I initially just shrugged this off as the work of a bunch of nut-jobs...but then I began reading the comments attached to the article...and...wow!
Leaving my personal belief in a god aside, I'm truly suprised by how many people believe that the bible can be taken literally and applied to everything, especially the assertion that dinosaurs and Adam and Eve coexisted.
With that in mind, I decided to bring the discussion to a place where I know I'll get good reactions from people, regardless of their opinions.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
It's unfortunate that all the money and effort that went into it was were not directed at something that actually can improve the world.
The irony of all the science used to build it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That's $27 million less to help end suffering in the world, and $27 million more to increase ignorance and misunderstanding.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Why not save the $27 million and just show all the visitors an episode of the Flintstones?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
After all, we can't have people believing what they want. How awful. Freedom of thought and speech is unacceptable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: After all, we can't have people believing what they want. How awful. Freedom of thought and speech is unacceptable.
MOCKING CREATIONISM IS THOUGHTCRIME
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree with Occ. We should not be free to think or say that these creationists are acting foolishly.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:After all, we can't have people believing what they want.
no...we can't. because sometimes people believe that they need to blow up countless innocent people because it's god's will.
What's more, there's a fine line between freedom of thought and speech, and outright lying and misinformation.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: After all, we can't have people believing what they want. How awful. Freedom of thought and speech is unacceptable.
This isn't an issue of letting people believe what they want, it is presenting a distorted and un(scientifically)justified account of history to children. This is ID all over again. If religous types want to teach their children about faith and the traditions of their religion, fine. But they should not be allowed to confuse children with falsities presented as scientific fact.
Remember when E. said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind", that's the right relationship the two should have with each other.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
Aren't you glad you're getting such good responses, Human?
My own opinion is about where baduffer's is. Not because I think that creationism is a load of crap unworthy of money, but just because I think these kinds of doctrinal arguments are mostly irrelevant.
Religion to me is and should be about what you say and do, and things that are only about making sure you think the same things everyone else at church thinks seem like such a distraction from the real nature of christianity.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
We have the freedom to think and say whatever we want. Lying and making up facts however is fraud.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"We have the freedom to think and say whatever we want. Lying and making up facts however is fraud."
Well, why not sue them then?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: This is ID all over again. If religous types want to teach their children about faith and the traditions of their religion, fine. But they should not be allowed to confuse children with falsities presented as scientific fact.
Wait...I thought ID was Creationism all over again.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I do have to wonder how much of an impact this will actually have. If we looked at the ratio of museums that teach evolution vs museums that teach creationism...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: This is ID all over again. If religous types want to teach their children about faith and the traditions of their religion, fine. But they should not be allowed to confuse children with falsities presented as scientific fact.
Wait...I thought ID was Creationism all over again.
So this is Creationism all over again all over again.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
If I were to take what this museum presents as fact, then all I can say is...Eve was smoking hot.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Just would like to point out Angiomorphism- the theory of evolution cannot be considered to be a scientific fact. It has gone through enough rigorous examinations to at this point be considered a scientific theory (again- I'm using the technical term since a theory in the common lexicon is vastly different than a scientific theory) nor can it ever be considered a fact because of the scope and nature of the issue at hand.
I believe in a six day creation of the world, I don't have any real data against the theory of evolution (except I think ambiogenesis is a little to far out there for me) Now bearing that in mind- I think the whole ID movement is absolutely absurd- it's not based on science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. You don't ask the biochemistry teacher a question comparing Kant and Hegel.
But if I had 27 million dollars- by God I'd make that money worth something. Go and start homeless shelters or battered people's shelters, or help fund kids sports leagues, donate it to charity or several charities. Such a waste of time- because all it does is piss of everyone else and just creates semantic noise in the message you're really trying to say.
Anyways that's my $.02
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Are we sure that this museum actually presents lies, or does it just present very tendentious interpretations of the evidence?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: If I were to take what this museum presents as fact, then all I can say is...Eve was smoking hot.
Which was actually a waste of effort, really. I mean, what was Adam's alternative?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Which was actually a waste of effort, really. I mean, what was Adam's alternative?
Steve? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think it would be really weird. Just one option, and she also happens to be his rib!
"So...how do you like it out of my chest cavity?"
Awkward!
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:It's unfortunate that all the money and effort that went into it was were not directed at something that actually can improve the world.
As inappropriate as I think a Creationism museum is, there are *plenty* of things that millions, even billions of dollars are spent on, that don't Improve the world one little bit. Baseball teams. Celebrity salaries. Shoes.
Although, I guess it all depends on your definition of "improve" Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
difference is, this is actually hurting the world.
though I guess you can make that argument for the things you listed also.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
Entertainers don't necessarily as a creed aim to improve the world.
For most people clothing is probably an improvement. But I agree, excessive spending on marginal utility is wasteful.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Wearing shoes is a safety issue too. At least- something like cheap but effective shoes (ie- cheap tennis shoes or something like that) they protect your feet from all sorts of damage.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't think the museum is going to "hurt the world." It's preaching to the choir. They're marketing to religious schools, where the students are already surrounded by these ideas. Public schools aren't even going to be invited! I don't think an on-the-fence believer is going to walk in there, look at some displays, and proclaim themselves suddenly converted. It's for believers.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Shawshank, I'm not going to get into the argument over scientific fact vs. theory. Theoretically, there is a difference (namely that facts do not exist) but practically, a theory like evolution has amassed more than enough evidence in its favour to be considered a scientific fact (and by considered, I mean considered by the scientific community, where such as issue actually matters in terms of research etc.). Beyond that, there is little importance in arguing scientific fact vs. theory (unless evidence were scarse).
But even if you disagree with all that, evolution is still science, while creationism is not. I would not agree with evolution being portrayed in a theological manner, just as I would disagree with creationism being portrayed in a scientific manner. And yes, I also could think of a lot of better things to do with 27 million dollars!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I believe in a six day creation of the world, I don't have any real data against the theory of evolution (except I think ambiogenesis is a little to far out there for me) Now bearing that in mind- I think the whole ID movement is absolutely absurd- it's not based on science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. You don't ask the biochemistry teacher a question comparing Kant and Hegel."
First, good that you recognize it's not science. That's a good start.
But, also, you have to understand that by believing in 6-day creation, you are basically contradicting millions of pieces of evidence in many fields of science.
When you have literally millions of pieces of evidence all pointing to your theory as being right, it's kinda hard, in any other case, to claim it's not. I find it interesting that evolution and the age of the earth is the only place where people will ignore millions of peices of evidence, and theories which correctly describes and predicts nearly everything that we find when we go looking.
The evidence supports evolution. it supports the Earth being about 4.5 million years old. It supports human beings living for the last 100,000 years, and living things gradually evolving over hundreds of millions of years before that.
Most every piece of evidence found (I can't say every as I haven't looked at every piece of evidence) contradicts the "6-days" theory, and in fact supports and is predicted by the theories that are in current use.
And if God simpyl made the world to SEEM as though it was something it was not, in this way, just to decieve us, as a test of faith? Then He is actively lying. Actively decieving us.
That is no God I would like to worship.
So, either the evidence was created by God as a fraud to decieve us, and God is therefor a God of lies, or the evidence is being misinterpreted (by tens of thousands, maybe millions of scientists, over many years, over many unrelated fields of study, based on millions of pieces of evidence, and getting each and every one of them wrong) or the theory of evolution, the theories in geology, physics, astrology, archeology, biology, astrophysics, etc, are a pretty good (if not yet perfect, as no sceintific theory is) description of the world around us, and the predictions made are accurate not because of constant millions of coincidences that boggle the mind, but because the things behind them describe the world aroudn us adaquetely.
Besides. Genesis was not made with knowledge of how the world was created. It's description of Earth is not as an orb in space but a flat surface (wrong) with a dome over it (also wrong) with water above the dome and also under the flat surface (again, not accurate.)
That's what you must accept if you believe every part of the Bible is literally true. You must also accept many contradictions in other places. Which reminds me far too much of Orwellian doublethink.
Not saying you do, Shawshank, just, I guess, post drift. I think I left responding to your statement awhile ago...
Anyway. This part is directed to everyone. Here's a very good link to a lot of information on evolution. Including evidence, counterarguements to creationist claims, definitions of what evolution is, and a metric ton of data. I'll send numerous links:
(there are a LOT here, scattered among many subjects)
Here's the homepage. The place is huge, and I've only read an incredibly tiny fraction. This isn't the specific pieces of evidence, though you could find a number of them here, especially through links to other, scientific sources scattered liberally within.
Scientific theory is a collection of facts that fit a particular hypothesis. If facts are found that disprove the hypothesis, the hypothesis is changed. It is never final; it is always evolving (pun intended). A fact is something that is verifiable by independent sources (peer review) and repeatable.
ID and Creationism do not seem to fit this model; they (it really) are not science and in no way represent a scientific theory IMO.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If your definition of 'fact' is so stringent as to exclude evolution, then there are no facts. Which is perfectly fine. I don't object to calling, say, general relativity a theory. Just so long as we're all clear on what we're talking about.
quote:We have the freedom to think and say whatever we want. Lying and making up facts however is fraud.
I don't think it is, actually. Dag would know better than me, but I think that the legal definition of fraud includes making money off it by deceiving the victims on what they're getting for their cash. The museum is presumably intended to make money, but there's no deception involved in the actual money-making part: The customer knows that his three bucks get him access to a museum. To demand that every self-proclaimed museum in the world show only what science consensus accepts as truth is, to say the least, a place where courts would be reluctant to go. If nothing else, wouldn't that mean you had to check that movies 'based on a true story' were reasonably close to what actually happened? If I were a judge I wouldn't touch that one with a stick.
Then, of course, I think fraud has to involve conscious deception. I can't prove it, but I rather suspect that most creationists actually believe their own drivel.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
I mean really, guys, 27million bucks ain't even a sneeze to DisneyWorld if'n ya wanna talk about wasting money.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"or the evidence is being misinterpreted"
This is the number one argument against (even here) evolutionary evidence. The second one is that evolutionary scientists are liars and in league with Satan. The only ones who bring up the "God is a liar" are the evolutionsts.
Edit: Not my own views, but how Creationists see it. See another post I wrote after this one.
[ June 01, 2007, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "I believe in a six day creation of the world, I don't have any real data against the theory of evolution (except I think ambiogenesis is a little to far out there for me) Now bearing that in mind- I think the whole ID movement is absolutely absurd- it's not based on science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. You don't ask the biochemistry teacher a question comparing Kant and Hegel."
First, good that you recognize it's not science. That's a good start.
But, also, you have to understand that by believing in 6-day creation, you are basically contradicting millions of pieces of evidence in many fields of science.
When you have literally millions of pieces of evidence all pointing to your theory as being right, it's kinda hard, in any other case, to claim it's not. I find it interesting that evolution and the age of the earth is the only place where people will ignore millions of peices of evidence, and theories which correctly describes and predicts nearly everything that we find when we go looking.
The evidence supports evolution. it supports the Earth being about 4.5 million years old. It supports human beings living for the last 100,000 years, and living things gradually evolving over hundreds of millions of years before that.
Most every piece of evidence found (I can't say every as I haven't looked at every piece of evidence) contradicts the "6-days" theory, and in fact supports and is predicted by the theories that are in current use.
And if God simpyl made the world to SEEM as though it was something it was not, in this way, just to decieve us, as a test of faith? Then He is actively lying. Actively decieving us.
That is no God I would like to worship.
So, either the evidence was created by God as a fraud to decieve us, and God is therefor a God of lies, or the evidence is being misinterpreted (by tens of thousands, maybe millions of scientists, over many years, over many unrelated fields of study, based on millions of pieces of evidence, and getting each and every one of them wrong) or the theory of evolution, the theories in geology, physics, astrology, archeology, biology, astrophysics, etc, are a pretty good (if not yet perfect, as no sceintific theory is) description of the world around us, and the predictions made are accurate not because of constant millions of coincidences that boggle the mind, but because the things behind them describe the world aroudn us adaquetely.
Besides. Genesis was not made with knowledge of how the world was created. It's description of Earth is not as an orb in space but a flat surface (wrong) with a dome over it (also wrong) with water above the dome and also under the flat surface (again, not accurate.)
That's what you must accept if you believe every part of the Bible is literally true. You must also accept many contradictions in other places. Which reminds me far too much of Orwellian doublethink.
Not saying you do, Shawshank, just, I guess, post drift. I think I left responding to your statement awhile ago...
Anyway. This part is directed to everyone. Here's a very good link to a lot of information on evolution. Including evidence, counterarguements to creationist claims, definitions of what evolution is, and a metric ton of data. I'll send numerous links:
(there are a LOT here, scattered among many subjects)
Here's the homepage. The place is huge, and I've only read an incredibly tiny fraction. This isn't the specific pieces of evidence, though you could find a number of them here, especially through links to other, scientific sources scattered liberally within.
I think it was Lisa that once said something here about God creating billions of years of history in those 6 days.
I took this as sort of a time travel thing, God goes back 6-10 billion years and makes things happen. I really liked that. I don't see it as deceiving us, I see it as God having to fall in with the same physics we do, if not physics we don't understand yet. He had to create a past to make it all.
edit: I don't necessary believe it, but I still like it.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
This is like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. How convoluted do you need to get to make it fit.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Well actually- to be fair I really have no problem with the theory of evolution - it's done a lot less damage to me and my family than say suicidal ideation, nor do I think it's a really important thing Christians should be combating. I guess to be fair on this issue I don't really know how I think. At one point I thought it was worth the argument and debate- but then I was like- meh- what's the point- bigger things to worry about.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
And Occasional- thank you.
That might be the highlight of my day- I don't know for sure yet seeing as I'm not done with it. But that gave me quite an internal chuckle.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Well actually- to be fair I really have no problem with the theory of evolution - it's done a lot less damage to me and my family than say suicidal ideation, nor do I think it's a really important thing Christians should be combating. I guess to be fair on this issue I don't really know how I think. At one point I thought it was worth the argument and debate- but then I was like- meh- what's the point- bigger things to worry about.
Evolutionary theory does not preclude God. It makes no claims in respect to any super-natural explanation. The problem probably lies in that evolution calls into question the literacy of the Bible. Many Christians do not take the Bible as a literal text. That does not negate its usefulness to faith.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Many Christians do not take the Bible as a literal text. That does not negate its usefulness to faith."
I have always wondered what this means. Not that I take the Bible literally. On the other hand, I don't take it to mean the complete opposite of what it says as is often implied when someone says the above quote.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "or the evidence is being misinterpreted"
This is the number one argument against (even here) evolutionary evidence.
Only if you can provide another interpretation of the evidence that withstands scrutiny.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Many Christians do not take the Bible as a literal text. That does not negate its usefulness to faith."
I have always wondered what this means. Not that I take the Bible literally. On the other hand, I don't take it to mean the complete opposite of what it says as is often implied when someone says the above quote.
It means that the Bible conveys ideas about the nature of God and the world that are valuable even if the text is not literally accurate. For instance, does Jesus' message change substantively if the earth is 4.5 billion years old instead of 6 days old?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Talkorigins 'Index to Creationist Claims' is the most legendary scientific smackdown on the entire internet.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sorry MattP, that doesn't explain anything to me. All that says is that one part of the Bible is paid attention to by ignoring the other.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
allegory Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, baduffer, that is at least partly explanatory. It is something I think devalues the Scriptures myself, but that is more than ignoring it altogether. The problem is that too many people who say "don't take something in the Bible literaly," never explain what the alligorical way is supposed to mean. I guess I am trying to get a more specific Creation explaination of the Bible's meaning if its not taken literally. Probably the most important argument I have against taking such a thing too far is who has the authority to say what is alligorical and what is not? I mean, God and his prophets I suppose.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"This is the number one argument against (even here) evolutionary evidence. The second one is that evolutionary scientists are liars and in league with Satan. The only ones who bring up the "God is a liar" are the evolutionsts. "
Yes, the first is a valid arguement. If you have some evidence that it's being misinterpreted, other than "I believe it is." Because there are literally millions of data points, remember, MILLIONS, all of which are predicted by the related theories accurately, all of which are explained nearly perfectly, etc. To say that these MILLIONS of pieces of data in so very many different and unrelated fields, over so much time, are all being misinterpreted, that the accurate predictions, accurate description, is all somehow wrong, when it's being combed over by tens of thousands, maybe more, of people, is about as unlikely as is humanly possible.
There ARE in fact good questions in evolution that are not yet answered. But those are about small details within the big picture, not whether the theories are correct or not.
Then there's your second bit:
That all the scientists are liars. Or that thye're all, every one of them, in league with Satan.
There is no evidence for this. For every singel scientist to be lying, fooling everyone, and everyone working with those scientists to be keeping silent - it's not possible. There are thousands of scientists in every single country on the planet. For all of them, in every field, to be part of some huge conspiracy, and for this conspiracy to have NO valid evidence for its existence is about as unlikely as my not existing as I type this (whoever I am, whether I am who I portray myself or not, simply existing as the person writing this.)
And then there's the Satanic angle. Where's the evidence? What about all the Christian scientists? (There are plenty of em.)
I mean, I could call you a Satanist, for example, and make a good show of claiming your entire Churhc worshipped Satan. If you're not one of the leaders ,you're simlpy being fooled and lied to and mislead. If you're one of the leaders, you're lying and yuo know it. It's pretty simple to claim.
And, also, I didn't say God was a liar. The God I believe in is not a liar. I believe in the true God, and I know the true God is not a liar. Therefore, a god that IS a liar is, in fact, a false god, and those who worship that entity are worshipping a false god at best, Satan at worst. ^_^
The Christian God is no liar. That is the God I worship. Those who believe in a God who would lie to us are being decieved by Satan, that is what my faith, my belief, tells me.
Even my Church agrees with me that God is as I say. The Catholic Church agrees with me in that Genesis is not literal, the Earth was not made in 6 days, and science is in fact valid. So, my view is supported both by millions of observable facts, and by the very faith that supports and sustains me, at the same time. I believe in the true faith, after all. And I know the scientific evidence, which is unrelated to faith. And, they happen to both agree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr..the Bible has two creation accounts that can't both be taken literally, as they explicitly contradict each other.
To me, it is a serious devaluation of the scripture to insist that, despite what it says, it must be taken literally. People who do that seem to me to be putting themselves and what they want to believe in front of what the Bible actually says.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Well, baduffer, that is at least partly explanatory. It is something I think devalues the Scriptures myself, but that is more than ignoring it altogether. The problem is that too many people who say "don't take something in the Bible literaly," never explain what the alligorical way is supposed to mean. I guess I am trying to get a more specific Creation explaination of the Bible's meaning if its not taken literally. Probably the most important argument I have against taking such a thing too far is who has the authority to say what is alligorical and what is not? I mean, God and his prophets I suppose. "
Devalues? The only one devaluing the Bible is one who would misrepresent its meanings or claim it says something which it does not, or that it means something it does not.
Of course, God never wrote the Bible. The things within the Bible were chosen. The books of the Bible were edited together, stories peiced together from many sources, throughout many years, by many people. In the end, the decision of which books were canonical was made by men, and the rest of the books were essentially thrown away, some of which are certainly lost permenantly since then.
As my Church states, some parts of the Bible are history, some poetry, some prayers, some myth, some legends, etc.
Not all of it is history. Genesis 1 is not history. It's a story about creation. But no one was there writing down the events. No one was told by God that that was how He created the universe.
In fact, there are two creation stories which are, in fact, contradictory. Genesis 1 then Genesis 2 onward tell completely unrelated stories, which contradict each other in multiple spots, and even portray God as an entirely different entity.
To say these things are both true is Orwellian doublethink. It's ignorance, either willful or witless. And if willful, if you see it and still claim it, you are disrespecting the Bible and devaluing it, and as one who loves the Bible, and knows it is literal truth if interpreted correctly I know you are not interpreting it correctly, and am furthermore not very happy with you for disrespecting and devaluing the Word of God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, how many coats do you own?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"literally. People who do that seem to me to be putting themselves and what they want to believe in front of what the Bible actually says. "
Precisely. It's hubris, nothing more. Which is why it upsets me so.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Samp:
"Talkorigins 'Index to Creationist Claims' is the most legendary scientific smackdown on the entire internet"
What do you mean? I just discovered it, btw, and found it amazing.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, baduffer, that is at least partly explanatory. It is something I think devalues the Scriptures myself, but that is more than ignoring it altogether. The problem is that too many people who say "don't take something in the Bible literaly," never explain what the alligorical way is supposed to mean. I guess I am trying to get a more specific Creation explaination of the Bible's meaning if its not taken literally. Probably the most important argument I have against taking such a thing too far is who has the authority to say what is alligorical and what is not? I mean, God and his prophets I suppose.
It all depends on whom you accept as a legitimate authority.
As for me the Bible is a outstanding history of the growth of a people and a religion and ultimately an excellent philosophy by which to live your life.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Here's an interesting point, to those who say God made the universe with the appearance of age:
" The appearance of age asks us to accept that light from supernovas came from stars that never actually existed, and that the evidence for low oxygen was also faked. This makes God into a deceiver, since he created an appearance different from reality. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." The apparent age claim says we cannot trust what has been made. "
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
How ironic. By even claiming that thing, Bible literalists immediately contradict the Bible they claim is literally true.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmboots, if you are asking why I argue one thing one time and another another? That is because I usually disagree with parts of both views.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Being LDS, like yourself Occasional, I'm wondering how you resolve all of the Creation stories being literally true with the obvious discrepancies?
For the non-LDS out there, we have even more versions than creedal Christians, five I believe, all with their differences.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
well, I don't make them alligorical, just not "scientifically" accurate. Not that I don't think they have meaning beyond the literal, but I don't see it as one or the other.
It is the same way I view the many versions of the First Vision. Not that the differences put the reality into question, but that some are of a different viewpoint and purpose behind the words than others. With creation, for instance, one might emphasis the viewpoint of God and another of Adam and Eve. One might be explaining the power of God's creative process and the other our mission as mortals. None of them, I believe, is supposed to be followed like a science textbook.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I dunno about the books that the LDS possess, I only know the Bible. So, when it comes to Genesis, it's an important story, with an important point, but the events did not actually happen in our universe. Adam and Eve were not real people, they did not eat a fruit that made them mortal, etc.
That does not take away the importance, truth, of God-inspired nature of the document. Just the fact that it literally happened as stated in that book. (and which translation do you use, too, which is very important too! The King James Version is very inaccurate by modern standards, as a single example.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Adam and Eve were not real people, they did not eat a fruit that made them mortal, etc. "
This way of looking at it makes me believe that either A) the whole thing was made up by Man and has no religious value any more than any other book, or B) God is a liar. As it is, I see it as true, so far as those who wrote the information were given the amount of info they could understand; or were allowed to give.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This way of looking at it makes me believe that either A) the whole thing was made up by Man and has no religious value any more than any other book, or B) God is a liar. As it is, I see it as true, so far as those who wrote the information were given the amount of info they could understand; or were allowed to give.
Well, my opinion is that A is correct, but that's not really relevant to a discussion of biblical literalism.
B is not the only other option. Only if you believe that the bible was literally dictated by God to scribes and that he intended what was written down to be taken literally, and that His word survived unchanged to the present, is He a liar.
The fact is that the biblical text was written by many different people long after the described events occurred. Even the earliest biblical manuscripts that are still preserved today were written hundreds of years after the original versions. They are copies of copies many many times over. Changes were made to the texts, both accidentally and intentionally, during that time. Even amongst the manuscripts that are preserved, there are tens of thousands of differences, some of them quite substantial.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
God didn't write the Bible. Men did, over many centuries, for different reasons, and only piece by piece.
The fact (and it is a fact) that Adam and Eve were not real people does not make the stories worth less, unless the only value you place on them is literal historical truth.
"As it is, I see it as true, so far as those who wrote the information were given the amount of info they could understand; or were allowed to give. "
Let me try to explain it this way, then: The ones who wrote the information only had what they could understand. If God gave them the precise ways of how He created the world, in ways, say, modern scientists would understand, the people who wrote the Bible would have said "...what?"
The ones who wrote Genesis did not even know that the Earth was a sphere, and spoke of it as something different. If you are to say that it was literally true, you'd have to say the Earth is not a sphere, and that people going into space was impossible. (which it is not.)
The purpose of Genesis is not to give a precise report of how the universe was created, in specific order, with mathematical precision. That wasn't the point. The purpose of the story of Adam and Eve was not to tell the precise, real history of the earliest humans. Again, that was not the point.
The purpose was to teach about what he humans are, to describe that God, in His majesty, created the universe and all within it. It was to give a reason for the basic questions of humanity: Why we live, why we die, why we sin and why God did not make us perfect. This is an answer to that. It is not a historical document telling about real people, but a story created for our benefit. The kind of truth it deals with, in that particular book, is different than the kind you must have when describing and predicting the way the univsere actually works.
So, I believe God is not a liar and that Genesis is not worthless. It simply does not do what you think it does. It does not tell you how the universe or man was actually made, and if you asked the person who wrote it they would freely admit that they merely created it, and had no actual evidence that that was what happened, physically. (though they had God's inspiration, of course.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"The fact is that the biblical text was written by many different people long after the described events occurred. Even the earliest biblical manuscripts that are still preserved today were written hundreds of years after the original versions."
I am not refuting this, but I also have problems with it deciding how I approach the text. What I don't believe is that the writings came out of nowhere and have not tranfered the reality of God's works and words. Certainly they are distorted according to viewpoint, accuracy, and opinion. However, to me not to the point of false or fiction literature without destroying value to myself.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Just because some parts of it are fiction does not destroy the value. The only thing harming it's value then is your bias against fiction, which is unfounded.
A story, such as Job, can be created to serve a theological point. In Job (which never really occured, btw.) the point is clear. The rhetorical point about God's nature is clear. It also contradicts earlier statements about God's mode of action. What it really is is a hint that the older forms was not accurate, that really, God is like THIS, instead of like THAT. (in this case, it talks about whether God punishes people in this world for their sins. The Deuteronomic thinking prevailing in earlier books claims that if misfortune falls upon you, it's because you're unjust. They claim God does this. In Job, that is refuted by creating a story about an innocent man, punished for reasons no mortal can know, but we know because we get to see God and Satan talking.)
And further, not everything by a long shot is fiction. Much is nonfiction, much is actually accurate historical documentation. Other things fit in neither of these catagories, like the psalms, which are poems. You can't say a POEM has to have literally happened, after all.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Anyway, I know the contradictions that make a literal interpretation of the Bible in which everything is absolute, factual truth impossible are there, because I've read them.
Because I read the Bible, and study it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In what language(s)?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
A good English translation, because I don't know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Sorry, yes, I've read translations. But even so, my points remain.
The Deuteronomic writings give the view, as an example of contradiction, that God punishes those who are immoral. Job states otherwise, and Christ, who is irrelevent to you if I'm right, rivka, but not to me and Occasional, states outright that it's wrong.
Anyway, even in the MT, this is a contradiction.
So. Does God punish people in the physical world because of their actions, do those who suffer only do so because God punishes their sins, or are the later books, which contradict it, correct, in saying that the earlier ones are wrong?
A literal reading of the Bible would have to hold both as true at the same time. Which is doublethink, and the very definition of absurdity.
And God is not absurd.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"The only thing harming it's value then is your bias against fiction, which is unfounded."
I have HUGE problems with fiction as Religion. If it ends up all fiction what I consider at least based on truth, then for me it is ALL a lie and I can no longer support it. I think even Job really happened, although put in theatrical form. I guess what I am saying is I cannot take it all word for word literal, but I cannot reject its basis in reality without destroying what I percieve as worth anything about my religious beliefs.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But Job did not really happen. It was not a true event, Job as written did not live.
If your faith is so weak as to be unable to survive that, then I guess you have three choices.
Grow a stronger form of faith, abandon your faith, or ignore truth for fantasy.
Of those three, the third one is the easiest, but also the most evil of the three options. I urge you to a higher choice, to allow your faith to grow stronger than what it is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
0Meg, given that I consider it close to useless to read the texts in question (those that I do not consider completely irrelevant, and your assumption in that direction is correct) without the context of the Oral Torah, I doubt we will come to any agreement regarding the contradictions that you perceive. (For example, I believe you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Iyov. [Edit: Not your point about it being allegory, which I consider likely. Rather, its perspective on sin and punishment.])
As it happens, I don't take the creation story entirely literally. But for rather different reasons than you.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
How DARE you judge my faith. You can judge how I percieve, express, and otherwise look at faith, but you have NO RIGHT to judge the amount of faith I have.
I think its time for a whistle blowing with your last post.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yet you, Occasional, DARE to accuse all evolutionary scientists of being "in league with Satan".
It's a little late to be whistle-blowing after your own over-blown rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "or the evidence is being misinterpreted"
This is the number one argument against (even here) evolutionary evidence. The second one is that evolutionary scientists are liars and in league with Satan. The only ones who bring up the "God is a liar" are the evolutionsts.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Morbo, I was saying how Creationists view it, not how I view it. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking about my own views, but they are not. I actually believe in Evolution.
Yes I have sympathy for them because I think they get more vitriol against them than they deserve. I mean, a few here actually gave arguments that could be interpret making laws against their viewpoints.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
OK, Occasional. It's not how I read your post, but I see your POV. You and 0Meg can continue your cage-match.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Aww...c'mon guys! Don't give up now!
I find this discussion very intriguing.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
It can be frustrating to read someone posting "this is true, that is false" with such surety and no room for disagreement, but I can see it getting tiresome both to read and to type "in my opinion" or "I believe" in every post, or even worse in every sentence.
When combined with a "you" that could be either general or specific, it can get even more frustrating. This usually is more at issue in discussions of closely held beliefs, of which this thread is certainly an example. I ask you (specific but plural) to consider treading more lightly on such subjects, please.
--PJ
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I'm back from work, yay!
Alrighty, PJ. When it comes to scientific facts like evolution though, to say "in my opinion" is a rediculous statement, as it is, in fact, pretty much the closest thing to absolute fact that we humans have. It and the things related to it, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, at least. (relativity is relevent to the age of the universe, for example.)
Being facts, for me to say "in my opinion" is absurd. They are true. That's how they are. It's no different than me saying that the earth DOES revolve aroudn the sun. There's no room for disagreement there. And there is no room for disagreement that evolution occurs. Just as I would not suffer one who claimed in all seriously that the sun revolves around the Earth, I do not suffer the notion that the Earth was made in six days. To do so, that is, to say it is just my opinion, just for the sake of not being confrontational towards people who believe falsehoods would in fact be me lying, and I do not come here to lie, and I refuse to lie about actual physical fact.
Rivka:
Without the Oral Tanak, (the Talmud, right?) you may be right. However, we Christians do not consider them canon. So go figure. I'm only going about the christian side of things. I'm not dealing with Judaism, which admittedly interprets things in a different light, and disregards much that I hold dear. Just as you disregard our New Testament, I disregard your Talmud, as an example.
Anyway, when it cmoes to Job, I've read much of the Deuteronomic writings, and I've read Job, and I've seen some differences, and I go with what I see. In Job, Job is given misfortune by God. His neighbors tell him to stop whining because he obviously must have done something bad to deserve it. The book, at least in part, at least those parts, are being satirical towards that point of view. Which is prevalent in some earlier portions of the Bible.
I could be misinterpreting it easily. I'm trying to understand the story, I act in an attempt to. I read it, I read things about it, I read other people's interpretations, I see connections. However, I AM a fallible human being. But I do see the contradiction between views. If you have a different interpretaion to show me, I'd love to see it, and why you see it. At the very least it'd be interesting to see, even if I disagree with it! That's learning, after all.
Occasional:
I may have crossed the line saying your faith is too weak. That was an improper way of stating my thoughts, and not quite accurate either, so I am sorry.
Many times, however, I feel those who believe in the things I'm arguing against judge my faith based on my beliefs in physical facts. That does not make it right, and in fact makes it even worse for me to do, as I should have thought about your feelings and empathized, as I've felt the same way more than once, and people had done the same to me. It was wrong of me.
Now, back to my statements before. You say you don't see the point of them if they aren't real, if Job didn't live, if Adam and Eve weren't really historical people, am I right? That it is in fact merely story, not worthy of worship.
My opinion is different. Whether they existed or not does not change the facts of the Hebrew people who wrote the stories, who had faith in God, and wrote in faith. The meanings are important, and I don't doubt God would work in many stories that didn't really happen. After all, His son loved using such stories. Why would God mind it if His people used stories that weren't literal fact to clarify views or show His desires?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ok... *rant on*
I hate this thing. Not for the place itself (if they wanted to create a theme park based on Bible stories, no big deal) but for what it claims to be, i.e. science. This kind of fraudulent pseudo-science undermines all civilization.
And for the fact that the evangelical dude who masterminded this is trying sneak this viewpoints into the minds of people who don't know how the scientific method works.
*rant off*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This kind of fraudulent pseudo-science undermines all civilization.
How does it do that?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: How does it do that?
It hurts civilization by trying to fool people that these myths are backed up by the scientific method and community...thus undermining the line between fact and fiction. How can people make good judgment calls for the good of the nation/human race/world if the method for determining reality, ie science, is misunderstood?
If people what to believe in myths or religion that is their own business...it is their Right. I don't have a problem with that. But to wrongly claim that the same people who discovered the Earth is 4.5 billion years now say it is actually 6000 is not cool.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, when people believe fraudulent pseudo-sciences like aura crystals, herbal remedies for cancer and creationism, they act in ways that are harmful and sometimes dangerous. It causes suffering that does not need to have to happen, and waste money on junk that does not help them in the least.
At the least, pseudosciences like those are a drain, or at the very least a cause of ignorance. And ignorance is not helpful in this world, and when ignorant people vote, they can do damage.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My only problem with criticisms of THIS particular museums is that people have been erecting museums for centuries now, and many of them have had exhibits that have been completely wrong.
Take the crystal park in Great Britain. It was one of the first dinosaur exhibits and their Iquanadon's anatomy is completely wrong. They amble around on 4 feet, and their thumbs were placed on their noses like a horn.
If we do not demand absolute truth and no speculation in traditional museums why should we even try to get in the way of a bunch of wealthy religious folks who want to build their own museum?
quote: My opinion is different. Whether they existed or not does not change the facts of the Hebrew people who wrote the stories, who had faith in God, and wrote in faith. The meanings are important, and I don't doubt God would work in many stories that didn't really happen. After all, His son loved using such stories. Why would God mind it if His people used stories that weren't literal fact to clarify views or show His desires?
I know this question was not directed at me so excuse me for presuming to respond to it. There is nothing wrong with symbols and parables being used to teach moral principles, but it's quite important that such a distinction be made. Do we go too far if we take everything at face value that is written in the Bible? Do we go just as far in the opposite direction if we write it all off as a huge set of parables, or even a gigantic allegory?
Christianity is no longer useful if all of its teachings are ideas and symbols of ideas. Not that Christianity must be useful, but it certainly takes itself seriously, what with all the writings that say, "This is the only correct way, and there is no other."
Whenever Jesus speaks in parables he very clearly states that He is doing so. If God wanted to use stories to illustrate points why not just identify the stories as just that, stories? Why is there so much attempt to describe mundane details that pertain more to historical accuracy then story telling ease? Why should we care about genealogies, records of who sacrificed what animals and how many?
Now I personally believe much of the Genesis account is symbolic. But I firmly believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, (There are enough other scriptures that specifically affirm their existance.) The specifics of the world in which they lived and how they came to be there is not something described in good detail. Because the Bible is vague on the question I do not attempt to form any strong opinions on the topic by squeezing any drop of literalism I can find.
If for whatever reason our scientific research was lost and future generations degenerated but eventually dug it all up. I would be VERY disappointed if future generations concluded that the A bombs dropped in Japan, the American revolution and the founding of the US, the Magna Carte, the renaissance, the protestant movement, were all symbolic occurances, devised to teach moral lessons.
To me Jesus as a savior is an utterly useless statement if he did not actually do what he described himself as doing.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:My only problem with criticisms of THIS particular museums is that people have been erecting museums for centuries now, and many of them have had exhibits that have been completely wrong.
Take the crystal park in Great Britain. It was one of the first dinosaur exhibits and their Iquanadon's anatomy is completely wrong. They amble around on 4 feet, and their thumbs were placed on their noses like a horn.
If we do not demand absolute truth and no speculation in traditional museums why should we even try to get in the way of a bunch of wealthy religious folks who want to build their own museum?
I agree to a point. Let them build it, but they shouldn't claim it is scientific.
....or use psuedo-science to "prove" (ie mislead) the Earth is only 6000 yrs old.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Also, true believers shouldn't care what science or anyone else says, since they already have their sacred tomes.
So by trying to highjack science these particular people DO care what others say about the nature of reality. And they fear it... fear that it will steal people away from the faith and thus taking the money and political power that comes with a large population.
So their faith is not faith... it's politics. And pretty shady politics, imho, since often the leaders of the "faith" are not the People but the handful of preachers who reap the wealth thrown at them for the promise of salvation. It's the same thing as the indulgences from way-back-when that the Protestants were so angry about they broke away from the Catholic Church.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll bet that these people who built this museum are less ignorant of science than the people who built up civilization in the first place.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Just because they are well informed doesn't justify their actions. You can use knowledge for good or evil.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, true believers shouldn't care what science or anyone else says, since they already have their sacred tomes.
I care about science very much, and I don't appreciate you telling me what I should and what I shouldn't care about.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well, you are different from them. You understand that whatever is real is true to your religion. That is good.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, true believers shouldn't care what science or anyone else says, since they already have their sacred tomes.
I care about science very much, and I don't appreciate you telling me what I (I count myself as a true believer) should and what I shouldn't care about.
quote:So their faith is not faith... it's politics.
It is presumptuous, and frankly rude, to make such claims about another's faith.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Again, you are different from them. You understand that whatever is real is true to your religion. That is good.
I find it rude for the creators of this museum to be so presumptuous that they feel they can contradict science and yet claim they use science. So either they are fools or they are trying to fool us. Either way they will hurt the general public with the false information. I'm not saying it's anything cataclysmic but it marks and contributes to the decay I see happening. Maybe I'm flat wrong or blowing it out of proportion, but that's how I currently see things.
And I'm not trying to attack anyone here on this forum, just the creators of the museum.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So either they are fools or they are trying to fool us.
My guess is that they honestly believe what they are teaching.
quote:Either way they will hurt the general public with the false information. I'm not saying it's anything cataclysmic but it marks and contributes to the decay I see happening. Maybe I'm flat wrong, but that's how I see things.
First of all, I think you're drastically overstating the affect they'll have. As someone else said, they're preaching to the choir.
That said, I understand how you feel. Heck -- I have similar feelings about, for instance, the pornography industry, or the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is just one of many equal choices.
Also, there are young-earth creationists on Hatrack.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
One more thing. If you're back online now, why ain't you ever on AIM?
Punk. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Also, there are young-earth creationists on Hatrack.
That's fine. If individuals or a church want to think/preach that idea it's ok. I just don't like it when someone who is biased in those beliefs tries to sneak those ideas into a secular institution (or what has traditionally been secular), consequently implying the approval of the scientific community in the process.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I just don't like it when someone who is biased in those beliefs tries to sneak those ideas into a secular institution
This is a private institution. It's their own museum. It's not like they're sneaking it into the Smithsonian, or any other scientifically respected institution.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: One more thing. If you're back online now, why ain't you ever on AIM?
Punk.
heheheh 'cause I'm lazy. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Whenever Jesus speaks in parables he very clearly states that He is doing so. If God wanted to use stories to illustrate points why not just identify the stories as just that, stories? Why is there so much attempt to describe mundane details that pertain more to historical accuracy then story telling ease? Why should we care about genealogies, records of who sacrificed what animals and how many?"
Not nearly everything in the Bible is parable and allegory. There is a ton of actual historical documentation in it. Some of it is wrong, some of it is inaccurate, some of it the writers screwed up on, but much of it is, in fact ,accurate historical fact. Many of the books of the Bible describe real historical events.
Much of Genesis does not. By that I mean the Tower of Babel on backward, as an example.
The Hebrew people were crazy about genealogies. So they created a bunch of them, some true, some not accurate.
Jesus has two genealogies that are both different. Some go through mental gymnastics to try to put them both in (one was the genealogy of Mary, as an example of such a game. However, they wouldn't have cared about hers at the time, so to claim one of them was intended as such in an attempt to dodge the fact that they differ is to ignore history in an attempt to FORCE the Bible into saying something it does not say. Which is hubris, in my opinion.)
It's not clear in some cases, no. It takes study, more study than even I've had, to understand everything.
Anyway, the Bible is far from perfect. It was edited by many people over many centuries, and, in fact, the people who wrote each part believed different things. But the thing to remember is this: The Bible wasn't written for us. It was written for people who lived thousands of years ago, who understood references to things that no longer exist, analogies to things we totally don't get, ideas we no longer believe, and is talking to a people whose mindset is so different than ours, and who lived in such a different world, that to take it as being meant for us is to ignore the intent of the authors, who knew nothing of our world, and lived in a worldview that did not contain all the things we now know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the authors, who knew nothing of our world,
Personally, I believe that some of the authors did have knowledge of our world.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I think some sects are too psycho about the whole "must interpret Bible literally word for word". Being a Christian has nothing to do with the age of the planet/universe or evolution. I don't understand the desperation some sects have in disproving stuff like this...a 14 billion year Universe with evolving life does not threaten Christianity in any way.
Heck, if the Roman Catholic Church, mother church of Christiantiy, can accept evolution and the age of the Universe then every sect can too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: However, they wouldn't have cared about hers at the time, so to claim one of them was intended as such in an attempt to dodge the fact that they differ is to ignore history in an attempt to FORCE the Bible into saying something it does not say. Which is hubris, in my opinion.
Dismissing the possibility that it was Mary's genealogy by waving your hands saying that they wouldn't have cared about it seems to be as hubristic and trying to FORCE the Bible into saying what you want it to say as the idea that it it is Mary's genealogy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think some sects are too psycho about the whole "must interpret Bible literally word for word".
I think it's in incredibly bad taste to label people's religious beliefs as "psycho".
quote:Being a Christian has nothing to do with the age of the planet/universe or evolution.
Well, it wouldn't have anything with being a Christian for you, if you were a Christian. Obviously, it is important to them. I don't think you can say "This is a legitimate part of your faith, while this over here isn't." You only get to do that with your own faith, not with others'.
quote:Heck, if the Roman Catholic Church, mother church of Christiantiy, can accept evolution and the age of the Universe then every sect can too.
What the Roman Catholic Church accepts or does not accept has Zero relevance on what I accept and do not accept as a Christian.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmm... bed calling... I must depart. I'll reinstall AIM asap Porter. Peace.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Dismissing the possibility that it was Mary's genealogy by waving your hands saying that they wouldn't have cared about it seems to be as hubristic and trying to FORCE the Bible into saying what you want it to say as the idea that it it is Mary's genealogy. "
I apologize for not giving evidence this late at night. You assume I have no evidence because I give only my conclusion, or am I wrong in my assumption of your assumption. If my assumption is correct, then that's pretty bad form.
Anyway, I have reasons for it, and I can show you books, information, etc.
The question is... will you actually look at it, or just dismiss it right out of hand like so many people do, without even looking at it?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I mean, why bother pointing out the truth. Nobody cares about truth, only their own fantasies. Only whatever makes them feel good. Gah, it's late, I'm depressed, and therefore I am despairing of humanity. Good night,
I'm going to cry now.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have been working with various churches over the past few months, so I picked up a "Religious" newspaper for some background work.
It was a supposedly local paper put together by the group that funded this museum.
80% of all the ads in the paper were for brand name hotels in the area offering group rates. In other words, some are using this as a money making opportunity more than an evangelical call.
The paper ran three articles, all lengthy. The first was about the museum.
The second was a critique of "Inherit The Wind"--the movie based off of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It was also a major critique of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The third was a complaint against the ID movement. They were upset that it did not mention Jesus, talk about his role in history, creation, or science. In other words, ID is too liberal to be allowed in our schools, and only good old Christian beliefs should be there.
What is my biggest problem with this museum. "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" sums it up. While most of the people who work here and built this place are firm believers in what they do, some--those who fudge the numbers, edit the science, spin the facts, are bearing false witness. Not greatly, not is some villainous conspiracy, but in small little ways, perhaps mostly lieing to themselves, in order to prove what they believe is true.
"Thou shall not make for yourself an idol," Some think that this is stretching it, but to many people seem to make an Idol out of the Bible. They seem to be worshiping it instead of God. This museum is a shrine to one small part of a greater book that in itself is just part of their religious Tome which is in reality just a part of an even greater religious tradition.
Finally, some say that this attempt to fudge the line between faith and science is unimportant. What harm can be done?
Much.
The dangerous fringe of the Christian Fanatics will use places like this and faked science presented here to support their beliefs, and many of them are dangerous.
One that comes to mind is the belief that the Jews must retake Jerusalem at all costs, so that Biblical prophesy comes true. It is this belief that fuels much of the US foreign policy of not supporting Israel, but supporting Israels most fanatical religious extremists.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Anyone can believe what they want as far as I am concerned. The major reason I jumped into this fray, and mph seems to have picked up on it, is the absolutely horrendous accusations of lying and lack of real faith. As far as I am concerned from my exprience with the kind of people who would make and go to this museum, they are as serious in believing the scientific model of the Biblical Creationism as those who condemn its science. Most of all I find the kind of actions that these accusations against those who believe in Creationism as scientific hint at utterly reprehensible. With these kinds of "Big Brother don't like what you are doing with science," I am as fearful of those who are against this museum as I am many of the kinds of Christians who take the Bible too literally. There is a Christian Gitmo on the horizon.
Both sides of the issue seem to want to quash viewpoints rather than discuss things in an open and democratic way. If science is so perfect and true, shouldn't it stand on its own legs? I applaud those who write all the reasons evolution and other scientific ideas are considered true. As long as you stick with that then fine, no fears.
However, to question the faith and motives of those who disagree sounds more like childish bullying and intimidation. Worse, it sounds like my rights to think, believe, and express openly are threatened. I find it disheartening that those who claim Christians are trying to do this are now talking like they want to do that to them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is a Christian Gitmo on the horizon.
Oh, please.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
One of the unfortunate side-effects of this museum - which in my mind is lumped right in with the ID movement - is that it serves to further set its adherents apart from the rest of the population.
At its base, organized religion is a very powerful means of creating firm boundaries which organize believers into a group of people set apart from non-believers. I think that in the modern world, people in like circumstances tend to have so much in common, that organized religion has become a less powerful boundary.
This type of intentional ignorance or misrepresentation of facts creates a new, very powerful boundary among people - something which I believe is very detrimental and frankly dangerously outdated in the modern world. In a tribal society, knowing who is with you and who is against you is very important. In today's world, we really need to all be on the same side in as much as possible. There isn't enough room to be at odds with one another, just for the sake of differentiation.
The ID movement, and this museum in particular, are attempting to create a subset of Christian followers who are willfully ignorant of the world around them, who clearly set themselves apart from people who value science and the increase of human knowledge. It's sad to me, at best, and a dangerous practice at worst.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is a Christian Gitmo on the horizon.
Oh, please.
Good Nonexistant Creative Urge Almighty! They're onto us!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
The only gitmo coming is one for homosexuals and atheists. You're wrong.
That is, as long as we're throwing out silly statements, of course.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Both sides of the issue seem to want to quash viewpoints rather than discuss things in an open and democratic way."
Are you suggesting me discussing in an open and democratic way with someone who denies the existence of, say, helicoptors? That is the intellectual equivalent here.
" If science is so perfect and true, shouldn't it stand on its own legs?"
It does, actually! If you actually LOOK, people would see it DOES stand on its own two feet. But most of those who disbelieve it have never actually looked at the evidence themselves, just read the imposters who claim it doesn't, all of which that I've read use faulty logic and many times outright lies.
" I applaud those who write all the reasons evolution and other scientific ideas are considered true. As long as you stick with that then fine, no fears."
Okay, I guess.
As for the museum? I've never said that it should be torn down. Let them.
What I'm against is the thing that caused the museum to be created in the first place. If people didn't believe, in this case, these lies, they would not build the museum. I'm attacking the lie, not the museum.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hear hear Mega.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yeah. The reason nearly every scientist agrees that evolution is a fact is because it stands on its own two feet.
Unless one places virtually all scientists in the correct fields, of which there are many, all the millions of them, as all in on some conspiracy or lie, then... well! They actually DO know what they're talking about.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Are you suggesting me discussing in an open and democratic way with someone who denies the existence of, say, helicoptors? That is the intellectual equivalent here.
That is a gross misrepresentation. There is a world of difference between denying the existance of a common physical object like the helicopter, which everybody can see and touch, and the veracity of the theory of evolution, which is not so tangible.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay, it's not quite as extreme, I'll admit.
And in the case of evolution, we non-scientists DON'T get to see it as clearly as we say, see, a helicopter.
But the evidence is there and the evidence IS clear. It's not as tangible, but you CAN be shown actual evidence of, for example, speciation, species separating into different ones with slightly different traits and so forth. In addition, you can see evidence for "microevolution" and can see the effect of numerous changes over time. And you can see a whole bunch of other things, should one take the effort to look.
But you're right, it's much harder than seeing a helicoptor. I'll say this instead:
Should I discuss in an open and democratic way with someone who believes the earth is flat? Even that is still easier to prove against than evolution, though, because the evidence is easier to show in a way that is easily understood.
Regardless, when you see the evidence, and the other side refuses to even look at it (which they don't in this case) then what am I supposed to do? How is discussing it democratically, as if their factually erroneous belief actually has merit when it incontrovertably does not, as if it has not been proven to be totally false, anything more than a lie on my part?
Okay. I see a way. By starting with their beliefs, accepting they believe them, discussing it freely, but then showing evidence to the contrary. That's democratic and open, I guess, but in the end it still ends with them either admitting they were wrong (because the evidence for evolution IS incontrovertible) or refusing and continuing to live in subjectivist fantasyland. Why should I bother, when most of them will continue living in fantasyland, and have said as much, and will just ignore any proof?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Okay. I see a way. By starting with their beliefs, accepting they believe them, discussing it freely, but then showing evidence to the contrary. That's democratic and open, I guess, but in the end it still ends with them either admitting they were wrong (because the evidence for evolution IS incontrovertible) or refusing and continuing to live in subjectivist fantasyland. Why should I bother, when most of them will continue living in fantasyland, and have said as much, and will just ignore any proof?"
Wow, you are on to something. Not only that, but that is the only way I believe it should be done. At least if you actually want to discuss it in the first place. IF you actually did this I would have a lot more respect for your (or anyone else's) arguments. Otherwise your attitude that they are nothing more than talking about flat earth and black helocopters will end up the same way. The difference is that the last approach you gave will actually open up a lot more discussion because they won't feel as threatened by your hostility.
Will there still be many who don't read or come to the conclusion that evolution is true? Absolutely. Welcome to humanity. But, doors will have been opened (as even you state is possible) even if for a minor few.
Of course, I have not argued you are wrong about evolution as a highly probable truth. What I have argued about is when you treat them as "dangerous," and "stupid" and etc. it only makes them that much more entrenched and distrustful and make you the enemy of everything they stand for. when you express hatred and disrespect for their beliefs there is absolutely no reason for them to consider the evidence. Perception can be much more important than proof when it comes to acceptability and consideration.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"What I have argued about is when you treat them as "dangerous," and "stupid" and etc. it only makes them that much more entrenched and distrustful and make you the enemy of everything they stand for. when you express hatred and disrespect for their beliefs there is absolutely no reason for them to consider the evidence. Perception can be much more important than proof when it comes to acceptability and consideration. "
Unfortunately, they actually happen to be enemies of everything that I stand for.
Maybe I shouldn't go the "you're either with us or against us" Bush-esque route of evolutionary discussion. However, when I discuss it at all with those who disbelieve it, they react negatively regardless of what I do.
The ones I've met don't WANT to discuss it freely and openly with me.
Anyway, you say you'd respect my arguements more if I was acting differently.
However, the truth of my arguements has nothing to do with my personality, and therefor, using my personality as a basis for how to take the arguements is a logical fallacy. I forgot its name.
I know you are making a point and all, and I understand. I'm not saying you actually ARE using that fallacy. But many people unfortunately do. (Which annoys me even more, that they think personality has some bearing on evidence.)
However, being polite and friendly helps with that, I understand. And you're right, it basically is the only wat to discuss it with them. However, do I wish to discuss it with them? Would it actually have an effect? They normally ignore it regardless. Some of them even use disregarding facts as a proof of faith, as one person before mentioned. How do you discuss proof with someone who's value includes disregarding proof and facts on purpose to improve their faith?
Not saying everyone does that. Just... I'm skeptical. I guess I could give it a try. But they already assume me to be a jerk just by my mentioning it, in most places.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: kmboots, if you are asking why I argue one thing one time and another another? That is because I usually disagree with parts of both views.
No. I'm pointing out that very few people really take the Bible literally. Most people (who can afford it) have more than one coat (jacket, outer garment, and so forth). Very few of us take as literal the parts of the Bible that would actually make a difference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Rivka:
Without the Oral Tanak, (the Talmud, right?) you may be right. However, we Christians do not consider them canon. So go figure. I'm only going about the christian side of things. I'm not dealing with Judaism, which admittedly interprets things in a different light, and disregards much that I hold dear.
It's the Oral Torah (or Oral Law) -- there ain't no such animal as the "Oral Tanach." And the Talmud is part of it, although it is far from its entirety. Of course you don't consider it canon. I was not arguing that you should. However, if you are going to make blanket statements, I am going to call you on them. Like this one:
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: The Hebrew people were crazy about genealogies. So they created a bunch of them, some true, some not accurate.
Please point out one inaccurate genealogy that is in the "Hebrew texts." Who was crazy about genealogies?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I apologize. That was a typo! I meant to write Oral Torah, and messed up there. Stupid me.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Also, I was referring more to the Jesus genealogies for shown inconsistencies. Different religion, dno't worry about it my Jewish friend. The people who wrote those books WERE Hebrews, though they, in your view, became heretics essentially. Still, they were Hebrews, if bad ones.
And the Hebrews WERE crazy for genealogies. They put tons of them in, and used tons of them. No insult there!
I don't know enough about the genealogies in the Hebrew texts at the moment to give anything anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you mean early Christians, then why not say that to begin with?
I would agree that genealogies are important biblically -- and halachically. I wouldn't choose "crazy" as a descriptor, but *shrug* no biggie.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"The ones I've met don't WANT to discuss it freely and openly with me.
Anyway, you say you'd respect my arguements more if I was acting differently.
However, the truth of my arguements has nothing to do with my personality, and therefor, using my personality as a basis for how to take the arguements is a logical fallacy. I forgot its name."
I know what you are talking about here and agree. Proof is in the details and not the person. However, once you go into the "your with us or against us" routine, as you said, then my experience is that all thinking ends and it really does become personal. I know, I know . . . counter-intuitive and all that.
What do you do if someone doesn't WANT to discuss it freely and openly? Umm . . . no protestation is going to change that. Perhaps you will have to just let it go or get used to heated arguments that go nowhere.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i find that discussing the bible's validity, evoltions validity, creation's validity is usually moot. Nobody i've meet has had something of a objective viewpoint on the subject, so the bias usually leads directly to debasing the persons character rather than the arguements they make.
When talking about evolution v ID/Creation you simply have too braod a spectrum to cover. In my sciences ive taken i have had evolutionists/creationists/christian evolutionists as professors. Aparantly there is ground that the beliefs can co-exist (or at least not destroy each other). But when it is something this big it is hard to "Prove" anything.
Ex. KoM is (particle physicist?) a scientist and may have knowledge in a given area that another scientist, or layman would not know how to refute. Even if a person were to accept his evidecne of an area as fact it would be just as foolish to let one area of resolution determine the entire spectra of science as it would to discredit it. Who knows, perhaps there will somehow, someway be a time and a place where people can debate things, point-counter point and then see how the evidence stacks up. I personally have had a hard time reading about the Creation v Evolution "debate" because all the arguements i read are biased, only half engage the other arguement, and very seldom offer tangible proofs as answers. The "intellctual" answers or the ability to come to terms with something without facts has always bothered be when the people are supposed to be debating about facts.
Debating over the validity of the bible is almost as hard. There are too many ways to logicise the discrepancies. There are too many facts missing and nobody was around at the creation of the original manuscripts to judge reason and intent.
In a way i wish there was a way of doing this and not having the debate break down into bouts of accusations and ad hominem. It would make one heck of a read.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
of course if anyone were interested i would love to give the whole debate thing a try, would just have to realise that my biblical studies/scientific background is very general to an average college education so i would need time to overview points and seek explinations.
of course it would be hard to have a thread about that i guess, since theres no way to block the people who would post just to make trouble.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yeah. It would be difficult.
