Comment #10773

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on November 27, 2004 01:09 PM (e) (s)

Welcome Henry!  At least three of your fellow ‘Pandists’ are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge.  But just so you’ll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don’t reject evolution are “… worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion.” (1) I’m afraid this means you’re going to Hell.  At least if the DI gets to choose.  Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI’s cat and mouse theology.

1.  As related in Jack Krebs’ talk.

Comment #10774

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on November 27, 2004 01:23 PM (e) (s)

Welcome Henry!  At least three of your fellow ‘Pandists’ are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge.  But just so you’ll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don’t reject evolution are “… worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion.” (1) I’m afraid this means you’re going to Hell.  At least if the DI gets to choose.  Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI’s cat and mouse theology.

1.  As related in Jack Krebs’ talk.

Comment #10775

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on November 27, 2004 01:33 PM (e) (s)

Welcome Henry!  At least three of your fellow ‘Pandists’ are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge.  But just so you’ll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don’t reject evolution are “… worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion.” (1) I’m afraid this means you’re going to Hell.  At least if the DI gets to choose.  Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI’s cat and mouse theology.

1.  As related in Jack Krebs’ talk.

Comment #10778

Posted by Joel on November 27, 2004 04:02 PM (e) (s)

If the Bible must be rejected as an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life and the early history of humanity, why discuss it on this site? Why present negative theological arguements, instead of positive scientific arguements?

Comment #10779

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on November 27, 2004 04:45 PM (e) (s)

Why discuss it at this site?  1) Why not?  2) The DI is in effect spreading a package of bad science and bad religion.  And I don’t mean the Rock Group. 

Very simply, it works like this: they want people to believe that the argument from ignorance is scientific.  In theology, the argument from ignorance becomes ‘God of the gaps’.  This may lead to additional problems in either field.  Many in the general public would be more concerned with keeping bad religion out of schools than bad science.  But they don’t know about it.  Let’s help them find out.

p.s. don’t let the posting system here, which sometimes reacts slowly, lure you into a double post. :(

Comment #10780

Posted by Ric Frost on November 27, 2004 06:28 PM (e) (s)

Welcome Mr. Neufeld! As a fellow theist, I am looking forward to what you have to contribute. Your area of expertise is precisely what I would like to go into once I finish up with my undergrad studies. I, too, graduated from a Christian school and am wrapping up a management/ministry degree at a Christian college. I have talk.origins to thank for opening my eyes (or sending me to hell, depending on who you ask) over the last four years or so.

Welcome to Pandas Thumb!!

Comment #10781

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on November 27, 2004 06:41 PM (e) (s)

Henry,

What is your opinion on the “seventh day?”  When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story.  I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture.  Is this reasonable or bullshit?

Comment #10782

Posted by Mark Perakh on November 27, 2004 07:17 PM (e) (s)

Hi, Henry: You certainly are welcome to PT as any sincere person should be.  As a life-long agnostic, I’ve some questions for you.  Now, when I define myself as an agnostic I mean that I don’t know of any unequivocal proof of either existence or non-existence of a Creator of the universe and therefore I abstain from maintaining a definite position on that point (although circumstantial evidence, IMHO, makes atheism more plausible than faith).  However, my view of religions is a different matter.  There are tens of thousands of religions, so why should I take Christianity more seriously than, say, Bahai or Sikh faith? My opinion is that all religions are based on very shaky foundations so thair tenets cannot be taken seriously.  You are a theist - but from what you told about your biography seems to follow that your faith in a personal God stems from the indoctrination you receieved in your early formative years rather than from any rational argumentation. 

Can you kindly explain why you, an obviously rational person who is capable of viewing the Genesis story from the standpoint of its logic and consistency, nevertheless keep faith in a personal God despite the complete lack of evidence,  besides a sentimental adherence to your sweet childhood emotions?  I have tried to get an answer to that question from other theists who, apart from their faith, are perfectly rational and science-loving people, but none of them gave a coherent answer (most simply avoided any answer).

Thanks in advance and, again, welcome. Mark Perakh.

Comment #10783

Posted by Ed Brayton on November 27, 2004 07:45 PM (e) (s)

Mark-

To be honest, I don’t think that’s really an appropriate question for this forum. Henry is not here to defend theism or Christianity, but to look at the validity of creationism/ID from the standpoint of a biblical scholar. To get off into arguments about the truth or falsity of Christianity in this forum would be counter to our goals, I think.

Comment #10784

Posted by Mark Perakh on November 27, 2004 08:37 PM (e) (s)

Ed, the question I asked may indeed be viewed as inappropriate for PT if judged from the original position of this blog’s initiators. However, in the course of its gradual progress, PT has been inundated with many comments and even posts that went rather far from the initial scope of its topics, so a brief discussion of my question will hardly lead us much farther from the original schema than it has gone already. I am not requesting from Henry a defense of faith or Christianity but only an explanation of how people like him maintain both their faith and adherence to science despite the quite serious divergence of the approaches and methods between religion and science. If, though, there is a strong aversion to discussing my question here, I’d be quite satisfied with getting a private response from Henry.

Comment #10785

Posted by joseph conrad on November 27, 2004 09:22 PM (e) (s)

I too welcome you Henry, not quite as enthusiastically as Pete has perhaps, but genuinely just the same.
I am new here too, and find most of the discussion a bit too technical to really grasp, particularly complex arguments about the chemistry involved.
  As a confirmed agnostic, I have been open to the fence sitter argument, but two things have moved me to my position, one is the extreme ignorance of our species on scientific questions of the most basic sort, the other, the problem of beginnings. God, gods, or naturalism has vouchsafed me no insights, so I am more inclined to the atheistic side of agnosticism, but still, I don’t know. 
  I view a lot of what I see here as a competition between apples and oranges, the apples accuse the oranges of not having enough appleness, and the oranges demanding the apples submit to their orangeness, then provide pseudo applish reasons, and, in fact, become oranges “on faith” and applish argument. 
Religion, and science are very different at the core, and both have important places in the society we have.  Try as it may, science cannot answer all questions, and (some) religion often makes unreasonable claims on the credulity of the flock. 
I am hoping that you will add some insights to this ongoing impasse.  I certainly have not seen an example of anyone being convinced to “switch” in spite of a sea of arguments.

Comment #10787

Posted by PvM on November 27, 2004 09:58 PM (e) (s)

This all seems to be quite timely as I discussed intelligent design with several Christian friends who (surprisingly to me) had reached the independent conclusion that intelligent design was dishonest and a God of the Gaps argument and as such was posing a danger not just to science but also to religion.
It was good to hear how Christians are starting to see how Intelligent Design is scientifically meaningless and poses a significant risk to religion.

