Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 159 of 485 (569948)
07-24-2010 7:25 PM


Hi Granny Magda
Granny Magda writes:
PS: I would welcome your reply, but it would be best diverted to Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. Cheers.
I finally got around to reading through this thread, but must admit that I skimmed along pretty quickly through the somewhat off-topic parts, and didn't take the time to check any of the links offered. With that said, I'll now answer your questions that you posed in the other thread from about a week ago. It starts with my quote that you referenced;
marc9000 writes:
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
Thanks for confirming the thesis of the Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. thread.
No-one believes the ToE for reasons like that. No-one says;
Darwin says it. I believe it. That settles it.
It's the creationist camp who rely on the word of a magic book, not us. We don't share your passion for appeal to authority.
You may not say it, but the actions of the scientific community, and the postings/personalities of posters on several message boards like this one clearly show that’s exactly what they think. As well as literature, past and present, from Darwin's Bulldogs, and he had a lot of them. Everyone has a set of presuppositions that guide their moral and ethical analyses. There is no neutral ground from which to discuss questions regarding behavior in an organized society. Many/most evolutionists have a passion for science that is equal to the most passionately religious person — it’s obvious on these forums. There’s no evidence that evolutionists are like robots, operating in a vacuum where their mind is a blank slate, changeable at any second, if new data comes in. If new, compelling evidence for a young earth was suddenly unveiled, evolution would not instantly disappear from the minds of all evolutionists. Any evidence for a young earth, no matter how compelling, would be attacked, ridiculed, brushed aside to keep the evolutionist faith alive.
Throughout this thread, from the first post to several other places, evolutionists make statements about their own beliefs, concerning objectivity and neutrality that they say religious people don't have. The problem with this is that they make declarations about themselves that they believe quickly settles that issue. It sounds reasonable at first, after all, who is better authorized to declare what a person believes than that person himself/herself, right? The problem is, they don't allow religious people that same luxury. For example, Michael Behe basically claimed to be an unbiased analyst of Intelligent Design, that he could explore it and teach it with no religious bias whatsoever. A court (the Dover court) told him he was wrong about his own belief, that ID is inseparable from religion, that his statements about his personal beliefs are better analyzed by someone else in this case. So that's true for everybody, just because an evolutionist, or theistic evolutionist, makes a statement about themselves, it's subject to interpretation by someone of another worldview. As someone that knows quite a bit about Christianity, and someone who is learned and informed on just how much Christianity has been compromised with evolution in the past 100 years, I'm just as capable to raise the BS flag when I see some evolutionists call themselves Christians as evolutionists are when they see an ID proponent claim to be studying science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 8:00 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 8:16 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 07-25-2010 8:29 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 164 of 485 (570117)
07-25-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Granny Magda
07-25-2010 8:29 AM


Oh, I see; it's going to be one of those weird ones where you tell me what I think. Funny, I would've thought that I knew what I thought better than you did. But apparently, no, your psychic powers allow you to better gauge my opinions than I can myself.
But as I touched on in my previous post, it goes both ways. Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited. It happens to the extent that some in science are accusing creationists (and scientifically studying for) a brain quirk that causes people to be religious. Weird indeed.
I don't believe in the ToE because Darwin just says so.
No-one believes in the ToE because Darwin just says so.
If you disagree, please show us some evolutionist sources saying;
Darwin says it. I believe it. That settles it.
or something equivalent. Now if you can't find any such statements, the sane conclusion would be to conclude that evo's don't think that way, that there is some other reason for our belief in the ToE. You could perhaps try asking us why we believe in the ToE. Instead, you seem to have decided that you know what we think, despite having absolutely no evidence of any kind to back that up. That's crazy talk my friend.
I’ve done some reading and studying on the actual history of the ToE. Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists. People like Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer were two of the more prominent early ones, but there are practically too many to name. Huxley’s two grandsons, Sir Julian, and Aldous, made profound statements about evolution that are no longer politically correct, but are just as true as they ever were. From Aldous Huxley;
quote:
I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. Ends and Means p.270
From what I see in the political beliefs of evolutionists, from college professors to frisky teenagers to posters on these types of forums, it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.
marc9000 writes:
Everyone has a set of presuppositions that guide their moral and ethical analyses. There is no neutral ground from which to discuss questions regarding behavior in an organized society.
Even if we grant that this is true, it is irrelevant. The ToE is completely unconnected to moral and ethical decisions. I make no reference to the ToE when making a moral judgement, nor does anyone I know of do so.
It is documented that the purposelessness of the evolutionary mindset is often closely connected to moral and ethical decisions. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example. Several people with scientific credentials that were quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals of opposing views simply by mocking them because of their public Christian worldview.
Evolutionists are generally politically liberal, and anti-tradition. Anti-tradition is often anti-US Constitution.
It makes a certain amount of sense for Christians to refer to their foundational texts in solving moral dilemmas; there is at least some material in there that addresses morality. In the case of evolution proponents however, there is no foundational text. The Origin is not a foundational text, and even if you insist that it is, it doesn't dispense moral advice, so there would be little point in consulting it for moral advice.
The Origin is not directly consulted, but the detailed works that followed it were inspired by it and are often consulted. Daniel Dennett is described as a major contributor to the understanding of the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. He doesn’t call evolution an innocent study of science, he calls it a universal acid that eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.
Have you ever heard of Daniel Dennett?
Text doesn’t have to be foundational to be profound and applicable to a subject.
I have a passion for the books of George MacDonald Fraser. I also have a passion for Mexican food. My attitudes to the two are not identical just because I am keen on them both. I have no desire to eat Fraser's books, nor to sit down and read a bowl of nachos. My enthusiasm for each manifests in a different way.
