I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of

Posted by: FireFox31

I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 03:02

Both to intentionally detract from the abortion thread, and because I'm in a tense mood, here's something different:

I support Intelligent Design, and I didn't even realize it until a few days ago. Here's my belief, which I feel is the perfect, most elegant marriage of science and faith (aka: religion):

God is the particulate building block of all existence. If you break down any atom to its subatomic parts, then break down those parts further and further, eventually you will find a single type of particle. This particle obeys an unfathomably complex set of rules which dictates how it functions in the proximity of other particles of its type. For example, when a certain set of these parts are arranged in a certain way, they form a subatomic particle (or an energy particle?); which, when in proximity of other particles, forms an atom; which combines with others to form matter.

This God does what every religion wants it to; explains the great mysteries of "what guides us?" and "what are we?". We are guided by the ruleset of this particle as it flows up to higher orders of matter, energy, and other forces. Everything we say and do, in the past, present, and future, is guided by the interactions between the God-like particles and its neighbors. If you could gather and arrange enough particles into the form of an existing cactus plant, your new plant would exist and behave exactly identical to the original. This is impossible, however, because the second plant would exist in a different part of space, thus being influenced differently by the proximity of neighboring particles, giving it slightly different properties.

So, God is passive, in that it just sits there as the foundation of reality. But it is active since its interaction rules govern every action. As such, fate is predetermined. If the rule set was known, the past, present, and future of any existing object could be calculated. Thus, we are products of Intelligent Design. Though the design may not have been intelligently crafted, it imitates such by ditcating our actions.


On a slightly related note: It seems limiting that we must receive feedback from an item in order to observe it. Couldn't we calculate the existence of indirectly-observable objects? In other news, I think I've tentatively wrapped my mind around 6th dimensional existence. 7th, though, eludes me. Clearly I'm going insane (or I need to get out more).
Posted by: matthew_k

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 03:54

So you're saying God is that part of physics that we don't understand yet? Or perhaps just the God created physics and matter, and is sitting back and seeing how it all plays out?

Quote:
It seems limiting that we must receive feedback from an item in order to observe it.

Meow.

Matthew
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 04:45

This thread really doesn't speak "design" to me. And "intelligent" is up for argument.

The fight is on. Except I don't care enough about it to continue. Someone tag me out.

Bruno
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 05:55

So... these itty-bitty particles are really gods, and, since I'm made up of a whole bunch of particles, I am, therefor, inhabited by, like, a jillion of these gods?

Sounds an awful lot like body-thetans, to me.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 11:23

Quote:
As such, fate is predetermined. If the rule set was known, the past, present, and future of any existing object could be calculated. Thus, we are products of Intelligent Design.
To rephrase your premise, if something is predtermined, it must therefore have been created by something that is intelligent through a design. This is not a true statement. It is quite possible for something to be predetermined without being caused by something intelligent or by a design. Ultimately you admist as much:
Quote:
Though the design may not have been intelligently crafted, it imitates such by ditcating our actions.
Predetermination doesn't really align itself either way in the creation debate. I think there are probably free will/ predetermination advocates on either side.

Now I will say that a proper view of ID would consider any intelligent force accpetable, not just a Christian notion of "God", but a source that merely mimics intelligence beause of predetermination does not cut the muster.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 11:51

Quote:
It seems limiting that we must receive feedback from an item in order to observe it. Couldn't we calculate the existence of indirectly-observable objects?

In some sense, this is what high-energy physics is all about. They come up with mathematical models to describe all the particles and such that they know about, and those models predict other particles that haven't yet been observed. The classic example of this is the neutrino. You need neutrinos to make subatomic physics work properly, yet neutrinos are (approximately) massless and don't really interact with anything. Even if you were deep underground, they'd be happily flying through you and the earth without bothering to stop and have some tea.

The trick, then, is constructing experiments to validate the existence and alleged properties of neutrinos. That's what science is all about.

As to Intelligent Design, the pseudo-religious movement, I went slogging through the Discovery Institute's web site to see if I could find a concise expression of the theory. Here's the best I could find:

Quote:
The fact that intelligent design doesn’t identify the source of design is not political calculation but precise thinking, refusing to go beyond what the scientific evidence tells us. Consider intelligent design’s most famous design inference, the bacterial flagellum. Michael Behe shows that this microscopic rotary engine, like an automobile engine, needs all of its machinery in place to function at all. The best explanation for this irreducibly complex machine is intelligent design, but there's no inscription on the bushing of this little motor that identifies its maker. To discover the identity of its designer(s), one has to look beyond science.


That's one of their shining star theories. Of course, evolution certainly can explain the evolution of the flagellum and is the best theory for why. Before ID can be a part of a science curriculum, it needs to (a) propose theories that are testable and (b) perform those tests. Until they've done so, ID is, at best, an alternative creation myth.
Posted by: Roger

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 13:47

I don't want to get involved in the ID vs. Evolution debate, because it's one of those things where you're unlikely to even slightly shift the other guy's opinion.

However, I just finished reading The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins, and it's pretty much cemented, in my mind, Evolution as a viable theory, and ID as a load of bunk. This is to be expected, of course, Dawkins describes himself as an Ultra-Darwinist.

Either way, the process of life is cool.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 14:09

Your "explanation" of things contains the usual amount of hand-waving and pseudo-scientific jargon that most ID folks seem to come up with, so it's as good as any other explanation I've read. Unfortunately, none of it is measurable, none of it is testable, and, therefore, none of it is science. Your theory, and all those of other Intelligent Design proponents, is as good as L. Ron Hubbard's "theta", or George Lucas' "force."

ID is nothing other than a manufactured vehicle to bring the teaching of "religion" (read: Jesus) to more people, and to do so under the guise of science education. ID's basic premise is "(science) + (???) = (an explanation of Life, The Universe, and Everything)" and the (???), no matter how they try to dance around it, is always "God." When you ask for data which supports the existence of God, all you get is flawed, circular logic like "well, evolution doesn't explain X, so X proves the existence of God."

Many ID folks will even admit that they cannot provide data to support the "God" part of their equation, but insist that the theory still warrants serious discussion in science classes. Science did not get where it is today by throwing one's arms up in the air and saying "well, we can't explain this huge, gaping hole in the foundation of our theory, but let's teach it as fact anyway!" Instead of starting out with a hypothesis and conducting experiments to test it, ID started out with a desired conclusion, and fills in whatever "evidence" people will believe to reach that desired conclusion. That's not the scientific method I remember.

Evolution is not a perfect theory. Natural selection doesn't always follow the patterns that we expect it to. But conveniently injecting the fudge factor of "God" into the equation undermines scientific progress. Let's keep Jesus in religion classes where he belongs. Or, if you insist on teaching ID in science class, I insist that this be taught as well.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 14:48

Quote:
ID's basic premise is "(science) + (???) = (an explanation of Life, The Universe, and Everything)" and the (???), no matter how they try to dance around it, is always "God."
Well, the ??? is actually the point of ID. It is the part of the equation that ID claims to solve. ID’s basic claim is that the world around us makes sense because of an Intelligent Designer, not an unguided sequences of events.

Quote:
Instead of starting out with a hypothesis and conducting experiments to test it, ID started out with a desired conclusion, and fills in whatever "evidence" people will believe to reach that desired conclusion.
I’ll agree that ID proponents start with the existence of God as a basic premise. I think then they follow the evidence where they believe it leads. To someone without the existence of God as a premise, however, the evidence doesn’t always lead the same place. The question is why it doesn’t. ID proponents will say it’s because non-ID start with a premise that precludes the existence of God. Non-ID will assert (like you did) that IDers only reach their conclusions because of their premise that God does exist. I think the assumptions on both sides are probably inaccurate, though there are hints of truth to both allegations.

I don’t think ID proponents are being disingenuous by assuming the existence of God. We all make assumptions born out of our experiences in order to determine truth. If we didn’t, we’d look like the guy in the Hitchhiker trilogy who takes so little on faith that he won’t trust is own recollection of how a pen works. Unfortunately, problems occur when we can’t all agree on the same assumptions.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 15:13

But what you've described is (1) not science and (2) doesn't help describe the universe. Both of those facts mean that it's out of place in the science classroom.

As to point (1), science must obviously start with a premise, but the experiment might not prove that premise. It might as easily disprove it or say nothing about it at all. The notion that I can take the same steps as you and come up with a different result makes what you're describing not science. Science is determined by facts, not philosophical interpolation.

As to point (2), if you define God as being omnipotent and able to change the course of the universe at will, not only does it not help define how the universe works in a predictable manner, as His will is unpredictable (or, in other words, He works in mysterious ways), it throws the entirety of science out the window. If our experiments are reproducible because He just hasn't had the notion to change the rules yet, then science is worthless. In fact, let's just remove it from the classroom and replace it with a religion class. That'll work better.

To sum up, if it is true, it's irrelevant. It does not help us understand our world in an empirical manner, which is what science does. If you want an explanation for why, which is all that ID gives you, go to church.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 15:33

You get no real argument on most of your post. I'm not really in favor of teaching ID in schools. The only thing I really want is for science classes to stay away from religous topis- i.e. how man was created.

Without a belief in God or the Bible as a premise science might reasonably tell us that man evolved rather than being created. However, many do have such a premise that will change how we interpret what science is telling us. This goes to point 2 that you make above. I am completely willing to grant evolution as a scientific theory in operation today and throughout history- I am not as willing to grant that it is responsible for the creation of man, as God has told us something different and is perfectly capeable of having made that happen since he can "change the course of the universe at will". And since I don't believe that man was created through evolution, I don't like it being taught as truth in the classroom.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 16:13

So are you saying that man popped fully formed into the universe X number of years ago at the behest of God, outside the process of evolution, which created all the other life on the planet?

Or are you saying that the physical form of man evolved through evolution and that God created the mystical spark that made us human? (Actually, if it's this one, I'm almost inclined to say it was the serpent who did that.)
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 16:58

Quote:
So are you saying that man popped fully formed into the universe X number of years ago at the behest of God, outside the process of evolution, which created all the other life on the planet?
I'm honestly not sure exactly how it all happened- I think the most important aspect is that God created man. In my own contemplation I've considered that perhaps God spoke everything into existence and then let it run based on a set of rules from there, intervening at certain points.