Comment #10788

Posted by Pete on November 27, 2004 10:02 PM (e) (s)

Joseph wrote:

I view a lot of what I see here as a competition between apples and oranges, ….

The problem is certain people saying dumb and clearly false things about biology, and being very politically insistent about teaching these things in school as if they were science.  It’s apples and (here’s a sample) anti science propaganda.

Comment #10789

Posted by joseph conrad on November 27, 2004 10:15 PM (e) (s)

pete wrote:
being very politically insistent about teaching these things in school as if they were science.”

I agree pete, you are preaching to the choir here, I am saying that the realm of science and the realm of religion do NOT and should NOT be overlaped, that the new “Religious Right” wants to was addressed by my earlier post here:

“demanding the apples submit to their orangeness, then provide
pseudo applish reasons, and, in fact, become oranges “on faith” and applish argument.”

I find it wildly inapproiate, they do not understand their own religion IMHO.

Comment #10791

Posted by Pericles on November 28, 2004 06:32 AM (e) (s)

From what I have read here so far, I am inclined to the view that pussyfooting around difficult questions leads far too often, to discussions like competition between apples and oranges . It is as if the thinking apparatus of some correspondents slides away from the initial point. Where is the terrier instinct? Let us define ourselves by our brains.

IMO all those who confess religious beliefs should try to answer this reductionist question. ” Is belief in a existence after death of the body, essential to be considered human and if so, then by what means do humans acquire this property of continuation? “.

Science teaches that humans evolved from proto-humans. Therefore there had to be the first one, different from its parents. This poor bastard was the first of our kind to realise the concept of personal death. What a ghastly thought! Probably the most pyschologically damaging idea idea ever. In order to rationise the fear, this horror of personal oblivion, the first thinker decided that positing the hypothesis of after-existence and actually coming to believe in it, seemed like a good idea at the time. Oh boy, that was a bad idea.

Humans since then have believed in thousands of false gods. Atheists simply choose to believe in one less than the rest.

Pericles

Comment #10794

Posted by Henry Neufeld on November 28, 2004 08:34 AM (e) (s)

Joe wrote:

If the Bible must be rejected as an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life and the early history of humanity, why discuss it on this site? Why present negative theological arguements, instead of positive scientific arguements?

The reason I believe such commentary is legitimate is because of comments such as the following:

Kurt P. Wise wrote:

The Bible is preserved, reliable, and true because of the nature of its Author.  It should be believed over observation and evidence. (Faith, Form, and Time, p. 26)

I think it is appropriate for either a scientist or someone versed in Biblical studies to respond to such a claim.  It is as legitimate as explaining to students that “Gone with the Wind” will not help them learn chemistry, should any student actually think it would.  And note that by saying that “Gone with the Wind” does not present facts of chemistry, I do not say that it presents nothing of value.

Comment #10795

Posted by Ginger Yellow on November 28, 2004 08:35 AM (e) (s)

“Therefore there had to be the first one, different from its parents. This poor bastard was the first of our kind to realise the concept of personal death. What a ghastly thought! Probably the most pyschologically damaging idea idea ever. “

cf Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead:
“Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one, a moment, in childhood when it first occurred to you that you don’t go on for ever. It must have been shattering- stamped into one’s memory. And yet I can’t remember it. It never occurred to me at all. What does one make of that? We must be born with an intuition of mortality. Before we know the words for it, before we know that there are words, out we come, bloodied and squalling with the knowledge that for all the compasses in the world, there’s only one direction, and time is its only measure.”

Comment #10797

Posted by Henry Neufeld on November 28, 2004 08:44 AM (e) (s)

Mark Perakh wrote:

If, though, there is a strong aversion to discussing my question here, I’d be quite satisfied with getting a private response from Henry.

I’m quite happy to respond privately, but I am also quite willing to respond publicly, just in another forum.  I’m already available on the Compuserve Religion Forum (I have links to the sections at http://energion.com/chatting.shtml).

Comment #10798

Posted by Henry Neufeld on November 28, 2004 08:49 AM (e) (s)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

What is your opinion on the “seventh day?”  When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story.  I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture.  Is this reasonable or bullshit?

I think it’s a legitimate question, though I don’t know a definite answer. I believe the seventh day was part of the text in the immediate written source (in this case P, the priestly source) of Genesis 1.  In fact, the six day creation scheme is used to focus on the seventh day and enshrine in worship form God’s sovereignty over time.  (Genesis 1 is much more liturgy than any other form of literature.)

In the prehistory of the text, however, there is a clear design to counter certain poritions of the Mesopotamian stories, both Sumerian and Babylonian, while at the same time participating in the same cosmology and general symbolism.  I will see whether I can find any definite evidence that would tie Genesis 2:1-3 to that background.

Comment #10799

Posted by Henry Neufeld on November 28, 2004 08:59 AM (e) (s)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

What is your opinion on the “seventh day?”  When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story.  I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture.  Is this reasonable or bullshit?

I think it’s a legitimate question, though I don’t know a definite answer. I believe the seventh day was part of the text in the immediate written source (in this case P, the priestly source) of Genesis 1.  In fact, the six day creation scheme is used to focus on the seventh day and enshrine in worship form God’s sovereignty over time.  (Genesis 1 is much more liturgy than any other form of literature.)

In the prehistory of the text, however, there is a clear design to counter certain poritions of the Mesopotamian stories, both Sumerian and Babylonian, while at the same time participating in the same cosmology and general symbolism.  I will see whether I can find any definite evidence that would tie Genesis 2:1-3 to that background.

Comment #10801

Posted by Jeff Chamberlain on November 28, 2004 09:43 AM (e) (s)

I’m confused.  One important creationist position is that evolution is inconsistent with theism, and that accepting the former does or could lead to rejecting the latter.  “Theistic evolutionists” say that evolution is not, or need not be, incompatible with theism.  Mr. Neufeld said he was such a person.  He also said, at least by implication, that in his view the creationist position is a mistake, and indeed a theological mistake.  Mr. Perakh’s (original) question, as I understand it, is how one can embrace science (and its methods) while still maintaining belief in a personal god — how one can accept evolution (or science) and also theism.  This seems pertinent to the typical creationist view that the two are incompatible.  What’s inappropriate about that as a subject for discussion on this forum?  Isn’t this a “theological problem … with intelligent design theory?”  How can one argue that the creationist position that evolution (in particular, and maybe science in general) is incompatible with theism is “bad theology” without “defend[ing] theism” — at least to the extent of defending its compatibility with science?

Comment #10808

Posted by joseph conrad on November 28, 2004 11:38 AM (e) (s)

Pericles wrote:
all those who confess religious beliefs should try to answer this reductionist question. ” Is belief in a existence after death of the body, essential to be considered human and if so, then by what means do humans acquire this property of continuation? “.

