| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2005 09:40:36 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Question |
"Simon_24-7" <Simon_24-7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128603547.538676.288700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How many people here believe in God but also hold to evolutionary
theories of creation (sometimes called theistic evolution)?
I have been a bit frustrated on reading this forum at the way people
seem to be using Dawkins' dichotomy and labeling evolution as
incompatible with religious belief - an argument being used by both
atheists and fundies.
I'm afraid people are going to have to face the fact that it is *completely
gratuitous* for scientists and others corrupted by religious 'faith' to take
a tenable naturalistic explanation of something and then to 'paint around
it' an entirely non-empirical supernaturalistic system which is not merely
one arbitrarily chosen out of an infinite number of equivalently
metaphysical systems, but which is actually *not necessary for*, *not
included within*, and *not implied by the terms of* the naturalistic
explanation. It's worse than 'gratuitous', actually. It's *idiotic*.
And I really do mean 'idiotic'. If you told me you'd discovered how the
human liver works and I said, 'Well, yes; but it only works that way because
magic liver pixies make it do so, in ways that completely agree with the
impersonal, deterministic physico-chemical laws you've found', then you
would think I was an idiot. But when some fool comes up to you and says
'Evolution is really just the method used by the 'God of Abraham' to make
all the living beings we see...', then he gets away with it because of *the
deep penetration of ancient religious stupidity into out history and
culture*, and the fact that *we are all victims of attempts at religious
brainwashing that began at an immorally early age*. If neither of those
factors was causing people to carry around one or other infantile
superstition and anxiously search for something in the real world that they
can insert it into, then the urge to make up redundant metaphysical
non-explanations would be seen as the idiocy it is.
Scientists often conspire in this sordid stupidity, too: S. J. Gould's
notion of 'non-overlapping magisteria' - with 'science' and 'faith' each
being allowed dominion within 'its own sphere' - is an intellectual and
moral obscenity. Under the impact of historical as well as scientific
education, 'religion' is shrinking like a weenie in an ice-bucket, and
there's nothing admirable or even *honest* in a priestly racket that manages
to retain its crooked hold over people's minds and wallets by simply
shifting its goal-posts over to whatever areas science currently can't reach
into. The 'rump' of religion is getting smaller and smaller, and its
defenders more and more desperate. Let it, and them, pass away altogether.
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 11:53:22 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Simon_24-7" <Simon_24-7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128603547.538676.288700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How many people here believe in God but also hold to evolutionary
theories of creation (sometimes called theistic evolution)?
I have been a bit frustrated on reading this forum at the way people
seem to be using Dawkins' dichotomy and labeling evolution as
incompatible with religious belief - an argument being used by both
atheists and fundies.
I'm afraid people are going to have to face the fact that it is *completely
gratuitous* for scientists and others corrupted by religious 'faith' to take
a tenable naturalistic explanation of something and then to 'paint around
it' an entirely non-empirical supernaturalistic system which is not merely
one arbitrarily chosen out of an infinite number of equivalently
metaphysical systems, but which is actually *not necessary for*, *not
included within*, and *not implied by the terms of* the naturalistic
explanation. It's worse than 'gratuitous', actually. It's *idiotic*.
And I really do mean 'idiotic'. If you told me you'd discovered how the
human liver works and I said, 'Well, yes; but it only works that way because
magic liver pixies make it do so, in ways that completely agree with the
impersonal, deterministic physico-chemical laws you've found', then you
would think I was an idiot. But when some fool comes up to you and says
'Evolution is really just the method used by the 'God of Abraham' to make
all the living beings we see...', then he gets away with it because of *the
deep penetration of ancient religious stupidity into out history and
culture*, and the fact that *we are all victims of attempts at religious
brainwashing that began at an immorally early age*. If neither of those
factors was causing people to carry around one or other infantile
superstition and anxiously search for something in the real world that they
can insert it into, then the urge to make up redundant metaphysical
non-explanations would be seen as the idiocy it is.
