|
We interrupt this thread for a moment of levity.
People often talk about the battle between science and religion. Who's going to win? Well, surely that's obvious. Science will win; they're the side with the lasers!
We now return you to seriousness. Thank you for your time.
Dude, they might bust out that "Ark of the Covenant" thing. I'm sure the Pope has that thing under wraps waiting for the right moment to melt everyone's face!
|
What I was saying about belief in science being faith stands, not many of us have the knowledge to test these theories ourselves so we accept that they are true because we are told so.But, some of us do have the knowledge to test scientific theories.
None of us have the knowledge to test religious assertions.
That is the difference between reason and faith.
So because someone has faith they cannot also have reason? I know that I'm not the most eloquent writer, comes from having a 7.56mm round dug outta your skull, but let me try this again. You accept these things based off the belief that the test behind the logic are faultless. And they may be but I couldn't tell you one way or another, as for "proof" for me it was the day I held my baby in my arms when I should be by all rights dead.
So because someone has faith they cannot also have reason? I know that I'm not the most eloquent writer, comes from having a 7.56mm round dug outta your skull, but let me try this again. You accept these things based off the belief that the test behind the logic are faultless. And they may be but I couldn't tell you one way or another, as for "proof" for me it was the day I held my baby in my arms when I should be by all rights dead.
I accept some scientific theories, tentatively, because I can test them myself. I also see no reason why a God couldn't have set into motion all the laws of nature that I study. Things like the Earth being a LOT older than 6,000 years, or life evolving over time, I can test. I trust them to some extent, but am ready to modify them if I see things that don't fit.
God lies outside of my ability to test, but that's OK -- I kind of like it that way. I see no reason that a belief in God requires a disbelief in testable natural processes. Likewise, a rational understanding of the natural world doesn't in any way rule out the existence of a God. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Reason and observation on the one hand, vs. a belief in a young Earth on the other, ARE mutually exclusive, however.
Personal believes aside, I must admit I am intrigued to know what evidence you have experienced that convinces you of the absence of a soul. Death? Meditation? Bad Drug Trip?
Gah, no. What's convinced me? Science. I accept the existence of irrational ratios (the apparent oxymoron here is an artifact of the English language), which although they cannot physically exist in and of themselves (being infinite) do exert influence on on the physical world (viz the many reoccurances of pi and phi in nature).
If the soul is, as you say, immaterial, if it can be said to exist it must exert influence on physical reality, results that can be measured (much as pi can be approximated). I was going to ask if you can show such evidence, but first I have two questions to clarify your position before I continue:
1) Do physical actions affect the soul?
2) Is each person's soul unique?
|
|
Kirth
I get what your sayin' and I'm not disputing science. But certian things strike me as odd, and I know that this may come across the wrong way, one of the biggest being the theory of evolution.
What confuses(?) me the most is why did we evolve in such a way as to be inferior, physicly, to most other animals? And I know that the common answer would be "we have tools and technology".... but we didn't back then. So to me we kinda devolved, all our organs so exsposed to attack and no natural weapons to fight with. But this is only my opinion not an attempt to discredit anyone else's.
|
1) Do physical actions affect the soul?
2) Is each person's soul unique?
I would answer yes and yes to each of those. That being said, I do believe that the seen was made by the unseen and so accept that the spiritual can affect the material. This would be the point of miracles. They are manifestations of the spiritual interacting with the physical. I would guess where I think the fallacy of your reasoning lies is in thinking that these interactions can be forced by the material and thus measured.
While I believe that the physical act of lying, to use an example, affects the soul, I do not believe that this affect is measurable with instruments.
|
|
1) Do physical actions affect the soul?
2) Is each person's soul unique?
I would answer yes and yes to each of those. That being said, I do believe that the seen was made by the unseen and so accept that the spiritual can affect the material. This would be the point of miracles. They are manifestations of the spiritual interacting with the physical. I would guess where I think the fallacy of your reasoning lies is in thinking that these interactions can be forced by the material and thus measured.
While I believe that the physical act of lying, to use an example, affects the soul, I do not believe that this affect is measurable with instruments.
Now why me no talk good like da' bear? ;p
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So because someone has faith they cannot also have reason?