A significant portion of those with religious beliefs would answer “no” and consider the rest of the question meaningless, for example Hinduisim and Buddhism are concerned with the removal of the individual from the wheel of life.  This “karmic” idea also seems to have been present in the Orphic, and other mystery cults of the pre christian mediteranean area.
Much of the Tao is concerned with proper behavior in society, and has little to say of an afterlife.
Many religions have seen, and do see the afterlife as, at best, a shadowy affair. Ancient Greeks among them. 
Religions that have a strong “after life” theme have this continuation usually conditional on “right” behavior.  Of course the definition of “right” is the exclusive realm of the church leadership’s interpretation. Galileo’s “crimes” come to mind.
Science is based on reason and methology.
Religion is based on faith. 
Any overlap is a figment, in the eye of the beholder, an argument from ignorance, or if you will, comparing apples to oranges, an argument, settled to the satisfaction of most, a century ago. 
This is an EX-ARGUMENT (or parrot).

Comment #10809

Posted by Gary Hurd on November 28, 2004 12:40 PM (e) (s)

The thing about YECs that has always rankled me is that they are nearly as ignorant about their Bible as they are about science. This was touched on by Margaret Gray Towne, in her 2003 book “Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism” (Baltimore:PublishAmerica) that was based on her dissertation written under paleontolgist Jack Horner.  How Towne failed, in my opinion, was by pulling her “punches.”  You can’t have your “plain language” inerrancy and reality too.

The Genesis account of the creation corresponds extremely well with the Babylonian creation myth written from oral sources around 1800 BCE.  The most noteworthy point of the difference is the assertion that Yahweh/Elohim (Gen 2:4-25) is the sole creator and dominates the Heavens, and the Earth.  This is even more clear in the Priestly source material, Gen 1:1-2:3. 

While it would be best to directly compare the two for ones’ self (an excellent translation of the seven Babylonian creation tablets is in Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press), there is a reasonable website comparison at this site: GENESIS 1 & A BABYLONIAN STORY OF ORIGINS.  Under the threat of Babylon, the ancient Hebrews, circa 800 BCE, were bravely defiant- boldly proclaiming their god superior to all others, even using the Babylonian account to do so.

As far as the number of “days” the Genesis creation account gives, the sense I have is that literal days were meant, but I also respect that other (more knowledgeable) people say otherwise.  Clearly, “yom” in Gen 2-4 is not refering to a 24 hour interval.  The ancient Hebrews were again proclaiming the greatness and power of their God versus all other gods.

There are structural arguments concerning the grouping of creation events according to categories used by the then popular philosphical theory: sky, earth, water, which of course are ignored by literalists.

Comment #10810

Posted by Frank on November 28, 2004 02:15 PM (e) (s)

Several years ago, while visiting the Smithsonian, I saw an exhibit of artifacts from the excavations at the ancient site of Ur (most on loan from the U of Pennsylvania). One of the most striking artifacts is a small sculpture of “A ram caught in a thicket,” which has a clear parallel in the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Picture available at http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/001019/ur.shtml…

Henry, do you know of a more complete list of  “borrowings” from Mesopotamian mythology in the first 5 books of the Bible?

(A local columnist has described Biblical fundamentalists as being obsessed with Genesis and Revelations, while paying too little attention to everything in between.)

Comment #10811

Posted by Pete on November 28, 2004 02:44 PM (e) (s)

Jeff Chamberlain wrote:

How can one argue that the creationist position that evolution (in particular, and maybe science in general) [YES- pete]  is incompatible with theism is “bad theology” without “defend[ing] theism” — at least to the extent of defending its compatibility with science?

What’s to argue?  We know from astronomy & geology that the earth is very old and the universe much older, and vast.  But there is nothing in theism as such that says that the universe must be a particular size or age, or that life wouldn’t evolve if the universe has great age. 

Well before modern science, Christian theologians noted that not everything in the Old Testament need be believed literally.  Jesus didn’t even take all the ‘moral’ rules literally.  The ‘literal translation’ (two words that don’t go well together) fixation is a recent pathology.

Comment #10812

Posted by Gary Hurd on November 28, 2004 03:04 PM (e) (s)

I don’t know of other “list” like articles.  Most discussions of the flood myth remark on the obvious match points using Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh.  The flood story was very popular.  The gods regret creation of man, they disagree (in Genesis Yahweh/Elohim is conflicted too), they seek to destroy man, man the “clever one” (the literal translation of Atrahasis) with help from a god, defeats the gods intention, the gods regret their acts and promised not to try to destroy man again.

When told in the oldest version known to scholars, Atrahasis, there are many persuasive details that this is an account from the origins of agriculture, and early state level organization.

Some readily accessable books are:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library  New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press

Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Jacobsen, Thorkild
1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion  New Haven: Yale University Press

Pardee, Dennis
2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry  Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L. Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Friedman skimps the earlier Summer and Old Babylonian material, but has interesting thinks to say about the authorial sequences in the pentateuch.

Comment #10816

Posted by Henry Neufeld on November 28, 2004 04:48 PM (e) (s)

Frank wrote:

Henry, do you know of a more complete list of  “borrowings” from Mesopotamian mythology in the first 5 books of the Bible?

Let me add to those already listed:

Thomas, D. Winton, Ed.  Documents from Old Testament Times.  New York:  HarperCollins College Division, 1979.
This is the most closely tied to the Old Testament, but has the least breadth in ANE texts.  It has a good scriptural index.

Pritchard, James B.  The Ancient Near East:  An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Volume I).  Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 1965.
This is a broader in terms of ANE texts than Thomas, but sometimes a bit harder to follow.

Pritchard, James B.  Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 1969.
This is the real thing, but at $130 for a copy, use it at the library!

Pritchard, James B.  Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 1969.

Despite the dates involved, each of these has a substantial number of parallels annotated along with translations of the relevant literature.

Comment #10829

Posted by Pericles on November 29, 2004 02:36 AM (e) (s)

There are many versions of the bible, in many languages. Vulgate, Catholic, Protestant. Some years back I was informed the the phrase “It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, was mis-translated. Apparently the Aramaic words for camel and rope differ by one dot. Does anyone know whether that is true? I would seem to make more sense. Then there is the needle itself. A modern needle is steel and manufactured in millions. 2000 years ago, what was a needle?

Rather more recently, I was informed that the bible is available in Pidgin for New Guinean tribesman, the people whom Jared Diamond is convinced are brighter than us. There were many difficulties in rendering the King James version in Pidgin, however the phrase I like, illustrates how cultural differences shape language. The tribesman at that time were unaware of what sheep were, so the description “Lamb of god” had to be translated in terms to which these people could relate. An animal with which they were all familiar.