Take for instance the feeding of the 5000 where Jesus made bread and fish appear. Assuming that this was a miracle and the fish appeared out of thin air, a scientific examination of said fish would lead to some very wrong conclusions about the fish- that it existed for so many years based on its size and shape, etc. But then, studying the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 through science really isn't very useful. The principles of how fish normally develop remain unchanged, even if this one example defies the rule. I consider it possible that Creation operates the same way.

What I absolutely believe (and I think you're in agreement here, at least conceptually), is that if/when God could/does intervene in the world, He has acted in a way that is outside of science and that science cannot inform us about. In my own personal conjecture I've reasoned that if Creation is one of those events where God operated outside of what we can observe and reproduce (which at some point He must have, if not with the creation of man at least with the creation of matter), then that becomes an event over which science isn't useful and if applied will come to wrong conclusions.

Anyway, as I've said a couple of times, thinking along these lines is personal conjecture and WAY outside of any serious Christian teaching, so it should be taken that way. Christianity asserts that God created man, and most orthodox Christian teaching holds that before man was created there was no death in the world. Why that doesn't line up with what we've been led to believe by science is something that Christians must resolve, either by modifying their doctrines, changing the way they view science, or re-examining the science behind the claims to find possible error. Most Christians take the third stance- mine is closer to the second.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 17:17

Quote:
What I absolutely believe (and I think you're in agreement here, at least conceptually), is that if/when God could/does intervene in the world

Boy, I don't know that I can really apply a truth value to a conjecture based on a false premise. It's like it's NaN.

Quote:
either by modifying their doctrines, changing the way they view science, or re-examining the science behind the claims to find possible error. Most Christians take the third stance- mine is closer to the second.

God, I hope you're wrong. I think you are. I don't think that most Christians I know (and remember I live and grew up in the Bible Belt) don't feel compelled to do any of those. I'm pretty most Christians recognize that the Bible is full of stories. Stories that may help them with moral quandaries, potentially, but stories nonetheless. I sincerely hope that you literalists are the minority I think you are.

Edit: The National Opinion Research Center would seem to indicate that you're not the extreme minority I'd hoped. I wonder if the mean lies closer to you and John or closer to that crazy woman on WifeSwap the other night. (I feel dirty just saying that, but I only saw it on The Soup. I swear.)
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 17:38

Quote:
Boy, I don't know that I can really apply a truth value to a conjecture based on a false premise. It's like it's NaN.

Your words from earlier:
Quote:
As to point (2), if you define God as being omnipotent and able to change the course of the universe at will, not only does it not help define how the universe works in a predictable manner, as His will is unpredictable (or, in other words, He works in mysterious ways), it throws the entirety of science out the window.

The only difference is that my feeling is science isn't destoryed by intervention, only that it doesn't apply in those circumstances.

Quote:
I wonder if the mean lies closer to you and John or closer to that crazy woman on WifeSwap the other night.
I didn't see that, but actually John and I talked about it this weekend. I definitely think the mean is closer to the two of us than her and (based on the description that I heard), she would be one of the Christians I mentioned in another thread that I don't align myself with, politically or spiritually. We may both call oursleves Christians, but there is definitely a different meaning behind the word.
Posted by: blitz

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 17:48

Quote:
God, I hope you're wrong.


LOL. I got a chuckle out of that one.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 17:51

Earlier I was speaking hypothetically to disprove an implied point about the validity of teaching ID in school. Later you claimed that I could agree that if God intervened, then it was outside the realm of science. My argument is that I can't come to a truth conclusion based on the notion that God might do something. I don't know how the world would react at the intervention of the Tooth Fairy, either.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 18:54

God is the particulate building block of all existence.

This particle obeys an unfathomably complex set of rules which dictates how it functions in the proximity of other particles of its type

If you break down any atom to its subatomic parts, then break down those parts further and further, eventually you will find a single type of particle.

Claiming that untestable, unprovable opinions are scientific facts supporting your ideological argument does not impress me.

If you will permit me to argue by the same rules of "logic", I can "prove" absolutely anything.

For example, I have incontestable proof that three plus three equals seven:

1) God created numbers.
2) God's creations are the essence of perfection.
3) Prime numbers are the only perfect numbers, since they cannot be subdivided into lesser numbers.
4) Since the number six is not a prime number, it is therefore imperfect, and cannot be part of God's plan.
5) Therefore, three plus three must equal seven, because to make it equal to a lesser number (such as five) would diminish God's glory.

Similarly, volcanoes are caused by purple hippopotami. I will leave the proof of this scientific theory to the students...

tanstaafl.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 19:27

...and the decline in the number of pirates is to blame for global warming.

Arrrrghh!

Are you implying that the heavenly beer volcano was created by a purple hippo? HERETIC!!!

All praise the great Noodly One.

[/silly noodliness]

Really though, it suprises me that the ID's don't take the tack that god (intentional lower-case g) created evolution, so it's part of his Perfect Plan. I have no problem with that. However, that's not science.

The issue (as stated so well above) is that to be in a science class a theory has to be something that can be a)postulated b)tested c)confirmed d)modified e)re-tested/repostulated. ID can only be postulated. Until an idea can go through steps b-e, it's not science and should be in a comparative religion or philosophy course.

ID is counting angels on the head of a pin.

-Zeke
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 19:38

Quote:
it suprises me that the ID's don't take the tack that god (intentional lower-case g) created evolution, so it's part of his Perfect Plan. I have no problem with that. However, that's not science.

I can't speak for our residents (or, rather, I'll allow them to speak for themselves, as I'm about to put words in everyone else's mouth), but I think that the reason they don't do that is that they see evolution as being at odds with what they believe and are using this as an opportunity to chip away at evolution. The ones who believe as you state, and I think that there are many of them, aren't the ones arguing to get fairy tales taught in the science classroom.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 20:03

Not being what most people would call a 'deeply religous' person, it's my speculation that the core issue is that stance that the bible is a definative, inerratic text. I can understand a belief that one's god (whatever that may be) is infallible, but this type of dogmatism implies that the interpretation of fact as written by man is flawless. If I can believe anything universal, it's that man is flawed, so I have trouble with this argument of strict interpretation (aside from the fact that every society has a creation myth and proving one over the other is another exercise in angel-counting).

-Zeke
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 20:31

Quote:
Really though, it suprises me that the ID's don't take the tack that god (intentional lower-case g) created evolution, so it's part of his Perfect Plan.
Actually, as I've stated before, theistic evolution is quite consistent with ID. It is, however, not consistent with the beliefs of most Creationists, which are generally more specific than the very broad tent of ID. I assume if the ID camp is successful at getting ID into schools then theistic evolution would have to be addressed as an accpetable part of the overall theory.

Quote:
The issue (as stated so well above) is that to be in a science class a theory has to be something that can be a)postulated b)tested c)confirmed d)modified e)re-tested/repostulated.
The theory that man evolved from another animal cannot go through those steps either. The notion of evolution itself can, but that it actually did so with regards to humans (or any other animal for that matter) is another story. From a science only standpoint it could make sense that humans evolved, but it doesn't necessarily follow. That along with my non-scientific beliefs cause me to question the claim that mankind was created through evolution.

I believe ID propoents take this same reasoning (that the actual occurance of man evolving from other animals cannot be proven) to say that while you cannot prove God exists through testing and observation, you can extrapolate given things we know from science to prove that He does, in fact, exist. I'm not extremely well educated in ID, though, so I could have mangled that argument beyond recognition.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 20:43

Quote:
Not being what most people would call a 'deeply religous' person, it's my speculation that the core issue is that stance that the bible is a definative, inerratic text.
You are correct.

Quote:
I can understand a belief that one's god (whatever that may be) is infallible, but this type of dogmatism implies that the interpretation of fact as written by man is flawless. If I can believe anything universal, it's that man is flawed, so I have trouble with this argument of strict interpretation
The belief is that scripture is "God breathed", meaning that while the indivdiual authors may have written it in their own styles, God gave them the content.

This belief only relates to the origional texts, however. It is not assumed that copies and translations are inerrint. Thus there is some debate about a few passages that don't appear in some of the earlier texts. However, the most important doctrines are re-iterated many times throughout scripture leaving very little room to speculate if they were in the origional text.

The notion of man's fall into sin and need for redemption is very central to much of the teaching of the Bible, and this is why the Creation doctrine is so important.

My personal stance, however, is that while I agree that the Creation story is signficant, it is nowhere near as important as Jesus death on the cross as a solution to the problem of sin. I am fully willing to accept Christians who believe differently than I do about evolution and let the Holy Spirit sort us out.

I am also not one to argue for the inclusion of ID in schools, though I would like to see the creation of mankind by evolution NOT be taught in schools. I'd prefer the whole issue not be addressed at all as long as the education is public and provided by the government.

edited so my meaning of "evolution in schools" is more clear
Posted by: DWallach

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 21:13

Quote:
I am also not one to argue for the inclusion of ID in schools, though I would like to see evolution NOT be taught in schools. I'd prefer the whole issue not be addressed at all as long as the education is public and provided by the government.

This is an interesting angle on the debate. Question 1: is it appropriate to teach comparative religion courses, cultural studies courses, and so forth? Question 2: is it appropriate to teach the science of biology?

I'll argue that Q1 is entirely appropriate for public schools. How can you study history without understanding the religious motives that have driven it? There's no way to understand the Crusades without understanding the Crusaders. Similar themes drive many recent political issues (see, e.g., Catholic v. Protestant Ireland, Pakistan v. India, Sunni v. Shiite Arabs, etc.). The trick is to study religion, dispationately, as part of the belief systems of the people who act throughout history, rather than as something that is "true" or "false".