Just as Christians have no desire to eat Bibles. The passions are equal — each worldview applies their beliefs to their own lives, and their opinions on the political decisions that they believe make the best organized societies. In believing that the order we see the world is formed by purposelessness, it’s only natural that evolutionists hold science in high regard as a source of knowledge. Those of the Christian religion are more likely to regard time-tested,corroborated, written history over the evolutionist writings of Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. Neither worldview holds a defined advantage in critical thought, as this threads opening posts assert.
Many people who believe in evolution are keen on science, but that doesn't mean that we regard science in the same way you see your faith. That is just you projecting (so far as I can tell). You should remember that not everyone thinks the way you do and not every action people take can be fitted into a framework that makes sense to you.
All I’m doing is reading many common sense quotes from people who have been instrumental in shaping evolution to be regarded as it is today. Here’s one from Sir Julian Huxley;
quote:
The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law an religion, began to be studied for an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. What is Science? (1955) p.272
In claiming an intellectual high ground over religious people as is the subject of this thread, it clearly proves that today's thinking in evolution is exactly as is described in the above quote.
Personally, I do not feel that I have replaced religion with science in my own personal philosophy. I was never religious, not to even the smallest extent. There is nothing to replace. Religion is of so little importance to me that it has never played any part in influencing any of my opinions (save for those that are actually about religion itself). I have no desire to replace religion in my thinking, with science or anything else. There is no need.
You don’t have political opinions?
marc9000 writes:
There’s no evidence that evolutionists are like robots, operating in a vacuum where their mind is a blank slate, changeable at any second, if new data comes in.
I don't think anyone ever claimed that to be the case. Evolutionists, whether laymen on internet message boards, or preofessionals, are only human. Science is not a perfect process, that's why it has built in checks and balances, to defeat such prejudices.
But if science were taken to court, and all the literature about evolution were studied and combined, a ruling would come forward that would look strikingly similar to the Dover ruling about Intelligent Design. It would look something like this;
quote:
A significant aspect of the evolutionary movement is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes evolution as being atheistic. In that vein, the writings of leading evolutionary proponents reveal that there is no god, or that god is insignificant enough to be non-existent.
marc9000 writes:
If new, compelling evidence for a young earth was suddenly unveiled, evolution would not instantly disappear from the minds of all evolutionists. Any evidence for a young earth, no matter how compelling, would be attacked, ridiculed, brushed aside to keep the evolutionist faith alive.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why don't try and find just the smallest scrap of evidence for a young Earth and put your theory to the test?
Hmmm, that’s the same illogical question that I was asked in message 161. I don’t need to test it! I never claimed or implied that I had that evidence anyway. But an old earth is one of several fragile foundations that evolution rests on, and the evolutionary community spends a lot more effort mocking the possibility of a young earth than they attempt to reasonably address the points made by those who suggest the possibility of it.
Oh. I see. you are engaging in the tu quoque fallacy. Tell me Marc, if you think it so unfair to judge others views without letting them speak for themselves, why do it? Because they did it first? That's not much of a justification. Either it is wrong to label the views of others contrary to their objections, or it is not. Claiming "They started it!" is not sufficient justification.
I’m not using time as a justification. I’m using an equal application as a justification. It’s necessary when discussing worldviews, if one worldview claims a secular superiority, a superior intellect over another worldview, as the opening of this thread asserts.
But in this case there is good evidence that Behe was mistaken or lying. His claims were shown to be misleading. Other ID proponents were shown to be telling downright lies whilst under oath. What conclusion do you expect?
A passion for one’s own worldview can be labeled as mistakes or lies in court decisions, that’s why US foundings don’t give courts much authority to decide high level matters. Another problem is that some high level matters don’t make it to court. Example, if the current scientific claim abiogenesis is a fact were to be taken to court, and the traditional meaning of the word abiogenesis were carefully considered, the conclusion would be that the phrase is a lie.
In telling me that I only believe in the ToE because Darwin says so, you are effectively accusing me of a) being a moron and b) lying about my motivations. Now if you are making that accusation, as the Dover court pretty much did against Behe, you better have evidence. Accusing me of lying about my own beliefs without any evidence would be a shitty thing to do. So... where's the evidence that I hold The origin to be a sacred text Marc? I am oh-so-curious to know what I think.
I’m not saying anything at all about what you think personally. All I did was answer the questions that you asked of me. I’m making general statements about how atheists/evolutionists don’t want the world to have meaning. If that offends you, I’m sorry. But my advise would be to think about how offensive you are when you say It's the creationist camp who rely on the word of a magic book.
Except that science is created by and defined by humanity. It is ours to decide on as we please. We get to decide what it is and isn't.
Does the word humanity mean atheists? Since some 90% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists are atheists, I suppose it does. But humanity would more accurately be described as the public who foots the bills.
Christianity by contrast is split into a thousand factions, all claiming to be the true Christianity. The truth of their claims is not a matter that humanity can reasonably judge, at least not with any authority. Only God, if he exists, can decide that. Why not leave it to God to decide who's a real Christian, and leave it to me to tell you what my opinion is.
Most of the differences in Christian denominations are minor ones, but this thread isn’t really about Christian authority. It’s about a claim of evolutionists superior intellect, by those who are one minute claiming evolution is biological change, and the next minute that it’s an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 07-25-2010 8:29 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2010 6:56 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 166 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2010 9:08 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2010 10:06 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 07-26-2010 10:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 199 of 485 (570558)
07-27-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Blue Jay
07-25-2010 10:06 PM


marc9000 writes:
...it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.
Marc, I want to lodge two complaints about this statement.
1. I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website. Atheists only rarely think of the world as meaningless: they often perceive a meaning for the world and for their lives that is as profound and as deep as any meaning that you and I, as religious folks, perceive.
You maybe, but not myself. An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism. Not only does that directly conflict with the purpose described in the Bible, it can vary all over the place, it can attempt to counter it - to attempt to claim some Christian virtue as its own. Or it can make randomness meaningful, often assigning meaning only to itself, and disregarding meaning in religion. The 10 commandments of Christianity are usually discarded — that’s the liberation that seems to be the most attractive in Darwinism.