The direct translation? Christ was the “Pig of god”. On that basis, should creationists really believe in the literal truth of their bible? I am sure we would all like to know the answer.

The early fathers of the Roman church edited the New Testament to suit their political goals. Anyone any ideas what they left out as inconvenient?

Pericles

Comment #10830

Posted by Pericles on November 29, 2004 02:50 AM (e) (s)

TTTTTTTT
“It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, was mis-translated. Apparently the Aramaic words for camel and rope differ by one dot. Does anyone know whether that is true? I would seem to make more sense.

It would seem to make more sense.

——————————————————— Have had look at bible translations. Found this!

Should The Church Be Concerned About Bible Translations?
(By Marc A. Graham, D. Min.)

I am frequently asked as a pastor, “Which Bible translation do you recommend?” Most people, even most pastors, consider the answer to this question to be a matter of personal preference rather than an area of conviction.

Why does it matter which Bible we use: the King James, the New American Standard, or the increasingly popular New International Version? They are all the Word of God, we are told. ARE THEY REALLY? Let’s look and see.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew with the New Testament being penned in Greek. This is why you hear many preachers referring to “the Hebrew” or “the Greek” in their sermons. But the key question is this: “Since none of us possess the original manuscripts of the Bible, can we truly say that we have the Word of God in our hands today?”

This continues somewhat and concludes.

Digital Sword note:
The King James Bible is free, whereas most other translations are not, and is the bible translation used for this site. If you want to check a verse then click on it and the whole chapter will be shown in a new window and will jump straight to the verse you want.

If you like the bible translation used here you can get it for free from the brilliant HTML Bible website. They provided the translation used here and they also have free translations of the bible in many other languages, not just in English.

Please note that reading a different translation than the King James is not a sin, it won`t stop you being saved either, but it will mean you have missing words or verses and this could be a problem if you do detailed bible studies for instance.

This page has been used with the permission of the webmaster here where, if you click the link, you will find the original page. The content is exactly the same except for spelling corrections I noticed and corrected, and the addition of each bible reference being made into a link so that you can check out every reference for yourself . I didn`t write the article but do agree with it`s content which is why I have asked for, and been given, permission to have it on the site.

Hopefully this will be interesting to you, at the very least it`s an eye opener :o)

So, There we have it. Missing phrases or words. Digital Swords words, not mine. Let us consider reducing the number of words even more, so it makes better sense. And the word is “bollocks”.

Pericles

Comment #10841

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 09:18 AM (e) (s)

I believe people without a religion do not exist. There is an evolutionary necessity for religion. Something has to fill the hole, some conviction or philosophy. In an ever changing world, what is inside us needs to be a sure foundation, a definite truth, at least one. This is my justification for attempting to prove why theism and scientific reasoning can successfully co-exist. The first way they can co-exist is by having your beliefs co-incide with what can be proven. But this is taking the easy way. Most people seem to choose this route. But not everything can be observed. When the outcome depends on chance, no one can know what will happen, although using probability we can guess.
I propose that, although God is not bound to working within ‘chance,’ it is certainly a way he can work without the possibility of being detected. He may do otherwise, but whether someone witnesses it is up to Him. He will not allow science to probe him, therefore ID has no chance to prove His existance, neitehr does real science, to prove either His absence or presence. Is this a “God of the gaps” argument? It is the only way I can think of to pacify both sides.

Comment #10845

Posted by Russell on November 29, 2004 10:19 AM (e) (s)

I believe people without a religion do not exist. There is an evolutionary necessity for religion.

With all due respect, I submit that this is either nonsense, or a preface to a definition of “religion” that renders it meaningless.

Comment #10847

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 10:36 AM (e) (s)

My definition for religion is broad, I admit. A set of values and beliefs that are a foundation to one’s judgement of actions. I think at least this much is necessary for people. Why is that nonsense?
I apologize if anyone finds it offensive, but what of my main point about chance?

Comment #10848

Posted by steve on November 29, 2004 10:47 AM (e) (s)

Katarina, I don’t tell people what you believe, so return the favor.

Comment #10849

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 11:22 AM (e) (s)

Steve wrote:

“Katarina, I don’t tell people what you believe, so return the favor.”

Are you saying I tell people what you, Steve, believes? I am merely stating that you have a belief, not what it is. And I was defining that belief as a religion. Maybe it was a mistake to say so. I was merely justifying the reason for trying to show how religion and science can co-exist. I don’t think there is anyone who lives purely on rational thought, because as we are bound to make mistakes in our reasoning.

I don’t know why Russel and Steve are being hostile to my comment. For the sake of getting an answer to the more important question about chance, please allow me to withdraw the comment that I believe there are no people without a religion. I admit that such a comment cannot just be put out there without further explanation. Will someone please just tell me whether you think that a God who acts in the sphere of uncertainty (i.e. “chance”)is a “god of the gaps?” That is all I ask.

Comment #10851

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 11:47 AM (e) (s)

The reason I posted this question here is that I believe our new contributor, Henry Neufeld, may find it relevant to his contribution.

Comment #10855

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 12:52 PM (e) (s)

Apparently I hit a nerve with some who think science has, or has the potential to produce, the answer to everything. Why so sensitive, unless you hold this view religiously???

Comment #10856

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 01:24 PM (e) (s)

I withdraw, that was posted too hastily. I apologize most sincerely.
It is none of my business what you believe.
However personal this question though, I hope you see that it is indeed relevant to people who struggle to accept evolution theory. They care about what its proponents believe.

Comment #10857

Posted by Ginger Yellow on November 29, 2004 01:52 PM (e) (s)

Katarina, for the most part, it isn’t scientists who claim that science and religion are incompatible, it’s the fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of an ancient (and human-produced) text. Science and religion, properly understood, simply don’t operate in the same spheres. Science deals with observable phenomena, and constructs and tests hypotheses to explain the phenomena. Religion, on the other hand, deals with the unobservable - for example what happens to the self after death - and moral behaviour. Now, many people, myself included see no need for a god, or indeed any force unkown to science (eventually), to live their lives. It’s perfectly possible both to address the unobservable and to construct a principled code of behaviour without reference to the supernatural. But the point is that questions about morality, or about the afterlife or the meaning of life are meaningless to science. There is no incompatibility.

Comment #10858

Posted by Flint on November 29, 2004 01:54 PM (e) (s)

Katarina Aram:

I don’t know why Russel and Steve are being hostile to my comment.

Russell was objecting that your definition of religion was so all-encompassing as to including everything. Almost as though the expectation that if we place one foot in front of another, we’ll get somewhere is a “belief”, making us members of the “walking religion.” Of course, we all go through life with a mental model of how the universe works. I think most of us try to continually adjust this model as we learn, because the more congruent the two become, the more accurate our predictions and the less confused and uncertain we become. Those who use a different approach to reduce confusion and uncertainty - by deciding (or accepting relevant training) what is absolutely true and sticking to it - are those I would regard as religious.