Not at all. But your assertion was that science is accepted as a matter of faith. It is not. It is verifiable and testable. You don't need to take my word (or anyone's word) that the Earth is round or that gravity causes things to fall at a certain speed. You can determine these things on your own and without reference to any published scientific text or discussions with any other human on the planet.
While I'm willing to entertain the idea that the existence of a creator may be be discernable from your own innate senses and natural processes, there is absolutely no way you could ever conclude that Jesus was the son of god without resort to the Bible or some other human's words. There is no physical record that he was the son of god, there is no way to learn of his teachings or his importance, there is absolutely no way you can accept that Jesus is the son of god without using faith. Reason does not play into it.
You accept these things based off the belief that the test behind the logic are faultless.
Not at all. I accept these things because they are consistent with my observations and, as far as I can tell, the observations of other humans who have considered such matters. I have not verified every single item I accept as a scientific fact, but I'm secure in that fact that I could if I were so inclined. It's not that the logic is faultless; it's that I can perform experiments on my own and draw my own conclusions. If they don't match the predictions provided by the experts, either I'm doing it wrong or they are wrong, and I can enter into a debate with them about my findings. At no point do I need to assume anything they say. Not only is it open for testing, they invite such testing.
And they may be but I couldn't tell you one way or another, as for "proof" for me it was the day I held my baby in my arms when I should be by all rights dead.
And, I can tell you that I turned someone into a bat by pointing at them and saying "OMG! You're a bat!" Since neither of us can test the assertion of the other, there isn't much we can do to reach any type of meaningful proof.
What confuses(?) me the most is why did we evolve in such a way as to be inferior, physicly, to most other animals?
That's a very fair question. Let's look at two very successful species: cockroaches (around for the last 300 million years or so, about 100 times longer than humans) and alligators (around for the last 200 million years or so). Humans I'm excluding for now because we haven't been around long enough to determine how successful we'll be in the long run, but we're more like cockroaches than we are like alligators.
Cockroaches are "physically inferior" to alligators in terms of size, strength, natural weapons, etc. But they can live almost anywhere, whereas alligators require warm, swampy areas. They can eat almost anything (including cardboard), whereas alligators require prey. And they breed a lot faster than rabbits. Alligators, for their environment, have the best armor, weapons, etc. Cockroaches don't rely on those things. Both are enormously successful species, but in terms of numbers, and in terms of how much longer they'll be around, the roaches will almost certainly outlast the 'gators.
Humans have large brains that pre-date our tool use, enabling us to solve problems and avoid relying on brute armament. We can live in a wide range of climates (not so wide as cockroaches, but much wider than alligators) -- and unlike both of those others, our bipedal frame enables us to migrate extreme distances to colonize new areas, or to flee inhospitable ones. We are omniviorous -- again, not to the extent of the roaches, but WAY more so than the alligators. We have a social instinct that both of those others lack -- and pack/flock/swarm behavior is a more successful adaptation than solitary living in many ways -- we cooperate with each other much better than do cockroaches or alligators.
Like I said a few pages ago, there's not one perfect strategy; there are an infinite variety of possibilities, some better than others for certain environments. And, like I said from personal observation, the fossil record does not support special creation. It does support evolution over time. And I see no reason why God couldn't put the fist bacterium down on Earth, set evolution into motion, and watched with great pleasure what unfolded.
Heh. The reason the dating for the book of Daniel is contentious is because the prophecies in it are so clear. Liberal biblical scholars assume that there is no prophecy and therefore assume that Daniel could not have been written when the evidence points to it being written. Having discarded the historical evidence they then create a system of criticism to point to a later date. There are few ways to legitimately argue with such circular reasoning.
Conservative scholars believe in the prophecies a priori, therefore the Book of Daniel must have been written before the events it predicts. We can run around this all day. Oddly though, when we look at the history of the discipline the side that changes its opinions when new evidence and reasoning are presented is not that of the conservatives. Indeed, conservative Christianity has its origins in the rejection of those things. (Short list: geology, source criticism, archaeology, biology, psychology, paleontology. The full list is rather long, though some things eventually dropped off as they became embarrassments.)