I’ve learned a great deal from atheists from these types of websites too. One of them is how free-flowing the incorrect statements about Christians and Christianity really are. An example from the opening post;
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists,
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim? I haven’t — it sure doesn’t answer all my questions.
I am a family man. I have a son who is almost three years old, and my wife is five months pregnant with my first daughter. I am content and happy with my family life, and have no interest in looking for sex anywhere else. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if I underwent andropause right now. I seek no sexual liberation.
In addition, I don’t really pay much attention to politics. I have voted Democrat more often recently, simply because I greatly prize education, and Democrats are friendlier to education. But, my general political philosophy is to not rock the boat too much and not ask for too many favors from people. I seek no political liberation either.
Sincere congratulations, you’re in an important, memorable phase of your life right now. But if you’re saying that this point in your life is when you’re first becoming most interested in accepting Darwinism and questioning Christianity, I believe it’s rare, I think it is more common in younger people. That’s not a put down, just a statement that young people seek liberation.
When I got my first computer 10 years ago and started noticing forums like this, I was only interested in politics, conservative vs liberal. I remember seeing a ‘creation vs evolution sub-forum, and telling myself I didn’t want anything to do with that. But after a short time, it became clear to me that young people and science education in todays liberal universities is a major part of the US shift to liberalism. All Ward Churchill had to do was blast the US just after 9/11 from his little corner of the world in Boulder Colorado, and within three years he was invited to speak at 40 college campuses all across the US. Selected writings of his became required reading at 100 universities in the US. He became a darling of US higher education because of his extreme liberal viewpoints.
My interest in evolution stems only from what I feel are its logical merits. I do not view the question of meaning as having anything to do with my acceptance of evolution. I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis because I have never been able to glean any success from a faith-based approach to life, and am struggling to understand why a being like God would place such high importance on faith, anyway.
Your comments seem to be written through Christian-tinted glasses. I understand what it feels like to perceive the world from a Christian perspective, because I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago. I still cannot understand fully atheistic perspectives on life, and I can’t grasp the concept of myself without having some sort of inner soul, but I think I understand enough to at least accept that they are sincere and that their view is not the same as mine.
Let’s line up your three statements;
quote:
*I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website.
*I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis
*I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago.
That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous thing for a Christian to do.
It’s not uncommon in many subjects for a conclusion to be established at the beginning, and then evidence formed to fit that conclusion. It happens in the courts all the time — the lawyers for the defendant and plantiff don’t compile all the evidence before they decide who’s case they’re going to take, they start with a conclusion (the defendant is guilty/ the defendant is innocent) and then start looking at evidence. I’ve been on jury duty, and at age 17 I was on the witness stand (I witnessed a child being hit and killed by a car) - it’s pretty amazing how each side can make the evidence fit their predetermined conclusion.
I also have a somewhat personal experience with written history. I’ll keep this as brief as possible — only the most impatient will declare that it’s off topic, it actually reaches an on-topic conclusion.
I was an average student throughout grade school and high school, (crashfrog will be delighted to see this) and my interest in American history wasn’t anything special either. But prominent figures in American history got more than just a passing mention when I went to school in the 60’s, and it’s probably similar today. We are taught about them in more than just one school year — it happens over a period of several grades. Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are two people that any public school student paying much attention at all is going to picture who they were and what they were like in his mind. Though Lee was on the Confederate side, history shows a lot of respect for him. I remember Lincoln being portrayed as basically a good man, kind and soft spoken, but a good leader. One of my great-grandfathers spent most of his life in central Ohio (he lived to be 96 years old) but he grew up on a farm in Maryland where several civil war battles were fought, and being born in 1850, he was a boy of 11, 12, 13, during those battles. In 1938, at age 88, he was interviewed by a Dayton Ohio newspaper, and most of the interview was about his memories of those battles. That newspaper clipping has been preserved by my family. He met both Lincoln and Lee as a boy — Lincoln just after a brief speech on a battlefield (led to Lincoln by his father) and Lee as a group of boys being kindly spoken to by Lee, mainly a warning to stay out of harms way, but also asked them casual questions about their farms and schools. He said his dad, even as a staunch northerner, had respect for Lee, said he was a sure enough fighter. His descriptions of Lincoln and Lee’s mannerisms and actions match exactly with the way they were portrayed in the history books I studied in the 1960’s.
My point is that I find the written word of the Bible to be on a different level than 19th and 20th century scientific speculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2010 10:06 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 7:49 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 8:01 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 202 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2010 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 226 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-28-2010 4:51 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 272 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2010 11:25 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 274 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2010 6:15 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 275 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2010 4:01 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 356 of 485 (571477)
07-31-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Blue Jay
07-29-2010 11:25 AM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:
An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
I don’t think this is accurate. Certainly it seems like this would be the case from our perspective, and I’m certainly not a good example in which this isn’t the case, because my personal move away from strict theism was spurred by my conversion to evolutionism; but, I don’t think this is a general rule for all atheists, and I don’t think it’s fair of you to assert it as such without their permission.
Francis Crick, an atheist, has asserted it, and I think it is a general rule, so why should I be shy about asserting it? There are respected authorities in the scientific community that certainly aren’t shy about making assertions about Christians without their permission. Like belief in a flat earth, belief that religion answers ALL their questions, or belief that they’re ignorant, stupid, insane, wicked, etc. You’ll notice that in this thread, one evolutionist argues that creationists are ignorant/stupid, while the other takes the position that they are wicked(insane). I didn’t notice either of them seeking any creationists’ permission to make those assertions or have that discussion.
Here’s what Crashfrog wrote in Message 201;
quote:
Evolution certainly implies a lack of meaning in the natural world, but it hardly necessitates meaninglessness in the human world. It just entails the realization that humans are the source of their own meaning.