I really don’t know what you mean by “a God who acts in the sphere of uncertainty.” The normal God of the Gaps describes the tendency to ascribe to magical powers any phenomena not yet explained sufficiently by the scientific method. And the problems with this tendency are (1) it’s a substitute for an explanation rather than an actual explanation; an excuse not to have to admit ignorance (something very hard to learn to do); and (2) Once the magical explanation gets plugged into the gaps in our knowledge, it is excessively difficult to dislodge them when better (and real) explanations come along. In a very real sense, the entire ID debate (and the “creation science” debate before it) is an illustration of the sheer difficulty of dislodging a magical explanation of how life works, that long ago filled a gap in our knowledge and is now fighting for survival in the face of mounting evidence.

Comment #10859

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 29, 2004 02:12 PM (e) (s)

On the question of relevance to the broader purposes of an endeavor like PT, I would say that the intendend contribution of Henry are right on target.  To borrow and paraphrase from Bill Clinton, “it’s the religion, stupid”.  As a theist and biologist, I have long been more troubled by the “bad theology” of traditional creationism (in its various flavors) and IDC than by any threat posed to good science.  It may be a hard pill to swallow for some atheists, but this battle is not going to be won solely by appeals to reason and science.  We have to pay attention to the (at least perceived) theological implications in order to effectively address the issue with the American public (with apologies to the rest of the world).

Comment #10860

Posted by Russell on November 29, 2004 02:17 PM (e) (s)

Katarina: I’m sorry - I didn’t mean to seem prickly, and certainly not hostile. But you raise a point that tends to get abused in settings like school boards. To wit: Group A subscribes to a creationist account, Group B subscribes to an evolutionary account. Neither can “prove” its case in an absolute sense; therefore in the end it boils down to faith on either side. That’s nonsense (IMHO, of course).

And - again IMHO of course - defining “religion” as broadly as you do drains the term of some of its essence. To someone who is in fact without religion, questions about god - such as you posed above - have no meaning, so I can’t venture an answer about chance and gaps.

It’s none of my business, of course, but like Mark Perakh, I admit to a certain degree of bafflement over how one reconciles what we know about the physical universe with the anthropomorphic concept of god that seems to underlie any strain of Christianity that’s ever been explained to me.

If this discussion has been deemed inappropriate for this site and is being pursued elsewhere, I’d be curious to see where it goes.

Comment #10861

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 02:21 PM (e) (s)

Flint,

Thank you for your explanation. It makes a lot of sense. I didn’t think people never change their minds about what the truth which discerns right from wrong is, or never modify it. For instance, because you are scientists, perhaps you are more inclined to beleive that people need to make statements that are specific and verifiable. Therefore you recoiled at my broad statement about religion. However, I went too far in defining it as religion. And you were right. I do not know all people, but I can admit to being wrong, and I do. Not everyone is religious in the common understanding of the word, but there has to be a starting point, for example, rules of conduct, and the reasons behind those rules. And that reason has to be strong enough to make a case for good behavior. Good behavior is necessary for social beings such as humans to survive, and pass on their genes for evolutionary success.

I admit this strays far from my original assertion, and thank you for helping me to revise it.

I do want to further explain what I meant by a God who acts in the realm of chance. Chance-driven events are events that can come out one way or another, no one can tell for sure. We can predict the most likely outcome, but not with 100% certainty. For example, it is totally up to chance where on a chromosome a mutation will strike. There may be those key mutations and gene duplications that God meddled in, which ultimately produced the evolutionary outcome that we see, including us. By saying something is either chance or God-driven, one excludes the possibility that God can drive chance.
Since we can never fill the gap, is it still a “god of the gaps?”

Comment #10862

Posted by Michael McSwiney on November 29, 2004 02:37 PM (e) (s)

Welcome to the board!  I think your contributions will be invaluable to this discussion.  In order to defeat ID in courts and legislatures, a multi-pronged approach is needed.  It is not enough to show that ID is bad science - because legislators and judges aren’t scientists.  Many of them are simply not going to believe the scientific arguments because they are hostile to evolution.  It is therefore necessary to show that ID is simply religion in disguise.  It is also necessary to show that ID is ONE INTERPRETATION of ONE RELIGION.  Many Christian denominations have public statements indicating that there is NO CONFLICT between evolution and Christianity.  Only by winning all of these arguments can ID be put on the dustbin where it belongs.

Comment #10863

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 29, 2004 02:52 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

“There may be those key mutations and gene duplications that God meddled in, which ultimately produced the evolutionary outcome that we see”

As a theist I am sympathetic to acknowledging the presence of God in, with and under the universe, but I am troubled by this statement more on theological grounds than anything else.  It seems to imply that God as Creator somehow didn’t get it right in God’s first crack and so had to tweak the system behind the scenes to get the outcome that God wanted (presumably, us).  This, IMHO, casts God as a sort of basement hack playing with junk picked up at the surplus store.  For me it is entirely satisfactory to allow God the creativity to have created a universe in which we and the rest of life were a possibility.  If we grant to God the room to be, well, God, why should we presume that God can’t anticipate or even fully know the outcome of God’s creation without needing to tinker around with it in the shadows?  As a matter of relating to the theme of this thread, I don’t see the physical/material process of evolution as in any way limiting the role of God as Creator; rather, IMO it points to the open creativity of God.

Comment #10864

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 03:03 PM (e) (s)

In the biblical story of Adam and Eve, God indeed does not seem to have gotten the results he intended. The story goes that at first he created Adam, then decided because Adam was lonely to make Eve. Then because of their disobedience, he decided to change their circumstances yet once again, in effect, changing his own creation. I am not saying we have to stick to the Bible, but if what you say is right, shaggy, than the way God is described in the Bible would seem to be poor theology.

P.S. If this discussion is inappropriate within the context of welcoming our new contributor, please tell me so, and where I should move it to, if anyone is interested in pursuing it further.

Comment #10865

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 03:07 PM (e) (s)

I should mention that the “open creativity of God” that Shaggy describes sounds very interesting and plausible.

Comment #10867

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 29, 2004 03:27 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

“but if what you say is right, shaggy, than the way God is described in the Bible would seem to be poor theology”

If by your statement you mean interpreting the events depicted in the bible as literal, historical events, then I would absolutety agree that such a use of the bible is indeed a poor starting point for theology.

Thank you for your comment about the idea of the openness of God’s creativity.  I must acknowledge that it is certainly not one I claim as original.  John Haught comes to mind immediately as an author who has written theologically about evolution who probably seeded that notion in my head.