And in the end, what would be the standard, what would be enough to prove it one way or another, is another question?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
That's painting with a pretty broad brush, Ecthalion. I think websites like talk.origins do a great job of "offering tangible proofs" (or at least as close to proof as one ever gets in science) without resorting to personal attacks. And I would argue that most of the evolution debates that we've had on Hatrack have been cordial, at least for the most part.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Yeah... I read two posts in the beginning, and now I've posted without reading the entire conversation. Sorry if this has already been discussed but...
What's wrong with people creating a museum about something they believe in? To the rest of the world they're deluded, but it's their right to build a museum based upon what could be viewed as a somewhat ridiculous concept.
And also. Every dollar you spend is a dollar that could go to a charitable cause. You could easily give up 'frivilities' such as the internet, a tv or computer, or a college education (Assuming you haven't got one yet) so that you can give the money to a charitable cause. Had the premise of the museum been more reasonable, I doubt anybody here would have had a problem with spending 27 million dollars for it. It's silliness, really.
I personally wouldn't go to the 'creation' museum anymore than I would go to a museum about evolution. Both are theories I view as ridiculous, and the whole topic of humanity's origins is a bit of a bore to me. I have trouble reading about them in fantasy and sci-fi books, much less having to 'learn' about them in real life.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"What's wrong with people creating a museum about something they believe in? "
Nothing is wrong with it, except for the following few points:
They are spreading misinformation. They are pretending to be something they aren't (scientific). Their belief is factually incorrect. They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: That's painting with a pretty broad brush, Ecthalion. I think websites like talk.origins do a great job of "offering tangible proofs" (or at least as close to proof as one ever gets in science) without resorting to personal attacks. And I would argue that most of the evolution debates that we've had on Hatrack have been cordial, at least for the most part.
most of the debates ive seen on here have digressed into name calling usually by the second page. I know it is very broad idea. I personally wouldnt know where to start such a debate or what rules to debate by.
quote:And in the end, what would be the standard, what would be enough to prove it one way or another, is another question?
I doubt that anything would be "proven" as far as the word means. im just tired of everytime i see a claim, i hear how it is irrefutable, yet theres at least one person that can creat an arguement against it. and then there may be somone else that can create an agruement against his idea and so on and so forth. And usually by the second or third disagreement its down to namecalling.
I guess i just have to live long enough to see areas to a conclusion before ill ever get that though.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: Both are theories I view as ridiculous
I don't think I've ever encountered someone like you before.
And I'd go to the museum, but I'd probably get kicked out for giggling uncontrollably.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
At the thunderdome, two worldviews enter, one worldview leaves.
My worldview can beat up your worldview. Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "What's wrong with people creating a museum about something they believe in? "
Nothing is wrong with it, except for the following few points:
They are spreading misinformation.
As I believe that evolution, as it stands, is misinformation, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Also, people deserve to be misinformed, IMO, if they walk into a museum and believe everything they see. Since I doubt that this is much of a problem, I don't see the spreading of misimformation as harmful. Perhaps if the curaters waved a gun in your face and threatened to kill you if you didn't 'convert', I would find fault with them.
quote: Their belief is factually incorrect.
People don't have the right to believe in something that is considered incorrect by other people? I realize that a vast majority of people don't buy into creationism, but still, they still have the right to promote their beliefs. Maybe if they believed they were wrong, but spread the information anyway, fully knowing that the information they were spreading was incorrect, I would have a problem. But that's not the case.
quote: They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
??? There's a leap.
*Edited for quotie thingies.* *Edited again for unclear antecedents* *Again for spelling and grammatical errors*
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:
quote: They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
??? There's a leap.
which part? that they're promoting a certain world view? Or that that world view is incompatible with other world views?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The part where it's incompatible with peaceful coexistence with other world views, I'm guessing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Well, I do have an odd desire to punch in the face the people who made the museum, so there's some truth to it Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I could die from fits... Of laughter.
But seriously. I don't see how it will interfere with the co-existence of world-views.
And I don't see how we could call the current co-existence of world-views peaceful.
And I don't know many people who believe that creationism is disrupting the abundant harmony in the World.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If we demand the elimination of one group over the other in order to avoid non-peaceful coexistence, we'd better give Western civilization back to the creationists. After all, they had it first.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If we demand the elimination of one group over the other in order to avoid non-peaceful coexistence, we'd better give Western civilization back to the creationists. After all, they had it first.
This man speaks the truth.
It was 1st ammendment advocates who protected evolution during its fledgling days. It would be gross hypocrisy for evolution to obtain a commanding majority in society and then silence its' opponents.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
At the thunderdome, two worldviews enter, one worldview leaves.
My worldview can beat up your worldview.
I've got the death sentence on twelve systems!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It would be gross hypocrisy for evolution to obtain a commanding majority in society and then silence its' opponents.
Could someone show me where this idea that people want to forcibly silence/eliminate creationists is coming from? From what I can see, this has been touched on by the people having problems with creationism only when they say that this is explicitly not what they are saying.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I don't think we should forcibly silence them. I'd much prefer the "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children through education" approach.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It would be gross hypocrisy for evolution to obtain a commanding majority in society and then silence its' opponents.
Could someone show me where this idea that people want to forcibly silence/eliminate creationists is coming from? From what I can see, this has been touched on by the people having problems with creationism only when they say that this is explicitly not what they are saying.
Oh I dunno Paul's comments about the museum presenting a world view that is incompatable with peaceful coexistance struck me as being akin to saying, "Ideas that cannot peacefully coexist with others need to be snuffed out." But hey I could just be reading him wrong.
Also it seemed like in the first page people were saying, "Creationist museums masquerading as science ought not to be allowed to open."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: I don't think we should forcibly silence them. I'd much prefer the "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children through education" approach.
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
*me too* ...wait...why are we shaking our heads?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Attitudes of "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children" fosters an environment where people feel the need to remove their children from public schools into insular private schools or home schooling, which increases the demand for institutions such as this creationist museum.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Oh I dunno Paul's comments about the museum presenting a world view that is incompatable with peaceful coexistance struck me as being akin to saying, "Ideas that cannot peacefully coexist with others need to be snuffed out." But hey I could just be reading him wrong.
In this particular case, I sort of agree with that thought. However, the method of snuffing out, for me, would not involve forcibly doing anything to them(edit: assuming we don't get into a situation where the conservative christians form a military organization bent on the eradication of those who believe otherwise), but rather defeating it through education and through the marketplace of ideas.
quote:Also it seemed like in the first page people were saying, "Creationist museums masquerading as science ought not to be allowed to open."
I looked over the first page and I see no indication of anyone saying. I did, however, see people specifically saying that they weren't saying this. Could you point out the statements that you are basing this on?
---
There is a terribly important difference between saying that someone is wrong, irresponsible, or even dishonest with what they are saying and saying that they not be allowed to say it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Attitudes of "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children" fosters an environment where people feel the need to remove their children from public schools into insular private schools or home schooling, which increases the demand for institutions such as this creationist museum.
I don't necessarily think that this is the truism you treat it as. Children don't necessarily mold into what their parents try to make them. It is entirely possible that creationists taking steps like this is going to result in more children rejecting their parents beliefs and thus reducing the demand for creationist things.
---
I've a completely unsupported theory that one of the main reasons that the West had an Enlightenment and the Islamic world didn't is that the people in charge of the state and church in Europe were significantly worse (or at least more visibly so) than in Islamic countries. I think the same principles may apply here.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think what is most startling about this 'museum' is that it takes the world back hundreds of years scientifically and past hundreds of scientists, perhaps thousands who worked on this topic even though it flew in the face of everything they believed.
From the time that Galileo first realised that the moon was covered in mountains and valleys and thus the "heavenly sphere" was not perfect- and Brahe's reaffirmation of this fact, humans have slowly been investigating the reality and history of their world.
Many of them were devoutly religious. They were most of them good scientists, rejecting and accepting their beliefs and theories depending on what they saw.
Much later, comparative anatomists began to realise that many creatures shared common features and could be arranged by them. They realised there were complex creatures and simple creatures.
One of these, Lemarck proposed his 'path' or 'order' of animals, essentially proposing the first concept of evolution. Mendel laid the ground work for the transmission of forms from parent to child.
Cuvier, despite being a creationist and arguing against Lemarck's theories (due to gaps in the fossil record etc.), his work with the development of creatures eventually became important to evolutionary theory.
Charles Lyell's work on the geology of the Earth was hugely influential. He promosed the hypothesis of uniformity, suggesting that the actions we observe to day on the earth in the natural world are the same as those that have always been unfolding- and if they can explain what we can see looking back over the geological (and later, biological) record of the earth, we should not need to invent further ideas.
At the same time in astronomy, scientists were discovering the true size and nature of the universe. In chemistry, the opposite end of the scale was being investigated.
Thomas Malthus, now thought of darkly as the father of eugenics, was instrumental in his work to do with the populations of creatures and the habitat available for them. Malthus was not the first to think about population. Adam Smith had similar ideas: "When food increases, men will multiply like rats."
Charles Darwin, a catastrophist (creationist) when he boarded the Beagle, took a copy of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology with him. On his journey around the world he observed many of the phenomena Lyell described, thus finding evidence to support Lyell's claims.
for much of his journey, Darwin was a creationist: "It seems a not very improbably conjection that the want of animals may be owing to none having been created since this country was raised from the sea."
At the same time, though, Darwin was observing phenomena that seemed to lead to another hypothesis in the biological as well as the geological world. The finches he saw on the Galapagos Islands seemed to be not only different from those living on the mainland but with beaks designed specifically to consume certain types of food.
He did not return an evolutionist. It was not until he returned that he read Malthus' work on populations and realised that creatures unsuited to their environment would die out.
It was not a snap decision. Darwin spent years sorting through the data he recovered from his journey, comparing it with the ideas of Lyell and Malthus.
At the same time, another scientist, Alfred Wallace, who had also travelled the world widely and made many observations. He applied Lyell's theories to what he had seen in the biology of animals and plants on the Indonesian Islands.
Wallace sent a letter to Darwin who even yet had published nothing on the topic of evolution but was rumoured to be leaning that way.
Hurriedly, Darwin collated his work to present to the Linnean Society (bearing the name of another great scientist) in July of 1858. A year later, he published his book, selling all 1250 copies on the first day. It was over fifteen years since he had returned from his journey on the Beagle.
This is hardly the end of the story, or even until this point, the complete story. So many scientists, philosophers and thinkers (both evolutionists and creationists) were instrumental in refining the idea of evolution we have today it is impossible to trace all the links between them.
It is important to remember, in all, that literally thousands of scientists with thousands of world views came up with this idea. It wasn't just one man with one set of data. When we teach evolution, we are teaching the scientific culmination of hundreds of years of thought, investigation, skepticism, religiousness and philosophy; conflicting, agreeing, and eventually and slowly emerging as one idea. What resulted is not a badly thought out theory, it is a concept based on a huge amount of scientific thought and evidence.
To build this museum as a viable scientific evidence is a slap in the face of all these thousands of thinkers who carefully considered the evidence, who battled with others and with themselves to come to a viable conclusion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: "This isn't an issue of letting people believe what they want, it is presenting a distorted and un(scientifically)justified account of history to children. This is ID all over again. If religous types want to teach their children about faith and the traditions of their religion, fine. But they should not be allowed to confuse children with falsities presented as scientific fact. "
"What's more, there's a fine line between freedom of thought and speech, and outright lying and misinformation."
"We have the freedom to think and say whatever we want. Lying and making up facts however is fraud."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I did miss the first quote. I agree that this fits what you said. The other two, not so much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Squicky -- I don't know what "truism" you're reading from my post, but it's not something that's there. I don't know what you think you're responding to, but you did not understand my post.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
mph- What I said with a chuckle and a click couldn't encompass the mixture of amusement and bewilderment that I feel about this issue, and didn't translate well to a forum based discussion. For that, I apologize. Leaving my mocking statement aside, however, I believe that education will be the only answer to such wrong-headed thoughts. The difficulty in this situation is that scientific facts are being mingled with religious views. How do you begin to re-educate someone in a neutral way when it conflicts with some of their deepest held beliefs?
On the one hand, I have the 'live and let live' attitude where I could care less what they believe. On the other hand, I question the mental state of people who so willfully ignore evidence that contradicts their views. That type of rigid fanaticism will always frighten me, as it can be directed and misapplied all too easily.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter,
quote:people feel the need to remove their children from public schools into insular private schools or home schooling, which increases the demand for institutions such as this creationist museum.
I don't believe that the second part of this statement is necessarily correct. It may increase the demand over the short term as parents try to keep their kids from accurate sources of information, but the acts you are talking about may encourage children to reject their parents' fundamentalist beliefs, which would ultimately reduce the demand for things like this museum.
---
I think the disconnect occurred because, if I understand you correctly, you were only talking about the short-term, as opposed to the full potential effects of this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was only talking about short-term. More children in insular private schools are in home schooling precisely to shield their children from being mocked and subverted means an increased demand for institutions which will not mock their beliefs or try to subvert their children.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I did miss the first quote. I agree that this fits what you said. The other two, not so much.
I thought about deleting the 2nd quote in my post, but ultimately decided that it hints at the sentiment.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Besides, if kids are anything like me, being mocked and subverted would only strengthen my 'belief' in the 'truth'. I would feel justified for tuning out any of the things *Any* of the teachers had to say, because after all, they're just out there to mock and subvert me. So. I end up rejecting the truly objective information, and feeling justified in doing so because of the mocking and subversion.
Try teaching a kid like that.
<Sigh> I can't wait until some brilliant guy comes up with a third theory that becomes popular (As opposed to all the 'third' theories that nobody's heard of.). He'll just have to have a lot of money to spread the word about it. Hmm... Maybe if he associated himself with a particular religon he could get a lot more milage. Never doubt the power of justification and religious fervor.
PS: I personally found the comment about the 'mocking and subverting children' method rather funny, even if I don't entirely agree with the poster.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:More children in insular private schools are in home schooling precisely to shield their children from being mocked and subverted means an increased demand for institutions which will not mock their beliefs or try to subvert their children.
This seems to me like you are trying to present a restatement of what you said and not an expansion of it. If that impression is correct, I don't think you've done a complete job of it.
There are plenty of institutions that, unlike the museum in question, are honest, and yet do not mock people's beliefs or attempt to subvert their children. In my uniformed opinion, there is likely not an increase in demand for these institutions by these parents in response to the things you are talking about. It's not like the creationists are looking to take their kids to the Museum of Natural History or the Smithsonian.
It is not things that are not mocking or trying to subvert their kids that they are looking for, but rather ones that (in their eyes) confirm or reinforce their beliefs. And in this case, that means going to dishonest sources.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nathan, Do you have any specific complaints about evolution, or is it just a general rejection for you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, In your opinion, is that one somewhat ambiguous quote really sufficient grounds for the reactions that you and porter were having?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Personally, I look at people who would build a creationist museum and begin to reject evolution myself. I mean...these are the people who should have been eaten by crocodiles at the watering hole while they adamantly denied the existence of crocodiles. Their (creationists not crocodiles) existence negates all of evolution and natural selection...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, In your opinion, is that one somewhat ambiguous quote really sufficient grounds for the reactions that you and porter were having?
By itself, no. Subsequent comments did not lead me to believe that people were taking the side of freedom of expression either however.
Besides that, in my own daily affairs I have encountered an increasing degree of that particular sentiment expressed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know THT. That sounds like you are taking a Lamarckian view. I think that this outward behavior is the result of a multitude of factors, many of which are environmental.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Which comments were those?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
My complaints comes from one of the principles in Logic -- An incorrect premise will never become a correct one, no matter how much you work on it in the future.
I think of CS Lewis talking about the math problem. If you mess up early on in a math problem, it does no good to complete it, even if you do everything afterwards correctly. The answer will be incorrect.
So. Instead, you go back to the beginning, or wherever you messed up, and start over there. Go back to the root of the problem.
I have problem with specific problems in, or near, the Evolution Theory's roots. Why people came up with the idea, and what their original theories were with regards to evolution.
I'm afraid I couldn't go into much coherent detail without running to fetch a couple of books to refresh the terms in my mind. Flakey, I know.
It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
I have problems with creationism's roots, because it originated out of evolution, at least to my understanding. It served no other purpose than to refute evolution, and bring God back into our origins. A funny thing, since I didn't think he had left when the theory of evolution came about.
I have problems with both, because, in science, when you have a hypothesis, you do everything in your power to prove it wrong. You don't look for affirming evidence until you've done everything you can with the evidence that could potentially disprove your theory. Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence.
So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me. A lot of things do, actually, but 'Evolution VS. Creationism' is definently near the top of the list.
So. I have no problem with the idea of 'evolution'. I just think we've been taking steps backwards, rather than forwards with regards to the current theories regarding evolution.
I guess that would make it a general refusal, rooted in a few, small, specific complaints.
There. By now there are probably 3 posts between the question asked, and my answer.
Actually, I had a question... I had heard (From Encarta Encyclopedia, I believe) that Darwin actually waited several years to publish his theory, out of consideration for his wife. I often use this alleged fact against rabid creationists who try to vilanize Darwin. But somebody said he 'hurriedly' tried to publish it. Which is true?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Which comments were those?
I'd rather not quote posts because they did NOT say something in particular. I am describing the flavor of the thread up until I made my own first post.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Definitely not Lamarckian...his theories involved too immediate a biological change to be passed on, and ignored behavioural impacts of parent-sibling interactions...
Possibly the Mendelian theory...maybe a genetic pre-disposition that manifests itself in this type of behaviour...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I am not at all aware of this flavor. To me, it seems like you and porter were responding to people's legitimate criticisms of these creationists with unjustified accusations of a desire towards censorship.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Personally, I look at people who would build a creationist museum and begin to reject evolution myself. I mean...these are the people who should have been eaten by crocodiles at the watering hole while they adamantly denied the existence of crocodiles. Their (creationists not crocodiles) existence negates all of evolution and natural selection...
You're funny.
Really, though. You should stop taking everything so seriously. Loosen up, won't you?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Nathan...you haven't been here long enough to realize that I take almost nothing seriously... Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I am not at all aware of this flavor. To me, it seems like you and porter were responding to people's legitimate criticisms of these creationists with unjustified accusations of a desire towards censorship.
Now you will have to do me the favor of quoting anyone's "legitimate concerns," to some wealthy creationists erecting their own museum where they say what they please.
Also one person saying it needs to be stopped and nobody contesting the point IMO is all the justification one needs to express discontent.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
There isn't really a single, overarching theory of evolution beyond the statement "All life is descended from a common ancestor." Is this premise what you disagree with?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Now you will have to do me the favor of quoting anyone's "legitimate concerns," to some wealthy creationists erecting their own museum where they say what they please.
I believe, aside from the more general complaints about creationism in general, the most prominent specific complaint in this case is that they were falsely representing what they were teaching as science and that this sort of willful dishonesty is wrong. I can provide quotes if you really have missed this in the thread.
---
As I mentioned, Angi's quote was somewhat ambiguous. Upon review, it looks to me that it was likely a "There outta be a law.." sort of statement, not any sort of actual call for peopel to not allow this.
And, bringing this up when you are specifically responding to other people who didn't say this and some of whom specifically said that they weren't doing this as a seeming characterization of what they are talking about doesn't seem proper to me.
Should I assume that you concur with the Occ's nonesense and use what he said in addressing your position? I don't think so.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Nathan...you haven't been here long enough to realize that I take almost nothing seriously...
I like this guy! Sorry. Back to the topic.
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
There isn't really a single, overarching theory of evolution beyond the statement "All life is descended from a common ancestor." Is this premise what you disagree with?
Nope. You've got 19 questions left.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What is it that you define as "the theory that we now call evolution", then? There are thousands of theories that deal with different mechanisms and effects of evolution.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence."
Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
Are you seeing what the scientists are actually doing? Do you know what they are actually doing, or is this opinion based on news articles and the statements of nonscientists who don't have vital experiments to do, and so talk about it?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
That's not a yes or no question.
I find it hard to believe that thousands of theories are taught in schools... Mine just taught three... And two of those were glossed over. I based my opinions of evolution on those three theories of evolution. Don't ask me for names, I don't know them.
Seriously. There are thousands of theories all held at equal value and given the same amount of credence?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Okay, my edit button is messing up. I believe one of them was Darwanism... Maybe. I remember doing a report on him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:As I mentioned, Angi's quote was somewhat ambiguous. Upon review, it looks to me that it was likely a "There outta be a law.." sort of statement, not any sort of actual call for peopel to not allow this.
"There outta be a law" is the exact same thing as a call for people to not allow something. I never suggested that everyone was stating violence or coersion were the right means for that end. But errecting laws that prohibit the rightful freedom of expression are to me "using force."
quote:Should I assume that you concur with the Occ's nonesense and use what he said in addressing your position? I don't think so.
Could you state what statement by Occasional you are talking about? I'd look through the thread myself but I can't expend much more time on these forums right now.
I'm not asking you to hold anyone's comments up against every other statement in the thread.
You are welcome to your perception of the thread as I am to mine. If nobody actually feels the sentiment I am detecting in the thread then I of all people will be glad for it. I've stated my reasons for getting that vibe, I don't think I am wrong to have it.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence."
Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "Scientists (Not all, but most, in my opinion), from both sides, seem to search only for affirming evidence, or worse, only evidence that serves to refute the other side's evidence."
Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
PS: If this is the second time I've posted this, sorry; I'm experiencing technical difficulties.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Seriously. There are thousands of theories all held at equal value and given the same amount of credence?
Just as there is no single theory of astronomy that describes everything that we see in the universe, there is no single theory of evolution that describes how life has diversified over time. There are many separate theories on topics such as random mutation and natural selection, adaptation, exaptation, phylogenetics, etc.
Within a given area, there can be multiple sub-theories regarding the details of the mechanisms involved. And yes, all of these theories are in near perfect harmony with the more general theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I find it hard to believe that thousands of theories are taught in schools... Mine just taught three... And two of those were glossed over. I
I hate to tell you this, but what's taught in schools and what scientists actually use in research are not the same thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: My complaints comes from one of the principles in Logic -- An incorrect premise will never become a correct one, no matter how much you work on it in the future.
That's true in logic. It's not true in science. Chemistry, after all, developed from alchemy; astronomy from astrology; Newtonian physics, god help us, from Aristotle; Einstein from Newton. Basically, you're stretching the word 'premise' to go into a place it was never meant to cover, and getting very bad results.
quote:I have problem with specific problems in, or near, the Evolution Theory's roots. Why people came up with the idea, and what their original theories were with regards to evolution.
Uh-huh. And do you also object to electromagnetism because Maxwell thought an ether was needed to carry the waves?
quote:It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
And what are those problems?
quote:So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me.
This is known as the argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't wash. If it did, you would instantly have to abandon your theist beliefs, because they seem ridiculous to a lot of people.
quote:So. I have no problem with the idea of 'evolution'. I just think we've been taking steps backwards, rather than forwards with regards to the current theories regarding evolution.
This is so vague as to be nonsense.
quote:Actually, I had a question... I had heard (From Encarta Encyclopedia, I believe) that Darwin actually waited several years to publish his theory, out of consideration for his wife. I often use this alleged fact against rabid creationists who try to vilanize Darwin. But somebody said he 'hurriedly' tried to publish it. Which is true?
Both. He did wait several years. Then a competitor of his, whose name I do not offhand recall, gave him fair warning that he was working on a similar theory and going to publish fairly soon, and Darwin had to get his book out or lose priority.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
One of the first aspects of Creationism vs Evolution is the churches absolute refusal to give up any power what-so-ever, and to further give up the immense financial resource that Power represents.
'The Church' as a bureaucratic organization has consistently been one of the most corrupt throughout history. Though given the extent of modern religion, that statement only applies to a minority aspect of the many religions today. A vast majority of people and religions are more that willing to allow religion and science to peacefully co-exist.
At every stage of development of modern science, the church has opposed it forcefully and usually brutally. When the microscope was invented, leaders of the Church said it was the work of the devil, and that microscopic organisms couldn't possibly exist, and if the did, they were certainly the work of the devil. They refused to even look into the device. ...Galileo ...Marco Polo ...Copernicus ...and now Darwin.
The Church, through out history and now today, it's most radical factions, simply refuse to accept anything that threatens their power.
Personally, I've always taken the view that science simply documents God, it doesn't deny him.
Part of the problem is that Christians on one had claim that God is infinite. Yet, they always insist on humanizing him. God didn't create us in his image, we created God in our image. If God is infinite, then what is time to him; a week, a day, a century, a millennium, or a billion years are insignificant to Him (note God is neither him nor her, he is 'it')?
Who is to say when God snaps his (non-existant) fingers this time, it represents 1 second, but when he snapped his fingers last time, it represented 100 million years.
Also, in my Bible there two accounts of the creation, one right after the other, but they don't match. So, which is the right one, and where was God standing when he created 'earth', and how was he measuring time without the sun and the earth to reference. Who is to say the first day didn't take a billion years, and the second day took 100 million years, etc...? Whose to say? ...people who don't want to give up power and money.
Also, as I have pointed out before, it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution. The fact that it remains a theory tells us that it is not a complete science. But keep in mind that we ONLY have the THEORY of Electricity/Electronics and the THEORY of Chemistry. The atomic model that completely explains electricity fails to explain chemistry, and the counter theory that explain chemistry fails to explain electricity.
We don't fully understand either one. Yet we have a sufficiently workable theory that allows us to apply both electricity/electronics and chemistry. We don't fully understand Atomic Physics, but we have enough of a working theory that we can make atomic bombs and nuclear power plants. We don't understand economics, but we have enough of a theory to keep a moderately functioning economy working.
My point is, it doesn't matter that Evolution is not a completely explained and thoroughly understood theory. We have enough of a working theory, and enough evidence, to accept it as a workable applied theory, just as with the other sciences.
Religion however, merely has 'magic' and fanaticism on its side. At least in the form that the most radical Christians apply it.
Further, if 'Religion' were able to force 'Creation theory', or as they are now calling it 'intelligent design', into the classroom, would they be honest about it? I don't think so. They don't want Creation Theory taught, they want THEIR Creation Theory taught. The American Indians have a completely different theory of how the world was created, as do the many African tribes, and the many Asian civilizations. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories, are they willing to teach them all? I don't think so.
Is Evolution flawed, of course it is, so is every other branch of science that exists. The fact that it is an incomplete science in no way discredits it.
If we are going to use contradictions and inconsistencies to discredit things, Religion would have vanished centuries ago.
Just a few thoughts.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... There is a fact of evolution, which we observe: Organisms change over time. There is a fact of gravity, which we observe: Things fall down. There is also a theory of gravity, which explains how and to some extent why things fall down. And there is a theory of evolution, which explains how and why organisms change.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i know that the problems that i have with evolution/creation as a science is that it seems like every class i take there is something that has changed in the theory to make it different. Yet all i get preached at me is that it is "infallable".
Things like the rough age of the earth/universe/fossils have changed since i started school. The Universe's age has changed at least 2 times that im aware of, fossils have always been confusing since ive read that nuetrino bombardment can cause a greater appearance of age in biological fossils. The age of the earth ive only heard a few arguements against, one being neutrino bombardment, another being the lack of Hydrogen present because of the decomposition of radioactive materials, and another being the decay of the earth's magnetic field and how it would be too strong if the earth were so old. I only looked briefly into these claims and it seems like they are complaints that are "ignored". But then again i doubt there is a book titled "Neutrino bombardment how it does/doesnt effect the raioactive decay of molocules and appearance of age" so it doesnt seem worth the effort to try and search throuhg archives for such small ideas.
The big bang theory, while being taught in almost every class ive taken in school seems to be rejected in most cases as a truth, and ive read articles by atheists and creationists alike as tot he problems with the theory. I still havent heard a theory wich makes more sense. Hyperspace, and multiverse really dont strike me as any more credible than "god made it".
Industrial melanism(peppered moths, Ladybird beetle), which was a big deal as "proof" micro evolution has been shown to have been made through bad science. Things like errors like increase in black moths in areas that were not industrialised, in some areas of the states (Va i think) the population of black moths was in the 90% range. Also the return of original color species much faster than the return of the lichens thouhgt to hide them showed flaws in the idea of preaditation(sp?). Also that there were incontinuities in the way the experiments were carried out, such as the moths actually dont rest on the trunks of trees, they rest int he tops of trees near the smaller branches, where there is also basically no lichens to hide in. All this points to flaws in the idea yet the most recent biology class i have taken(2 years ago) still taught it as sound scientific data/results. (i believe 1996 or 1998 was the year that the refutation/problems with the claims/data was published, im sure i could look it up, and the details.)
quote:Care to show me? From my perspective, and the data I have, it looks as though you are incorrect.
I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I have no problem accepting either as a philisophical foundation, or as a scientific model or belief behind the research. I do however have a hard time believing that they are science and that there are real ways to explain them that are un-assailable.
[ June 04, 2007, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Ecthalion ]
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh... There is a fact of evolution, which we observe: Organisms change over time. There is a fact of gravity, which we observe: Things fall down. There is also a theory of gravity, which explains how and to some extent why things fall down. And there is a theory of evolution, which explains how and why organisms change.
ill agree that evolution along the idea of adaptations cannot be denied, but whos to say that these adaptations denote a change from one type of animal to another. At what point does darwin's finch become something other than a finch? and is it really that big a change to call different breeds of the same animal "evolution"? I am by no means a genetecist, and of course would be open to enlightenment on the subject but it seems flawed to make the assertion that because one set of labradore retreiver hss brown hair, one has black, and one has yellow that there is really an evolution or bettering of the species. Also, since ive been toldthat you can make 1600(?) different species out of a hawaiian fruit fly or that you can breed any dogs and eventually get any other type of dog that that would also classify as evolution. Diversification for certain, adaptation for certain but evolution? i dont know if i would say it could be considered a fact based on that data.
Of course the idea is also that we can never tell if an adaptation is truely and evolutionary step in any short amount of time, so i guess we are too short lived to physically see the advacning steps.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I would imagine that books by authors self-identifing as "evolutionists" or "creationists" are specifically about the evolution-creation arguments and thus will be about wanting to prove the other side wrong. If you want to learn about evolution you should be looking for books whose authors are identified as evolutionary biologists. And if you want to learn about religion you should be looking for books by theolgians.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: . . . Newtonian physics, god help us, from Aristotle . . .
Now, now. Aristotle got one or two things right.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Then a competitor of his, whose name I do not offhand recall . . .
Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Warner Bros and Universal studios plan to take fans of [Harry Potter] on another (expensive) adventure with the creation of a $1 billion park in Orlando, Florida."
Which is ~37times more expensive than the CreationMuseum. Not saying that watching live quidditch matches won't be worth it.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I would imagine that books by authors self-identifing as "evolutionists" or "creationists" are specifically about the evolution-creation arguments and thus will be about wanting to prove the other side wrong. If you want to learn about evolution you should be looking for books whose authors are identified as evolutionary biologists. And if you want to learn about religion you should be looking for books by theolgians.
I have other books by "scientific" authors as well. But they are usually just expounding on their thoughts and ideas much like a philospher with very little scientific data seems to be in them (sagan is probably the worst at just going of on a tangent, it usually starts with "Now let us imagine that.....".) It also seems that in the books/articles (occasionally i pickup a journal to read whats going on in the science world) i read that they purposfully leave out any objections that might be had with their research. It seems almost that 100% tests go 100% right and are 100% accurate 100% of the time and are recorded 100% wihtout flaws.
Theologians offer great thought provoking arguements (ie. God can creat a full grown man, full grown plant, full grown animal. Why cant god creat a universe in its prime where everything works like it should?) Very seldom do they have something that is tangible.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It sounds to me like you are reading pop science and pop theology.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching the 100% goodness of experiments, it's true that there's a certain amount of selection bias in publications. The flawed experiments get chopped out at peer-review stage. If you look at particle physics journals, though, you'll see a lot of "Search for X" with the result "We find no evidence of X".
I have some experience with this myself: Last year I was trying to measure a certain quantity, which, as it turned out, could not be reliably measured with the data we have, or expect to have in the next twenty years. (Hum. There were some unexpected backgrounds. We had some cause for optimism going in.) Well, that was published in the sense that I gave a talk explaining why it couldn't be done, but you won't see it appearing in any physics journals. You might have, though, if we'd gotten to the data stage. As it was, computer simulation showed it was impossible. If simulations had showed it possible, and the data disagreed with the simulation, then we might have published it as a negative result. (You can't really publish something based purely on simulations.) But I understand that particle physics is an unusual field in this context, because of some bad experiences in the sixties; in medicine, for example, there is supposed to be a definite positive-results bias.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion (2 posts): I hate to tell you this, but what's taught in schools and what scientists actually use in research are not the same thing.
Seeing as I'm still in school, I find this comes as a relief. (I can't get the quotie things to work! Sorry.)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: My complaints comes from one of the principles in Logic -- An incorrect premise will never become a correct one, no matter how much you work on it in the future.
1. That's true in logic. It's not true in science. Chemistry, after all, developed from alchemy; astronomy from astrology; Newtonian physics, god help us, from Aristotle; Einstein from Newton. Basically, you're stretching the word 'premise' to go into a place it was never meant to cover, and getting very bad results.
quote:I have problem with specific problems in, or near, the Evolution Theory's roots. Why people came up with the idea, and what their original theories were with regards to evolution.
2. Uh-huh. And do you also object to electromagnetism because Maxwell thought an ether was needed to carry the waves?
quote: It's not evolution as a whole, that I reject, but rather, it is the theory that we now call evolution, with all of its problems, that I reject.
3. And what are those problems?
quote: So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me.
4. This is known as the argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't wash. If it did, you would instantly have to abandon your theist beliefs, because they seem ridiculous to a lot of people.
quote: So. I have no problem with the idea of 'evolution'. I just think we've been taking steps backwards, rather than forwards with regards to the current theories regarding evolution.
5. This is so vague as to be nonsense.
quote: Actually, I had a question... I had heard (From Encarta Encyclopedia, I believe) that Darwin actually waited several years to publish his theory, out of consideration for his wife. I often use this alleged fact against rabid creationists who try to vilanize Darwin. But somebody said he 'hurriedly' tried to publish it. Which is true?
6. Both. He did wait several years. Then a competitor of his, whose name I do not offhand recall, gave him fair warning that he was working on a similar theory and going to publish fairly soon, and Darwin had to get his book out or lose priority.
An excellent post. I've changed my mind. Evolution goes from 'Ridiculous' to 'Inspires some skeptisism'.
Okay, numbers 1 and 2 are excellent points. Numbers 3 and 4 and 5 seem to think I'm trying to argue against evolution. I'm merely explaining some of the reason I don't see the big deal about a creationist museum, which I think is just as credible as evolution, without going into detail because the thread isn't about evolution. It's about a museum. Also, if I find the topic droll, why on earth would I want to yank books out and elaborate and discuss every minute detail until... <Yawn>
And number 6 was also helpful. Thanks. I've wondered about that for a while.
Something I'm personally having trouble with is the fact that some people here seem to be convinced that you cannot be a creationist scientist... Regardless of whether or not the people who created the museum are, there are actual scientists with doctorates and everything, who know more than some people involved this discussion <Raises hand>, who are not buying into evolution, or whole-hearteded full-fledged creationist. I mean, are some people actually implying that the term 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron? People can't get a doctorate in the sciences without disagreeing with theories, that could be considered to be flimsy (They aren't, but they could be. And yes, every theory 'can' be considered flimsy, I know.). I have problems with the fact that they would have to distinguish themselves from the 'other' scientists by adding 'Christian' or 'Creationist' to the beginning of 'scientist'. But they're still informed, aren't they. Aren't there people like that out there somewhere? Anywhere? <Sobs>
Okay I'm done.
quote:[qb] I dont really know what your perspective is based on, but brom the books/articles i own by people like Asimov/Sagan/Gould/Dawkins/Pinkner/Randall(evolutionists) And Morris/Craig/Dempski(creationists). It seems that the whole purpose behind any of their research is to prove the opposing view wrong.
I would imagine that books by authors self-identifing as "evolutionists" or "creationists" are specifically about the evolution-creation arguments and thus will be about wanting to prove the other side wrong. If you want to learn about evolution you should be looking for books whose authors are identified as evolutionary biologists. And if you want to learn about religion you should be looking for books by theolgians.
Do you have any titles from either of those categories... <Sigh> This thread has made me realize how misinformed I may be... Which means I'll actually have to work to become more informed. Thanks a lot. Motivating me to knowledge in place of ignorance. Sometimes I hate this board.
What are books which you would consider good reads? (With regards to evolution/creationism) Websites are fine, but I already spend too much time on Hatrack.
PS: Somebody help me with quotie things... I have so much trouble.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
This book makes an utterly airtight case for evolution through DNA.
I do not think anyone who thinks there is no strong scientific evidence for evolution could be considered a reputable biologist. I do not think this is causative, but indicative. I think any scientist who held this opinion would be at best a reckless scientist in their field.
I think someone could think there is strong scientific evidence for evolution and yet hold extreme doubts as to whether or not it is a scientific depiction of reality, and still maybe be a reputable scientist in a number of fields, including biology, depending on the nature of the doubts.
I think someone could think there is strong scientific evidence for evolution (or not be much aware of scientific evidence for or against evolution) and believe the truth is otherwise for religious or other non-scientific reasons and still be a very competent scientist, even a biologist.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I for one am very anxious to go to the Creation Museum to see the facts and truth it holds. It’s a shame that so many of you won’t even consider seeing it instead of bashing it before you know the whole story. I’ve been to many evolutionist museums and seen the lies they tell, what’s the big deal if one place gets it right. Does the truth scare you that much? Are you worried that the strangle hold opinion of the day of evolution might not be able to survive a little criticism? The great thing is that the truth shall set you free and one day we will all be at the great judgment seat and know for sure.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Welcome back, Jay.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Are you worried that the strangle hold opinion of the day of evolution might not be able to survive a little criticism?
It's survived 150 years so far. There comes a point when a critic has been answered, and he should just sit down and shut up, and let the show go on. There hasn't been a new creationist argument in the last 100 years, and they've all been answered thousands of times; your material is fantastically boring. We want something new.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Jay:
Give me your best evidence, your best arguements. Give me the "truth" the reasons for the truth, and all of your evidence.
In response, I'll show you a sampling of my evidence.
We'll see which is better.
Care to go for it?
If you're not afraid of learning the truth, go for it. I'm not afraid of testing my theories. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it if I am.
Are you?
Nathan:
If he goes for it, you'll get to see a whole bunch of things for evolution, at least hopefully, of mine. Okay? Sorry not to respond earlier, I haven't had a chance to. Can you wait until then, and if not I'll do it a different way? (I have a ton of information, it's hard to know where to start, ya know?)
[ June 04, 2007, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Numbers 3 and 4 and 5 seem to think I'm trying to argue against evolution. I'm merely explaining some of the reason I don't see the big deal about a creationist museum, which I think is just as credible as evolution, without going into detail because the thread isn't about evolution. It's about a museum. Also, if I find the topic droll, why on earth would I want to yank books out and elaborate and discuss every minute detail until... <Yawn>
Your reason for thinking that a creationist museum is no big deal is that you think it's just as credible as evolution. Then you give some reasons, using the word loosely, for why you think evolution is not very credible. In what possible way is this not "arguing against evolution"?
'Droll', by the way, means "amusing, funny, witty". I think perhaps you are under the impression it means 'boring'.
quote:Regardless of whether or not the people who created the museum are, there are actual scientists with doctorates and everything, who know more than some people involved this discussion <Raises hand>, who are not buying into evolution, or whole-hearteded full-fledged creationist.
You'll find the occasional scientist with an extremely well-compartmented mind, yes. They tend to have degrees in engineering, education, and other non-relevant subjects. You'll find a couple of earth scientists, who accept an old earth but not evolution, or more often "macro-evolution". (There are not many left who don't say they accept "micro-evolution", although the distinction is highly artificial.) But I defy you to find any working biologist who is a creationist.
[ June 04, 2007, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Jay:
Give me your best evidence, your best arguements. Give me the "truth" the reasons for the truth, and all of your evidence.
Oh, I've already taken the tour of the "other" museums. But thanks.
Have fun. Tell Ken I said hi, we've met a few times. He's a nice guy and will enjoy chatting with ya.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I’ve been to many evolutionist museums and seen the lies they tell, what’s the big deal if one place gets it right. Does the truth scare you that much?
What truth. If you are claiming that the 'evolutionist museums' are lies, you have to explain why they are lies and you have to include a counterargument to their claims.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Even the creators of this museum believe in evolution.
I read one of their articles on where Cain and Abel's wives came from.
They believe it was all incestuous, as that is all the Bible will allow. However, at that time, such unions were not forbidden.
Why is it forbidden now? Because of the problems of inbreeding. What are those problems? Mutated genes that can cause problems are passed on if the choice of genetic donors is too small.
However, they say this was not a problem in the first few generations, as Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God, so they were physically perfect. It is only through the proceeding generations, as we moved farther from Paradise, that our genetics evolved into fallible dangerous things that they are today.
on the other hand:
quote:So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me.
vs
quote:i know that the problems that i have with evolution/creation as a science is that it seems like every class i take there is something that has changed in the theory to make it different. Yet all i get preached at me is that it is "infallable".
Two different people, but the question remains--is Evolutionary science too stagnant for you folks or is it too dynamic?
The big argument I am hearing here is "If Evolution was so sure of itself, then the people working with it shouldn't spend all their time defending it." Dude. They don't.
Lets take the History of the Dinosaur. When I was in grade school up we had books that said the Brontosaurus, the largest cold blooded animal of that time, was so heavy it lived in the swamps all the time to support its own burdensome weight. Today they debate whether this warm blooded creature, small in size compared to so many others, was green or purple.
Watch the original Fantasia. See the dinosaurs killed off by the strange desertification of their wetland habitats. My sixth grade teacher informed me that this was wrong, as they were all killed off by the ice-age. Today we have proof that a meteor impact had a great deal to do with their demise.
If you go to a gathering of scientists, not one will be labeled "Evolutionary". There will be Astronomers, Geo-Physicists, Astro-Physicists, Geneticists, and many other categories, all of whom have proven to them selves that a 6000 year old earth or the spontaneous creation of all the species of plants and animals on the earth just doesn't fit the facts they've seen.
Now, the scientific method states that Dr. A presents his theory and then Dr.B can try to either improve on it or prove it false. If he succeeds, than Dr. C can try to refute the arguments of Dr. B, and possibly reestablish the Theory of Dr. A, perhaps with some adjustments.
Darwin started the chain of thought that has grown into modern Evolutionary Theory. These Creationists have every right, scientifically, to try and prove it false. When that proof is in biology, a biologist has the right, and the duty, to refute that proof. When that proof is in Astro-physics, than an Astrophysicist can refute it.
Where ID/Creationism runs afoul of science is that instead of calmly accepting the arguments made against them and finding counter arguments, they just make the same arguments again, to a different crowd, only louder. Then they attack those who disagree with them instead of attacking their arguments.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Jay, could you maybe pick just one argument from that site that you think is good, and quote it here? You never read any of the links we post, so I don't think anyone is going to read yours in great detail and respond to it all. Especially since, judging by your past performance, you will suddenly find that you "don't have the time" to continue the discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also, as I have pointed out before, it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution. The fact that it remains a theory tells us that it is not a complete science.
BTW, when KoM replied to this, he did so not to make any other point but to clarify something that's frequently misinterpreted.
When scientists call something a "theory," that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not sure about it. A "theory" is an explanation -- correct or not -- of observed facts.
KoM's example makes this clearer. It is an observed fact that things fall down at a certain rate. The theory of gravity is an explanation of that fact (and many other facts as well, of course). In the same way, the theory of evolution is an explanation of observable facts -- like the fossil record, DNA inheritance, etc. -- that may or may not be correct, but which is not to be considered incomplete just because it's called a "theory."
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I'd like to point out a very excellent interview with Dr. Massimo Pigliucci on evolution. For those who aren't really sure about the subject, it should prove to be a very informative interview.
Someone should set up a laptop with a projector outside the Creationism museum and play the video from the ID has crumbled thread, just to give the potential visitors something to think about.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Oh, I've already taken the tour of the "other" museums. But thanks.
Have fun. Tell Ken I said hi, we've met a few times. He's a nice guy and will enjoy chatting with ya. "
Sorry, I live too far away from Cincinatti to make that practical. I can't go there, as I don't have the means.
So, will you debate with me or not? I can't go there, so you'll have to bring their reasoning to me. If you'd be so kind. Give me their reasons, and yours. The ones you find most impressive, most airtight. Give me your best arguements, your best pieces of evidence.
I can't go to the museum. And I'm not talking about going to museums, period. I'm talking about evidence.
Can you please show me some? I can't find any actual statements of anything on the website you've sent. Nothing I can debate. No specific claims, that is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Someone should set up a laptop with a projector outside the Creationism museum and play the video from the ID has crumbled thread, just to give the potential visitors something to think about.
I made an mp3 version, so something smaller than a laptop would work as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This is a bit of a tangent, by the way, but I've thought a bit about the ID-vs-theistic-evolution issue that was brought up the other day, and I think the following distinction might be useful:
A theistic evolutionist believes that a god did in fact guide the process of evolution to arrive at humanity; insertion of a soul at a specific point in time is optional.
An ID-er belives, in addition, that
a) The process of evolution could not, even in principle, have proceeded without such guidance, and b) It is possible to find specific adaptations which prove this, by being impossible to evolve.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
It is interesting at how different speakers have better ways of explaining things. Perhaps it was my lack of knowlegd in scientific method of theory and fact, or perhaps i just had teachers that didnt bother explaining it well. But i just spent the last two hours listening to Ken Miller on youtube that is posted on the forum and in general he has explained things in a way that does ease my mind as far as to the state of science.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
To Ecthalion:
Good! Hearing speakers who both care, know what theyr'e talking about and are competant to actually explain their points well has that effect.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Also, as I have pointed out before, it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution. The fact that it remains a theory tells us that it is not a complete science.
quote:When scientists call something a "theory," that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not sure about it.
Neither are these statements are correct, I think.
"Theories" in science are things that we cannot logically be certain are true, yet which have consistently held true under extensive testing. They are never certain because it is always possible that the theory will fail to hold true in some experiment in the future, forcing scientists to revise the theory. Newton's theories, for instance, held true through a great deal of experimentation - yet ended up being false, only to be replaced by Einstein's explanations centuries later. Scientists might believe they can be "sure" about their theories, but they can't justify that certainty. Even the most seemingly certain theories have at least some doubt.
It is for precisely that reason that a degree of uncertainty is not a good justification for calling something "not a complete science". There is no such thing as a scientific model that is certain. Thus, if the term "complete science" is meaningful in any way, it must be talking about theories - like the theory of evolution. Although I don't really like the term "complete" to tell you the truth. Science shouldn't be viewed as something that is ever complete. It is a continuing process of refinement. Evolution may need to be refined; that does not mean it isn't well-supported by evidence.
There IS such a thing as fact in science, but the facts aren't the theories. The facts are the data that support and test the theories. Facts include things like fossils that we know have been discovered, genetic similarities that we know exist, microevolution that has been observed to happen in experiments, etc. If creationists have their own theory that is consistent with ALL of these facts, then I don't think it is dishonest of them to create a museum through which to present their theory, and present how they believe it is consistent with those facts. On the other hand, if their theory intentionally ignores a bunch of facts, and if their museum fails to mention that problem while presenting their theory as definitely true, then I think they are clearly misleading people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: This is a bit of a tangent, by the way, but I've thought a bit about the ID-vs-theistic-evolution issue that was brought up the other day, and I think the following distinction might be useful:
A theistic evolutionist believes that a god did in fact guide the process of evolution to arrive at humanity; insertion of a soul at a specific point in time is optional.
An ID-er belives, in addition, that
a) The process of evolution could not, even in principle, have proceeded without such guidance, and b) It is possible to find specific adaptations which prove this, by being impossible to evolve.
Would you also include in "theistic evolution" folks that beleive in a deity that created the universe and let evolution do its thing without guiding it? To put it another way, does does the term only refer to theistically influenced evolution, or to anyone who is both a theist and believes that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation of how various aspects of biology, etc work?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
dkw, I would imagine lots of people fall into that category. Most of the theists I know, anyway. Practically all.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Someone who believes God guided the process of evolution in the strong sense would be at best a borderline case. In the weak sense, believing that God set the world up so evolution would take place, or guides evolution in the same sense anything in his creation is guided, is usually how theistic evolution is construed.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The philosophy that dkw describes is more specifically known as Deism, but I think it would fall under the umbrella of "theistic evolution."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: This is a bit of a tangent, by the way, but I've thought a bit about the ID-vs-theistic-evolution issue that was brought up the other day, and I think the following distinction might be useful:
A theistic evolutionist believes that a god did in fact guide the process of evolution to arrive at humanity; insertion of a soul at a specific point in time is optional.
An ID-er belives, in addition, that
a) The process of evolution could not, even in principle, have proceeded without such guidance, and b) It is possible to find specific adaptations which prove this, by being impossible to evolve.
Would you also include in "theistic evolution" folks that beleive in a deity that created the universe and let evolution do its thing without guiding it? To put it another way, does does the term only refer to theistically influenced evolution, or to anyone who is both a theist and believes that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation of how various aspects of biology, etc work?
Isn't that basically deism?
edit: Bah! Beaten by Tarrsk.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What kind of self-respecting Creationist museum is open 7 days a week?
---
What dkw is saying isn't really deism at all. There's a really neat bit of theological/philosophical arguing* around the concept of whether God (who is perfect, according to the theology) would set up natural rules that would inerrantly guide development or whether God was constantly a part of everything and the thing that made everything (like gravity) work from moment to moment, or some combination of the the two.
Deism has a god that set the universe running and more or less walked away. What dkw is suggesting (if I read her right) is that God set up natural laws that don't need his intervention to function correctly. This doesn't preclude God's intervention in any other affairs or even the natural rules (cf. miracles).
---
edit: *The stuff about this that I am aware of was around Newton's time, when some philosophers were coming to grips with the concept of persistent natural laws ungirding everything. I really don't know if this dipsute is currently active.
[ June 05, 2007, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...I'm pondering what we mean by "intervention". I think that divine intervention is necessarily misunderstood. "Necessarily" because it is difficult to get our heads around it.
Because we (or some of us anyway) think of God as intentional and personal and in terms of relationship, we sort of get this "person plus super powers" image. Which is useful for relationship thinking but can be an obstacle. We also believe that God is also present in all things, source of creation, energy. Lover, Beloved, and Love Itself.
I don't think of God off somewhere "tweaking" evolution, but that doesn't mean that God is absent from it. God is present in the process.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think deism is a weaker concept; I would not include it in theistic evolution precisely because the phrase would then include all theists, and in that case, why not just use the perfectly good word 'theist'?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I was quite careful in my phrasing to not limit the question to Deism, although it would be included in the category I outlined. Along with people who believe that God intervenes in any combination of other ways, just not tinkering with evolution.
edit: KOM, creationists and IDers are also theists, no? It still wouldn't include them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mmm. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'intervention'. If I set the cue ball in motion so that my target ball reaches the intended pocket, I would not ordinarily call that intervention.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nor would I. But suppose someone believes that God set the system in motion, and now "intervenes" only in the doings of human beings, not in the physical processes of nature. That person would not be a deist. Would they fit your conception of "theistic evolutionist"?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, I don't think so. This god is not guiding evolution.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I go somewhat further than that. I believe that God not only set the system in motion, but is integrated with the system, part of it (sort of), present in the system as it works "normally" and according to natural laws.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So why bother with the distinction? What is it about your god that makes it useful to separate it out as a part of the system?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
KoM, thanks. I like your definition of theistic evolutionist better than the one I've normally seen, which is basically "any religious person who also believes in evolution." I never could understand why there should be a term for that. If it's a point of the person's theology that God is guiding evolution, then the term makes much more sense.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
An analogy to gravity occurs to me. In gravitational theory, we might say that a deist believes that a god created special relativity, but doesn't interfere with its working. A theistic gravitationalist believes that their god does occasionally tweak something - Newton would be an example; he knew that planetary orbits were unstable over long periods, and suggested that his god might push the planets back into place occasionally. An IF-er (Intelligent Faller) believes, in addition, that the current situation is impossible in principle without such intervention, and that we can tell where interventions have occurred by identifying sufficiently unlikely falls.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Allow me a little while to respond to that article.
Anyway, here is the article, so everyone can see:
"Can creationists be scientists? by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher
First published in Answers Update–USA April 2005
It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”
Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.”
In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2
But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?
Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.
In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3
Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?
Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.
So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.
Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.
Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.
On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).
Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in Creation magazine.
Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.
On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.
Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true."
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
(oh no. I just finished a very long post and I accidentally clicked out. Damn it, the last hour of work is lost, and it was a lot of work. I'll recreate it when I get back from work, but I work late tonight. This is so depressing, I'd gotten to the end and had already disproven nearly everything in that article.
My frustration is quite great, right now.)
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Might I suggest typing your longer posts in a word processor?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you have Firefox, going back will save you. Your other option (the one I use when I'm typing a detailed and/or lengthy post) is to do it in Word or whatever and then copy and paste.
Sympathy!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
rollainm, good idea. I'll do that. And rivka, I don't have Firefox.
I don't have the time to recreate it right now, but I will when I get home from work in seven or eight hours. I'll have time then!
Anyway, as a little preview,(and as something I can type up quickly) notice that all the scientists in the article above are either not in the fields relevent to evolution (nuclear physicist? Wrong field!) or else lived before evolution as a scientific theory was created?
The only exception, the cell biologist, is a little trickier, and I don't have time to deal with him right now, but I will when I have that time.
Anyway, saying any of these scientists being creationists is evidence against evolution is like saying that Einstein's doubt about Quantum physics invalidates that field. It doesn't work.
Also, creationists can obviously be scientists. However, very few of them are in the proper fields, anyway. (the evidence to back my statements up will be brought in my main post, btw. Along with much, much more)
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Ahh, thanks. I didn't have a good arguement against Menton because I didn't know much about him. But blatant lies tend to get in the way of a man's credibility, don't they?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Menton is the bright spot who came up with 'the eye is too complex' theory (published under the strict peer review of the Missouri Association for Creation): http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/eye.htm
Yep. Here we have material on AiG that is clearly false: he discusses and draws conclusions about a part of a species' anatomy . . . when no fossils of that species have surviving examples of that part of the anatomy.
Its your turn to find an example of a blatantly false argument .
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The entire premise of the article is invalid. Few people say that creationists cannot be scientists. Creationists hold views that are not compatible with certain areas of science because their religious beliefs cause them to presuppose the answers to questions asked by science and those answers tend to not agree with the available evidence.
The problem with assuming one knows the answers without examining the evidence is that when one already thinks they know the answer, they tend to not look very hard for/at the evidence. Think Catholic Church vs heliocentrism. At least the religious zealots in western society don't demand death for heretics any more, but they still won't be very good, say, geologists, if the science tends to disagree with their belief in a 6,000-year-old earth and they are unable to adjust their beliefs to accommodate the evidence.
Outside these areas where such individuals let their theology trump empiricism there is a plenty of room for them to be productive scientists.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Creationists can be scientists in the same way that people who don't wash their hands can be doctors... they may posess many of the skills and sensibilities of the career (scientist/doctor) but they are knowingly deviating from at least one important facet of the career (which likely detracts from their competancy at their given field).
As he said, disbelieving evolution does little in the way of detracting from the work of an astrophysicist and/or nuclear physicist. However, clinging to a belief that is founded on repeatedly/thouroughly refuted bad science should call into question those scientist's findings.
If I created a perfect unified theory of physics but firmly believed that every inhabitant of Ireland was a ninja, then I would fully expect to have my work called into question. (apologies for the bizarre analogy)
Similarly, the fact that the article's author stated "Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent." worries me coming from someone claiming to be a competent Astrophysicist. His field more than others I would expect to accept that the "laws" of physics are almost certainly fluid in certain circumstances/timeframes.
Additionally, I think I am correct in claiming that evolutionary logic is actually being used currently in various computational subroutines (though I think most of it is still in the theoretical/development stage rather than in practical application).
Finally, just a small issue I had with what Xap posted earlier: "Newton's theories, for instance, held true through a great deal of experimentation - yet ended up being false, only to be replaced by Einstein's explanations centuries later"
I think it's misleading to say that Newton's theories were proven false. Most of his theories were proven incomplete. Many/most of Newton's theories (for example on gravity) are still near-perfectly valid as long as you are speaking of things within "normal" bounds (i.e. if you're looking to calculate the trajectory of a ball that is thrown on earth and is not going near the speed of light, then Newton's equations will get you there just fine)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Genetic algorithms are a large part of modern computer science; nothing untested about them.
