.....Only a fool in his heart says
>there is no God.
Or someone who sees the bible for the pack of lies it is.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ask your god.
--
Bob.
VoiceOfReason
Most definitely. If there was an official position that they did *not*
allow the possibility, that would be rejecting. Add to that the fact
that the RCC teaches evolution in their schools, and that should pretty
well answer the question.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is correct
> on areas that it touches on. Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
> If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
> others?
On matters of fact about the physical world, the Bible is as accurate as
Tolkien's -Silmarillion-. For starters the Bible teaches us that the
Earth is flat and that the sun and the moon move around the Earth which
is immobile (read the 93-rd psalm). It also teaches us that you can
breed spotted and striped sheep by shaving wooden sticks and showing
them to pregent ewes.
Bottom line. The Bible is totally untrustworthy as a source of fact
about the physical nature of the world we live in. It is a fairy tale.
As Galileo once said: The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how
the heavens go.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Religion can do damage, sure. And so can economics, philosophy, medicine, and
> sports. But it can also be a benefit a can all the others, for people who have
> problems in some areas.
>
> I was once religious, and I know from direct experience how helpful it is to
> have the support of a community like a religious community. Not all problems
> are down to religion - indeed it is my view that religion expresses both the
> best and worst of human behaviour because those who make it up are humans.
Organized, institutionalized religion has been a blot, a blight and a
curse on the human race for five millenia. It is the priests and
prelates that justify the rule of tyrants.
Bob Kolker
>
Grendel
> Off Topic - But Necessary
>
> Dana Tweedy is a faster typer! So some of this is redundant with that
> post. But Grendel wrote me so I'm replying in entirety. And this will
> be the end of it, Grendel. BTW, very astute Dana!
>
> Grendel wrote:
>> The Bible dear person , explains exactly how everything we see got here.
>> If you have never read it, it can be found at the beginning in a Book
>> called
>> Genesis.
>> Chapter one would be a good start. If what the Bible says there is
>> true....evolution is one great big fat lie.
>
> Is it any wonder you're a thread jacker? The original question wasn't
> even addressed to you. Furthermore, your response to my post will
> indicate to any Bible scholar that you have no idea what you're talking
> about.
>
Ok, obviously you are no scholar...lets go ask one.
Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
'. probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old
Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the
writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas
that:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days
of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition
a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the
biblical story
Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and
animal life except for those in the ark.'
Reference
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture,
Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984.
Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but
he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived
need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to
think anything different-it was nothing to do with the text itself.
<snip>
Grendel
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:du3fr7$22dr$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
> Grendel wrote:
>> "HoopyFrood" <benitos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141186242.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
>>> Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
>>
>> Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
>
> Well *I* call belief an evolved system. So there.
I can live with that.
Grendel
"Matthew Isleb" <mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.01....@lNO.SPAMonshore.com...
That's right. I believe God was the creator.
You believe nothing was the creator. Hats off pal, you really do have more
faith than I do.
>
> -matthew
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That's right. I believe God was the creator.
> You believe nothing was the creator. Hats off pal, you really do have more
> faith than I do.
Could it be that energy and matter has always existed in some form? That
way a Creator is unnecessary. Besides what about the Creator? Who
Created the Creator, so you really have the same problem pushed back one
step.
My guess is turtles all the way down and Creators all the way up.
Bob Kolker
Grendel
> Grendel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is
>> correct
>> on areas that it touches on. Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
>> If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
>> others?
>
> On matters of fact about the physical world, the Bible is as accurate as
> Tolkien's -Silmarillion-. For starters the Bible teaches us that the
> Earth is flat and that the sun and the moon move around the Earth which
> is immobile (read the 93-rd psalm).
Have ye not read?
Getting to be as flat as the "flat earth" argument
by Mark Looy, AiG-USA
April 19, 2005
"It's as old as the hills [although, not millions of years old], and twice
as dusty," the saying goes (about something that has become trite after a
time).
That's the sentiment this author had in watching yet another evolutionist
mock a belief in a literal creation by likening it to believing in a "flat
earth." Most recently, that was the comment made about AiG (and other
creationist organizations) by Dr. Alan Wolfe of Boston College, as he and
Answers in Genesis were featured on America's NBC Nightly News with Brian
Williams last month (March 25). Dr. Wolfe declared to the TV audience: "To
teach kids that creationism explains something about the world is no
different than teaching them that the earth is flat."