I'll also argue that Q2 is obviously appropriate for public schools. Every student should learn basic mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, among other things. And, you cannot even begin to properly study biology without understanding evolution. Learning biology without evolution is akin to learning computer science without programming. Yeah, you might learn some valuable things, but programming is what makes it all go. The problem, for some Christians, is that the centrality of evolution to biology (combined with the increasingly obvious presence of biological engineering in our daily lives) seems to threaten their religious beliefs. You seem to be able to reconcile evolution with your own beliefs. I'd expect that others could make similar accomodations, but it's surprising how they instead try to attack evolution with flakey arguments.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 21:24

Well, the issue with evolutionary biology is that it is truly a basic scientific underpinning (funny how a monk did some of the early work, isn't it?) of molecular biology. While we can't prove man evolves because it would be immoral to do the experiment, it can be proven that every other species we experiment on can be forced to evolve based on natural selection, so I can't see how you can exclude man from the theory just because we don't experiment on our own species. Which gene is the non-evolution gene anyway?

Regarding your statement about not teaching evolution; simply because science contradicts the teaching of a church (albeit a big one) should not mean that a portion of science should not be taught. Were that the case astrophysics would not exist.

Science can prove nor disprove existence of a god (although it's an amusing rhetorical exercise). People should not try to let their view of a god prove nor disprove science theories. Science should prove or disprove scientific theories. That is its core nature. That's what science is, a process for evaluating thoughts by testing them. When a more scientifically sound theory than natural selection and evolution comes around (imho, not likely in my lifetime) then scientific theory will change, as it always has. More correct theories are persuasive in their measurable and quantifiable experimental results. ID can neither be quantified nor measured.

Relativity is a theory, but we had to modify the math of the GPS to take it into account in order to make the system work correctly.

-Zeke
Posted by: bonzi

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 21:50

Quote:
Here's my belief, which I feel is the perfect, most elegant marriage of science and faith (aka: religion)

Not good enough, I am affraid. Determinism will not do with those believers who build their worldview (and view of selves) around the most curious concept of original sin and the subsequent need to be saved by a benevolent deity who used to aggravate Pontius Pilate's migraines. In order to Fall properly, Man had to be able to choose to sin, hadn't he?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 21:58

And, in fact, there are well established theories that, in part, disagree with Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium being a notable example. However, all of those, even the most extreme of them, are really just refinements of the basic theory of evolution that Darwin set down a hundred and fifty years ago. It used to be that scientific theories were thrown out of the window when a better one came along, but in modern times, it seems that we are getting closer and closer to the truth, rather than hitting random spots.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 22:38

As Dan and Zeke pointed out, if we throw out the evolution, we are throwing out all of biology, almost all of medicine, good part of agriculture - from high-yield crops, to vaccines, to antibiotics, to Angel's painkillers. If this anti-science (or better, anti-reason) madness does not stop, how much untill the next Giordano Bruno?

This thread made me trully depressed...

As for the reason for this well organized assault by Western Talibans, look no further than slogans from '1984'
Posted by: visuvius

My take... - 14/11/2005 22:48

Okay so I've read this thread, and I read pretty much all other threads where everyone debates pretty vigourosly about ID vs. evolution / God vs. fsm. I read these threads and wikipedia and whatever else happens to come up to try to get a better understanding of all this crazyness. I just recently saw that What the Bleep Do We Know movie which didn't impress me too much (I even saw it 1.5 times).

I was raised a muslim in a very modern and increasingly anti-religion environment. When I was taking biology courses in high school and college a few years ago the whole debate part of evolution vs. religion didn't even really occur to me. I guess I just saw evolution as another scientific principal that helped explain a whole bunch of crap...pretty convincingly.

I guess I believe in evolution. It really does make sense when you look at the facts and the evidence and whanot. As I understand it, the current theory of our existence is something along the lines of: Big Bang >> Lotsa Time >> Earth with bacteria and random minute forms of life >> evolution >> here we are. However, having understood and in large part accepted all of this, I'm still not willing to let go of my faith in God.

1) Because I accept that believing in God takes FAITH. I mean, they call it a faith for a reason right?

2) And this is the point of my post, I don't understand why the two can't co-exist. Why can't evolution be a part of God's plan? And the larger question I have is regarding the actual creation of the universe.

Mainly, what was there before the big bang? What was there before the extremely dense and hot state?. When did things start heating up and how, why? How did that state get there? Why is it that time suddently started there and isn't saying that time started at the beginning of the universe a pretty convenient way to not have to explain everthing before the singularity or whateva? Did gases and electrons and protons and neutrinos and random things I know very little about appear out of thin air? Was there nothing at some point? Emptiness? How far back does physics/science take us?

When I think about this stuff, I get to a point where my brain can't process the concept any more and I'm just sort of blank -- usually when I get to the emptiness concept. I can't think of any other subject that leads to this feeling. Creepy.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 14/11/2005 23:10

Quote:
Well, the issue with evolutionary biology is that it is truly a basic scientific underpinning (funny how a monk did some of the early work, isn't it?) of molecular biology. While we can't prove man evolves because it would be immoral to do the experiment, it can be proven that every other species we experiment on can be forced to evolve based on natural selection, so I can't see how you can exclude man from the theory just because we don't experiment on our own species. Which gene is the non-evolution gene anyway?
You're missing my point, I think. I haven't said that man does not evolve, only that man was not created by evolution. The problem for Christians has to do with Creation, not how we continue to progress.

As I look back at my earlier post, I see where I made a mistake. I did not mean to say that schools shouldn't teach evolution- rather that they should not teach that evolution is how we arrived on the scene. It is very possible to study how things progress without assuming we know how they got here.


Quote:
Science can prove nor disprove existence of a god
I agree, which is why I'm not an ID proponent. That doesn't mean you can't know that God exists- only that science isn't the way to that knowledge (though I believe it can help, right along with the rest of Creation).
Posted by: JeffS

Re: My take... - 14/11/2005 23:13

Quote:
2) And this is the point of my post, I don't understand why the two can't co-exist. Why can't evolution be a part of God's plan? And the larger question I have is regarding the actual creation of the universe.
For the Christian it comes down to the doctrine of origional sin and the notion that there was no death in the world until humans introduced it via our sin. This is what does not jive with theistic evolution. If the Muslim faith would take issue with creation through evolution, I don't know what it would be (not being well versed in the Muslim faith beyond a few basic elements).
Posted by: DWallach

Re: My take... - 14/11/2005 23:30

Quote:
For the Christian it comes down to the doctrine of origional sin and the notion that there was no death in the world until humans introduced it via our sin. This is what does not jive with theistic evolution.

Thought experiment: if everything the evolutionary biologists say were "true" beyond any doubt, then how would the various forms of evangelical Christianity reconcile this with their beliefs? Would they take a position comparable to the Vatican (i.e., that Adam and Eve are a parable rather than being literal truth)? Certainly, evolution doesn't require the evangelical Christian to deny their basic belief system. Does it?
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 00:21

Mainly, what was there before the big bang?

Nothing.

Literally nothing. Not time. Not space. Not anything in our normal range of understanding.

By the very nature of our brains and perceptions, we are confined to thinking of the universe in the three dimensional framework that we personally observe.

It is not easy for us to visualize a state of existence that is so far removed from our day to day observations of what we consider to be reality.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 00:30

Quote:
Thought experiment: if everything the evolutionary biologists say were "true" beyond any doubt, then how would the various forms of evangelical Christianity reconcile this with their beliefs? Would they take a position comparable to the Vatican (i.e., that Adam and Eve are a parable rather than being literal truth)? Certainly, evolution doesn't require the evangelical Christian to deny their basic belief system. Does it?
My personal opinion is that it would not deny my basic belief system if man were created by evolution. In fact, I don't know that the story of Adam and Eve need to be made a parable to synergize the two. The seven days obviously couldn't be seven literal days, but I've also understood that the words translated as "seven days" could be interpreted as "seven time periods", and that is how the "old earth" theologians interpet it. In this view there is time for evolution to occur and the idea of forming humans "from the dust" could mean creation through evolution.

In fact, while you normally hear about "young earth" Creationists who believe in a literal 7 days, there are plenty of "old earth" Creationists who believe that the events of Genesis 1 took much longer. Both views are acceptable under orthodox Christian teaching and could be termed a "literal" reading of scripture- though some young earth proponents would disagree. However, most of the serious theologians I've heard talk on the subject make room for both sides, even if they tend toward one or the other. I leave this mostly as an "in house" debate among Christians.

The bigger issue with creation through evolution is death existing in the world before sin- meaning that there was death in God's ideal world (before we messed it up). This is a much thornier issue than trying to synergize the account of Adam and Eve with evolution because it strikes at the very heart of the consequences of sin and the need for redemption.

That being said, the most basic thing I know about my faith is that I am a sinner in need of grace that only God can provide. If it were proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that man was created via evolution I would be very surprised, but it would not destroy my faith. If, however, it was proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead the very core of my beliefs would be destroyed.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 01:29

Quote:
If it were proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that man was created via evolution I would be very surprised, but it would not destroy my faith. If, however, it was proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead the very core of my beliefs would be destroyed.


But what would you consider proof? Isn´t faith based on the unseen, not the seen?
Posted by: drakino

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 01:42

Quote:
How far back does physics/science take us?


Currently, only to about a few seconds after the big bang, and then with that, only with really new theories from string theory and it's derivatives. I have a feeling that our understanding of the big bang will really only increase once we manage to get out into space more. While observation from things like Hubble has helped a lot, we still can't see much near the fringes of the universe to understand it.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 15/11/2005 01:47

Quote:
I did not mean to say that schools shouldn't teach evolution- rather that they should not teach that evolution is how we arrived on the scene.


Now, if you take the 'arrived on the scene' point of view, at what point did man become self aware enough so that the concept of right and wrong caused him (and her) to feel bad about it (guilt)? That, to me, is an far more interesting question than a 'poof!' man/woman exist, (god blows smoke off of finger) vs. evolution kind of argument. (sorry if this seems flip, just kidding with the smoking finger, but it's how seriously I take literal creationism as a theory of creation of the universe)

When did humanity begin to contemplate the species' collective navel deeply enough to begin religion, philosophy? Why don't monkeys, or snails worship idols/concepts/god(s), or do they and we're just to numb to see how? Those are interesting questions with one foot in the biological and one foot in the philosophic arenas.

What makes a human a human? When did that start? Was that the 'creation'?

Unfortunately, I don't think that's what you really mean by your statement about 'arrived on the scene'.

I am glad though that you're not taking the position that man's non-evolving. It would be hard to take you seriously if you took that position (and I do take you seriously, I can admire faith, even if I don't share it).