If you do not understand evolution, then you cannot explain, for example, why the fossil record shows elephants and cats repeatedly developing large sizes and huge teeth, respectively, and then dying out, to be replaced by smaller/less-sharp-toothed cousins.
You cannot explain how bacteria become resistant to medicines, nor explain how to avoid it.
You cannot explain the stag beetle's huge horns, nor the incredible 22-inch penis of that species of duck, nor the barbed varieties that certain crustaceans sport.
You cannot investigate the mutational path of the HIV virus, and thereby understand how it causes its havoc to the immune system.
Just try breeding for a desired quality without understanding how genetics interact with evolution! And conversely, try learning about genetics without a proper understanding of evolution!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If I created a perfect unified theory of physics but firmly believed that every inhabitant of Ireland was a ninja, then I would fully expect to have my work called into question.
If you created a perfect unified theory of physics, I'd fully expect to have your work called into question and for others to see if your work could be duplicated by others. That's how science works.
I don't see how your beliefs about ninjas would either a) make it more important that your work be independently verified than otherwise or b) play any factor in that independent verification.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: And rivka, I don't have Firefox.
Pretty easy to fix, if you want. Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: To Ecthalion:
Good! Hearing speakers who both care, know what theyr'e talking about and are competant to actually explain their points well has that effect.
He hit it on the nail when he said that few scientists made their discovories friendly to the public and many treated other non-scientists in a snobbish way. One thing about reading Dawkins' ideas on the development of conciousness, and Asimov's Threat of Creationism essay and his ideas of the multi-verse was that they would constantly be belittling everyone that disagreed with them i think if theyd have stuck to just explinations and examples of their work/theories i probably wouldnt have had revervations about them. But i can always assume they get frustrated of no one understanding them and whatnot....
Anyway, on the more recent topic here about theistic-evolution and if evolution is truely necissary to be a scientist.
Today while i was at work i had spent a great deal of time thinking what the problem between most theists and evolution. I later went over the first few chapters of Genesis and i really dont see a big deal. Saying evolution is the best natural explination for the way nature works doesnt seem to contradic anything i read. Even if you are a literalist, and you believe in an all powerful god (which if one is god, i would think one must be all powerful) then evolution shouldnt have any effect on your faith. It is possible, god can do all that we have seen and still have created earth in six days. I also have heard the whole, long day/god of gaps theories and also how the ancient hebrew prophecies and descriptions of events and the way they are worded doesnt necissarily mean actual days, instead can reference specific events that can take up a relatively ambiguous amount of time. They were told in format of days and weeks so that poor people or people not of israelite origin would also be able to comprehend them.
Anyway, my thoughts eventually lead me back to the idea of the watchmaker. If you find a watch in the sand you then would look at it and know there was a watchmaker (paraphrased but im sure youve all heard it before). Well, so you find a watch, you believe there is a watchmaker even though youve never seen him. So after you have a watch what do you do with it? You would most likly discover its use, discover how it works, discover different uses of the mechanisms in it. So with this picture i though how dissapointed the watchmaker woud be if you never wanted to know what it did or how it worked. Since the watch in the analogy is usually significant to nature i almost thought that if god gives people nature he must be very dissapointed if no one finds out how it works. Can you truly appreciate the watch unless you looked inside and saw all the gears and springs and weights?
If ID movement wants us to believe in an "Intellegent Designer" how intellegent would a designer be if he created somthign but did not create a way for it to function? Better yet, since the idea that "Sin" is causing the world to decay (or say, move to a higher state of entropy) wouldnt the ID-er want to create a system that addapts to conditions deteriorating from less than perfect? It seems that if a person believes in god it should be somewhat comforting to know that there is a system in place to keep people from randomly flying into the sun. People dont have many problems with the laws of gravity or motion, what makes them acceptable and evolution not? Gravity makes it possible for us to stay attached to earth, it seems like a better explination that "God holds us down". The arguement i have always heard as to why evolution and god are mutually exclusive was that evolution denies the power of god. I am afraid i dont see the equivilance between nature being able to work on its own, and striping god of all power. Does god really need to not only create a universe but sit and constantly bend his will and (assumably) his energy on keeping it from imploding to prove he has power? It seemed to me that evolution could strengthen your belief that the intellegent designer had some intellegence after all.
I know its not a sound thought by any means, but when you are bored at work you tend to daze off and since the evolution/ID debate has been brought up a few times recently it was fresh on my mind to consider.
As for evolution being a pre-requisite of science, or probably more accurately biology and chemestry, i dont really see that not believing in evolution dictates your ability to perform experiments or research data. However if you want to explain the conclusion to your findings "God did it" may work for you, it just wont work for others. In which case your data and experiments would probably be duplicated and have somone else write the explination for it.
[ June 06, 2007, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Ecthalion ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you find a watch in the sand you then would look at it and know there was a watchmaker (paraphrased but im sure youve all heard it before).
Yes, because watches have that distinctive designed-by-an-engineer look that separates them from most things found in nature, inlcuding, don't y'know, living things.
quote:It seemed to me that evolution could strengthen your belief that the intellegent designer had some intellegence after all.
Except for all those bits that don't quite work right, presumably.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
eh like i said, just a passing thouhgt at work, and also writing it down at 2am doesnt help in the clarity.
Main point was just that i dont see them (god and evolution) being mutually exclusive.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Probably not the best idea to post your "passing thoughts" on a forum of such critical minds. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Though I disagree with the watchmaker analogy, I do like the direction you took it, Ecthalion.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You're right, though, Ecthalion. They arent' mutually exclusive.
I mean, I believe in the Christian God, and I can accept the truth of evolution. (It may still be incomplete, like Newton's theories were, but any new theory will have to encompass evolutionary theory the way Einstein's theories encompassed Newton's.)
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Alright. First off, by Droll, I could have meant quaint, or oldfasioned. Yeah. That's right. As it so happens, I used it because it rhymes with 'dull'. Sort of. I think there's a little assonance, isn't there.
Okay. People, you could convince me that evolution is 'possible' rather than 'inspires some skeptism' (BTW, I'll be checking that book out from the library next chance I get. To whoever posted with the link to the book... Or is it whomever posted witht he link to the book... I'm pretty sure it's whoever... Is this the nominative case?).
Be warned: The topic is no longer about a museum.
These are four major things that make me really, really doubt evolution. There are more, but let's start with these.
1. I have trouble believing about millions of years passing... Or rather, that there would have been a window of time that lasted for millions of years in order for organisms to actually live, and be able to evolve. The reason why is, stars give energy by feeding on their mass... Millions of years ago, the Sun would be a lot bigger, right? And wouldn't this size increasment increase gravity, thus causing the Earth to plummet to its doom? Or, even if the Earth stayed in the same orbit, wouldn't the Sun's outgoing energy increase exponentially as it's size was bigger, thus effectively turning all 'life' at the time into tar?
2. Second LAW of thermodynamics says that Entropy is always increasing, and getting worse. (Excuse my blatent paraphrase.). How does any theory of Evolution address this? "Um, actually, the universe started with entropy, and then all the latent energy caused mutations and evolution, and now we're back to entropy again"?.
3. Why are there still monkeys? Did they just not make it past the hump? Why is it that evolution stopped taking place the minute that man could make a record of it? I know God has a sense of humor, but this is streching it a little. Would he really be that ironic?
4. When has there *ever* been a 'good' mutation? It could be my limited scope that has effectively hidden any and all evidence to the contrary, but every mutation I've heard about ends up in some sort of horrible handicap.
Okay. I know all of these arguments are very elementary, but therein lies the beauty, I think.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006:
1. I have trouble believing about millions of years passing... Or rather, that there would have been a window of time that lasted for millions of years in order for organisms to actually live, and be able to evolve. The reason why is, stars give energy by feeding on their mass... Millions of years ago, the Sun would be a lot bigger, right? And wouldn't this size increasment increase gravity, thus causing the Earth to plummet to its doom? Or, even if the Earth stayed in the same orbit, wouldn't the Sun's outgoing energy increase exponentially as it's size was bigger, thus effectively turning all 'life' at the time into tar?
2. Second LAW of thermodynamics says that Entropy is always increasing, and getting worse. (Excuse my blatent paraphrase.). How does any theory of Evolution address this? "Um, actually, the universe started with entropy, and then all the latent energy caused mutations and evolution, and now we're back to entropy again"?.
3. Why are there still monkeys? Did they just not make it past the hump? Why is it that evolution stopped taking place the minute that man could make a record of it? I know God has a sense of humor, but this is streching it a little. Would he really be that ironic?
4. When has there *ever* been a 'good' mutation? It could be my limited scope that has effectively hidden any and all evidence to the contrary, but every mutation I've heard about ends up in some sort of horrible handicap.
Okay. I know all of these arguments are very elementary, but therein lies the beauty, I think.
I'm not the best writer to explain it all myself, but I'm pretty sure all my high school science courses covered all of those concerns.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'll give these a shot, even though others will answer much better, I am sure.
quote:1. I have trouble believing about millions of years passing... Or rather, that there would have been a window of time that lasted for millions of years in order for organisms to actually live, and be able to evolve. The reason why is, stars give energy by feeding on their mass... Millions of years ago, the Sun would be a lot bigger, right? And wouldn't this size increasment increase gravity, thus causing the Earth to plummet to its doom? Or, even if the Earth stayed in the same orbit, wouldn't the Sun's outgoing energy increase exponentially as it's size was bigger, thus effectively turning all 'life' at the time into tar?
Gravity works from mass, not size.
And anyway, you've got star progression backwards. They start off small and yellow/white, they end up large and red (before going back to small and white).
quote:2. Second LAW of thermodynamics says that Entropy is always increasing, and getting worse. (Excuse my blatent paraphrase.). How does any theory of Evolution address this? "Um, actually, the universe started with entropy, and then all the latent energy caused mutations and evolution, and now we're back to entropy again"?.
The Second law of thermodynamics is such: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
The earth is NOT an isolated system. There is a big ball of energy constantly bombarding the system. It is called "the Sun".
quote:3. Why are there still monkeys? Did they just not make it past the hump? Why is it that evolution stopped taking place the minute that man could make a record of it? I know God has a sense of humor, but this is streching it a little. Would he really be that ironic?
This is a classic misconception about evolution. First of all, we didn't evolved from modern monkeys. Modern monkeys and us both evolved from a common ancestor. We are not "more evolved" than monkeys. We simply evolved in different directions. Think of it as two different branches of the same tree.
Until fairly recently (biologically speaking), monkeys were far more numerous and "successful" as species than humans were. There's nothing which says that intelligence is the end goal of evolution. The only "end goal" is to produce more offspring. Every development also brings drawbacks, and intelligence has numerous drawbacks (such as large heads, and delaying development until much later in life than most organisms).
Evolutions has NOT stopped. Recorded human history is 10,000 years long, which is biologically insignificant. Even so, new species are evolving, and old species are going extinct.
quote:4. When has there *ever* been a 'good' mutation? It could be my limited scope that has effectively hidden any and all evidence to the contrary, but every mutation I've heard about ends up in some sort of horrible handicap.
That's because the vast majority of them do. But since you accept that mutations do happen, how hard is it for you to think of one which would be useful? There are thousands of mutations in any given generation of organism in a species. Times that over hundreds of thousands of generations, and of course some of them are going to be beneficial.
Your concerns are ones which have been addressed time and time again in science. The answers are out there, you just have to look for them. I'm sure others will give much better answers than mine. I apologize if I have any details wrong.
[ June 06, 2007, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'll have to get back to you on #1, as I don't have the answer off the top of my head. I suspect that the mass of the sun is so great that even the passing of millions of years is not sufficient to drastically change it. But I honestly don't know so I won't pretend to. If someone else hasn't already answered before I've got some more time on my hands, I'll work on the answer.
quote:2. f Second LAW of thermodynamics says that Entropy is always increasing, and getting worse. (Excuse my blatent paraphrase.). How does any theory of Evolution address this? "Um, actually, the universe started with entropy, and then all the latent energy caused mutations and evolution, and now we're back to entropy again"?.
The second law of tehrmodynamics applies to a closed system. This would only apply if there was no external source of energy to "power" evolutionary processes on earth. Can you think of any incredibly massive sources of energy that might be driving things?
quote:Why are there still monkeys? Did they just not make it past the hump? Why is it that evolution stopped taking place the minute that man could make a record of it? I know God has a sense of humor, but this is streching it a little. Would he really be that ironic?
We didn't come from monkeys. Monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor. Evolution creates a big branching tree of species, each suited best to their environment. The species of ancient apes that ended up being monkeys was not exposed to the same environmental pressures that the species that ended up being humans was so they ended up as monkeys and we ended up as us.
quote:When has there *ever* been a 'good' mutation? It could be my limited scope that has effectively hidden any and all evidence to the contrary, but every mutation I've heard about ends up in some sort of horrible handicap.
Most mutations are neutral, occurring in non-coding "junk" DNA. Those that occur elsewhere may be harmful or beneficial, depending on the environment. For instance, the sickle-cell mutation is generally considered harmful by people in most of the modern world, but it's actually a useful adaptation in parts of the world where malaria is present as people with sickle cell are highly resistant to malaria. Many other beneficial mutations have been observed in the lab and in the wild. A "mutation" is a tiny change in the DNA. It doesn't always mean growing an extra arm or being born without skin. Those sort of mutations can happen, but most mutations go unnoticed. Evolution only requires a helpful mutation now and then over the course of the millions of years available.
EDIT: Dang, Xavier beat me. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
1. Not necessarily. You just saying so doesn't make it so. I can't answer it right now, but you could surely read up on stellar formation and physics. Also, at one point it was quite likely that the sun made most things tar on earth... But a couple(?) billion years after it was created, it appears it "cooled off" enough to provide enough energy to develop life, without also destroying it. And then there were still billions of years from then until now.
2. is not specifically about evolution. It's more a question about cosmology (and thermodynamics). The second law is only strictly true in what is called a "closed system"; that is, a system where energy is contained without any input of energy. However, it doesn't disallow temporary concentrations of more organized energy, just that over time this will lessen. Hence the hypothesis that the universe will end in "heat death", essentially all the energy will be more or less evenly distributed across the universe without any real order.
In any event, concerning Earth and evolution, the Earth is NOT a closed system. It is constantly getting energy from the sun in various forms. As such it is quite possible for complex order to arise. If the sun suddenly went out, we would have to see if order rather quickly degenerated, as the law suggests. Oh, by the way, "Law" in science is not the common definition, it is rather out of vogue the last 100-200 years... After all, Newton's LAWS of Gravity are, in fact wrong (they incorrectly predict or cannot account for all sorts of things, including Mercury's orbit, for instance).
3. Evolution occurred over billions of years. Man has been recording things for thousands of years. That's order's of magnitude difference. Of course, this is also somewhat moot, since we have seen evolution (of the macro kind) in experiments with fruitflies, for instance.
4. Read up on why sickle-cell anemia may persist, for one. Our opposable thumbs are another beneficial mutation. Of course evolution doesn't claim any moral judgment. It doesn't know anything about good or bad. However, if a mutation allows an organism to better reproduce, then that mutation will continue on... Until the environment changes and it becomes a liability for reproduction. A mutation could start as beneficial and then become neutral, and still hang around. Also, a beneficial mutation in one time and place may be certain death in other conditions.
Also, you have an human-centric POV concerning good/bad. After all, while bad for us, those organisms with resistances to antibiotics that allows them to continue to reproduce is certainly good for them.
EDIT: Or what everyone else said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
1. We're taking about a fusion reaction that turns hydrogen to helium, with only a tiny fraction of the mass being turned to energy. The nice thing about E=mc^2 is that a really small amount of mass yields a HUGE amount of energy. So while the sun would have been larger, the difference would be very small.
2. I've never understood why people think the second law has anything to say about evolution. The sun pumps energy into the system (the earth) -- it is an external energy source. And if you look as the sun and earth together as the system, certainly entropy is increasing. Eventually our sun will run out of hydrogen to turn into helium. (I tend not to worry much about things that will happen that far in the future. )
3. First, monkeys did not become humans; apes and humans had a common ancestor. Different evolutionary pressures (different environments, different predators/competitors, etc.) pushed different branches of the family tree down different paths. In a family with ten children, you don't as why each child in not identical, do you?
And evolution has certainly not "stopped." Haven't you ever heard about the pepper moth? And in that great lecture by Ken Howard (the one the ID thread is about), which I strongly advise you to watch, he points out several other very recent evolutionary changes.
4. You read too much SF. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. It's mostly the beneficial ones that get passed on, because they give some kind of advantage, and make the organism with them more likely to reproduce and have more offspring.
Watch the Ken Miller video. I think you will find it very enlightening. And he's funny, too. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:For instance, the sickle-cell mutation is generally considered harmful by people in most of the modern world, but it's actually a useful adaptation in parts of the world where malaria is present as people with sickle cell are highly resistant to malaria.
Not quite. Having one copy of the sickle-cell gene is beneficial, malaria-wise. Having TWO copies is bad enough that any benefit against malaria is outweighed by the problems with sickle-cell. So when the mutation is rare, it's beneficial. When it spreads throughout a population, it starts to become a big problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The entire premise of the article is invalid. Few people say that creationists cannot be scientists. Creationists hold views that are not compatible with certain areas of science because their religious beliefs cause them to presuppose the answers to questions asked by science and those answers tend to not agree with the available evidence.
The problem with assuming one knows the answers without examining the evidence is that when one already thinks they know the answer, they tend to not look very hard for/at the evidence. Think Catholic Church vs heliocentrism. At least the religious zealots in western society don't demand death for heretics any more, but they still won't be very good, say, geologists, if the science tends to disagree with their belief in a 6,000-year-old earth and they are unable to adjust their beliefs to accommodate the evidence.
Outside these areas where such individuals let their theology trump empiricism there is a plenty of room for them to be productive scientists.
My only gripe with this statement is that you cited heliocentrism and executing heretics when neither idea has justification in the scriptures. There is no flat earth support in the scriptures either(another commonly cited claim.)
But in regards to the earth only being 6000 years old, I'll agree there are passages that can reasonably be interpreted as giving that message.
But remember that Christians and heck every religion are constantly striving to understand their theology and develop better ways of understanding the universe we live in.
I won't bring up spontaneous generation if you don't bring up the inquisition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the sun wasn't a lot bigger. We know a decent bit about the cycles of stars, and our sun is a main sequence star. It keeps going about the same until it runs out of core fuel (hydrogen), then it transforms into a red giant (which, as the name suggests, is when it becomes really big). The mass of the hydrogen isn't disappearing during this process, of course, its being turned into helium.
The rate of burn isn't determined by the amount of fuel, its determined by the mass, which doesn't change significantly over the sun's lifetime. The form of the mass changes, but not the quantity (for the most part).
Also, in the lifetime of the sun, life on earth has been a fairly small blip (at least evidence suggests). The timescales of the universe dominate the timescales of the galaxy dominate the timescales of the solar system dominate the timescales of the earth.
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy increases in a closed system. In an open system, entropy can go any which way. In fact, it is extremely common for local entropy to increase at the expense of global entropy -- you might be familiar with such rare examples as "ice", "geodes", "soap bubbles", and "life of any kind". The earth is a very open system; we gain huge amounts of organized energy from another place -- the sun -- where energy is rapidly becoming more disorganized. Entropy increases, net, but on earth it decreases.
There is no hump. Evolution is not a directed process. Monkeys are also not what we evolved from, they evolved from a common ancestor that humans share (which doesn't seem to be around still, though that also happens). Monkeys are still around because they are well-adapted for their environment, which is also why we are still around. This is also why cockroaches are still around and mostly unchanged, as far as we can tell, from what they were like far in the past. They are very well adapted to what they do.
Also, frequently environment only changes locally. For instance, Darwin noticed that finches, which had slowly spread from island to island, were isolated enough from each other and under different conditions that the finch populations were diverging. One island might have retained basically the same species. The finches on another, very different island might eventually become different enough to be considered another species (which is an arbitrary distinction anyways, and one reason the microevolution/macroevolution distinction creationists keep trying to bring up is silly. There is no difference but scale, we've just chosen to mentally group some variants together under collective labels we call species).
Evolution hasn't stopped taking place, we've observed numerous instances of speciation (and we're talking multicellular species; include bacteria and we've observed millions to billions of instances of speciation at varying resolutions). If anything, the number of speciation events we've observed is surprising, since the length of time humans have known enough science to see evolution happening is so miniscule as to be a rounding error at the umpteenth decimal place in the length of time species have been evolving.
There are tons of good mutations. Mutations cause things like disease resistance all the time, or improve metabolic pathways. Mutations are often mixed bags, too. You're familiar with sickle cell anemia? Well, if you're in a region with a lot of malaria, the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia greatly increases your survival chances if you only have one of it.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html has a big old list of mutations, often major ones, we've observed in a wide variety of species. Things like being able to survive on a whole new type of food.
I'm not surprised evolutionary theory seems dubious to you. For whatever reason, you are not familiar with basic biology, basic astrophysics, the laws of thermodynamics, or even what basically evolutionary theory says. Most of the things I mention are taught in high school, though that definitely varies by location, and of course retaining the information can be difficult. However, I suggest that in the future when you see what seem to you to be really obvious problems that numerous scientists aren't seeing, you try going to someplace that explains such things (google can help you find them: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=second+law+thermodynamics+evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 or http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=beneficial+mutations&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 , say) and see if someone has an explanation that makes sense and deals with your doubt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nathan, I mean this as gently as possible: I knew the answers to all of your "problems" by the end of my freshman year in high school.
You may find, when your objections to something that a lot of smart people have a great deal of confidence in are very simplistic and elementary, that the problem is very likely in your lack of (often basic) information.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Not being an astronomer, I'll leave point 1 to someone else who can address it better.
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: 2. Second LAW of thermodynamics says that Entropy is always increasing, and getting worse. (Excuse my blatent paraphrase.). How does any theory of Evolution address this? "Um, actually, the universe started with entropy, and then all the latent energy caused mutations and evolution, and now we're back to entropy again"?
You have a flawed understanding of entropy. The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of closed system (like, say, the universe) is always increasing. An open system (that is, one that receives and/or emits energy from the outside) can, in fact, decrease in local entropy so long as there is an external energy source. The Earth is one such open system, and our energy source is that mass of incandescent gas known as the Sun.
quote:3. Why are there still monkeys? Did they just not make it past the hump? Why is it that evolution stopped taking place the minute that man could make a record of it? I know God has a sense of humor, but this is streching it a little. Would he really be that ironic?
Again, your understanding is flawed. Evolution is not linear, nor is it directed. It's more like a tree... we are one branch, and monkeys are another. We both came from a common ancestor, which was most certainly not identical to any extant monkey today, and we have both evolved since that divergence point. Monkeys are very well-fit to their particular habitats and lifestyles, and will survive so long as something doesn't actually wipe them out. Now, humans are actually doing a pretty damn good job these days of driving many other primates towards extinction, but that's an entirely different issue.
quote:4. When has there *ever* been a 'good' mutation? It could be my limited scope that has effectively hidden any and all evidence to the contrary, but every mutation I've heard about ends up in some sort of horrible handicap.
Emphasis mine. Mutations can have all sorts of effects, ranging from negative to neutral (which the vast majority of mutations effectively are) to positive. How about an example of the latter in humans? Many of the peoples who live in the Andeans, at altitudes that would leave most of us gasping for air, actually express higher levels of hemoglobin, and as a result, their blood can carry higher concentrations of oxygen. Change in expression level of a given gene can be the result of single point mutations in the gene's various regulatory sequences, which subtly affect how the gene interacts with the various other genes that regulate it. Because the genome is such a complex system, even tiny changes can have enormous phenotypic effects (though, as mentioned above, they just as often do not).
Another example is the case of sickle-cell anemia. The Wikipedia link goes into more detail, but in a nutshell, sickle-cell anemia is a rare genetic disorder caused by a single nucleotide substitution, in which red blood cells bend out of their usual rounded shape into "sickle" forms, which results in a number of nasty symptoms. As a result (and just as evolutionary theory predicts), individuals with sickle-cell anemia are selected against and are very rare. In fact, they almost exclusively live in areas of sub-Saharan Africa, where malaria is prevalent. Why? Because sickle-cell anemia just so happens to provide the sufferer with enhanced resistance to malaria! This is a perfect example of natural selection in action- in normal populations, the sickle-cell allele has a purely negative effect, and is thus weeded out. But in populations that have to deal with malaria, the benefit of the allele actually outweighs its cost, resulting in the reproductive success of carriers and spread of the allele.
quote:Okay. I know all of these arguments are very elementary, but therein lies the beauty, I think. [/QB]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the ignorant are blind.
Edit: Dang, gotten beaten to it by, like, the entire forum. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I am very amused by the similarity of all of our answers!
(and very glad that I was first!)
I guess the American education system isn't so bad, huh?
Perhaps this will underscore the fact that all of the answers to these "objections" are rather common knowledge.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:After all, Newton's LAWS of Gravity are, in fact wrong (they incorrectly predict or cannot account for all sorts of things, including Mercury's orbit, for instance).
"Sure they do." - The last astronomer searching for the planet Vulcan.
Also, "directed evolution" is an old idea that it took a lot of people a lot of trouble getting over the fact that it didn't exist. Humans may be the most intelligent- in the sense we measure it- creature on Earth, but we're not the most "highly evolved".
Although, arguably that phrase is often used to mean the most aware, critically thinking, pre-frontal-lobe-ish occupants of a planet. It's just a little wonky when applied in that way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, if another of your possible objections includes something about genetic information never increasing, I increased the genetic information in bacteria in AP Biology, using only naturally occuring enzymes in the way they occur naturally, but with more of them being used in rapid succession.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Yep. I increase the net information of bacteria and yeast all the time in lab. It's pretty boring, mundane work, actually. My mentor gets to do all the fun stuff, like increasing the net information of human and fruit fly cells. And he gets to watch them glow!
Yeah, okay, we biologists lead bizarre existences. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I won't bring up spontaneous generation if you don't bring up the inquisition.
BB, How may times do you need a particular thing to be discredited before you stop pushing it? Your reference to spontaneous generation is irelevant for the reasons I told you the last three times you brought it up - in brief because of the epistemological changes and difference between being a "scientist" and a "natural philosopher" or just "smart guy". I think you've moved from the grounds of willful ignorance to outright dishonesty on this one.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Continuing from my previous post, I find that a lot of the arguments raised by creationists, or points that confuse them, are generally problems raised or considered a hundred or more years ago.
An example of this is the watch analogy that someone mentioned previously. The concept world as a clockwork watch, and all the assumptions that follows, was invented over 200 years ago. Scientists and philosophers at the time actually found it a useful analogy because it did lead to the idea that the Earth is a complete system with parts that work together. However, it also led to other assumptions, such as the requirement of a builder (the watchmaker), the need to be wound periodically (by God). These ideas were gradually eroded as more advanced scientific ideas developed.
"Directed evolution" was another. Stemming from the basic assumption that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that Humans were the chosen creatures (and, in some cases, a certain race or people the chosen of Humans), scientists such as Lemarck (18th cent.) assumed that Humans were the most highly evolved of a single path of creatures which all had a similar beginning and would have a similar end-point but were merely in different stages.
This concept was also eventually challenged and replaced.
EDIT: So-called "Spontaneous Generation" is another of these old ideas.
Old ideas are not necessarily wrong, and may have been very important (and innovative) in their day, but they have been replaced for a reason: usually because they have been found wanting. This is why I think the history of science is important to teach because instead of starting 'at the end' it teaches how these ideas were developed and eradicates the need to tread the same path over and over.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My only gripe with this statement is that you cited heliocentrism and executing heretics when neither idea has justification in the scriptures. There is no flat earth support in the scriptures either(another commonly cited claim.)
My concern is the preference of religious dogma over empiricism. Whether the dogma comes from a direct reading of an ancient text or the teachings of a learned theologian does not matter.
quote:But remember that Christians and heck every religion are constantly striving to understand their theology and develop better ways of understanding the universe we live in.
Some are. Creationists, not so much. See, they believe they already know the facts. All they are doing now is trying to find ways to fit the available evidence to those facts.
quote:I won't bring up spontaneous generation if you don't bring up the inquisition.
Have scientists hypothesizing about the origin of life murdered millions of dissenters? What parallel are you going for?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I won't bring up spontaneous generation if you don't bring up the inquisition.
BB, How may times do you need a particular thing to be discredited before you stop pushing it? Your reference to spontaneous generation is irelevant for the reasons I told you the last three times you brought it up - in brief because of the epistemological changes and difference between being a "scientist" and a "natural philosopher" or just "smart guy". I think you've moved from the grounds of willful ignorance to outright dishonesty on this one.
What are you even talking about? I'm merely pointing out that religion does not own the tradmark on the mindset that MattP seemed to be describing.
Ill thank you for not calling my integrity into question so lightly. Your memory is perhaps better then mine but I cannot recall us having a significant exchange on the topic of spontaneous generation where you could reasonably say a point was proven thus making me bring it up in this thread dishonest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I completely agree with you in terms of dogmas that are held sternly in the face of well outlined fact.
My complaint was that you used to instances heliocentrism and burning heretics, when neither idea had any sort of basis in science or religion.
Unless we grant that because some Catholic leaders jumped on the "earth as the center of the universe" bandwagon and since they called it God's truth therefore it becomes religiously sanctioned. Even though they could not provide any sort of scriptural support of such a belief.
Look I was not trying to start an arguement, just point out that there are better examples of what you are talking about.
And make mention of the fact that religion is a developing field. It does not remain stagnent and try to pretend it has all the answers right now and here for anyone to read and understand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Looking back, I was mistaken. I've only addressed you directly twice on this. Do a search for spontaneous generation and you'll see them too.
However, I realize now that I mistook you for BaoQingTian, whom I addressed this issue in much greater depth.
Perhaps my characterization was incorrect. Could you explain why you think spontaneous generation is relevant here?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, If you are taling about the religious support for geocentrism, which is what Matt was talking about, then there is, in fact, scriptural support for it. Here's a brief sample, which, incidentally, the Church leaders did refer to when trying to refute heliocentrism.
quote:Ecclesiastes 1:4and 5: One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth. Psalms 92: "He has made the world firm, not to be moved." Psalms 103: "You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever." And how about in Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon."
There was significant religious support for the burning of heretics as well, even if there was no direct scriptural support.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: I have never seen those scriptures used to demonstrate the stationary and central position of the earth. But your point is taken, I can see how if those scriptures could be used to describe a universe with the earth at the center.
quote:THere was significant religious support for the burning of heretics as well, even if there was no direct scriptural support.
That is honestly like saying "There was tremendous popular support for the idea but no peer reviewed studies on that topic."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How so? That would suggest to me that the religions involved considered only scripture as the basis for religious doctrine, which is clearly not true.
---
edit:
quote:I have never seen those scriptures used to demonstrate the stationary and central position of the earth.
How much looking did you do? They're not, in my opinion, difficult to find.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Ummm... About this last post... With the scriptures... All of the references were from books of poetry, except the one from Joshua, which was when God made the day last twice as long so Joshua and his army could kill all the Amorites... I don't know if this affects (Edited. I said 'effects'. Kill me. I can't believe I did that. This is a new low.) anything, since I have not a clue what you're discussing. Thus, my point is moot. But the scripture from Joshua was definently taken out of context, and the poetry books are just that -- Poetry. You don't have to take them literally. I believe your hermeneutics are flawed. Even if I can't spell hermeneutics correctly.
Thanks for taking the time everybody to answer. Those answers were very helpful.
Okay.
1. I totally forgot the whole E=mc2 thing. Now I feel silly. That makes a lot of sense.
2. The whole closed system thing is new to me, but I'll buy it. It makes a lot more sense that way.
3. I didn't know that at all! That was the fundemental thing that I hated about evolution. The idea that it was so linear. Evolution seems a whole lot more probable now.
4. Just another question... What exactly is the difference between a 'mutation', and adaptation. Is does the thoery about the giraffe feeling the 'need' to have a longer neck play into this at all... I think it was called Gregorism or something. The offspring of the giraffe felt the need to have a longer neck, so they were born with one?
As for the person who made the ignorance is blind comment, I have to give you kudos for that. That was exceedingly clever. I wish I'd thought of it. :~) Well, not for now, since I'd be discrediting myself, but it would be nice to pull it out of my pocket sometime in another discussion. <Sigh> Now if I use it, people will say "You stole that from that guy off the creationist museum thread!".
Once again, thanks everybody for taking the time to answer these questions.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: Thanks for taking the time everybody to answer. Those answers were very helpful.
Our pleasure. I'm very glad you're being open-minded about this.
quote:3. I didn't know that at all! That was the fundemental thing that I hated about evolution. The idea that it was so linear. Evolution seems a whole lot more probable now.
It's a common misconception. Don't worry about it.
quote:4. Just another question... What exactly is the difference between a 'mutation', and adaptation. Is does the thoery about the giraffe feeling the 'need' to have a longer neck play into this at all... I think it was called Gregorism or something. The offspring of the giraffe felt the need to have a longer neck, so they were born with one?
You're thinking of Lamarckian evolution, which posited that giraffes' necks got longer over time because they stretched them to reach leaves on tall trees. This theory has been discredited because we now know that only genotype (that is, an individual's genetic makeup) is passed from generation to generation. Changes in an individual's phenotype (that is, its expressed characteristics) that have no genetic basis, like stretched out necks or bulkier muscles from weight-lifting, are not passed on.
As for your first question... A "mutation" is a change in the gene sequence of an organism. There are many different types of mutations, such as "point mutations" (changes in a single nucleotide base pair) and "frameshift mutations" (additions or deletions of base pairs in numbers that aren't a multiple of three). Mutations therefore occur at the genotypic level.
Adaptations occur at the level of phenotype, and are any changes that promote the "fitness" of an individual. "Fitness" is defined as the success of the individual in passing on its genotype, and encompasses a number of factors, including survival rate, fecundity, reproductive lifespan, etc. Therefore, a mutation can, but does not necessarily, result in an adaptation. Going back to the giraffe example, this means that a mutation that slightly increases the length of an individual giraffe's neck might improve its ability to feed, since it can reach leaves that other giraffes can't. This adaptation means it needs to spend less time and energy foraging, and thus improves its chances of surviving until reproducing. Its offspring also carry the "slightly longer neck" gene, and pass it on even further. Further mutations that increase the length of the neck even more will result in similar reproductive success. Eventually, the long neck variation spreads throughout the population and you end up with all long-necked giraffes.
quote:As for the person who made the ignorance is blind comment, I have to give you kudos for that. That was exceedingly clever. I wish I'd thought of it. :~) Well, not for now, since I'd be discrediting myself, but it would be nice to pull it out of my pocket sometime in another discussion. <Sigh> Now if I use it, people will say "You stole that from that guy off the creationist museum thread!".
You're welcome to use it all you like. Though you'll owe me a royalty... something reasonable, like, oh, five bucks per usage. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And make mention of the fact that religion is a developing field. It does not remain stagnent and try to pretend it has all the answers right now and here for anyone to read and understand.
That's not particularly true. Religion is not a developing field. Some religions are developing. Others are fighting pretty hard to remain static. Some make the very claim that you deny in your second sentence.
Also, many religious changes have been driven from external forces. In large part, Western Enlightenment civilization has domesticated (or at least semi-domesticated) the religions in it through direct and indirect opposition to many of the things they used to practice/believe.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
There was no "felt need" (or at least I've never heard of that theory before). A theory that is more likely to be accepted is that certain pre-giraffes had longer necks than others. These longer necked ancestors were able to feed on better foods in trees in whatever the current environment was. This allowed them to be stronger than their shorter necked brethren, allowing them to fight off competitors for reproductive mates, more easily run away from predators.
Alternatively, perhaps it wasn't that the food in the trees was "better", but there was a time of drought where the low lying plant species all but died away, causing huge competitive pressures for all the creatures that fed on them. All this competition was bound to cause a lot of losers in all the fighting. Those that had other means, since their necks were long enough to reach them, thus had less competition and could most easily remain healthy and thus more able to compete for mates.
And realize when I mean drought conditions, it could have been 10 years, 100 years or even 1000 or more years of the conditions.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:4. Just another question... What exactly is the difference between a 'mutation', and adaptation. Is does the thoery about the giraffe feeling the 'need' to have a longer neck play into this at all... I think it was called Gregorism or something. The offspring of the giraffe felt the need to have a longer neck, so they were born with one?
A mutation is a change in the genotype of an organism. It is generally understood to lead to a different phenotype, but this is not necessarily a requirement.
Adaption is a process by which organisms with genetic changes fill niches in their environment. An example would be the giraffe thing. A horse-type necked creature could only reach up to a certain height for tree food, so is more likely to look for food on the ground or on bushes. If they have mutations that lead to them having a longer neck phenotype, they can get food from trees. They adapt from being a ground/bush eater to a ground/bush/tree eater.
What you are describing is what people are saying is directed evolution, which doesn't seem to have support for it. Giraffe's didn't evolve because there was a need for long necks. Rather, there were countless mutations, including various things that resulted in long necks. Nearly all of these mutations didn't confer increased fit to the environment, so they wren't passed along. The longer necks, however, did increase the giraffe's ability to find food, a significant advantage, and so longer necked creatures prospered and thus had more successful children, and so on, and so on.
---
edit: I actually know almost nothing about the real specifics of giraffe evolution, so that's just a possible explanation more or less consistent with the principles involved, not necessarily what actually happened.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Right... I probably should have distinguished between "adaptation" as a beneficial phenotypic change and "the process of adaptation," which is what Squick describes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How so? That would suggest to me that the religions involved considered only scripture as the basis for religious doctrine, which is clearly not true.
When you say religions involved I don't think you are considering Christianity on its own.
quote:How much looking did you do? They're not, in my opinion, difficult to find.
Remind me to not concede a point to you in the future, you come across as one of those people who takes that as weakness and punishes people for it.
I'm reasonably confident in my own grasp of Christian holy texts. After thinking about it I decided there were no scriptures I could think of that support an earth centered universe. I was impressed that you found several that taken together make a compelling arguement in your favor. Forgive me but my ability to research while at work is a mite low.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:And make mention of the fact that religion is a developing field. It does not remain stagnent and try to pretend it has all the answers right now and here for anyone to read and understand.
That's not particularly true. Religion is not a developing field. Some religions are developing. Others are fighting pretty hard to remain static. Some make the very claim that you deny in your second sentence.
Also, many religious changes have been driven from external forces. In large part, Western Enlightenment civilization has domesticated (or at least semi-domesticated) the religions in it through direct and indirect opposition to many of the things they used to practice/believe.
And I am sure there were phrenologists, astrologers, and alchemists who maintained the truthfulness of their professions to the grave. The enlightenment did not domesticate anything, unless you call Christianity running off into the forest during the dark ages and coming home again after the enlightenment a redomestication.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:When you say religions involved I don't think you are considering Christianity on its own.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you rephrase?
---
If you had said that you couldn't think of any scripture that supported geocentrism, I'd have been perfectly fine with that. But that's not what you said. What you said was:
quote:Unless we grant that because some Catholic leaders jumped on the "earth as the center of the universe" bandwagon and since they called it God's truth therefore it becomes religiously sanctioned. Even though they could not provide any sort of scriptural support of such a belief.
This is false. They did provide those scriptures (and others) as support for their position. This is easily seen by looking at their statements on this position.
In my opinion, it is irresponsible to make definitive statements (especially false ones) about topics you know very little about. If you don't know much about how the Church leaders held their belief in geocentrism, I don't think you should think it is okay to make definitive statements about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And I am sure there were phrenologists, astrologers, and alchemists who maintained the truthfulness of their professions to the grave.
Ok? What is your point?
quote:The enlightenment did not domesticate anything, unless you call Christianity running off into the forest during the dark ages and coming home again after the enlightenment a redomestication.
I don't know what you mean by this. Could you rephrase it?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
As a materialist historian I have a problem with Enlightenment domestication of religion. If such a thing occurred, it did so with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Watch those definitive statements. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain why you think that orlox? I think we may be looking at very different things in regards to domesticating religion.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I suspect the problem comes with dating the Enlightenment which is an 18th century phenomenon but popular conceptions roll it all the way back to the Renaissance.
I understand what the Enlightment is. I also understand what the Peace of Westphalia is and what its results were. I don't need you to explain these things to me.
What I'm asking is for you to explain why you think that domestication of religion occurred with the Peace of Westphalia.
---
Also, for my purposes here, I'm using the wider conception of the Enlightenment, which would include the Age of Reason.
[ June 06, 2007, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Well, after all the reprobative warfare of the Thirty Years War, minority religious rights were guaranteed by Westphalia as well as recognizing the 'established' religion of each state.
But if your Age of Enlightenment subsumes the Age of Reason it becomes a less useful descriptive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That seems extremely simplistic to me. Do you have more complex reasoning here?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you rephrase?
You are right not every religion bases its ideas in scripture. But when it comes to Christianity every single idea should have SOME basis in scripture if you are going to say God supports it.
quote: Ok? What is your point?
Those are all professions that claimed, and some in fact still claim to have basis in science. Science is not some amazing self governing vehicle that never crashes or even makes a turn without signalling.
quote: I don't know what you mean by this. Could you rephrase it?
You said the enlightenment domesticated Christianity, made it more liberal and accepting of science rather then superstition. Or am I wrong in this assesment? I do not believe this is the case. I believe Christianity at the time of the apostles and Jesus would have been happy to accept heliocentrism and burning heretics at the stake would have been rightfully shunned. It became bastardized about 100-300 years after its creation by its acceptance of gnostic beliefs and Neoplatonism. Its ability to think critically and rationally was stripped and ruined and it was not until the great reformation that steps in right direction were taken again, (I mean no offense to catholics, greek orthodox, or eastern orthodox Christians.)
The Enlightenment simply began to restore Christianity to its true form that it was originally intended to be when Jesus created it.
In regards to our discussion about the Bible and heliocentrism, it seems I was under the likely mistaken belief that the church took an opposing stance on heliocentrism and did not provide scripture to support that stance. The general populace at the time did not have access to the Bible so there was no need to demonstrate its' stance on the topic, nor did anybody think to question the pope at this period in time.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Westphalia is considered the emergence of the system of nation states. Minority religions were tolerated as long as they pledged allegiance to the state. Those denominations that still refused to pledge first allegiance to the crown were ejected from European society. Mostly coming here, of course.
This would be considered the established POV which revisionist historians challenge in various ways. I have my own problems with it, but Westphalia does end the seemingly intractable religious warfare in Europe.
I think it is incumbent on you to justify the use of Enlightenment outside the 18th century. Or else to detail exactly how, where and when religion was 'domesticated' if it was not to the state as set out by Westphalia. (The British, as always, are excepted: Are we to consider Henry VIII as part of the Age of Enlightenment?)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching entropy, an important point is that entropy really is increasing, and that life really does decrease entropy. The point is that there is no rule saying the increase in entropy has to be uniform. The decrease in entropy on Earth, due to the formation of life, is balanced, and more than balanced, by a much larger increase within the Sun.
Then, touching the decrease in mass: It's true that the Sun's mass was larger in the past. Let's leave to one side, for the moment, the question of whether the difference is 0.0001%, 10%, or 100%, which others have addressed, and instead ask how this would affect the Earth's orbit. When you increase the Sun's gravity, the Earth is more strongly attracted, so far so good. But when you begin to use the phrase "plummet to its doom", you should stop and ask yourself, what prevents this with the current gravity? And the answer is, the Earth's sidewise speed, which causes it to miss.
Now, if you increase the gravitational pull, you increase the speed needed to maintain the current orbit. But there's an orbit further in which is perfectly stable with the Earth's current speed. The formula is
a = omega^2 / r,
where a is the acceleration due to the Sun's gravity, omega is the angular orbital speed of the Earth (we can consider this constant) and r is the orbital radius. So, if you double the mass, and hence the acceleration due to gravity, then the radius drops by 50%. This would put the Earth somewhat inside the orbit of Venus, which admittedly would be bad; but then you have to consider that the effect is nowhere near so large. If the Sun has lost as much as 10% of its initial mass, I'd be vastly surprised.
[ June 06, 2007, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wah! I respond to the astrophysics stuff, I leave my post for half an hour, and suddenly it's all nation-states! Don't do that!
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
You're the European, you tell us. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I know. I missed all of this because I was sleeping. I got no chance to answer all the cool questions.
I need to get back to answering that article. It's really hard to feel enthusiastic when you did it once before and lost it, you know?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you rephrase?
You are right not every religion bases its ideas in scripture. But when it comes to Christianity every single idea should have SOME basis in scripture if you are going to say God supports it.
I would disagree with you here.
quote:
You said the enlightenment domesticated Christianity, made it more liberal and accepting of science rather then superstition. Or am I wrong in this assesment? I do not believe this is the case. I believe Christianity at the time of the apostles and Jesus would have been happy to accept heliocentrism and burning heretics at the stake would have been rightfully shunned. It became bastardized about 100-300 years after its creation by its acceptance of gnostic beliefs and Neoplatonism. Its ability to think critically and rationally was stripped and ruined and it was not until the great reformation that steps in right direction were taken again, (I mean no offense to catholics, greek orthodox, or eastern orthodox Christians.)
Yikes! And here. The Apostles had no more idea that the earth revolved around the sun than anyone else. Constantine did a lot of things that I wish he hadn't and I agree that the "establishment" of Christianity as a state religion saddled us with a slow to change beurocrisy, but it didn't wave a stupid stick over everyone. People could still reason and think - we just had to do it as a group which takes a long time when it's a big group.
quote:
The Enlightenment simply began to restore Christianity to its true form that it was originally intended to be when Jesus created it.
In regards to our discussion about the Bible and heliocentrism, it seems I was under the likely mistaken belief that the church took an opposing stance on heliocentrism and did not provide scripture to support that stance. The general populace at the time did not have access to the Bible so there was no need to demonstrate its' stance on the topic, nor did anybody think to question the pope at this period in time.
People questioned the Pope all the time. The idea of the earth-centered universe hardly originated with the Church. It was pretty much assumed for millenia. Yes, the Church is reluctant to change especially when dealing with ideas that challenge a whole worldview.
In general I think that the forces of reason vs religion is a false way to understand history. Religion is as much a product of its particular time and culture as anything else. It is acted upon as well as acting. Often religion was a reasonable and civilizig factor. Humanity has grown in wisdom (we hope) with many factors shaping that growth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I would disagree with you here.
I guessed that this would be the case, you are welcome to your opinion.
quote: Yikes! And here. The Apostles had no more idea that the earth revolved around the sun than anyone else. Constantine did a lot of things that I wish he hadn't and I agree that the "establishment" of Christianity as a state religion saddled us with a slow to change beurocrisy, but it didn't wave a stupid stick over everyone. People could still reason and think - we just had to do it as a group which takes a long time when it's a big group.
I never said they did, but I am quite certain they would not have had the same stance as the catholic church had when heliocentrism was first introduced. I am absolutely sure that Jesus would not have acted that way as well. I am skeptical as to how many prayers were directed to God on that matter before policies were formed on how to respond to these scientists with their new idea.
I think Constantine did in fact wave a "stupid stick" on people. He redefined core ideas at the heart of Christianity, among which were the rightful governing of the Christian church. You do not vote on truth, you do not establish God's opinion by a popular majority. You may of course disagree but that is exactly where I think Constantine and the Councel at Nicea screwed up. People should have prayed in unison and received the same answer from the same God.
But I need to stop as I am violating the terms of these forums right now, and for that I apologize.
quote: People questioned the Pope all the time. The idea of the earth-centered universe hardly originated with the Church. It was pretty much assumed for millenia. Yes, the Church is reluctant to change especially when dealing with ideas that challenge a whole worldview.
Again I did not say it did. But the church certainly decided to bless that particular view point one day and persecute those who did not believe it.
quote: In general I think that the forces of reason vs religion is a false way to understand history. Religion is as much a product of its particular time and culture as anything else. It is acted upon as well as acting. Often religion was a reasonable and civilizig factor. Humanity has grown in wisdom (we hope) with many factors shaping that growth.
I can agree with all of this.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I believe this thread is evolving.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
On the topic of evidence vs. faith, I just learned about the AiG Statement of Faith. In includes this gem:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG is the organization responsible for the Creationist Museum. All I can say is "wow".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]Those are all professions that claimed, and some in fact still claim to have basis in science. Science is not some amazing self governing vehicle that never crashes or even makes a turn without signalling.
Well, yes, it is actually. Those pseudo-sciences you mention were never mainstream science, and when they couldn't prove their points by getting repeatable, measurable results, they were pushed out of even the fringe position that they did occupy and into the realm of charlatanism. Burning heretics at the stake, on the other hand, was never a fringe position; it was the accepted, mainstream form of conduct until quite late in the Enlightenment.
As a side note, I don't think Westphalia is a useful divider here. The treaty established that kings would not go looking outside their own recognised borders for heretics to burn, because the Protestants had shown they could defend themselves and the Catholics had shown they could hang on to what they had. What states did internally to those they considered heretics was quite another matter; witch trials were popular for quite another while, you'll note.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Well, yes, it is actually. Those pseudo-sciences you mention were never mainstream science, and when they couldn't prove their points by getting repeatable, measurable results, they were pushed out of even the fringe position that they did occupy and into the realm of charlatanism. Burning heretics at the stake, on the other hand, was never a fringe position; it was the accepted, mainstream form of conduct until quite late in the Enlightenment.
If by mainstream you mean the only stream that men were currently allowing to run, then yes it was mainstream.
But you are wrong even by that definition.
Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches did not burn at the stake. Nor did the churches in West China, Ethiopia, and West India, all of which developed independent of the Catholic church.
As for your points about pseudo sciences never being mainstream, I'm sorry but at least Alchemy and for a long time Astrology were both quite accepted right up there with medicine, and husbandry. I will concede that phrenology was probably more of a fad that gained quite a bit of ground and then was summarily dismissed quite quickly.
I hate to channel Crichton, but the science has its own demons, and one of them is not simply considering, "What we can see, hear, observe, create." but whether or not they should at all.
Admittedly that is an extremely tall order for any institution to make. Mistakes are inevitable, but at least acknowledge that they happen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
The process of science and the application of science are 2 different things. That can start a whole new debate. Who is held accountable for the ultimate uses of a scientific discovery? Science is the pursuit of knowledge for its sake alone. Each answer leads to another question. The scientist doesn't know where it will ultimately lead; he is following the trail of knowledge. I don't think the knowledge itself can be judged good or bad. How we use it as a society can. There is as much potential good out of discoveries as bad. Nanotechnology and genetic manipulation can provide great service as well as great horror. Should they be restricted based on potential? This is a very important question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As for your points about pseudo sciences never being mainstream, I'm sorry but at least Alchemy and for a long time Astrology were both quite accepted right up there with medicine, and husbandry.
They were accepted among scholars, yes. They were never accepted among scientists, because at that time there weren't any scientists to do the accepting. There was no science prior to Galileo or Newton (take your pick), there was only human knowledge, which is not at all the same thing.
quote:Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches did not burn at the stake. Nor did the churches in West China, Ethiopia, and West India, all of which developed independent of the Catholic church.
I will give you burning at the stake in the literal sense of tying somebody to a post and setting it on fire, but they certainly did persecute with lethal force whenever they got the chance. Check out what happened to the iconoclasts and the Old Believers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: On the topic of evidence vs. faith, I just learned about the AiG Statement of Faith. In includes this gem:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG is the organization responsible for the Creationist Museum. All I can say is "wow".
To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and Infallible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's reasonable if you accept the axiom. The objection was to the axiom.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and infallible.
The idea of accepting any one body of evidence of being so perfectly correct that any contradictory evidence that is ever presented is automatically invalid is almost impossible for me to grasp.
Presumably their belief of the correctness of the Bible is based on a number of perceived evidences. I don't see how one can accept those evidences of being more valid than any yet unknown evidences that may be discovered in the future prior to examination of the future evidences.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a side note, I don't think Westphalia is a useful divider here. The treaty established that kings would not go looking outside their own recognised borders for heretics to burn, because the Protestants had shown they could defend themselves and the Catholics had shown they could hang on to what they had. What states did internally to those they considered heretics was quite another matter; witch trials were popular for quite another while, you'll note.
Indeed. And the Inquisition goes on. But religion was, by definition, domesticated.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Wasn't it Sir Francic Bacon who helped popularize the scientific method?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Anyway, reading that statement of faith, in which they reject any evidence of anything that disagrees with their beliefs, makes it clear that they refuse to live in our world.
Since life itself and their physical bodies are evidence of evolution, shouldn't they, you know, reject their bodies, and life itself? Shouldn't they not consider life, and their bodies, valid, since they themselves are evidence of something besides their faith?
Or are they just hypocrites?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Wasn't it Sir Francic Bacon who helped popularize the scientific method?
And he was a contemporary of Galileo.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Since life itself and their physical bodies are evidence of evolution, shouldn't they, you know, reject their bodies, and life itself?
Since life itself and your physical body is evidence of a divine creator, should people who don't believe reject their bodies, and life itself?
(the answer is no)
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But life isn't the evidence of a divine creator.
So your statement is invalid.
However, life as it is, the genetic code, especially when compared to that of other species, vestigial organs, certain quirks in human physiology, among other things, are evidence of evolution.
Ergo, our bodies ARE evidence of evolution.
There is no physical evidence of divine creator, however.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
In fact. The fact that the urinal passage in males passes through the prostate, an organ which has a tendency to swell, is evidence that the human body was NOT made by a divine being (at least directly, in the sense of Genesis.)
Because, you know, that aspect of our design is utterly stupid.
And God is not stupid enough to make that error.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
And so, by saying God created humans divinely as is, you call God an idiot.
I refuse to allow such blasphemy. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: On the topic of evidence vs. faith, I just learned about the AiG Statement of Faith. In includes this gem:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG is the organization responsible for the Creationist Museum. All I can say is "wow".
To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and Infallible.
If you start with an unreasonable foundation, the end result is likely to be unreasonable as well.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But life isn't the evidence of a divine creator.
So your statement is invalid.
Just like they'd say that life isn't evidence of evoltion, so your statement is invalid.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But they're wrong. So, in the real world, my statement is not invalid.
You know, the one in which we live? Not the fantasies of people with unreasonable foundations of knowledge?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Besides, I already pointed out real world examples of how human existence is evidence for evolution.
What do they have but a book, that was, in fact, made by humans, and possesses no objective evidence whatsoever?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So, since life isn't evidence of a divine creator, (since there is no EVIDENCE) but IS in fact evidence of evolution, my point is, in fact ,valid, while your counterpoint is invalid.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Besides, I still s tand by my statement that claiming God made such an imperfect thing as a human body, directly, is an insult to God's intelligence, and in fact blasphemy, as you claim God created something flawed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It doesn't matter how many times you say you're right and they are wrong. You are judging people who don't believe in evolution as though they did. That makes as much sense as judging your actions as though you believed what they did.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I didn't just say I'm right.
I pointed out examples of evidence, which I can back up.
I am not judging them as if they did believe in evolution. In fact, I'm judging them for the fact that they do NOT believe in it.
For them to say that any evidence for evolution is invalid, when that includes the human body, makes me wonder if they consider the human body and life invalid, as it IS evidence for evolution.
The fact that they don't care to listen is just shows how contemptable they are.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rejecting the idea the the human body is evidence of evolution doesn't require them to reject the human body any more than you rejecting the idea that the human body is evidence of God requires you to reject your own body.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
0mega, do you mind backing off on that one? Stick to evidence, eh?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Fine, KoM.
Sorry, mr_porteiro. I suppose that rejecting it, even with the evidence, can allow them to hold that inconsistent position without any apparent problems from their own worldview, that is true.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Probably not the best idea to post your "passing thoughts" on a forum of such critical minds.
I just figured since the analogy of the watchmaker was a popular (at least i thought it was) idea behind creationism i just wanted to express thouhgts that could be understood in a simple way.
If the watch stands for nature, the watchmaker stood for god then i didnt see how discoving the inner working of the watch (the laws that govern nature) did any harm to the watchmaker.
I was hoping that the critical minds would realise i was simply drawing a simplistic explination as to why evolution and god dont really cancel each other out. And if you already believe in a god how evolution can be integrated into your faith.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Fine, KoM.
Sorry, mr_porteiro. I suppose that rejecting it, even with the evidence, can allow them to hold that inconsistent position without any apparent problems from their own worldview, that is true.
Even if they accept the evidence i would say that isnt unreasonable or illogical for one to hold such a view. Remember, if somone believes in a god the god can technically do anything it wants, and not only can it do that but it can do it (say god holds the sun still) and not have any adverse effects on nature as a whole.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: On the topic of evidence vs. faith, I just learned about the AiG Statement of Faith. In includes this gem:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG is the organization responsible for the Creationist Museum. All I can say is "wow".