AiG has discovered that over the years, evolutionists have found it easier
to resort to such scoffing (and ad hominem arguments) rather than to use
rational, scientific arguments against those who reject evolution and accept
a literal Genesis. Dr. Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and
American Life at Boston College in Massachusetts, USA, is just another in a
long line of anti-creationists who resort to pulling out this hackneyed
flat-earth analogy. Dr. Wolfe was essentially telling several million
viewers that if creation is to be allowed in public schools, then the
flat-earth theory should as well. (Even such a brilliant mind as the late
Dr. Stephen J. Gould, used this terrible "apples and oranges" comparison.1)
This kind of bizarre analogy, occurring amidst a growing serious debate
about the teaching of origins in science classes (schools in about twenty
states are dealing with the issue), is unfortunate. Such a silly, cavalier
attitude about the burgeoning pro-creation, anti-evolution movement may
backfire in the long run, as the public tire of seeing highly credentialed
evolutionists make nonsensical arguments like the hackneyed flat earth
analogy to creation. If anything, it helps further reveal the bankruptcy of
this worldview when they resort to such flimsy arguments. How?
You see, the theory of "molecules-to-man" evolution is outside observational
science, but the shape of our earth is not. Even a layperson today can
observe that the earth is not flat:
The earth's roundness can be seen as a shadow on the moon during a lunar
eclipse.
We've all seen photos of a spherical earth taken by spacecraft circling the
earth.
Even people in ancient times saw ships disappear over the horizon, and knew
(centuries before Columbus) that the earth was round.
In addition, Isaiah 40:22 (that book was written many centuries before the
time of Christ) talks about the sphericity of the earth.
Another occasional accusation made by evolutionists against creationists is
that some Christians and creation groups actually teach that the earth is
flat.2 That's a red herring, for we don't know of any creationist group that
believes in a flat earth. At the same time, we can't resist mentioning that
there would certainly be evolutionists who accept false beliefs like
astrology. However, it should be obvious that the validity of creation (or
evolution) isn't affected by the fact that some of the adherents of either
hold erroneous views on other subjects. Furthermore, we don't know of any
credentialed scientist who holds to a flat-earth view.
We can only hope that scoffers like Dr. Wolfe-with their tidy sound
bites-will have the opportunity to study the Bible for themselves and see
that science, properly interpreted, does not contradict God's Word in any
way. (It is unfortunate, however, that one of Dr. Wolfe's recent exposures
to Christianity was his January visit to the campus of Calvin College in
Michigan to give a lecture; while ostensibly a Christian school, Calvin has
several evolutionists on its science and Bible faculties.) Such a cavalier,
mocking attitude about the authority of the Bible has eternal consequences
for those who reject the Bible as God's Word and its message of salvation
through the Creator and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
References and notes
AiG prominently featured on CNN!
Who invented the flat earth? Some skeptics may point to the verse in
Revelation 7:1 that refers to the "four corners of the earth" and hence a
flat earth. But that is an obvious idiom, still used today, meaning
"everywhere on the earth" or "from all directions." See Are (biblical)
creationists 'cornered'?
It also teaches us that you can
> breed spotted and striped sheep by shaving wooden sticks and showing
> them to pregent ewes.
>
> Bottom line. The Bible is totally untrustworthy as a source of fact
> about the physical nature of the world we live in.
No YOU are an untrustworthy source of information.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You see, the theory of "molecules-to-man" evolution is outside observational
> science, but the shape of our earth is not. Even a layperson today can
> observe that the earth is not flat:
The theory of evolution has nothing whatever to do with abiogenesis. It
is about how life forms change over time, not how life originates in the
first place. You are repeating a canard often invoked by the Cretinists
>
> The earth's roundness can be seen as a shadow on the moon during a lunar
> eclipse.
So, the Earth is a disk.
>
> We've all seen photos of a spherical earth taken by spacecraft circling the
> earth.
All you have seen is a disk.
>
> Even people in ancient times saw ships disappear over the horizon, and knew
> (centuries before Columbus) that the earth was round.
Not people who lived inland.
>
> In addition, Isaiah 40:22 (that book was written many centuries before the
> time of Christ) talks about the sphericity of the earth.
Genesis invokes "the four corners of the Earth". Spheres do not have
cornerns.
Did you know that the Bible also teaches that pi = 3? Hmmm?
Bob Kolker
er...@swva.net
> John Wilkins wrote: "So one can hold "irrational" beliefs because one
> simply hasn't yet got to that corner of the mind to tidy up yet." Well,
> yes, But how much time are you willing to allow these scientists to do
> the clean-up?
