Pharisee and the tax-collector
I merely wished to criticize the sort of view that says science is only one of many equally viable methods of knowing. Certainly I believe in that in the realm of observable reality it is clearly superior to anything else people rely on - and react harshly when someone complains that it threatens to trample the bit of their faith that has spilled over into that area. You will find no calls to authoritarianism from me. I assure you that any statements I have made that involve a call for the execution of hippies have been done in jest or in a moment of passion.
The sort of books I like are usually the first ones to be targeted by offended zealots when they find their dear darling has read something contrary to their wishes (disclaimer: not porn). I’m hardly the person to tell someone they can’t think something. I frequently take the time to tell them they’re wrong, though. This has happened more often since I started working/learning at a college that draws in the worst sort of preachers who shout and holler at all of the students. I’ve come across students at an institution of higher learning - sometimes in the sciences, believe it or not - who buy into the ID nonsense. So I’m in a state of constant miffage. Anyway, more relevant is the idea that some people are trying to prevent their children from having access to information about evolution or whatnot. That’s bad.
I need to be more careful with my words.
I’ve met some people who don’t believe in God and they turned out to be pretty good and moral people. The problem is, it’s impossible to come up with a perfect moral system yourself. Usually, it revolves around doing the right thing and the oh-so-dangerous “if it doesn’t hurt someone, it must be okay.”
The problem with all this nonsense surrounding ID-pushing is that the whole thing is based on ignorance and stupidity. We wouldn’t have this bullshit issue if people would pay a little more attention to how science in general works and what evolution explains instead of fear mongering about some phantom invasion of science into religion.
If you’re afraid that something like evolution will crush your child’s faith in God, then you might as well not send him into the big bad world at all, where people will be a lot less subtle than teach a theory which <i>might</i> end up in the child casting doubt upon his or her belief <i>if</i> the <i>logically faulty</i> seeming discrepancy between evolution and creationism is discovered.
No argument with that, but as a counter, can you claim that moral code of any one religion is also perfect?
Of course we can. In fact, every religion claims that. 8p
Trying to say that science contradicts religion is an affront to both of them. In fact, there are many many ways to fit science into religion, no matter what religion, provided you’re the sort of person for whom both science and religion are important to you. I believe in God and think religion fulfills a need in myself; and I believe that science is the best way to understand the world around us, and through that facet, understanding God and his works. If they appear to contradict, it simply means we aren’t interpreting either the facts or the canon properly. Since I don’t have the background to be able to reinterpret the facts of science, I do my best to make my religion fit into what I know about the world. Luckily, this generally requires only minor tweaks to what I believe, and in no way imperils those beliefs nor makes me less religious.
The sort of people who disparage science as “constantly reinventing itself” and therefore not to be believed miss the whole point of science. And so what if we realize we were wrong about how we understood the universe? All that means is that we have to take our new understanding and apply it to our religion to come out with a better understanding of how they all fit together. Trying to extrapolate science from religion nearly always ends in failure due to the intentional vagueness of the texts in question.
Well, that seems like a pretty effective and eloquent philosophy to go by. Wish I had thought of that.
This is totally unrelated to the conversation but whoever identified who Wordswoth was deserves my thanks. I had totally forgot him since I only had to read one poem of his in school (we usually focused on Emerson, Transcendentalists, etc.). I loved that goshed-darn daffodils poem when I was in high school. Which was less than a year ago but whatever.
Poetry ftw.
Sure intelligent design exists… that’s why we were designed to destroy ourselves in an orgy of hate with millions of Christians hating other Christians simply because they are not the same type of Christian. sigh Fire and Brimstone preachers calling the most chaste of girls whores for the joy of watching them cry and telling everybody they are going to hell to fill their coffers with bling to hang in their cathedrals… I used to be Christian. Than I threw up and got better. I may turn back that way IF all the power-hungry-ideology-of-hate-mongers suddenly vanished. But I simply cannot believe in a god that would allow sheer lunacy to have such power. I would prefer to believe in man’s power to achieve perfection through enlightenment.
Personally, I prefer Bhuddism. Bhuddists are more willing to die for their faith at the hands of those cowards wishing to instead kill for their faith. Bhuddism has no arguments against Science and generally works with everything. Seek enlightenment and understanding and you will achieve Nirvana. Even a scientist, trying to understand the inner workings of the world can achieve the path to peace.
Evolution isn’t even about the origin of the exact point life existed on earth. It explains instead how that first organism evolved, diverged and became multiples, than they split and evolved themselves. Attempting to attack the exact origin of all life to invalidate the whole simply doesn’t work. Creationists do not even see they the two can even work together if the Bible (which has been translated about 7 times to get to english) is not taken literally. Otherwise all Christians could be raping, pillaging bandits in the name of the lord (which is what some evangelicals seem to call for in the mid-east…). The many whom have called Islam evil for for its zealous fury (for example), is like the Tiger identifying the Lion as a deadly feline predator. It’s like the apple calling the orange a fruit that hangs from a tree…
Oh but I prattle on. I am saddened that in the country to the south, there are still so many impediments to higher learning.