-Zeke

EDIT: Jeff - I didn't read your prior posts well enough last night, my apologies. I think you take a very sensible postion in reconciling your faith and science, even though I disagree about your position on the teaching of evolution in schools. -Z
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 15/11/2005 01:54

[Aside]

How arrogant are we, thinking that we have the capacity to _really_ understand what happened at the beginning of time? Hell, I don't _really_ understand 99% of the things that are within arms' reach.

Here's a nice teaser to illustrate how small our brains are:

Imagine a tree, in the middle of grassy field - any tree you like. Now try imagining it from two different perspectives, hold that image in your mind, now three, now four. Can you? I can't Now, in _reality_ there are an infinite number of viewpoints from which to view that tree that exist all at once, all the time. That's just a one tree.

We are an awfully proud little sacks of protoplasm aren't we?

[/back to your originally scheduled thread about Life, the Universe & Everything]

-Zeke
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 02:54

Quote:
But what would you consider proof? Isn´t faith based on the unseen, not the seen?

Faith isn't based on "the unseen", so much as it's a belief that doesn't rely on having "seen". If what's "seen" aligns with your belief, it can serve to strengthen your faith. Contrarily, if what you see directly refutes your faith, you have to discard your faith -- if you're as rational as Jeff shows himself to be, since it will strike at whatever premises that the faith is based on. Holding on to a belief after it is demonstrated to be false is no longer faith -- it's delusion.
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 15/11/2005 03:30

I should have disclaimed more that I don't care for ID and this "god as the building block" is just a passing thought I throw around once every year or so. I'm less trying to proove anything or convince anyone, and more just striking up conversation (akin to striking a match at a gasoline refinery).

Today, I was shown this concept which further stoked my fires. A few simple rules and a simple building block can create vast complex variation. Maybe this all-pervasive god-particle has only a few rules... created by an intelligent designer?

Quote:
Mainly, what was there before the big bang?
Quote:
Nothing.


Ultimately, this is my point. While the other stuff I said is passing nonsense, I do believe this: Science ultimately boils down to faith. You have to believe that this deep science is actually true because it has gotten just to complex to handle.

What if one of the equations is slightly wrong? Then every equation based on that is wrong. What if subatomic particles are actually shattered fragments of protons, neutrons, and electrons? What if gravity and magnetism are actually forces from higher order dimensions which are physically impossible for humans to observe?

I don't mean to chastise my own kind, but maybe the scientists are padding science to support their desired result: their faith in the existing equations and laws. Regardless, it's all beyond my grasp, so all I can do is place faith in a chosen explanation. (yuck, and the more I was typing the original post, the more I realized it sounded like theatens. I should probably abandon the idea...)

Quote:
How arrogant are we, thinking that we have the capacity to _really_ understand what happened at the beginning of time?

Exactly! While I really hope humanity does figure EVERYthing out, I can't trust that they're right due to our limited observational ability. Maybe there really are the 26 dimensions suggested by string theory, but those higher order dimensions are likely just beyond our observational ability. Yes, awfully proud chains of carbon we are.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 15/11/2005 06:29

Quote:
Today, I was shown this concept which further stoked my fires. A few simple rules and a simple building block can create vast complex variation. Maybe this all-pervasive god-particle has only a few rules... created by an intelligent designer?

Ah, old news . Several yaers ago this Wolfram guy mounted a nice PR campaign announcing his new book on Life, the Universe and Everything, claiming that it contained 42. It pretty much fizzled.

As for 'only a few rules', they are generally known as 'fundamental constants'. If things like light speed, Planck's constant, elemenatary charge, rest mass of elementary particles were a tiny bit different, we wouldn't be here. There are generally two school of thought about this: Someone made sure the Universe is compatible with and leads to evolution of intelligent life, or there are many (infinite number of) universes, and some of them are life-friendly (relatively speaking). Or Someone made sure there is an infinite number of universes, in which case He could just sit back and enjoy - life would be bound to appear somewhere. See Anthropic Principle. (BTW, accidentally making a brand new Universe in one's laboratory is a favorite topic for physicists turned SF authors.)

Quote:
Science ultimately boils down to faith. You have to believe that this deep science is actually true because it has gotten just to complex to handle.

You mean, can I personally verify that COBE indeed did corroborate Big Bang theory, and was not just a part of a complex conspiracy? Well, I can't...

Quote:
What if one of the equations is slightly wrong? Then every equation based on that is wrong. What if subatomic particles are actually shattered fragments of protons, neutrons, and electrons? What if gravity and magnetism are actually forces from higher order dimensions which are physically impossible for humans to observe?

I don't mean to chastise my own kind, but maybe the scientists are padding science to support their desired result: their faith in the existing equations and laws.

The good thing is, in science one doesn't get 'rich and famous' (OK, make it just famous) by upholding existing worldview, but tearing it down, or at least improving on it. There is no shortage of cosmological conjectures that avoid dark matter or dark energy you linked to (the one quite popular now draws from apparent anomaly in Pioneer spacecraft trayectory). The trouble is, none of them is rafined or corroborated enough as yet to be a simpler explanation for the observed universe than cludges we currently use.

Quote:
Quote:
How arrogant are we, thinking that we have the capacity to _really_ understand what happened at the beginning of time?

Exactly! While I really hope humanity does figure EVERYthing out, I can't trust that they're right due to our limited observational ability. Maybe there really are the 26 dimensions suggested by string theory, but those higher order dimensions are likely just beyond our observational ability. Yes, awfully proud chains of carbon we are.

You don't have to go to cosmology to venture past intuitive understanding (take, for example, functioning of a tunneling diode or a Josephson junction). As Doug said, intuitive thought evolved to solve everyday problems of getting food and avoiding predators. To reach further, we had to invent things like mathematics. We describe and model the deeper, more exotic layers of reality using it, but I think nobody expect us to be able to visualize them (except as crude analogies, which often are obstacle, rather than aids, in understanding).
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 07:28

Quote:
If the Muslim faith would take issue with creation through evolution, I don't know what it would be (not being well versed in the Muslim faith beyond a few basic elements).


It would probably parallel the thoughts of the Christian issue of creation through evolution. Both religions share the same ideas on the creation aspect of human beings.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 15/11/2005 07:36

Quote:
While the other stuff I said is passing nonsense, I do believe this: Science ultimately boils down to faith.


I agree. Both theories (creation by ID and/or evolution) were not directly observed and cannot be replicated or proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus both demand a certain amount of faith to accept.

This is why I see such a conversation such as this as relatively useless. I highly doubt any arguements stated will cause any of the participants to change their minds. So in otherwords, arguing (or debating, to use a friendlier term) about this subject is like competing in the Special Olympics...
Posted by: peter

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 08:41

Quote:
the notion that there was no death in the world until humans introduced it via our sin

You've mentioned this before, and it was a surprise to me then, too. This is an extrabiblical tradition, presumably? I can't find any suggestion of it in Genesis (Yahweh's blistering curse in Genesis 3 includes saying to Adam "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken", but it's not clear that this "returning unto the ground" is new information, especially as he doesn't mention it to either Eve or the snake).

After all, if there had been any deaths of humans before that point, we'd not be here to hear about it, as there'd've been no breeding stock and no humankind. And what about deaths of non-humans? What were lions and tigers eating at this point? (We don't hear about a second wave of animal creation with all the carnivores.) Come to that, what were Adam and Eve eating? Even if meat were off the menu, with most vegetables need you to kill the plant to gather the food. It's "recorded" that they ate the fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden -- so if aborting a foetus is the moral equivalent of killing a person, why isn't eating a walnut the moral equivalent of killing a walnut tree?

Peter
Posted by: JeffS

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 10:44

Quote:
You've mentioned this before, and it was a surprise to me then, too. This is an extrabiblical tradition, presumably?


No, or at least I don't think so. In the OT Genesis says that humans will die once they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:17: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

And then in the NT in Romans Paul speaks about death entering through Adam in order to illustrate Christ's victory over death by which he brings eternal life. Even while we still must suffer physical death because of Adam's origional sin, Christ offers us eternal life and regeneration if we are justified by His sacrifice.

Rom 5:12: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

Rom 5:17-18: For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Rom 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The strong implication is that death is only in the world because of man and man's choice to defy God.

To answer the rest of your questions, I think that Eden was far different than what we have now where we must experience death. Adam and Eve are only ever referred to eating from the plants, not killing animals and eating them (or sacrificing them or anything else). Eden was creation as God intended us to live, without death or decay. When man fell and sin entered the world, that fundamentally changed us and nature around us, leaving us with an imperfect replica of what was origionally intended.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 10:48

Quote:
It's "recorded" that they ate the fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden -- so if aborting a foetus is the moral equivalent of killing a person, why isn't eating a walnut the moral equivalent of killing a walnut tree?
That is a very good question- and one I don't have the answer to at the moment. Not that killing a walnut tree is the moral equivalent of killing a person; however if there is NO DEATH then you have a point. My only immediate response is that God definitely gave permission to eat of the plants and trees, but I'll have to look into this further.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 11:01

Quote:
Isn´t faith based on the unseen, not the seen?
No, faith is not BASED on the unseen- the unseen is the objective of the faith.

For instance, you placed your faith in the chair you're sitting in when you sat down. Until you sat down, you believed that the chair would hold you. You based your faith, at least in part, on what you could see- a chair that you evaluated with your eye was at least strong enough to hold you. You didn't, I presume, sit on a house made of cards.

Now you probably had pretty good reason to believe that the chair would hold you based on your observation and past experience with chairs (possible even the one in question), but you weren't actually exercising faith until you sat down. At that point the rubber met the road and you found out if your faith was misplaced. If there was a weakness in the chair that your observeation didn't detect, the chair might have broken and you'd have found your faith misplaced.

Faith is not believing blindly in something against reason. It is taking what you do know, through observation and experience, and trusting in what is not seen based on that knowledge. Or in other words, it is trusting in the unseen based on what is seen.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 11:38

Quote:
Quote:
But what would you consider proof? Isn´t faith based on the unseen, not the seen?