So who is in the practice of developing tentative conclusions, modifying them as evidence comes in, and thus developing an increasingly accurate picture of the past? Is it the people who already "know" everything and thus ignore any evidence to the contrary, or is it the people who admit that they do not know everything, could be wrong, and look for evidence to support themselves or correct their errors?
So far as Josephus goes, he's writing at the end of the first century. He's quite remote from either the traditional or the scholarly dating of Daniel and thus can't be taken as an eyewitness. He wasn't there. There's no reason to presume he's doing anything but repeating his cultural folklore.
Also, the Septuagint originally contained only the Torah. That's what we can date to circa 250 BCE. Books like Daniel were translated later (we don't know by who) and added later.
|
|
Tell me Sebastian are you honestly comparing your magical powers of transmution to my kids? My kids could kick your bats tail any day of the week!
I guess that my attempt to clarify my statement was an Epic Fail and we can agree on that at least. I'm afraid that I lack the vocabulary to do anything but encite disdain in this "civil" discusion.
This does remind me of a bumper sticker I saw once it said "Your anscesters may have swung on trees but mine didn't" I allways liked that. :-p
I do. I'm a scientist. I've tested a number of those theories personally.
Thank you for all the invaluable work you do to expand the scope of human understanding. We are better for it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Tell me Sebastian are you honestly comparing your magical powers of transmution to my kids? My kids could kick your bats tail any day of the week!
I guess that my attempt to clarify my statement was an Epic Fail and we can agree on that at least. I'm afraid that I lack the vocabulary to do anything but encite disdain in this "civil" discusion.
This does remind me of a bumper sticker I saw once it said "Your anscesters may have swung on trees but mine didn't" I allways liked that. :-p
If you can take a bullet and keep going, there's no way I'm putting my bat against your kid. That's some serious genetic stock...
Here's my peace offering: I don't think faith is a bad thing. I can't refute that you feel a connection to God. The evidence I have for this is my own love of my own children. Before I had them, I didn't hate children, but I didn't understand why they were held up as being so important. To me, kids were a chance, who knew what they would become. Why save them over an adult when you already know what any particular adult is capable of, good and bad. I rooted for the T-Rex in Jurrassic Park.
Then I had a kid. And all that changed. My love for my children is a primal thing that surprises me and overwhelms me. It is so strong that I no longer question the importance of other people's children. I can no longer root for the T-Rex.
I figure God is the same way. I haven't been touched by something like God, I can't relate in any way to your story that you have anymore than I could relate to the need to save the kids from the T-Rex. Maybe someday God will touch me and give me that same sense.
But he hasn't yet, and so while I am not skeptical that you believe that he has touched you, I am still very skeptical that whatever touched you is the entity described in the Bible (or his son). Perhaps if I am touched by him, I will change my view on this.
Hope that helps. Sorry for the cranky responses.
|
|
Apologies if this has already been asked...
As someone who is not religious, I wonder why humanity has not yet ‘evolved’ to a single, globally-accepted religion. I mean, if so many believe in divine, spiritual forces, and we’ve had thousands of years to sort out the details amongst ourselves to discover the ‘truth’, why is there still so much disagreement over the specifics, and because there is so much disagreement, how can any one religion be absolutely, positively sure that theirs is the ‘true’ religion or that there is a ‘true’ religion at all? Even if you are thoroughly convinced that you’re right and they’re wrong - or misinterpreting things, if you prefer - might it be possible at any level that they’ve got it right and you’re wrong? Is that inconceivable? You can claim to have an open mind, but if the possibility of being wrong is not a real possibility as far as you’re concerned, the claim is moot. So, again, if there’s only one ‘truth’, why don’t we have a single, globally-accepted religion by now?
Because unfortunatly many people both religious and non-religious see the possibility of other beliefs as a threat to their own validation. Beyond everything else until man learns to accept that everyone in this world has opinions that are just as valid as their own we will never be anything more than a fragmented world community. Oh and don't agree with me as I'm pretty unpopular right now. ;p
Thank you for all the invaluable work you do to expand the scope of human understanding. We are better for it.