I certainly don’t claim that I get this. It doesn’t sound like meaning to me. But, who gets to decide what meaning is, or where it comes from? I don’t feel comfortable designating myself as that authority, and I certainly don’t like when people who disagree with me do feel comfortable designating themselves as that authority.
So, in what way is it right for us to claim a monopoly on meaning?
If meaning comes from 'a creator', no human, not even Christians, can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives. Each human can apply it to their life as they see fit, with no danger of superior humans (like atheist intellectuals) to publicly establish what they see as meaning.
You might be right that they view the world as meaningless, and have just deluded themselves into to thinking otherwise, but you don’t really get anywhere in debates by simply refusing to engage people about their personal views on their terms. So, what point is served by these blunt assertions of yours? I argue that no point at all is served.
Am I guilty of that, more than atheists are? Their engagement with people on personal views seems to get around to flat earths and flying spaghetti monsters pretty quickly. Are Christians supposed to be above blunt assertions? In swaying opinions and winning philosophical wars, blunt assertions work. It’s like any physical conflict, when facing machine guns, smiling and making nice in opposition usually doesn’t win.
marc9000 writes:
quote:
quote:Since religion answers every question for many Creationists...
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim?
I have known many creationists who seem to say just that. I suppose I haven’t actually pursued the topic with anybody, so I can’t say for certain: but, if it isn’t true, I think there are a lot of creationists who would do well to make it clearer than they do.
And, I certainly can imagine creationists making that claim.
I see atheists (indirectly) making that claim all the time. Any question at all = everything’s random, chance, a roll of the dice. The humanist manifestos seem to sum it all up pretty neatly - what question could there possibly be that randomness and scientific study can’t answer? Creationists by contrast, don’t know why God allows Satan to exist, why animals (not part of original sin) must suffer the pain that they do, why some elderly people, tired of living, must wait years or even decades to die, while some young energetic people have their lives cut short in their prime by cancer, accidents etc. I don’t think ANY creationist, if directly asked, is going to claim that religion answers every question they have.
How old do you think I am? I think my birth date is listed on my member profile.
With a toddler and expecting wife, I figured you for mid to late twenties. Your member profile confirms it.
marc9000 writes:
That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous thing for a Christian to do.
It’s not uncommon in many subjects for a conclusion to be established at the beginning, and then evidence formed to fit that conclusion.
I have now sat here for about thirty minutes, trying to figure out how to respond to the fact that you just juxtaposed those two statements.
I don’t consider Christianity to be on the same level as all other secular subjects. A person doesn’t become a Christian, or realize he/she is a Christian, as a simple quick decision of hey, why not, that looks easy, as they do with so many other subjects, including atheism IMO. What’s not quick and easy about atheism? — no rules, just random chance explains everything. Other secular subjects can be the same way, only to add strength to a previous conclusion. For example, I’d expect when Darwin was finishing up his Beagle voyage, one of his first stops on land was to visit some atheist geologists. Can you help me out with an old earth there buddy? I’m sure they assured him that if he needed geological evidence for an old earth, he would certainly have it!
If I am not allowed to even consider altering my conclusion, how can I possibly consider my pursuit of knowledge anything but the epitome of what you said in the second sentence above?
There’s nothing about Christianity that encourages it to be put to the test. My belief is, concerning the Bible’s several warnings about false teachers, that scientific speculation about millions of years falls under the test category.
In exactly the same way, there is no indication in science that Darwinism is encouraged to be put to any tests. I borrowed a friend’s son’s high school biology textbook a few months ago, and saw no encouragement for it. When Intelligent Design is mentioned anywhere in a scientific discussion, the immediate emotional reaction that we always see is still more proof of it. It’s very comparable to the reaction of religious people of 100 years ago to Darwinism. The premise of this thread is generally false.
I have convinced myself that honesty, even if it is misguided, is more important than the particular conclusion at which I arrive. I am at a loss to explain why God would punish me for that.
The scientific community doesn’t have the market cornered on honesty. It should be put to the test more than it is. The dividing line is too fuzzy between actual science and metaphysics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2010 11:25 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2010 10:56 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 365 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-31-2010 11:25 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 366 by DC85, posted 08-01-2010 12:29 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 429 by Blue Jay, posted 08-02-2010 5:31 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 359 of 485 (571483)
07-31-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Rrhain
07-30-2010 4:01 AM


marc9000 responds to Bluejay:
marc9000 writes:
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists,
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim?
William Jennings Bryan did. You have actually read the transcript of the Scopes trial, haven't you? A lot of his responses to Darrow were of the form, "I haven't looked into it because the Bible is all I need."
It didn't take a very detailed look at the transcript of the Scopes trial to find this;
quote:
Q)You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?
A)Bryan--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.
So his religion obviously didn't answer every question for him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2010 4:01 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 10:11 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 430 of 485 (571879)
08-02-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by jar
07-31-2010 10:11 PM


You might want to put the whole discussion of the fish instead of just quote mining those two lines.
I don’t want to, because it’s not necessary to counter the word every, that was the subject of the quote. If it’s said (message 275) that religion answers EVERY question for Bryan, and I can show only one place where his answer to a question was I don’t know, then a very brief quote mine was all that was necessary to show that religion in fact doesn’t answer every question that he has, or has asked of him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 10:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 08-02-2010 8:48 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 432 of 485 (571881)
08-02-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by crashfrog
07-31-2010 10:56 PM


Re: The search for meaning
You can't possibly be serious, are you?
Do you even know any atheists? I've never met or heard of a single one who came from a background of faith who didn't describe the process of conversion to atheism as being primarily a frightening, alienating period of their lives.
I didn’t really distinguish between someone who converted to atheism vs one who never was religious to begin with.