To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and Infallible.
Indeed. Moreover, I agree with it. (I simply disagree with their definition of "Scripture" and their understanding of what does and does not contradict it.)
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Besides, I still stand by my statement that claiming God made such an imperfect thing as a human body, directly, is an insult to God's intelligence, and in fact blasphemy, as you claim God created something flawed.
What you call blasphemy I call a basic tenet of belief. This world and everything in it is imperfect, and our job is to improve it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I was hoping that the critical minds would realise i was simply drawing a simplistic explination as to why evolution and god dont really cancel each other out. And if you already believe in a god how evolution can be integrated into your faith.
I got it. That's why I said I liked where you were going with it. Even IF someone viewed everything as a creation of an Intelligent Designer (TM), one would think said designer would applaud curiosity over ignorance. It's a nice sentiment.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why would one think any such thing? Curiosity was discouraged through most of human history. Applauding it is a very recent development, and very much a product of the Enlightenment. And there's a very good reason for religious people to discourage critical thinking: It tends to lead to atheism, or at the very least a lack of donations to church hierarchies. So, projecting that onto their god, naturally their god doesn't like people poking into its creations.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Besides, I still s tand by my statement that claiming God made such an imperfect thing as a human body, directly, is an insult to God's intelligence, and in fact blasphemy, as you claim God created something flawed.
I also believ that people are supposed to humble themselves before god. The only thing perfect is supposed to be god. If god wants people to be humble and realise they are not all powerful why should he create them flawless? Not to mention if you envoke the idea that there is a god you really cant claim to know its purposes behind the way it does things. I do believe there is actually a verse in the bible (At least the english translation commonly used by christians) that adressed this. I would look it up but i dont see that the placing is necissarily relevant. But it basically makes the statement that god is the potter and we (people) are the clay, what is the clay that is can say to the potter "why have you made me this way?".
If you are willing to argue with somone who believes in a god, then there isnt really a way to say that that god is "wrong" or that an idea about that god is "wrong". You may have reason not to believe it, but part of the nature of a deity is that there can only be so much you can know, and there will be infinitely more that you can't know.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is no analogy between clay and humans, and making one is frankly rather disgusting. Clay doesn't think. Even if you postulate a god which is much better at thinking than humans are, it is not a qualitative difference as there is between humans and clay, but only a difference of degree.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why would one think any such thing? Curiosity was discouraged through most of human history. Applauding it is a very recent development, and very much a product of the Enlightenment. And there's a very good reason for religious people to discourage critical thinking: It tends to lead to atheism, or at the very least a lack of donations to church hierarchies. So, projecting that onto their god, naturally their god doesn't like people poking into its creations.
Well the reason it was discouraged throughout history is because it was used by powerful people to keep less powerful people less powerful. This is not something religious in nature anyway, plenty of historical governments didnt want their populace educated. Even our own country when founded was to be governed by the small population of intellectual eliete. However, even if somone does believe that their acts of discouragement and oppression are for "godly" reasons, or for the better good of the people it doesnt necissarily mean that the deity behind that persons beliefs would want the same thing. Hitler seemed to believe that his genocide of the jewish people would fit into his claims that he was a christian, i think anyone who is a christian sees the acts f the holocaust as terrible and completely ungodly. Perhaps god is more for knowledge that some people think. Proverbs, for example is a book of wise saying, and several times it makes the statement that a person should seek knowledge and wisdom. When it came to the Roman Catholic church of the dark ages they wanted to keep peasants from doing just that. It wasnt because they believed god wanted people to be stupid. It was because intellegent people have power or at lesat have the ability to gain power. At that point in time the Church was probably the most powerful state in Europe, perhaps the world. Just because religion can be a justification of people who choose not to better themselves and discourage the curiosity of others, doesnt mean that it is the right thing to do.
If people dont want to investigate nature because they believe a certain way, let them stay ignorant. Eventually they will die off and a new generation will take their place. Gravity is accepted now and was heretical when it first surfaced. This is true to other things like round earth, sun centered system and all have become common knowledge. If evolution is as steadily taught and can constantly find supportive evidence (and if scientists are willing to explain their findings to the world, and also make their explinations understandable) it should seem reasonable that it will find its way into common knowledge eventually.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I also believ that people are supposed to humble themselves before god."
How is refusing to belive God made mistakes not humbling myself before Him? It's the highest praise I can give, and the strongest faith, to believe in a perfect God.
" If god wants people to be humble and realise they are not all powerful why should he create them flawless?"
Depends on how you believe He made us. If He made us wholecloth, why did He make us with such clear evidence of evolutionary design? I can agree He did not create us flawless, because it is obvious we are not without flaws. However, He made us through a process. We did not just pop up from the dirt. That is simply the way the world is, and to refuse to accept that is putting human pride in your beliefs above the facts of the world God made for us.
The only ones without humility are those who refuse to see God's signed document because it says something different than what they already believe. Those who idolize the Bible so much that they refuse to see the rest of God's Word.
" you are willing to argue with somone who believes in a god, then there isnt really a way to say that that god is "wrong" or that an idea about that god is "wrong". You may have reason not to believe it, but part of the nature of a deity is that there can only be so much you can know, and there will be infinitely more that you can't know. "
Good advice. I cannot convince them their faith is wrong, and in fact they may see some aspects of God that are hidden from me. In the end, the idea that God created humankind imperfect on purpose is of course possible, but I do not believe that was God's point.
Anyway, as there was no literal Adam and Eve, there was no literal Original Sin (I'm a Catholic, I don't remember right now what others feel about that concept) or any decay from a previous state of perfection, either. Mankind's sin comes from our own actions, inherent in our design, required for existence as limited, phyical lifeforms. They do not come from the sins of some long-dead ancestor, whose sins are not my burden to bear even if they did live.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Even if you postulate a god which is much better at thinking than humans are, it is not a qualitative difference as there is between humans and clay, but only a difference of degree.
I believe that the difference between our comprehension and God's is qualitatively different, and not just a difference of degree.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"But it basically makes the statement that god is the potter and we (people) are the clay, what is the clay that is can say to the potter "why have you made me this way?"."
If the clay could think, if it could feel, it would have the right to ask us that question.
Just like, should we manage to create true artificial intelligence, even if it was in some ways lesser than we, they would have the right to ask us why we made them. They would have the right to question us, just as we have the right to question God.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There is no analogy between clay and humans, and making one is frankly rather disgusting. Clay doesn't think. Even if you postulate a god which is much better at thinking than humans are, it is not a qualitative difference as there is between humans and clay, but only a difference of degree.
Well since you posted that i went to look for it and i found pretty much what i was looking for, but it of course isnt exaclty like i posted it before.
Romans 9:20 (NIV) But who are you, O man, to talk back to god? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the sam lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Im afraid you are arguing semantics here though. If you belive in a god (especially the one of genesis who already made man from earth) then having humans compared to clay shouldnt be anything reviling or shocking. Comparing god to man as a potter to lump of clay is used so that people would have an understanding of what he was talking about. It really doesnt matter how similar clay and humans are in reality, if there is a creator he has his own idea abou how things should be created, how can the created thing comprehend somethign that is beyond that?
[ June 07, 2007, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Ecthalion ]
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "But it basically makes the statement that god is the potter and we (people) are the clay, what is the clay that is can say to the potter "why have you made me this way?"."
If the clay could think, if it could feel, it would have the right to ask us that question.
Just like, should we manage to create true artificial intelligence, even if it was in some ways lesser than we, they would have the right to ask us why we made them. They would have the right to question us, just as we have the right to question God.
Dont get me wrong i know what you are trying to say, im just saying that you cant say anything when dealing with a deity is a fact or that it has to be one way or another.
Why would god create humans with signs of having evolved? I have no idea... why would god create humans at all? its perfectly possible for him to fellowship with whales i guess, or the cockroach, the question i dont really think has any meaning. Why would a god do anything?
As to creating artificial intellegence and it having the right to ask why. I dont believe you can make such a statement for a fact yet, the idea behind governements (in the capitalist wet anyway) is that we give up natural rights to have civil rights and political rights and legal rights and protections. We are all natural objects, why do we give up such natural rights? Did we ever really have such natural rights? If people can take those rights from us and give us "Newer" rights than what is to stop a god? Its the whole state of nature discussion of Hobbs and Locke that was the basis to all the "enlightened" thought of the western civilizations. Even today, Children legally dont have the right to question their parents or the authorities (this doesnt stop them), even with the ability to do so. We have plenty of things we are capable of doing but dont have the right to do, and we dont have the right because we have consented to be ruled by the govenrment, and if we havent we have brought ourselves to a position of no rights and no protections. If the human governements have the right and the ability to tell you that you have no right to do or not do something then imagine what ability a god theoretically has. As i just got finished posting it was just an anology, even if the clay can understand words, even if it can think would it really understand? woudl the potter tell it somethign or explain somethign that was beneficial to the clay? Would it benefit a vase to know it was a vase? All of these questions really have no answers.
[ June 07, 2007, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Ecthalion ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"As to creating artificial intellegence and it having the right to ask why. I dont believe you can make such a statement for a fact yet"
Why not? If they can ask, why should they not be allowed to?
"the idea behind governements (in the capitalist wet anyway) is that we give up natural rights to have cival rights and political rights. Its the whole state of nature discussion of Hobbs and Locke taht was the basis to all the "enlightened" thought of the western civilizations. Children legally dont have the right to question their parents or the authorities (this doesnt stop them), even with the ability to do so. We have plenty of things we are capable of doing but dont have the right to do, and we dont have the right because we have consented to be ruled by the govenrment, and if we havent we have brought ourselves to a position of no rights and no protections. If the human governements have the right and the ability to tell you that you have no right to do or not do something then imagine what ability a god theoretically has."
Interesting analogy. But the power of government in our lives is qualitatively different than any power God has. A government, at least our government in the U.S., is at least supposed to be based on those Enlightenment principles, that is, concent of the governed. And in fact, we have the right to question authority, for human authority in the U.S. ultimately rests with those who are governed. When one does as we feel is unsatisfactorily, he or she is replaced by someone else. When laws are unsatisfactory, we put in place one who will change those rules.
How does that relate to the Children of Humanity, when they exist?
The children of humanity will not be literal children. They will be our creations, but that does not mean they will be like immature human beings. Children require the care of adults because they are still learning. But adult children are no longer under that control. Just because you are your parents' child, does not mean you are under their rule once you are old enough.
And even so, children CAN question parents and authority. Ask "why is this? Why am I?" They have that right, to learn.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Dont get me wrong i know what you are trying to say, im just saying that you cant say anything when dealing with a deity is a fact or that it has to be one way or another."
Yes. Clearly we cannot talk to God directly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Clearly we cannot talk to God directly.
Surely you realize that there are people here that disagree with you. It's not that clear.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've found that it can be difficult to discuss an atheist view opposing a religious view, because it is easy to be passionate about religion, and kind of silly to be passionate about atheism. You can be passionate about knowledge, and about truth, and about reason, and a whole slew of other things, but who goes to Logic camp and cries when they accept Scientific Method as their personal lord and savior? Emotion is a powerful thing.
You can tell a kid all you want that the boogie man isn't in the closet, you can show him the empty closet, you can shine a light under the bed, but as soon as you're out of the room and the lights are off, he's still scared of the boogie man. He's passionate about his beliefs, and any argument, no matter how reasonable, isn't going to get through.
Some ID supporters believe that the Theory of Evolution is the boogie man. You can show them the facts all you want, but they're still afraid it's going to get them if they don't make an intellectual fort out of the sheets and refuse to come out.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "As to creating artificial intellegence and it having the right to ask why. I dont believe you can make such a statement for a fact yet"
Why not? If they can ask, why should they not be allowed to?
"the idea behind governements (in the capitalist wet anyway) is that we give up natural rights to have cival rights and political rights. Its the whole state of nature discussion of Hobbs and Locke taht was the basis to all the "enlightened" thought of the western civilizations. Children legally dont have the right to question their parents or the authorities (this doesnt stop them), even with the ability to do so. We have plenty of things we are capable of doing but dont have the right to do, and we dont have the right because we have consented to be ruled by the govenrment, and if we havent we have brought ourselves to a position of no rights and no protections. If the human governements have the right and the ability to tell you that you have no right to do or not do something then imagine what ability a god theoretically has."
Interesting analogy. But the power of government in our lives is qualitatively different than any power God has. A government, at least our government in the U.S., is at least supposed to be based on those Enlightenment principles, that is, concent of the governed. And in fact, we have the right to question authority, for human authority in the U.S. ultimately rests with those who are governed. When one does as we feel is unsatisfactorily, he or she is replaced by someone else. When laws are unsatisfactory, we put in place one who will change those rules.
How does that relate to the Children of Humanity, when they exist?
The children of humanity will not be literal children. They will be our creations, but that does not mean they will be like immature human beings. Children require the care of adults because they are still learning. But adult children are no longer under that control. Just because you are your parents' child, does not mean you are under their rule once you are old enough.
And even so, children CAN question parents and authority. Ask "why is this? Why am I?" They have that right, to learn.
OF course children CAN, and as far as i know people CAN ask god things. I thought thats what prayer was about. You seem to be missing the point that if you can be told you have rights/no rights in certain areas by people (government/parents) even if you have the capability to accomplish the things you arnet allowed to do, then a god can hold you to that to an even greater degree. For example murder and rape are both natural rights people have, we lose the right when we enter into society, when we (as a group, not an individual)leave the state of nature. So when dwelling with people we no longer have the rights we had when we dwelt alone in nature. People control your rights, why cant a god? Kids are learning still, so they need to be guided you say. Isnt god supposed to be looking at us as children? I am no theologan (nor do i wish to be) but i know that christians are gods children, i dont know about other religions and their perspectives on this matter but that isnt really relevant. If you claim that people have the right to take away rights, or that rights can be temporarily not recognised due to the immaturity or the inability to understand them then how can a deity not reserve those abilities himself? Wouldnt a god know things, be able to do things, understand things that we wouldnt? would he have to explain himself to us? I think you are confusing it from being the "clay has no right to ask a question" so much as "the clay had no right to demand explinations". This would mean that the potter was to submit to the clay, the government to submit to the people (even some people think this is how it works), the parent to be under the rule of the child and lastly the god to be under the rule or authority of whatever it made. I wasnt talking about civil rights, i was talking about the idea of a superior being. When you asked questions of why a god would do such and such, to a person who believes in the god that is irrelevant. Thats part of the beauty of it, you can always fall back on the idea that a god is above you and therefore not understandable in all areas of its being.
You seemed to be making statements that ruled out ones ability to believe in god, see evidence of evolution and yet believe that god could create that evidence. Or that people who reject the idea that humans "evolved" in spite of the evidence were downright wrong. Which unfortunately it amy seem an unsound premise and definately is somewhat unreasonable it isnt necissarily true that they would be wrong. When you stated that a body is made "flawed" because a devine creator would have created it differently i simply pointed out that you have no way of knowing that(once again under the assumption that god exists). I only pointed out the reference from the bible because it was an attempt to make a parallel to the idea that god is supposed to be above us(as people), that not only are we most likely going to fail in understanding it but we also have no ability to subject it to our authority.
I apologise if i did not make this correlation clear.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Some ID supporters believe that the Theory of Evolution is the boogie man. You can show them the facts all you want, but they're still afraid it's going to get them if they don't make an intellectual fort out of the sheets and refuse to come out.
True dat. I just gave up on one on another forum.
(There are entirely too many "o"s in that last phrase.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Good advice. I cannot convince them their faith is wrong
You can, actually. I've seen it happen. It's not very common, admittedly.
quote:I've found that it can be difficult to discuss an atheist view opposing a religious view, because it is easy to be passionate about religion, and kind of silly to be passionate about atheism.
I'm quite passionate about people backing up their beliefs with some kind of evidence. But anyway, passion isn't a necessary ingredient to a reasoned argument. Or even a snarky one.
quote:I believe that the difference between our comprehension and God's is qualitatively different, and not just a difference of degree.
Comprehension was perhaps not the right concept. Let me say 'consciousness', or perhaps 'self-awareness', instead. Humans are conscious, clay isn't.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How Creationists can defend human flaws.
Simple.
God made humans practically perfect in every way (Mary Poppins = Eve). The problems that we have were the result of God's punishment as result of the Fall.
Yep, he totally redid our DNA, Re-routed our Colon, and left us open to the painful plagues that plague us still.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Let's hope the lawyers win. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
When I was heading home yesterday, after listening to the Ken Miller lecture, I wondered why fundamental Christians would support ID.
After all, if IDers are able to prove evolution wrong and ID right, aren't they damning everyone? If they really are able to prove ID, then everyone will know for sure that God exists. If they know, then they don't need faith, and without faith there's no salvation. I must be misunderstanding something about their beliefs I guess, because what they seem to be trying to do doesn't mesh with my understanding of their beliefs. So if I'm not understanding, can someone please correct me?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So the evolution believers think it is righteous to prevent people with an opposing belief system to advocate and give publicity to their views. Of course, if evolutionists are stupid enough to believe their own propaganda to the point where they believe evolution is proven fact and creation is proven false, then they might as well impose criminal penalties on those who refuse to submit to their regime. That is where they are headed. Unless at the last minute they evolve into something better, and eschew tyranny in all its guises.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ron, neither side of the debate, atheists or fundamentalists, have a monopoly on pointless mayhem. For every Stalinist purge, you can find a Spanish Inquisition or a Salem Witch trials.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
So long as you make it clear that you are viewing things from a specifically Catholic point of view, or else your own POV.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:You can tell a kid all you want that the boogie man isn't in the closet, you can show him the empty closet, you can shine a light under the bed, but as soon as you're out of the room and the lights are off, he's still scared of the boogie man. He's passionate about his beliefs, and any argument, no matter how reasonable, isn't going to get through.
That's a pretty defeatist way of looking at things. IDers are not children, they are adults with adult capabilities. Sure some ideas die hard, but they do die. Look how long it is taking to kill racism and sexism. Centuries? Millenia? Will it ever be completely accomplished? Perhaps never, but the victories that HAVE been obtained in those regards make all the effort worth it IMO.
Miller's lecture was ENORMOUSLY useful to me and I already believe in evolution, but I still held on to those mistaken beliefs that there were things science could not explain in regards to evolution, like eyeballs. Miller calmly explaining how protein groups can function independantly and combine as blocks rather then seperate pieces was completely new to me.
I KNOW I have friends that have the same mistaken beliefs but they would gladly give them up if they watched that lecture, you can be sure I will share it with them and I am confident some will watch it. Some of them could easily pass as favoring ID, but they may also be those who erronously think you can combine the ID movement with evolution. This thread itself helped me understand that the ID movement is not Theistic Evolution, another thing I mistakenly thought could be true.
Don't sell human beings short.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I have to admit, I didn't really glean much new evolution info out of the Ken Miller lecture (except for the bit about humans' fused chromosome containing the chimps 'extra' one, I didn't know that and thought it was really cool), but I learned quite about about ID as a movement. He was also very entertaining and positive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
So long as you make it clear that you are viewing things from a specifically Catholic point of view, or else your own POV.
When I am viewing history from a religious point of view, I try to do that. Or can give you more generally accepted historical facts. If you have evidence that Constantine actually changed people's brains other than LDS doctrine, I would be interested.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"So the evolution believers think it is righteous to prevent people with an opposing belief system to advocate and give publicity to their views."
We aren't saying that. If you were listening, you wuold see that we do not wish to prevent them from advocating their views.
"Of course, if evolutionists are stupid enough to believe their own propaganda to the point where they believe evolution is proven fact and creation is proven false, then they might as well impose criminal penalties on those who refuse to submit to their regime."
First, you say it's propaganda? Do you even know what scientists do with their time? Do you even understand the evidence? Clearly not, if you call it all propaganda.
Our genetic codes, and the similarities to other species are not propaganda.
The fossil record is not propaganda.
The many ways to date the age of the earth (for there are multiple ones you can cross-check) are not propaganda.
The predictions evolutionary theory has made, which turned out to be accurate, are not propaganda.
For you to issue a blanket statement that it's all just propaganda, how? Have you even looked? I've read the best creationist arguements, and found that each and every one of them fails to account for the data. Have you actually read what the [i[scientists[/i] have done, their data, their information?
Furthermore, your claims that evolutionists wish to ban all opposing views are the propaganda. Yes, a few people wish it, but a few people think Hitler is still alive, too, but nobody cares what they think.
Criminal penalties? No. Nothing of the sort. The only thing scientists are after is the truth. That's why none of them are here, discussing it with us. Because they're too busy learning the truth of the world, and doing experiments based on it. Your fears are unjustified, as long as this nation and free speech exist. Your fears are simple paranoia.
And, I believe the only ones in danger of making free thought criminal is your side. The elimination of any thought, the annihilation of any evidence of the truth of the world, because it disagrees with your beliefs.
Is that not the creationist agenda? Get everyone to agree with your falsehoods?
"That is where they are headed. Unless at the last minute they evolve into something better, and eschew tyranny in all its guises. "
You really don't understand what the hell evolution even entails do you Ron?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
So long as you make it clear that you are viewing things from a specifically Catholic point of view, or else your own POV.
When I am viewing history from a religious point of view, I try to do that. Or can give you more generally accepted historical facts. If you have evidence that Constantine actually changed people's brains other than LDS doctrine, I would be interested.
I might just take you up on that.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Umm... I've just been sitting back and watching the discussions so far since I last posted. This thread has been all over the place!
It's like watching two alleycats fight -- They don't stay in one place. It's difficult to keep track of them, and eventually the only way you know that they are still out there is by hearing the hisses and growls.
Righteous talk for somebody who was actually involved in the discussion, but I stand by it.
I mean, I think that creationism is ridiculous, but that's mostly because Biblically, plants were created on the third day, and the sun wasn't created until the fourth. The plants would've died and become extinct the second they were placed on an Earth with sub-zero temperatures. I have some other qualms, but that one sums it up pretty well.
Of course, it can always come down to 'The light of God's glory kept them alive'. I've heard that one. And it could be true. With God, all things are possible.
So it does no good to argue from a religious standpoint. My God can easily correct any problem with my particular viewpoint.
And besides, for doctrine, I could go to a religious chatroom. They're better at arguing about it.
They're also meaner about it too, but that's why I just stand back and watch.
Get too close to the cats and you'll get scratched. No use reasoning with them. That's true regardless of what you're discussing.
*Edited for poor word choice. I don't want another 'droll' incident*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Speaking of cats...how is the kitten?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I'm unsure if that is a sarcastic comment or not, but I think I'll answer as though it isn't. Benefit of the doubt. (Hatrack has made me paranoid.)
The kitten is Good. Actually, my mom's therapist took it in and took it to a vet. It's leg had to be amputated, due to severed muscle tissue above the flesh wound. That's why the leg was so limp.
<Sigh>
I wish I could've posted on that thread explaining myself, but it got locked. Yikes, people got so nasty. I came back about to post a finally cheerful update, and there the thread was. Locked, and three pages long. I'll quote Shaggy -- "Yikes, Scooby!"
But, anyway.
The last post here I just posted kind of out of frustration... I mean, everything gets so personal here. I understand that things can get heated when discussing a topic you care about, but good gravy! Some of this is just hurtful. Cordiality is not a weakness. It shows consideration.
That's why I usually steer clear of discussions like this... But not this time. <Shakes head> I'm stupid sometimes.
At least I learned some new things about evolution. That was nice... Wow. This post is really self-absorbed. I must quit, immediately, before it gets worse.
Abort, abort.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Glad that you took it in and that it is doing well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I wouldn't bother with Ron; he's a troll who refuses to read other people's posts. Besides, he's an old man and won't be a problem for very long.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Classy.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The first sentence is accurate, if unfortunate. The second was unnecessary.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, that's unfortunate about him. I've met others like him, and they're all unfortunate. How humans live with being so confounds me often.
I won't say anything about the second statement.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oooooouuuuchhhhh.... Owwwww.... Ouuuuch... Touche! Burned! Zing! Wow I am in awe of that statement. I am so going to use it on another forum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Will you pay royalties? Anyway, I thought you were pissed at me for maneuvering Poland back into the Axis.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Still pissed as thats pretty much cheating, we ended that session TO EDIT IN YOUR SURRENDER not to give you time to maneuver.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If Carb had been there, we'd still have ended to edit in the peace treaty. Then events would have occurred as they did. When the military situation changes during negotiations, peace treaties change too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
not really, thats why we have this notion of a "cease fire" to draw out the new borders, which us ending until the next week qualifies as.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Do you remember what happened during the cease fires in the Balkan wars? This is pretty similar, actually, if on a larger scale.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow…. I still can’t believe you all are talking about this. Unreal. Here is my one big question for you all that are so against this museum. Why do you care so much? This is the one and only museum in the world that is creation based. What does it matter so much if there is a place that is different that what you believe? I find it puzzling yet intriguing. The fear of this not only here but in the media as a whole is just amazing. But it is some great publicity!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Um, Jay, we haven't been talking about the museum for a while now and you were the last person to specifically address it.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Having not ever been in such an extensive thread, I have to ask -- Do all threads change topics like this?
I mean, I like it. Go with the flow, and all that. I mean, I recoil internally when it gets personal, but as long as it remains neutral, it's pretty neat that we're all so flexible.
Another question... How often do people on hatrack get called 'flexible'?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm pretty new to Hatrack, but yeah threads tend to drift. This one has at least stayed somewhat in the vicinity of the original topic.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Yikes. You're newer than me!
<Evil laugh> I feel so powerful!
That's the first time I've ever been able to say that. I'm no longer a newbie. YAY!!! Even if I don't know how to use the quotie things properly... And I call them the 'quotie things'.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Matt, you've come over to the Yellow side finally too? Cool. Fellow Ornerians unite, and all that rot.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
As for Jay:
Here's a question. What would your view of a museum that was created in the United States, which was about how the United States never had a Civil War?
What would your view of this place be? Would you think well on such a museum? Or would you deride it as absurd, as it would be?
After all, it would be the one and only museum in the world that is anti Civil War based. What does it matter so much if there is a place that is different that what you believe?
Edit: I forgot to eliminate the last reference to "anti-Holocaust" from my post, as I had decided to change it to claiming the U.S. Civil War never happened. I did so realizing that it would have been unwise and unproductive, and I'm sorry I forgot to get rid of the last reference in the first paragraph.
[ June 08, 2007, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Ehh... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that comparison, 0Megabyte. Even excusing the fact that it threatens to Godwinize what has been, more or less, a pretty productive discussion, there's a difference between our distaste for the Creationism museum's dishonesty and intellectual failures and the outright repulsion that a Holocaust Denial museum would likely elicit.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Here's a completely random observation:
"Therapist" is made of "The rapist."
I wonder if there's anything to that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although the anti-Semitism that accompanies Holocaust denial is arguably more icky than fundie-ism, the methods are the same. But if you don't like that comparison, how about a Flat-Earth museum?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"Therapist" is made of "The rapist."
I pointed that out to my physical therapist the other day. He had never noticed it.
----
I would have absolutely no problems with a flat-earth museum, and I'd think it a pretty silly thing for anybody to get worked up about.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Thomas Friedman would be ecstatic.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, there you go. You don't get excited about the flat earth because there is no powerful lobby of flat-earthers trying to get their version taught in schools. That's why Holocaust denial is a much better example: It's actually a real issue today.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Seriously -- what harm could a flat earth museum cause? Nobody with an inkling of knowledge on the subject (which is practically everybody) is going to be fooled into thinking that what they're teaching is scientific, no matter how many polysyllabic Latinate words they couch their descriptions in.
edit: that was written before your latest post.
quote:Well, there you go. You don't get excited about the flat earth because there is no powerful lobby of flat-earthers trying to get their version taught in schools.
That is a very good point.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Thomas Friedman would be ecstatic.
Hee.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm currently reading The Black Swan, which is a very interesting book, and there's a footnote about the Evolution - Creationism debate.
The author points out that sometimes Creationists make the argument that some things which function so well must be created for that purpose specifically, and cannot logically happen from randomness. He makes the point then that important developments are often the result of unforeseen and unplanned circumstances being put to good use.
The example he gives is the Laser, which is now finding so many important uses from surgery to use in computers, but was developed by a man who had no use in mind, and simply wanted to split light.
Some soft drinks were intended to be health tonics. Penicillin as an antibiotic was an accidental discovery. Post-It notes were the result of a failed glue experiment.
There are countless examples of serendipity where the right thing happens to be around and someone finds a use for it. I found this an interesting take on things.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I think serendipity in science is a very important subject (not to mention fascinating), I don't agree that it has much bearing on the subject. After all, I believe that a necessary ingredient in such discoveries (in ALL discoveries, actually) is God. Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Are you suggesting that God is down with science? That's just unamerican! </colbert>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Ah, the "God is in the Post-It Note" theory. That's one that always stumps me when trying to explain evolution. Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Didn't Lisa from Girl Interrupted make that observation about 'The Rapist'?
One thing I think we're forgetting with our hypothetical museums is whether or not the beliefs in the museums would influence the everyday life of a person who visited the musuem. If I believed the Earth was flat, would my life be that much different? I'm not planning on sailing the seven seas. Perhaps this explains my indifference to creationism/evolution. My life wouldn't change at all, should I change my views. (<sigh> "Musicians!")
So, if life for a person would not be significantly different, would it matter if somebody else propegated a falsehood, believing said falsehood to be true? If a person buys into it, his or her life hasn't changed for the better, or worse.
Anybody whose life it would affect profoundly would probably have the sense to have studied up on the subject, and refused the falsehood as being false. Is this too idealistic?
Although, If there were a museum that taught about the wonderful nutritional value of pork rinds and cheesecake, this would definently influence the everyday life of visitors. But I think that creationism/evolution is different.
***Edited for grammatical errors***
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If you buy into the creationist museum, you also buy into the idea that either most scientists are wrong, that the scientific method doesn't work, or that there's a vast conspiracy to spread the lie of evolution for some unknown reason. You choose to ignore the facts, or at least ignore the most logical conclusions based on the facts.
You accept the idea that you should believe things to be true, not because evidence shows them to be true, not because you can logically deduce them from what you see around you, not because unbiased thinkers viewing the same information can come to the same conclusion, but because someone in authority tells you that it's true - even when it contradicts evidence. Further, you accept the idea that invalid arguments based on misunderstanding or misinformation are viable if they're presented with enough conviction.
To me, that's a dangerous mindset to have.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Belief in creationism has a very strong correlation with the most dangerous kinds of fundie-ism, the ones that cause people to vote for politicians who want to re-impose laws against adultery and swearing on Sundays.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote: One thing I think we're forgetting with our hypothetical museums is whether or not the beliefs in the museums would influence the everyday life of a person who visited the musuem.
That's not the only worry. My concern is with all the students who would be perfectly accepting of good science if they were taught it, but who won't be, because this museum is ammo for people who want to keep accurate science out of classrooms.
The fact is, the existance of this museum is going to make it harder for teachers to teach good, accurate science. Yes, it's a necessary effect of the first amendment that people will say things we don't like, that people will say things that we know will do harm. It's better than the alternative of not having freedom of speech.
But that same free speech gives us the right to say that teaching falsehood as fact is harmful, and a bad idea.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Going back to the beginning of this topic (which actually ocurred only six hours ago and not the 7 seven days that science tells us has passed )... I stumbled on a link to ARS Technica where they've posted some pictures from their visit to the "museum"...definitely strange to me.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Belief in creationism has a very strong correlation with the most dangerous kinds of fundie-ism, the ones that cause people to vote for politicians who want to re-impose laws against adultery and swearing on Sundays.
And there's KOM's thought-universe in a nutshell.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's a "review" of the museum from a skeptic's POV:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Belief in creationism has a very strong correlation with the most dangerous kinds of fundie-ism, the ones that cause people to vote for politicians who want to re-impose laws against adultery and swearing on Sundays.
You know, there needs to be a better analysis of this sort of statistical statement. I think it's wack.
The correlation is a field overlap. 'wacky fundies' must in nearly all cases be inside the field of creationists. It does not mean that said wacky fundies are easily representative of the majority of people who have creationist viewpoints.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Considering what I think about even ordinary theism, perhaps you should recalibrate your notion of what I'm likely to consider 'wacky fundie-ism'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, if you're inclined to think even ordinary theism is to be pilloried daily on your mighty e-sword, then we'll just use for convenience the field of 'people who would make swearing illegal if they could' formerly described as the most dangerous kind of fundie-ism.
You know, for purposes of analyzing the correlation you just did.
Although I would probably posit that the most dangerous kind of fundie-ism is really the kind that causes people to try to blow each other up in violent suicides!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And I would suggest that all those kinds of fundies are indeed creationists, if of the less-publicised Moslem variety.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
It amazes me what people will fight over.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Canada gets a Creationist Museum: http://www.bvcsm.com/ Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Well, at least the misinformed population around the world can all be mislead together.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men, I do read other people's posts and respond to other people's arguments--which some people more observant than you have acknowledged. I am reluctant to argue the same arguments with the superficially informed over and over again.
As for my age and actuarial expectations--you impertinent whelp--I am 60, but my mother just had her 86th birthday and still lives at home, so don't expect to be rid of me any time soon.
Orlox, that article you provided a link to makes it sound like evolutionists invented DNA and proudly make it the central argument of their dogma. But in historical fact, evolution was invented when the greatest biological complexity known was the cell, as seen through a microscope, and on that basis, it did not seem like too much of a stretch to think that evolution could take place, changing one kind of cell into one slightly different. Had Darwin known about the enormous data complexity of the DNA encoded in the genome, he never would have considered evolution as being possible.
It still is just as illogical to think that meaningful code of such immense complexity could evolve through the chance operation of random natural processes, but evolutionists have already been committed to their insanity for so long, their minds have been distorted to the point where the most impossible things are assumed to be magically possible.
In truth, evolutionists believe in far greater magic that creationists. Creationists say Yes, life and everything in the universe show great order and ingenious, intricate design, because an Intelligence, God, created everything. Nothing could make more obvious sense. Species show genetic similarities because God used the same genetic blueprint for all earthly creatures and added variations as He willed.
Evolutionists have to believe something even more fantastic, that the universe itself, which is not intelligent, somehow created itself in all its vast ordered complexity, out of nothing (back when "nothing exploded"); and that life came into being, and developed into ever more complex creatures with huge libraries of new meaningful code appearing in their genes relatively suddenly, all assembled by unintelligent, undirected natural processes acting at random.
Evolution depends on beliefs that are so utterly stupid, so patently contrary to what is reasonable and even possible, it is amazing to me that evolutionists haven't damaged themselves to the point that they can no longer tie their shoe laces. Let me say more graciously that otherwise intelligent people have apparently become seriously brainwashed by something that is no more than a passing intellectual fad that has had its day in the sun, and will soon pass into darkness faster than most people think. But once the dominoes start falling, they'll all fall. And people who now are so amazingly gullible will abruptly do an about face, and profess that they always had reservations about evolution themselves, and Michael Behe was always their best buddy.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:In truth, evolutionists believe in far greater magic that creationists. Creationists say Yes, life and everything in the universe show great order and ingenious, intricate design, because an Intelligence, God, created everything.
Except it doesn't show great order or intricate design. If it did, why do creatures that live their entire lives in the water have lungs and not gills? (I'm speaking of whales.)
This is just one example, but I'm curious of the answer you might have. I could mention all the imperfect parts of human anatomy, but I imagine you'll say that these are a result of our fall. (I could be wrong.)
Did the whales, too, fall from grace, forever sentenced to live in the sea but always having to come up for air?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Evolutionists have to believe something even more fantastic, that the universe itself, which is not intelligent, somehow created itself in all its vast ordered complexity, out of nothing (back when "nothing exploded"); and that life came into being, and developed into ever more complex creatures with huge libraries of new meaningful code appearing in their genes relatively suddenly, all assembled by unintelligent, undirected natural processes acting at random.
I don't think you'll really care, but here's an experiment for you.
Get a Boggle game, and shake up the random letters. See if there are any words spelled out. If not, do it again. I bet you that eventually, through completely random and non-directed chance, a complex sequence of letters that forms a recognizable word will show up.
Did an unseen creator have to nudge those letters into the right order to make a word? No. Chance works exactly that way. Now if you take that word out of the Boggle cubes and shake them up again, eventually you'll have another word.
Keep going and pretty soon every one of those cubes will be used up in words. All that randomness formed into coherent and logical information with no direction, simply the recognition of working order.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Javert, apart from the silliness of whales falling from grace (although in Romans chapter eight the Apostle Paul did address the "corruption" that has come into all nature so that it "groans and travails" because of man's fall from grace), what have you got against dolphins and whales and seals and other mammals being able to live in the sea? I think the ability of a whale to dive beyond the crush depth of most submarines, and hold its breath for a half hour or more while swimming around and fighting kraken or whatever, is truly, gloriously, wonderful. All that, despite the corruption of nature!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MightyCow, you are conveniently ignoring all the times you would have intelligence intervening with each shake of the Boggle cubes. You said: "if you take that word out of the Boggle cubes...."
With the genetic code we are not talking about one or two short words now and then. We are talking about meaningful data that is trillions of bits. How long do you think you would have to shake those Boggle cubes to come up with a whole library full of encyclopedias, all the classics of human literature, and all the wasted tomes written to perpetuate the vast con that is evolution?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
See Ron, I think that's where we fundamentally differ (no pun intended).
As always, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to see everything as starting perfect and then corrupting. I prefer to see nothing as perfect, but rather the simple growing into the complex.
Oh, and I think whales are great, by the way. And one of the most awesome things about them is that they seem to have evolved from land animals. How cool is that? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: With the genetic code we are not talking about one or two short words now and then. We are talking about meaningful data that is trillions of bits. How long do you think you would have to shake those Boggle cubes to come up with a whole library full of encyclopedias, all the classics of human literature, and all the wasted tomes written to perpetuate the vast con that is evolution?
14 billion years?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:In truth, evolutionists believe in far greater magic that creationists. Creationists say Yes, life and everything in the universe show great order and ingenious, intricate design, because an Intelligence, God, created everything.
Except it doesn't show great order or intricate design. If it did, why do creatures that live their entire lives in the water have lungs and not gills? (I'm speaking of whales.)
Because it struck his fancy. Don't *you* think whales are neat? I think I'm sensing some anti-whale sentiments.
You have deemed their way of life a punishment. "Always having to come back up for air" If I were a whale, I'd take severe umbridge from that last statement. Indeed! Look at humans. We are forever cursed with the need to cook all of our meat. Whales can just suck in plankton.
Hmph!
Again, we've hit on my basic problem with creationism. Anything that's wrong with it is because God cannot be put into a box. We have gaping flaws (Third day: plants, fourth day: Sun, a source of heat to sustain all forms of life on Earth) that can only be corrected with 'God made it that way', and if you disagree, and you think that maybe those first verses in Genesis are not meant literally, then you don't believe the Bible.
But if we are going to explain away those ideas in Genesis that contradict universally accepted scientific principles with 'God did it', why bother with the whole science? Why not just say 'God did it', and leave it at that.
Of course, that's my beef with creationism.
Even though I don't agree with creationism in its entirety, I read the article, and I could see a clear bias. Other creationist views that are not quite as, if at all, ridiculous were dismissed rather quickly. I don't have a problem with the writers of the article, though, as they made clear in the beginning they had no new-earth creationists.
And this brings me to another beef -- Why do people really think that the past is the key to unlocking our future? It seems to me (Yes, 'to me'.) that all we've done so far is use scientific advances to unlock the past. What specific advances have been made as the result of studies regarding evolution, or creationism for that matter?
Of course, this opens up a can of worms, because now evolutionists can say 'Well, we could have made advances if it weren't for those wacky-fundies trying to block our way because of religious convictions'. And Creationists can accredit the alleged (By me) lack of progress to the evolutionists continuence to call them 'wacky-fundies'. It hurts their feelings, I think. It's rather unconsiderate (And uncreative, I must say) to call them 'wacky-fundies'.
Also. In repsonce to even earlier posts -- Even if I grew up in life, doubting all scientists, how does that affect my life? I'm taught to question what they say, and not believe it just because they have a PhD. That sounds like a good trait. And believing in creationism does not mean one thinks there's a vast conspiracy. It means one thinks there's a great deal of ignorance and stupidity in modern science with regards to evolution. They're not akin to the same thing.
Other reasons given in the thread with regards to affecting everday life are silly. Whether or not evolution is good or accurate science remains to be seen. There are Flaws. Just as many as creationism (Even with its 'God did it's). Anybody who views evolution as good and accurate is allowed to be of that opinion, but it's just an opinion. Even if the result of an unpenatrable barrier of faith and fundementalism, evolution is an opinion. Not a fact. A theory, not a law. Religious conviction has rendered this 'accurate' science no more than an opinion. If evolution really is as accurate and correct as is made out by some people in this thread, then it will eventually beat out creationism. This museum will be nothing but a minor setback. Perhaps I'm to optimistic. People pointed out to me how science explained away several of the 'flaws' I found with evolution. The answers were all sensible, corteous (For hatrackers), and to the point (Except everybody kept reminiscing about their first year in highschool for some reason.) It is this kind of thing that can combat the alleged ignorance that has sustained creationism for this long -- Not every creationist is hard-headed and stubborn.
And I'm sorry, but nobody is going into the museum and converting. I doubt its existence will make as much impact as some of you seem to think it will. The only people I can see going into the museum are people who want to make fun of the theory, or people that already agree with the theory. Either way, the visit will not impact the daily lives of a significant amount of people, In my most humble opinion. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Hi, my name is Javert, and I'm a whalist.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: With the genetic code we are not talking about one or two short words now and then. We are talking about meaningful data that is trillions of bits. How long do you think you would have to shake those Boggle cubes to come up with a whole library full of encyclopedias, all the classics of human literature, and all the wasted tomes written to perpetuate the vast con that is evolution?
14 billion years?
Indeed. And imagine hundreds of millions of Boggles all going at once, and any time one doesn't make a word it dies off, while the ones who do make words keep going.
Not to difficult to imagine then.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Javert, I think the Platypus is perfect--at least, it perfectly demonstrates God's sense of humor as He deliberately tweaks the noses of evolutionists, who surely have no easy time deciding whether the creature evolved from mammals, reptiles, marsupials, or whatever.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MightyCow, if the Boggle cubes are going to undergo "natural selection" by dying off when the word combinations are "unsuccessful"(?), then that implies that that the Bobble cubes are alive. So at what point did this happen? And how could it happen without "natural selection" happening, which it couldn't before they had attained Boggle life. (Notice how nobly I am resisting the temptation to make any "Boggle-the-mind" puns.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: MightyCow, if the Boggle cubes are going to undergo "natural selection" by dying off when the word combinations are "unsuccessful"(?), then that implies that that the Bobble cubes are alive. So at what point did this happen? And how could it happen without "natural selection" happening, which it couldn't before they had attained Boggle life. (Notice how nobly I am resisting the temptation to make any "Boggle-the-mind" puns.)
Just to be clear, the theory of evolution makes no comment about the origin of life. At least not as far as I've been able to tell. Evolution through natural selection, it seems, is what life does once it exists.
We don't know how, exactly, life began. Anyway, I certainly don't. But not knowing means just that, we don't know. It doesn't mean we will never know, and it doesn't mean we should stop looking for an answer.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What's life? Is a complex protein which naturally tends to form a specific structure alive? Is an RNA strand alive? Is a virus alive? A bacteria?
Many of the useful segments, which we might not consider life, still have a natural tendency to interact and replicate. Chemical and physical reactions take place all the time without a living creature involved.
A problem only arises if you consider "life" to be a mystical state which cannot arise on its own, instead of a state of complexity which, with enough natural selection of random events, could very well occur.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Nathan2006, you raise a good point. What good is evolution, if it is really a valid science? Most valid science can be applied in some technological sense.
But there are practical consequences of evolution, and of creation.
One primary consequence of evolution is the inescapable implication that some races of humans are more advanced that others, and that the "superior" breeds have a biological necessity to overcome and replace their inferior competitors. Thus evolution implies racism is virture, in terms of survival value.
In point of fact, the origal title of Darwin's seminal book was: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
In point of fact, Adolph Hitler cited evolution as the theoretical justification for his racist theories that led to his attempt to wage war to bring the whole world under the subjection of the "master" Aryan race, and also led to the holocaust murder of six million Jews.
Similarly anyone else who has ever advocated genocide or "ethic cleansing" have claimed to believe that had evolution theory supporting and validating their abominations.
In contrast, creationism leads to the conclusion that there is only one race of human beings, who are all descended from one original Man, created by God, who calls them all His sons and daughters. Thus we are all brothers and sisters, and should care for each other because we are family.
Would to God that Adolph Hitler had been taught creationism rather than evolution.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And so, at least, we see that Godwin's law is real.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Probably atomic theory isn't true either, because it's just a THEORY, and because it's used to make nuclear weapons, which frighten me into ignoring it and hoping that it will go away. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Good point, Javert. We do not know what life is. We have never been able to create it, ourselves. We assume that if a complicated structure becomes complicated enough, at some point it will become alive. (Hence the "Skynet" thesis of the Terminator movies.) But it has never happened. Not yet. We've been saying not yet for over a century.
Of course, there we're talking about something else equally elusive--what constitutes consciousness? Self-awareness?
The truth is that life, consciousness, self-awareness, all aspects of "mind," are spiritual things, as opposed to material things. There is another aspect to reality, a spritual aspect, that does not fit in test tubes, and can not be detected by spectrographs or MRI machines. We have not even begun to pioneer this science. We have no instruments that can detect "spirit," except for our own minds.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Sorry for the double post, but perhaps Godwin's law was the wrong thing to quote.
"Reductio ad hitlerum" is probably more fitting.
From wikipedia:
quote: The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy is of the form "Adolf Hitler (or the Nazi party) supported X; therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad, etc"; or, more rarely, "Adolf Hitler was against X; therefore X must be good, desirable, praiseworthy, etc." This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How do our minds detect spirit?
What is this spirit, such that it's undetectable, unmeasurable, non-material, and yet interacts with our bodies, and presumably the bodies of all thinking things?
Do all living things have spirits, or only some? How do you know which ones? Where do these spirits come from, and how are they attached to a living thing?
Seems like a bunch of unanswerable nonsense to me. How this makes more sense than evolution is a mystery.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
From Nathan:
"Why do people really think that the past is the key to unlocking our future? It seems to me (Yes, 'to me'.) that all we've done so far is use scientific advances to unlock the past. What specific advances have been made as the result of studies regarding evolution, or creationism for that matter?"
Well, the past is a useful way to predict the future.
Evolution has been used to predict things that we did not yet know. Those things turned out, sure enough, to be exactly as evolutionary theory predicted.
In addition, when you know how gravity, trajectories, thrust, energy, orbits, etc, all work, through past observation, you can predict what will happen when you do X, Y, or Z. That's what allows NASA to fly me to the moon.
When you know the past well enough, you can predict the future.
And if you can predict the future, you can control it.
That's what we humans are all about. Controlling the world and everything in it. And, most importnatly, creating new things with that control.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Also, Hitler probably believed the world was round!
Therefore, it's obviously not. Right?
If that sounds silly when talking about that, its' because it is. Just as it's silly to say it about evolution.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Whats with the creationist tendency to attack the implications of a theory you don't like rather than the truth of it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Creationists say Yes, life and everything in the universe show great order and ingenious, intricate design, because an Intelligence, God, created everything. Nothing could make more obvious sense. .... Evolutionists have to believe ... that the universe itself, which is not intelligent, somehow created itself in all its vast ordered complexity, out of nothing...
Whereas Creationists have to believe that God, who is presumably more complicated than the Universe due to His additional intelligence, created Himself? Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Let me say more graciously that otherwise intelligent people have apparently become seriously brainwashed by something that is no more than a passing intellectual fad that has had its day in the sun, and will soon pass into darkness faster than most people think. But once the dominoes start falling, they'll all fall. And people who now are so amazingly gullible will abruptly do an about face, and profess that they always had reservations about evolution themselves, and Michael Behe was always their best buddy.
Hey, let's bet. I'll buy you a new car as soon as the scientists at my university reject evolution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching what life is, it's worth pointing out that we can create viruses 'from scratch', that is, starting with individual proteins and putting them together with molecular manipulators. We can also create proteins from scratch, that is, starting with individual atoms. As far as I know, nobody has yet put together a virus from atoms - that is, combined these two operations - but the day can't be far off. "No life in the lab" won't look so good when this technique advances to bacteria.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Javert, you said: "Just to be clear, the theory of evolution makes no comment about the origin of life."
But doesn't evolution depend upon "natural selection?" And doesn't natural selection require life?
TomDavidson, you ask if God created Himself. I would say no, on the basis of John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (NKJV) Note especially that last sentence. If the Word (the Son, evident from verse 14) had a part in creating everything that was created, and apart from Him nothing was created, then that means neither the Word (the Son) nor God (the Father) nor the Holy Spirit, could be created beings.
So what is the alternative? How did God originate? We need to step back one step further, and ask if God began at some point by some means, or always existed. I would have to say the latter, because if God (through the instrumentality of the Word) created everything, then that means God created time itself, too.
This puts us into a difficult area, logically, because we cannot conceive of a time before time. Our minds are built to expect there to be a before and after for everything. But logically, if God created time, then there was never--according to the time we understand--a time when He did not exist. There is no time when He came into being, because there was no time until He created it.
Either God is, or nothing exists. The universe exists because God exists. God created the universe at the same point where He created time, since all the dimensions go together.
Why should God exist? What was God before He created time? Are time and the universe inside of God, like something He imagined and decided to set into motion to run its course?
I certainly do not know the answer to these things, and even if God were to try to tell me, I don't know if I would be able to understand the answer.
But isn't the point moot? What is, is.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men--promises, promises. Maybe we'll see life created in the lab about the same time we see fusion power providing all our electrical power needs. Scientists have been promising that for the better part of a century, too.
There is no universal acknowledgment that viruses are actually alive, since they must hijack the reproductive machinery of cells in order to propagate. Does anyone think that prions are alive? Current thinking is that they are just deformed proteins, that have a physical effect upon living cells comparable to throwing a monkey-wrench into the works, in such a way that more deformed proteins like itself are produced.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Also, Hitler probably believed the world was round!
Therefore, it's obviously not. Right?
If that sounds silly when talking about that, its' because it is. Just as it's silly to say it about evolution.
Except that none of his evil policies were influenced by that fact. It makes no sense to talk about Hitler's love of coffee* in this context because it did not influence any of his decisions as far as we know.
*I do not know if Hitler actually drank coffee.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Ron: Can't you just as easily substitute "Big Bang" or "Super Powerful Aliens" or "Blorgogoth, Swallower of Infinity" where you have God, and everything still follows. If the rules are different, and things can exist without a cause, you can apply that to anything or any state of the universe.
As to whether or not viruses are life, where do you set an arbitrary dividing line as to what is life, and what isn't? If we're able to create something, is it going to become not really life?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh my god. That is probably the biggest load of reducto ad hitlerium I have heard in a long, long time.
quote:Thus evolution implies racism is virture, in terms of survival value.
In point of fact, the origal title of Darwin's seminal book was: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
1. Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.
2. Evolution is not racist.
3. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
quote:King of Men--promises, promises. Maybe we'll see life created in the lab about the same time we see fusion power providing all our electrical power needs.
What does creating life in a lab have to do with evolutionary theory?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But isn't the point moot? What is, is.
Then doesn't that apply to the Universe, too? What's the difference between assuming that God has always existed -- and even created Time, meaning that "always" is meaningless in this context -- and assuming that "the Universe" has always existed? Why is one more likely than the other?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But doesn't evolution depend upon "natural selection?" And doesn't natural selection require life?
Sure, but evolution has nothing to say about where the first life originated. The data tend to suggest that the first life was relatively simple and that all current life descended from one common ancestor, but evolutionary theory does not say anything about where that initial life came from.
There are hypotheses concerning the origin of life, but these hypotheses have not yet provided a mechanism for the development of the first life that has anywhere near the support of the theory of evolution. At this point, we simply don't know. We've got some interesting ideas, but we don't know.
Where evidence is lacking, science is OK with "I don't know", which is somewhat more useful than "Got did it", since the former at least encourages further exploration.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Javert, apart from the silliness of whales falling from grace
quote: Never mind, hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, [...] Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like ... ow ... ound ... round ... ground! That's it! That's a good name - ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me? And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence.
-- Douglas Adams
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Phooey! I posted last night and it didn't show up.
I've been experiencing technical difficulties like this for the past week. Only, if I post again, my original post shows up, and now there are 2 posts that say the same thing.
Anyway, all I said in the first one was that Hitler was coo-coo. Creationism would not have helped him. If he was a creationist, he still would have gassed all the people who were mentally impaired because they were the result of the reproduction of people with the 'corrupted' DNA, as opposed to the 'Pure' DNA of Adam and Eve.
And now nobody's talking about it. <Sigh> I thought that last comment was especially insightful, too.
"Where evidence is lacking, science is OK with "I don't know", which is somewhat more useful than "Got did it", since the former at least encourages further exploration."
Silly Matt. It was the statement 'God did it' that started the initial exploration of the theory of creationism. Without that statement, there might never have been creationism. <Gasp> Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Oh yeah (The edit button is a pain, sorry)!!!
Megabyte, did you really go to the moon? Because that's just awesome! I'm totally reliving my 'I want to be an astronaut when I grow up' days. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Either God is, or nothing exists. "
False dichotomy.
That's a logical fallacy. Your arguement fails at a fundamental level, Ron.
"But isn't the point moot? What is, is. "
But you refuse to see what is! When we know what is, we can use that mastery to do as God said we should in Genesis.
You would have us believe something that is NOT. What is, is, as you said. And one who denies it lives in fantasy, and denies the Works of God. That would be you, Ron, ignoring what is for what you think should be based on a book whose intention is wholly different than the arrogant beliefs you inflict upon it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That's a logical fallacy. Your arguement fails at a fundamental level, Ron.
Logical fallacy? Let's look at it with logic: ---- A "If !A, then B " is logically true.
Rephrased in English: Given A is true, then the statement "If not A, then B" is always a true statement, regardless of what B is.
Substituting values for A and B: "If God does not exist, then the universe does not exist" is a true logical statement if God does exist, but not if God doesn't exist. ---- So, it's not a logical fallacy, but it really just boils down to him asserting that God exists is true, so I'll grant you that it's not a terribly persuasive logical argument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.
"Either god is, or nothing exists" acts without proof that there are not other alternatives.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
As Samp said, it's a logical fallacy.
Mr.porteito, the thing you are forgetting is that there is no proof the univserse requires God. One using that arguement has not proven that God is necessary for the existence of the universe.
Your statement
""If God does not exist, then the universe does not exist" is a true logical statement if God does exist, but not if God doesn't exist."
assumes beforehand that God is necessary for existence.
In fact, the potential possibilities are greater than those two.
There is, "God existing, no universe existing" "no God existing, no universe existing", "God existing, universe existing", "no God existing, universe existing" and that's only assuming that the God is the Christian God, which is another assumption given here for ease. Should we not assume so, the possibilities grow quite out of hand.
As it is, one using the arguement has not proven that God is a necessary cause of the univserse, that is, they have not proven that without God, a universe cannot be.
If they could give some evidence that without God, the univsere could not be, then and only then would the arguement Ron used above NOT be a logical fallacy, as he stated it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
It's a textbook logical fallacy. I literally learned it in the textbook.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Porter's using a very narrow definition of logic.
If you assume that God exists, then the sentence "if God does not exist, then the universe does not exist" is technically true. (The example we always used in my logic classes, Godwin be darned, was "if all Nazis were purple, Hitler liked pickles.")
In mathematical logic, if the first "if" is false, the statement evaluates to "true" by default.
It's only (as Porter said) if you do not think that God exists that the sentence could evaluate to "false."
Note again that this is a very narrow definition of "logic" -- but, again, Porter is entirely correct.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I knew that Tom would understand.
I should have, as Tom did, used the phrase "mathematical logic". It communicates very well the technical and specific logic I was talking about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The sentence "if God does not exist, then the universe does not exist" could have many meanings. Material implication is one of those possible meanings, but rarely what people mean in colloquial English.
Just because the predicate logic statement of material implication is commonly stated in English using an "if . . . then . . . " construct does not mean every "if . . . then . . ." construct is a material implication.
And of course, Ron's statement wasn't even in that construct. "Either God is, or nothing exists" could be translated into numerous different predicate logic statements depending on a number of meaning nuances. It could probably be interpreted to have meanings that are impossible to state in predicate logic (many things in language can).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There is more to it than that. Not much, but a little!
Even if you assume that God exists, the sentence "If god does not exist then the universe does not exist" is still a fallacy.