Well, some (like Ben Stein) would argue that we're a lot worse for it. But I personally prefer sit in an air-conditioned shelter drinking wine, to crouching in the bushes drinking out of a muddy puddle. My own professional work has neither resulted in AC nor wine (although I used to brew my own beer...), but I am currently responsible for protecting human drinking water supplies from the contaminants leaching from a number of polluted sites. Less glamorous, to be sure, but still useful.
|
|
Sebastian
I took it with a grain of salt, no hard feelings on either end I hope.
Although as a Christian I wanna say "that I hope someday you will feel the touch of God" way back in the thread I pointed out that I don't feel it my place to tell you how to believe your love for your kids is a sign of whats in your heart and that is more important than any professed religion.
Well, some (like Ben Stein) would argue that we're a lot worse for it.
Ben Stein's a great example of how people confuse erudition (and mastery of trivia, incidentally) with intellect. He sounds like an Oxford don, so he must be right!
Ben Stein's a great example of how people confuse erudition (and mastery of trivia, incidentally) with intellect. He sounds like an Oxford don, so he must be right!
Sad, too. I freakin' loved his game show. And he wrote some really excellent speeches for Reagan.
And they may be but I couldn't tell you one way or another, as for "proof" for me it was the day I held my baby in my arms when I should be by all rights dead.
This is not meant as an attack.
What, exactly, does that prove? Are you saying that surviving when you should be dead and seeing the miracle of your child's birth is only possible through the grace of god?
Again, I just do not understand how a god who created everything never has to take blame for the bad things. Now if there is another being who is responsible for famine, disease and death that you all are hiding from me...
your love for your kids is a sign of whats in your heart and that is more important than any professed religion.
I think you can hear an "amen" from everyone there. Very nicely put, Moorluck.
Oh and don't agree with me as I'm pretty unpopular right now. ;p
I do not see that. I see a couple of people disagreeing with your beliefs and giving their reasons why.
...your love for your kids is a sign of whats in your heart and that is more important than any professed religion.
I certainly agree with that, but many people do not. In fact, just a few pages back it was pointed out that good deeds, such as loving your children, will not get you into heaven.
|
|
And they may be but I couldn't tell you one way or another, as for "proof" for me it was the day I held my baby in my arms when I should be by all rights dead.This is not meant as an attack.
What, exactly, does that prove? Are you saying that surviving when you should be dead and seeing the miracle of your child's birth is only possible through the grace of god?
Again, I just do not understand how a god who created everything never has to take blame for the bad things. Now if there is another being who is responsible for famine, disease and death that you all are hiding from me...
To me it proves that I was meant to go onn to be a father to 3 beautiful kids, to you it may just proove that I am one lucky sonofa***, like I said back before we all are gonna believe in what we will. Now as for the second, that has always irked me too, it was God that took my father from me when he died, it is God that allows war and famine, and IF I get to heaven I hope to ask him why.
But yes we are hiding the other enity from you... He hates poodles, we do it for your safety.
|
|
...your love for your kids is a sign of whats in your heart and that is more important than any professed religion.I certainly agree with that, but many people do not. In fact, just a few pages back it was pointed out that good deeds, such as loving your children, will not get you into heaven.
Well that is one person's opinion.
But yes we are hiding the other enity from you... He hates poodles, we do it for your safety.
I knew it!
|
|
...your love for your kids is a sign of whats in your heart and that is more important than any professed religion.I certainly agree with that, but many people do not. In fact, just a few pages back it was pointed out that good deeds, such as loving your children, will not get you into heaven.
Another beef I have with alot of "religious" people. I onced asked a woman at my church if she thought that a pygmy in the amazon who had never lied, stolen, or harmed another human being, but had never even heard of Jesus, if he died would I get to meet him in heaven. Her answer was that he wasn't christian and couldn't go to heaven. I told this woman that her god may punish sucha good man but mine sure as hell wouldn't. I really don't think she liked that, Oh Well.
While I believe that the physical act of lying, to use an example, affects the soul, I do not believe that this affect is measurable with instruments.