Interesting that you think it is your job to allow or disallow other
people's religious beliefs.
> Usually a doctorate takes at least to the mid-twenties,
> and in many cases much longer. And how about the oldsters who still
> hang on to their dusty "beliefs." They may not be irrational, but one
> can hardly consider them wise.
> Also, John, don't forget that the "natural world" encompasses not only
> the physical world but also the social world and that of human behavior.
> It is in these worlds, both of which are amenable to scientific inquiry,
> that religious beliefs do the most damage, and I find it particularly
> egregious that some scientists fail to tidy up their minds and recognize
> this.
Nobody's perfect.
Eric Root
SRNissen
Grano Salis wrote:
> For someone who accepts the scientific method? I do -- for
> these reasons: First, persons grounded in scientific methodology
> cannot, without copping out, "choose" to "believe."
Ah, I see where you're missing the point. There is no "choice"
involved.
You think, apparantly, that there are three groups:
(1) The ignorant who believe in God
(2) The learned, who are atheists
(3) The learend, who for some incredibly stupid reason still believe in
God.
That's not how it works. I know smart theists and stupid atheists. You
don't choose God from evidence or lack thereof, because you don't
choose at all. Either you have faith, or you don't. I have no problem
admitting that my "faith" is probably just chemicals in my brain, but
that changes nothing; I feel Gods presence, and so I believe in God.
I'm not like you, at all. We have different brain chemistry. Every
person does.
You will find, as you start dealing with theists, that those who are
deliberately ignorant because they fear that evidence would contradict
their God, those are the ones with weak faith, or even none. They're
afraid of death, and so they desperately hang on to their God, who
promises them salvation. But they don't have faith, so unless their God
is true in the way that only science can prove, they won't believe in
him. And so, they refuse to listen to the evidence, that never once
proves God.
Others, some of them like me, have faith. We believe because we
believe. It's like asking me why I consider the colour red, "red."
Because it's bloody red is the answer. I believe in God not of choice,
but because that's the way my brain is wired. If He is real, then his
presence is in my life. If He is only in my brain, then that does not
matter, because that's still as real as anything can ever be to me.
> Such persons can
> only hold, more or less strongly, tentative conclusions, which are open
> to change with new data. Second, belief in a god, if held despite a
> scientific education, is very probably held for reasons of felt
> personal security.
Uhm, no. You're wrong.
> This often places one's personal emotional comfort
> in opposition to societal welfare -- because gods are extremely prone to
> the issuance of arbitrary behavioral restrictions and requirements.
> Thus we have the religious opposing stem cell research, denying rights
> to homosexuals, interfering with others' education, reproductive
> decision, end-of-life decisions --- the list goes on and on and on. All
> due to unsupported and unsupportable "beliefs" to which they
> presumptively have a "right."
Uhm... no? I don't believe I've ever done any of those except the last,
and I had an excellent arguement against euthanesia, even back when I
were atheist.
> Phooey! I say. A pox upon them!
Yeah, well, fuck you too, Salis. Nobody asked for your opinion.
- Søren
er...@swva.net
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:1141181793....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Grano Salis wrote:
> >
> > For another take, see the God and Evolution FAQ at the t.o archive:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
>
> <snip>
>
> Thank-you. It's good to point out that the talkorigins site is a site by
> evolutionists for other evolutionists.
By scienytists for science-interested laypeople.
> Most if not all are atheists
Not relevant.
> and
> probably not a good place to go for an good answer about God and evolution.
A good place to learn about evolution, not God, which is an unrelated
separate area.
> If you are looking for a Christian perspective, this is a much better place
> to go.
Actually, these are from a fundamentalist, not a general Christian
perspective.
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Try reading the original, together with the notes, at:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html
You will find that things are far from clear cut.
--
Bob.
SRNissen
Ray Martinez wrote:
> You falsely assume that science can only be pursued when atheist
> suppositions are employed. I suggest you abandon the needs of your
> worldview and consider all evidence or ***your*** science and its
> conclusions are entirely predictable.
>
> Ray
...
Good Lord.
Mr. Martinez has written a message, within which I only find myself in
disagreement with half of it. Truly I say to you, we live in a time of
wonders!
- Søren
SRNissen
Grendel wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:46lh4bF...@individual.net...
> > Grendel wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is
> >> correct
> >> on areas that it touches on. Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
> >> If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
> >> others?