I’ve read a lot of posts by atheists on forums like these for the past 10 years, and it’s safe to say that they’re populated by lots of both, converts and the never-religious. I’ve never seen a single one say anything about any discomfort they are feeling or have ever felt about their atheist views. The opening posts of this thread sure don’t show it. Victor Stenger, author of How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, says that [scientists have pointed] to the beauty and majesty of nature and the great pleasure and inspiration that science brings to its practitioners. In his 1980 hit public television series Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan extolled the grandeur of the universe, life, and the human brain. In his book Pale Blue Dot, Sagan asks; How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, This is better than we thought! (p255) Later on that page, he quotes Richard Dawkins; The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver.
Isn’t the above possible without paying much, if any attention to science? Or are you saying that the above described bliss in atheism is just a little bit exaggerated, a little bit shallow?
Many atheists can't even come out to their loved ones; that's how profoundly society associates atheism with immorality and untrustworthiness. It certainly wasn't an easy process with my Christian family.
That’s something that’s changing fast in our society, I’ve seen it with my own eyes in my 55 years of life. I’ve lived in Northern Ky all my life, and as just one example, co-habitation was shamed, practically unheard of 40/45 years ago around here. It’s much more common now, and goes almost completely un-noticed.
Take a look at some deconversion stories if you genuinely labor under the misapprehension that there's anything easy about conversion to atheism:
A couple of them show relief and contentment.
marc9000 writes:
For example, I’d expect when Darwin was finishing up his Beagle voyage, one of his first stops on land was to visit some atheist geologists.
What "atheist geologists" were those? Please be specific.
I don’t have specifics. The earth was more generally thought of to be fairly young at that time, and of course Darwin knew that young-earth-evolution could never be possible. I know of no evidence that suggests that Darwin was keenly interested in geology or astronomy, so it makes sense that he would have been uncertain about evidence for an old earth.
No high school textbook, on any subject, is going to ask students to put anything to the test. Elementary and high school pedagogy, for better or for worse, is about telling students the way it is and expecting them to remember it. I'd prefer it if students in high school were challenged more, challenged to do some of the experiments and research that lead to the state of knowledge we have, but they don't. It's not a conspiracy to shelter evolution from challenge, it's simply the consistent, across-the-board state of education in America. You may have noticed that your friend's son wasn't challenged to independently corroborate the Holocaust, either.
There’s no other subject in school that is quite like the science of today. Speculation about events of millions of years ago, ruling out anything but naturalism for all of reality — in what is supposed to be an objective, publicly required/established subject. It’s the state of education in America all right, and shows the dangers of establishment, be it religion or naturalism (opposition to religion).
That said by the time they enter college they are performing experiments that test and confirm the mechanisms of evolution. I did many as a freshman, and every year since. Maybe you will too, if you choose to pursue study in the biological sciences in college.
Sorry, too old for that.
marc9000 writes:
The dividing line is too fuzzy between actual science and metaphysics.
Is it? Can you give an example from the peer-reviewed literature? What was the last scientific study you read that you thought blended science and "metaphysics"? Please be specific - I'm looking for authors, title, and date and journal of publication.
quote:
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison - 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins - 2008
Not peer reviewed you say? Why do you insist on peer review — where do you see peer review as something that the public specifies, or even seriously considers? "Origin Of Species" wasn't peer reviewed. Peer review seems to be for science what the courts are to Democrats — the judge/jury said this, so that trumps everything that a much larger group of people thinks. As Thomas Sowell put into words very concisely; People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all the average persons put together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2010 10:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 9:58 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 436 by subbie, posted 08-02-2010 10:00 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 439 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 11:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 433 of 485 (571883)
08-02-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Otto Tellick
07-31-2010 11:25 PM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:
If meaning comes from 'a creator', no human, not even Christians, can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives. Each human can apply it to their life as they see fit...
Is that a position that you sincerely hold? If so, I am truly impressed by the open-mindedness it evokes. If I understand it correctly, you are asserting a fundamental basis for freedom of choice with regard to religious belief. By acknowledging that no one, and no single religious creed, has a "monopoly" on defining "the meaning of life", you are admitting that Christianity is only one among (potentially) innumerable, equally valid points of view on this matter.
I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a person to hold personal opinions, yet not insist that only those opinions be used to structure or maintain how a society operates.
That strikes me as a remarkably refreshing point of view to be coming from an otherwise dogmatic Christian theist. I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, because I would not have expected that from you.
My previous posts may have swerved a little too close to an implication that I’d favor some specific Christian meaning to be imposed upon society, and I wouldn’t really fear any bad consequences if it happened, but I do believe the US is capable of being a pluralistic society. I’m like anyone else, I have less fear of my own worldview destroying liberty than I do of another worldview destroying liberty.
I think that your statement (if I understood it correctly) would still be true without your "if" condition; that is, if meaning does not come from a creator, no human can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives.
I think it should be that way, but it seldom is. Humans are the only species on the planet that organize societies to the extent that certain humans main function is to focus only on that organization. From policemen to politicians, and so many others in between. If meaning doesn’t come from a creator, everything’s changeable, there are no unalienable rights. Liberty is endangered when there are no unalienable rights. If humans assign meaning, humans can change meaning. I know of no society, present or past, with liberty equal to the US, that was founded and operated only by naturalistic reasoning.
The major difference between us is that your position can only be held and promoted by appeal to religious belief or dogma, whereas mine can find confirmation in real-world observations.
That accusation can go both ways. I can find confirmation in real world observations in un-scientific things, like the history (predictability and un-predictability) of human nature. Yours can appeal to humanistic dogma, such as new understandings of the world that require political overhauls, like dismantling capitalism to control global warming, or move toward a one-world government.
You may fail to grasp why my notion of "meaning" is equivalent to yours, given that mine is not asserted to be the creation of a supernatural being. I certainly fail to grasp why attribution to a supernatural being adds anything of consequence to the notion.
I think it’s because a supernatural being can have motives and goals that are more deep and noble than humans can understand. The meaning stays constant and doesn’t change.