Why? Because the statement is inferring as a self-contained proof that "If A, then B." which leads to "B, therefore A"
Literally, it's making the argument that since we exist, this is held to be a proof of God's existence.
Even if you believe in God, you can still logically refute that claim and say that it is not actually proof of God's existence. Especially considering that it fails as a self-contained postulate: Condition B does not necessarily make an argument for condition A. God -- and the existence thereof -- are still a matter of faith.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And of course, its easy to narrow in somewhat:
Ron, did you mean either of the following two things? If so, which one?
1. There are only two possibilities for existence, God existing, or nothing existing. Nothing else is possible.
2. There are three possibilities for existence. God existing and nothing else existing, God existing and other stuff existing, or no God and nothing existing.
(I should note that the second implies the first).
If he meant material implication, it will hopefully soon become clear. Assuming he answers.
And of course, either of the above two statements would still be a false dichotomy. Plenty of things are true in predicate logic that are logical fallacies (see Tom's Hitler statement) . A false dichotomy in the narrow sense is an inappropriate statement of A or B, and X implies Y is equivalent to (Not X, or Y), which can certainly be an instance of a false dichotomy, since it is an or statement.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
This is why philosophers never get the girl...
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Incidentally, natural selection doesn't require "life." It's simply a mechanism that occurs whenever you have entities that can self-replicate (or self-modify) and compete for scarce resources (which, to be fair, is one possible, albeit very broad, definition of "life"). For example, natural selection experiments have been done with software "robots," in which simple programs with the ability to randomly alter their own code are pitted against each other in various forms of competition. As predicted by evolutionary theory, what ends up happening is that the selective pressure of competition causes incremental improvements in the bots' performance. You can start with bots that can barely move in one direction, and end up with bots capable of complex behaviors and fluid response to their environment- all without the intervention of any "intelligent design"!
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Ah. Mathematical logic. I knew I learned that! It has a name. I believe I've actually used it before...
If I'm correct, it was in this thread.
You may all groan now.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Selection is an effect not a mechanism.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: You can start with bots that can barely move in one direction, and end up with bots capable of complex behaviors and fluid response to their environment- all without the intervention of any "intelligent design"!
Who made the bots? Who programmed their ability to randomly 'mutate'?
Somebody intellegent did. The very existence of the robots proves that somebody created them.
You don't have to believe that God created you, but there's no denying the fact that humans created the bots.
Thus, your analogy doesn't fit.
***Edited for nonexistent words***
[ June 10, 2007, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Nathan2006 ]
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Well, yes, in the specific case of the bots, they did have their base parameters set by an "intelligent designer." But you're missing my point completely- I wasn't using that example to prove abiogenesis. It merely demonstrates how one aspect of evolution can and has been observed, specifically the idea that natural selection can, without interference from any intelligent higher power (whether it be God in the case of the evolution of life, or human programmers in the case of the evolution of the bots), cause the emergence of complex, ordered systems from simpler ones.
quote:Selection is an effect not a mechanism.
I would say that natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs. But we may be quibbling semantics here.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The context of my logical statements was an ordered, complex universe, which would require either that a non-intelligent universe created itself (and not only that, created itself intelligently!), or that Intelligence--God--created it. Since the idea of a non-intelligent universe creating itself as something of profoundly intelligent order and complexity is too absurd to regard as possible, that only leaves God creating the universe.
There are so many fallacies in each of the attempts various ones are making to prove things by hypothetical analogy, it is hard to take them seriously.
The attempts made by some to deflect the criticism that evolution was used by Hitler to justify his racism and genocide are predictable and invalid, amounting to no more than shouting assertions. The fact is that Hitler did claim evolution as justification for his policies. That is not even debatable, it is simple fact. That is history. Learn from it, or be condemned to repeat its mistakes (with a nod to George Santayana).
Teshi, thank you for lightening things up a bit by reminding us of the falling whale in Douglas Adam's book, after the idea of a whale falling from grace had somehow entered our discussion. It was all resultant from the operation of the "Infinite Improbability Drive," of course.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ron, your above post is so...incomplete.
Just because one person claims to use something as a basis for their warped, sick ideas doesn't make those ideas wrong. Take a look at how many people have abused, and continue to abuse, religion that way.
I know people who think God talks to them.....and they claim that God loves white people more because his only son was white.
I am not kidding. I wish I was.
But just because they are warped doesn't mean that the religion they CLAIM to be using as a basis for their beliefs has anything to do with them, or their ignorance.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Since the idea of a non-intelligent universe creating itself as something of profoundly intelligent order and complexity is too absurd to regard as possible,"
Why is it absurd?
And how does it explain the things we actually see in the world? The evidence for evolution, the evidence for the world's age, life's age, the universe's age?
"God making it so"? Why would He create a universe with all signs of age, but without that age? Why would he create the light of stars that do not exist, galaxies that never were?
Why would God lie to us so?
I refuse to believe in such a God. The Father of Lies, if you remember, is generally considered to be Satan, not God.
And by my definitions, by worshipping that lying force, you worship Satan.
And why should I talk to a lie-loving Satan worshipper like you, Ron? Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Nathan2006: Who made the bots? Who programmed their ability to randomly 'mutate'?
Somebody intellegent did. The very existence of the robots proves that somebody created them.
I think you're very right except for the bold part, which is incomplete. The existence of the robots, combined with our experience of how that kind of thing comes to be, allows us to theorize quite soundly that the robots were intelligently designed. The important part is that we could find the roboticist(s), learn how the robots were created, and then test it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The attempts made by some to deflect the criticism that evolution was used by Hitler to justify his racism and genocide are predictable and invalid, amounting to no more than shouting assertions. The fact is that Hitler did claim evolution as justification for his policies. That is not even debatable, it is simple fact. That is history. Learn from it, or be condemned to repeat its mistakes (with a nod to George Santayana).
Ron, I don't think you understand. Scientists and people who accept evolution are not trying to force a way of life on you. It isn't an ideology.
I haven't had the time to look up your claims about Hitler using evolution as justification for his crimes, but let's just assume you're right. So?
If he had used the Christian religion as justification, should we then be rid of that religion? Does it somehow invalidate Christianity if someone uses it as a justification to do evil things?
I'm not saying that evolution through natural selection shows you how to live your life. It doesn't show me how to live mine. All it does is explain to us how nature works and has worked in the real world.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ron has handily clarified that what he meant was indeed a false dichotomy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The context of my logical statements was an ordered, complex universe, which would require either that a non-intelligent universe created itself (and not only that, created itself intelligently!), or that Intelligence--God--created it. Since the idea of a non-intelligent universe creating itself as something of profoundly intelligent order and complexity is too absurd to regard as possible, that only leaves God creating the universe.
Ron, again: what created God? Why is it absurd to believe that something as complex as the universe might have always existed, but NOT absurd to believe that something as complex as God (who, as the universe's creator, is presumably more complex than the universe) always existed?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, The universe - or some aspect of it, depending on your definition - is linear in time and causality. Thus, something had to have started it. If this thing is also linear in time and casuality, something had to have started that.
If we are definining the universe as linear in time and causality, then something that is not linear in these things must have started it. If we're not, then materialism breaks down.
God (or whatever your chosen starter is) is not definitionally linear or bounded by time and casuality - well, for LDS he is, but not in a more general sense.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
We really don't know for sure how Universes start. For all we know, Universes are things which are self-starting, or eternal. It's no stretch to imagine that the Universe has always existed in one form or another.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That very much depends on the system you are working in. In a strictly materialist system, an infinite one-way causal string is impossible.
Likewise, though entropy doesn't work in the open system like the Earth, it should, theoretically, work on the closed system of the universe.
Saying that "We don't know." is an acceptible answer for many types of non-outside entity systems, but it remains a weakness as compared to systems (like "God did it.") that have consistent answers to it. It also rules out certain explanations of how the universe works, such as strict materialism, as being complete.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The universe - or some aspect of it, depending on your definition - is linear in time and causality. Thus, something had to have started it.
I think assuming that the universe is linear in time requires ignoring quite a lot of the physical evidence and mathematical theory to the contrary.
If, for example, we're willing to grant that "time" did not exist until God created it, and that therefore the question of "what was before God" is meaningless, why can we not say the same thing about the universe: that since time didn't exist prior to its creation, what existed prior to the universe is irrelevant?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain this physical evidence?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Saying that "We don't know." is an acceptible answer for many types of non-outside entity systems, but it remains a weakness as compared to systems (like "God did it.") that have consistent answers to it. It also rules out certain explanations of how the universe works, such as strict materialism, as being complete.
I don't think "we don't know" is a weakness when it's the truth.
Is is safe to pet that dog?
"I don't know" is a much better answer than "yes... because I have faith that it is."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. For one thing, we know that subatomic particles "communicate" faster than observable time; there's some "carrier" of information about the universe, therefore, that is either timeless or free of linear time.
It's becoming more and more obvious that the observable universe is merely one strata of a "multiverse;" the math doesn't seem to work out any other way. And since time is a product of THIS universe, asking "what was before the multiverse" really IS a meaningless question.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If, for example, we're willing to grant that "time" did not exist until God created it, and that therefore the question of "what was before God" is meaningless, why can we not say the same thing about the universe: that since time didn't exist prior to its creation, what existed prior to the universe is irrelevant?
No, of course not.
It's a matter of the uncaused cause. In the God explanation, God is the uncaused cause. That is, an entity not bounded by time or causality that was the thing that put the linear causal chain in motion. Something that isn't part of the causal chain has to start it.
In your supposition, as I understand it, there isn't anything that starts it. It just happens. That violates the central premise of strict materialism, that all things must have material causes.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's a matter of the uncaused cause. In the God explanation, God is the uncaused cause. That is, an entity not bounded by time or causality that was the thing that put the linear causal chain in motion. Something that isn't part of the causal chain has to start it.
Just imagine that the proto-universe, or the Big Bang, or any non-supernatural situation is the uncaused cause. If you're imagining something not bounded by time or causality, why make it conscious and anthropomorphic?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, Regardless if you want to credit it to God or to some outside property of the multiverse, this still destroys strict materialism as applied to this universe.
edit: If you are willing to admit outside, non-causal entities influencing our universe, it matters very little, in terms of the completeness of materialism, whether they are wearing white robes and sandals or not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
MC, I don't think you understand how I'm using weakness.
It's a way of comparing the explanatory power/completeness of different theories.
When one theory explains how something occurs and another doesn't or can't, the former theory is "stronger" on that aspect than the latter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Just imagine that the proto-universe, or the Big Bang, or any non-supernatural situation is the uncaused cause. If you're imagining something not bounded by time or causality, why make it conscious and anthropomorphic?
Are these things themselves bounded by causality? Because, if so, then they must themselves be caused by something else. You would just be pushing back the origin point.
I'm not saying that the cause must be conscious and/or anthropomorphic. The only qualities I've said it must have is that it is outside the one-way causal flow of the universe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Regardless if you want to credit it to God or to some outside property of the multiverse, this still destroys strict materialism as applied to this universe.
Well, sure. But arguing that this universe is the extent of all reality is obviously flawed if we grant for even a moment that this universe had a so-called "beginning." That's why there aren't any serious physicists out there proposing that the universe just up and created itself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand your question to Ron in light of that, then. (or, when you were using universe, did you actually mean something like multi-verse or all of reality?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I'm talking about all of reality, since that's obviously what Ron is talking about.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But, you'll forgive me here, we know basically bugger-all about all of reality, right?
edit: And, if you are willing to admit an outside, non-causal entity from the multiverse ifluencing our universe at creation, what is to stop other interactions with outside, non-causal entities from occuring all the time, making strict materialism fail not only in talking about the origins of the universe, but, on a theoretical level, at any point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. We know a FEW things, if we can call "postulates that make the math work out" "knowing." But at the end of the day, we have to say "Okay, the observable universe appears linear, which suggests that this universe may have had a beginning. If that's the case, and if time indeed exists as a property of this universe (as it appears to use), then some form of outside actor is required for the equations to work out."
What Ron is saying is that this outside actor must be a conscious entity, and moreover must be more "complex" than the universe itself. Neither of these two assertions make any sense whatsoever.
quote:what is to stop other interactions with outside, non-causal entities from occuring all the time, making strict materialism fail not only in talking about the origins of the universe, but, on a theoretical level, at any point
Dude, I'm a "strict materialist" in the sense that I believe every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. I think any materialist you talk to will define materialism this way. You're arguing against a non-existent philosophy.
You'll realize the intellectual bankruptcy of OTHER philosophies almost immediately when you start asking these same questions of them. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Dude, I'm a "strict materialist" in the sense that I believe every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause.
That's theoretically unsound in the multiverse intervening case, isn't it?
edit: Also, I hope people weren't taking me as defending anything Ron has said in this thread. I think that many people demonstrate an arrogant attitude towards the uncaused cause that rests on them either not thinking about it (and the "Let's not acknowledge this weakness, but instead ask 'What came before God?' seems that way to me) or, at best, the "Turtles all the way down" of illogical infinity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's theoretically unsound in the multiverse intervening case, isn't it?
Nope. Because any cause in the multiverse that would cause an effect in this universe would have an observable effect on this universe. There's nothing wrong with saying "this effect was caused by an unobservable but deducible and predictive cause in another dimension." In fact, that's exactly what people use as an explanation for quantum twinning.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Nope. Because any cause in the multiverse that would cause an effect in this universe would have an observable effect on this universe. There's nothing wrong with saying "this effect was caused by an unobservable but deducible and predictive cause in another dimension." In fact, that's exactly what people use as an explanation for quantum twinning.
But there's no way of deducing or observing the cause. It's a black box, yes? We deduce that it exists by its effects, but it's just another case of ether then?
Also, I had gotten the impression that you were using materialism in it's common deterministic sense. Having non-causally bound entities affecting our universe destroys causality, at least within the frame of our universe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But there's no way of deducing or observing the cause. It's a black box, yes? We deduce that it exists by its effects, but it's just another case of ether then?
Sure. But there's a reason why we no longer believe in ether, and have replaced theories which relied on the ether with theories that rely on things which are equally unobservable.
quote:Having non-causally bound entities affecting our universe destroys causality, at least within the frame of our universe.
I don't understand why you persist in limiting reality to the frame of our universe. That's a useless definition of materialism.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
0Megabyte, why would you presume to call God dishonest just because He did not create things in harmony with what evolution and mechanistic materialism expect?
We assume that the trees in the Garden of Eden, the day after Creation Week, were full grown. If so, He would have made them the way He wanted such trees to be. Modern materialists would have looked at them and thought they were hundreds of years old. And when someone tells them that God just created them a few days ago, the materialists would get all hot and bothered because God was so "deceptive."
Oh come on, such a moral judgment is ridiculous, and completely inappropriate.
By the same token, if God created the universe, then as an intelligent Being He would likely have wished to create a universe that was pleasing for His intelligent creatures to live in. He would not have wanted to create a "dark" universe, so regardless of the size of the universe, He would have created it with the light from the most distant stars already arriving at earth, or any other world where He has established intelligent creatures. This could have been done very simply, by allowing the speed of light in a vacuum to be virtually instantaneous for the first few moments of creation. Since science has already discovered circumstances where the speed of light constant may change, this is not positing something that contradicts the laws of the universe as God set them up for us to discover today.
It is so silly to complain that God is being dishonest if He does not let the universe evolve over billions of years, and instead creates it not as a dark universe, but as a universe of light, where the light from the most distant stars and galaxies and quasars can be seen from one end of the universe to the other.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ron, how do you conclude that things were made to look ancient through tweaking of the universe? Do you reach this conclusion only because that is what is necessary for a literal interpretation of the Bible to be correct or do you have other justification?
Why isn't it more reasonable to assume that things are as ancient as they appear?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The attempts made by some to deflect the criticism that evolution was used by Hitler to justify his racism and genocide are predictable and invalid, amounting to no more than shouting assertions.
You can't just say this and not back it up with a real counterpoint. It makes you look like a tool.
Do you actually want to address my post, perhaps? Or just dismiss it with a wave of your arm?
quote:The fact is that Hitler did claim evolution as justification for his policies.
Hitler more often cited religion and his faith in God as justification for his policies. Whoops!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Hitler more often cited religion and his faith in God as justification for his policies. Whoops!
Assuming I trust you even know how often Hitler cited anything when making decisions I am not sure why your point even matters.
I'm sure he cited grumpiness when he kicked his dog.*
*I do not know if Hitler actually owned a dog or if he ever kicked it.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Assuming I trust you even know how often Hitler cited anything when making decisions I am not sure why your point even matters.
Here's why my point matters:
When a person points the finger at 'Darwinism' as Hitler's justification for his genocide, they are doing two things. They are saying
1. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
and
2. Evolution was a root cause of the holocaust and has the potential to create similar ills
Not only is this historical factoid wrong (Hitler based his core ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy), it sets one up into a baffling moral quandary.
Evolution is descriptive. If you say that it is immoral, you are saying that attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
When people pull the 'hitler's darwinism' card, they are being very selective readers, ignoring Hitler's religious justifications and pointing the finger at evolutionary theory, and then saying that evolution promotes racism. In reality, one should do neither. Hitler's views were a perversion of both religion and science; anyone who decides that it was a representative usage of one or the other is cherrypicking to create pejorative associations.
This is why reducto positions like Ron's are best left ignored. They're worthless agitprop.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Dude, I'm a "strict materialist" in the sense that I believe every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. I think any materialist you talk to will define materialism this way. You're arguing against a non-existent philosophy.
You either aren't talking about "materialism" at all here or are not defining it accurately. Many (if not most) nonmaterialists would agree that every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. Nonmaterialists would simply think that some of those observable or deducible causes are nonmaterial things.
Conversely, it is not difficult to come up with a case where materialism is true, yet not every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. For instance, a world with all material beings, but that has one particle that pops in and out of existance randomly for no reason. Such a world would be stricly materialist (since the only bizarre thing we are adding to it is a strictly material particle) yet all things would not have observable or deducible causes.
I think what you are talking about is not materialism, but rather determinism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nonmaterialists would simply think that some of those observable or deducible causes are nonmaterial things.
How are you defining "material," exactly? I think you're letting your philosophy get you confused about your physics.
quote:Conversely, it is not difficult to come up with a case where materialism is true, yet not every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. For instance, a world with all material beings, but that has one particle that pops in and out of existance randomly for no reason.
See, I specifically reject the possibility that such a particle could pop in and out of existence for "no reason."
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Assuming I trust you even know how often Hitler cited anything when making decisions I am not sure why your point even matters.
Here's why my point matters:
When a person points the finger at 'Darwinism' as Hitler's justification for his genocide, they are doing two things. They are saying
1. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
and
2. Evolution was a root cause of the holocaust and has the potential to create similar ills
Not only is this historical factoid wrong (Hitler based his core ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy), it sets one up into a baffling moral quandary.
Evolution is descriptive. If you say that it is immoral, you are saying that attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
When people pull the 'hitler's darwinism' card, they are being very selective readers, ignoring Hitler's religious justifications and pointing the finger at evolutionary theory, and then saying that evolution promotes racism. In reality, one should do neither. Hitler's views were a perversion of both religion and science; anyone who decides that it was a representative usage of one or the other is cherrypicking to create pejorative associations.
This is why reducto positions like Ron's are best left ignored. They're worthless agitprop.
Well then simply point out that Hitler misunderstood evolution and its moral applications, just as he misunderstood Christianity and its applications.
It just seemed like you were taking the same cheap shot at religion that Ron took at evolution.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It just seemed like you were taking the same cheap shot at religion that Ron took at evolution.
It's more effective to rebut the "you and Hitler are on the same side" argument by pointing out somewhere where Hitler was arguably on the same side as the person making the claim rather than just saying "no he wasn't."
I would never claim that Hitler was a Christian as a way to take a cheap shot at religion, but I'd happily answer the claim that evolution was the driving force behind his evil with a Hitler quote paying lip service to Christianity, such as "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
You'll find that this sort of quotation is almost always used in a defensive fashion in response to attacks by Christians equating atheism or belief in evolution with Nazism.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:How are you defining "material," exactly?
I wasn't defining it (which would be hard to do), because I don't think it really matters for the purposes of this discussion, as long as you don't think God can be considered material. There are people who have thought that we can logically deduce that God is the cause of all things in the world. By the definition you just gave, these people would be "strict materialists" since they believe every observable effect has a deducible cause (God), and I strongly suspect you would not really categorize them as such.
But they are determinists - Theological Determinists.
quote:See, I specifically reject the possibility that such a particle could pop in and out of existence for "no reason."
Do you mean you think that is logically impossible, like a square circle? Or do you just mean that, although it doesn't logically contradict itself, scientifically it can't actually ever happen in any universe?
[ June 11, 2007, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wasn't defining it (which would be hard to do), because I don't think it really matters for the purposes of this discussion, as long as you don't think God can be considered material.
I DO actually think that God can be considered material, if He exists. In fact, if He has any effect on the world, He must be material. The problem is that there's not a single effect for which a sentient God is actually a deducible cause, so anyone who claims otherwise -- although they might aspire to an argument -- is floating on nothing.
quote:Do you mean you think that is logically impossible, like a square circle?
I mean that it's logically impossible, since one of my starting premises is that all effects have causes.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well then simply point out that Hitler misunderstood evolution and its moral applications, just as he misunderstood Christianity and its applications.
It just seemed like you were taking the same cheap shot at religion that Ron took at evolution.
I think Samprimary was making his comparison satirically, whereas Ron made his in all seriousness. Samp doesn't actually think that Hitler's appeal to religion were actually representative of religion's "moral applications," and he explicitly said as much in a later post that you apparently missed (or misread). Ron, on the other hand, clearly believes that (a) Hitler based his racism on evolutionary arguments and (b) that this somehow negates evolution's scientific standing. He is wrong, embarrassingly wrong, on both counts.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:In fact, if He has any effect on the world, He must be material.
So does that mean you simply define physical as anything that has an effect on the world?
quote:The problem is that there's not a single effect for which a sentient God is actually a deducible cause, so anyone who claims otherwise -- although they might aspire to an argument -- is floating on nothing.
Says the agnostic/atheist. I suspect a large segment of society disagrees, including many philosophers, scientists, and theologists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suspect a large segment of society disagrees, including many philosophers, scientists, and theologists.
Not my problem. They'll come around. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MattP, the way you choose to say it is unnecessarily pejorative. God did not create the universe and say to Himself, "I am going to deceive everybody and make the universe look ancient."
God created the universe the way He wanted it to be, in a mature state. He did not create sprouts and saplings in the Garden of Eden, He created full-grown trees and plants, so Adam and Eve could enjoy the flowers and eat the fruits right away. This is most likely the way an Intelligent God who is all-powerful would choose to create things.
Do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying God deliberately made the radiological clocks in the rock strata seem to be vastly old, for no reason but to deceive geologists. All those age dating techniques are suspect, because they depend upon prior assumptions which include assuming that geologic gradualism is truth. They are also contradicted by things like the amount of helium in the crustal granite, that shows it has been gradually perculating out of the rock for only thousands of years, not billions.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying God deliberately made the radiological clocks in the rock strata seem to be vastly old, for no reason but to deceive geologists.
I made so such claim. I simply asked what the basis for your belief that the apparently aged earth and universe is not so. I understand that you believe that God placed things in "mature" form, but I'm trying to understand why you believe that.
Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?
quote:They are also contradicted by things like the amount of helium in the crustal granite, that shows it has been gradually perculating out of the rock for only thousands of years, not billions.
Surely you realize that claims like this have been pretty thoroughly debunked by scientists in the relevant fields. I won't insult your intelligence by posting the relevant links as I'm sure you're already aware of their existence. If you really want to debate a particular creationist claim, start a thread on it and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All those age dating techniques are suspect, because they depend upon prior assumptions which include assuming that geologic gradualism is truth.
I don't know if this is true, I'm not a geologist.
But if I have to chose between assuming that geologic gradualism is truth and assuming that a thousand year old book is literally accurate in every detail...I'm siding with the geologists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess Ron is busy with other people or is otherwise just not going to open any dialogue with my posts.
Oh well. NEXT TIME, GADGET Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote: God created the universe the way He wanted it to be, in a mature state. He did not create sprouts and saplings in the Garden of Eden, He created full-grown trees and plants, so Adam and Eve could enjoy the flowers and eat the fruits right away. This is most likely the way an Intelligent God who is all-powerful would choose to create things.
If you see a thin ring in a tree, that means it was a lean year. If you see a thicker ring, it means it was a better year. The fact that you have rings at all is indicative of a seasonal climate. The tree went through a changing climate.
So when we say “the tree rings indicate that the tree is 10,000 years old”, what that means is “the tree shows evidence of having been through 10,000 summers, and 10,000 winters. The tree shows evidence of going through this average year, this good year, these two bad years, another good year, another average year...the rings indicate that the tree went through 10,000 years of events”. You are claiming that God just put 10,000 rings to indicate that the tree went through 10,000 summers, when in fact it didn’t. You are claiming that God put the particular sequence of thick and thin rings to indicate that the tree had seen 10,000 years of plentiful and lean and in between years, in a particular order, when it didn’t.
Clever liars include lots of details. The cleverest ones do not.
Well, you believe that your God included details about the quality of thousands of different winters and summers that never actually happened.
Just don’t be surprised when people tell you that they believe in a cleverer God than yours. Or a more honest one.
quote: Do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying God deliberately made the radiological clocks in the rock strata seem to be vastly old, for no reason but to deceive geologists. All those age dating techniques are suspect, because they depend upon prior assumptions which include assuming that geologic gradualism is truth.
I assume it is pointless to ask you to explain why Buddhist, Hindu, Daoist, Muslim, Jewish, and evem most Christian scientists all agree on how best to interpret the data, and why the only people who think there is a massive problem are also those who a priori believe based on faith that the earth must be very young?
If your objections to mainstream science are so reasonable, why aren't there at least hundreds of Buddhist and Hindu scientists agreeing with your reasoning?
Posted by oldmansutton (Member # 10554) on :
... I hate to even think about posting into this... but... some things to ponder.
say 6 days to create a universe... do you take the word day literally at the very beginning? How long is a day to a god?
Also (I'm gonna get blasted on this), scientific fact is flawed. It is merely an accumulation of evidence thus far. Just because another result has never been recorded to date, doesn't mean it can't happen. If your odds are a billion to 1 against, you can see something not happen 999,999,999 times, and think up to that point, that it is impossible it will ever happen. Then comes number 1,000,000,000, and the whole thing is debunked.
I believe it's best to keep an open mind. Someone said earlier, science and religion should be balanced. But more and more, religion is tossed out the window in favor of "pure science". Or the zealots refuse to listen to science, believing only in what their religion tells them to be true. Go out, experience the world, make your own conclusions. But keep in mind, sometimes the impossible can and does happen.
Posted by oldmansutton (Member # 10554) on :
...also...
Science and religion both have one thing in common on the theory of the beginnings of the universe.
Religion postulates that the universe was created by a being that has ALWAYS been around.
Science claims that the universe has ALWAYS been around.
Either way, both sides agree that it is possible for something to have an infinite span, or at least an infinite span to the past. But if there is an infinite span to the past, then by definition there can be no end. So... either god will always be around, or the universe will always be around, in one form or another. At this point, science and religion agree, the only argument is the name of the thing.
At least that's the way I see it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
oldmansutton, What do you believe "science" is? What exactly is "pure science"?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Science claims that the universe has ALWAYS been around.
I'm not aware that this is actually the case.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Science claims that the universe has ALWAYS been around."
No it doesn't. The curretn evidence in science suggests the universe began a specified time in the past, a number of billion of years ago.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But keep in mind, sometimes the impossible can and does happen.
By definition, the impossible cannot happen.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But sometimes what we thought was impossible happens, thus turning out to be possible after all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. A better way to put it is "sometimes we don't recognize the possible."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
swbarnes2, I suspect that the trees in the Garden of Eden did not have annual growth rings. But they were still two hundred feet tall and yards thick.
MattP, you asked: "Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?" Yes. Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted. They may lie about it and profess scientific piety. But they are among the most biased people on the planet, even if they don't know it.
oldmansutton, in my view, Genesis does not teach God created the entire universe during the six days of Creation Week. Only the living biosphere on earth. (The statement "He made the stars also" in Genesis 1:16 is parenthetical, added simply to prevent anyone from supposing that maybe some other god might have made the stars.) Gen. 1:1 makes it clear that something was already here in the location of earth, when God began Creation Week.
[ June 12, 2007, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:MattP, you asked: "Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?" Yes. Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted.
Given these dueling dogmatisms, how do you suggest an impartial individual determine the truth?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted.
It is definitely NOT true that ALL evolutionists start with that premise. I don't, for example.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: swbarnes2, I suspect that the trees in the Garden of Eden did not have annual growth rings. But they were still over a hundred feet tall and yards thick.
You "suspect"? So in other words, you're not only reinterpreting/misinterpreting evidence to best fit your preconceived notions, but you're actually making things up?
Wow.
quote:MattP, you asked: "Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?" Yes. Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted.
Except they don't. As we've pointed out to you inumerable times before, if someone found evidence that irrefutably falsified evolution by natural selection, they would be this century's Einstein. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. Careers would be made. Believe me, I would love to be the biologist that disproved evolution. I'd be set for life.
Now to be fair, a lot of modern molecular data is interpreted with the assumption that it is the end result of natural selection. But this is done precisely because there already exists 150 years' worth of research supporting evolutionary theory. It's as well-established, by excruciatingly rigorous examination, as the theory of gravitation, or the theory of relativity. Furthermore, there are still many thousands of scientists testing the basic assumptions of evolution every day, and not once have any of them found anything that disproves a single part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
quote:oldmansutton, in my view, Genesis does not teach God created the entire universe during the six days of Creation Week. Only the living biosphere on earth. (The statement "He made the stars also" in Genesis 1:16 is parenthetical, added simply to prevent anyone from supposing that maybe some other god might have made the stars. Gen. 1:1 makes it clear that something was already here in the location of earth, when God began Creation Week. [/QB]
Uh huh. So you're an "old earth, young life" creationist. I have to say that I've never heard that one before, which kinda belies your oft-repeated claim that your interpretation of Genesis is both correct and widely accepted by biblical scholars. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:how do you suggest an impartial individual determine the truth?
"... the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall. So forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel, and digging up the world. Do not follow maps to buried treasure and "X" never, ever, marks the spot. Seventy percent of all archaeology is done in the library. Research. Reading. We cannot afford to take mythology at face value."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perfect place to drop that line Scott!
Indy IV in 08 can you feel it?!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What is that line from?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tarsk said:
quote:"As we've pointed out to you inumerable times before, if someone found evidence that irrefutably falsified evolution by natural selection, they would be this century's Einstein. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. Careers would be made. Believe me, I would love to be the biologist that disproved evolution. I'd be set for life."
Sorry, but that is the most hopelessly naive statement I've read in years. Do you realize how many careers would be reduced to ruins if evolution were proven false? Consider, for example, the Leakeys. If evolution is false, then they have done nothing with their lives. Do you think they would take that sitting down?
I am not an old universe, young life on earther. I am a young universer too, I just don't think the universe was created at the same time as life on earth. As I have stated before, I believe the universe is probably in the neighborhood of ten thousand years old, and earth's biosphere is around six thousand years old. So I've got the YEYU people distraught with me too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If evolution is false, then they have done nothing with their lives.
I wouldn't say that, any more than I'd say that all the priests and pastors out there have done nothing with their lives simply because there's no God.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tarsk said:
quote:"As we've pointed out to you inumerable times before, if someone found evidence that irrefutably falsified evolution by natural selection, they would be this century's Einstein. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. Careers would be made. Believe me, I would love to be the biologist that disproved evolution. I'd be set for life."
Sorry, but that is the most hopelessly naive statement I've read in years. Do you realize how many careers would be reduced to ruins if evolution were proven false?
Are you kidding? What do you think it is that scientists do? A scientist who is doing their job correctly is ALWAYS trying to prove existing theories false. That is the way of science.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do you realize how many careers would be reduced to ruins if evolution were proven false?
Not very many, I suspect. Most evolutionary science is based on practical, observable effects of evolution rather than on evolutionary history. Even if the earth turned out to be 6000 years old and dinosaurs walked with man, the research that determines how viruses develop resistance to drugs will go on. Even the archaeologists will keep digging up their bones, tools, and huts. They'll just have to place everything on a different time scale.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary whined, "I guess Ron is busy with other people or is otherwise just not going to open any dialogue with my posts."
Samprimary, it's not like you're the only one in opposition to my positions posting here.
I have already made it clear that I disagree with you, and that I anticipated someone such as you would seek to deny what really is indisputable fact--Hitler did claim evolution justified his racism and genocide. No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive!
You said: "This is why reducto positions like Ron's are best left ignored. They're worthless agitprop." So why don't you heed your own counsel and ignore me?
It is not reducto absurdum to draw a valid application from a general principle.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Galileo.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive!
You know what you're saying, here, Ron? That it's unthinkable for people to disagree with Hitler -- that because Hitler used evolution to justify genocide in the same way that Christians used Christianity to justify genocide, that we have to agree with Hitler's justification.
Do you believe that to be true?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive! ...
Perhaps you had best explain why you believe that there is link between the concept of race and that of a species.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
We all knows that virtually any life can be bred for certain traits. Many species were selectively bred for desirable qualities long before Darwin was even born. The theory of evolution explains why selective breeding works, but it says nothing about what one should or should not do.
Eugenics was by no means an atheistic, evolutionist, or Nazi monopoly. From a mid-20th century Creationist, William J. Tinkle:
quote:A careful reading of eugenic literature reveals that it may inculcate less respect for human life. In this way it runs counter to democracy, which stresses the worth and rights of the individual. The Bible teaches that life comes from God and that it is wrong to take that which one can not give. Unfortunately there are other programs also which destroy the idea of the sacredness of life. We refer to murder on the screen, war, and the teaching that man originated from, and still is, an animal.
We mention these unfortunate results [i.e. Nazism and “misapplied” sterilization] as dangers only; not as objections to attempting to improve our race by application of known genetics principles.
Incidentally, Tinkle was one of the founders of Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research. He was secretary of the organization at the time he wrote the book in which the above quote is found.
[ June 12, 2007, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, evolution doesn't include the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition, so he's standing on fantasies anyways. (The statement wouldn't be true even if that were so, too, because evolutionary theory isn't normative, but descriptive).
And even if it were normative (stupid as that idea is), there's good practical reason to believe that things furthering the survival of humans as a whole further the survival of genes that I share with other people.
Species are but a useful abstraction, not some inherent part of reality. There is no more competition between 'races' of humanity than there is competition between the gene I have for five fingers and the gene I have for a big nose.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The only way Ron for your assertions to be true is if the claim that c was slowing down thus making 1 billion years 10,000 years but that however has been proven false.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, Blayne. Ron is asserting that God created light en route to Earth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wow just wow.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Or that in the first few moments of the existence of the universe, the speed of light was very much greater. Same difference, though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Maybe I'm wrong, but here's my take on Ron versus me:
Our early lives are alike in that
--We were both raised in Young Earth Creationist churches. I know I was...you were too, right, Ron?
Our early lives are not alike in that
--Ron's church is/was a very large one, having over a million members. (You're SDA, right, Ron? I've googled your name and found it associated with the SDA church.) My church was tiny, with less than 150 members.
I think, all other things being equal, that it's a much smaller emotional trauma to face giving up on a very large denomination's beliefs, than a very small one's beliefs.
I am assuming here that the SDA church is Young-Earth-Creationist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary whined, "I guess Ron is busy with other people or is otherwise just not going to open any dialogue with my posts."
Hi ron! I'm not actually whining, but I am glad we have already progressed to the point where you are asserting this for me.
quote:No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive!
My response is going to come in two parts.
PART THE FIRST
Yes I can, and I will!
Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Evolutionary theory helps eliminate typological thinking, and with it the prior basis for racism.
Since evolutionary theory simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers, you are asserting an inherent immorality to pointing out an observation. Again, evolutionary theory can only be immoral if attempting to accurately describe what we can observe in nature is immoral.
I'm sure that if evolutionary theory actually made racism easier, that would make a lot of things completely confusing. Like how racism dropped off with the advent of evolutionary teaching, as opposed to strengthening during that time period. Or why evolution was forbidden to be taught in South Africa during apartheid.
And, lest we forget, none of this is even remotely a challenge to the descriptive nature of evolution. You aren't even attacking the descriptive science, you're still trying to discredit it by saying that it is the foundation of an immoral worldview!
But I suppose the moral position is more .. ah, comfortable for you. Your scientific counterarguments have been more easily rebuked and are pretty clearly in the wrong.
PART THE SECOND:
Tell me what you know about the principle of "Survival of the fittest" and how you think it pertains to evolutionary theory.
quote:It is not reducto absurdum to draw a valid application from a general principle.
Thankfully for me, it is not a valid or useful application! Otherwise it would be actually kind of hard to counter.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The basic idea that a scientific theory could make any sort of normative claims about morality is just baffling to me. Is Ron saying that, because modern astronomy asserts that major asteroid impacts occur, on average, once every ten million years, and there hasn't been a major impact in the past eleven million years, that we are morally obligated to push the next 10 km asteroid we see into a collision with the Earth?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Many people who are opposed to evolutionary theory are opposed to it on fundamentally moral grounds. To them, the field of evolutionary sciences are the product of a morally bankrupt, anti-Christian, secular materialism. Some even believe that 'Darwinism' is either the product of a satanic deception or a concerted effort to hurt Christianity.
Churches and religious groups most opposed to evolution teach that yes, Darwinism is immoral, and it is essentially a philosophy that makes normative claims about morality. They even attach an unscientific, pejorative label to it to make it sound more philosophy-ish: Darwinism!
The supposedly scientific counterclaims are a logical progression: they follow from the axiom that since evolutionary theory contradicts their teachings about gospel, it must be untrue. Where science and their teachings on religion come into conflict, science must be incorrect.
If one believes this, the most common way to explain the idea that evolutionary theory has become so universally accepted in science is to assume that there is a massive secular deception at work.
But at the core, the moral objections drive the effort to create scientific counterclaim. These scientific counterclaims are reliably bogus -- which is unsurprising, since they stem from a selective, preconcieved bias and a reliable intent to come to a required 'scientific' conclusion.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote: swbarnes2, I suspect that the trees in the Garden of Eden did not have annual growth rings.
That's nice.
But it doesn't deal with the fact that there are trees with thousands of years of growth rings.
And there are trees with overlapping patterns of good growth years and bad growth years, and those overlapping pattterns show evidence of about 9,000 different summer and winters.
That's a record that you believe God made of 9000 unique years that never happened.
Most people call that a lie. But you don't.
And I see you have no answer as to why your oh-so-reasonable Creationist arguments have failed to convince reasonable Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists...that is, anyone reasonable who doesn't hold to a young earth as a matter of faith.
Don't worry, no one expected one.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Interesting read.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Interesting, but amusingly stupid. By the time I read this -- "But Christians don't display a fish in support of creationism (something most educated Christians don't believe in anyway; they know that life evolved from simpler forms, thank you very much). Rather, they're declaring their adherence to a moral code: blessed are the peacemakers; if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer them your left; forgive and forget." -- and realized that the author didn't know the difference between a religion and a moral code, I had pretty much lost any hope of learning something from the essay.
Don't get me wrong: the author's point is valid. But I can't think of any polite way to offer atheism as a superior alternative that doesn't imply atheistic superiority; the only other options turn atheism into simply a reactive, eternally negatory worldview.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
for the sake of the arguement which tree is 9000 years old? So far with google I can only find a 4700ish year old tree.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I find people who put "Darwin fishes" on their cars, or call themselves "brights," just as obnoxious as people who plaster their cars with "Jesus fishes," "Support our troops" ribbons, or "Gore/Leiberman" stickers in 2007. They're all, however, completely irrelevant to the scientific process, so I don't see how Sawyer's article has anything to do with the subject at hand (especially since, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, there are plenty of evolutionists who aren't atheist).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: In terms of individual organisms the Methuselah tree at 4700ish is the oldest living organism. If we take collective organisms that operate as a single unit then the pando tree might fit the bill.
Dendrochronology matches many trees and fossilized trees to establish a regional scale of tree ring growth that can extend 10,000 years back. http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Oh noes! Not the ice core debate!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Oh noes! Not the ice core debate!"
Oh Noes for sure. We got into this with the Ronster on Ornery.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Ice cores are God's frozen tears of sorrow, shed every time someone believes in the theory of evolution. The cores appear older and older every time a Christian becomes an atheist.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I've never heard about Ice-core debates, but I would assume creationism could explain the ice-core's layers with Noah's flood.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Teh Flood is crap. That's easily disprovable through looking at genetic diversity among different species. Humans have the least genetic diversity of all species, sponges have the most. There's a clear inverse relationship between a species' complexity and its genetic diversity. I've certainly never read that all land-dwelling species have only 2 degrees of genetic diversity, based on either 2 or 7 members of their species being on teh Ark.
I'd add an eye-roll smilie here, but they don't make one big enough.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Ice cores are God's frozen tears of sorrow, shed every time someone believes in the theory of evolution. The cores appear older and older every time a Christian becomes an atheist.
You bigot! Why don't all theists get equal billing?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
For the Jewish, He just speeds up the rate of carbon-14 decay a teensy bit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So Christians get ice cores, and we get C14 decay changes? What a gyp!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Teh Flood is crap. That's easily disprovable through looking at genetic diversity among different species. Humans have the least genetic diversity of all species, sponges have the most. There's a clear inverse relationship between a species' complexity and its genetic diversity. I've certainly never read that all land-dwelling species have only 2 degrees of genetic diversity, based on either 2 or 7 members of their species being on teh Ark.
I'd add an eye-roll smilie here, but they don't make one big enough.
It'd be fairly easy to convince me there was SOME sort of flood. There's too many ancient texts that all depict a massive flood, from all different parts of the world, all from around the same time, for it to be coincidence, in my opinion. It might have just been a huge world wide perfect storm that created massive tsunamis, but something happened. I wouldn't be surprised if the story of Noah was just a dramatized parable based on a real life event that wasn't nearly so catastrophic.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh man, you ain't even heard the worst. For every child born in a secular household, He tightens up the orbit of the moon ever so slightly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I went back and reread much of the thread, and though we've largely moved away from the original point of the thread...
Frankly my biggest complaint about the museum is the $19.99 entrance fee for adults, that's outrageously expensive for something that doesn't have either a famed cartoon mouse or a very large, very fast roller coaster inside. I'd probably consider stopping by, as it strikes me as the kind of goofy roadside attraction I'd find interesting and amusing, but 1. That price is ridiculous and 2. I don't know who that money is going to, and I think I wouldn't like the answer if I knew it anyway.
Sometimes I don't get what all the hubub is about. I don't get why this has to be an all or nothing discussion (well, Young Earth Creationism is an exception to that confusion, I'll admit). I don't see why the "six days" in the Bible couldn't refer to billions of years of development. Do we have any proof or even a reason to believe that God was a big fan of the Gregorian calendar? (which of course didn't exist back when the OT was penned (quilled?) anyway).
I see two realms of belief: Science and Religion. And I see religion butting its head into science far more often than the other way around. Science only uses science to prove or disprove its beliefs. Religion tries to use religion AND science to prove itself. And that's where I am forced to choose a side. It looks to me, as someone on the outside of religion, that religion feels so incredibly threatened by science that they feel the need to try and beat scientists at their own game. Science can't measure a Godly force in the world, and it doesn't even try to, it tries to put the world into a context that we can all understand.
If you take it as a given that everything on Earth was created by and guided by God, then science is just our way of trying to figure out how God did it, so what's the problem with that? Why can't we research and discover how evolution happened while believing that God might have had a hand in it? If religion says to everything that has ever happened: "God did it," then all science is doing is saying "Okay, well how'd he do it?" Religious people don't want to answer that question perhaps, they don't need to, faith is enough, but science people are more curious, and want to know. And this is why religious science, if you can call it that, has no place in school. If the science was real, and true, and well researched and criticized, and it still backed up religion, then it should be in science classes, but if it hasn't met the rigorous standards that all science must meet, it has no place there, regardless of anything else. I don't think most, if not all, scientists really start to bash religion until religion tries to use science to discredit itself, and it strikes me as an unwarranted attack from an easily offended people.
So do I have a problem with this museum? On religious grounds, no, they can believe whatever they want. If they want to put forth false science as truthful though, then I have a problem, because it dishonestly deals with the subject.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I see two realms of belief: Science and Religion.
I disagree. There is only one truth in the world - that which actually is true. Therefore, there should be only one realm of belief. Otherwise we'd run the risk of having two conflicting beliefs at once. For instance, if we had one scientific belief system that told us abortions are okay and had another religious belief system that told us abortions are not okay, we would be stuck if we ever had to make a decision about an abortion. Instead we need one unified belief system that we can use to guide our decision making.
In fact, ultimately science is not very useful without some sort of religion. The two need to be unified in order for science to have value, because science can only give us a set of theories about cause and effect; it cannot tell us anything about what effects are desireable or what causes are ethically acceptable. In order to figure out what we should do we'd need a belief system that integrates both science and religion. That means making a tough choice where the two seem to point to the exact opposite conclusions.
quote:If the science was real, and true, and well researched and criticized, and it still backed up religion, then it should be in science classes, but if it hasn't met the rigorous standards that all science must meet, it has no place there, regardless of anything else.
I disagree. Even if religion is well-supported by scientific evidence, the Constitution still forbids putting it in schools, doesn't it? The Constitution says nothing about allowing the government to establish a state religion provided that it can use science to prove it.
The reason we have freedom of religion is not just because we don't think we can prove our religious beliefs to be true. Many DO think their religion can be proven true. Some even think there is scientific proof for it, as we've seen with this museum.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm deeply amused by the idea of a "scientific belief system."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ... In fact, ultimately science is not very useful without some sort of religion. The two need to be unified in order for science to have value, because science can only give us a set of theories about cause and effect; it cannot tell us anything about what effects are desireable or what causes are ethically acceptable ...
Of course religion is not the only thing that can deduce these two things. This a is a fact well-demonstrated by the millions of people that find science extremely useful without religion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn: all from around the same time? As far as I can tell, the best flood stories line up is to 'within a few thousand years', which is hardly all at the same time. That's easily accounted for by local experiences with large floods.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: not-science does not equal religion (though it does in Tres's system). Many people get by just fine as atheists or agnostics, but this does not mean their every thought is backed by science. Indeed, just because someone is religious doesn't mean their every thought is backed by science or religion (at least in the basic sense). For instance, food preference. Sometimes a person just likes (or dislikes) a food. It probably has nothing to do with religion or science.
And Tres is quite correct, science is not normative. It does not tell us what is preferable (though it can be strong support). Anything normative a person believes must therefore follow from something else.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I don't understand how it is that science determining the pathological is not problematic, but determining the normative is somehow.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yes, what fugu said.
quote:I don't understand how it is that science determining the pathological is not problematic, but determining the normative is somehow.
What do you mean?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you mean determining what to define as a "disease" and what is "healthy", I don't think that is really science. But it is directly related to science, and is an important part of the field of medicine (which includes science along with certain normative elements.)
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Now I don't understand what you mean. I would be suspicious of any diagnosis of disease that was not scientific.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Disease as a particular set of attributes is determined scientifically; it is an approximate term useful for many purposes (much like species ). Disease as something bad is a normative position that usually follows quickly from associations of disease (really, the attributes that come along with it) with negative things, and is not scientific.
Medicine involves weaving normative judgements (such as that virii have less right to live than their human host) with scientific evidence.
We can describe something as a particular disease (diagnose) without making any normative judgements. Its the normative implications we usually (and unscientifically, though perfectly reasonably) draw from that diagnosis that I think you're identifying with the diagnosis, but are really separate.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I don't fully parse what you are trying to say. Describing a disease requires a normative baseline from which it differs. If either of those determinations are not scientific, I want a second opinion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The sickle cell mutation is harmful in most environments - it's a disease. Carriers of sickle cell are resistant to malaria. In environments where malaria is prevalent, it's an adaptation rather than a disease.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
It is not normative, at least as I understand the word, to observe that a disease state differs from the baseline ("patient shows decreased CD4 cell count"). Nor is it normative to note that consumption of antiretrovirals according to a strict schedule appears to stabilize the disease's effects. What is normative is stating that the disease state is "bad," and should be corrected back to the baseline state. The first two statements are scientific; combining all three is medical.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, in environments where malaria is prevalent, it's an adaptation and a disease. The nasty effects don't go away, and having two copies of the gene is still awfully likely to cause you to die young. However, for carriers the benefits of malarial resistance outweigh the drawbacks of mild sickle-cell disease. (Not so for those with two genes and full-fledged sickle-cell disease.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, the baseline isn't normative. We make normative judgements about the goodness of the baseline and the goodness of the difference from it, but the difference itself involves nothing normative.
Also, it is very possible for judgements to be well-supported without being scientific. For instance, the judgement that it is better (in general) to save someone's life by medical intervention than to let them die, absent additional information or ways to obtain it. That's a well-supported medical judgement, but it isn't a scientific one.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I suppose, but the statement "patient shows decreased CD4 cell count" assumes that there is a normative CD4 cell count. The judgement that this is 'bad' is perhaps over and above scientific determinations about functionality. I will have to consider the seperation between 'medical' and 'scientific' while walking the dogs.
Later... Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
steven, I was raised a Free-Will Baptist, and became a Seventh-day Adventist on my own through my own study at the age of 15. The majority in the SDA church (including what is fashionable among officaldom) currently teaches old universe, young earth biosphere. In this I differ with my church. But I hope that my minority opinion will yet become the majority view in due time. I also push minority views of Rev. 4-5, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and Daniel 11:40-12:13. Some conservative SDAs may think I am dangerous, because I have such good arguments for my views on Bible prophecy, and so easily shred their arguments for their traditional, majority views.
So I'm the Ronster, huh? I kind of like that.
Mucus, you said: "This a is a fact well-demonstrated by the millions of people that find science extremely useful without religion."
That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory. This should not be surprising. Nothing about it can be useful, because it isn't true in the first place. And how can something that is not true be real science, anyway?
Xaposert, what the U.S. Constitution prohibits is the federal government doing anything to promote an institution of any particular denomination. The "non-establishment" clause refers to institutions of churches. In other words, the federal government cannot require everyone to pay tithe, nor require that everyone regard Sunday as the day of rest, nor require that everyone attend church. My understanding of Bible prophecy (particularly Revelation 13) indicates that the last two will be required in the future. The Constitution will have to be changed first to allow these things. But it will happen.
Lyrhawn, you said: "If you take it as a given that everything on Earth was created by and guided by God, then science is just our way of trying to figure out how God did it, so what's the problem with that? Why can't we research and discover how evolution happened while believing that God might have had a hand in it?"
I can go along with the first sentence. But let me offer in place of the second sentence: "Why can't we research and discover how (by what means) God created the Earth and continues to guide it?" That might actually be useful!
I agree, I see no reason for the hysteria some have shown over the idea of a creationist museum, or of one that charges admission. So long as the federal government does not sponsor it, endorse it, or subsidize it, then so what? I just wish that the federal government did not implicitly sponsor, endorse, and subsidize evolution theory in the way it allocates research grants.
orlox, et. al., here are a few links to Creationist rebuttals to the conclusions of geological gradualists about ice cores:
quote:That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory.
How are you defining "evolution theory," Ron? Because for most definitions I'd use of that term, there are a LOT of obvious counterexamples.
quote:here are a few links to Creationist rebuttals to the conclusions of geological gradualists about ice cores
If you replace the words "geological gradualists" with "geologists," it'd be a bit more honest. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Standing in line to take the Praxis II exam on Saturday I met a high school science teacher, that also happens to be a creationist. He says he teaches what the county curriculum says he must, but he said he likes to open up their minds about evolution. It was an interesting discussion. When he found out I was Jewish (after asking if I went to church) he asked what the Jewish view on the matter was. My reply was basically if you ask 10 Jews you will get 20 answers, but that I think there are a lot more important things to worry and talk about in the bible.
I don't really understand the creationist need to refute evolution. Isn't there more important stuff to try and prove like the events at Mt Sinai, or for Christians Jesus?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:The "non-establishment" clause refers to institutions of churches. In other words, the federal government cannot require everyone to pay tithe, nor require that everyone regard Sunday as the day of rest, nor require that everyone attend church. My understanding of Bible prophecy (particularly Revelation 13) indicates that the last two will be required in the future. The Constitution will have to be changed first to allow these things. But it will happen.
I know the thread isn't about this, but I just can't let this comment go by without a comment of my own.
I sincerely hope that such a thing as the American government breaking the First Amendment never happens in my lifetime or in anyone else's. And I give a sigh of relief that I'm almost positive it never will happen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
orlox: a commonly observed cell count isn't normative, its descriptive/positive. Normative statements are statements about what should be, not what typically is.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: steven, I was raised a Free-Will Baptist, and became a Seventh-day Adventist on my own through my own study at the age of 15. The majority in the SDA church (including what is fashionable among officaldom) currently teaches old universe, young earth biosphere. In this I differ with my church. But I hope that my minority opinion will yet become the majority view in due time. I also push minority views of Rev. 4-5, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and Daniel 11:40-12:13. Some conservative SDAs may think I am dangerous, because I have such good arguments for my views on Bible prophecy, and so easily shred their arguments for their traditional, majority views.
(Emphasis mine.)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
quote:That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory. This should not be surprising.
Utter nonsense. Medical research relies very heavily on evolutionary theory. We use gene homology searches to identify potential drug targets as a matter of routine. Studies of infectious agents like viruses and bacteria repeatedly demonstrate the power of natural selection- the H5N1 strain of bird flu is a perfect example of a "beneficial" mutation in action (in the sense that it benefits the pathogen- it's obviously bad news for us humans). You, quite simply, have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:Xaposert, what the U.S. Constitution prohibits is the federal government doing anything to promote an institution of any particular denomination. The "non-establishment" clause refers to institutions of churches. In other words, the federal government cannot require everyone to pay tithe, nor require that everyone regard Sunday as the day of rest, nor require that everyone attend church. My understanding of Bible prophecy (particularly Revelation 13) indicates that the last two will be required in the future. The Constitution will have to be changed first to allow these things. But it will happen.
Wow. Not just anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-rationalist, but also anti-American to boot. And I say that with only the slightest hint of facetiousness.
quote:I can go along with the first sentence. But let me offer in place of the second sentence: "Why can't we research and discover how (by what means) God created the Earth and continues to guide it?" That might actually be useful!
Except such research would be based on a nonscientific premise ("God created the Earth and continues to guide it"). That introduces an inherent bias into the work.
Again, this is not to say that scientists cannot also be theists. It does mean that "God did it" is not a valid answer- the most we can say at any given time is, "We don't know what causes X observed effect. It might be God, it might be something else. No conclusions can be stated without further data."
quote:I agree, I see no reason for the hysteria some have shown over the idea of a creationist museum, or of one that charges admission. So long as the federal government does not sponsor it, endorse it, or subsidize it, then so what? I just wish that the federal government did not implicitly sponsor, endorse, and subsidize evolution theory in the way it allocates research grants.
I actually agree with the second sentence above- so long as the creationist museum is not supported by the government, it is perfectly legal in my eyes. I find it repugnant, but unlike some people, I am all right with letting people do things that I consider morally bankrupt, so long as they aren't actively hurting anyone else and are doing it with their own time and money.
However, it is perfectly valid for the government to support research into evolution, because, unlike the bullcrap you spew, evolution is real science. Period. We've explained why this is true dozens of times, in this thread and others.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mucus: not-science does not equal religion (though it does in Tres's system)...
This is entirely true and was what I was hinting at, although I did not say so explicitly.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, you said: "This a is a fact well-demonstrated by the millions of people that find science extremely useful without religion."
That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory...
You mean aside from the thousands of people working in pharmaceutical companies and universities creating such things as new drugs and treatments?
Not to mention the hundreds of algorithms and processes used in their development that rely upon evolutionary theory such as phylogeny, gene finding, protein structure prediction, and protein-protein interaction modelling?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote--"If you replace the words "geological gradualists" with "geologists," it'd be a bit more honest."
Oh! and Tom's elbow comes crashing down on Ron's head! Tom wins the Battle Royale! He's the new Champion!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: ...I actually agree with the second sentence above- so long as the creationist museum is not supported by the government, it is perfectly legal in my eyes. I find it repugnant, but unlike some people, I am all right with letting people do things that I consider morally bankrupt, so long as they aren't actively hurting anyone else and are doing it with their own time and money. ...
Indirectly, you may actually be subsidizing it, if the museum was funded by money that was donated as part of a tax-deductible charitable donation. However, that is quite the can-of-worms.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually religion id not needed since the Enlightenment as the moral compass of humanity, ethical theory is actually pretty good at elaborated what is ethically right/wrong.