> >
> > On matters of fact about the physical world, the Bible is as accurate as
> > Tolkien's -Silmarillion-. For starters the Bible teaches us that the
> > Earth is flat and that the sun and the moon move around the Earth which
> > is immobile (read the 93-rd psalm).
>
>
> Have ye not read?
>
> Getting to be as flat as the "flat earth" argument
> by Mark Looy, AiG-USA
>
> April 19, 2005
<Snip long-ish article>
Do you deny, then, that the bible claims that the earth is flat?
Face it, Grendel, biblical inerrancy is so fantastically impossible,
even the ancients (Specifically, Saint Augustine, in De Genesi ad
litteram libri duodecim) talked about it.
- Søren
VoiceOfReason
Be that as it may, they have great bake sales.
Stanley Friesen
>Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
>simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
>absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
>and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
>assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
>compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
Science is a method for determining the nature of Nature, it does not
even address the issue of supernature - it cannot. This is where
*faith* comes in - in those areas where science is *necessarily* silent,
one must decide by some other means.
Note, the true philosophy of science is very minimalist - that the
natural world is orderly and comprehensible, and may be studied in an
orderly and systematic manner. This more or less what is called
"methodological naturalism". To try to get a deeper, more comprehensive
philosophy out of science is to go beyond what science is actually
capable of providing.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>Robert Kolker wrote: "Religion is about righteousness, salvation and
>eating kosher food. Science is about how the physical world works. One
>has nothing to do with the other. Do you comprehend it now?" Chuckle.
>Often annoying but never unamusing. Yes, Bob, I comprehend the meaning
>of your asseverations. But I don't agree with them. If one defines
>"science" to include those disciplines having to do with how human
>beings work, then the intersection of science and religion is most
>definitively not empty: the religious have far too much to say, and
>suck up far too much money and manpower saying it, about
>"righteousness," or how people should behave.
In the end, science cannot speak to how people *should* behave, as that
is a philosophical issue, not an objective one.
> And, of course, it is
>only they who know: godsaidit and physiologists, physicians,
>sociologists, research psychologists, biologists etc. should be capped
>if their findings are in disagreement.
All such researchers can do is find out what behaviors are *beneficial*
or *harmful* to people in very specific ways. This does *not*
necessarily indicate how people *should* behave.
er...@swva.net
> >
> > Grendel wrote:
> > [snip - I agreed with most of that BTW]
> >> Creator
> >> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are
> >> mutually
> >
> > I have to say you are way off here, Grendel. I could be described
> > perfectly by your stock phrase "the theists who have actually read the
> > Bible and know Jesus as their Creator and Lord..." but here I am
> > saying how bad YEC is. I have devoted my life to God (and don't think
> > I don't realize how corny that sounds), but I strongly disagree with
> > the Scientific Creationist viewpoint. The Bible says NOTHING about
> > evolution and was never written to be a scientific textbook.
>
> If you have never read it, it can be found at the beginning in a Book called
> Genesis.
> Chapter one would be a good start. If what the Bible says there is
> true....evolution is one great big fat lie.
Sure, but Christians are under no obligation to believe that these
ancient legends trump science. We are only under the obligation to
consider Jesus our boss, and it is perfectly all right to turn our
backs on the idea that the Bible is somehow magic and that it is always
true no matter what the real world evidence. While the Beatitiudes
require we concentrate on the motes in our own eyes, it is only human
to notice the blatant beams in the eyes of Biblical literalists, who
think they follow God but actually grovel at the feet of Fear of
Uncertainty and Absolutism.
>
>
> They are
> > not mutually exclusive; as far as origins go they are mutually mute.
> > The Bible says nothing of science, science says nothing about God.
>
> The Bible is not a science book, that is not it's purpose. But it is correct
> on areas that it touches on.
> Biology, geology, astronomy and so on.
It is only correct on these points as far as what people could
understand back then. Nowadays, to think that it it correct on these
things is to have a mediocre or worse mind or personality.
> If you can't trust it in those areas, why on earth would you trust it in
> others?
You are revealing one of the worst character defects of
fundamentalists, the idea that if something isn't perfect, it's
worthless. Let me put it this way: if the Bible is wrong about the
details of the real Genesis, how does that suddenly give you the right
to not love your neighbors as yourself, or cancel out the Golden Rule?
Because a newspaper got something wrong on the sports page doesn't mean
the restaurant covered in the food section isn't a good place to eat.