In either case, we both perceive and conceive of meaning in life. We all experience emotions; we love our parents, our siblings, our spouses, our children; we cooperate with our neighbors to further the common goals that benefit our communities. These things apply regardless of the choice of religion, and regardless of the presence or absence of religious belief. If you don't agree with that, you are actually contradicting your statement that I quoted above (or else I must have misunderstood your statement).
I do agree with it, I just think those meanings that you describe can take off in different directions pretty quickly, in societal/political decisions.
As life succeeds in its purpose, awareness expands; in the case of our particular species, it has expanded to the point of self-awareness, of realizing that we have a purpose, and the ability to consider it. This is a confusing situation to be in, especially since human development has been marked by a tendency to ascribe causality to unknowable entities, rather than trying to work out how things came about naturally.
Many people believe that working out how things came about naturally is unknowable. Trying to work it out naturally isn’t just to politely ignore the possibility of an unknowable entity, it’s an attempt to disprove an unknowable entity. That's a motive that's equal to religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-31-2010 11:25 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 11:03 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 440 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-03-2010 2:54 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 434 of 485 (571889)
08-02-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Blue Jay
08-02-2010 5:31 PM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:
Francis Crick, an atheist, has asserted it, and I think it is a general rule, so why should I be shy about asserting it?
You should be shy about asserting it because it is the very point under discussion here.
Imagine a discussion in which the point of debate was whether my father’s shirt is blue or green.
Your comments could be parelleled within this shirt discussion as the simple comment: It’s blue.
A parallel of my response would be, What do you hope to accomplish by simply asserting it like that? I submit that you will accomplish nothing.
It would not be hard to envision the discussion between you and someone else using your tactics to proceed thus: It’s blue. No, it’s green. No, it’s blue.
I ask again: what purpose is served by asserting things like this?
I’m countering the assertion of the subject of this thread, that evolutionists think differently than creationists, that evolutionists have a more neutral, more superior method of thinking than do creationists.
Your green/blue analogy made no sense to me. Debates about the support of worldviews, accusations of differing worldviews having inferior thinking skill goes far deeper than assertions of green or blue.
marc9000 writes:
Are Christians supposed to be above blunt assertions?
Yes. Why shouldn’t they be?
Because evolutionists make no attempt to be above it. There is a logical fallacy called argument by emotive language - using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. It’s also used on forums to bind groups of evolutionists together to bombard one creationist poster. Bluntness is often the only useful tool to counter it.
But, in finding truth, blunt assertions are absolutely useless, and are, in fact, more likely to be counter-productive.
Do you deny that evolutionists use them quite often on these forums? They obviously don’t find them useless in support of their worldview. Actual truth will never be found to the extent that worldview debates will cease to happen. And the beat goes on with emotive language in these debates. Can you see it from evolutionists in this thread? If not, I’ll be glad to specify some message numbers for you.
If you think this is just a philosophical war that you have to win, I will bow out and leave you to it.
But, if you are interested in finding truth (or at least in finding the best approximation of the truth possible), then I urge you to do something more than bluntly assert your position.
When facing multiple opponents, it’s important to be concise — to say a lot with as few words as possible. If you term that as blunt, that’s your decision.
Perhaps to be more in line with the topic, do you think atheists and evolutionists view this whole debate as simply a philosophical war of swaying opinions, the way you have clearly revealed that you view it?
If by whole debate you mean this thread, yes I think they do.
Some do, I’m sure. Some would do well to make it clear that they don’t.
I would love to see one evolutionist explain to me how the opening posts of this thread were anything more than an attempt to sway opinions, to bluntly belittle creationists way of thinking.
I think evolutionists and atheists would do well to make it more clear to creationists what their thought processes are. For reference, reread Otto Tellick’s Message 365 for the analytical/empirical approach and thought processes that I perceive as the real basis for evolutionist worldviews. How often does this type of thinking come out in the posts of evolutionists? Not often enough, I’m afraid.
I agree — 365 was a good one. Were my responses too blunt?
If anything, I would hope this thread would be a good place for us all to drop our assertions and our personal opinions, and focus on learning the differences. But, it seems apparent to me that that may be too much to ask from any of us, given the history each of us has with the others.
Why do you think I was out of line by quoting Francis Crick?
If you just want to win, keep shouting your opinion until the moderators close the thread down, and you can claim that you won, and will likely have a lot of people on your side who agree that you won.
But, if you want to learn something, stop shouting and back up your arguments.
Why was my quote of Francis Crick shouting? Why didn’t it back up my arguments, wasn’t it thorough enough? I could add some very similar Victor Stenger comments, or Daniel Dennett comments, and then compare them to countless evolutionist comments about creationists anywhere on the net, including the opening posts of this thread, or in many places at the talkorigins website, or any evolutionist website.
marc9000 writes:
I don’t think ANY creationist, if directly asked, is going to claim that religion answers every question they have.
And, I repeat my former statement: they would do well to make it clearer to non-creationists that this is actually the case.
Why would they do well to do that? To expose a weakness that evolutionists would jump all over? Evolutionists certainly imply that science answers every question they have. If my perception about that is wrong, then THEY need to make it clearer to creationists, that science really does leave some gaps in the naturalist worldview.
marc9000 writes:
There’s nothing about Christianity that encourages it to be put to the test.
Perhaps there should be. What purpose is served by forbidding inquiry? You said yourself that forming a conclusion before finding evidence to support it is an invalid means of gaining knowledge.
Inquiry leads up to a Christian worldview. Even if a toddler is informed by his Christian parents that he is a Christian, there’s little his parents can do (short of keeping him locked up in the basement) to keep him from inquiring about some details about Christianity to keep him interested by the time he’s..15 years old. If we ask a 15 year old on the next block, who’s never been told anything about religion if he’s ready to adapt a naturalist if it feels good do it worldview, no inquiry will be involved. He’ll be there in a heartbeat,if he compares it to a worldview with 10 commandments.