For example the Commandments state that A-H is wrong, but I think doesn't do a pretty good job at explaining it. Ethical theory by say Emmanual Kant does much better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory. This should not be surprising. Nothing about it can be useful, because it isn't true in the first place. And how can something that is not true be real science, anyway?
This right here is a wonderful example of your biggest problem with this debate.
You have no idea what you're talking about, first. Literally none. The opening statement is clearly at odds with reality in a way which is easily refuted. You just won't believe the refutation. You're too busy working off of required conclusions, selectively referencing minority 'scientific' opinions that reinforce what you need to find true (Behe, etc) and blurting out bald assertions and self-reinforcing pablum like 'but of course it couldn't be true, someday you'll all have to admit it.'
HELPFUL HINT: It does no good to just sit back and devote an abnormally large portion of your commentary on the matter on empty statements reinforcing your views on evolution's invalidity. Ranting about how false evolution 'obviously' is only comes off as comical if it is not supplanted with an actually succesful debate standpoint.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You have no idea what you're talking about, first. Literally none.
I assume that you're using the word "literally" in a figurative, and not a literal sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, Porter, of all the times when you could have justly criticized the figurative use of the word "literally," you picked a time when it's arguably valid. Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: orlox: a commonly observed cell count isn't normative, its descriptive/positive. Normative statements are statements about what should be, not what typically is.
I certainly agree with your second sentence. The question is how do we determine a normative cell count if not scientifically. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps something else but even then, I am not not so sure.
A cellular theory which ascribes normative values is no less scientific than any other theorizing, say for evolution or plate tectonics.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:You have no idea what you're talking about, first. Literally none.
I assume that you're using the word "literally" in a figurative, and not a literal sense.
... maybe. Maybe.
In order to be able to honestly suggest that no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution[ary] theory, while having invested so much time, learning, and effort in the controversy at large, you have to be practicing a significant degree of selective ignorance.
He has no idea what evolutionary theory is. He only knows a fictional, grossly incorrect construct of it. Starting from the core subject, and outward to the outward assertions, the statement is total manifest ignorance on all levels. He has no idea what he is talking about.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"A significant degree of selective ignorance" is a far cry from having literally no idea what you're talking about.
It's obvious that he knows, for example, that evolution is about living things.
I'm being needlessly literal, I know. But you brought it up (the word literal, that is) . Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: orlox: a commonly observed cell count isn't normative, its descriptive/positive. Normative statements are statements about what should be, not what typically is.
I certainly agree with your second sentence. The question is how do we determine a normative cell count if not scientifically. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps something else but even then, I am not not so sure.
A cellular theory which ascribes normative values is no less scientific than any other theorizing, say for evolution or plate tectonics.
In this particular example, I don't think it's inherently normative to distinguish between the mean CD4 counts within the categories of "HIV+ people" and "HIV- people." The "HIV-" set can be considered "normal" because it is the most commonly observed.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I am not going to engage the particulars of your obvious competence in cellular biology. My concern is more general. However, it seems that cellular functionality must inform evaluation of 'normal' beyond that which is 'most commonly observed'. Though, presumably, natural selection would ensure that both subsets were largely overlapping (functioning cells and those commonly observed).
And these determinations arise from a broader, theoretical understanding of cell functioning, which necessarily must consider idealized forms. (Or at least not particular to a single iteration.) That is to say, there are commonalities to cell function across all humans, all mammals, all life etc. Theories must deal in these abstractions.
I agree that the normative is established through theory rather than any particular cell count or even an aggregate of cell counts. But for HIV+ or HIV- to be meaningful, we need a theory which distinguishes the normative from the pathological and that theory should be scientific. No?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We distinguish a certain set of things from another set of things scientifically.
And then for many reasons, starting with our desire to not die in the near future, we determine the first set to be normative and the second to be pathological.
The desire to not die in the near future is not scientific, but it is what we base a significant amount of medical decisions on.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I think existence/non-existence has an intrinsic value, even a scientific value, that extends beyond our desires.
However, I have to step away again. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:I see two realms of belief: Science and Religion.
I disagree. There is only one truth in the world - that which actually is true. Therefore, there should be only one realm of belief. Otherwise we'd run the risk of having two conflicting beliefs at once. For instance, if we had one scientific belief system that told us abortions are okay and had another religious belief system that told us abortions are not okay, we would be stuck if we ever had to make a decision about an abortion. Instead we need one unified belief system that we can use to guide our decision making.
In fact, ultimately science is not very useful without some sort of religion. The two need to be unified in order for science to have value, because science can only give us a set of theories about cause and effect; it cannot tell us anything about what effects are desireable or what causes are ethically acceptable. In order to figure out what we should do we'd need a belief system that integrates both science and religion. That means making a tough choice where the two seem to point to the exact opposite conclusions.
quote:If the science was real, and true, and well researched and criticized, and it still backed up religion, then it should be in science classes, but if it hasn't met the rigorous standards that all science must meet, it has no place there, regardless of anything else.
I disagree. Even if religion is well-supported by scientific evidence, the Constitution still forbids putting it in schools, doesn't it? The Constitution says nothing about allowing the government to establish a state religion provided that it can use science to prove it.
The reason we have freedom of religion is not just because we don't think we can prove our religious beliefs to be true. Many DO think their religion can be proven true. Some even think there is scientific proof for it, as we've seen with this museum.
1. On your first point, I don't really think you disagree with me. You're talking about two different realms as well, one deals with morals and ethics, the other deals with provable fact. Science can tell us that DDT will kill Bald Eagles, but it takes a foundation of morality and a basic respect for life and the beauty of such a bird to force us to change our actions and bring about a restoration of the species. I never said you should believe one without the other, if anything, I think you shouldn't have to sacrifice your belief system to believe in the facts of science, and you shouldn't have to shun science to believe in god.
2. On your second point, no, I don't think that putting religious science in the classroom would really be a problem. If the Catholic church all of a sudden decided that they would take evolution as a tenant of their faith, would we have to remove evolution studies from the classroom? Of course not. If science is real, and has been thoroughly checked and scrutinized, then it doesn't matter who supports it and who doesn't, it's still science, and it belongs in the classroom. And you'd have to check, but I don't think that the Constitution says anything at all about what can and can't be taught in schools. Historicall, the curriculum was set at the local or state level, not the national.
fugu -
I read a paper in my first history class a couple years ago that compared several different flood stories worldwide, from Sumer, to Gaul, to Cathae, to the American Indians, and they differ in their dates of writing by 300-1000 years, but that could either mean that they are localized events happening years apart, or they could be one big event, but being that oral histories were really popular back then, and not everyone had a writing system at the same time, they passed down their histories through oral stories, until a writing system was established, at which point it was recorded. I'd be interesting is reading a paper that detailed the world's flood stories, when they were written, when that society invented writing, and the prevelance of oral histories in their societies.
Still, there's enough uncertainty and possibility for me to entertain the notion as possible.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from orlox--- "I think existence/non-existence has....a scientific value, that extends beyond our desires."
Not that I disagree or agree, but what would you base that on?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given how many tsunamis, major earthquakes causing floods, and other storms and floods have no doubt occurred in 1000 year periods, that seems plenty of material for flood stories everywhere. I mean, two decent undersea earthquakes in would create legends in most of asia.
Also, I'm somewhat skeptical of dating that precise. As you note, some of the stories could well have been around for indeterminate periods of time in oral history. Also, as you also note, a more complete cataloguing would be good; I think we have at least a few flood stories written a year, nowadays. The question is more when they say the flood occurred (and I suspect most are quite vague on that).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Very.
It's likely we'll never know. But, that doesn't rule out the possibility. It also doesn't prove it, leaving it out there in limbo somewhere as both unprovable and not entirely ruled out.
Isn't history fun? Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
When some of you refer to changes in viruses and the research of pharmaceutical companies related to such changes, is evolution theory really playing a useful, predictive role, or are you just imposing it on the basic facts and claiming that evolution explains it? You see environment causes changes, and call it natural selection, which to you is a loaded term because you arbitrarily assume natural selection is a part of evolution. But what happens in genes and viruses, does not have to be explained that way. Such things tend to demonstrate deterioration, not evolution to something more advanced. That is the whole point of evolution, isn't it? That because HIV mutates, monkeys can turn into people?
Samprimary, et al., you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.
Another way to say it is that you have been brainwashed by evolutionists in positions of authority over you "teaching" you their "truth" since childhood on.
And when all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later. It is not just your brainwashed world view that creationists must contend with, they must also endure your hatred. Have you ever asked yourselves who is really pulling your strings, and making you feel the things that you feel?
[ June 13, 2007, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution
While it is true you have been treated extremely poorly by some people here, it is not fair to say that all defenders of evolution have despised, insulted, or ridiculed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote--"This is an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later."
So your argument is "consider the source"? I hate to do this to you, Ron, but I bet a lot of radical Muslims are Young Earth Creationists. Should I try to reverse this on you, and lump you in with them?
I am with you that every single thing in science should be examined, and examined again, if that's your point. I still don't think you've answered my point that the inverse relationship between complexity and genetic diversity within a species heavily implies that evolution is correct.
I just don't buy this young biosphere stuff, Ron. I don't think you've thought it through. It's OK not to think it through, but please don't try to sell it here on Hatrack.
Here's why I don't buy it---the same scientific minds that split the atom, made the periodic table, and did many other great things also took classes in biology at some point. These minds are masters of the scientific method. Their minds penetrate deeply into the nature of reality. If there were huge holes in evolutionary theory, they would calmly have told their biology teachers to frack off. If that didn't work, they'd have published about it after they became famous and well-respected.
Einstein never once attacked evolution, even though he was probably the single most well-respected and listened-to scientist of the 20th century. He took biology in college, I'm guessing. That powerful, penetrating mind would have picked up on any huge flaws, is kind of my theory. Ya got any thoughts as to why Einstein never picked on evolution? How about Niels Bohr, or Steven Hawking, or Richard Feynman, or Robert Oppenheimer? Let's throw Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla and Dmitri Mendeleev into the mix. These men were/are geniuses. You're trying to tell me that some backwoods preacher who never attended college, or some turban-wearing, tent-dwelling nutcase who's maybe never attended school at all, know more about the nature of the universe than the man who predicted the existence of elements that were as yet undiscovered, or the men who designed the atomic bomb? Ron, c'mon. I don't know who you think you're convincing, but it ain't me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I just don't buy this young biosphere stuff, Ron. I don't think you've thought it through. It's OK not to think it through, but please don't try to sell it here on Hatrack.
Oh my.
You're about the last person on Hatrack that should be throwing those particular stones, steven.
[ June 14, 2007, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Porter, honest to Pete, who do you think has studied nutrition more, you or me? I really hope you mean all these little comments in good humor.
Of course, the smart thing for me to do, if I don't like them, is to quit responding to them.
Actually, I figured there was about an 80% chance I'd get a comment on that line.
It's not fair to pick on me because I don't know everything about nutrition. It's foolish and dangerous to trust any one authority on nutrition, including Dr. Price, including me, including your mom, your dad, and most MDs. Nobody knows it all. In 80 years, we might. Until then, good luck.
The same diet that kills one person, saves another.
There are a few common threads between all good diets, including lots of all types of minerals, lots of fat-soluble vitamins of all types and sub-types, and minimally-processed. Beyond that, individual differences start to matter, in some cases, very much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wish that you'd hold yourself to the same standard that you want to hold others to.
For example, Ron was asked about his beliefs on this thread, and you're telling him that he should shut up about them. You, on the other hand, insist on pushing your wacky beliefs again and again even though nobody is interested and you have repeatedly promised to never bring them up again.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I bet a lot of radical Muslims are Young Earth Creationists.
Doubtful, actually.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Porter, honest to Pete, who do you think has studied nutrition more, you or me?
That probably depends on one's definition of "study."
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
MPR, you know I respect you, and maybe I'm just tired and shouldn't be posting, but can you demonstrate how people have been treating Ron "extremely poorly"? I won't deny that the current discussion has been somewhat heated, and people on both sides have gotten tetchy, but I feel like we, on the pro-evolution side at least, have been quite patient in our responses, dealing with Ron's points one by one and in detail. Do you have anything to offer in this debate other than drive-by passive aggression?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Ron: Unfortunately, your last post works equally well as an argument against Creationism or Intelligent design if you simply insert those words in every instance that you used the word "evolution" and put the word "faith" everywhere you use "science" or "technology."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tarrsk: I haven't come close to reading every post in this thread, and it's quite possible that my perception of how he has been treated is incorrect, which is that some people have been dismissive and rude. That said, I did not mean to imply that everybody discussing this with him was acting that way. In fact, the entire point of my post was to say that making that sort of blanket statement is inappropriate and incorrect.
But no, I am not interested in going back and checking everybody's posts to see if my impression is incorrect or not, because frankly, I don't care. I am perfectly happy to let it stand with me thinking that it's quite likely that my impression was faulty. But if you feel like going through the thread and seeing exactly how respectfully and patiently everybody was or was not with Ron, knock yourself out.
It's not as though how Ron was treated is essential to the point of my post. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "While you may have been treated poorly...". Although if I had done that, you might actually have had a leg to stand on in calling my post passive aggressive.
Calling what I posted passive aggressive is not fair at all. It's not like I said some backhanded thing implying things. I came out and explicitly said it. Disagree with me if you like, but don't call that passive aggression, because it just ain't.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's not as though how Ron was treated is essential to the point of my post. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "While you may have been treated poorly...". Although if I had done that, you might actually have had a leg to stand on in calling my post passive aggressive.
Calling what I posted passive aggressive is not fair at all. It's not like I said some backhanded thing implying things. I came out and explicitly said it. Disagree with me if you like, but don't call that passive aggression, because it just ain't.
I interpreted part of your statement ("While it is true you have been treated extremely poorly by some people here," bolding mine) as a none-too-subtle poke at some of the folks that have participated in this thread, myself included. If that is not what was meant, I apologize. Like I said, I'm a bit tired, and today was not a happy day at work. I still maintain, though that this discussion has been fairly civil throughout (our little thread derailment aside). You are, of course, free to disagree.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ron said:
" you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is."
I respond:
you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming dogma which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can we all agree that we have no idea what genuine, actual reality is, but also that the scientific method is more useful for making predictions about that reality?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:And when all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later.
Of course, it's difficult to admit that your opponents have reasonable positions supported by real evidence when they don't. I can't really say I despise you, though. More like pity. Mixed with a little disbelief.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Can we all agree that we have no idea what genuine, actual reality is, but also that the scientific method is more useful for making predictions about that reality?
The scientific method is more useful at making certain sorts of predictions, although even that is dependent on a faith that the future will function as the past did. For instance, science is very effective at telling people what effects a certain medicine will have on their body. It is very good at that sort of mechanical prediction. However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
However, I think you are right that we CAN agree that we don't really know what genuine, actual reality is.
And I'd hope we can agree that it is neither scientific nor consistent with the tenets of Christianity to despise people for their beliefs on the topic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
What makes a preacher an expert on happiness or regret?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ... For instance, science is very effective at telling people what effects a certain medicine will have on their body. It is very good at that sort of mechanical prediction. However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
Except for the glaring difference that science remains effective at predicting the effect of the medicine regardless of whether you believe in the medicine or not (placebo effect notwithstanding). The preacher only gives agreeable advice if you have already joined his faith.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You could as easily ask your parents, or your best friend, or a random person on the street. Unless they have the ability to accurately determine the future, the best they can do is make predictions based on how they've seen things work in the past... no better or worse than scientific method.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:What makes a preacher an expert on happiness or regret?
Study of God's teachings and experience helping people through happiness/regret as a profession.
quote:science remains effective at predicting the effect of the medicine regardless of whether you believe in the medicine or not
This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist."
You're talking about personal emotions here. In cases like these, I would ask for advice from the people who know me best - my friends, my family, perhaps my coworkers. A preacher might fall into this category for some people, and that's fine. Otherwise, see Tom's question above.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
If I ask a doctor what to do about my sinus infection, and she gives me some antibiotics, it kills the bacteria, even if I think scientific method is bunk.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: When some of you refer to changes in viruses and the research of pharmaceutical companies related to such changes, is evolution theory really playing a useful, predictive role, or are you just imposing it on the basic facts and claiming that evolution explains it? You see environment causes changes, and call it natural selection, which to you is a loaded term because you arbitrarily assume natural selection is a part of evolution. But what happens in genes and viruses, does not have to be explained that way. Such things tend to demonstrate deterioration, not evolution to something more advanced. That is the whole point of evolution, isn't it? That because HIV mutates, monkeys can turn into people?
A) Mutation tends to lead to "deterioration" or deleterious effects, simply due to the fact that mutation is random and the odds of producing a beneficial result is much lower than a deleterious result. However, we only have to look to antibiotic resistant bacteria to see a beneficial effect (for the organism evolving, not us) and evolution to "something more advanced." We can (and do, everyday) even replicate this in the lab, not for kicks, but as a fundamental step in genetic engineering bacteria for the production of needed biological products.
B) Aside from the above example, evolution indeed plays a useful predictive role. See algorithms such as in homology modelling (algorithms that predict the 3D structure of proteins based on a homologous template), these algorithms require knowledge of evolution as a basic component of their design. Then, these models are tested every year at CASP by observing the actual protein and comparing it against the prediction. Their growing efficacy (and use by pharmaceutical companies in high-throughput drug screening to eliminate potential drug candidates) demonstrates that evolution indeed plays a useful predictive role.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
MC,
I think Xap's point is that his faith is Truth (and therefore so is a preacher's advice based on that faith) - whether others choose to believe it or not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
No, it only works IF YOU FOLLOW HIS ADVICE. Similarly, if you don't take the doctor's medicine because you don't think it will work, his advice to take the medicine doesn't work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ]This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
Take your previous example, whether one would be happy after an abortion.
Person: "Hi, will I be happy after an abortion?" Preacher: "No, my religion deems abortion to be an unholy offence against God." Person: "But I don't believe in God, your advice has no relevance to me." Preacher: ...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I guess I better call all the couples I've done marriage counseling for who aren't church goers and tell them to ignore everything I said.
Bummer that I spent so much time and money on counseling trainging and certification, though, since apparently all that I needed to do was tell people to read the Bible. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
If I ask a doctor what to do about my sinus infection, and she gives me some antibiotics, it kills the bacteria, even if I think scientific method is bunk.
You seem to be severely limiting the preachers arsenal of options when it comes to helping you while giving the doctor all he/she needs.
Say you are suicidal and come to a minister to convince you not to go through with it.
What if the preacher listens carefully to what you say, feels a stirring of incite that prompts him to suggest that you do X. Almost miraculously his suggestion makes you feel alot better even if it seemed a bit odd.
I've seen at least my spiritual leaders give very specific advise to folks, and seen it yield important results. Even as important as ridding the body of bacteria.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
No, it only works IF YOU FOLLOW HIS ADVICE. Similarly, if you don't take the doctor's medicine because you don't think it will work, his advice to take the medicine doesn't work.
So the problem must be with the patient and not the medicine?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My point Xaposert, is that if I don't believe that the advice given in a particular holy book fits my worldview, even if I follow his advice and read the book for inspiration, it won't help me. If I pray, but I don't believe that I'm praying to anything, it won't do me any good. Following the advice only works if I have faith in the validity of the advice.
If I take medicine, and think it's silly made-up mumbojumbo, the antibiotic still kills the bacteria. I may think science is bunk, but that doesn't change how chemical reactions take place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
In my experience, that is not how "preachers" (I tend to call them priests or ministers - preaching is only one part of what they do) usually respond. Quite often, priests have training in how to give more practical advice and help. This is often useful even for non-believers.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
Person: "Hi, will I be happy after an abortion?" Preacher: "No, my religion deems abortion to be an unholy offence against God." Person: "But I don't believe in God, your advice has no relevance to me." Preacher: ...
Am I the only person who "heard" this in a David Brent voice?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my experience, that is not how "preachers" (I tend to call them priests or ministers - preaching is only one part of what they do) usually respond. Quite often, priests have training in how to give more practical advice and help. This is often useful even for non-believers.
I'm sure this is true, but the minister's advice is no more inherently good because he is a minister. If the advice is non-religious, then it is based on experience, education, and observation of past human interactions: scientific method in practice. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: My point Xaposert, is that if I don't believe that the advice given in a particular holy book fits my worldview, even if I follow his advice and read the book for inspiration, it won't help me. If I pray, but I don't believe that I'm praying to anything, it won't do me any good. Following the advice only works if I have faith in the validity of the advice.
If I take medicine, and think it's silly made-up mumbojumbo, the antibiotic still kills the bacteria. I may think science is bunk, but that doesn't change how chemical reactions take place.
I'm sorry but again even if you think following wise advise is foolish, the wisdom of the advise still becomes apparent after it has been tried.
I've seen plenty of people follow advise they thought was foolish because a religious man they respected suggested it. Results did not change in anyway then if they had believed the advise would work fervently.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my experience, that is not how "preachers" (I tend to call them priests or ministers - preaching is only one part of what they do) usually respond. Quite often, priests have training in how to give more practical advice and help. This is often useful even for non-believers.
I'm sure this is true, but the minister's advice is no more inherently good because he is a minister. If the advice is non-religious, then it is based on experience, education, and observation of past human interactions: scientific method in practice.
By the same token, the doctor's advice isn't inherently good because she is a doctor. It's based on training, experience, and observation. Just like the minister's! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would we agree that psychologists and/or psychiatrists are also experts at happiness and regret?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My posts are specifically in response to this post:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The scientific method is more useful at making certain sorts of predictions, although even that is dependent on a faith that the future will function as the past did. For instance, science is very effective at telling people what effects a certain medicine will have on their body. It is very good at that sort of mechanical prediction. However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
And my point is that when a preacher gives advice about happiness in marriage or regret from an abortion, the preacher is acting like a scientist, because any predictions he or she might make about the person's emotional state, or steps that might be taken to their benefit, are based on observations of human behavior and emotions, examining past experiences, and using this knowledge to make predictions about how future events are likely to happen.
It is the non-scientific advice, based on holy texts or faith, which are only applicable to those in the same faith. If a Christian gets advice to pray to Allah for advice, how much is that going to help?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, that isn’t the terminology I’d use. (For clergy, either.) I would say that counselors, whether religious or secular, have skills and training to help people sort through their options, look closely at their own beliefs and behavior, and clarify their decision-making.
And given Tres’s original statement, I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc. With the caveat, of course, that there are some biologists, physicists, etc with brilliant insight into human behavior, and some clergy who are totally putzes. Just like in any profession.
Mostly I’m annoyed by the caricature of clergy presented earlier in this thread.
MC: you’re the one who’s assumed that a clergyperson would give that type of limited advice. And since, as far as I recall, you aren’t associated with a religion, perhaps you shouldn’t assume that that is what was being suggested?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Tom, that isn’t the terminology I’d use. (For clergy, either.) I would say that counselors, whether religious or secular, have skills and training to help people sort through their options, look closely at their own beliefs and behavior, and clarify their decision-making.
And given Tres’s original statement, I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc. With the caveat, of course, that there are some biologists, physicists, etc with brilliant insight into human behavior, and some clergy who are totally putzes. Just like in any profession.
Mostly I’m annoyed by the caricature of clergy presented earlier in this thread.
MC: you’re the one who’s assumed that a clergyperson would give that type of limited advice. And since, as far as I recall, you aren’t associated with a religion, perhaps you shouldn’t assume that that is what was being suggested?
What she said.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I humbly submit that this is where TomD's rigid skepticism starts to show some wear and tear. I can think of a couple of Young Earth Creationist ministers who give excellent life advice in many areas, like how to deal with your child's misbehavior, how to handle family finances, etc. because they've lived to a ripe old age and lived their lives.
I'm not a Young-Earher, and neither is Tom, but there's no question that these guys would give as good or better advice than either me or Tom in many areas; at least that's my guess.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think we have a satisfactory answer to Tom's question. To the extent that a minister has good training, instincts, and intent, he or she will give generally good advice.
It doesn't really challenge his point, though, that religion itself doesn't necessarily bring anything to the table.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I guess I still haven't made myself clear.
I'm not trying to insult ministers. I know religious teachers can give quality advice, and can give non-religious advice.
My point is that if a person gives advice based on education and experience, that's scientific method!
Xaposert asserted that scientific method is good for making some types of predictions, but that it is not good for making social types of predictions, and suggested that religious teachers would be better at giving advice in those fields.
My point is that they use scientific method as often as not when they give advice in those fields.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Why should we presume that any given preacher has the training or experience necessary for handling serious emotional problems?
Yes, a random preacher *might* have EMT training, but if I fall off my roof and break my neck, I hope that the person that finds me doesn't run to to look up "churches" in the phone book.
Similarly, if I am feeling irretrievably depressed, I'm going to look up psychiatry/psychology. If I'm trying to make a decision which I feel will effect me emotionally, I'll talk to friends, family, or a pschologist. That group may include one or more minister, but it's not their title of minister that conveys on them the appropriate relationship to me or expertise.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
My point is that they use scientific method as often as not when they give advice in those fields.
Only in a very loose sense of "scientific methods." The social sciences aren't as far along in predictive ability as the "hard" sciences. Counseling is as much an art as a science. There's no possible way to predict "if you do x, y will happen." At least, not for questions with any level of subtlty. ("If you have an affair and your spouse finds out he or she will be upset with you" is a pretty safe prediction.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... I can think of a couple of Young Earth Creationist ministers who give excellent life advice in many areas, like how to deal with your child's misbehavior, how to handle family finances, etc. because they've lived to a ripe old age and lived their lives.
Is there any reason to think that they'd give better advice than a similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
""If you have an affair and your spouse finds out he or she will be upset with you" is a pretty safe prediction.)"
Well...some people enjoy that sort of thing.
Which actually proves your first point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I guess I still haven't made myself clear.
I'm not trying to insult ministers. I know religious teachers can give quality advice, and can give non-religious advice.
My point is that if a person gives advice based on education and experience, that's scientific method!
Xaposert asserted that scientific method is good for making some types of predictions, but that it is not good for making social types of predictions, and suggested that religious teachers would be better at giving advice in those fields.
My point is that they use scientific method as often as not when they give advice in those fields.
Yes, ministers and religious advisers often use experience and *gasp* science when they give suggestions. But what does science bring to the table when a person finds God and learns the reason they exist at all? Or when a person lays hands on the sick and they are healed of ailments that defy remedy? Yes I firmly believe that all that happens in the universe has a scientific (or else physical explanation) but that does not mean that scientists have all the tools required to understand things that God does regularly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Why should we presume that any given preacher has the training or experience necessary for handling serious emotional problems?
Yes, a random preacher *might* have EMT training, but if I fall off my roof and break my neck, I hope that the person that finds me doesn't run to to look up "churches" in the phone book.
Similarly, if I am feeling irretrievably depressed, I'm going to look up psychiatry/psychology. If I'm trying to make a decision which I feel will effect me emotionally, I'll talk to friends, family, or a pschologist. That group may include one or more minister, but it's not their title of minister that conveys on them the appropriate relationship to me or expertise.
You will note that I specified clergy from a religion that requires training and professional certification for their clergy. Yes, there are churches whose pastors are self-ordained and may have no counseling background at all. Going to them would be the equivelent of hoping that your random person *might* have the appropriate training. If, however, we're talking about someone who was *required* to have said training in order to be credentialed, then I think it's fair to presume that they have it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Is there any reason to think that they'd give better advice than a similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists?"
On average, I doubt it. I'd like to hear Tom's thoughts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... I can think of a couple of Young Earth Creationist ministers who give excellent life advice in many areas, like how to deal with your child's misbehavior, how to handle family finances, etc. because they've lived to a ripe old age and lived their lives.
Is there any reason to think that they'd give better advice than a similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists?
And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You will note that I specified clergy from a religion that requires training and professional certification for their clergy.
If not a member of one of these churches already, I'm not going to know which ones they are. It still makes sense to go directly to a person who's primary identification is as a credentialed counselor.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
The point was that "Young Earth Creationist minister" is not a unique qualification for giving out good advice. It's just as irrelevant as "atheist", "agnostic" or "deist".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc.
Here's the problem: I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific." In other words, the ways in which a minister is useful at psychology are scientific ones.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc.
Here's the problem: I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific." In other words, the ways in which a minister is useful at psychology are scientific ones.
Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Prove it.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc.
Here's the problem: I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific." In other words, the ways in which a minister is useful at psychology are scientific ones.
I don't agree. Science is a process separate from education. You can use the scientific method to find more effective ways to treat a problem, but your actual training isn't what I would consider "scientific," even if you are learning methodology that has scientific applications. A psychologist studying the effect of parenting styles on child development is doing science. A psychiatrist treating a child for emotional trauma is doing medicine, not science. And a student of psychology learning about child trauma in class is undergoing education, which he or she may utilize in the process of science in the future, but which isn't really in any way scientific at the moment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Prove it.
Is this comment directed at me? If not who?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
The point was that "Young Earth Creationist minister" is not a unique qualification for giving out good advice. It's just as irrelevant as "atheist", "agnostic" or "deist".
Indeed. I would also add that while the "advice" that the minister gives is indistinguishable in efficacy than that of anyone else that lacks religious training, by contrast an untrained doctor attempting to act as a doctor is just as likely to kill someone as to help someone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Prove it.
I think 14 pages may be a new record. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God.
If indeed I believed that ministers could do this, and that this produced a measurably beneficial effect, I would concede the point.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But what does science bring to the table when a person finds God and learns the reason they exist at all? Or when a person lays hands on the sick and they are healed of ailments that defy remedy?
Controlled studies that "faith healing" has no significant effect beyond that of a simple placebo. (And can actually harm your health if you forgo medical treatment in favour of it)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But what does science bring to the table when a person finds God and learns the reason they exist at all? Or when a person lays hands on the sick and they are healed of ailments that defy remedy?
Controlled studies that "faith healing" has no significant effect beyond that of a simple placebo. (And can actually harm your health if you forgo medical treatment in favour of it)
Better yet, in a recent study of intercessory prayer on heart patients, the patients who were told they were being prayed for had worse results than those who were not prayer for and those who were prayed for anonymously. The latter two groups were essentially indistinguishable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God.
If indeed I believed that ministers could do this, and that this produced a measurably beneficial effect, I would concede the point.
Well when it happens, give me a shout.
quote: Controlled studies that "faith healing" has no significant effect beyond that of a simple placebo. (And can actually harm your health if you forgo medical treatment in favour of it)
Well I am certainly glad you think your studies have a large enough sample size to make such a sweeping claim.
But your studies do not invalidate that which I myself have experienced.
quote:If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Myriad reasons. A person who needs help is an opportunity for somebody else to help another and grow from it. Learning to be like God includes learning to administer to other's needs. Practice makes perfect.
God is mindful of our needs, and sometimes his advise needs to come from somebody we are more ready to speak to.
Somebody who is angry with God will possibly not be willing to speak directly to Him and thus needs an intermediary to work through his/her issues.
But an intermediary is certainly not a REQUISITE for all problems. They may or may not be essential depending on circumstance.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific."
So if someone goes to a religious school and learns all about the Bible and nothing else, then they are being "scientific" when they apply that education to making judgements?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong BlackBlade, but isn't it a commonly held Christian belief that God often explicitly does nothing when asked for help, because God's ways are mysterious, because what you ask for is not in your best interests, because God wants you to experience what you're going through, learn from things, etc?
It seems to me, in light of this, that going to a holy person for religious help isn't necessarily the best thing if you want your problem solved, only if you want God's solution to your problem.
Fortunately, if your leg is gangrenous, the doctor won't turn you away because he feels you'll be better off learning from the experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So if someone goes to a religious school and learns all about the Bible and nothing else, then they are being "scientific" when they apply that education to making judgements?
Since their education was all about the Bible and nothing else, they would be scientific when making judgements about the Bible and nothing else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well I am certainly glad you think your studies have a large enough sample size to make such a sweeping claim.
But your studies do not invalidate that which I myself have experienced.
I would note that you're criticizing the sample size of studies (of a size unknown to you, since I have not yet provided links) in favour of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1 (yourself).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Because God, most often, works in us and through us. Again, people are mistaking God with some sort of superbeing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Because God, most often, works in us and through us. Again, people are mistaking God with some sort of superbeing.
Then, and forgive me if this sounds harsh, what's the point of having a god?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [QB] Correct me if I'm wrong BlackBlade, but isn't it a commonly held Christian belief that God often explicitly does nothing when asked for help, because God's ways are mysterious, because what you ask for is not in your best interests, because God wants you to experience what you're going through, learn from things, etc?
It seems to me, in light of this, that going to a holy person for religious help isn't necessarily the best thing if you want your problem solved, only if you want God's solution to your problem.
God's ways may be, "mysterious" but that does not mean he isn't in the business of sharing his inteligence with his children. Again the wisdom of whatever he does invariably becomes apparent given time.
quote:Fortunately, if your leg is gangrenous, the doctor won't turn you away because he feels you'll be better off learning from the experience.
That's a pretty finite way of looking at things. How is death not solving the problem of a gangrenous leg?
We have another thread where it was mentioned that a woman was basically forced to have a C-section against her will but in retrospect admitted that the doctor taking steps to save her life in spite of her wishes was a good idea.
Clearly he hoped/believed the wisdom of his decision would be understood given some time.
Now imagine God as this sort of super doctor/psychologist/engineer/physicist/chemist, who also happens to be a good teacher.
I'm sure much of what he does seem odd if not down right foolish, but in my experience I have yet to see him do such things without an ultimately positive result being the end. But that is just my experience, perhaps you know of a circumstance where God did something and in the end nobody was happy about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You might as well ask what the point of anything.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well I am certainly glad you think your studies have a large enough sample size to make such a sweeping claim.
But your studies do not invalidate that which I myself have experienced.
I would note that you're criticizing the sample size of studies (of a size unknown to you, since I have not yet provided links) in favour of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1 (yourself).
I am not saying my personal experience invalidates studies done on this topic. I said their studies do not invalidate the evidence I myself have seen.
You are also wrong about me being ignorant of such studies and their sample sizes, they are not unknown to me. I myself have read studies on faith based healings and their effects. The studies to me prove nothing, for the oft stated reason that God does not submit himself to be viewed with any sort of man made apparatus.
You could argue that scientific studies to see if faith based healings can do anything are actually harmful as God may in the interest of maintaining man's free agency allow an individual to suffer from terrible ailments rather then healing him/her.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: The studies to me prove nothing, for the oft stated reason that God does not submit himself to be viewed with any sort of man made apparatus.
You could argue that scientific studies to see if faith based healings can do anything are actually harmful as God may in the interest of maintaining man's free agency allow an individual to suffer from terrible ailments rather then healing him/her.
How wonderfully convenient and shockingly cruel at the same time.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The "wisdom" of anything can become apparent with time. Humans have a fantastic ability to attribute causes and meanings to things after the fact. I can roll a pair of dice and come up with the number 10. Later in the I may see the wisdom of the information, and attribute all sorts of meaning to the outcome.
Maybe I saw 10 cars go through the intersection before I had a safe space to cross. Perhaps I needed $10 to buy the groceries I wanted at the store, and I received $1 in change, which is 10 x 10. None of that means that the dice had any wisdom, or that any other number might not have produced different or better results.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Prove it.
I think 14 pages may be a new record.
Notice I didn't ask BB to prove the existence of God. I asked him to support his statement that God speaks directly to his clergy, who then pass on that wisdom. Not only do they hear the voice of God whispering in their ear, but they do so routinely.
I've never known an otherwise sane person to claim that God spoke to them -- even the most religious people I know mainly speak of communicating with God through signs, hints, hunches, and other proxies. So I thought it was a little unusual that when BlackBlade has a problem, he can just ask his preacher, who then goes and gets the answer right from the big man himself.
I don't have any problem with someone believing that God answers prayers, but saying that He speaks directly to a minister (it wasn't clear whether that was any minister, or only those of a certain denomination and rank) is a large leap.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:How wonderfully convenient and shockingly cruel at the same time.
Convenient or not, that's how it is. I'm sorry you feel slighted that you have to find God on HIS terms instead of your own. All I can say is that as far as I can tell it works better this way. Undoubtedly you will simply continue to think, "How convenient that the only way is the best way."
quote:Notice I didn't ask BB to prove the existence of God. I asked him to support his statement that God speaks directly to his clergy, who then pass on that wisdom. Not only do they hear the voice of God whispering in their ear, but they do so routinely.
You are welcome to investigate my church and decide for yourself if it is the product of men's fancy or God's will. I have come to the conclusion that it is of God.
Yes men and women within my church receive revelation from God on a very frequent basis. I may be misleading you with the verb, "speak" as I use it to mean any communication from God to man. That includes literal moving of the mouth or hearing the voice of God, but that is not the only medium God uses to speak ("communicate" I just did it again that's how ingrained the word is) to people.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"'m sure much of what he does seem odd if not down right foolish, but in my experience I have yet to see him do such things without an ultimately positive result being the end. But that is just my experience, perhaps you know of a circumstance where God did something and in the end nobody was happy about it."
You sound like the old Chinese dude in the story:
"A man's horse ran away. The other villagers said, "Oh, great misfortune! We sympathize!". The man said "Wait and see."
The man's horse came back, and had 6 wild horses following it. The man tried to capture the wild horses, and succeeded. The other villagers said "Oh, great fortune! How lucky!" The man said "Wait and see."
The man's only son was taming the horses, and fell and broke his leg. The other villagers said "Oh, great misfortune! How terrible! Your only son may become crippled for life!" The man said "Wait and see."
The army comes through the village and conscripts every able-bodied young male. The only young man left in the village is the man's broken-legged son."
Etc.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "'m sure much of what he does seem odd if not down right foolish, but in my experience I have yet to see him do such things without an ultimately positive result being the end. But that is just my experience, perhaps you know of a circumstance where God did something and in the end nobody was happy about it."
You sound like the old Chinese dude in the story:
"A man's horse ran away. The other villagers said, "Oh, great misfortune! We sympathize!". The man said "Wait and see."
The man's horse came back, and had 6 wild horses following it. The man tried to capture the wild horses, and succeeded. The other villagers said "Oh, great fortune! How lucky!" The man said "Wait and see."
The man's only son was taming the horses, and fell and broke his leg. The other villagers said "Oh, great misfortune! How terrible! Your only son may become crippled for life!" The man said "Wait and see."
The army comes through the village and conscripts every able-bodied young male. The only young man left in the village is the man's broken-legged son."
Etc.
That is one of my favorite stories
If you are interested the man in the story is known to the Chinese as Sai Weng, pronounced, "Sigh Wong (the "ong" part has the same O sound as "groan")
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
BB, I was referring more to being so cruel as to refrain from healing people because they are a part of a scientific study. For that I find your god morally bankrupt and its actions inexcusable.
Thankfully he doesn't exist, or I might be angry about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:BB, I was referring more to being so cruel as to refrain from healing people because they are a part of a scientific study. For that I find your god morally bankrupt and its actions inexcusable.
Well fortunately for him I suppose I was only speculating on an arguement that could be made, not saying, "MY GOD WOULD DO THIS!"
Incidentally assuming this IS the choice and there is nothing God can do to modify it,
Would you rather a person die with a gangrenous leg and go on to a happier existance, or live with the full knowledge of God's existance and expectations and go to hell as all people who know of God's existance and fail to act properly on that knowledge do?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would you rather a person die with a gangrenous leg and go on to a happier existance, or live with the full knowledge of God's existance and expectations and go to hell as all people who know of God's existance and fail to act properly on that knowledge do?
Fortunately, God allows people who visit doctors to live long and healthy lives. He also doesn't seem to make a conclusive case against evolution, so that a person can go through life unsure of God's existence or expectations - therefore safe from an eternity of torture and punishment.
Good thing Pascal never had to make that wager.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sometimes I think fundamentalist religious people act the way the do just to annoy me and others.
I think the same thing about rabid atheists too.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would you rather a person die with a gangrenous leg and go on to a happier existance, or live with the full knowledge of God's existance and expectations and go to hell as all people who know of God's existance and fail to act properly on that knowledge do?
It's a bit of a moot point, as I don't believe in god, miracles or an afterlife (of reward or punishment).
Now, to address the hypothetical. If your god existed and acted exactly as you say he does, and it was me with the gangrenous leg, I would say heal it. Heaven wouldn't be heaven, at least to me, if it's ruled by a totalitarian dictator. So I would take my chances with all the gay people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Sometimes I think fundamentalist religious people act the way the do just to annoy me and others.
I think the same thing about rabid atheists too.
If so, you have an overinflated concept of your own importance in other people's lives.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You are welcome to investigate my church and decide for yourself if it is the product of men's fancy or God's will. I have come to the conclusion that it is of God.
Which, conveniently, is indistinguishable from men's fancy.
------------
Sorry, I didn't intend to start down the old 'god exists/doesn't exist' road. I normally let that one pass me by, but all the talk of faith-healing and God speaking directly to you just pushed my buttons.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"If so, you have an overinflated concept of your own importance in other people's lives."
Sir...step away...from the snark-cannon.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Since their education was all about the Bible and nothing else, they would be scientific when making judgements about the Bible and nothing else.
Okay, what about someone who studies the nature of the world, but uses the Bible as their only source in school? Would such a person be scientific when making judgements about the nature of the world, insofar as they based those judgements on the education they received from the Bible?
quote:I would note that you're criticizing the sample size of studies (of a size unknown to you, since I have not yet provided links) in favour of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1 (yourself).
That's the advantage other forms of evidence can have over science. Science requires large sample sizes to be convincing. Personal experience requires a sample size of only one, and yet can be equally convincing for certain questions that are best answered through personal experience.
It should be noted, though, that this is also the reason personal experience cannot answer many other questions. You can't, for instance, determine whether ice cream is healthy just because you personally eat it and are healthy. That is the sort of question that is better suited for science.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Okay, what about someone who studies the nature of the world, but uses the Bible as their only source in school? Would such a person be scientific when making judgements about the nature of the world, insofar as they based those judgements on the education they received from the Bible?
Well, here we run into a classic dilemma: do they conform observed reality to the book they read, or do they learn to dismiss the book in the places where it deviates from observed reality? If the latter, then yes, they're scientific.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
The point was that "Young Earth Creationist minister" is not a unique qualification for giving out good advice. It's just as irrelevant as "atheist", "agnostic" or "deist".
Ah. I misunderstood your point at first. Thank you for the clarification.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It was mucus' point. I was just trying to help.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Personal experience requires a sample size of only one, and yet can be equally convincing for certain questions that are best answered through personal experience. "
Convincing? Sure. True? Not nearly so probable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:
Now, to address the hypothetical. If your god existed and acted exactly as you say he does, and it was me with the gangrenous leg, I would say heal it. Heaven wouldn't be heaven, at least to me, if it's ruled by a totalitarian dictator. So I would take my chances with all the gay people.
You completely missed the point. By having your leg healed you are asking to be made fully aware of God's existence and ALL that entails. Are you ready RIGHT now to be perfect? Are you ready to just cast aside anything you thought was true for this perfect version of the truth? I hate to use the matrix but you were basically given the red pill and immediately thrown in front of Agent Smith and told to beat him in a fight if you fail to its endless torment and misery for you.
You were basically thrown into the driver's seat of a speeding car as a 10 year old and told, "You can't stop, but you must not crash."
If you know exactly who God is and you choose not to be perfect you are directly sinning against the truth. The natural consequence for sinning against the truth is misery. You'd likely curse God just as loudly for allowing you to be put in such a difficult situation without proper preparation.
Obviously you do not believe in God in the first place, but perhaps you might understand just alittle bit more why believers do not consider it barbarous and cruel that God does not simply reveal himself to all of mankind. I personally see it as an act of mercy.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There are certainly questions that personal experience will much more reliably give a true answer than science. For instance, "Will I like Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer?" You could conduct a study of 1000 people and ask them all whether or not they enjoyed it. You could even try to select people who are similar to you in taste. Regardless, actually watching the movie yourself once is going to give a more accurate answer, even though the sample size is only one.
Science is only really effective at answering a certain category of questions. These are questions looking for predictions, with definable variable inputs and measureable results. It beats every other method by far for those sorts of questions. But don't ask science things like who you should marry. It can't answer that one very well!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Obviously you do not believe in God in the first place, but perhaps you might understand just alittle bit more why believers do not consider it barbarous and cruel that God does not simply reveal himself to all of mankind. I personally see it as an act of mercy.
My issue is not with god revealing or not revealing himself. My issue is the idea of a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all merciful who then chooses to either allow horrible things happen to innocent people or chooses not to help once those things happen.
It is evil when good men choose to do nothing. Why can't we hold god to that same standard?
Also, why would having my leg healed give me total knowledge of god? If god hopped down from the sky and said "Your leg is healed...and by the way, everything BlackBlade says about me? He's got it right", then your argument would be valid. But just having my leg healed would only give me a mystery to explore.
Or, if god chose to make it so that I never had my leg injured in the first place, I would have nothing to worry me, would I?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: My issue is not with god revealing or not revealing himself. My issue is the idea of a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all merciful who then chooses to either allow horrible things happen to innocent people or chooses not to help once those things happen.
It is evil when good men choose to do nothing. Why can't we hold god to that same standard?
Religion has the answer built into itself, at least Christianity does. Whats a little pain on Earth for 75 years, when you have an eternity to spend in heaven?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
That still just begs the question: Why have 75 years of pain when you could have none?
My belief is that the pain must serve some greater good in the end - which in turn means that even "all powerful" entails some restrictions of some sort.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: My issue is not with god revealing or not revealing himself. My issue is the idea of a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all merciful who then chooses to either allow horrible things happen to innocent people or chooses not to help once those things happen.
It is evil when good men choose to do nothing. Why can't we hold god to that same standard?
Religion has the answer built into itself, at least Christianity does. Whats a little pain on Earth for 75 years, when you have an eternity to spend in heaven?
So it's perfectly alright with you (assuming you are stating your own beliefs) for children who have cancer and suffer horribly, only to die young, because they get to go to heaven? That is, of course, as long as they believe in god and follow all his other rules while they lay dying.
Maybe that's a cheap shot. If it is, I apologize. But I still think it is a valid point of support that, if he existed, this god would be morally bankrupt.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So it's perfectly alright with you (assuming you are stating your own beliefs) for children who have cancer and suffer horribly, only to die young, because they get to go to heaven? That is, of course, as long as they believe in god and follow all his other rules while they lay dying.
Maybe that's a cheap shot. If it is, I apologize. But I still think it is a valid point of support that, if he existed, this god would be morally bankrupt.
I assume that if there is a God (and I don't have the faith others here do)he either has some restrictions, or there truly is a greater good being served that we can't comprehend. Whether that child could have been the next Hitler (which I know still sounds cold), or something else.
A sci fi book I read once called Calculating God addressed that, and cancer ended up being needed. Fun read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are still (from both sides) discussing God as if God were an alien or Santa Claus. Human beings anthropmorphize stuff - it is how we are in relationship. But God is not some old man in the sky. It hinders understanding to be tied to that concept of God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Human beings anthropmorphize stuff
I believe this is one of the reasons God anthropomorphized himself, so to speak. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: My issue is not with god revealing or not revealing himself. My issue is the idea of a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all merciful who then chooses to either allow horrible things happen to innocent people or chooses not to help once those things happen.
It is evil when good men choose to do nothing. Why can't we hold god to that same standard?
Well one its a fallacy to say that God could be doing something and is choosing not to. If he does nothing it must be because what he has chosen to do/or not do in this instance is the best action. Or else he literally cannot do anything else lest he commit and error.
^^ edited.
quote: Also, why would having my leg healed give me total knowledge of god? If god hopped down from the sky and said "Your leg is healed...and by the way, everything BlackBlade says about me? He's got it right", then your argument would be valid. But just having my leg healed would only give me a mystery to explore.
Somehow I doubt your leg being miraculously healed would suddenly infuse you with a desire to be like God. I don't know you, I could be wrong, but in my cynical way of seeing things I'd guess you would be in awe for a few days, weeks, maybe even months and then it would be old hat. You might decide Buddha healed your leg because that day you didn't eat meat like you normally did, and he was clearly giving you a sign.
That sounds crazy but I've heard people make claims along that line MANY times.
You might decide, "Who knows, the body is an amazing thing, the tissue clearly can regenerate, maybe my leg in an unusual situation healed itself."
Your leg being healed under such circumstances does little to make you a better person, the shock wears off and you expect a bigger one next time to obtain the same reverence.
quote: Or, if god chose to make it so that I never had my leg injured in the first place, I would have nothing to worry me, would I?
Suffering is as much a part of God's existance as ours. If you are abused, God as your creator feels for you he is the one who gave us the ability to empathize. If pain and adversity did not exist humanity IMO would be a mess of childlike immaturity.
Also please realize that not all of us believe that innocent children or even adults who are simply not informed as to God and his plan are not by default sent to hell.
kmbboots: Some of us find God is more understandable when we see ourselves as literally his spiritual children, formed in his image. But if you feel more comfortable with a formless God who am I to complain if it helps you understand the turth?
[ June 15, 2007, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By having your leg healed you are asking to be made fully aware of God's existence and ALL that entails. Are you ready RIGHT now to be perfect?
Yep. Lay it on me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also please realize that not all of us believe that innocent children or even adults who are simply not informed as to God and his plan are not by default sent to hell.
I should certainly hope not and I'm glad you said so. I didn't assume you thought that...only that a fair number of people I have run into sadly do.
But what about me? This is a bit off topic, but I am morbidly curious. Do you think I, a former Roman Catholic who now considers himself to be an atheist, will go to hell?
Assume for this thought experiment that I am perfectly moral in all other ways (which is certainly not true). Is my atheism alone enough to send me to hell, in your opinion?
I promise not to take whatever your answer is personally. Again, I'm just curious what your opinion is. And if you'd rather not share it in this thread, I understand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Human beings anthropmorphize stuff
I believe this is one of the reasons God anthropomorphized himself, so to speak.
I think so, too. God, has a pretty keen understanding of human nature. But talking about God Incarnate is a different thing than God Creator and I think the "wizard in the sky" image while useful for some things is an obstacle if we slide into thinking that is all that God is.
BlackBlade; your idea of God is too limited for me. And it is why you end up with the "why doesn't God use his superpowers for X?" arguments. If I believed in God as you descibe it, I would agree with the atheists. God is no more "formless" then "having every form".
Javert, for the record, I don't think you will "go" to "hell" unless you choose to "go" to "hell".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:By having your leg healed you are asking to be made fully aware of God's existence and ALL that entails. Are you ready RIGHT now to be perfect?
Yep. Lay it on me.
Careful what you wish for Tom.
quote: I should certainly hope not and I'm glad you said so. I didn't assume you thought that...only that a fair number of people I have run into sadly do.
But what about me? This is a bit off topic, but I am morbidly curious. Do you think I, a former Roman Catholic who now considers himself to be an atheist, will go to hell?
Assume for this thought experiment that I am perfectly moral in all other ways (which is certainly not true). Is my atheism alone enough to send me to hell, in your opinion?
I promise not to take whatever your answer is personally. Again, I'm just curious what your opinion is. And if you'd rather not share it in this thread, I understand.
Well firstly I won't play judge with your soul as that is purely God's perogative.
However I will say that I am reasonably certain that God judges people by their intent and as well as why they elected to act a certain way.
The actions in of themselves, though not unimportant, do not stand on their own.
I can easily see Christians in hell. I can just as easily seeing an atheist die, be told by God that based on what he believed and knew to be true he/she lived in exemplary life.
kmbboots: I do not think I quite understand what you mean. How is a God with a physically tangeable body limited? How does believing that we are modeled after his image produce that super power dilemma you cited? I am honestly just curious and intrigued with how you see things.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Somehow I doubt your leg being miraculously healed would suddenly infuse you with a desire to be like God. I don't know you, I could be wrong, but in my cynical way of seeing things I'd guess you would be in awe for a few days, weeks, maybe even months and then it would be old hat. You might decide Buddha healed your leg because that day you didn't eat meat like you normally did, and he was clearly giving you a sign.
That sounds crazy but I've heard people make claims along that line MANY times.
You might decide, "Who knows, the body is an amazing thing, the tissue clearly can regenerate, maybe my leg in an unusual situation healed itself."
pff. I see the opposite quandary played out far, far more often.
A series of events occurs which is then termed a 'miracle' and then made into proof of God, when it didn't require any sort of abnormal intercession to occur, and probably wasn't that statistically abnormal anyway.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"If he does nothing it must be because what he has chosen to do/or not do in this instance is the best action."
Why?
That is, why must it be the best action?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "If he does nothing it must be because what he has chosen to do/or not do in this instance is the best action."
Why?
That is, why must it be the best action?
Hold on let me just down my last, "god" pill and for the next 10 seconds I can tell you everything God has going through his mind.
Now God clearly thinks that..... crap out of time.
In all seriousness however I am not sure what you are asking of me. Why does God have to make correct choices? Why is God always good? Why can't God choose to act wrongly? Why must God control everything? Why can't he simply ignore one particular situation?
If God is capable of acting contrary to what is good and still retain his God status then there really is no point as far as I am concerned to religion outside of figuring out what will get God to maximize whatever makes you feel the best.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, God did have a physically tangible body - as Jesus. Physical bodies are limited by time and space. And by being physical.
Samprimary, God's work is not necessarily abnormal intercession. Most of the time, it is quite ordinary.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: BlackBlade, God did have a physically tangible body - as Jesus. Physical bodies are limited by time and space. And by being physical.
So did He shed that body some time after the ressurection? Is there a difference in what we are after death then what Jesus experienced?
How exactly are they limited? Do you have proof (or perhaps some sort of scriptural indication)that God with a physical body is incapable of exerting influnce over all the universe and yet be in one place at one time? Would it be impossible for a God with a physical body to control time? Or to move about through space at any speed He elects?
edit: btw I greatly appreciate how frank your posts are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, there isn't proof of anything.
Where is God? What would God use to control time. I think of God as being "outside" of time. That is what Eternal means (though we think of it as just really long because we can't hold the concept in our heads.) What you are describing is Superman. Superman is not infinite and unlimited.
I appreciate your frankness as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Well, there isn't proof of anything.
Sorry I wanted to go back and edit "proof" out but it was up long enough that I didn't feel comfortable doing so.
quote:What would God use to control time
The same power he uses to influence everything. I don't really know the limits and bounds to what God can do, but I don't think we have to place him outside of the effects of time for him to be able to exert influence within the framework of time.
But I suppose we both operate under a seperate premise. I keep thinkin that while Jesus was around His father was still in heaven governing things as he always did, whereas obviously you disagree. Was God as Jesus running the universe while he was in physical form during those approx 33 years? If so, if he could it then would it be impossible for Him to do it now?
quote: What you are describing is Superman. Superman is not infinite and unlimited.
Just because Superman has powers that more closely approach what God is capable of when compared to your average Joe does not mean that I am saying God is superman. I see him more as Godman with infinitely more knowledge and therefore power then superman.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you mean by "in heaven"?
I think that God (Creator) is infinite and that God Incarnate (Jesus) was on earth in a specific place and time. Creator was still present in the universe as God is present now, but present as Jesus in that time and place.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just because Superman has powers that more closely approach what God is capable of when compared to your average Joe does not mean that I am saying God is superman. I see him more as Godman with infinitely more knowledge and therefore power then superman.
God-man?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you mean by "in heaven"?
I think that God (Creator) is infinite and that God Incarnate (Jesus) was on earth in a specific place and time. Creator was still present in the universe as God is present now, but present as Jesus in that time and place.
So was Jesus just an extension of God who is infinite? Rather then all of God's substance condenced into a body?
As for heaven, I consider heaven a place but also a state. For example I consider any place where perfection reigns to be heaven. But the heaven I mentioned in my previous post was God's realm. Where He and his angels, and who knows what else exist in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So was Jesus just an extension of God who is infinite? Rather then all of God's substance condenced into a body?
As for heaven, I consider heaven a place but also a state. For example I consider any place where perfection reigns to be heaven. But the heaven I mentioned in my previous post was God's realm. Where He and his angels, and who knows what else exist in.
Not an extension. A "gathering"? A concentration. And not all - God is infinite. Some of God (who is infinite) so the God that wasn't "gathered" was no less.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So was Jesus just an extension of God who is infinite? Rather then all of God's substance condenced into a body?
As for heaven, I consider heaven a place but also a state. For example I consider any place where perfection reigns to be heaven. But the heaven I mentioned in my previous post was God's realm. Where He and his angels, and who knows what else exist in.
Not an extension. A "gathering"? A concentration. And not all - God is infinite. Some of God (who is infinite) so the God that wasn't "gathered" was no less.
I have trouble accepting that concept, but hey I understand where you are coming from, and what you have already said makes more sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, God's work is not necessarily abnormal intercession. Most of the time, it is quite ordinary.