Comment #10870

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 03:41 PM (e) (s)

I would rather die a thousand deaths than to lead someone to believe that the many books of the Bible tell literal truth. However, if God exists, than he has allowed it to circulate for all these centuries, has He not? There must be something of value in it. That book has influenced many lives and a beautiful civilization which puts the ideals of empathy, kindness, selflessness, above personal success.
I think Genesis is like a fairy tale you would tell your 3 or 4-year old to explain something that the child has not tools as yet to comprehend. It is metaphorical, perhaps, but it has some beauty and maybe a sprinkle of truth in it. I would not, in any case, toss it out completely. But throughout all of the books of the Bible, God did not simply set a plan in motion and allow it to unwind on its own. He is always interfering, sending angels to talk to people to influence them to do something, etc. It is not just Genesis that portrays God as a meddler in his own creation.

Also, as I said before, God would certainly not be limited to the basement. If he exists, I am sure it is his choice whether or not to reveal it, and to whom.

Comment #10871

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 03:45 PM (e) (s)

In case anyone is confused as to my position, I am still looking for one. But for a starter, I have already decided that evolution is a fact.

Comment #10872

Posted by FL on November 29, 2004 03:53 PM (e) (s)

Katarina, for the most part, it isn’t scientists who claim that science and religion are incompatible, it’s the fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of an ancient (and human-produced) text.

I dunno Ginger, I can’t think offhand of many (or even few) conservative biblical Christians who are running around claiming that “science and religion are incompatible”.
Name some?

In the meantime, just for a change of pace, here’s a bit of dialogue between the quite successful scientist Dr. George Washington Carver and the then- Chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, Carver being invited to address the SWMC about the uses of the peanut:

Chairman:  Dr. Carver, how did you learn all of these things?

Carver:  From an old book.

Chairman:  What book?

Carver:  The Bible.

[/i]Chairman[/i]:  Does the Bible tell about peanuts?

[/i]Carver:  No, sir.  But it tells about the God who made the peanut.  I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut, and He did.

Carver apparently never subscribed to the sort of  quarantine-like separation between religion and science, as described (“non-overlapping magisteria”) in the late evolutionist S.J. Gould’s book Rocks of Ages.  Instead I would say he was much closer to William Dembski’s position of “science and theology in mutual support” as expressed in Dembski’s bookIntelligent Design.

Not a bad position to take.

FL

(quotes quoted from Wm. Federer, America’s God and Country, p.96)

In the meanti

Comment #10873

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 04:02 PM (e) (s)

I think Dembski’s position is a very bad one, especially given the scary fact of how many people trust him on his word. It does not make any sense to use science in order to back up one’s faith. It is simply illogical.

Comment #10874

Posted by Ginger Yellow on November 29, 2004 04:13 PM (e) (s)

Whatever else it is, FL, evolution is science. And it’s the biblical literalists who claim it’s incompatible with religion, not the scientists. Some scientists argue it (along with other scientific theories) renders religion unnecessary, but that’s not the same thing.

And that’s just a specific example. The whole notion of biblical literalism, of taking your understanding of the physical universe from a literal interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago by people without access to modern technology, is incompatible with the scientific method. Even if you make the assumption that the Bible is literally true, to base your world view on it is still incompatible with science. What testable predictions does Genesis make? Or Revelations? To the extent that there are testable predictions (eg effectively simultaneous generation of all life, waters above the firmament), when the evidence contradicts them, biblical literalists toss out the evidence rather than the text. That’s not science.

As has been said by others on this thread, the supposed conflict between religion and science is entirely the product of bad theology.

Comment #10875

Posted by Pete on November 29, 2004 04:51 PM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

I dunno Ginger, I can’t think offhand of many (or even few) conservative biblical Christians who are running around claiming that “science and religion are incompatible”.

Yeah right.

Or do you think they are just kidding?

You can defend by redefining science, except that it isn’t up to you.  You can quibble that the DI gang don’t claim that all possible religions are incompatible with science, but these conservative types often don’t really think that any version but theirs is ‘true religion’.  In any case we know that there is a big drive by the DI gang to drive a Wedge between humanity and science.

Comment #10876

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 04:58 PM (e) (s)

Many people who believe ID-ists also believe that there is an evil force driving science.

Comment #10881

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 29, 2004 06:37 PM (e) (s)

Fyi

Here’s a recent legal brief which illustrate one pesky and mildly diabolical “orthodox Christian” public school teacher’s efforts to work the school code in order to effect a modest state of religiosity amongst his 5th grade pupils:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1124041declar8.html

Comment #10896

Posted by FL on November 29, 2004 09:10 PM (e) (s)

Oh, okay, I get it Pete.  In response to my request to Ginger to “Name some”, you are apparently claiming that the DI are the folks who are running around claiming that science and religion are incompatible.
 
The evidence you offer for this accusation is the “Wedge Strategy” link you posted.

Well, at least you took the bull by the horns and tried to name some, as originally requested.  For that, I say thank you.

Now, the problem lies with that Wedge link you offered for backup.  It doesn’t say anything about science and religion being incompatible.  A major omission, I would think.

Now it’s pretty clear from that link that there’s some DI folks running around saying that materialism and religion are incompatible. 
D-uh!

But see, Pete, materialism is not science.  They are not interchangable.  They are not synonymous.  They are 2 different animals.

In any case we know that there is a big drive by the DI gang to drive a Wedge between humanity and science.

Not according to the link you provided.  Not a word about any such thing.

There is reason to believe from that link, however, that members of the DI may be interested in driving a Wedge between humanity and materialism. 

(Which, if ever successful, would definitely upgrade humanity’s collective situation by a couple notches!)

Anyway, at the same time, you still have Chapter 7 of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, called “Science and Theology in Mutual Support”, which is too long for me to quote here but definitely shows how science and religion can be compatible.  Mutually supportive, not acrimonious all the time.

Side note for Katarina:  if it seems “scary” that so many trust Dembski “at his word”, may I recommend that you go read chapter 7 for yourself.
I think you’ll agree, afterwards, that it’s neither a “scary” nor a “bad” position that Dembski has taken there, regarding the relationship between science and religion.

FL

Comment #10898

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 29, 2004 09:29 PM (e) (s)

FL,

The reason I think Dembski’s position is scary and bad is that it is incoherent, dishonest, and inconsistant. As authors of this website have exhaustively shown. He is a very intelligent man, but this intellect is ill-used to confuse and lull people into submission to his beliefs.. Whatever his motives, it is the wrong way.

Comment #10900

Posted by Ginger Yellow on November 29, 2004 09:57 PM (e) (s)

“But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. “

That’s Dembski himself. Sounds to me like he’s saying they’re incompatible. Shortly after, he says this: ” Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.” You can’t concede predictability (ie predictive power) and remain science. By definition.