>
> >
> >>And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system that
> >> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
> >
> > Well I wouldn't call science a belief system.
>
> Neither would I. I am calling evolution a belief system.
>
You only call it that because of defects in your own character which
you are afraid to deal with.
>
> It deals with facts and
> > empirical evidence.
>
> Science does yes. Evolution is simply an "interpretation" of the evidence
> based upon pre-conceived notions of how the Universe came into being.
>
Grendel, how are we not to considert you a liar when you've been
corrected on this point hundreds of times?
>
>
>
> So of course I buy into it. You can't get away
> > from natural conclusions based on natural evidence. You'd be an idiot
> > not to accept science.
>
> You are confusing science and evolution.
You are committing the insidious creationist crime of attempting to
"cut evolution from the herd of science," which is one reason we
consider you evil at heart.
> Evolution is not science,
> evolution is a belief system of how things came into being.
You are entitled to believe that, even though it is an utter falsehood.
We, likewise, are entitled to look down on you because of it.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
> >> spring from rocks. And of course they know that you can't pull billions
> >> of
> >> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
> >
> > I'm actually not sure who you're referring to...
>
> Evolutionists believe that all known matter space and time came into
> existence from something called the "Big Bang" According to evolutionists,
> that Big bang was the result of a quantum fluctuation in the emptiness
> before anything existed.
That's just a hypothesis. I don't know if scientists actually
"believe" that.
> They believe that everything we observe (space, matter, time) sprang from
> that little magic quantum hat.
Except scientists don't believe in magic. Also, it would not have been
in the form of a hat.
> On that one alone, the Bible is so true
The Bible says nothing about magic quantum hats
.....Only a fool in his heart says
> there is no God.
Too bad it left out the part that says the same thing about people who
deny evolution.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
>
(snip a bunch of quotes about the Bible)
So what? None of that gives any reason to doubt biology or geology.
It only has to do with quibbling about how some parts of the Bible are
meant to be read. Pi is not 3. Insects do not have four legs.
rabbits do not chew cud. The world was not created in six literal
days. There was no world-wide flood overtopping all mountains. Yet
Jesus still saves, whether you like it or not.
Eric Root
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > My workout partner in the university for four years was a devout
> > Catholic, and a grad student in plant virology. He taught me much -
> > informally - about evolution, and seemed to have no trouble
> > maintaining separate compartments. As an atheist philospher, I had
> > many interesting discussions with him. He never thought that he
> > "should" be able to convert me, however. He knew that reasons which he
> > found compelling (mostly upbringing) would not be persuasive for me.
> > Mostly we argued about ethical issues and such.
>
> I will bet you found at least 80 percent agreement on what is good and
> what is bad.
>
> Every intelligent being knows the difference between right and wrong.
>
> Bob Kolker
Yes.
Most of the ethical differences were trivial, and a result of my
working class and his upper class backgrounds.
Kermit
er...@swva.net
>
(snip for brevity)
>
> Something like a solid and well-supported "counter" narrative
> on the lines given in garbage fiction like the "Da Vinci Code"
> crap would strike a blow at any simple form of Orthodox Christian
> credal statements, but it is not entirely clear that even that
> would undercut my faith -- I have no need for Immaculate
> Conceptions, or Virgin Births, or Jesus in the Sky with Diamonds
> (sorry, with Moses and Elijah) or other "miracles" to believe as
> I do in a Trinitarian God of Loving Persons, and a grounding of
> my own life and love in that God. I really _don't_ believe in
> "miracles" in any classical sense. The only "essential" miracle
> in Christianity is the Resurrection, and that is so bound up in
> myth as to be almost impossible to deal with. For myself, it is
> enough to "recognize" (sometimes) when two or three are gathered
> in the Name of Christ, that the Risen Christ is somehow there
> amongst us, and the Kingdom of Heaven is present. And one either
> has that experience, or not. And nothing changes because of that,
> unless it makes it easier to love others.
Hear, hear. Michael, that is a great expression of where a lot of us
more-intellectual modern or mainstream Christians are coming from.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
> > Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> > simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> > absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
> > and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> > assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> > compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
>
> unexpected knee-jerk vehemence, and I was compared to a nazi for even asking
> the question.
>
> I wish you better luck.
Others have explained it in several ways, but I will try. What the
deal is, is that there are whole areas of human experience to which it
is perfectly all right to _not_ apply scientific methods. Religion is
one, as are many other areas of human activity.