Scientists often conspire in this sordid stupidity, too: S. J. Gould's
notion of 'non-overlapping magisteria' - with 'science' and 'faith' each
being allowed dominion within 'its own sphere' - is an intellectual and
moral obscenity. Under the impact of historical as well as scientific
education, 'religion' is shrinking like a weenie in an ice-bucket, and
there's nothing admirable or even *honest* in a priestly racket that manages
to retain its crooked hold over people's minds and wallets by simply
shifting its goal-posts over to whatever areas science currently can't reach
into. The 'rump' of religion is getting smaller and smaller, and its
defenders more and more desperate. Let it, and them, pass away altogether.
Katt.
If I believe in "magic liver pixies" and it does not harm others or
myself and iod I do not force my beliefs on others, why does it bother
you ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 01:49:45 PM |
|
|
<zawadzki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128617602.023463.86090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Simon_24-7" <Simon_24-7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128603547.538676.288700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How many people here believe in God but also hold to evolutionary
theories of creation (sometimes called theistic evolution)?
I have been a bit frustrated on reading this forum at the way people
seem to be using Dawkins' dichotomy and labeling evolution as
incompatible with religious belief - an argument being used by both
atheists and fundies.
I'm afraid people are going to have to face the fact that it is
*completely
gratuitous* for scientists and others corrupted by religious 'faith' to
take
a tenable naturalistic explanation of something and then to 'paint around
it' an entirely non-empirical supernaturalistic system which is not
merely
one arbitrarily chosen out of an infinite number of equivalently
metaphysical systems, but which is actually *not necessary for*, *not
included within*, and *not implied by the terms of* the naturalistic
explanation. It's worse than 'gratuitous', actually. It's *idiotic*.
And I really do mean 'idiotic'. If you told me you'd discovered how the
human liver works and I said, 'Well, yes; but it only works that way
because
magic liver pixies make it do so, in ways that completely agree with the
impersonal, deterministic physico-chemical laws you've found', then you
would think I was an idiot. But when some fool comes up to you and says
'Evolution is really just the method used by the 'God of Abraham' to make
all the living beings we see...', then he gets away with it because of
*the
deep penetration of ancient religious stupidity into out history and
culture*, and the fact that *we are all victims of attempts at religious
brainwashing that began at an immorally early age*. If neither of those
factors was causing people to carry around one or other infantile
superstition and anxiously search for something in the real world that
they
can insert it into, then the urge to make up redundant metaphysical
non-explanations would be seen as the idiocy it is.
Scientists often conspire in this sordid stupidity, too: S. J. Gould's
notion of 'non-overlapping magisteria' - with 'science' and 'faith' each
being allowed dominion within 'its own sphere' - is an intellectual and
moral obscenity. Under the impact of historical as well as scientific
education, 'religion' is shrinking like a weenie in an ice-bucket, and
there's nothing admirable or even *honest* in a priestly racket that
manages
to retain its crooked hold over people's minds and wallets by simply
shifting its goal-posts over to whatever areas science currently can't
reach
into. The 'rump' of religion is getting smaller and smaller, and its
defenders more and more desperate. Let it, and them, pass away
altogether.
Katt.
If I believe in "magic liver pixies" and it does not harm others or
myself and iod I do not force my beliefs on others, why does it bother
you ?
Where did she say you bother her???
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 12:03:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If I believe in "magic liver pixies" and it does not harm others or
myself and iod I do not force my beliefs on others, why does it bother
you ?
Speaking only for myself, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Note that organized religion has a poor track record on the
"not harm others" and "not force beliefs on others" metrics.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 12:23:50 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Simon_24-7" <Simon_24-7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128603547.538676.288700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How many people here believe in God but also hold to evolutionary
theories of creation (sometimes called theistic evolution)?
I have been a bit frustrated on reading this forum at the way people
seem to be using Dawkins' dichotomy and labeling evolution as
incompatible with religious belief - an argument being used by both
atheists and fundies.
I'm afraid people are going to have to face the fact that it is *completely
gratuitous* for scientists and others corrupted by religious 'faith' to take
a tenable naturalistic explanation of something and then to 'paint around
it' an entirely non-empirical supernaturalistic system which is not merely
one arbitrarily chosen out of an infinite number of equivalently
metaphysical systems, but which is actually *not necessary for*, *not
included within*, and *not implied by the terms of* the naturalistic
explanation. It's worse than 'gratuitous', actually. It's *idiotic*.