Everything is measurable. Perhaps not to mathematical levels, but anything that exists can be said to either be there or not there. Take love, for example, a thing often described as intangible. But in truth, it's a set of action, and whether or not someone says 'I love you', you can tell where love is based on the action taken by the people involved, even if you can't measure "how much" love is there. If the soul exists, you can show me where it exists and where it doesn't, and how you know that. If lying affects the soul, you can show me the effects lying has on the soul.
However, I think the reason you say the soul is immaterial is because you can't find it. And the reason you can't find it is because you are begging the question. You're assuming the soul exists as a separate thing from the body. In my experience, the mind/body/soul trichotomy is an artifact. They are in fact one and the same. Everything that people describe as the soul has clear physical origins, without resorting to the influence of an alternate dimension.
If a soul affects and is affected by physical reality (and if you can say that it is, then that is measurable, even if its just a binary measurement), then it can be said to be physical. If you want me to believe in a soul, you're going to have to start at the beginning: What is the nature of this alternate universe wherein the souls reside? And don't give me this line about it being immeasurable, because that's hogwash.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Another beef I have with alot of "religious" people. I onced asked a woman at my church if she thought that a pygmy in the amazon who had never lied, stolen, or harmed another human being, but had never even heard of Jesus, if he died would I get to meet him in heaven. Her answer was that he wasn't christian and couldn't go to heaven. I told this woman that her god may punish sucha good man but mine sure as hell wouldn't. I really don't think she liked that, Oh Well.
Having used that pygmy man in exactly that way in so many discussions about religion, it warms my heart to hear you say that. You worship a good god, no matter what name you call him by. I can respect, appreciate, and maybe even envy that.
|
|
Heh. The reason the dating for the book of Daniel is contentious is because the prophecies in it are so clear. Liberal biblical scholars assume that there is no prophecy and therefore assume that Daniel could not have been written when the evidence points to it being written. Having discarded the historical evidence they then create a system of criticism to point to a later date. There are few ways to legitimately argue with such circular reasoning.Conservative scholars believe in the prophecies a priori, therefore the Book of Daniel must have been written before the events it predicts.
I would argue rather that we accept the possibility of predictive prophecy and thus can accept the evidence for the earlier dates without difficulty. It does not hurt our worldview to do so. However, we do not accept that all who claim to prophesy do so.
Other clear prophecies besides Daniel include Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, penned by Mark around AD 65, Luke around AD 55, and (I believe) Matthew around AD 45. The event occured of course in AD 70.
Ezekiel, in the 6th century BC, predicted the eventual destruction of Tyre and the use of the site as a place to dry nets, a feat that began under Nebuchadnezzar, was continued by Alexander and then finally completed by the Moslems and can be seen as accurate today. Conversely Ezekiel predicted the sister city of Sidon would see bloodshed but makes no prediction about it being destroyed. It wasn't, though of the two cities Sidon was the least protected. The prophecy concerning Tyre is interesting because if, as some assume, there is no predictive prophecy and it is all written after the fact then why did the 'editors' not end the prophecy with the destruction wrought by Alexander (he built an escarpment to the island and thus killed islanders on the mainland as Ezekiel said he would). By the time of Christ this prophecy was not yet fulfilled and yet the book of Ezekiel had been translated into the greek and was accepted as cannon. The prophecy was not completed until the moslems finally at last destroyed Tyre for good leaving only a rocky area upon which fishing boats are docked and nets are dried.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian -- I've been meaning to ask -- Did you get anything out of your Lent experience? (I'm not looking for anything all that spiritual, just wondering what you were looking for when you went into it and how that may have changed as you came out of it.)
Not tremendously. It did give me a step back from my internet persona for a little while, and made me think about that, and it helped build up some willpower, but that's about it. I've tried to cut more towards being funny and less towards being mean since coming back, though that didn't last that long given how many politics/4e threads were in the air on the day I returned. I think it was a good experiment though, I may try it again at some point.
I would argue rather that we accept the possibility of predictive prophecy and thus can accept the evidence for the earlier dates without difficulty.
I would argue we accept the possibility of both sides and weigh them equally on their own merit.
I think your faith in gravity as you understand it is sadly misplaced and recommend a simple test involving buying a balloon full of helium at a funfair, and then letting go of it and waiting for it to fall.
Ah! I have had many personal experiences with these contraptions you call 'balloons'. And in every experience, they all eventually fall.