For instance, you, Denis, are a professional artist. Is there any
scientific way to determine that the way you like to draw noses is
better than the way someone else likes to draw noses? No, it's an
intersection between your ability and taste. Religion is similar in
that it is a matter of personal taste, and is nobody else's business
unless I try to force it on others.
IOW, a question like "how can somebody be religious and be an adherent
of science" is like asking "how can someone who likes to dance stand
Shakespeare?"
>
>
> --
> Denis Loubet
> dlo...@io.com
> http://www.io.com~dloubet
> http://www.ashenempires.com
Eric Root
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> John Wilkins wrote: "So one can hold "irrational" beliefs because one
> simply hasn't yet got to that corner of the mind to tidy up yet." Well,
> yes, But how much time are you willing to allow these scientists to do
> the clean-up?
The rest of their life, if they want. Who the hell are you (or I) to be
demanding other people measure up to our oh-so-high standards of
enlightement? What are you -- a Rationalist Pharisee? "I thank thee my
cerebellum that I'm not like these Creationists or these Islamists -- or
even like these wishy-washy moderate theistic scientists."
>...Usually a doctorate takes at least to the mid-twenties,
> and in many cases much longer. And how about the oldsters who still
> hang on to their dusty "beliefs." They may not be irrational, but one
> can hardly consider them wise.
> Also, John, don't forget that the "natural world" encompasses not only
> the physical world but also the social world and that of human behavior.
> It is in these worlds, both of which are amenable to scientific inquiry,
> that religious beliefs do the most damage, and I find it particularly
> egregious that some scientists fail to tidy up their minds and recognize
> this.
Yeah, and I'm grossed out by people who spit on the sidewalk. Or watch
WWF. Or wear ball-caps backwards (reeeallly dorky!). Doesn't it just
suck the big one to live among people with all those bad habits?
-- Kizhe
CreateThis
> Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
> simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
> absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
> and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
> assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence without
> compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
I believe you're overestimating science's certainty and reach.
The more we learn, the more we realize that our ability to even *detect*
the features of reality is very limited. The features of reality that
we now consider among the most significant are those that we *infer and
deduce* from the things we can actually observe - in fact, I believe we
now estimate that something like 95 percent of the matter and energy in
our universe (which may not even be 'the' universe) is in this 'inferred
and deduced' category. Furthermore, we often discover that our past
observations and detections were flawed, and we must assume that this
continues.
It's also important to keep in mind that observing, inferring and
deducing things, even when we're right, isn't necessarily the same as
understanding. Much of what we're currently inferring and deducing
about reality is already beyond our ability to 'understand' - the best
we seem capable of for now is mathematically verifying the logical
compatibility of our inferences and deductions with what we already 'know'.
My point is that, although science is the best tool we have for
advancing our knowledge and understanding of reality, there are very
likely things about reality which will forever remain outside our
abilities to scientifically detect or rationally understand - and maybe
that unknown realm is the vast majority of reality, like the 95 percent
of matter and energy we think we haven't directly detected. In other
words, there's (at least for now, and maybe forever) plenty of room 'out
there' for our imagination to run free without bumping into the things
we 'know scientifically', including having personal notions of 'god' or
'mother nature' or whatever.
I agree that organized religion is pretty much lowest-common-denominator
thumbsucking-fear-of-the-unknown stuff that adds nothing to our ability
to know and understand reality (and, in fact, often works against that),
but I don't think your respect for your own rationality must rest on a
blanket rejection of all things spiritual.
CT
Matthew Isleb
>
> "Matthew Isleb" <mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.03.01....@lNO.SPAMonshore.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:29:38 -0500, Grendel wrote:
>>
>>> The theists who have actually read the Bible and know Jesus as their
>>> Creator
>>> and Lord will reject evolution because evolution and the Bible are
>>> mutually
>>> exclusive.And of course would never dream of accepting a belief system
>>> that
>>> has as one of it's foundations "nothing to say about God"
>>> Oh, and of course they are smart enough to know that living things don't
>>> spring from rocks.
>>
>> You mean like Adam springing from dust?
>>
>>> And of course they know that you can't pull billions of
>>> galaxies from a magic quantum hat.
>>
>> Let there be light...
>
> That's right. I believe God was the creator.
You believe that organisms sprang from dust and that God pulled the
universe out of a magic hat (or something similarly ellusive). I really
don't see a whole lot of difference.