Faith isn't based on "the unseen", so much as it's a belief that doesn't rely on having "seen". If what's "seen" aligns with your belief, it can serve to strengthen your faith. Contrarily, if what you see directly refutes your faith, you have to discard your faith -- if you're as rational as Jeff shows himself to be, since it will strike at whatever premises that the faith is based on. Holding on to a belief after it is demonstrated to be false is no longer faith -- it's delusion.


Perhaps some people can see what others can´t.

But as others have mentioned, no one was there to witness the dawn of time. You´re just putting your faith into today´s scientists.

So far we´ve come up with a theory that lots of chemicals, strings, and bangs magically formed life. So where did the strings in your theory come from, Drakino? How can something begin if nothing existed beforehand to create it?

But now tfabris will step in any minute and mention that the same logic applies to God. Where did he come from? How could God exist without being created by something else? Whether we were created by a swirling magical concoction of gas and strings or by a magical guy with a smoking finger, something had to have created whatever created us.

The entire situation is a paradox. To exist, something has to be created from something else. You need raw materials and you need a catalyst. So when there is nothing, how could there then be something?

The difference between the theories is that the big bang´s answer is purely scientific, but there´s no room for paradoxes in science, is there? The only answer is that there is a higher being, or at least a higher understanding, where thoughts and comprehension are completely different, and basic principles to us like time, matter, energy, and 2+2 are all just part of a giant curtain pulled over eyes, hiding our incredibly simple minds from comprehending the real truth.

A chicken has a brain the size of a pea. This animal is so fucking stupid, it can´t even figure out that its purpose in life is to be our dinner. And yet, it´s one of the cockiest animals on earth. I bet every damn rooster thinks he´s got it all figured out, but here we are looking down at them bobbing their heads, and we know that they don´t understand a damned thing. If we could somehow hear a chicken´s thoughts and ideas about how and why it exists, we would all have a great laugh, wouldn´t we?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 15:43

Quote:
Gen 2:17: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

That certainly implies that humans would not have died without breaking that rule, but it says nothing about any other life forms.

Quote:
Rom 5:12
Rom 5:17-18
Rom 6:23

I know you have this notion of Biblical infallibility, but even so, these are the letters of one man's interpretation of Christianity, with no more real weight behind them than John Milton or Thomas More or C.S. Lewis other than that he (supposedly) knew Jesus personally.

One of my problems with your faith is that you claim that you feel some personal revelation that God exists, which I think is weird, but that's beside the point, and that you have this suppsedly personal relationship with him, but then you believe everything that everyone else has written. You're not just taking God on faith, you're taking on faith that every piece of literature written about it is also accurate, even when you know that the people involved were not divinely inspired. I can understand the first part, sort of, but I cannot begin to understand the second.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 16:39

Quote:
One of my problems with your faith is that you claim that you feel some personal revelation that God exists...and that you have this suppsedly personal relationship with him...


Therein lies the rub. There are many who don't understand the concept of personally knowing God. At the same time, the claims are unrefutable. After all, if a person came to me and claimed to talk to aliens, I don't have to believe him, but I can't prove otherwise either. But I'd better think twice when millions of people around the world start claiming that they have interaction with aliens. And I would think three times if many of these "fanatics" were willing to face mockery, persecution, and even death for their testimony. After all, not to many people would pay the ultimate price for a lie.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 17:51

I'm not refuting it. I personally think you're crazy, but that's my problem, not yours. My problem is that you claim to have this personal relationship, but then base it on everything everyone else -- everyone who's not a part of that relationship -- says. If you feel certain moral obligations, I can understand. If you want to argue that people shouldn't have abortions, fine. But basing it on a 2000 year old book of questionable authenticity seems silly from my point of view and doesn't seem to jibe with this personal relationship you supposedly have. Do you have a manual for how you and I interact? Was it written by someone you don't know?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:14

Quote:

you believe everything that everyone else has written. You're not just taking God on faith, you're taking on faith that every piece of literature written about it is also accurate, even when you know that the people involved were not divinely inspired.


And you´re taking on faith that every study and every theory on the big bang and evolution that you´ve read a summary of is accurate.

Quote:
But basing it on a 2000 year old book of questionable authenticity seems silly from my point of view and doesn't seem to jibe with this personal relationship you supposedly have.


I´m just curious - would his beliefs have more validity if he had them 2000 years ago when the book wasn´t so old? Does this mean your beliefs won´t be valid 2000 years from now? That last part is probably true. The beliefs of science constantly change and evolve over time, and it´s almost guaranteed that your current scientific beliefs will be disproven by new and improved theories sometime in the near future, but the beliefs of christianity have remained the same for almost 2000 years.
Posted by: jpt

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:30

Quote:
At the same time, the claims are unrefutable. After all, if a person came to me and claimed to talk to aliens, I don't have to believe him, but I can't prove otherwise either.

You've hit it on the head. When someone makes a claim that is by definition irrefutable, that statement is utterly worthless for demonstrating truth in either direction. Truly scientific claims make predictions that can be tested -- meaning that you can design a test for me to perform and pick a particular result from this test that, were it to occur, I would know your statement was false. For instance, I can't prove 100% that humans and chimpanzees descended from common ancestors, because I obviously wasn't there. But I do know that if someone were to discover a fossilized human skeleton in the same rock strata that contain trilobite fossils, that would prove quite conclusively that humans and chimpanzees did not descend from a common ancestor. The fact that there have been hundreds or thousands of experiments, many of which I could reproduce myself, and all of which could, but do not, disprove a particular hypothesis does serve to strengthen my suspicion that it is true.

By contrast, when some people propose "experiments" to test religious dogma, they come out something like "If X happens, God did it. But if Y happens, God did it. And if neither of those things happen, then, well... God did it!" This type of "experiment" can never provide any useful information, no matter how many times you do it.

Quote:
But I'd better think twice when millions of people around the world start claiming that they have interaction with aliens. And I would think three times if many of these "fanatics" were willing to face mockery, persecution, and even death for their testimony. After all, not to many people would pay the ultimate price for a lie.

Unfortunately, too many people would and do pay the ultimate price for lies. This "one hundred million deluded dupes can't all be wrong" type of argument is singularly unconvincing.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:39

Quote:
But I'd better think twice when millions of people around the world start claiming that they have interaction with aliens. And I would think three times if many of these "fanatics" were willing to face mockery, persecution, and even death for their testimony. After all, not to many people would pay the ultimate price for a lie.

Well, not quite around the world. You will notice that particular religions are rather geographically clustered, and that, for example, Christianity was spread through human effort of missionaries. I know of no traces of personal 'contact' with Christian God by pre-Columbus Americans. Religions appear, grow, spread through some region, stagnate, be supplanted by others, die. And they are, by their very nature, mutualy exclusive. So, the only logical explanation is that they are all (or, if we want to be logical nitpicks, all but possibly one) social artifacts in the first place.

I don't want to offend anyone, but this genuinelly puzzles me:

If one 'talks with God', one is usually categorised in one of three groups:
  • If the God in case is 'ours', the person in question is deeply religious
  • If it is some other established religion's God, especially one prevalent in countries we are at odds with at the moment, the guy is a religious fanatic or something similar
  • If nobody ever heard of the God in question, the chap has nice chances of ending up in a psychiatric institution

    And yet, I don't see any difference.

    So, the question for those believers who are ready to grant legitimacy to religions other than their own: doesn't the first Commadment require exclusivity (and other religions have someting similar)? For others: what makes your particular religion more, for lack of a better word, probable (or true) than others?
    • Posted by: jpt

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:40

    Quote:
    And you´re taking on faith that every study and every theory on the big bang and evolution that you´ve read a summary of is accurate.

    Actually, you can reproduce a number of the simpler ones yourself with telescopes (for cosmology) or petri dishes and jelly jars (for evolution). Don't knock evolution till you've seen it in action over a few generations of fruit flies.

    Quote:
    I´m just curious - would his beliefs have more validity if he had them 2000 years ago when the book wasn´t so old? Does this mean your beliefs won´t be valid 2000 years from now? That last part is probably true. The beliefs of science constantly change and evolve over time, and it´s almost guaranteed that your current scientific beliefs will be disproven by new and improved theories sometime in the near future, but the beliefs of christianity have remained the same for almost 2000 years.

    This is a strength of science and a weakness of religion, despite your attempt to cast it in the opposite light. Even twenty, let alone two thousand, years without progress in any other field would be considered laughably pathetic. I doubt you can name a single piece of 2000-year-old technology you use in your daily life (nope, not even the food you eat is grown anything like the same way -- if it were, we'd all starve). But you still cling to the same outmoded fairy tale book like it's the only thing that matters. Perhaps the only reason religious beliefs could survive so long at all is because they're almost completely irrelevant.

    Bonus trivia question: how many years after the death of Jesus the Nazarene did the doctrine of his divinity become generally accepted?

    Super Double Bonus trivia question: When was the town of Nazareth founded, and by whom?
    Posted by: DWallach

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:45

    Do not feed the troll...
    Posted by: jpt

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:45

    Quote:
    So, the question for those believers who are ready to grant legitimacy to religions other than their own: doesn't the first Commadment require exclusivity (and other religions have someting similar)?

    I'm an atheist but I can still answer this question. In Exodus, the commandments were given specifically to the Jews. There were other laws meant for non-Jews that were less stringent.
    Posted by: jpt

    Question - 15/11/2005 20:51

    How prevalent are creationism and related anti-science in Europe and other civilized parts of the world? My only personal experience is in America and Israel (the Jewish universities generally take extremely liberal interpretations of the bible in order to reconcile it with the science they teach).
    Posted by: jpt

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:52

    Quote:
    Do not feed the troll...

    Hey, i bought my empeg last week (thanks Dylan!), my post count will go up soon enough.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 20:53

    Quote:
    I'm an atheist but I can still answer this question. In Exodus, the commandments were given specifically to the Jews. There were other laws meant for non-Jews that were less stringent.

    Hm, yeah, 'chosen people' and all that. But does that mean that Jahve was willing to coexist with other peoples' gods?
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 21:24

    Quote:
    Do not feed the troll...


    So when someone says something you don´t agree with, they´re a troll? Aren´t trolls just people who call names instead of discussing the topic at hand?