I am glad you believe this. But the peril of this phenomenon is that people are pointing towards circumstances that can and probably do have perfectly rational explanations, and claiming that part of the circumstances should be taken as proof of God's works.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
BB and kmbboots, if you don't mind me jumping into an ongoing debate.
I may be wrong, but I think this may help explain kate's issue with your definition BB (or at least my issue, which is I think close to hers).
If God is all powerful, eternal, everywhere and everything, then defining him as having A physical body is limiting. Why is his physical body (as you envision it) any more HIS than when he manifests himself as a squirrel or a rock or a tree or a star etc? Even if it's just a matter of self-identification (i.e. God sees himself as a man) then it would seem to give more power/influence/credence to him in that form than him in any other form (or him in formlesness).
By asserting that God is equally present in all things it doesn't limit him (in my understanding).
I freely admit that my understanding of the situation is inherently flawed, and coming from a lapsed-Catholic such as myself has been pieced together from numerous sources, but I have an issue defining any ONE thing as being God and everything else just being influenced by God. Then any statements about God being present in all things would seem incorrect to me.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"In all seriousness however I am not sure what you are asking of me. Why does God have to make correct choices? Why is God always good? Why can't God choose to act wrongly? Why must God control everything? Why can't he simply ignore one particular situation?
If God is capable of acting contrary to what is good and still retain his God status then there really is no point as far as I am concerned to religion outside of figuring out what will get God to maximize whatever makes you feel the best. "
I mean, what's your evidence that He acts the way you say he must at all in the first place? What says he must?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, yes, I wish they wouldn't. I believe that it is far more awesome, powerful, and useful to recognize God working through and in us (and the rest of Creation) than to point to (usually temporarily)unexplainable phenomenon in order to convince people to believe in a God that is too small.
Grimace, we're talking about God - of course our understanding is flawed. How can it be otherwise? I have the same issue with one thing being God (unless we are taling Jesus) and everything else just influenced. God is integreted with Creation.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Okay. I watched Last comic standing, and heard a comic that made me think of this thread...
Evolutionists will explain how the sun works (I forget the exact process), to which creationists respond "Yes, but a ray of sunshine on your face is like a warm hug... from Jesus."
I thought it was funny.
Now the topic has drifted again, and I feel angry for missing this juicy development: God's healings or lack thereof.
Darn! I was raised in Rhema affiliated churches, faith healing (No snakes. Don't worry. Ol' Kenny wasn't a kook.), faith finances, the whole deal!
After my mother developed multiple personalities (Actually, they were always there, she was just diagnosed in the last several years), and my dad got diabetic retonopothy (Forgive my spelling), I guess our whole family kind of rebelled from Rhema doctrine.
I want to cover every topic that has been hit, very briefly. Sorry. I skim read, so I'm probably reiterating what somebody smarter than me already said. Sorry, if that's the case.
Anyway, the party line for most churches is that the devil causes everything that is bad, God is responsible for all good things, and what saten meant for bad, God works out for good.
So, if God doesn't heal you, it's okay, because somehow the story of your death to cancer will reach a starving orphan's ears in Dijibuti, and he will become a missionary and bring millions of people in Africa to the Lord.
Another way of thinking (The Rhema line), is that God always heals, and he wants us to be prosperous. So poor or sick people are suffering because of their own lack of faith.
It's never said in so many words, given, but it's implied. <Sigh> Rhema gets on my nerves, sometimes. Coincidentally, I've been playing in a rhema church for the last two years. Talk about nostalgia! I'm going to play keyboard at the Rhema Youth Camp - South East District - This coming week.
Anyway, getting back on topic (I go on tangents, in case you couldn't tell by my excessive use of parthensises, semicolons, colons, and hyphens), I think most people forget the human factor.
If we are to believe that the devil causes all evil, we are believing that every evil deed we do is the result of the devil. I'm sorry. But, according to the Bible, we all have a sin nature and give in to selfish desire.
If God won't make us worship him, why would he strike down all child-molesters? They're human. That's what's so scary about them. If they were monsters that lurked in the dark, evil incarnate, demons from hell, at least we would have the comfort of knowing they were born for evil. It's easier than believing that actual human beings can turn out that way. Although, technically, demons started out as angels... Anyway.
Bad things happen to good people. It happens.
Jesus was 100% God, 100% man. Basic Christology, if you believe any of Christian Doctrine. I personally have trouble with pre-destination, the rest of what I understood being pretty sound in most cases. But, if you don't agree with the majority of Christian doctrine, you may find yourself disagreeing with God's human divinity. Anyway, it's a pretty big deal. It's considered heresey if you disagree with this particular pillar of doctrine -- As in, you're no longer practicing christianity. At least, that's how I understood it.
God being outside of time would be a good way of putting his eternal nature, in my opinion.
God is not held to the same standard as humans, as he said in Jeremiah, somewhere ?:??, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways"
The only time God ever acted as a human was when Jesus came to Earth (Leaving God the Father, and the Holy Spirit wherever they were), and effectively acted out the standard to which we are to live.
Anyway, I'm really in a rush right now, and can't proofread this, and there are probably gaping holes everywhere. Sorry.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006:
Anyway, the party line for most churches is that the devil causes everything that is bad . . .
Most churches that you're familiar with, maybe. I wouldn't count on it being the majority of all Christian churches though.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think of bad stuff as more of actions must have consequences. I think that is more in line with my church then that the devil did it. If bad stuff stopped happening, in the end, we would be little more than puppets. I just can't imagine how God would prevent bad without either everyone being dead or us never making a meaningful decision.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006:
Anyway, the party line for most churches is that the devil causes everything that is bad . . .
Most churches that you're familiar with, maybe. I wouldn't count on it being the majority of all Christian churches though.
Given.
I forgot about PC churches. Not that every church that doesn't fall under the two afformentioned categories is Politically correct... And not that Political correctness is bad... Or good... Or neutral...
Just under the scope of my experience (Which I hold to be more extensive than most, given the fact my father was a roving minister who preached at many churches from many different denominations, taking along his family), most would fall under those three. Or some variation of them.
There. I've effectively been ambiguous enough as to include every single church into my three categories. Any church that doesn't, is one of the 'variations'.
***Edited***
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Grimace: We seem to be operating on very different concepts of what God is. When God refers to himself over and over as a, "Man" and as, "Father" I see that quite literally as him describing himself in concepts that we ourselves see here on earth, as earth is a shadow of how things upstairs are. I feel if God were trying to present himself as formless and existing everywhere yet nowhere at once he would have said so more explicitly and rather emphatically. Also remember that I accept as canon writings that basically spell out plainly the nature of the trinity.
I still fail to see how God having a physical body limits his power. Mormons at least specifically believe the Holy Ghost part of the trinity is without a corporeal body and thus can be present in multiple places at once. So God the father having a body and being the head of the trinity with his son Christ and the Holy Ghost as executors of his will makes him quite able to influence the entire universe yet clearly occupy space.
That does not mean that as man comprehends so is God bound. God can do an infinite number of things that defy our understanding.
0Megabyte:
quote:I mean, what's your evidence that He acts the way you say he must at all in the first place? What says he must?
Well for one he has said so in his scriptures. God describes himself as good. And another I have come to that conclusion based on my own years of experience. Finally God himself has impressed on me that concept and certified that it is accurate. I'd rather not delve into the specifics of those sorts of experiences but again. If all of that is true, and it turns out God was just lying to me, then I submit that there is not much any of us can do about an all powerful being whose agenda is largely a mystery.
And frankly approaching life from that angle would drive me insane to be honest.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Umm... God (In my belief system) is omnisient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
Whether or not he is 'confined' by a human body, or exists everywhere, or referred to himself as a banana does not matter.
Please excuse me when I say, who cares? (In my belief system, beliving the things I've said in this post so far.)
God is good. Yes. He's said so, so it is. I've seen it, and read about it, and heard about it, and experienced it, and I have no problem accepted the innate goodness of God. Anything that he does that seems wrong to us is just the result of man's being fallen and ignorant. There's nothing wrong with questioning God (In my opinion), he won't get his feelings hurt (In my opinion), and he's omniscient, so even if you don't express your concerns with him out loud, he still knows (Accept the inevitable and just spit it out.). But still, God is good, and ultimately people who have questioned his goodness will find out that he has been good all along. No, I'm not saying that if you doubt God's goodness you're going to hell. I'm saying that you will either experience and understand that he is good (Possibly multible times, since it's likely that we've all doubted his goodness more than once.) on this earth, or, if not on earth, than when you die.
It sounds trite, but I believe it's true.
I'm confused about what people are arguing about. What does it matter if God is in a man's body, or in everything, or formless? If he's still God, it doesn't matter. I guess that means I'm confused about why people are arguing, then.
BB, although I understand your point, and it is valid, but God also referred to himself as 'Bridegroom', and to the church as 'The Bride of Christ'. The church is not a literal bride, so it does not make sense to me to assume that God meant that he was literally a man. Or taking a man's form. Father, I believe, was used to illustrate that we are brothers and sisters of Christ, and that he loves us as any good father loves his child. But, if he were literally our father, where is our literal mother? He's a very unique father to have made us without a woman involved somewhere. So, if he did mean 'father' literally, than we must admit he meant a very special father. And it makes sense to call God a 'special' human, if he takes that shape. I personally don't see how being formless affects his fatherliness, or his *perfect* human-like self.
*** Edited, added a conjuntion***
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nathan, would you please explain what the term "Politically Correct" means to you in this context?
Also, FYI, there are approximately 165 denominations in the US alone. Your experience might be "more extensive than most," but I doubt that it extends far enough to so blithely categorize them all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One doesn't usually hear the Catholic Church categorized as PC. Perhaps, that's progress - or just scary.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: BB, although I understand your point, and it is valid, but God also referred to himself as 'Bridegroom', and to the church as 'The Bride of Christ'. The church is not a literal bride, so it does not make sense to me to assume that God meant that he was literally a man.
If God is infinite, and beyond our complete understanding, I don't see why we should assume that the church is not his literal bride. Maybe the spiritual essence of God has a heavenly mansion with the spiritual essence of the church, and they do married people (spirit/soul) things together up there.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Ha! I guess that's my PC (or, more specifically, UMC) background coming into play in this brief anecdote:
We are 8 years old.
My friend: The devil made me do it.
Me: Nuh-uh, Laura, the devil didn't make you do anything. You did it yourself!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Well for one he has said so in his scriptures."
Yet the only thing supporting the spiritual validity (that is, that it's the actual word of God) of the Bible is the words of the Bible itself.
Second, there are many other books, many other scriptures, of other religions that make the exact same claim, and whose proponents use the exact same arguement as you make. How is your use of that arguement more useful than the many claims to validity you would say are false?
"God describes himself as good."
I describe myself as good too. Doesn't make me so. And if I defined good as "whatever it is that I do" you'd catagorically reject that definition as meaningless and trite, as well you should. If you do the same with God, how is that different, really?
And using the arguement that He IS completely good doesn't necessarily work, because there is no natural law saying He has to, only His own word to that effect. (Statements coming, also, from a book who other religions would reject as false, and whose evidence is no better than the books you claim are true.)
"And another I have come to that conclusion based on my own years of experience. Finally God himself has impressed on me that concept and certified that it is accurate."
The same claim is made by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, even the old believers in the Greek pantheon. They feel it in their heart, that same very certainty you do, and feel what they believe to be God (or whatever) telling them the Truth. They see visions of their gods, see "signs" of their gods, etc.
And if you claim those are all just deceptions of the Devil... how do you tell the difference, if the feelings feel identical? (Which they seem to.)
"I'd rather not delve into the specifics of those sorts of experiences but again. If all of that is true, and it turns out God was just lying to me, then I submit that there is not much any of us can do about an all powerful being whose agenda is largely a mystery."
No. There isn't. But that's assuming said all powerful being exists at all. Which He very well may. I don't say God doesn't exist, at all. I ask how you can know He's anything like what you think, and I ask why your evidence, which you would reject if you heard coming from the mouth of one who believed in a different god, is worthwhile in your case, but not theirs.
"And frankly approaching life from that angle would drive me insane to be honest. "
That's unfortunate. I'm glad it doesn't bother me so much. I'm okay with it either way.
But does that mean that you refuse to approach God from that angle because it would make you feel that terrible, regardless of whether it's true? Or would you look there and play with the possibility even if doing so would destroy you, and just find that position wanting?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Dkw, by PC, I mean the belief that says that pretty much all evil is caused by the poor choices of humankind, or the result of ignorance and fear, the solution being to worry about how we live our own lives, and make an impact in our own communities, and promote tolerance and love to all the world. Some don't believe in a devil, etc.
I wouldn't call my categories 'blithe'. I did say there could be variations. Given, they could be 150 variations, but they are still addressed. That's not blite, it's careless.
Mighty Cow said:
"If God is infinite, and beyond our complete understanding, I don't see why we should assume that the church is not his literal bride. Maybe the spiritual essence of God has a heavenly mansion with the spiritual essence of the church, and they do married people (spirit/soul) things together up there. "
We're still talking about spiritual essence, not real, solid bridegrooms and brides. So, at the very least, God is the spiritual essence of a man. Not a man in himself.
But again, it probably does no good to discuss this particular topic with me, since I care very little for it. God is God. Regardless of his form, or lack thereof.
Megabyte, you seem to be really looking over some major details in the christian belief system. God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent. Everything he does is good because he says so. The end. He is God, thus, he defines what is good and evil. And, he's allowed to have different standards for himself. He's not a super-powerful human, prone to imperfection and subjectivity, he is God. One of the proofs of the goodness of God is that he sent his son to us, and we are saved (In Christian doctrine) by accepting the completely free gift of salvation. Not to start a once-saved, always-saved debate, but I don't believe you are going to accidentally end up in hell because of you didn't *do* things well enough here on earth. Anyway, Christianity is one of the only religions ever to have a God actually give up something, sacrifice something dear to him (His son) just because he cared about our livelihood. Just because he loves us. No strings attached (Again, in christianity.).
That's the prime example of his goodness. But, allthough it is the trite line everybody pulls out with little reason, his ways and thoughts are higher than ours, and if we view his actions as not being good, it is because our finite minds are incapable of understanding his thoughts and ways.
"But that's assuming said all powerful being exists at all."
Uh, yeah. There's the real issue. Discuss whether God is real or not, not whether or not he is good. If you don't believe in the Christian God, it does no good to ask questions that will most likely be answered with Bible quotes, and doctrine from the Christian religion. None of these arguments will hold any weight.
This is the difference between science, and religion. At some point, in religion, you have to put faith in something, even if there's no evidence directly supporting it. The Bible has been around forever, and yes, it may have been written by Christians, but whose to say they weren't nuts? Whose to say that the scriptures weren't corrupted? And, even if you find the beliefs in the Bible to be sound, uncorrupted, and written by sane people, that doesn't necesarrily mean that it's the word of God. It just means that it's good advice, given for that time period, that may or may not be relevent today.
Whose to say that God healed this woman's cancer? We don't understand all of medicine. Perhaps there's a rational explanation for why the tumors dissappeared like they did. It doesn't have to be a miracle from a God.
Any vision can be human hype and hysteria, and any 'feelings' or evidence of a 'conscience' can be evidence of presuppostitions pounded into your subconscience from birth. And every faith or religion can be compared to each other. Obviously, Christianity is a standout, just because it concentrates on what God (Our loving and heavenly father) has done for us, rather than what we should do for God (Although, ultimately, your life will benefit greatly by living as he said to). But, every 'vision' or 'feeling' to a person is just as valid as another 'vision' or 'feeling' from another person from another religion if you don't believe in a particular one. So, faith takes over at some point. So, I don't see the point in using the Bible as proof of God's goodness if you don't believe it has some value as the word of God (Even if it's just the word of God for 'back then'). And I don't see the point of discussing the goodness of a hypothetical God you may not believe in. Without faith at some point, all arguments are pointless. I believe people have converted to religions because of conviction, guilt, social-preasure, and other means of emotional manipulation, but I don't believe anydbody has been out-argued into believing in a God.
And this is not one of those 'I believe because I *have* to believe in something' things. I don't have to believe in anything. Still, I believe in God. Because I can. I just do.
I think this is an area where we must all agree to disagree. When it comes to God, most arguments are pointless. In a diverse group like this one, people have put faith into different things, which is fine, but nobody will ever put forth an 'effective' argument, since most of their 'evidence' will not hold any weight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nathan, you almost make all my arguments for me. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Tom:
Yes.
Nathan: What Tom said. lol
When it comes to overlooking it, I know those concepts of Christian religion, but just because it's said, doesn't make it accurate. You did get to the crux of an issue. If you don't believe it, how can you even talk about the goodness of a God that doesn't exist?
The thing is, I'm looking at the moment from a different perspective: As an outsider might. From an outside perspective, how could one find any evidence that this particular faith is any more valid than the others?
And I find the answer quite numbing. If it's just your faith, then is it the strength? For there are many in other religions whose faith is equally strong or moreso. Does that make theirs more correct?
No, of course. But then... what does?
Adn in the end, it's quite chilling, to think of that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
0Megabyte: I couldn't get to your post today, Ill try to write a thoughtful response tomorrow. I would hope however that if you wish for others to evaluate their faith from an outsiders point of view, that you perhaps consider that if there is indeed a God, and he does indeed have a religion designed to help mankind, then its rational that the following might be true.
1: That religion when followed in a reasonable way does make adherents better people.
2: God is actively involved in that religion.
3: A process exists wherewith one can be reasonably confident in the truths that religion purports to possess. Possibly even distinct divine certification.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
3: What do we conclude when a great number of people are reasonably confident in completely different and inconsistent truths, or despite their best efforts, get no confidence or certification?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
1.) Religion tends to do so, based on the evidence I've seen, so there's no problem here.
2.) Depends on whether God exists, naturally. If He's there, He probably is, but the question then comes, why are there so many, why are they so different, and why did God not overcome geographic diversity?
3.) Deals with my previous question, as well. What would such a process be, and how can it be distinguished from insanity, mistakes, desire for it to be so, and the other snags which make so many humans believe things that are false, both things that are not obviously false, and things which in some some cases are obviously so to objective observation?
All this is pointless, however, if there is no God. So. The first key is this: Evidence for the existence of a God in the first place. From there, dealing with what He does, how He can show what His will is, etc, can be shown. But if He doesn't exist, it's a moot point. Thus, it's necessary to talk of that first, alone.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
... what MightyCow said.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:1: That religion when followed in a reasonable way does make adherents better people.
I would disagree with that. I, of course, would never say that there aren't very good people who follow religion. But I don't think it's the religion that necessarily makes them better.
It seems to me that what makes them better is the social aspect, the charity and the good deeds that most religions preach.
So, while certain aspects of a religion might make one better, those aspects are not held solely by religion.
I have, however, just woken up...so I hope what I wrote makes some sort of sense.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:It seems to me that what makes them better is the social aspect, the charity and the good deeds that most religions preach.
So, while certain aspects of a religion might make one better, those aspects are not held solely by religion.
I'm not sure I understand this ... if charity and good deeds are preached by a religion, and an adherent believes the religion and therefore makes an effort to develop charity and perform good deeds, is following the religion not making the person better?
I don't think BlackBlade was saying that religion is the ONLY way a person can be better. Just that following its teachings can make one better.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:It seems to me that what makes them better is the social aspect, the charity and the good deeds that most religions preach.
So, while certain aspects of a religion might make one better, those aspects are not held solely by religion.
I'm not sure I understand this ... if charity and good deeds are preached by a religion, and an adherent believes the religion and therefore makes an effort to develop charity and perform good deeds, is following the religion not making the person better?
I don't think BlackBlade was saying that religion is the ONLY way a person can be better. Just that following its teachings can make one better.
Right. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think there is anything unique about the aspect of religion that may make you a better person.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:"Well for one he has said so in his scriptures."
Yet the only thing supporting the spiritual validity (that is, that it's the actual word of God) of the Bible is the words of the Bible itself.
Second, there are many other books, many other scriptures, of other religions that make the exact same claim, and whose proponents use the exact same arguement as you make. How is your use of that arguement more useful than the many claims to validity you would say are false?
You asked what evidence I have that God is good, it does little good to ask that purely so you can rip each reason apart. In anycase you are wrong that only source of validity to the claims of the Bible is the Bible itself. Mormons have 3 other books that all corroborate what the Bible says. Yes there is the possibility that these additional books were all made up so of course they agree with the Bible, but there is still the chance they are what they claim to be.
quote:"God describes himself as good."
I describe myself as good too. Doesn't make me so. And if I defined good as "whatever it is that I do" you'd catagorically reject that definition as meaningless and trite, as well you should. If you do the same with God, how is that different, really?
And using the arguement that He IS completely good doesn't necessarily work, because there is no natural law saying He has to, only His own word to that effect. (Statements coming, also, from a book who other religions would reject as false, and whose evidence is no better than the books you claim are true.)
How do YOU know there is no natural law saying God must be good? Are you as timeless as the universe that you can accurately state such things? For all you know there are in fact laws that exist that state the relationship between knowledge and power. You are right even if God himself shows up and says, "Hey BlackBlade I'm a good guy," that by itself is not enough. But there is plenty of pudding to examine.
quote:"And another I have come to that conclusion based on my own years of experience. Finally God himself has impressed on me that concept and certified that it is accurate."
The same claim is made by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, even the old believers in the Greek pantheon. They feel it in their heart, that same very certainty you do, and feel what they believe to be God (or whatever) telling them the Truth. They see visions of their gods, see "signs" of their gods, etc.
And if you claim those are all just deceptions of the Devil... how do you tell the difference, if the feelings feel identical? (Which they seem to.)
Why is it impossible for God to tell men of all faiths in ways they will comprehend that he is good? That does not mean he is the author of every religion, but I don't find it wrong if God tells a Hindu and a Catholic the same day that he is good.
forgive the requote,
quote:They feel it in their heart, that same very certainty you do
There is no way you can possibly know this to be true. Arguements are pretty easy to make if you are in charge of what your opponent and the rest of the world thinks/believes.
You have no idea what the adherents of every religion claim to have felt/experienced? I have spoken to Muslims and Buddhists who had experiences that I believed were of God, but I don't pretend to know better then others about what they have experienced. I have my OWN experiences and they are good enough for me to believe in a God who is good, and in my religion. They are also good enough for me that I think others can profit from trying the same path I am trying to walk.
What is the point in arguing, "You can't prove that God is telling the truth, this could all be an elaborate evil scheme, so what's the point in believing in a God in the first place?"
Well you are right I rely on mere faith that God isn't putting one on me and the rest of the world. So far my faith has not been misplaced, the day I feel it is Ill let you know, and you can gloat all day long.
Mighty Cow:
quote:3: What do we conclude when a great number of people are reasonably confident in completely different and inconsistent truths, or despite their best efforts, get no confidence or certification?
I don't think you conclude much of anything as I cannot sit inside somebodies body and weigh what they are saying with what they are. And again, how can you judge anything by somebody elses account? How do we know they are ALL reasonably confident? I submit that we can't. All we can do is test what those people are saying ourselves and see what experiences come of it.
quote: would disagree with that. I, of course, would never say that there aren't very good people who follow religion. But I don't think it's the religion that necessarily makes them better.
It seems to me that what makes them better is the social aspect, the charity and the good deeds that most religions preach.
If I did not have the experiences I have had I would most likely agree with you. While much of what you said is true, there is more to what a religion can do then that. You are right in that every lesson and virtue that religion could espouse could also be learned in another way. But religion also imbues its adherents with knowledge of the truth. I would think that knowing the truth of say, why do any of us exist at all, or what is the ultimate result of my choices, would give one understanding and purpose, which in turn makes them a better person.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In anycase you are wrong that only source of validity to the claims of the Bible is the Bible itself. Mormons have 3 other books that all corroborate what the Bible says. Yes there is the possibility that these additional books were all made up so of course they agree with the Bible...
Oh, BB, this brought a little laughter into my day. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:If I did not have the experiences I have had I would most likely agree with you. While much of what you said is true, there is more to what a religion can do then that. You are right in that every lesson and virtue that religion could espouse could also be learned in another way. But religion also imbues its adherents with knowledge of the truth. I would think that knowing the truth of say, why do any of us exist at all, or what is the ultimate result of my choices, would give one understanding and purpose, which in turn makes them a better person.
While this is true, it is not universally true.
I think that believing you know the absolute truth has just as much chance of making you a better person as it has a chance of making you arrogant and overbearing. This is, of course, an anecdotal comment, and should be considered as such.
I happen to believe that always searching for truth and questioning what you know makes you a better person than being happy with the answers we already have. But that's just my personal opinion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In anycase you are wrong that only source of validity to the claims of the Bible is the Bible itself. Mormons have 3 other books that all corroborate what the Bible says. Yes there is the possibility that these additional books were all made up so of course they agree with the Bible...
Oh, BB, this brought a little laughter into my day.
Why not return the favor then? My day has been pretty monotonous thus far.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think you conclude much of anything as I cannot sit inside somebodies body and weigh what they are saying with what they are. And again, how can you judge anything by somebody elses account? How do we know they are ALL reasonably confident? I submit that we can't. All we can do is test what those people are saying ourselves and see what experiences come of it.
This point undermines your own testimony. How can any of us know that you are actually confident in your beliefs and experiences?
Further, if you can't trust the testimony or know the validity of claims made by religions other than your own, you equally cannot know about people within your own religion. If you can't rely on what anyone else tells you about God or faith, how do you learn in the first place?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:If I did not have the experiences I have had I would most likely agree with you. While much of what you said is true, there is more to what a religion can do then that. You are right in that every lesson and virtue that religion could espouse could also be learned in another way. But religion also imbues its adherents with knowledge of the truth. I would think that knowing the truth of say, why do any of us exist at all, or what is the ultimate result of my choices, would give one understanding and purpose, which in turn makes them a better person.
While this is true, it is not universally true.
I think that believing you know the absolute truth has just as much chance of making you a better person as it has a chance of making you arrogant and overbearing. This is, of course, an anecdotal comment, and should be considered as such.
I happen to believe that always searching for truth and questioning what you know makes you a better person than being happy with the answers we already have. But that's just my personal opinion.
Well do you agree that the proof that a belief is correct is gratifying? I mean when you believe you have it in you to learn a new language, does your joy disappear when one day you realize you have attained a fluent command of the language?
I just as much as anybody else am always seeking for answers. Hell, if one day Buddha descends from the heavens and says, "BlackBlade you've got it all wrong and here's why," I won't throw a hissy fit I promise.
But it is slightly frustrating and off putting to have people say in effect, "There is no way you can know you are right, the only answer is you are deluding yourself."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But it is slightly frustrating and off putting to have people say in effect, "There is no way you can know you are right, the only answer is you are deluding yourself."
How would you test such a claim to show, even to yourself, that it was false?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think you conclude much of anything as I cannot sit inside somebodies body and weigh what they are saying with what they are. And again, how can you judge anything by somebody elses account? How do we know they are ALL reasonably confident? I submit that we can't. All we can do is test what those people are saying ourselves and see what experiences come of it.
This point undermines your own testimony. How can any of us know that you are actually confident in your beliefs and experiences?
Further, if you can't trust the testimony or know the validity of claims made by religions other than your own, you equally cannot know about people within your own religion. If you can't rely on what anyone else tells you about God or faith, how do you learn in the first place?
I did not say that. If somebody tells me, "I saw God." I cannot say, "Yes you did," or, "No you didn't." If a million people in a row all say they saw the same thing and relate the exact same account, though it's more credible I still cannot say either way.
You can't know if I am really confident in my own experiences. You only have my word saying so, and I can make arugements that the theological and scientific arguements my religion makes are or are not possible or even plausible. Its up to you to decide if what a religion says is true. Go try meditation and see if produces the results Buddhism claims it will. If you come away from it with the conclusion that meditation is useful but you are not so sure about the whole no meat business, good for you, you have found something useful. If you try the whole Christian prayer thing and decide prayer helps you but you don't actually think a God is hearing your prayers, good for you. If you try fasting during Ramadan with the rest of the Muslims and find there is something to subduing all your needs and desires, then you go away with something valuable.
If you look to the heavens and ask out loud if there is a God and you sudddenly feel seized with a feeling of love and a strong sense of affirmation what else can you say about the experience? Could you have produced the feeling yourself? I suppose so, but that just does not seem like it's the correct answer. If you never have another experience again then perhaps you ought to think again, but if it shows up in strange situations then what can you but accept that its there. Doesn't mean you can prove anything, but if you find a belief system that purifies that feeling and makes it stronger in your life and it reaches a point where it actually starts to guide you and where that feeling becomes almost words in your mind.
That feeling starts to become more valid. I doesn't mean you just give up everything else and listen to only that voice, but what reason do you have outside of healthy skepticism to not give heed to it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:But it is slightly frustrating and off putting to have people say in effect, "There is no way you can know you are right, the only answer is you are deluding yourself."
How would you test such a claim to show, even to yourself, that it was false?
How would you live you life in constant disbelief of what your sense tell you?
How can you know what I have written in this post is actually what I typed out? Your eyes could be lying to you, your mind could be misinterpreting the symbols.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you look to the heavens and ask out loud if there is a God and you sudddenly feel seized with a feeling of love and a strong sense of affirmation what else can you say about the experience? Could you have produced the feeling yourself? I suppose so, but that just does not seem like it's the correct answer
Why not? Some drug users, including LDS converts, have said their spiritual experiences were similar to a drug high. I have an LDS friend who describes his spiritual experiences as being identical to what he feels while doing "energy work" in the martial arts.
For these people, at least, such experiences can be triggered in non-spiritual environments.
[ June 18, 2007, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How can you know what I have written in this post is actually what I typed out? Your eyes could be lying to you, your mind could be misinterpreting the symbols.
There's little ambiguity in the text. There seems to be quite a bit more in the experiences you describe. Can you show me one of these experiences? I can show you your text.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Could you have produced the feeling yourself? I suppose so, but that just does not seem like it's the correct answer.
Can you explain why?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Could you have produced the feeling yourself? I suppose so, but that just does not seem like it's the correct answer.
Can you explain why?
I already elaborated on what could happen to make the feeling seem more valid. Its in the same post I mentioned it.
You could even play around with what sorts of things could happen to make that experience more genuine to just you.
edit:
quote:Why not? Some drug users, including LDS converts, have said their spiritual experiences were similar to a drug high. I have an LDS friend who describes his spiritual experiences as being identical to what he feels while doing "energy work" in the martial arts.
For these people, at least, such experiences can be triggered in non-spiritual environments.
We still have to use real world feelings to describe such experiences. For me at least I have yet to encounter any sensation or situation where the same feelings were invoked as when I found God.
I am not quite sure what you mean by, "Energy Work."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We still have to use real world feelings to describe such experiences.
But the fact that some people liken these experiences to other, purely physical, experiences should indicate that such intense feelings are not only possible with a supernatural actor.
quote:I am not quite sure what you mean by, "Energy Work."
Neither am I. His words, not mine. The point is that the supposed influence of the Holy Ghost can be reproduced by someone practicing a ritualistic fighting discipline.
Given these examples, it seems that we're not necessarily talking about a spiritual experience. It appears to be a physical experience to which some people attribute a spiritual cause.
If this is the case - that these experiences are physical and the spiritual aspect is only a matter of individual interpretation, then these experiences are not very useful for determining the truth of a religion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: Remember though that just because your friend is an LDS convert even does not mean I can accept that he actually felt God and then converted. For all I know he joined after misidentifying another feeling for the Holy Ghost.
Mormons frequently get together and express their faith in God. Sometimes I have heard a person recount their conversion, and the feelings present at my own conversion remanifest themselves. But plenty of times I recount my own experience and the feelings do not emerge. The point is their experiences can perhaps affirm my own experiences but they do not prove anything about them. If everyone in my church simply died one day, I'd have to reconsider some of the conclusions I have drawn, but Ill cross that bridge if it presents itself. Thus far I believe as my my inteligence and soul dictate I oughtt to.
The timing of when I feel those feelings is one indication to me that they are not just random synapse firings of my brain. Another is that often these feelings turn into words that I can express, or prompt me to take certain actions. When these words are heeded or these actions are taken my life is happier. When I knowingly ignore them or just forget to listen, life is more turbulant.
Now perhaps I simply create meaning for those feelings, perhaps I just think I feel an idea formed from God in my mind and that in reality its my own common sense that prompted me to take action with favorable results. My faith however is the culmination of many events and experiences. I don't point to one moment in my life and say, "This proves it all." But I myself believe I seen enough that the existance of a God is probably if not almost certain. If one day events seem to indicate that there is an alternate and very plausible explanation to all I have seen then I will have no choice but to reconsider what I believe, just as any atheist should reconsider that belief if events dictate that this view is closer to the truth.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"You asked what evidence I have that God is good, it does little good to ask that purely so you can rip each reason apart."
If I accepted them blindly I would be doing a very dangerous thing. And if it can be so easily ripped apart, that isn't good, either.
"In anycase you are wrong that only source of validity to the claims of the Bible is the Bible itself. Mormons have 3 other books that all corroborate what the Bible says. Yes there is the possibility that these additional books were all made up so of course they agree with the Bible, but there is still the chance they are what they claim to be."
Heh. Remember, I'm not a Mormon, I'm a Catholic, and my faith rejects those works. Which is the exact sort of thing I was talking about elsewhere, about the sheer contradictions between faiths. Further, your claims assume you have the one true faith, as Mormons are wont to do. People in my faith would disagree, and would use similar evidence to support them. (the strength of their faith.)
"How do YOU know there is no natural law saying God must be good?"
How do you know there is no natural law saying he must be evil? Or there at all? To discuss whether He's good, as I stated after the message you're replying to, I conceeded that you have to figure that bit out before talking about whether He's good or evil.
"Are you as timeless as the universe that you can accurately state such things?"
Are you, to talk about God's moral standing?
"For all you know there are in fact laws that exist that state the relationship between knowledge and power. You are right even if God himself shows up and says, "Hey BlackBlade I'm a good guy," that by itself is not enough. But there is plenty of pudding to examine."
Then why haven't you shown me any?
That is, none that can be more easily and usefully and predictably attributed to physical means?
"Why is it impossible for God to tell men of all faiths in ways they will comprehend that he is good? That does not mean he is the author of every religion, but I don't find it wrong if God tells a Hindu and a Catholic the same day that he is good."
This is not unreasonable and actually fits my own theological precepts of what God does, based on the way the world really is. Yet there's no proof of this in my mind except that I would like it to be so. It fits the mold, there is no evidence for it.
"There is no way you can possibly know this to be true. Arguements are pretty easy to make if you are in charge of what your opponent and the rest of the world thinks/believes."
Alright. I have what they SAY they feel. And I have what YOU say you feel. Both they and you say the same thing, with the same vehemance and the same insistence that you are feeling it. I also have no evidence that ANY of your claims come from God, other than you say it does. I DO have evidence that the same physical feelings can and have been caused in experiments using electricity to excite certain parts of the brain. Also, drugs such as LSD have been described to feel the same by people who have both had the drug and had religious experiences. Again, I just have what THEY, too, said.
This in fact weakens your arguement, because your claims are indistinguishable from theirs.
"You have no idea what the adherents of every religion claim to have felt/experienced? I have spoken to Muslims and Buddhists who had experiences that I believed were of God, but I don't pretend to know better then others about what they have experienced."
Okay. And I won't pretend to know better about yours. Except it sounds identical to the feelings of others. How is it different, how can you show it's real, other than "I feel it?"
"I have my OWN experiences and they are good enough for me to believe in a God who is good, and in my religion."
That's not good enough for me, unfortunately. My faith is contradictory to yours in the first place. So are the faiths of more than 5.5 billion others. And many of us billions say the same exact words, with equal certainty. You all contradict each other. Who's right?
"They are also good enough for me that I think others can profit from trying the same path I am trying to walk."
*nods.*
"What is the point in arguing, "You can't prove that God is telling the truth, this could all be an elaborate evil scheme, so what's the point in believing in a God in the first place?""
There is no point. I agree and I won't argue that. We cannot know whether God is telling the truth.
A more important question is, "what's the evidence in God in the first place, that cannot be attributed to other, natural means?"
I haven't seen any. Miracles all tend to follow specific things: They follow the same tricks as the placebo effect. Those signs don't work. Other "signs" including even stigmata are seen in other religions, too. Some Muslims get stigmata in the form of the injuries of Muhammad.
"Well you are right I rely on mere faith that God isn't putting one on me and the rest of the world. So far my faith has not been misplaced, the day I feel it is Ill let you know, and you can gloat all day long."
I am not intending to gloat. I do not say your faith is wrong. I'm asking what evidence you have that I should believe you. The same as I would ask for anything else in this world. For something as important as God, I'd say it'd be good to have something other than mere feelings, which have been shown to be in total error, regardless of the strength of one's beliefs, in so many other fields throughout history.
Because of that, how am I to accept that belief is the means to finding the truth about God, when that very same thing has been shown to be completely unrelated to what reality is in all other subjects? Because when people believe something with their whole heart in other subjects, it doesn't make it true in the least. Belief is unrelated to what reality is, whether it's fact or not. And strength of belief doesn't make things any more or less true. This is observable in every othe rsubject. Why does it not count for religion as well?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For me at least I have yet to encounter any sensation or situation where the same feelings were invoked as when I found God.
What if -- for example -- you participated in an experiment where researchers applied an electromagnetic field to your brain, and you felt exactly the same way?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
0Megabyte: Please don't think I am ignoring all the other valuable points you made, I just felt the last two paragraphs were more or less the crux of the matter.
quote:I am not intending to gloat. I do not say your faith is wrong. I'm asking what evidence you have that I should believe you. The same as I would ask for anything else in this world. For something as important as God, I'd say it'd be good to have something other than mere feelings, which have been shown to be in total error, regardless of the strength of one's beliefs, in so many other fields throughout history.
I'm not asking you to believe ME. I'm saying that within the religion I subscribe to there is much of value. I'm not saying anything about believing something so fervently it becomes true. I'm not basing it all on feelings, I've made many posts about what else I take into consideration.
quote: Because of that, how am I to accept that belief is the means to finding the truth about God, when that very same thing has been shown to be completely unrelated to what reality is in all other subjects? Because when people believe something with their whole heart in other subjects, it doesn't make it true in the least. Belief is unrelated to what reality is, whether it's fact or not. And strength of belief doesn't make things any more or less true. This is observable in every othe rsubject. Why does it not count for religion as well?
I don't think there is as much space between belief and reality. I agree that reality should effect belief and not vice versa, but it is still belief that leads us to discover what reality is.
I've never said you must believe in God before He will manifest himself to you. Every religion has guidelines for finding God. In my own religion it prescribes a study of the doctrine, a test of its tenats, and upon inquiry God reveals the truth of the doctrine by the power of the holy ghost.
Now you claim that drugs and that in fact people of many other religions have the exact same exerience as the one I described. Put simply I do not think that is true. There are perfectly plausible explanations that include God that explain the existance of so much diversity of opinion.
What if a Muslim prays to God and says, "Please protect my family while I am away," and he feels God affirm that it will be done. He later says to you, I am quite certain Islam is true as I have felt God's presence in my life more distinctly as I have followed its principles. Did God lie to him? I don't think so. Has he incorrectly extended the implications of the experience? Perhaps; perhaps not. It easy to come up with myriad like scenarios that ultimately translate into generations of faithful religious devotion.
There is also the supernatural circumstance where say a person prays to God and becomes posessed by some entity and utters in tongues, and afterwards is convinced they have found God and his truth. I honestly believe there are counterfeit experiences with God just as there are genuine. Visions of the eyes, whispers in the ear, dreams, all these things are certainly possible. I can see any of these things being a bonefide communication from God or a deception of the devil. No doubt you will ask me how to tell the difference, I don't have a universal rule of thumb. I just have that my own experiences have thus far lead me into happier circumstances, when they fail me in a direct or prolonged way, I'll start doubting.
You do not know the story behind even half of those you claim all believe ernestly that their religion is correct. I have outlined two types of communique one IMO genuine, one IMO a deception. Between the two groups though you could easily produce thousands of seperate religious persuasions all with adherents who believe they have the truth. I do not think you can accurately say they have all had the exact same experience that *I* have had. Nor can I accurately say, "I KNOW none of them have had the same experience I have." Is it possible? Surely! But I'm still taking a lifetime of situations, observations, experiences, and coming to the conclusion that I am making the best choice I can.
I have been exposed to MANY people of various faiths. Much of what they have in their religion has augmented that which I have found in my own. My religion is not a database of all that is true. It is however a dicipline designed to open a person into accepting all that is true. It does actively involve God in the truth seeking process.
You can argue all day any experience I have can be replicated by science or what have you, but until you actually experience it yourself you cannot say that with a certainty.
[ June 18, 2007, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For me at least I have yet to encounter any sensation or situation where the same feelings were invoked as when I found God.
What if -- for example -- you participated in an experiment where researchers applied an electromagnetic field to your brain, and you felt exactly the same way?
Then I'd conclude one of two things.
1: God apparently uses my brain when he communicates with me.
2: I am not so sure God has communicated with me.
Just replicating the feeling would not be enough, I'd have to see a natural explanation as to what would trigger that rare feeling, as well as a good explanation for its enigmatic behavior.
This feeling is not invoked the same way my other feelings are.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For me at least I have yet to encounter any sensation or situation where the same feelings were invoked as when I found God.
What if -- for example -- you participated in an experiment where researchers applied an electromagnetic field to your brain, and you felt exactly the same way?
Then I'd conclude one of two things.
1: God apparently uses my brain when he communicates with me.
2: I am not so sure God has communicated with me.
Just replicating the feeling would not be enough, I'd have to see a natural explanation as to what would trigger that rare feeling, as well as a good explanation for its enigmatic behavior.
This feeling does is not invoked the same way my other feelings are.
BB, I'm curious. I may have asked this before, and I'm sure others have, but I just want to ask again.
Let's say this feeling you've had is genuine. Let's say that god actually has communicated with you. How do you know which god this is? What in the feeling you get says "Mormon" or "Catholic" or "Muslim"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Let's say this feeling you've had is genuine. Let's say that god actually has communicated with you. How do you know which god this is? What in the feeling you get says "Mormon" or "Catholic" or "Muslim"?
While I believe that if a Mormon/Catholic/Muslim all simply ask out loud, "God are you there?" They may get the exact same experience and get a feeling identical to what I have felt numerous times. The same goes for, "God is it right for me to belong to a religion?" I think God could easily encourage somebody for the time being to be a faithful Muslim and down the road give him/her further direction.
Within the realms of Mormonism its not hard. You start reading the Book of Mormon and asking if it is indeed true. If God confirms that it is to you, and you conclude that it is indeed true, then there is a ton of truth that follows and must by implication also be accurate.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Within the realms of Mormonism its not hard. You start reading the Book of Mormon and asking if it is indeed true. If God confirms that it is to you, and you conclude that it is indeed true, then there is a ton of truth that follows and must by implication also be accurate.
Ah, but that's my point. Is it a feeling, or are these words that you hear? Because if just a feeling, how do you know that god isn't saying "no", but you feel happy because god is talking to you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Within the realms of Mormonism its not hard. You start reading the Book of Mormon and asking if it is indeed true. If God confirms that it is to you, and you conclude that it is indeed true, then there is a ton of truth that follows and must by implication also be accurate.
Ah, but that's my point. Is it a feeling, or are these words that you hear? Because if just a feeling, how do you know that god isn't saying "no", but you feel happy because god is talking to you?
There is a corresponding negative feeling just as there is a positive feeling. At least this has been my experience and Mormonism describes this feeling in a way consistant with how I have felt it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
OK, thank you, now I know.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think God could easily encourage somebody for the time being to be a faithful Muslim and down the road give him/her further direction.
Does this apply to Mormonism as well? Might your confirmation of the truth of your religion be similarly provisional?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I think God could easily encourage somebody for the time being to be a faithful Muslim and down the road give him/her further direction.
So you think God would encourage someone to violate his 1st commandment? I'm not sure I follow.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So you think God would encourage someone to violate his 1st commandment? I'm not sure I follow.
The God of Islam is arguably the same as the God of Christianity.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Not according to either Islam or Christianity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Not according to either Islam or Christianity.
I don't know any Muslims, but I've known several Christians that believed that they were worshiping the same God, but that the Muslims beliefs about him were incorrect. I'm not sure how you would make an argument that they were not the same God, given that both the Christians and Muslims believe they are worshiping the God of Abraham.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm pretty sure that all the Muslims and Christians I've served on interfaith organizations with believed that we worship the same God. We just think the other group has some incorrect ideas about God. Not a different god, though. Seeing as we all agree that there is only one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Same God; different understanding. There is just the one. Even when we call God by different names. And understanding of God differs from person to person as well as from denomination. My understanding of God is closer (in some ways) to that of a moderate Muslim than it would be to a fundamentalist Baptist.
I probably have as much in common with some Buddhists as with some Catholics.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Seeing as we all agree that there is only one.
Except when there's three.
And then there's all the saints. And the angels. And the demons. And Lucifer.
...seems strangely crowded to be "monotheism". Granted, they're not THE god, but still. Somewhat misleading.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Saints, angels, demons, etc are not gods. Not just not THE God, not gods.
There is, in monotheistic religions, an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creation. God is on one side of the line and everything else is on the other.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Saints, angels, demons, etc are not gods. Not just not THE God, not gods.
There is, in monotheistic religions, an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creation. God is on one side of the line and everything else is on the other.
But what about the trinity? God, holy spirit, Jesus.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to affirm the divinity of Jesus without letting go of monotheism.
You can believe that it's absolute impossible nonsense, but if it's not monotheism it's not trinitarian. Three separate gods would be tri-theism, not trinitarianism.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
That's fine. I think what I wanted to point out was that, from the view of an outside observer, it looks like someone had pantheism and tried to modify it enough to make it into monotheism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I think God could easily encourage somebody for the time being to be a faithful Muslim and down the road give him/her further direction.
Does this apply to Mormonism as well? Might your confirmation of the truth of your religion be similarly provisional?
Sure why not, I think god would care much more that I be willing to shed all these tightly held beliefs if He should so command then that I have everything right.
quote: So you think God would encourage someone to violate his 1st commandment? I'm not sure I follow.
I fall into the same camp as those who think the God of Christianity and Islam are the same God, but our understanding of that same God are what is different. Obviously there is no way to completely harmonize all the tenets of Christianity with Islam.
Some general authorities of my church have even gone so far as to say that Mohamed was inspired of God to an extent.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I'm not asking you to believe ME. I'm saying that within the religion I subscribe to there is much of value. I'm not saying anything about believing something so fervently it becomes true. I'm not basing it all on feelings, I've made many posts about what else I take into consideration."
There is value in the Church of Latter Day Saints, yes. But you've shown nothing showing it to be true BUT feelings, subjective experiences. Value is one thing. I never disregard the value. But the truth?
I've spoken to some pretty damn good missionairies, I've read from the Book of Mormon. They do not sway me, God does not tell me it's correct in the least. And I find no truth there that is not in other places. No unique truth, and no
In fact, reading it, listening to them, fills me with feelings of horror. Not that I may be wrong, not fear that they may be right, none of the sort. Amazement that they could be so absolutely certain of a thing they have no evidence for.
Horror that they believe so strongly something that they could not in any objective way prove, outside their feelings. That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
"I don't think there is as much space between belief and reality. I agree that reality should effect belief and not vice versa, but it is still belief that leads us to discover what reality is."
Does it? In what way? How does believing something lead us to discover reality?
If you believe in what happens to be correct, that's just luck, as others use that same thing to feel the opposite. The only way to know anything with anything close to reasonable accuracy in the physical world is with evidence, because belief tends to be as accurate as playing roulette to choose what's true.
"I've never said you must believe in God before He will manifest himself to you. Every religion has guidelines for finding God. In my own religion it prescribes a study of the doctrine, a test of its tenats, and upon inquiry God reveals the truth of the doctrine by the power of the holy ghost."
Does He? Or do you just misinterpret it as that? The human mind is pretty damn good at decieving your conscious mind, after all, as has been shown elsewhere.
"Now you claim that drugs and that in fact people of many other religions have the exact same exerience as the one I described. Put simply I do not think that is true. There are perfectly plausible explanations that include God that explain the existance of so much diversity of opinion."
They describe it the same. That's all I go on. You pointed out that I cannot see their thoughts. That applies to you as well as me.
Adn the words you use, the descriptions you use, are the same.
How am I to distinguish?
"What if a Muslim prays to God and says, "Please protect my family while I am away," and he feels God affirm that it will be done. He later says to you, I am quite certain Islam is true as I have felt God's presence in my life more distinctly as I have followed its principles. Did God lie to him? I don't think so. Has he incorrectly extended the implications of the experience? Perhaps; perhaps not. It easy to come up with myriad like scenarios that ultimately translate into generations of faithful religious devotion."
And you are certain that YOU are not falling under the same trap?
"There is also the supernatural circumstance where say a person prays to God and becomes posessed by some entity and utters in tongues, and afterwards is convinced they have found God and his truth."
Is it necessarily supernatural? Show me how to differentiate between natural occasions of intense emotion of that sort, and the real thing.
"I honestly believe there are counterfeit experiences with God just as there are genuine. Visions of the eyes, whispers in the ear, dreams, all these things are certainly possible. I can see any of these things being a bonefide communication from God or a deception of the devil."
Yet how can you tell which is which?
"No doubt you will ask me how to tell the difference, I don't have a universal rule of thumb. I just have that my own experiences have thus far lead me into happier circumstances, when they fail me in a direct or prolonged way, I'll start doubting."
Heh.
Anyway, yes. So, based on the fruits of such communication. Should they be positive, it's at least a good thing, if not from God. If they're negative, then the opposite.
I'll agree at minimum that that's a general good rule of thumb about whether something's good or evil. Whether it's evidence of God is harder. And, again, you may simply be interpreting it incorrectly. A Muslim would certainly say you were.
"You do not know the story behind even half of those you claim all believe ernestly that their religion is correct."
Nor do you. And I certainly have no reason to feel that ALL of them are different than yours, as yours and their claims are identical.
" I have outlined two types of communique one IMO genuine, one IMO a deception."
Yet you have given no way to distinguish between them, other than what's generally a good rule of thumb about mundane things. And if Satan's as sneaky and clever as one would imagine, he'd at least make it seem to the person following his suggestions that things are better, even if, from the objective observer, they are clearly not.
" Between the two groups though you could easily produce thousands of seperate religious persuasions all with adherents who believe they have the truth. I do not think you can accurately say they have all had the exact same experience that *I* have had."
Certainly there's great, vast variety. Whose to say that your particular one is any better, however? You say the same thing as they. Maybe some of them had even more convincing. And since there ARE so very many, of all kinds, perhaps some of them are. How can I know? I just have your word, and those of the millions whose words differ from yours and each others.
"Nor can I accurately say, "I KNOW none of them have had the same experience I have." Is it possible? Surely! But I'm still taking a lifetime of situations, observations, experiences, and coming to the conclusion that I am making the best choice I can."
And my lifetime tells me something different. That's why this is so interesting and inscrutible a topic.
"I have been exposed to MANY people of various faiths. Much of what they have in their religion has augmented that which I have found in my own. My religion is not a database of all that is true. It is however a dicipline designed to open a person into accepting all that is true. It does actively involve God in the truth seeking process."
That's fine, nothing wrong there. But that still assumes God's existence.
"You can argue all day any experience I have can be replicated by science or what have you, but until you actually experience it yourself you cannot say that with a certainty."
Yet everything else in the world can be. Even your feelings, thoughts, memories, emotions, desires, dreams. Your brain can be studied, and the physics of all the world can be explained.
But what I'm asking is this: Where's the proof, outside of your feelings, outside of your assertions, which are contradicted by equally strong feelings of others. Where is the evidence for it? How do you discern between that certainty of your belief and the certainty of a madman that he can fly? Your assertions are contradicted by those of other faiths.
Further, there is no physical evidence for it. It cannot be quantified, experimented on, can it? How do you trust something like that, for the existence of God? For that's they key, God's existence. How can you prove it in a way other than the way a madman claims he can fly?
God has never spoken to me. Not once, no matter how hard I tried and prayed. The only things I got were silence, my own thoughts, or things which I could, using mental gymnastics, construe as signs, and did because I wanted to see a sign there. Because my mind created one for me out of completely unrelated events. Minds play tricks. It's the same sort of mental trick that allows a person to, say, believe all women drivers are bad. They ignore all the times where there is no problem, and focus only on the occasional, coincidental times when there is, and use that to reinforce their false notions. The only signs I got were no different, ignoring any negative answers and grasping for positive ones.
God cannot be quantified, God cannot be predicted, God cannot be explained, and most importantly, God is silent.
You do not know what I've gone through either. My experiences may give me very good reason to question it. But for me, God is silent, regardless of my prayers, regardless of whether I get wrapped up in mass. In Church, the only thing there is my own emotions, the purging of my own negatives, my own feelings. God is not speaking there.
I have heard him spoken of my entire life.
But I have never seen one single hint of him, that cannot be more easily explained by physical phenomona that can be predicted and replicated.
He is absent from me. And this is the first time I've admitted that to myself, right here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That's fine. I think what I wanted to point out was that, from the view of an outside observer, it looks like someone had pantheism and tried to modify it enough to make it into monotheism.
If the outside observer studied just a little bit of the history of the religion it would look more like someone (or someones) had monotheism and modified it enough to include incarnation. But I suppose even that much knowledge would disqualify someone from being a truly outside observer.
However, my post that started this tangent was about practitioners of the religions in question, not about outside observers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:He is absent from me. And this is the first time I've admitted that to myself, right here.
Welcome to the dark side.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:He is absent from me. And this is the first time I've admitted that to myself, right here.
I know exactly how you feel. But just know, he is not absent from you. He's just absent.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, I had to phrase it in a way that didn't dismiss the possibility of His existence. As I cannot do that, either.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The good news is you don't have to follow archaic rituals and prohibitions any more
And you get to sleep in on Sunday.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"He is absent from me. And this is the first time I've admitted that to myself, right here."
So...you've joined the club then? Awesome!
Did you get your name badge yet? We meet on Tuesdays at 7, by the way. And don't forget your sacrificial hamster.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Let's say this feeling you've had is genuine. Let's say that god actually has communicated with you. How do you know which god this is? What in the feeling you get says "Mormon" or "Catholic" or "Muslim"?
This "How do you know _____" line of argument is not going to be fruitful. If you ask "How do you know" enough times, you are always going to end up getting to some point along the progression where the only answer can be "I don't know how I know, but I do!"
For instance, how do you aren't just imagining the whole world, like the Matrix? How do you know the rules of math work? How do you know you like chocolate cake - what if someone has implanted false memories of the taste of chocolate cake in your head? You can give explanations for these, and you can give explanations for how you know those explanations, but if you keep asking "Well, how do I know that?" then eventually you will get to that point where either you don't know or don't know how you know.
The truth is, if God is all-powerful then it is reasonable that He can make you experience something in a way that you know it is Him. Being unable to explain how it happens does not mean it doesn't happen.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The truth is, if God is all-powerful then it is reasonable that He can make you experience something in a way that you know it is Him. Being unable to explain how it happens does not mean it doesn't happen.
True. However, if the truth is that we created god in order to explain these experiences that we as humans have, we would end up with a world with numerous different gods. Which is what we have.
I'm not saying your argument doesn't have any validity, it does. But it would be so much stronger if every believer believed in the same god.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I'm currently reading "God is not Great: How religion poisons everything." Has anyone else read this? I'm curious about religious peoples reactions to the book. I tend to agree with a lot of what he writes, but I went into it with many of the same opinions already, so I can't objectively gauge how good it is.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:For instance, how do you aren't just imagining the whole world, like the Matrix?
I don't think this is a valid comparison. A materialist isn't ever going to give you the answer that the lack of an explanation means that we're all just in the Matrix. Many theists are happy to say that anything can happen because God is all powerful, however, which has as much utility as "We're all in the Matrix".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
First off, 0Megabyte, I greatly appreciate the time and effort you put into your post. I am sure it is not easy to relate the frustrations and lack of cooperation on God's part. You sound to me as somebody who does wish there was a God, but one that you can put a finger on, I can empathize with that.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: There is value in the Church of Latter Day Saints, yes. But you've shown nothing showing it to be true BUT feelings, subjective experiences. Value is one thing. I never disregard the value. But the truth?