I'll admit gratuitous, but not idiotic. It might or might not be
idiotic for _you_ to adopt a religious belief, but no one else need
concern himself with your opinion, any more than your opinion of art,
music, or preferred literature.
And I really do mean 'idiotic'. If you told me you'd discovered how the
human liver works nd I said, 'Well, yes; but it only works that way because
magic liver pixies make it do so, in ways that completely agree with the
impersonal, deterministic physico-chemical laws you've found', then you
would think I was an idiot.
I think you need to calm down. That was a strawman argument.
But when some fool comes up to you and says
'Evolution is really just the method used by the 'God of Abraham' to make
all the living beings we see...', then he gets away with it because of *the
deep penetration of ancient religious stupidity into out history and
culture*, and the fact that *we are all victims of attempts at religious
brainwashing that began at an immorally early age*. If neither of those
factors was causing people to carry around one or other infantile
superstition and anxiously search for something in the real world that they
can insert it into, then the urge to make up redundant metaphysical
non-explanations would be seen as the idiocy it is.
So, you would rather the people who want to keep their religious belief
_and_ respect science should have to choose between them. Do you
realize that, in that case, many will choose religion? What is
genuinely idiotic and undeserving of any respect (and is also a form of
"stabbing science in the back") is someone such as yourself who is
supposedly "pro-science" but insists that anyone else _must_ convert to
atheism or you don't want them in your tent. If I thought any of them
(besides Glenn Sheldon) was smart enough, I'd think you were a
creationist Loki troll.
Scientists often conspire in this sordid stupidity, too: S. J. Gould's
notion of 'non-overlapping magisteria' - with 'science' and 'faith' each
being allowed dominion within 'its own sphere' - is an intellectual and
moral obscenity.
Well, why don't you just sit there with your arms crossed and pout.
Under the impact of historical as well as scientific
education, 'religion' is shrinking like a weenie in an ice-bucket, and
there's nothing admirable or even *honest* in a priestly racket that manages
to retain its crooked hold over people's minds and wallets by simply
shifting its goal-posts over to whatever areas science currently can't reach
into. The 'rump' of religion is getting smaller and smaller, and its
defenders more and more desperate. Let it, and them, pass away altogether.
You are very optimistic that the opposite won't occur, a takeover by
your fundamntalist equivalents insisting that one must pervert science
or one isn't a real Christian.
Katt.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Simon_24-7" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 12:59:23 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
I'm afraid people are going to have to face the fact that it is *completely
gratuitous* for scientists and others corrupted by religious 'faith' to take
a tenable naturalistic explanation of something and then to 'paint around
it' an entirely non-empirical supernaturalistic system which is not merely
one arbitrarily chosen out of an infinite number of equivalently
metaphysical systems, but which is actually *not necessary for*, *not
included within*, and *not implied by the terms of* the naturalistic
explanation. It's worse than 'gratuitous', actually. It's *idiotic*.
Glad to see we are talking to someone who has an inkling of theology.
Seems that you are unaware of quite how many eminent scientists are in
fact Christians, and indeed how many of us there are in professional
science who do not seem to encounter this problem of "corruption".
Incidently, from a more theological perspective the term 'creation'
refers not to a particular mechanism for explaining the origins of
biological diversity, but to the relationship between God and
everything that exists. As such when the Bible uses the word
'create' or 'form' or 'made' it is nearly always used to
refer to processes such as the creation of the people of Israel, or the
creation of the New Jerusalem, or the creation of new animals which
takes place during the normal process of animal birth, or even the
creation of light and darkness which God does every day. The modern
tendency to look for God "in the gaps" of our present knowledge is
quite alien to biblical thought. When God is pictured as answering Job
out of the storm whilst Job was struggling with the problem of evil
(Job chapter 38), it is to the whole gamut of God's creative activity
that he draws attention, not merely to big things like the 'laying of
Earth's foundations' (v 4) and organising the stars (v 31-33),
but also to its more mundane aspects like watering deserts (v 25-26),
frost-formation (v 29) and providing food for lions (v 39).