How then can Christianity be anything but an invalid means of gaining knowledge? No evidence is ever required, and is, according to you, in fact discouraged.
Scientific speculation/evidence about millions of years ago isn’t required. Christianity offers loads of knowledge in human behavior.
marc9000 writes:
My belief is, concerning the Bible’s several warnings about false teachers, that scientific speculation about millions of years falls under the test category.
Why is testing bad, Marc?
Beware of False Teachers (The Bible Speaks:Subtopic)
marc9000 writes:
In exactly the same way, there is no indication in science that Darwinism is encouraged to be put to any tests.
I submit that this is because you did not pursue a degree in the biological sciences. I took a class called “Evolutionary Biology,” which, due to the fact that it was given at a Christian university, was basically a semester of demonstrations of the veracity and explanatory power of evolution.
Every class period proceeded as followed: “Here is a study that was done by _____ and ______ in ______. If evolution were true, we would expect result A. If evolution were not true, we would expect result B. Which result do you think happened?”
It would depend on how the word evolution was defined at that particular time. I suspect the result was A every time, if evolution simply meant change over time. But if it meant Genesis-is-false-common-descent, I’m not so sure.
I feel that, during my education, I was encouraged, and even explicitly asked, to test the specific claims of evolution (to the extent that I had the materials and capacity to do so), to consider it rationally, and form my own conclusion on it, in every course I took.
So, I explain your views on the subject as your being unaware that you lack sufficient experience within the field to know what is encouraged and what isn’t. Maybe we could do a better job of making it clear that this is what we’re doing, and maybe some of us could do a better job of actually doing this, but your views about our overall community’s demeanor exist at a considerable cant to reality.
So you think the starter of this thread, with his assertion that evolutionists possess a superior thought process to creationists wasn't typical of the evolutionists community's demeanor? I guess the authors of the dozen or so books I linked in message 432 further screwed things up for you as well?
What did you think of the Bible verses in the above link? Ever see them before? Do you have any expertise in the Christianity field?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Blue Jay, posted 08-02-2010 5:31 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Blue Jay, posted 08-05-2010 1:28 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 443 of 485 (572229)
08-04-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by crashfrog
08-02-2010 9:58 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Atheists very much do. Many of them, like myself, come by atheism after a period of believing much of the same things you do.
And the first steps in that process are when Christianity is compromised with Darwinism. Once it’s weakened, atheism is come by. As Bluejay has indicated, it’s happening to him, and we see it’s already happened to you. It confirms what is said about the dangers of Christian compromise with evolution.
marc9000 writes:
I know of no evidence that suggests that Darwin was keenly interested in geology or astronomy, so it makes sense that he would have been uncertain about evidence for an old earth.
I guess, but I still don't see any of your evidence that Darwin hopped off the Beagle and immediately put together a cabal of atheist geologists. I'm not sure there were any, or that Darwin would have needed any. The geological consensus against the 6000-year-old Earth was developed primarily by Christians.
After doing a little checking it’s clear that Darwin was influenced by the earlier geological adventures of James Hutton and Charles Lyell, so I stand corrected about Darwin’s uncertainty about that. Hutton was a deist, and there doesn’t seem to be much information on Lyell’s religion. They were primary to the consensus of an old earth, and to label them Christians is quite a stretch.
If you're so old, that only makes it more important for you to start getting caught up on the science if you'd like to have an informed opinion about the origin of life. I'm not saying "enroll in classes" but there's a significant weight of scientific expertise available at this board - students and professors who would like nothing better than to ease the burden of your incredible scientific ignorance.
In many places on the internet, there is significant weight of Christian expertise on Christianity, and historian expertise on US History. Most students and scientists on this board that make a sport of insulting me show incredible ignorance of those two subjects. They give little indication that they’d like that burden eased. They really should get caught up in those things if they’d like to have an informed opinion on just how much all evidence actually supports their atheistic worldview.
Maybe instead of spinning insulting yarns about how they're all involved in a conspiracy to murder dissenting voices, you might ask them some questions? Questions are the beginning of
knowledge.
A relevant question would probably be — was the evolutionists superior thought process that is the subject of this thread a prevalent thing in the writings of the books I listed in message 432? But it can be difficult to learn when one, or a dozen, questionees get angry.
Why not just come out and say that you fundamentally reject the very idea of expertise?
In politics, I reject it, because there is no one superior area of expertise that trumps all others. Why do you reject expertise in Christianity and American History?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 9:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2010 8:49 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 453 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:51 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 475 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2010 10:25 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 446 of 485 (572232)
08-04-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by subbie
08-02-2010 10:00 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Where in the world did you ever get the notion that science rules out anything but naturalism?
When it studies its way right past other considerations that might clash with its naturalistic "findings". By not knowing when to stop as it crosses over from science to metaphysics.
Science doesn't say everything is the product of naturalistic processes (although some scientists might think so as a matter of personal belief).
And they’re the ones who write the textbooks, the ones who do the peer review, the ones who imply that everything is the product of naturalistic processes.
Science simply restricts itself to the study of natural processes, because that's the only thing that we can observe repeatably.
Sometimes it simply restricts itself and sometimes it’s a weapon against religion. Often in a matter of only a few paragraphs, it can seamlessly switch itself back and forth between those two things, if the atheist scientist is clever enough.
You really don't know anything about science, do you?
Since many in science (with their superior thinking skills) deny the slippery ways that they use the words "science" and "evolution", I know enough to question their atheistic proclamations about nature.
That's why peer review. Any scientist can make a mistake. Usually unintentionally, but occasionally intentionally. Peer review decreases the odds that a mistake of either kind will be missed. Findings must be reviewed by other people, knowledgeable in the field, who are specifically looking for mistakes, trying to prove that something is wrong. That's why peer review.
If Christianity had peer review, would you respect it like scientific peer review? You know, people who actually know the nature of God, the nature of Satan, the exact reasons the 66 book Bible is so widely accepted. How about American History peer review? Assertions about separation of church and state being central to US foundings would hit the trash can faster than a scientific peer review of a Michael Behe research paper. And that’s fast!