    If you read my posts, I´m quite clearly discussing the topic. You on the other hand have resorted to childish name-calling.
    Posted by: Ezekiel

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 21:27

    Quote:
    a single piece of 2000-year-old technology you use in your daily life


    The fire in my furnace that keeps my butt warm all night.
    The woven fibers in all my cloth products.
    The leather in my belt that holds my pants up.
    All those lovely fermented beverages.
    The water that comes out of my tap delived by plumbing & pipes.
    The walls and roof structure that keep the rain off.
    The wheels on my car that make it roll better.
    The improved road surfaces I used to roll on.
    The glass that lets the light through my walls.
    The gold ring on my finger.


    Some ideas are just classics.

    [/wiseass mode]

    Not commenting either way on your position. Just sniping off a few low flyers...I couldn't resist.

    -Zeke
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 21:39

    Quote:

    Don't knock evolution till you've seen it in action over a few generations of fruit flies.


    I´m not saying I believe evolution is nonsense. I´m just saying that no matter what you believe about our existence, it´s based on faith. Even if I see something with my own eyes, I still have to put faith in my ability to perceive. Have you ever tried LSD?


    Quote:
    But you still cling to the same outmoded fairy tale book like it's the only thing that matters.

    Science is amazing, and I love to study it. But religion is something different, something you feel in your soul, not something you can study with a magnifying glass. Don´t cling on to the latest scientific study like it´s the only thing that matters.



    Quote:
    Bonus trivia question: how many years after the death of Jesus the Nazarene did the doctrine of his divinity become generally accepted?
    Super Double Bonus trivia question: When was the town of Nazareth founded, and by whom?

    Let me guess, you read the answers in some ancient, outmoded fairy tale book?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 21:52

    Fire: Not technology. The methods of producing it: technology. I don't even think that furnaces existed 2000 years ago, much less any of the common methods we use to fire furnaces in the 21st century.

    Woven fibers: The fibers themselves are not technology. You might be able to claim that the cloth itself is, but I don't see many people making cloth on handheld looms any more. Certainly the methods for cloth production have improved.

    Leather: Not a technology. Again, the process of refining it might be, but, again, many improvements have been made in that arena, from mass production to tanning agents, to aniline dyes.

    Fermented beverages: This seems like it ought to be your closest contender, but it's probably further away than lots of your other ones, as the fermented beverages available 2000 years ago were wildly different than those we drink now, even wine. If you narrowed it down to 1000 years ago, you might be a lot closer.

    Water: Not technology, again, but that plumbing sure was a godsend. Er, I mean massive technological improvement.

    Walls and roof: I suppose the concepts remain the same, that living in a box is helpful, but there are certainly a variety of new technologies beyond what was available 2000 years ago. Many people choose adobe, though.

    Wheels: Again, concept, but I don't think they had tubeless belted radials back then.

    Improved road surfaces: I don't know. Did asphalt and concrete exist 2000 years ago? Reflective paint definitely didn't.

    Glass: Massive improvements in the last 100 years obviously invalidate this, from production methods, to improved doping chemicals (read: Pyrex).

    Gold ring: You got me on this one. My ring turns me no more invisible than the ring of 2000 years ago would have.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 21:54

    Quote:
    But religion is something different, something you feel in your soul

    I shouldn't be responding, but:

    No. You're wrong. I feel nothing of the sort in my soul. I don't even have any notion that I have a soul.
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 22:07

    Quote:
    Quote:
    But religion is something different, something you feel in your soul

    I shouldn't be responding, but:

    No. You're wrong. I feel nothing of the sort in my soul. I don't even have any notion that I have a soul.


    Then what is the point of living? Can´t you for just one moment consider that there might be a reason that we´re all here?
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 22:12

    There is absolutely no scientific evidence that there is intelligent life outside of the planet earth. Yet almost any scientist and any person will entertain the idea that there could be life out there. Why be so adamant about not considering that there could be a higher reason to your existence?

    I´m not saying sell your house and devote your life to african missionary trips. Just be open-minded and consider the possibilities. Why do some people refuse to give it any thought? Are you afraid you´ll become a believer?

    People find the possibility of aliens existing a fascinating subject. Wouldn´t it be amazing if it turns out they really did build the pyramids in Egypt? Why isn´t there the same fascination about the possible existence of God? Instead, many people get embarrased, scared, offended, or angry.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 15/11/2005 23:42

    Quote:
    One of my problems with your faith is that you claim that you feel some personal revelation that God exists, which I think is weird, but that's beside the point, and that you have this suppsedly personal relationship with him, but then you believe everything that everyone else has written. You're not just taking God on faith, you're taking on faith that every piece of literature written about it is also accurate, even when you know that the people involved were not divinely inspired. I can understand the first part, sort of, but I cannot begin to understand the second.
    I don't believe that every piece of literature written about God is accurate, only those pieces canonized in the Bible. It was not a simple process and there was specific criteria by which the books were chosen. There is plenty of material available on how the canonization process took place, if you are interested. Safe to say, there were a lot of people with a lot of different motives, but ultimately I (and other Christians like me) believe that God worked in this process to give us His inspired Word. And while the authors themselves were fallable, we believe that God worked through those individuals to give us the Bible so that we may know Him better.

    I believe the heart of your question is that if I have a personal relationship with God, why do I need further information beyond my personal experience? The answer is that I am a sinful human whose interpretation of experience is very fallable. It is not safe to rely on experience alone, as experience is more easily twisted than scripture to mean whatever we want it to mean. And not all experiences are from God, either. It is true that the scripture can be twisted, but it is still much more objective than the subjective experiences of a believer. Thus, anything I experience I must test against scripture, which I believe is God's absolute rule of faith to guide me. Of course, my interpretation of scripture is equally fallable, but that is why there is a community of believers to help guide one another in doctrine and belief.

    One of the HUGE differences between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestents believe that scripture is the absolute rule of faith by which everything must be tested while Catholics believe that the scripture and church are equal. This what was know as the "formal cause" of the reformation (the "material cause" being the issue of salvation by faith alone). The Protestant view is that both humans and the church itself are corruptable, but that the Bible is not.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:11

    Quote:
    If one 'talks with God', one is usually categorised in one of three groups:
    # If the God in case is 'ours', the person in question is deeply religious
    # If it is some other established religion's God, especially one prevalent in countries we are at odds with at the moment, the guy is a religious fanatic or something similar
    # If nobody ever heard of the God in question, the chap has nice chances of ending up in a psychiatric institution

    And yet, I don't see any difference.
    There is no difference, except between those who are right and those who are wrong. Between two people of differening faiths, either one of them is right or neither are. Both cannot be, though it is nice to think so (and often accepting both contrasting views as right gets labled as "tolerant"- a misuse of the word I think).

    Of course, there are religions that accept other faiths as true. Like Mormanism, sort of. I once talked at length to a Morman coworker and he was convinced that we both could be right because I was very sincere. In their view as long as you are a good person and did good things, you are pleasing to God. This is a point of view where both can be right- of course since Christ claimed exclucivity, it doesn't work the other way around.

    As far as "religious fanatics" go, it's a label and you're right that it gets applied differently depending on the beliefs of the labeler. Those "fanatics" who go around killing people in the name of their religion are not fanatics to those who share their beliefs. Understanding that, however, will not stop me from defending myself and my loved ones if a person's faith demands violence.

    Quote:
    what makes your particular religion more, for lack of a better word, probable (or true) than others?
    Because it IS true, whether I can prove it to others or not. My life experience, my reading of the Bible, and my examination of the claims of other faiths all tell me the Christianity is true. Of every teaching I've encountered, the notion that man is fallen and need of redemption rings truer to me than any other philosophy, and as I've walked in Christ's footsteps this has been confirmed over and over.

    If you're after scientific proof (or any other kind, for that matter), I can't offer any. But just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true. My testimony is that Christ has transformed me and is continuing to do so every day that I'm on this earth. If my testimony is not compelling, you are convinced in your heart that you are not a sinner and that you have no need of redemption, or if you read through the Bible and it doesn't ring true to you, then I have very little to offer.

    But truth is not dependent on anything we do, including our ability to prove or even understand it.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:19

    Quote:
    Quote:
    I'm an atheist but I can still answer this question. In Exodus, the commandments were given specifically to the Jews. There were other laws meant for non-Jews that were less stringent.

    Hm, yeah, 'chosen people' and all that. But does that mean that Jahve was willing to coexist with other peoples' gods?
    This question is exactly on target. While the OT law was given to God's chosen people (and therfore does not apply in the new covenent ushered in by Jesus Christ), there are aspects about God which have not changed. It is not likely that God suddenly became ok with worshiping of other gods; thus, we may take it as a principle that God does not want us worshiping other gods. For other pieces of the law, such as weaving two threads of different colors together, we are not bound to follow because it does not pertain to the character of God (though the symbolism of setting one's self apart is still very real in the believer's life).
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:21

    Why must there be a point? Is there a point to the wind blowing, or the Earth orbiting? It is your desire for there to be a point that created your God (and every God) in the first place.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:26

    I'm not sure why you're asking yourself these questions, other than it tends to support my theory that you're all schizophrenic to begin with, but I'll intervene and answer them for you.

    There might be a God. I won't deny it. I have no way to know what exists outside our universe, or if there is an "outside our universe". At the same time, living my life based around a book claiming to know something about the unknowable seems particularly absurd. I base my life on what I can see and feel, not on the hopes of pleasing a "person" for whom there is no evidence of existance.

    Same can be said of extraterrestrial beings, though many fewer people base their lives around little green men.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:29

    Well, actually, Mormons believe that you have to have a password to get into Heaven, so they're probably not going to be seeing you there. Unfortunately, you have to pay up in order to get your password, so they won't be seeing a lot of their own, either.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:31

    Not being well versed in Morman theology, I'll trust you on that one. However, my understanding is that they have seperate levels of "Heaven" and you have to be truly awful not to make it into the lowest one.
    Posted by: larry818

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:36

    Quote:
    Fire: Not technology. The methods of producing it: technology. I don't even think that furnaces existed 2000 years ago, much less any of the common methods we use to fire furnaces in the 21st century.


    The Ancient Engineers

    I highly recommend reading this book. It's amazing how far back some of the technology goes. There was a developer from around 2,000 years back that converted houses to central heat for profit.