Comment #10902

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 29, 2004 10:18 PM (e) (s)

FL,

At the risk of being crude and vulgar, pull your head out of your butt and take a braeth of fresh air while you enjoy the sunshine.

Comment #10918

Posted by JWS on November 30, 2004 12:36 AM (e) (s)

FL,

You are playing word games by saying that DI is talking about materialism and not science.  The wedge document says: “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”  Immaterial science is not science as practiced today but immaterial science is what the DI wants.

Replace materialism with a SCIENCE that is Christian.  You are being maliciously misleading when you attempt to say the subject is not science.

Replacing science with religion seems to imply an incompatibility between the two.  For the DI, the looser is science since it is being replaced.

Comment #10920

Posted by Greg Jorgensen on November 30, 2004 03:04 AM (e) (s)

If PT introduced a new contributor as an astrologist, or a tarot reader, or even as a Scientologist, I think a lot of readers would wonder if the editors were joking. Why do some irrational beliefs — Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. — deserve more respect than fortune telling or homeopathy?

I visit this site for science and philosophy of science. When contributors admit to supernatural beliefs, I wonder how rational their thinking is in the realms of science and nature. If someone admitted to believing in ghosts, I wouldn’t bother reading their opinions on evolution.

We avoid personal conflict by pretending that we can separate religion and science into separate non-overlapping realms, but ultimately one belief system must be compromised. Either the universe and everything in it has a naturalistic explanation (even if we don’t know what it is yet), or there’s some higher supernatural power that trumps science. You can’t have it both ways — you can only push the issue to the side for the sake of politeness.  I don’t believe anyone can honestly believe in a supernatural deity and maintain credibility as a scientist — the supernatural belief calls into question the commitment to science. Or the religious faith gets more and more watered down (Seventh Day Adventist becomes theism) as scientific understanding expands.

I don’t intend to offend anyone, but I think most of us tend to tread a little too carefully when it comes to talking about religious beliefs. Everyone is free to believe what they want. I don’t believe in any god or deity, or anything supernatural. Most people don’t choose a religion — their family chooses it for them. As adults people who think about it at all often try to resolve their childhood faith with their more sophisticated understanding of nature.

Comment #10921

Posted by Greg Jorgensen on November 30, 2004 03:23 AM (e) (s)

shaggy maniac wrote:

As a theist I am sympathetic to acknowledging the presence of God in, with and under the universe, but I am troubled by this statement more on theological grounds than anything else.  It seems to imply that God as Creator somehow didn’t get it right in God’s first crack and so had to tweak the system behind the scenes to get the outcome that God wanted (presumably, us).  This, IMHO, casts God as a sort of basement hack playing with junk picked up at the surplus store.

If God is unknowable isn’t it presumptuous to make assumptions like that? Genesis aside, lots of creation myths and religious myths tell stories about gods getting things wrong and meddling in small and big ways to set things right. It seems you are projecting your own notions of godliness onto your deity.

For me it is entirely satisfactory to allow God the creativity to have created a universe in which we and the rest of life were a possibility.  If we grant to God the room to be, well, God, why should we presume that God can’t anticipate or even fully know the outcome of God’s creation without needing to tinker around with it in the shadows?  As a matter of relating to the theme of this thread, I don’t see the physical/material process of evolution as in any way limiting the role of God as Creator; rather, IMO it points to the open creativity of God.

I’m curious why such a belief system would appeal to anyone. I can understand why people want to believe in a personal god who cares about them and listens to their prayers. But what comfort is a god who just sets the universe in motion and then sits back to watch? If god already knows the outcome of creation, what is the point of caring about anything? I don’t understand why anyone would hold such a faith, except to hang on to childhood religious beliefs. Perhaps abstracting god so as to remove any personal meaning or connection makes believers feel like their religion is more compatible with their rational scientific view of nature.

Comment #10922

Posted by Pericles on November 30, 2004 04:33 AM (e) (s)

Hell’s teeth, what is going on?

The Positive Atheism site has this:

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

It works for me!

When the human body ceases to function and rots, all thoughts also cease, because there is no brain to generate those thoughts. Kill an ape and the same thing happens. We are great apes. Where is the difficulty? It is simply fear of the unknown that has created this  belief in a super being who is supposed to care about great apes. Don’t be stupid!

We people die. That is it! Do chimps and gorillas get all upset because they die? Well—- do they? Come on, answer me someone!!

What about our protohuman ancestors? Neanderthals, did they have souls? Homo Erectus? Receptors of souls?

What makes us think our destiny is to continue as the highest form of life on this planet?

The invention of an afterlife—what a contradiction in terms—was simply a primitive strategy to comfort a bunch of great apes who needed some answers. Time to move on m’thinks!

Pericles

Comment #10926

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 07:20 AM (e) (s)

Pericles,

You underestimate the power of religion. Not everyone has the intellect to have their own personal philosophy, developed by natural observation and through a solid education. Most people, as a result of religion, are better individuals, and the communities have less crimes, where there is a strong religious belief. It binds people together, and binds them to responsibility for their neighbors. I don’t think we will see the day when religion is put aside.

Side note: Neanderthals were not our ancestors, they co-evolved with our ancestors and went extinct. Or at least that is the present consensus.

As to the problem of good and evil, it has always been discussed in theology. C.S. Lewis is a great theologian who wrote on the subject. But I don’t see how it relates to our present debate.

For those of you who do not value religion, where would this country be without it? Sometimes people just need to get on with the business of living, and they need a dogma to keep them balanced. Think of the mindless masses, where would it leave them if religion were abandoned?

Besides, we live in a democracy and the prevailing feeling in our grand country is sympathetic to at least some form of religion, mainly Christianity. And the children of these people deserve a solid education. So for the greater good, it behooves the readers and authors of this site to pay a little more attention to the majority who already believe they have to choose either science or faith, and would rather choose faith.

Comment #10930

Posted by Flint on November 30, 2004 09:07 AM (e) (s)

Most people, as a result of religion, are better individuals, and the communities have less crimes, where there is a strong religious belief. It binds people together, and binds them to responsibility for their neighbors. I don’t think we will see the day when religion is put aside.

To the degree this is true (i.e. that social homogeniety of values is the glue that holds together disparate individuals in a cooperative community), it begs the question of whether some other less corrosive mechanism might substitute. I agree with Katarina Aram that most people lack the time and perhaps the horsepower to develop a comprehensive social philosophy on their own, or even to spend the effort to gain genuine insights into game theory.