Wonderful little bit of demagoguery there, Abbot. But your insecurity notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that those who are educated in the law and in science actually do know more about those fields than those who aren't. It's really rather silly for you to suggest otherwise. And your apparent position that we should rely on millions of uneducated opinions over a several thousand educated ones seems staggeringly irrational to me.
What do you think about those who are educated in Christianity? Is it equally silly for scientists to write books to cheapen it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by subbie, posted 08-02-2010 10:00 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by jar, posted 08-04-2010 8:35 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 449 by subbie, posted 08-04-2010 8:39 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 450 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 466 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2010 9:35 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 447 of 485 (572233)
08-04-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by bluescat48
08-02-2010 11:03 PM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:
I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a person to hold personal opinions, yet not insist that only those opinions be used to structure or maintain how a society operates.
Then tell that to the Texas school board. A number of members there want to force pseudoscience (creationism) into the science curriculum.
That’s a political process. A board isn’t necessarily forwarding personal opinions, they’re supposed to attempt to represent a group of people who elected them. Their attempt to force pseudoscience creationism into the science curriculum may have been only an attempt to counter an earlier forcing of pseudoscience (atheism) that’s already established into the science curriculum.
Sure they have a right to have an opinion on creationism, but should not be able to force that view down anyone else's throat.
As a counter measure to atheism being forced down throats, it should be subject to the political process, at local levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 11:03 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by bluescat48, posted 08-04-2010 9:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 451 of 485 (572238)
08-04-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Otto Tellick
08-03-2010 2:54 AM


Re: The search for meaning
When you say "another worldview", do you mean "any other worldview that is different from my own", or do you mean "some particular worldview(s) that I could name"? That is, given a fairly complete list of worldviews different from your own (i.e. the ones attested to exist in our pluralistic society), do they all pose equal risk of "destroying liberty", or is it rather that some are especially bad and others are merely benign in their differences from your own worldview?
I’ve never given classifications of worldviews much thought. I’m guessing the term worldview was a fairly recent attempt to erase the immediate stigma that’s associated with religion, and put all views of ‘how the world works’ on a level playing field for discussion. When I said another worldview I was really thinking of THE other worldview, as if there are only two. The US has Democrats and Republicans, constitutional originalists and non-originalists, all conflicts are generally of two opposing forces, other variations will usually conform with one or the other IMO, concerning a political decision. But a thread on worldviews, on catagories and sub catagories would be interesting.
Admittedly, the piece that I quoted above is something that I might be prone to say myself, despite the obvious dilemma that it poses ("pluralism is okay, but..."). For my part, I do draw distinctions among the various worldviews that differ from my own: Some seek to promote ignorance and promulgate dishonesty by denying observed facts and disallowing objective investigation, and these are a significant threat to liberty, because liberty cannot survive in an atmosphere of ignorance and dishonesty.
Ignorance and dishonesty in science? How about ignorance and dishonesty concerning American history and world history? Is one worse than the other? I’m sure we both think so, only in opposite ways.
marc9000 writes:
Humans are the only species on the planet that organize societies to the extent that certain humans main function is to focus only on that organization. From policemen to politicians, and so many others in between.
... including clergy. Especially clergy. In the U.S., at least, police and politicians are supposed to restrict their focus to purely secular issues. (Police in America normally succeed at this extremely well; many politicians tend to be less successful, and this is a problem.) But the clergy, and the active evangelical congregations, such as Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, have it as their main (if not sole) explicit duty to intrude physically on other people with regard to pushing particular worldviews and beliefs.
I’ve been going to Christian churches all my life, and I’ve never seen it. Every single pastor/minister/priest I’ve seen in person has never gotten near political issues, largely because they don’t want to alienate any of their members.
Of course I’ve seen the antics of the Jesse Jacksons and Jeremiah Wrights on the news, but intruding physically has laws against it, and doesn’t have the force associated with it that does government establishments of political organization. I’ve never seen an aggressive Mormon or Jehova’s witness. That you see political threats/conspiracy theories from organized religion is amazing to me. Don't you believe that the "separation of church and state" court ruling will always keep it under control?
And yet it appears you do not acknowledge that the great extent of liberty we have in the US exists by virtue of the secular foundations -- the "naturalistic reasoning" -- built into our Constitution. It is crucially the separation of church from state, of religious authority from political governance, that assures our liberty. But that's a topic for another thread (or a few).
It sure is. History does not evolve. There is both naturalism and religious virtue built into the US constitution. How much of each there is, and what the influence of each is, is something we're sure to disagree on. But the religious virtue is there.
It is exactly this paradox that makes religious schism an inescapable outcome of religious belief. It reveals the inherent lie that is being told every time some theist expounds on God's True Intent. And every time some other theist expounds on some other incompatible version of God's True Intent, it's just another lie, competing for the attention of gullible minds. If these are not lies, they are hallucinations or rationalizations or just bare assertions. Whatever they are, they have nothing substantial to back them up. They all have equal "authority", which is to say, as much authority as can be enforced by whatever group has adopted a given fantasy.
And you exempt humanism and atheism from all this?
Nice little sample of Tea Party diatribe there -- I knew I could count on you for that -- and like all Tea Party stuff, debunking it is child's play.
Just like I can count on you to give me samples of Democrat John —control-the-people- Dingle’s extreme left diatribe. Child's play? If we do a thread on the US Constitution, I'll put actual history together with current tea party stuff like you won't believe.
For example, you might assert the superiority of Christianity with regard to "family values" by pointing to the divorce rate among non-Christians,
That one always seems to be cherry picked, but there are other ways to measure the benefits of Christianity. Many non-Christians don’t bother to get married, so that skews what divorce rate statistics actually say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-03-2010 2:54 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by DC85, posted 08-04-2010 10:19 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024