Don't forget the "Jesus Christ" part in the name of the church, TIA. I know it seems I am relying purely on warm fuzzy feelings but that is because relying on scientific evidence when it comes to God is just pure folly. Now I am not discouraging it, but in this forum we compared God to the invisible cat who would not allow himself to be seen with scientific apparati. What is the point of trying to force God into a test tube? He doesn't want to be seen that way. I believe the events in the Book of Mormon literally happened. I believe Jesus Christ actually walked the earth. So I believe there is evidence that will cooroberate what both books say. Are their some holes that have yet to be filled about what the Book of Mormon says? But the coffin hasn't been nailed shut, much of what the book says is consistant with what archaeologists are finding even today.
quote: And I find no truth there that is not in other places. No unique truth, and no
Is that last sentance incomplete? In anycase, all I can say is, that I found plenty in the Book of Mormon that is not to be found elsewhere. I also believe the book is true so far as common human error is taken into account.
quote: In fact, reading it, listening to them, fills me with feelings of horror. Not that I may be wrong, not fear that they may be right, none of the sort. Amazement that they could be so absolutely certain of a thing they have no evidence for.
Well what can I say, I would suggest that horror might not be the best way to handle it. We are not going to smother you in your sleep if you don't believe.
quote: Horror that they believe so strongly something that they could not in any objective way prove, outside their feelings. That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false. And I did not say SOLEY on feelings. I do not just switch my mind off to the facts, I don't know why you keep suggesting I do. Feelings are not as faulty as you are making them out to be. Do you hear a funny joke and start sobbing uncontrolably? In anycase a spiritual communication is not emotion, I just use emotion to describe it because I honestly don't know any other way. But its an experience that feels stronger then anything I could see/hear/touch.
quote: Does it? In what way? How does believing something lead us to discover reality?
If we did not believe that the truth can be made manifest we would still be in caves marveling at fire if it happens to form.
quote: Does He? Or do you just misinterpret it as that? The human mind is pretty damn good at decieving your conscious mind, after all, as has been shown elsewhere.
Look, I can't PROVE that I am not insane outside of my actions. In the same token I cannot prove that I have experienced God, but I can follow the path I feel is correct and the fruits of that path become apparent to the studious observer.
quote: They describe it the same. That's all I go on. You pointed out that I cannot see their thoughts. That applies to you as well as me.
I'm sorry but they don't ALL describe the same thing. I've spent 2 years as a missionary, I've heard ALOT of conversion stories. I joked about somebody saying something like, "Well I got a promotion the same day I didn't eat meat like I normally do so I became a buddhist!" There were lots of those types of stories. There were quite a few individuals who suffered a crisis and then after praying to whatever Taoist God encountered a miracle and that was enough for them. I just don't think you can say everyone is having spiritual experiences where God is telling them all individually that their religion is absolutely correct and true.
quote: And you are certain that YOU are not falling under the same trap?
No, because God has yet to give me the impression, "Here is more truth, but you've got to leave Mormonism to grasp it." That does nothing for you or anybody else, but it is what *I* feel I ought to be doing. I will admit that I'd find it surprising for God to have me study Mormonism so deeply only to uproot me, but it is not beyond the scope of what is possible or what I am willing to do for Him.
quote: Is it necessarily supernatural? Show me how to differentiate between natural occasions of intense emotion of that sort, and the real thing.
quote: I'll agree at minimum that that's a general good rule of thumb about whether something's good or evil. Whether it's evidence of God is harder. And, again, you may simply be interpreting it incorrectly. A Muslim would certainly say you were.
Well congratulations Mr. Muslim. As I've said before nobody else can say, "Hey BlackBlade I know better then you what you have experienced."
quote: Yet you have given no way to distinguish between them, other than what's generally a good rule of thumb about mundane things. And if Satan's as sneaky and clever as one would imagine, he'd at least make it seem to the person following his suggestions that things are better, even if, from the objective observer, they are clearly not.
If we are playing Satan strategist, I would submit that Satan being evil would still seek to make men miserable and hence would not try to improve their lives. Sure he could lie and deceive but he could not duplicate the fruits of a virtuous life.
quote: Certainly there's great, vast variety. Whose to say that your particular one is any better, however? You say the same thing as they. Maybe some of them had even more convincing. And since there ARE so very many, of all kinds, perhaps some of them are. How can I know? I just have your word, and those of the millions whose words differ from yours and each others.
So go out there and investigate them and keep an open mind about accepting unorthodox ideas if they prove to be valuable. I am very certain if that is the sort of mindset you have, you will find God.
quote: That's fine, nothing wrong there. But that still assumes God's existence.
Well yes, if we assumed there was no God we'd have to stop reading at Genesis 1:1, we wouldn't even finish the verse.
quote: Yet everything else in the world can be. Even your feelings, thoughts, memories, emotions, desires, dreams. Your brain can be studied, and the physics of all the world can be explained.
Do we live in the same universe? I live in one where men have yet to acheive omniscience. I agree that in our brief time men have learned much, and our potential for learning more is limitless. But I still believe that knowledge will confirm God's existance not otherwise.
quote: But what I'm asking is this: Where's the proof, outside of your feelings, outside of your assertions, which are contradicted by equally strong feelings of others. Where is the evidence for it? How do you discern between that certainty of your belief and the certainty of a madman that he can fly? Your assertions are contradicted by those of other faiths.
Again until you go out into the marketplace of ideas and test the waters I just don't think YOU can make that claim. Again as a missionary I found plenty of believers in other religions who believed for reasons they saw as good. I simply invited them to give Mormonism a shot and I've yet to see anybody get upset over trying it out.
quote: Further, there is no physical evidence for it. It cannot be quantified, experimented on, can it? How do you trust something like that, for the existence of God? For that's they key, God's existence. How can you prove it in a way other than the way a madman claims he can fly?
There is indeed physical evidence for God. Every person on the earth who believes in a supreme being is evidence of a God. Every temple, mosque, miao errected is an extension of that evidence. All of existance is evidence of some sort of creator. I think what you are saying is that there is no "physical proof" of a God. But even that is not true. I am certain there is a God somewhere he occupies time and space, you could visit him if He so chose it. But God apparently has decided that he does not wish to be found through the means with which we find alot of other things.
quote: God has never spoken to me. Not once, no matter how hard I tried and prayed. The only things I got were silence, my own thoughts, or things which I could, using mental gymnastics, construe as signs, and did because I wanted to see a sign there. Because my mind created one for me out of completely unrelated events. Minds play tricks. It's the same sort of mental trick that allows a person to, say, believe all women drivers are bad. They ignore all the times where there is no problem, and focus only on the occasional, coincidental times when there is, and use that to reinforce their false notions. The only signs I got were no different, ignoring any negative answers and grasping for positive ones.
I am very sorry and can completely empathize with that experience. I used to resent those who said they had found God so easily. I tried so hard to find him and got nothing. I was pretty close to just giving up, but decided to stop worrying about it and just be a good person and not get bent out of shape because God wanted to do things His way. My confirming experience for me happened when I did not expect it.
quote: God cannot be quantified, God cannot be predicted, God cannot be explained, and most importantly, God is silent.
I'm sorry but none of that is true, especially the last part. I certainly hope you will keep listening even if you are convinced nobody is talking.
quote: You do not know what I've gone through either. My experiences may give me very good reason to question it. But for me, God is silent, regardless of my prayers, regardless of whether I get wrapped up in mass. In Church, the only thing there is my own emotions, the purging of my own negatives, my own feelings. God is not speaking there.
I have heard him spoken of my entire life.
But I have never seen one single hint of him, that cannot be more easily explained by physical phenomona that can be predicted and replicated.
Well I encourage you to keep looking, and to keep an open mind. I think eventually you will encounter something that defies simple explanation.
quote: He is absent from me. And this is the first time I've admitted that to myself, right here.
Again I am sure this confession is not easy, don't lose heart. But in anycase you are welcome here to me as a theist or an atheist. If you do decide that you are certain that there is no God I would hope you would not adopt the sneerish and snobish attitude that many an atheist elects to take on.
But I'd be lying if I did not say that I hope you will keep the possibility of a living and loving God open in your mind, even if as yet you have yet to see evidence of it.
I was with my neice playing with a toy camera that had animals inside and every time you clicked the shutter a new picture would appear. She was holding it and laughing and talking about all the animals she could see. When I came over to play with her I realized she was claiming to see animals she could not possibly see as she was not looking into the camera. She was just goinga long with what everyone else was saying about the camera. I am not lying I had to sit down with her about 15 minutes and keep instructing her to hold the camera level with her eye AND open her eyes with an object that close to her face.
Out of the blue, "WOW!!! I CAN SEE A WHALE!!!!" She about knocked me over with the force of her excitment.
Keep looking, sometimes you just need to look at something alittle differently and it all makes sense.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Keep looking, sometimes you just need to look at something a little differently and it all makes sense.
This can go against your argument too. As a species our brains look for paterns that aren't necessarily there. If you look at the woodgrain pattern on a door long enough, you almost certainly will see a face (or some sort of pattern).
If you desperately search for something you will eventually find it...whether it's really there or only in your mind. And that's the problem.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you desperately search for something you will eventually find it...whether it's really there or only in your mind. And that's the problem.
Indeed. The central mechanism of religious faith is prayer, which allows no negative indicators of effectiveness. Virtually anything that happens can be interpreted as an answer to prayer, including the perception that no answer was given. By the very act of praying, you are investing yourself in an expectation or hope that you will receive an answer. If you perceive an answer, then prayer works. if you do not perceive an answer, then prayer may or may not work. There is no response to prayer that would indicate that prayer does not work.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
Many people pray and get no answer, many people pray and get negative responses to their prayers.
How do you rationally explain somebody praying for something they really want and then feeling strongly that they ought not to ask for it? A subconcious conscience that checks the first tier conscience?
Just because some people simply latch on to anything that happens and call it an answer to prayer does not mean that there are not tangible results that prayer produces.
How much have you even prayed Matt, that you are such an expert on its nuances?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
Not a negative response to prayer. A response that somehow says that prayer doesn't work.
quote:How do you rationally explain somebody praying for something they really want and then feeling strongly that they ought not to ask for it? A subconcious conscience that checks the first tier conscience?
Um...yeah. When compared to "a supreme being that created everything in the universe and is deeply concerned about the daily goings-on of my life doesn't want me to have what I'm praying for", a 'subconscious conscience' is infinitely more rational.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
I think you misunderstand. I don't mean that you never hear the answer "no." I mean that the act of praying can never produce evidence that it is not effective. The doctrine of prayer includes allowances for God not wanting to answer, for the person praying to not be worthy of a response, or to the person praying not recognizing that they have been responded to.
It's like flipping a coin and calling heads every time, then crediting your powers of prophecy in the 50% of the time that it does land heads-side-up, while dismissing the tails-side-up tosses as mis-throws.
[ June 19, 2007, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How do you rationally explain somebody praying for something they really want and then feeling strongly that they ought not to ask for it? A subconcious conscience that checks the first tier conscience?
The same way that I intuit that I should not make a choice for something I desire. Only with praying added on. There are usually good reasons to suspect the value of that which is desired in such cases.
Also, there's no reason to believe that things would not have turned out OK regardless of the choice. I've made several poor choices, without which I would not have ended up moving out of state, marrying to the woman I am now married to, with six wonderful children, and a great career.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How much have you even prayed Matt, that you are such an expert on its nuances?
More than I can enumerate, though I gave up on doing it in earnest some time ago. I'll still whisper an occasional silent prayer in my head - it's a pretty low investment activity - sort of like pinging a dead IP address just to see if there's anything there. I also attend Sacrament Meeting with my wife every week, help out in the nursery and with boy scouts, and participate in all the ward activities except temple days.
I know how it's supposed to work. I just don't see any evidence that it actually does work. For being the universal conduit to God, it's pretty darn hit and miss.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QB]
quote:Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
I think you misunderstand. I don't mean that you never hear the answer "no." I mean that the act of praying can never produce evidence that it is not effective. The doctrine of prayer includes allowances for God not wanting to answer, for the person praying to not be worthy of a response, or to the person praying not recognizing that they have been responded to.
So prayer is complicated, that doesn't mean it does not work.
You might as well argue that because so many people make mistakes in their arithmetic, and there is no way to either catch those mistakes as they happen or nullify the negative results produced by miscalculation that therefore learning how to do arithmetic is pointless.
Learning to decern truth from error is as important an lesson as any. If prayer was idiot proof, and desired results were 100% guarenteed people would pray constantly and do little else.
edit: BTW I did not notice your post count, though its belated, welcome to Hatrack Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So prayer is complicated, that doesn't mean it does not work.
Only complicated enough to obscure an objective analysis of its effectiveness.
quote:You might as well argue that because so many people make mistakes in their arithmetic, and there is no way to either catch those mistakes as they happen or nullify the negative results produced by miscalculation that therefore learning how to do arithmetic is pointless.
But mistakes in arithmetic can be demonstrated to those that make them. Can you show me or 0Meg why our prayers were never answered?
quote:If prayer was idiot proof, and desired results were 100% guarenteed people would pray constantly and do little else.
I don't see why that would be the case. I like to figure things out on my own and most people I know are the same. Even if I knew I could magically answer any question with a prayer, I wouldn't take advantage of that power constantly any more than I would play a video game with a walkthrough or strategy guide in my lap.
Besides, you'd think it would be 100% on some of the basic ones like "Is anyone out there?"
quote:welcome to Hatrack
Thanks. I'll try to behave myself. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Only complicated enough to obscure an objective analysis of its effectiveness.
Again, sorry God can't fit into a test tube. It messes up with human agency to have a God we can summon at will.
quote: But mistakes in arithmetic can be demonstrated to those that make them. Can you show me or 0Meg why our prayers were never answered?
Not without having some sort of comprehensive book on both of your lives. And even with that I could surmise incorrectly.
quote: I don't see why that would be the case. I like to figure things out on my own and most people I know are the same. Even if I knew I could magically answer any question with a prayer, I wouldn't take advantage of that power constantly any more than I would play a video game with a walkthrough or strategy guide in my lap.
YOU might be that way, heck I am that way. But can you honestly say you wouldn't see a substantial number of human beings opting for the lazy prayer route?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"So prayer is complicated, that doesn't mean it does not work."
But you have not shown it to work. All you have shown is, possibly, correlation. Not causation. And you have shown things which easily occur outside of prayer, nothing that is unique to prayer.
You have not shown that it does.
And as one who has prayed far more often in my life than yuo'd imagine, probably, I've noticed that it does nothing but what I feel it has done. What I imagine it has done.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
So, you're simultaneously telling us that we can't put god in a testube while saying you have all these books that say exactly what god is and what god wants.
Aren't those two statements conflicting?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
OK, taking a step back...
1. Given that you believe prayer is effective, imagine what it would be like if prayer really were ineffective, and the promptings you received from prayer were internally generated. Do you believe this discussion would be any different?
2. If prayer works, why do some sincere prayers go unanswered? What conceivable purpose is there in dismissing earnest inquiry? Isn't there an implicit promise in "if ye lack wisdom..." that is being broken when a prayer goes unanswered?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So, you're simultaneously telling us that we can't put god in a testube while saying you have all these books that say exactly what god is and what god wants.
Aren't those two statements conflicting?
Um....nope. The more I follow God's councel the more He and his ways are manifest to me. If you become like Jesus who is perfect then the time spent unsure of what God is doing is outnumbered by the amount of time you do know. You start out unsure but hopeful that God exists, if He starts to be more noticeable you continue believing and growing in confidence. At the end of the process is a state where the existance of God is beyond question.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: OK, taking a step back...
1. Given that you believe prayer is effective, imagine what it would be like if prayer really were ineffective, and the promptings you received from prayer were internally generated. Do you believe this discussion would be any different?
2. If prayer works, why do some sincere prayers go unanswered? What conceivable purpose is there in dismissing earnest inquiry? Isn't there an implicit promise in "if ye lack wisdom..." that is being broken when a prayer goes unanswered?
Both excelent points, you will forgive me if I need to form one more post on the rack before my shift ends, as well as finish up for the day. I will try to get to your post tonight, but I might be as late as tomorrow morning.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Um....nope. The more I follow God's councel the more He and his ways are manifest to me. If you become like Jesus who is perfect then the time spent unsure of what God is doing is outnumbered by the amount of time you do know. You start out unsure but hopeful that God exists, if He starts to be more noticeable you continue believing and growing in confidence. At the end of the process is a state where the existance of God is beyond question. "
Yet that's uncannily similar to the process you can also go through with fooling yourself, or brainwashing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Every time I've wanted prayer to work, I think back to the Bible where Jesus performed viable, observable miracles, and further, told his disciples that anyone with the faith of a mustard seed would have the power to move mountains. He showed his disciples how to walk on water if they had faith.
Based on those stories, I concluded that either the Bible was incorrect in the truth of those stories, or that no person that I have ever met or heard of has any faith, because I've never seen, heard of, or witnessed a viable, observable, repeatable miracle from anyone alive today.
Certainly no prayer I ever prayed was answered with any real knowledge, power, ability, or sign. After 20 + years of trying something and getting no results, it seemed rational to realize calling Santa Clause a different name and expecting magic presents to appear from your list is silly.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yet that's uncannily similar to the process you can also go through with fooling yourself, or brainwashing.
I was going to say the same thing, but didn't want to be accused of hyperbole with the brainwashing mention, but since it's already out there I'll add a "me too."
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Heh. Hyperbole, maybe a little bit. But if I was going to brainwash someone, those steps would be part of the process.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Yet that's uncannily similar to the process you can also go through with fooling yourself, or brainwashing.
I was going to say the same thing, but didn't want to be accused of hyperbole with the brainwashing mention, but since it's already out there I'll add a "me too."
A tentative "thirded".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Heh. Hyperbole, maybe a little bit. But if I was going to brainwash someone, those steps would be part of the process.
Mentioning brainwashing is almost like mentioning Hitler - you automatically get dismissed, even if there is an apt comparison, so I refrained.
I do think it is important to note that a person can be convinced of the truth of a proposition (regardless of its actual truth) through repetitive activities which are designed specifically to reinforce said truth. We call it brainwashing when done to others for nefarious purposes but the mechanism is by no means available exclusively in such circumstances.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If the Goal at the end of a life of prayer and sincere worship is the absolute knowledge of God's existence, then it would seem that having that knowledge and that intimate relationship is a worthy goal, and one of which God approves.
If that is the case, that God WANTS people to be sure of his existence, and know about him, why is it so obscure and difficult? Why all the hiding and inconsistent experiences and nebulous information?
Certainly God has the power and ability to make himself known. If that's what He wants, why don't we all know Him?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Certainly God has the power and ability to make himself known. If that's what He wants, why don't we all know Him?
I think the answer is that that is not all He wants.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Certainly God has the power and ability to make himself known. If that's what He wants, why don't we all know Him?
I think the answer is that that is not all He wants.
Well then, he certainly shouldn't send people to hell for not believing in him. To quote Bertrand Russell, if he ever ended up at the pearly gates:
"But Lord...you didn't give us enough evidence!"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false.
Ah, you need to read more Oliver Sacks. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false.
The claim is accurate, which is why I asked that question about electromagnetic fields.
quote:I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."
Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations - describing the presence as one's grandfather, for instance - while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.
And that's just one set of experiments that's eight years old.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false.
The claim is accurate, which is why I asked that question about electromagnetic fields.
quote:I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."
Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations - describing the presence as one's grandfather, for instance - while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.
And that's just one set of experiments that's eight years old.
While impressive, and very interesting that does not prove that all spiritual experiences can be reduced to a mere controled firing of brain synapsis.
I have already posited how many people could have spiritual experiences and yet have a divergence of opinion. Mistaking a normal experience to be something spiritual is nothing new, I myself have done it before.
MattP:
quote: 1. Given that you believe prayer is effective, imagine what it would be like if prayer really were ineffective, and the promptings you received from prayer were internally generated. Do you believe this discussion would be any different?
Yes, because I know what its like to pray and feel nothing. I also know what its like to mistake soemthing insignificant for something Godly.
quote: 2. If prayer works, why do some sincere prayers go unanswered? What conceivable purpose is there in dismissing earnest inquiry? Isn't there an implicit promise in "if ye lack wisdom..." that is being broken when a prayer goes unanswered?
As you yourself have noted there are many reasons that can void that contract. But there are also misconceptions about how God works. There is no time table, nor is there a guarantee as to how God gives to you that which you have asked for.
In my own case it was very wise of God to hold off on giving me any sort of answer quickly. There is a difference in being confident that God answers prayers and feeling entitled to an answer because God promises one and you really want one.
-----
As for brainwashing, I am pretty tired of that comment to be quite honest. To me its just as baseless as saying atheists couldn't possibly have any moral framework as they could only really care about themselves and their own feelings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for brainwashing, I am pretty tired of that comment to be quite honest. To me its just as baseless as saying atheists couldn't possibly have any moral framework as they could only really care about themselves and their own feelings.
Why? We know what the mechanism for brainwashing looks like. What does the mechanism for having a moral framework look like?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes, because I know what its like to pray and feel nothing. I also know what its like to mistake soemthing insignificant for something Godly.
How do you believe you can discern a pairing of those two phenomena from a genuine spiritual experience?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:While impressive, and very interesting that does not prove that all spiritual experiences can be reduced to a mere controled firing of brain synapsis.
I haven't said that it does. However, it does disprove your claim that these experiences have yet to be replicated in a lab setting.
It also exemplifies why I find personal spiritual experiences untrustworthy, and would be skeptical of any such experience I had.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Yes, because I know what its like to pray and feel nothing. I also know what its like to mistake soemthing insignificant for something Godly.
How do you believe you can discern a pairing of those two phenomena from a genuine spiritual experience?
You keep asking me to lay out specific guidelines for something that I have already said is unlike any other experience to me. You counter with, "Well those feelings/experiences can be recreated in a lab," and I disagree. We are going in circles.
When it comes to the individual cultivating a relationship with God you have to use your own mental/spiritual faculties. Sure the scriptures provide guidelines as they are records of what God has actually said. But even outlines for finding God in the scriptures do not dabble so much in, "This is what it feels like," or "Common symptoms of spiritual communication are..."
I can describe experiencing God as an outpouring of happiness, but its not like any other happiness I usually encounter. It feels good, it feels comforting, it clarifies my thoughts and gives me purpose.
But that is not by any stretch of the word a blue print for what communique from God are. A person being told off by God won't feel happy during the chastisement.
Again the best I can offer are,
When it happens, it feels different from anything else; its familiar yet VERY distinct.
and
If the experience promotes happiness, and makes you want to be a better person then its likely from God. The experience should feel personal and not generic, as well as feeling purposeful.
Twinky: No, that experiment merely shows that people can be fooled into thinking they are having spiritual experiences. The fact plenty of people did not even mention God but thought of their dead grandparents, friends etc shows that its not as simple as you seem to believe. They didn't find some sort of button in the brain that explains everything. Not only that, I never made any mention of feeling like there was the presence of somebody else in the room with you.
And like I have said many times already, showing that people can have counterfeit spiritual experiences does not prove that legitimate ones are impossible.
Tom:
quote:Why? We know what the mechanism for brainwashing looks like.
Very well, but are you really willing to say that all those who join a religion as a result of a "spiritual experience" are more or less victims of brainwashing? Do I rub you as brainwashed?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
While God will resist being put in a box, there are times when He will answer you directly with a strong impression that comes to your mind; and there are times when He leaves it to you to figure out that He wants you to use your own faculties and develop wisdom in the effort; and there are times when He may answer a request for Him to give you a specific sign. The sign should be something definitely out of the ordinary that is not apt to happen by chance. Also, it must be a situation where it is appropriate to ask for a sign--something you could not reasonably be expected to figure out for yourself. Also, allow God some leeway in the precise way inwhich He chooses to give the sign. In my experience, God has often shown a kindly sense of humor in the way He gives the requested sign--almost overdoing it emphatically, or finding some other way to take you by surprise while yet being unmistably an asnwer to your request.
It is stunning to realize there really is a God who will answer you, who cares enough about you to enter into your life and give you guidance. And when He shows you a friendly sense of humor, you feel a joyfulness and a personal bond growing with a real Person.
Having said that, let me re-emphasize that asking for a sign must never take the place of something it is your responsibility to do, like discern right from wrong, or figure out what is right from resources you have already been given (such as the Bible).
The Bible teaches me that angels who rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven dwell on this earth with us--and are now called devils. These devils are able to observe us unseen, have the experience of thousands of years of observing humans, and are absolutely obsessed with getting back at God by hurting us and leading us astray, perhaps supposing that if they can get enough humans to join them, God will either have to forgive them along with humans, or else kill all humanity along with them.
Because of the above, when I pray for a sign, I never do it out loud, or give any clue what I am thinking. Only God can read our minds; the devils are not allowed to--but they are very good at deducing things from our expressions, tone of voice, and behavior. I take precautions so that the devils will have less opportunity to fake an answer that would not be in my best interest.
Some of you may be able to receive and believe what I have said in this post. Perhaps you know these things by experience for yourself, as well. It is entirely true in my own experience. God does sometimes provide signs, and does so in a way that shows originality and often even humor--in a way that lets you know that Someone is there, responding to you.
But while this may be very compelling to those who have this experience, it is still subjective experience, and the Bible teaches us that only It, the canon of Scripture, can serve as the basis for our faith. That authority is supremely reliable, because it is verified by fulfilled Bible prophecy, written in the pages of history, proving that the Mind who Inspired the writing of the Bible can only be the Creator God who has the power to know the end from the beginning, and bring about the end He determines, regardless of what man and devils may do. Our senses can be deceived. Anything subjective can be mistaken. Only the Word of God can provide an objective basis for our faith.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:When it happens, it feels different from anything else; its familiar yet VERY distinct.
Then you didn't answer my question. If THAT experience were generated internally, rather than by God, do you believe this discussion would be any different?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Very well, but are you really willing to say that all those who join a religion as a result of a "spiritual experience" are more or less victims of brainwashing?
The brainwashing comments were not directed at anyone who had a spiritual experience. They were directed at the specific technique of repetition and reinforcement that you mentioned in a previous post.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:When it happens, it feels different from anything else; its familiar yet VERY distinct.
Then you didn't answer my question. If THAT experience were generated internally, rather than by God, do you believe this discussion would be any different?
Well if we are assuming it was all internally generated of course it would be similar if not identical.
I might as well argue that if you had had a genuine experience from God and I had yet to have any sort of spiritual experience would our discussion be any different?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:No, that experiment merely shows that people can be fooled into thinking they are having spiritual experiences.
All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified. According to the reseracher, there was a lot more than one such person.
quote: The fact plenty of people did not even mention God but thought of their dead grandparents, friends etc shows that its not as simple as you seem to believe.
In my opinion, it shows the similarity between what religious people call "spiritual experiences" and a variety of other human experiences that are not traditionally labelled "spiritual." I think it suggests that "spiritual experiences" lack the uniqueness you and many others attribute to them.
quote:And like I have said many times already, showing that people can have counterfeit spiritual experiences does not prove that legitimate ones are impossible.
For the second time, I'm not attempting to prove that, nor am I making that assertion and attempting to support it with evidence (a more likely proposition than proof, which is a word that ought to be used much less frequently in these discussions).
In my view, though, simple naturalistic explanations for these experiences make claims of "legitimate" ones less likely to be true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified. According to the reseracher, there was a lot more than one such person.
I have already said that counterfeit experiences are entirely possible, I've even gone so far as stating that God can communicate with somebody and they can still misunderstand.
I am skeptical that what these people in the experiment experienced are identical to what I have felt. Obviously I cannot prove it either way unless they put me on the table and do the same experiment.
quote:In my opinion, it shows the similarity between what religious people call "spiritual experiences" and a variety of other human experiences that are not traditionally labelled "spiritual." I think it suggests that "spiritual experiences" lack the uniqueness you and many others attribute to them.
To me it does the opposite, it shows me a stark difference in what I call a spiritual experience and what they are calling a spiritual experience.
quote: In my view, though, simple naturalistic explanations for these experiences make claims of "legitimate" ones less likely to be true.
I can agree with this.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I might as well argue that if you had had a genuine experience from God and I had yet to have any sort of spiritual experience would our discussion be any different?
The point is that any wholly internal experience of God is indistinguishable from an identical internal experience not of God. Your faith seems to rest on the belief that these experiences cannot possibly be generated internally.
At some point, even if the cause of these experiences were outside your brain, they must interface with your brain for you to be able to consider their meaning, remember them, communicate them, and take action on them. Is it that much of a stretch that the causal spark of these experiences might also exist within your brain?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:At some point, even if the cause of these experiences were outside your brain, they must interface with your brain for you to be able to consider their meaning, remember them, communicate them, and take action on them. Is it that much of a stretch that the causal spark of these experiences might also exist within your brain?
No, but I don't believe that to be the case. Taking all the other events of my life into account, that explanation is just not correct to me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified.
I don't think that's true. Just because someone describes their experience as "a spiritual experience" doesn't mean that their feelings were anything close to what another person also describes as "a spiritual experience." The term is way too broad. I would describe both eating really good chocolate and kissing as "sensual experiences" but one certainly isn't replicating the other.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Taking all the other events of my life into account, that explanation is just not correct to me.
And do you examine each of those events (even the seemingly meaningless ones) with a sober contemplation of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the extraordinary ability of your mind to recognize patterns and relationships where none actually exist?
This sort of skeptical inquiry seems extremely rare amongst my religious friends. I know one person who's primary "proof" for the veracity of his faith is that he came across a person who he only knew by name in a city of 200,000 during a religious mission. He put the odds of that encounter at 1 in 200,000 and states that figure every time he recounts the story.
First, the person was an adult male in his 40s, which would account for something less than 1/5 of the population. He was also encountered on a busy street near his place of employment. It's still a pretty unlikely event, but it was nowhere near as unlikely as my friend wanted it to be. Getting struck by lightening, which has an actual probability of occurring to you at around 1 in 200,000 does happen, but few people believe it's a miracle when it happens to them.
By marking every supposed miraculous coincidence and "spiritual" feeling in the "plus" column and not even allowing a "minus" column, religion seems to be a one-way street by which one can convince oneself and fellow travelers of the truth of a notion for which there is no real evidence. Like a murder trial where only evidence for the defense is permitted, even those that leave the faith don't show possible errors in the theology, rather those people are considered to have simply "lost their testimony."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: He put the odds of that encounter at 1 in 200,000 and states that figure every time he recounts the story.
Well, just remind him that we live in a country with 300,000,000 people. So, statistically, if something has 1 in 1,000,000 odds, it's happened to around 300 people.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified.
I don't think that's true. Just because someone describes their experience as "a spiritual experience" doesn't mean that their feelings were anything close to what another person also describes as "a spiritual experience." The term is way too broad.
In the experiment I linked, the responses were broad as well: subjects generally reported having spiritual experiences that reflected their individual religious backgrounds.
The assertion was that the feelings associated with a personal spiritual experience have yet to be replicated in a lab. Clearly, the feelings associated with the personal spiritual experiences of at least some of those 900+ people have been replicated in a lab, which falsifies the assertion. As BlackBlade noted, though, to determine whether the feelings he personally associates with spiritual experiences have been replicated in a lab, he would have to try the experiment himself... and even that might not answer the question.
The trouble is, the "my spiritual experiences aren't like that" rejoinder makes it extremely easy for theists to write off all of the experiments done in this vein as inapplicable to whatever their personal brand of "spiritual experience" happens to be. I think that begs an analogy to the god of the gaps.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
One of my sticking points is that we are willing to give God so much slack, when it makes absolutely zero sense to do so.
If you expect your child to do something, you obviously need to make it clear to them what you want them to do. You can't stand in the back room and mumble into a pillow, and then expect the child to understand you.
If your boss pointed at a desk and threw brick though the window, you wouldn't know if he wanted you to organize it, file the papers, repair the wobbly leg, move it to a better location, donate it to charity, sit there yourself... It's horrible communication. Only a crazy person would work in that kind of office.
Yet we seem to think it's right and normal that an all powerful being, who we presume has our best interests at heart, who we presume wants to have a meaningful relationship with us, refuses to ever give us a clear answer, allows us to wander blindly, allows most of us to go astray completely, allows us access to countless contradictory directions - none of which we can be sure did or didn't come from Him, and then will reward or punish us - for eternity - based on these actions.
If you came into work, and there were thousands of post-it notes with various directions all over the office, each of your co-workers told you different things that you were supposed to be doing, and your boss was nowhere to be seen - although occasionally while you were working a loud boom or flash of light would momentarily distract you, how could you ever do your job? Why would you keep working there?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Taking all the other events of my life into account, that explanation is just not correct to me.
And do you examine each of those events (even the seemingly meaningless ones) with a sober contemplation of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the extraordinary ability of your mind to recognize patterns and relationships where none actually exist?
This sort of skeptical inquiry seems extremely rare amongst my religious friends. I know one person who's primary "proof" for the veracity of his faith is that he came across a person who he only knew by name in a city of 200,000 during a religious mission. He put the odds of that encounter at 1 in 200,000 and states that figure every time he recounts the story.
First, the person was an adult male in his 40s, which would account for something less than 1/5 of the population. He was also encountered on a busy street near his place of employment. It's still a pretty unlikely event, but it was nowhere near as unlikely as my friend wanted it to be. Getting struck by lightening, which has an actual probability of occurring to you at around 1 in 200,000 does happen, but few people believe it's a miracle when it happens to them.
By marking every supposed miraculous coincidence and "spiritual" feeling in the "plus" column and not even allowing a "minus" column, religion seems to be a one-way street by which one can convince oneself and fellow travelers of the truth of a notion for which there is no real evidence. Like a murder trial where only evidence for the defense is permitted, even those that leave the faith don't show possible errors in the theology, rather those people are considered to have simply "lost their testimony."
I've yet to encounter an idea much less a group where no matter how right they were EVERYONE agreed with it. If 6 million Mormons all left the church right now, I would seriously consider the reason for such a huge exodus, but that by itself would not persuade me that what I believe is wrong.
And you are wrong that religious conversion is a one way street. I taught a woman who no matter what we tried simply did not get a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon, nor could she attend church on a regular basis. I didn't have an answer for her as to why she was getting nothing. All I could suggest was that she evaluate anything in her life that could be making communication impossible but I didn't call her a sinner for asking politely to not continue with the discussions.
As far as I am concerned its up to God to explain his actions to each individual, not me.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If you expect your child to do something, you obviously need to make it clear to them what you want them to do.
This is not always true. There are many times where a parent wants a child to do something, but wants the child to choose to do it, without having to be told to.
I don't think God's intentions are to get us to do exactly what He wants us to do. He is not like a boss at work, trying to get work done. Rather, I think it is more about getting us to be the sorts of people that He would like us to be. And that means what we do can sometimes matter less than why we do it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This is not always true. There are many times where a parent wants a child to do something, but wants the child to choose to do it, without having to be told to.
These parents do communicate clearly to their children outside of these specific circumstances, right? And aren't the choices the parents want children to make in these circumstances based on what they've learned from their prior clear communication?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I would hope most parents want their child to make decisions based not just upon what those parents explicitly told that child, but also upon what the child has observed for himself or herself.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Sure, but I can't observe God. The complaint is that God is vague in his interactions with the physical world to the point that it's difficult to argue convincingly that he's actually there unless you're talking to someone that already agrees with you.
You seem to be equating the absolute absence of God in the lives of his unbelieving children with the occasional reluctance of an otherwise attentive parent to provide guidance in specific situations.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
BlackBlade, why should we believe that your experiences are different?
We have your word, and the words of all the others.
Each of you says essentially the same thing. And when they sound the same to an outside observer, have the same effects, and can in fact be simulated in a lab, what is one supposed to ocnclude?
What would you conclude if this was the evidence presented in some other, non-religious psychological thing?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And you are wrong that religious conversion is a one way street.
The evidential process is what I'm referring to. Every time you label a particular experience "God" you increase your evidentiary support of God, while you allow no consideration to subtract from that evidence. The best you can do, (and this is rare, in my experience) is to decide after the fact that perhaps one of those "spiritual" experiences wasn't spiritual after all, usually because of interference from the real world such as when a friend's sexually abusive father was called by inspiration to be an LDS Bishop where he served for several years before being reported.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: BlackBlade, why should we believe that your experiences are different?
We have your word, and the words of all the others.
Each of you says essentially the same thing. And when they sound the same to an outside observer, have the same effects, and can in fact be simulated in a lab, what is one supposed to ocnclude?
What would you conclude if this was the evidence presented in some other, non-religious psychological thing?
You don't HAVE to believe me. God is completely capable of speaking for himself. Go out there and see if there really is a God out there. Go live your life as best you can, and if one day God visits you make sure you are ready to listen. God does not do anyone any favors when he visits the unprepared.
edit: But if you live your life with the unshakable conclusion that there is no way a God could exist because the world seems so convoluted then you probably wouldn't believe God anyway even if he explained it all.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Go live your life as best you can, and if one day God visits you make sure you are ready to listen.
When most people (statistically) do this and get an answer from what they believe is god, it is not the god that you believe in. Are those people any less sincere? And if they are sincere, how can we, the unbelievers, differentiate between y'all?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And you are wrong that religious conversion is a one way street.
The evidential process is what I'm referring to. Every time you label a particular experience "God" you increase your evidentiary support of God, while you allow no consideration to subtract from that evidence. The best you can do, (and this is rare, in my experience) is to decide after the fact that perhaps one of those "spiritual" experiences wasn't spiritual after all, usually because of interference from the real world such as when a friend's sexually abusive father was called by inspiration to be an LDS Bishop where he served for several years before being reported.
How do you even know he was called by inspiration? Now if YOU yourself felt you had been told by God to call the man and in fact he turns out to have been the devil himself for at least a decade before being then you need to consider,
1: Did I make a mistake?
2: Perhaps what I believe is God is not.
Now if you could produce proof that say the Book of Mormon was not true, or that Joseph Smith was not just capable of human error but actually an evil person, then I would probably sluff off religion and leave the possibility of God open, but VERY skeptical in believing in anything specific about Him. In fact I'd probably have difficulty believing anything ever again.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Now if you could produce proof that say the Book of Mormon was not true
I just want to point out, we can give you evidence that claims the Book of Mormon makes are false...which may or may not add up to "proof" that it isn't true, depending on how you feel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Go live your life as best you can, and if one day God visits you make sure you are ready to listen.
When most people (statistically) do this and get an answer from what they believe is god, it is not the god that you believe in. Are those people any less sincere? And if they are sincere, how can we, the unbelievers, differentiate between y'all?
For crying out loud quick asking me, "But BlackBlade, how can we know the difference between you and WhiteBlade the Muslim."
Leave the convincing to God, if you have an experience that leads you to believe Jesus was the way, and along comes a Muslim whose words stir you into accepting Mohamed then go that route. God's as far as I know is not going to get upset at you for following your convictions, only for being intentionally less then you could be, or a fool or gullible.
I personally have found more truth in Mormonism then any other religion, it has made me want to be better as a person and increased what I believe to be my understanding of God. It has shown me miracles in my life and in the lives of others. Could I be wrong, yes, but so could you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Now if you could produce proof that say the Book of Mormon was not true
I just want to point out, we can give you evidence that claims the Book of Mormon makes are false...which may or may not add up to "proof" that it isn't true, depending on how you feel.
Well I've heard that claim many times. It usually does not cut mustard, and not because I am unwilling to believe it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:1: Did I make a mistake?
2: Perhaps what I believe is God is not.
My point exactly. There's no 3: God doesn't really inspire callings. It just isn't even a conceivable response because it's a -1 and only 0 or +1 are allowed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well I've heard that claim many times. It usually does not cut mustard, and not because I am unwilling to believe it.
A plain review of the evidence is fairly convincing to an objective outsider, but FARMS is pretty good at framing it in a way that it doesn't seem so damning to a believer, so I don't usually get into that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
What's FARMS?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yet the other people will say God spoke to them as well.
In fact, the God they claim spoke to them depends on what beliefs they possess, as well!
And I've already gone out there, I've already looked. I was ready throughout all my childhood, I knew God was there, believed it all my heart. You could never sway me from that faith.
Then, I learned how the human mind works. And I noticed how no answers I ever got were anything other than what I wanted to feel. My own thoughts, feelings. Even the random, completely new ones. My mind does that the exact same way even when not praying.
In the end, to make a long story short, and it is very long, I was prepared, I have been prepared, but I will not believe anymore in something in which the only evidence is, which you've shown so very clearly, "because I believe it."
That's all any of your arguements fall down to. Subjective belief, a feeling. A feeling of certainty, surely, but those don't mean a damn thing, as I've observed elsewhere.
All you have is your assertions, your personal feelings, which you believe are somehow different, yet sound identical to those of many, many others, in contradictory religions.
You agree there's a possibility for false revelation, but you give no way to discern between the two, and you do not admit the possibility that you are having a false one. Only those other people who are as certain as you, only in something else. probably have it, essentially.
You have shown nothing at all convincing, and now I can't play at something I don't believe anymore. I just wouldn't admit it. That last bit is the fault of no one here, btw.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. It's an academic organization that attempts to fit historical data to Mormon doctrine and "official" history.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Wow. A ton of posts came between the thing I was responding to and my response. Joy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Yet the other people will say God spoke to them as well.
In fact, the God they claim spoke to them depends on what beliefs they possess, as well!
And I've already gone out there, I've already looked. I was ready throughout all my childhood, I knew God was there, believed it all my heart. You could never sway me from that faith.
Then, I learned how the human mind works. And I noticed how no answers I ever got were anything other than what I wanted to feel. My own thoughts, feelings. Even the random, completely new ones. My mind does that the exact same way even when not praying.
In the end, to make a long story short, and it is very long, I was prepared, I have been prepared, but I will not believe anymore in something in which the only evidence is, which you've shown so very clearly, "because I believe it."
That's all any of your arguements fall down to. Subjective belief, a feeling. A feeling of certainty, surely, but those don't mean a damn thing, as I've observed elsewhere.
All you have is your assertions, your personal feelings, which you believe are somehow different, yet sound identical to those of many, many others, in contradictory religions.
You agree there's a possibility for false revelation, but you give no way to discern between the two, and you do not admit the possibility that you are having a false one. Only those other people who are as certain as you, only in something else. probably have it, essentially.
You have shown nothing at all convincing, and now I can't play at something I don't believe anymore. I just wouldn't admit it. That last bit is the fault of no one here, btw.
If you say so, it is not within my power to make you see things as I see them.
It does not bother me in the least that MY experiences do not persuade you. A religion where we did not have to do the work ourselves and could instead leech off the experiences of other would be useless to me.
How old are you 0Megabyte? Because unless you are somewhere in the ball park of 70-80 years old don't whine to me about trying and not getting anything. There are people in much harsher circumstances who at very advanced ages found something of value in organized religion, and many of them were atheists for decades.
You are asking something from me that my own theology specifies as impossible. If I could provide an easy precise way to find God, everybody could just do it and that is not a good idea. But you are welcome to your own POV, if you are so certain my religion has nothing new to offer there is not much I can do about that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You are asking something from me that my own theology specifies as impossible. If I could provide an easy precise way to find God, everybody could just do it and that is not a good idea.
Isn't it a tenet of your faith that everyone can find God and that it needn't take years to do so? Isn't that what Moroni's Challenge is all about?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"If you say so, it is not within my power to make you see things as I see them."
No. Partly because our very frameworks for looking at the world are different. I'm a skeptic, in the most positive sense: Unless there's positive evidence for something, I assume something's false. That's generally a good way to do it, because assuming something's true until proven otherwise is a very unwise position, for many reasons.
"It does not bother me in the least that MY experiences do not persuade you."
It's not your experiences that don't move me. It's your lack of evidence for God in the first place.
" A religion where we did not have to do the work ourselves and could instead leech off the experiences of other would be useless to me."
I've done the work. The conclusion it's come to with me is different than yours. Don't assume I'm just some lost soul who hasn't found it yet.
"How old are you 0Megabyte?"
Knowledge of truth or falsehood is unrelated to age, if you don't let your emotions get in the way.
"Because unless you are somewhere in the ball park of 70-80 years old don't whine to me about trying and not getting anything."
Whine? Don't you dare patronize me. The Mormon faith, your faith, claims that if I read your book, search my soul, ask God for the truth, He will reveal it. I've done that very thing, with both your Book of Mormon, the Bible in general, and God in particular.
The answer was simple: Silence. I tell you a little of MY experience of faith, and you call it whining! Please!
You should stop whining about how we shouldn't need evidence then.
"There are people in much harsher circumstances who at very advanced ages found something of value in organized religion, and many of them were atheists for decades."
There are people who do the opposite too. So what? That doesn't make someone right. And when you're close to death, there's a benefit to going back to religion: You see your death becoming immenant, and death is the great primal fear of our species. A religion that promises an afterlife, which is familiar to a weak old person, is obviously going to be both comforting and attractive. It has nothing to do with God showing Himself to them.
"You are asking something from me that my own theology specifies as impossible."
No I'm not. I'm saying I did what your missionaries, and yourself, told me to do, already and the only answer I got was complete silence outside of my own thoughts and feelings. I found your Book of Mormon to ring suspiciously false to the ears. The language, for example, sounded like a 19th century fellow trying to sound ancient. As a single example.
" If I could provide an easy precise way to find God, everybody could just do it and that is not a good idea. But you are welcome to your own POV, if you are so certain my religion has nothing new to offer there is not much I can do about that. "
I never said there is nothing to offer. In fact, I pointed out the opposite early on.
The fact is, with no evidence for God, but a lot of evidence for humans being skilled at self-deception, which should I assume is correct? On the scales of evidence, which as a skeptic I tend to look at, you can guess where the scales tilt.
That's beyond the fact that I've done what you've said. I've even had what one could call a religious experience or two, thank you very much. And you can't refute that, you cannot claim it was not true.
But the cause of those experiences was not God but my own mind, my own desperate attempts to make what I so wanted to be true, true.
So don't you dare assume I'm just not there yet. That I haven't taken the journey. I can't say there is no God, but I can say there's no evidence. There's no proof at all that I've ever seen that is in any way convincing, that describes anything that natural explanations don't explain better.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
If we don't keep the discussion a little more in the theoretical, then it can move into the realm of "convert[ing] people to your own religious beliefs, or . . . disparag[ing] others for their own religious beliefs." If y'all don't mind, could you please rein it back just a tad? I'm not trying to shut anyone down, and I recognize that it's a grey area -- I just ask that you endeavor to keep it to the lighter side of grey.
--PJ
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I believe we must take the conversation in a new direction, and prove that Papa Janitor doesn't exist.
Who's up for it? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have met both Papa and his offspring. Even have pictorial evidence.
Go ahead, convince me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I have met both Papa and his offspring. Even have pictorial evidence.
Go ahead, convince me.
Um...swamp gas reflecting Venus?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
At least 6 different locations, some in other states. And quite a few times -- 10? more?
You're going to have to do better.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Physically seeing someone is a much better indicator of existence than having a feeling.
Your eyes may trick you, but with your multiple times physically seeing him, along with, what I'd imagine, is others seeing him, it's a lot easier to believe. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Do you feel differently when you see Papa than you feel in other circumstances? Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Well, I've never seen him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Do you feel differently when you see Papa than you feel in other circumstances?
Yup. Seeing the Meeses makes me happy.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Well, I've never seen him.
Newbie. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:You are asking something from me that my own theology specifies as impossible. If I could provide an easy precise way to find God, everybody could just do it and that is not a good idea.
Isn't it a tenet of your faith that everyone can find God and that it needn't take years to do so? Isn't that what Moroni's Challenge is all about?
What I mean is a method that was as simple as say snapping the fingers, or looking through a spyglass. The method is sufficiently easy enough that anyone COULD do it. But not everyone WILL.
0Megabyte: In retrospect I owe you a bit of an apology. Its not common for me to be disparaging to anyone, but I certainly meant to irk you when I called your a whiner. For that I apologize. I try to be a good ambassador of my faith and often times it can be pretty hard channeling Jesus rather then just being human. But again that does not excuse my behavior, so I am truly sorry.
It's just frustrating to have to debate with somebody on their terms. You state that you have performed the experiment exactly as prescribed in the scriptures. That statement puts me at a disadvantage.
1: I was not there, I cannot know the nuances of your experiment or how YOU perceived things.
2: Even if I was there and let say you did EVERYTHING I don't know the will of God on the matter.
Either there just wasn't a God around to take your call, or else He chose to remain silent.
As I said before, all I can offer is that I myself had to wait longer then I thought was fair to get the experience I had desired as to God's existance and the truthfulness of the religion I had already followed for years.
I've heard of people knowing it was true the moment the touched the book, and I have heard of people getting nothing but just living their life as best they could for decades and finally it all fell into place.
Anyway, TBH I am not sure I care to continue this particular conversation but I wish you well in whatever path seems right to you.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I believe we must take the conversation in a new direction, and prove that Papa Janitor doesn't exist.
Who's up for it?
A philosphy teacher once said to prove that he did not have 3 little green men inside his watch making it work, comparing it to faith in God. I think that is a much better activity.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My genetics teacher asked the class to prove to him that DNA was indeed the method of inheritance. He came up with his own theory and took every piece of evidence and explained how that did not disprove his theory and in some ways even strengthened it.
edit to add: my philosophy teacher used the little alien from Flintstones that kept getting Fred in trouble.
[ June 21, 2007, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: scholar ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My sister had a humanities teacher that used the example of a giant pink bunny that was invisible and only he could see.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The point of those things is that asking for proof of everything you believe is futile. You cannot truly prove the vast majority of your beliefs, including things that we are all extremely confident are true.
I think our beliefs typically require four different elements: 1. Evidence, with which to base our belief upon 2. Logic, with which to determine what we can infer directly from our evidence 3. Judgement, with which to make conclusions that can't be inferred directly from the evidence, but which we personally believe the evidence supports 4. Faith, so we can trust the conclusions that can't be inferred directly from the evidence but that we judge to be true based on that evidence nonetheless
I think most discussions about God go awry because it is much easier to discuss only (1), (2), and (4): What evidence do we have, what can we prove with it, and is it okay to have faith in things that we can't prove? But the truth is nobody can prove their religious view is correct based solely on evidence and logic - not even atheists. And even if we were to agree it is wise to have faith in things that go beyond what the evidence can say, that does not tell us anything about which beliefs we should have faith in.
Instead, the critical point at which atheists and members of different religions disagree is Judgement (3). We don't agree on what jumps are wise to make beyond the evidence. Should we use Occam's Razor? Should we trust the Bible? Should we trust personal experiences? The answers we give to those sorts of questions will determine whether we are atheists, theists, or whatever. But those are "should" questions. They don't have clear answers. We can't really do a study to determine if trusting the Bible is wise. As a result, we aren't going to be able to prove to others that our methods of judgement are better than theirs. That's not to say it isn't productive; it just means you can't expect to force anyone to change their viewpoint, and should not get frustrated when they don't.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The problem with #3 is that there is no control on it. It's the point in the process where we start believing things because we want them to be true or we discard evidence because it doesn't fit our established beliefs. It's spiritual overdraft protection. "Well, my evidence and logic accounts are empty, but I've still got $225 in the judgment account, so God really did help me find my car keys."
My frustration is not with the specific beliefs but the runaway dependence on #3.
#4 is just a byproduct of #1-#3.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
One thing I consider are the implications of various beliefs that I could hold on a particular matter. How will various ideas that I could have about something work in reality?
For example, I could choose to believe that the Theory of Gravity is just a theory, and doesn't hold any real weight (har, har). Maybe gravity won't work one second from now, and when I jump out of my seat, I'll keep floating up to the ceiling. Nope. Still working.
True, I have to have faith and use my judgment in many areas of my life. Maybe the sun won't be there tomorrow. Maybe the laws of physics will change. Maybe I'll realize that Zeus is my patron Olympian deity, and if I don't sacrifice a fatted calf he'll throw lightening bolts at my car tomorrow.
Some of these beliefs and judgments are critical to my life, and easily confirmed, even if only in the short term, from observations. Others are at best guesses, and can be swapped out for other guesses with no real life consequences, or at least no observable consequences.
If I worship Zeus, Christian God, the Earth Mother, Satan, or nobody 5 minutes from now, I won't be able to observe any difference. If I throw a chair over my head and believe really hard that gravity isn't real, I'll learn unequivocally that I'm wrong.
I very well could be wrong about my spiritual beliefs as well, but since I can't find out one way or the other with any degree of certainty, it seems rather pointless to me to bother.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
Nope. Still working.
I'd hope so, I think gravity is a law, not a theory. Not that I am defending creationists in any way.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
However, the term law, in scientific settings, is essentially not much different than a theory at all.
It's basically jazzing it up because it's so important. It has no higher level of truth than a scientific theory.
And in fact, Newton's laws, as to gravity et al, weren't actually accurate. Einstein's theories, as an example, supplanted them.
We still use them, though, because they're useful in the scope of everyday activity and the difference made by using the other calculations when gauging something on a terrestrial level is minimal.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"0Megabyte: In retrospect I owe you a bit of an apology. Its not common for me to be disparaging to anyone, but I certainly meant to irk you when I called your a whiner. For that I apologize. I try to be a good ambassador of my faith and often times it can be pretty hard channeling Jesus rather then just being human. But again that does not excuse my behavior, so I am truly sorry."
Your apology accepted.
"It's just frustrating to have to debate with somebody on their terms. You state that you have performed the experiment exactly as prescribed in the scriptures. That statement puts me at a disadvantage."
Perhaps. But debating on my terms is simply this: Evidence. I want some. I'm not even asking for a lot. When it comes to Papa Moose, I believe he exists, or at least someone uses that name, first of all because his posts are evident, and people have made sure their claim that they have seen him, physically. Not in a vision, but with their eyes, their senses.
With God, nobody's seen Him physically. Not in a way that other human beings sitting beside them could see, anyway. You cannot call up God and say "hey, this guy doesn't believe, show up with me today so he sees, okay?" You can with, say, Papa Moose, at least it's feasible.
God's feelings are vague enough to be easily interpreted as something else. The same feelings of religious rapture can be done to a person in a lab. The human mind tricks itself in so many other subjects. In other words, it's not at all clear.
On the other hand, to argue on your own terms presupposes God's existence, and presupposes the validity of religious experience. Though I'm not at all perfect, I simply cannot go from that perspective, either.
Really, it seems we both have troubles with the others terms. It's hard to talk in that case, and it's clearly been hard.
"1: I was not there, I cannot know the nuances of your experiment or how YOU perceived things.
2: Even if I was there and let say you did EVERYTHING I don't know the will of God on the matter"
1: Yes. You cannot. Nor can I know for sure if I did whatever correctly.
2: IF God has a will, then it evidently wasn't for me to find truth in the Book of Mormon, or even God at all, at that or at this time. Because I didn't. Assuming there is one, of course.
You cannot know if I did it right. In the same vein, I cannot know if I did it wrong, truly. Really, to respond to my word,s you could always say I evidently didn't do it right, and we'd be stuck. Thank you for not. I'll concede I may have done it wrong. But how can I know, then, if it's such a personal thing?
"As I said before, all I can offer is that I myself had to wait longer then I thought was fair to get the experience I had desired as to God's existance and the truthfulness of the religion I had already followed for years."
Well, we'll see, won't we? I don't say God doesn't exist, just that I find no evidence. And, udnerstanding my mind, I can tell when I'm just fooling myself, at least to an extent, now.
"I've heard of people knowing it was true the moment the touched the book, and I have heard of people getting nothing but just living their life as best they could for decades and finally it all fell into place."
Perhaps. But others do not ever, even if they want it. To compare these anecdotes is meaningless, as neither the ones who get it nor the ones who don't, even when combined, do not really say anything about truth.
"Anyway, TBH I am not sure I care to continue this particular conversation but I wish you well in whatever path seems right to you. "
First, I don't know what TBH means. Could you tell me?
And second. If you do not wish to continue this conversation, alright.
In the end, I'm sorry. By asking my original questions, I realized fully how little evidence I had for God in the first place. Which actually kind of sucks! And it must be distressing, to see somebody go that route. But I'm a skeptic in the positive sense. I try not to believe anything without viable evidence. Or at least keep it at the assumption of negative. It's like... all ideas and statements are innocent of truth until proven guilty. And to prove guilty, you need to get rid of all reasonable doubt. That analogy works. And nothing here has gotten rid of reasonable doubt, while people seeing Papa Moose, along with his responses, combined with the general trustworthiness of the person who mentioned it, well... that does kill reasonable doubt.
WE'll end the conversation though. I hope I didn't upset you here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:WE'll end the conversation though. I hope I didn't upset you here.
Certainly not, I just needed a day or two before I'm willing to talk candidly about religion.
TBH = To Be Honest.
Sometimes its written as, TBQH
To Be Quite Honest.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ahh. Thanks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think gravity is a law, not a theory.
This reflects a misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. A theory is any explanation of observed facts, regardless of how sure we are of that explanation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yep. Scientific laws tell us what happens; theories tell us why.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Please point out one inaccurate genealogy that is in the "Hebrew texts." Who was crazy about genealogies?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)