I suspect morality (meaning, the golden rule and related principles of social organization) predate religion by a few tens of thousands of years. What religion has done is codified these moral principles, that evolved by trial and error, into ethics. In this view, ethics are the letter of the law and morals are the spirit. And the letter of the law has a seductive attraction - it invites literal interpretation independent of its intent (which takes thought to extract). The tension here isn’t really between science and religion, but between the moralists (and even atheists recognize the need for moral obligation) and the ethical literalists, who have bet the house on a literal interpretation and can’t afford to lose.

Comment #10933

Posted by Pericles on November 30, 2004 10:06 AM (e) (s)

“I don’t think we will see the day when religion is put aside.”
By K. Aram. Exactly!!! You don’t think.

I am English and as a nation we are inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, you posted this:

“For those of you who do not value religion, where would this country be without it? Sometimes people just need to get on with the business of living, and they need a dogma to keep them balanced. Think of the mindless masses, where would it leave them if religion were abandoned?”

Are you ****ing demented? Your country would not be castigated around this planet if the born again self righteous ****head you have for a leader had not decided to embroil your forces in a crusade against islam. 50% of your citizens reject evolution. That is dysgenics if ever I were looking for an example.

Mindless masses! Mindless masses? Where would it leave them if religion were abandoned? You said it! Religion is for the mindless and obviously this includes you.

Have you ever travelled to other countries? Without priests, rabbis and imams, people would not be held in thrall. The people would be so much better off. Religious fervour is mental instability. Have you considered that the three religions that had their origins in the Middle East have caused more death and destruction in the name of their deities than just about any other cause. And you want to perpetuate this?

Listen, your country may spend more money on the military than the next twenty countries combined, but that does not make you clever. I suggest you read “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire” Between the lines you will find evidence of population change. Over the centuries, the founder Romans migrated away from Rome and were replaced by Easterners who brought with them their eastern gods like Mithras and Jesus. These morally bankrupt incomers hadn’t the fighting qualities necessary to defend against the Goths and Vandals, so Rome fell.

In business, it is common knowledge that the quality of the personnel dictates whether that business will be successful. Not products or services, people So it is with nations. If the people are crap, so’s the nation.

Success or failure are not destinations, they are journeys. The USA could have been really super. They could have been friends with everyone. Instead, your leaders piss everyone off and wonder what is wrong. Only science and clear sighted policies will stem the tide and time served Xian dogma stands in the way.

I think it is too late. Sorry about that.

Pericles

Comment #10936

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 11:06 AM (e) (s)

I don’t think you really want to know about me, or can even see past your intellectual conceit, but first off I am not American. I immigrated here from  Serbia, on which war was waged by America (leading NATO). They bombed the crap out of the city I grew up in, Belgrade, and though no one of my family was hurt, my grandmother’s windows were broken and she now helps the many refugees the war created. I was born in Germany, lived in India for 4 years, and have been to a few places besides.

Second, I am very much against the war in Iraq, and the many other unjust wars this country has waged. Bush is appealing to right-wing Christians, but not to the left. He is certainly not appealing to me.

I am happy to count myself among the masses who need religion. My father and grandfather were atheists and they left me with very little to go on, I had to spend a lot of time reading philosophy and exploring all the religions to see where I could fit. There was a huge void in my life. That may not be true of everyone, but as a child whose parents told her that God is a myth and a fairy tale, I can tell you I was different from the others.

There are certainly people writing here who may be more educated than I, but by putting me down I think you are showing something worse than stupidity.

Comment #10940

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 11:22 AM (e) (s)

As to the question of how much harm vs. how much good religion has done, it is difficult to answer. It has done a lot of harm, I admit. However, remember recent history when Communists (my father and grandfather included) tried to forget religion. That strategy backfired on them big-time.

Comment #10946

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 12:03 PM (e) (s)

Katarina’s gentle, gracious, and patient manner of response certainly goes a long way to making Pericles look the fool.  What, may I ask, is the relevance of Pericles’ anti-religious diatribe to this thread.  That the evolution vs. creationism/ID problem is a fundamentally religious issue is patently obvious.  Why should a community interested in constructive solutions tolerate sophomoric diatribes that only confound the problem?

Comment #10948

Posted by FL on November 30, 2004 12:13 PM (e) (s)

I agree with the effectiveness of Katarina’s response to Pericles, but I would encourage both to simply be sure to take advantage not only of pro-evolution books and resources, but also evolution-critical and pro-ID books/resources too.  It’s good to have a working knowledge of both sides of the story, and the only way to get one is to crack the books/videos thereof.

Comment #10949

Posted by Katarina Aram on November 30, 2004 12:33 PM (e) (s)

FL,

I agree with you. My mother-in-law, a United Methodist pastor, and I, have had an ongoing discussion going on 2 years now. She gives me books on the ID side and I give her ones that debunk them. I don’t like to read them but I make myself. For example, she gave me “The Design Revolution.” I have read through much of it, and that is why I think Dembski is intellectually dishonest and inconsistant.

One simple issue I have with his reasoning is that he oversimplifies the evolution of complexity as a single event and then goes on to calculate the probability. Complex organs and cellular mechanisms evolve bit by bit, not in one fell swoop.

For excellent reviews of Dembski’s books simply search the archives of this site,

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/cat_book_reviews.html…

Comment #10952

Posted by Shaggy Maniac on November 30, 2004 12:43 PM (e) (s)

Greg Jorgenson wrote:

“I’m curious why such a belief system would appeal to anyone. I can understand why people want to believe in a personal god who cares about them and listens to their prayers. But what comfort is a god who just sets the universe in motion and then sits back to watch?”

You seem to be assuming that God can’t be both/and, i.e. both personal and non-directive.  It may seem contradictory to you; to me it is paradoxical and a possibility that I am perfectly comfortable allowing to God.  You raise interesting questions that I am happy to address, but doing so openly in this thread is likely outside the purview of its purpose.  You can email me if you want a direct response.

Comment #10962

Posted by Russell on November 30, 2004 02:22 PM (e) (s)

K. Aram: One simple issue I have with his reasoning is that he oversimplifies the evolution of complexity as a single event and then goes on to calculate the probability. Complex organs and cellular mechanisms evolve bit by bit, not in one fell swoop.

That is exactly right. Do Dembski et al. not understand this? Then they’re really not qualified to be writing the pretentious tomes they write. Are they intentionally misleading on this point? Then they’re unscrupulous, dishonest, maybe even - dare I say it? - evil.

Comment #10999

Posted by Frank J on November 30, 2004 07:47 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

I suspect morality (meaning, the golden rule and related principles of social organization) predate religion by a few tens of thousands of years. What religion has done is codified these moral principles, that evolved by trial and error, into ethics. In this view, ethics are the letter of the law and morals are the spirit. And the letter of the law has a seductive attraction - it invites literal