> You believe nothing was the creator.
Well, if there was nothing before everything was created, doesn't that
make God nothing? Either way you look at it, you
have everything coming from nothing. The only difference being the
attribution and how far one is willing and able to go in explaining the
processes and mechanisms.
You're wrong, by the way. I don't believe the universe had a ultimate
beginning. I believe the universe is under constant creation and
destruction.
> Hats off pal, you really do have
> more faith than I do.
So much more that I doubt you even know what faith is.
-matthew
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Any such "dualists" care to comment?
As for me...
...personally, and strictly personally, I adhere to my religion because I
think that the deities I honor are valid representations of something I
feel does exist. Plus, practicing my faith makes me feel good without
hurting anyone else, so I see no reason to refrain from that. Fortunately,
there's no doctrine whatsoever in my Asatru faith that demands that certain
claims be accepted as absolute unshakable truth. After all, all Asatru lore
is _legends,_ and legends have been known before to often have a core of
truth but not necessarily much more. ;)
Objectively speaking, I accept science as the best explanations available
for what we observe today. Of course there are alternate explanations
available for everything, but if we want to start _that_ journey, we
inevitably have to pick one out of an infinity of possibilities. So,
whenever I leave the realm of my own personal opinions, I do my best to be
objective and rational, resulting in my acceptance of (among other things)
abiogenesis, big bang, and evolution. 8)
I have no idea whether this satisfies your curiosity, but there now, I
tried. *g*
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
Walter Bushell
er...@swva.net wrote:
"Some Like it Hot".
"Nobody's perfect." {Joey Brown's character} is the last line in the
movie "Some Like it Hot".
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Walter Bushell
"SRNissen" <soren....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You will find, as you start dealing with theists, that those who are
> deliberately ignorant because they fear that evidence would contradict
> their God, those are the ones with weak faith, or even none. They're
> afraid of death, and so they desperately hang on to their God, who
> promises them salvation.
I thought it was fear of hellfire, rather that something as mild as
non-existence. Call them Stockholm syndrome Christians.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That's not how it works. I know smart theists and stupid atheists. You
> don't choose God from evidence or lack thereof, because you don't
> choose at all. Either you have faith, or you don't. I have no problem
> admitting that my "faith" is probably just chemicals in my brain, but
> that changes nothing; I feel Gods presence, and so I believe in God.
> I'm not like you, at all. We have different brain chemistry. Every
> person does.
More accurately you have a feeling which you identify as God's Presence.
However an objective investigation would reveal no such Presence. In
short, you are deluding yourself. Objective evidence for the existence
of God (of which there is not one iota) would go a long way toward
settling certain disputes.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
CreateThis
And, by the way, I'm an atheist (in case that makes a difference in how
you read the above).
CT
SRNissen
Did you even read the text you quoted?
"I have no problem admitting that my "faith" is probably just chemicals
in my brain,"
Any further questions?
- Søren
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
> Grano Salis wrote:
>
> I don't see a lack of self-respect in choosing to believe something for
> which there can never be any contradictory evidence. The choice to
> believe in Jesus, Allah, Invisible Pink Unicorns or the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster is obviously personal, and there's some interesting
> psychological research to be done explaining why we believe what we do.
> So long as it doesn't turn you into a crazy who hates people who
> believe in a different set of unfalsifiable ideas, I don't have a
> problem with it.
WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU?
Denis Loubet
<er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:1141228516.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Grano Salis" <Arrecti...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:26726-440...@storefull-3357.bay.webtv.net...
>> > Several posters to T.O. have stated or implied that they are
>> > simultaneously scientifically and religiously oriented. This is
>> > absolutely beyond my comprehension. If one adheres to the philosophy
>> > and methodology of science how is it possible to accept as valid
>> > assertions for which there is, and can be, no empirical evidence
>> > without
>> > compromising one's self respect? Any such "dualists" care to comment?
>>
>> I tried to bring that up a couple of months ago. Unfortunately it met
>> with
>> unexpected knee-jerk vehemence, and I was compared to a nazi for even
>> asking
>> the question.
>>
>> I wish you better luck.
>
> Others have explained it in several ways, but I will try. What the
> deal is, is that there are whole areas of human experience to which it
> is perfectly all right to _not_ apply scientific methods.
I disagree. Why would we not want to know something? Is that not fostering
deliberate ignorance?
> Religion is
> one, as are many other areas of human activity.
I disagree. Why would one wish to remain ignorant?