    Quote:
    Improved road surfaces: I don't know. Did asphalt and concrete exist 2000 years ago? Reflective paint definitely didn't.


    The Colosseum is made of concrete and nearly 2,000 years old. Most of ancient Rome was made of concrete. Many of the roads built by the Romans are still in use. The book linked above has the specs they used.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:39

    That's pretty snazzy stuff. That said, the notion that none of those things have seen improvement in 2000 years is untrue. The fact that some of them are still being used and the fact that some things we think of as inventions of the last hundred years are pretty remarkable though.
    Posted by: jpt

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 00:47

    Zeke: I was going to answer all of those, but Bitt beat me to it Your (possibly unintentional) point -- that we seldom throw out ideas altogether, though they do experience substantial revision as we build on our knowledge -- is taken, but it doesn't invalidate mine.

    Quote:
    (in response to my trivia questions) Let me guess, you read the answers in some ancient, outmoded fairy tale book?

    Nope. You won't find the answer to either in the bible. But you will on the internet. Right here on the internet, if you give me a minute.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    No. You're wrong. I feel nothing of the sort in my soul. I don't even have any notion that I have a soul.

    Then what is the point of living? Can´t you for just one moment consider that there might be a reason that we´re all here?

    Who cares why? Stop worrying so much! We're here, so let's enjoy it and dedicate outselves to making life (for everyone) better! And anyway, how could the answer "I'm here because something I can't interact with nor understand put me here" be satisfying?

    Quote:
    There is absolutely no scientific evidence that there is intelligent life outside of the planet earth. Yet almost any scientist and any person will entertain the idea that there could be life out there. Why be so adamant about not considering that there could be a higher reason to your existence?

    If there are aliens, there aren't any close enough to matter (i.e. to communicate with us in my lifetime), so I don't let the possibility affect my life. In this respect, my views on extraterrestrials are roughly equivalent to my views on gods. However, gods are even less meaningful, because by their very definition they can *never* have a measurable impact on my life. Essentially, even if gods do exist, for practical purposes, they don't.

    Quote:
    People find the possibility of aliens existing a fascinating subject.

    Not really, at least not as anything more than fodder for decent science fiction. And the only reason it's even good for science fiction is that in stories, the aliens are actually there and can interact with the story, giving them the same appeal as unicorns, gnomes, Morlocks, or any other kind of fantastic character. Even as a hypothetical fantasy story, a god who can't be seen, never takes observable action of any kind, and doesn't talk to any of the main characters just doesn't have gripping power.

    Quote:
    The Protestant view is that both humans and the church itself are corruptable, but that the Bible is not.

    What about translations of the bible, by the way? I'm guessing here that you probably don't read Greek, and even the Greek texts were translations of older texts that have not been preserved. What if something super important got left out or mangled?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 01:18

    Yeah. What if "amen" actually means "sucker!"?
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 01:23

    Quote:
    What about translations of the bible, by the way? I'm guessing here that you probably don't read Greek, and even the Greek texts were translations of older texts that have not been preserved. What if something super important got left out or mangled?
    I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread that translations are not considered infallible, only the origional text. The super important stuff is not isolated to only one or two passages, though, so we can be fairly certain that they are accurate.

    But even at that, the Bible has been remarkably preserved with many early copies still in existence that can be studied today. Even where there are discrepencies, there are enough copies to determine with a high reliability what the origional text said and the discrepencies alter no doctrine significanly (things like "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"). There are two passages that are not found in the earliest texts we have, and both of these are almost always noted in the translations.

    Of course, any time you read a translation you need to be aware of how that translation was done- some types of translations are better suited to specific purposes than others. For instance, the some translations attempt to translate sentences and concepts, reordering words to make the meaning more clear, where others try to be more literal and translate word for word. With the former you are depending on the interpretation of the translator to some extent, but they can be easier to understand than the latter.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 01:28

    Completely off topic, why is it that you always misspell "original" as "origional"? Is it just one of those confused finger things?
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 02:40

    Quote:
    Completely off topic, why is it that you always misspell "original" as "origional"? Is it just one of those confused finger things?
    Must be- I guess there's something about the "o" and "i" together at the beginning of the word that my fingers expect them to go together at the end. I just tried typing it a couple times and it came out wrong every time. Guess I need to slow down a bit (and install a spellchecker).

    For homework:
    original
    original
    original
    original
    original

    Perhaps I will get it from now on!
    Posted by: tanstaafl.

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 03:55

    Between two people of differening faiths, either one of them is right or neither are. Both cannot be,


    I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"

    "Why shouldn't I?" he said.

    I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

    He said, "Like what?"

    I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

    He said, "Religious."

    I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

    He said, "Christian."

    I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

    He said, "Protestant."

    I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

    He said, "Baptist!"

    I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

    He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

    I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

    He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

    I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?

    "He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

    So I said, "Die, you Godless heretic", and pushed him off the bridge.

    -- Emo Phillips





    tanstaafl.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 05:55

    But what makes you so sure that original texts were indeed God-inspired? I suppose, because they, as you said, 'ring true' to you. Having decided that, you use them to affirm your belief. A bit circular, isn't it?
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 06:21

    Quote:
    Between two people of differening faiths, either one of them is right or neither are.

    My point exactly. This was response to 'voting' argument for truth of religion(s): at most one of them can be true, and since I don't feel or see presence of any of their gods, the fact that there is a number of them with many adherents cary no weight with me, and can only assume none of them is true.

    Quote:
    Understanding that, however, will not stop me from defending myself and my loved ones if a person's faith demands violence.

    I was not talking about violence, and I think there is hardly any religion, however peaceful and tolerant, that has been entirely free of violence being commited in its name.

    Quote:
    ...you are convinced in your heart that you are not a sinner and that you have no need of redemption...

    I am far from being as good a person I wish to be (and probably from being what I imagine I am), but my 'sins' are against other human beings, and when I need redemption or forgiveness, it is from them.

    Quote:
    Because it IS true, whether I can prove it to others or not.
    [...]
    But truth is not dependent on anything we do, including our ability to prove or even understand it.

    I understand you feel this. I hope you can, on the other hand, see why it looks completely absurd to me, and why it depresses me to see perfectly nice people base their existence on what I see as utter nonsense.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 06:32

    Quote:
    I hope you can, on the other hand, see why it looks completely absurd to me, and why it depresses me to see perfectly nice people base their existence on what I see as utter nonsense.
    I do understand that faith looks like foolishness to you; however, I do not see why it would depress you. Frustrate, perhaps, since it creates an impass over certain political issues. That is frustrating to me at least. But depressing I don't see. From your perspective, it seems the worst thing is that I believe in a lie that makes me happy- and if there is no God (or anything else beyond us and this life) then none of what we do ends up being of real consequence anyway, so whatever makes us happy, lie or not, is good enough.
    Posted by: canuckInOR

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 06:34

    Quote:
    Quote:
    what makes your particular religion more, for lack of a better word, probable (or true) than others?
    Because it IS true, whether I can prove it to others or not. My life experience, my reading of the Bible, and my examination of the claims of other faiths all tell me the Christianity is true. Of every teaching I've encountered, the notion that man is fallen and need of redemption rings truer to me than any other philosophy, and as I've walked in Christ's footsteps this has been confirmed over and over.

    If you're after scientific proof (or any other kind, for that matter), I can't offer any. But just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true.

    Have you heard the expression "calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so?"

    Just because you think it's true, doesn't make it true. It may be true, but then, it may not be.

    Every time I've been to Florida, it was raining. Therefore, based on my experience, it is true that it is constantly raining in Florida.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 06:51

    Quote:
    But what makes you so sure that original texts were indeed God-inspired? I suppose, because they, as you said, 'ring true' to you. Having decided that, you use them to affirm your belief. A bit circular, isn't it?
    It's a building process. I didn't just decide one day that the Bible was true and infallible and there you go. I'd been brought up with a certain form of Christiantiy and that got me interested in religion in general. The church I was attending used the scriptures but didn't appear to consider them infallible, which was alright with me at the time. I got the basic concept of needing redemption for sin and trusting Christ and that, above all things, made real sense to me. I did look at other religions and their teachings, but if they had teaching about redemption, it was about earning it through good works and keeping to strict rules, which Christiantiy argues falls short of appeasing a perfect and holy God. The argument of Christianity won out and so Christiantiy is what I chose. Once again, at this time I'd not have said the Bible was infallible. This was the way I was raised (I was also raised Pro-Choice, btw).

    My parents were always very supportive of me choosing my own faith, however, and as soon as I was old enough to drive they let me choose whatever church I wanted. Initially, the first church I attended on my own was much more liberal in its interpretation of the Bible and doctrine than the one I grew up in. However, as I grew into my faith, and studied things for myself, my beliefs began to form differently than the church I was attending and my trust in the scriptures grew as well. I read things like the book of Daniel, which is very compelling prophecy that predicits historically verifiable events with amazing clarity. I left that church to find a more conservative church of like minded individuals. I found that these Christians believed that the Bible was infallible and they adressed a lot of my concerns about various so-called contradictions. Utlimately, I came to believe that the scripture was more reliable than my own experience, which tended to be swayed by emotions without accountability. I accepted the Bible as the infallible rule of faith that God had given us to know Him better and to guide our lives.

    That is my particular story and how I came to believe what I do. Certainly it is a different process than what some of the other Christians here went through, but it's about the best way I know to answer your question. It doesn't seem circular to me, but more of a process of spiritual growth.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 07:02

    Quote:
    Just because you think it's true, doesn't make it true. It may be true, but then, it may not be.
    Yes, I understand this, of course. Belief does not make truth and truth is what it is irrespective of our belief. But I believe that Christiantiy is true, so it makes sense for me to claim that it is true. I also believe that I am a living, breathing human being and not a computer simulation (or a trapped Thetan)- just believing it doesn't make this true either. We do our best to line our beliefs up with what we preceive to be true and then act according to how certain we are. I'm as certain as I can be about faith in Christ- there are other beliefs I have that I am less certain about.