Sure intelligent design exists… that’s why we were designed to destroy ourselves in an orgy of hate with millions of Christians hating other Christians simply because they are not the same type of Christian.
God designed people to be people, and to have free choice. There are millions of other people in the world whose entire lives are dedicated to doing good things. People’s actions give no indication about whether or not there is a God. The main confusion here (one I’ve heard before) is that if God is perfect, therefore his creations must be perfect; since that isn’t true, therefore God is either not perfect, or doesn’t exist. But there’s nothing precluding a perfect God from creating imperfect things.
In addition, just because you don’t like the practitioners of a religion doesn’t invalidate that religion. I know of plenty of Jews in jail for various crimes, for example, but that doesn’t mean that Judaism is somehow less of a religion because of it. It simply means that those people were too weak to follow all the precepts.
Also, it seems to be in style to say that Americans are in thrall to religion and Canadians are enlightened secularists - it’s far from true on both points.
Quebec is largely catholic and there is a large protestant presence in the mid-west and prairies; Canada only appears more secular because most the major cities are largely secular in composition. The rural countryside is still as religious as ever; it’s just more sparely populated.
Semi-serious example of Cid’s statement above: As a Discodianism, I find the theory of Evolution to fit in rather well with the concept of constructive chaos … 
It’s a valid criticism to level when a proponent of a religion claims that adhering to it makes a person inherently better. The campus preachers tend to do so, as well as many of the students I’ve talked to. Pointing out the obvious discrepancy between what they say should happen and what does should deflate the claim, but given the way they arrived at the conclusion in the first place, it does not. This point doesn’t show up so often because it’s an easy straw man, but because it’s what a lot of people really believe.
When did the quote function start giving links back to the original posts? That’s really useful.
…
I’d like to think that the asteroid that’s headed for Mars not but a month from now knocks a huge chunk out it, sending it straight into us, thus wiping us all out.
And in cosmic irony, the rock would have positively identifiable fossilized humanoid alien life. And they probably died discussing the same thing. 
It’s a valid criticism to level when a proponent of a religion claims that adhering to it makes a person inherently better.
Yes. But it doesn’t mean that those who adhere to it are inherently worse, either. 
It’s not an argument meant to discredit the religion, but rather the extremists that butt in on other people’s lives pretending that is true, and feel the need to force those beliefs on others. Arguing that adhering to the religion will not make you immediately better is enough, no need to take it further up and attack the religion itself.
Which really just about sums the whole point sane even-headed atheists and secularists try to make when religion is shoved in their faces: I don’t care about your stuff, I don’t want your beliefs, I don’t care about arguing the inconsistencies with them and you can do whatever the hell you want with your life but for the love of your God just leave the rest of us the hell alone. Which is why a dramatic percentage of “secular attacks on religion” are actually just fundamentalists being paranoid/insecure over nothing, cue in the just-mentioned point that if your child’s fate is so fickle a mention of Darwin will completely crush it, your kid wasn’t a very strong believer to begin with and it’s not that “the secular schools have destroyed his beliefs”.
When I say “little impact”, what I mean is that people over the years have used religion as a cover for more baser, pragmatic instincts. Particularly that rulers use religion to pursue their own agendas. But I’m pretty cynical.
My point was it says a lot if say, a Rabbi goes on a tirade imploring people to rape, pillage and murder because the other pagan beliefs are lesser and not worthy of any rights. (Haven’t seen that, but I have seen Evangelicals and Born agains do so.)
I don’t dislike all practitioners of the religion. I just dislike how so many people use it to be a shield to make themselves “holier than thou” when they are complete and total assholes to everybody else. Those are the people I dislike. The ones whom have earned my disgust by working quite hard for it. I generally like everybody at first until they prove themselves to be nothing more than demons in saints clothing.
Yes, it does say a lot - but it says a lot about the rabbi, not about the religion. People use religion as an excuse and a crutch; in that case, they’re misusing it. Again, it doesn’t discredit the religion itself, and deciding you don’t like Christianity because you don’t like Christians is a social decision, not a moral or intellectual one.
I am wondering what would over 50% of Americans (and 49.9999% of Canadians) reply.
Maybe this (or something in the same vein) will be the most popular answer in an impromptu poll:
Between being ignorant of evolution and being saved from the fires of hell, I know which I’d choose.
I just glimpsed a sci-fi flash of our near future, where the evolutionists could expect a Giordano Bruno treatment.