> For instance, you, Denis, are a professional artist. Is there any
> scientific way to determine that the way you like to draw noses is
> better than the way someone else likes to draw noses?
Yes. Of course. The way I draw noses, and the judgment calls I make about
them, are all the result of molecules in my brain operating according to
strict physical law. It's open to scientific examiniation.
> No, it's an
> intersection between your ability and taste.
The electrochemical operation of my brain, which results in my ability and
taste, is examinable by science.
> Religion is similar in
> that it is a matter of personal taste, and is nobody else's business
> unless I try to force it on others.
The problem is that the "forcing on others" does not have to be deliberate
to have an effect on others.
> IOW, a question like "how can somebody be religious and be an adherent
> of science" is like asking "how can someone who likes to dance stand
> Shakespeare?"
No. The principles of dance do not stand in direct conflict with the
principles of Shakespeare. Your analogy is void.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Did you even read the text you quoted?
>
> "I have no problem admitting that my "faith" is probably just chemicals
> in my brain,"
And you may have misidentified the nature of what those chemicals made
you feel. If I felt what you felt, I would assume I was going insane. In
any case, your subjectivities have little or nothing to do with what is
really happening outside your skin.
Bob Kolker
Raymond Griffith
On 3/1/06 1:14 PM, in article
1141236843.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
"Codeb...@bigsecret.com" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
You do.
You are the only one who had this vision of Jesus Christ over Atlanta. No
one else saw it.
Why do you think God chose YOU and no one else?
You think we should accept your rants, your word as the truth without
verification.
You think it is all about you.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Everett Hickey
So is this thread a comment on logic, or just an attack on what other people
choose to believe?
Science is the study of the natural world... or rather it's a philosophical
approach to that study. History has shown that this approach quite
literally works. Anyone who doubts that should turn on their electric
lights, fire up the intricate electromagnetic signal processor they call a
computer, or go outside in a vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine
that represents a fruit of the labors of metallury, chemistry,
thermodynamics, and a slew of other areas of scientific study. This
approach (aka Scientific Method - not invented by Descartes, but given a
label and prominence by him) can be applied to quite a few things.. to an
extent, almost all realms of human labor... architecture, medicine,
psychology, even music. Each of them areas that go beyond pure science, but
depend heavily on it for their own development and practice.
But some areas are not so much incompatible with science, but are not
particularly applicable. Philosophy. Morality. Existentialism. Religion.
Where those and other areas blatantly disagree with scientific findings, you
can guess where most of us here will side. But try to find a logical proof
that there is a moral difference between right and wrong. People have tried
to do that for millenia. Or quantify love (or pure lust) as a chemical
process developed as a means of driving reproduction, with no other
objective purpose, and then totally ignore it if you do not intend to
reproduce.
You feel no "presence". Neither do I, actually. But neither of us have any
objective purpose in criticising someone who says they do (especially if
they already accept the same data that we do). Data does not show us any
presence, but it also doesn't show us much else in the realm of philosophy -
iwhich doesn't objectively exist except in our heads. Anyone who rejects
all non-objective concepts might as well be a machine.
Then again, it's common to find hang-ups specifically over religion, at
least more so than any other realm of philosphy. Many will apply a
double-standard, demanding proof for religion of any kind, but gleefully
accepting all the other illogical nonsense we all live for.
Tohu...@hotmail.com
Verify all you want, but it would not make any difference.
I did not ask you to feed me, nor did I ask you to believe me
If you want to make it to Heaven. I could have Just written
to Bill Clinton who was the sitting President at that time
as the peace facilitator between Israel and the Arabs and kept
my mouth shut.
But for the sake of selfishness I decided to share this with you.
You are not doing me any favor, I am the one who is doing you
all favors.
All what I said was that Jesus drew near and no one knows
for sure what was going
through his mind, so you foolish faggots, refrain from your blasphems,
refrain from running your stupid mouths because what you do not
know is like the whole ocean compared with the drop you know.
Now why don't you come up with something to contradict
what He said about the correct reading of Moses and how
Hebrews and Arabs are connected by this text?
Did I ask you to come to my Church If you want to prosper
or salvation?
Did I ask you to give me your tith?
Did I ask you follow me?
You stupid skeptics, good for nothing.
Have you considered your lose women and how they shake
their butts?
Have you considered your empty lives?
Have considered the misery to befall you, O STUPID MONKEYS?
woland
>their butts?
And how.