The concept of 'creation' is therefore not in any sense a rival to
the biological theory of evolution. Evolution can simply be viewed as
the mechanism that God has chosen to bring biological diversity into
being. The word 'creation' refers to the origin and source of that
process. The biblical concept of creation refers not to a description
of the particular mechanisms that God has chosen to bring biological
diversity into being, because creation is not a concept which refers to
mechanisms, but to God's immanent on-going creative relationship with
the whole universe, including its biological diversity. 'Creation'
is not therefore a scientific term at all and makes no pretence to be
so - rather it is a theological term expressing a prior belief about
God's actions, within which framework all of our scientific
observations and descriptions are then interpreted. (partly plagarised
from
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=193&TopicID=2&CategoryID=1
But when some fool comes up to you and says
'Evolution is really just the method used by the 'God of Abraham' to make
all the living beings we see...', then he gets away with it because of *the
deep penetration of ancient religious stupidity into out history and
culture*, and the fact that *we are all victims of attempts at religious
brainwashing that began at an immorally early age*. If neither of those
factors was causing people to carry around one or other infantile
superstition and anxiously search for something in the real world that they
can insert it into, then the urge to make up redundant metaphysical
non-explanations would be seen as the idiocy it is.
Do you think religion evolved? If so do you not think religion (and
especially the longer lasting varieties) confers some sort of
"selective" advantage? If so trying to discredit the purpose of
religion is almost one in the same as claiming that the eye evolved for
no purpose!!
Scientists often conspire in this sordid stupidity, too: S. J. Gould's
notion of 'non-overlapping magisteria' - with 'science' and 'faith' each
being allowed dominion within 'its own sphere' - is an intellectual and
moral obscenity.
I probably agree with this bit though. From a philosophical
perspective Science can only be done by people operating within a
metanarrative.
Simon
PS Incidently the official view of a group I am involved in (Christians
in Science) is that of "theistic evolution". If you are interested you
can read a letter that states our position quite well (regarding the
Emmanuel College issue) on the following website:
http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 08:17:06 PM |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2005 10:59:23 -0700, "Simon_24-7" <Simon_24-7@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
The concept of 'creation' is therefore not in any sense a rival to
the biological theory of evolution. Evolution can simply be viewed as
the mechanism that God has chosen to bring biological diversity into
being. The word 'creation' refers to the origin and source of that
process. The biblical concept of creation refers not to a description
of the particular mechanisms that God has chosen to bring biological
diversity into being, because creation is not a concept which refers to
mechanisms, but to God's immanent on-going creative relationship with
the whole universe, including its biological diversity. 'Creation'
is not therefore a scientific term at all and makes no pretence to be
so - rather it is a theological term expressing a prior belief about
God's actions, within which framework all of our scientific
observations and descriptions are then interpreted. (partly plagarised
from
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=193&TopicID=2&CategoryID=1
Arguably the greatest evolutionary biologist of the 20th Century was
Theodosius Dobzhansky. Here is his take on it, from an essay you may have
heard of, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of
Evolution":
It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive
alternatives. I am a creationist _and_ an evolutionist. Evolution
is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation. Creation is not an event
that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion
years ago and is still under way.
<http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm>
He did pretty well, despite being "idiotic".
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Do you think everyone should have a blog?
Here is the counter-evidence: <http://dododreams.blogspot.com/>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OldMan" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 06:51:41 PM |
|
|
Simon_24-7 wrote:
<snip>
PS Incidently the official view of a group I am involved in (Christians
in Science) is that of "theistic evolution". If you are interested you
can read a letter that states our position quite well (regarding the
Emmanuel College issue) on the following website:
http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm
Very interesting web site. Thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
06 Oct 2005 10:42:19 AM |
|
|
on 06 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Katt (katt@g.com) made the
light shine upon us with this:
And I really do mean 'idiotic'. If you told me you'd discovered how
the human liver works and I said, 'Well, yes; but it only works that
way because magic liver pixies make it do so, in ways that completely
agree with the impersonal, deterministic physico-chemical laws you've
found', then you would think I was an idiot.
Not if you convinced me that magic liver pixies can make you live forever,
apparently.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