    Quote:
    Every time I've been to Florida, it was raining. Therefore, based on my experience, it is true that it is constantly raining in Florida.
    But a little research would tell you differently, wouldn't it? I have not based my belief in Christ on only a few experiences but upon years of studying theology and considering alternatives in addition to personal experience.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 07:09

    I should also note to my overall personal spiritual journey that my father was an Athiest, so that was a certain influence on how I looked at religion. My mother was the primary spiritual force in my life and it turns out that she and I have very different outlooks on faith.
    Posted by: Cybjorg

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 07:26

    Quote:

    So I said, "Die, you Godless heretic", and pushed him off the bridge.


    Unfortunately, this rings far too true.
    Posted by: peter

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 11:28

    Quote:
    I do understand that faith looks like foolishness to you; however, I do not see why it would depress you. Frustrate, perhaps, since it creates an impass over certain political issues. That is frustrating to me at least. But depressing I don't see. From your perspective, it seems the worst thing is that I believe in a lie that makes me happy

    It's not your happiness that's depressing -- far from it. (It's not usually productive or helpful to tell someone their anti-depressant is a placebo, even if it is one.) It's the way that followers of your faith desire things that would cause other people unhappiness -- gays, the unwantedly-pregnant, the unmonogamous at risk from cervical cancer -- that is depressing. And the reason for that is that, while it's depressing enough that there are criminals and so on in the world who are deliberately causing unhappiness, it's more depressing that there are people who believe they're doing good who are also causing unhappiness.

    Quote:
    and if there is no God (or anything else beyond us and this life) then none of what we do ends up being of real consequence anyway

    No, and IMO nor should it. From my point of view, it's a positive thing that overall human happiness in this life is the only real consequence and highest goal of our actions.

    Peter
    Posted by: Ezekiel

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 12:33

    Bitt - wayyyy too much thought on a troll post!

    However, since you put in so much careful thought, I must rebut. I submit to you that my thoughts were under the third, anthropological, definition of technology.

    tech·nol·o·gy
    Pronunciation Key (tk-nl-j)
    n. pl. tech·nol·o·gies

    1.
    _______1. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
    _______2. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
    2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.
    3. Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

    That said, I cede the point that almost every item on my list has seen vast improvement over the past two millenia.

    My point is that the really good ideas have staying power.

    -Zeke
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 13:11

    Quote:
    at most one of them can be true

    Actually, I don't know that that's true. If you allow for the fungibility of each God lying a little bit to his constituents, or, perhaps more likely, the constituents lying to themselves, about things like who created the Universe (Yahweh: "Yeah, Vishnu helped, but it was my idea, and really he just made suggestions"), I don't see any reason that there can't be multiple Gods. Christians can be assumed by their God, Hindus can be reincarnated by theirs, Buddhists can, well, there's no Buddhist god, so uh, become gods themselves (?), Confucians can join their ancestors, Muslims can find their 50 virgins (do Muslim women get 50 boytoys?), and so on and so forth.
    Posted by: DWallach

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 16:00

    Gratuitous thread hijacking...

    Quote:
    The Ancient Engineers

    I highly recommend reading this book. It's amazing how far back some of the technology goes. There was a developer from around 2,000 years back that converted houses to central heat for profit.

    A friend of mine had the theory that the Romans were perilously close to having the industrial revolution. For example, they had virtually all of the ingredients necessary to have water-powered machinery: they could move water around through aquaducts, they had wheels and other assorted parts, and they had basic metallurgy (mostly for military applications, I suppose). The question is whether they had (a) the financial and legal framework, much less political stability, for such businesses to come to fruition, and (b) whether there was any need for mechanized labor when they had perfectly functional slave labor, instead.

    At a talk given here by James Burke several years ago, I ask his opinion of this theory in the crush surrounding him after his talk was over. He felt the Romans were nowhere near the industrial revolution for some of the reasons above. Thoughts?
    Posted by: tfabris

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 17:58

    I'm staying out of this discussion, but I did want to say this:

    Jeff, I just want to say how cool it is to watch you steadfastly and intelligently defend your faith.
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 18:21

    Thanks, Tony. That means a lot to me.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 21:13

    Well, (in my view, of course) I see an intelligent, good person spend considerable time and effort only to acquire an absurd worldview, complete with eternal guilt for nothing in particular. That this worldview leads to irrational, harmful political decisions only adds insult to injury. Isn't that enough to feel depressed?

    I won't torture you any more, Jeff (for now ). Thank you once more for your patience and effort. Your careful, sincere arguments are again good food for thought, if not in deciding one's belief system, then for getting more glimpses of curious ways human mind works.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: My take... - 16/11/2005 21:33

    Quote:
    A friend of mine had the theory that the Romans were perilously close to having the industrial revolution. For example, they had virtually all of the ingredients necessary to have water-powered machinery: they could move water around through aquaducts, they had wheels and other assorted parts, and they had basic metallurgy (mostly for military applications, I suppose). The question is whether they had (a) the financial and legal framework, much less political stability, for such businesses to come to fruition, and (b) whether there was any need for mechanized labor when they had perfectly functional slave labor, instead.

    Marxist political economy would say clearly (b), but I think it's both.

    BTW, from purely technoogical and scientific side, Greeks were also close (see, for example, Heron of Alexandria for his steam engine precusors or Antikythera Machanism for an elaborate astronomical analog computer). But again, there was no need for widespread use of any of that in their economy.

    BTW, I seem to remember reading an entertainong piece of SF where Romans invented bicycle and discovered America.
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: My take... - 17/11/2005 02:05

    Quote:
    Quote:
    A friend of mine had the theory that the Romans were perilously close to having the industrial revolution. For example, they had virtually all of the ingredients necessary to have water-powered machinery: they could move water around through aquaducts, they had wheels and other assorted parts, and they had basic metallurgy (mostly for military applications, I suppose). The question is whether they had (a) the financial and legal framework, much less political stability, for such businesses to come to fruition, and (b) whether there was any need for mechanized labor when they had perfectly functional slave labor, instead.

    Marxist political economy would say clearly (b), but I think it's both.

    BTW, from purely technoogical and scientific side, Greeks were also close (see, for example, Heron of Alexandria for his steam engine precusors or Antikythera Machanism for an elaborate astronomical analog computer). But again, there was no need for widespread use of any of that in their economy.

    BTW, I seem to remember reading an entertainong piece of SF where Romans invented bicycle and discovered America.


    My theory is that the US was the first modern, stable democracy with a free capitalistic economy, and that spurred the industrial revolution. Individuals had a lot to gain by inventing something new and spiffy, so that helped advace technology more rapidly.

    Of course technology advanced in Europe at the same time, so who knows.
    Posted by: andy

    Re: My take... - 17/11/2005 06:13

    Quote:

    My theory is that the US was the first modern, stable democracy with a free capitalistic economy, and that spurred the industrial revolution. Individuals had a lot to gain by inventing something new and spiffy, so that helped advace technology more rapidly.

    Of course technology advanced in Europe at the same time, so who knows.


    I think you'll find that Europe had a bit of a head start on the US during the industrial revolution, when the industrial revolution started in Europe the US was being used largely as a source of raw materials.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution

    The US didn't gain independance until part way through the industrial revolution. I'm guessing that they didn't have democracy under British rule ?
    Posted by: Ezekiel

    Re: My take... - 17/11/2005 11:37

    Quote:
    the US was being used largely as a source of raw materials.


    ...until Samuel Slater stole the designs for the textile equipment from the British, that is!

    American Heritage article on it for reference.

    -Zeke
    Posted by: larry818

    Re: My take... - 17/11/2005 15:01

    Quote:
    My theory is that the US was the first modern, stable democracy with a free capitalistic economy, and that spurred the industrial revolution.


    According to James Burke, who is never wrong, the industrial revolution started in Britain's empire expansion period when there was need to build gobs of sailing ships, and it was easier to make them all of production parts than hand crafting each one.
    Posted by: larry818

    Re: My take... - 17/11/2005 15:23

    Quote:
    That's pretty snazzy stuff. That said, the notion that none of those things have seen improvement in 2000 years is untrue. The fact that some of them are still being used and the fact that some things we think of as inventions of the last hundred years are pretty remarkable though.


    I never meant to imply that no improvement has happened in 2000 years, just to point out that some of technology goes back quite far.

    It surprises me that the Chinese never had an industrial revolution. In Europe's heyday of big sailing ships, China had ships three times bigger than anything out of Europe. All hand made.

    To get slightly back on topic...

    I notice there's some discussion about the behaviour of "religions" in general. It seems that "religions" here mean Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

    From living in Asia for a few years, I was amazed at the non-exclusivity of the Big Three (Buddhist, Daoist, Confucianism). Each tend to adopt elements of the other. Also, none of them started out as religions, just philosophies. Folks, all of whom seem to need religions, turned them into religions.

    I'm happy that FSM came along. Finally, a religion I can sink my teeth into.
    Posted by: DWallach

    Re: My take... - 17/11/2005 16:25

    Quote:
    I'm happy that FSM came along. Finally, a religion I can sink my teeth into.

    Brother, I think you need some slack.
    Posted by: Dignan

    Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 18/11/2005 13:16

    Sorry for jumping into this thread. I haven't read most of the thread, and I tried to make sure this wasn't posted yet, but I just wanted to post this article. Normally I'd never agree with this guy, but I agree with this article on every point.

    But I also echo Tony's comment, Jeff, and I'm happy we can have such civilized , intelligent debate here.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 18/11/2005 14:01

    I also agree 100%.
    Posted by: Dylan

    Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 18/11/2005 17:23

    Quote:
    but I just wanted to post this article. Normally I'd never agree with this guy, but I agree with this article on every point.


    Me too. I thought it would be a cold day in hell when I agreed with Krauthammer.

    While we're on the topic, Grand Old Spenders is another recent op-ed in the Post from a conservative (George Will) that I agree with. It reminded me that I might actually vote Republican if the word "conservative" these days meant fiscal and not social.

    Edit: corrected author
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 18/11/2005 17:32

    It's George Will, not Buckley, but that's pretty much six of one, half a dozen of the other. Well, it used to be. Will's been more reactionary and party-line-y over the last few years than he used to be, but still more old-school conservative than most.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: I support* Intelligent Design, let's fight. *kind of - 18/11/2005 17:41

    Agreed on both points