I am suitably impressed, sir, and to that I currently have no answer. ;)
We poodles take our balloons very seriously.
|
|
I think your faith in gravity as you understand it is sadly misplaced and recommend a simple test involving buying a balloon full of helium at a funfair, and then letting go of it and waiting for it to fall.Ah! I have had many personal experiences with these contraptions you call 'balloons'. And in every experience, they all eventually fall.
You've chased every last one that you've released at a funfair, for miles and miles?
I am suitably impressed, sir, and to that I currently have no answer. ;)
Actually the ballons he thought he saw fall were clever ruses to distract him from noticing the movements of our evil poodle eating dark enity.
Actually the ballons he thought he saw fall were clever ruses to distract him from noticing the movements of our evil poodle eating dark enity.
Yipe!
I would argue rather that we accept the possibility of predictive prophecy and thus can accept the evidence for the earlier dates without difficulty. It does not hurt our worldview to do so. However, we do not accept that all who claim to prophesy do so.
Who rejects the possibility? My rejection of all things supernatural is based on evidence, not faith. For prophecy in particular, I listed out a set of reasonable criteria by which I would be convinced that in fact a prophecy had been made and fulfilled. You appear to have ignored them. Do you have an objection to the list which leads you to reject it? Or is your position that this prophecy was fulfilled as a matter of faith and thus any scrutiny it can't sustain is mistaken?
Separately, I consider the scholarly consensus dates for the relevant books based upon the same sort of evidence, not on a priori rejection of miracles (These dates were, after all, developed by believing Biblical scholars.) and therefore dismiss those prophecies on the grounds listed.
Ezekiel, in the 6th century BC, predicted the eventual destruction of Tyre and the use of the site as a place to dry nets, a feat that began under Nebuchadnezzar, was continued by Alexander and then finally completed by the Moslems and can be seen as accurate today.
A place to dry nets? That's like saying that (actual example a believer gave me once) if the Jews retreated into the mountains they could escape hostile armies. Well sure and they did, but that's not much of a prophecy. Rugged terrain is good for hiding in. It's a conjecture anybody could make, not a sign of any special insight in the future. Tyre is on the sea coast, where fishermen would ply their trade and have nets. They're not going to dry them by sticking them in the sea, but here's a relatively built up area that no one at present is using? It's got a decent harbor? Who would expect anything but that they would dry nets there? Especially once all the debris had been cleared?
The prophecy concerning Tyre is interesting because if, as some assume, there is no predictive prophecy and it is all written after the fact then why did the 'editors' not end the prophecy with the destruction wrought by Alexander (he built an escarpment to the island and thus killed islanders on the mainland as Ezekiel said he would).
The idea that somebody might build a causeway out to an island is something nobody could have guessed? Trivial. If Ezekiel had given the names of Alexander, his generals, the generals of the opposition, and the intimate details of his campaign, down to the very date of the conquest, then I'd give it further examination. Yet he didn't. Anybody could have written that prophecy. The details I list are those which could not possibly have been available to an ordinary person centuries before, nor could they likely be guessed. Their absence is evidence that the author of Ezekiel had no more special insight into the world than people who see storm clouds and take an umbrella when they go out or those who predict the sun shall rise on the morrow.
Do you have any prophecies that actually do meet the six criteria offered? If you do, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion on the issue. In fact, I consider the willingness to change or abandon one's past opinions on the light of new information the first responsibility of every thinking person. I'm not omniscient and I'm prepared to accept being wrong about any matter, no matter how dear to me, provided evidence and reason are on the other side. To loosely paraphrase Lincoln, I do not presume that the facts are forever and unalterably on my side. I do hope that I am on their side, and shall endeavor to correct the situation if found otherwise.
|
|
Tell me Sebastian are you honestly comparing your magical powers of transmution to my kids? My kids could kick your bats tail any day of the week!
I guess that my attempt to clarify my statement was an Epic Fail and we can agree on that at least. I'm afraid that I lack the vocabulary to do anything but encite disdain in this "civil" discusion.
This does remind me of a bumper sticker I saw once it said "Your anscesters may have swung on trees but mine didn't" I allways liked that. :-p
And always liking it sadly isn't a good guide to the truth. Somewhere the God you believe in and evolution are both sitting in a corner, drinking beer and laughing at how you and I are both wrong. The truth is the truth regardless of whether mere mortals appreciate it or understand it. This applies both ways, I accept.
And you're not unpopular, you just had the misfortune to make a point that three people thought was wrong and all of us replied at the same time. When you praise 4E on the general forums,THEN you'll be unpopular. ;-) I also haven't noticed anything in your posts that could be regarded as uncivil. At least not if my own posts have been civil.
The truth is the truth regardless of whether mere mortals appreciate it or understand it.
I agree. The bible and evolution could be completely off. Maybe we were planted by aliens who wiped our memories.
Only the anti-christ would fail to recognize 4e as the salvation of the Role Playing Industry it is.
And you're not unpopular, you just had the misfortune to make a point that three people thought was wrong and all of us replied at the same time.
I'd go a step further, if I may, and correct the word "wrong" into simply "misinformed on science," through absolutely no fault of his own.
When people who have never read scripture start bashing the Bible, Christians have a right to get annoyed with them. I know I can't stand it when people do that. But on the flip side, everyone has had science class in high school, right? Sadly, that's not actually true -- and this is the source of the problem -- everyone has classes called "science," but that aren't!
As a former high school Earth Science teacher, I saw this going on in many classrooms, and it made my blood boil. People were blathering on about cells, or acceleration formulae, with no context whatsoever -- like cherry-picking scriptural quotes with no reference to chapter or historical setting -- because that test was coming, and there was no time for anything but the "answers" on the exam. Science education in the U.S. has fallen flat on its face, to the point where very few adults have any idea at all what "science" is: they think it's a bunch of vague guesses that have to do with cells, or energy, or chemicals. The basic steps of the scientific method are taught by rote, not by DOING. Honestly -- has anyone in primary/secondary school ever had to design and perform an experiment and then submit it for peer review and defend it in front of a panel of other students working on the same topic? And why did the guidance department take the Earth Sciences, which come up overwhelmingly often in current events (climate, geology, radiometric dating, etc.), and declare that "good students take biology instead, because Earth Science isn't really science"? The only answer I can come up with is that the people assigning the courses were poorly-educated in science as well.
So, as much as I hate to see it, I'm inclined to give people a "no harm/no foul" pass when they misinterpret science stuff, and try to give them a clear explanation. I see no way to hold it against them, because the overwhelming majority of us are told for 12 years that we're studying "science," even though we're really not. And I honestly believe that if the sciences were taught properly, 90% of the "debates" we've been having here would disappear, because people of faith would understand scientific theories and where they come from, and realize they're no threat to faith at all. On the contrary: understanding evolution makes me want to believe in a God, because it seems so insignificant from day to day, but is so incredible in its effects over time, it almost makes me think that it's exactly the process an omnipotent being would use.
Sorry for that really long post. Just wanted to clear up those things.
On the contrary: understanding evolution makes me want to believe in a God, because it seems so insignificant from day to day, but is so incredible in its effects over time, it almost makes me think that it's exactly the process an omnipotent being would use.
Do you believe we came from single celled creatures? And that god created those creatures? If so, then god did not really create us. We are kind of … “Surprise! We’re humans!”
If god is all knowing, he knew those single celled creatures would evolve into us. So it was not really a surprise.
Do you believe we came from single celled creatures? And that god created those creatures?
The fossil record suggests very strongly that we did, ultimately "come from" single-celled creatures. Do I believe God created those creatures? Personally, no (because I'm not sold on the existence of a God), but I see no reason why anyone else shouldn't. A lot of people do, in fact.
If so, then god did not really create us. We are kind of … “Surprise! We’re humans!” If god is all knowing, he knew those single celled creatures would evolve into us. So it was not really a surprise.
If I pull the trigger of a gun, and the bullet kills someone, I killed that person. So, yes, I can see evolution as a means for God to create men, if your world-view requires that He did so. And something need not be a surprise to be staggering in its effects. Step out onto that glass platform over the Grand Canyon: what you're seeing is not surprise, but it sure is cool nonetheless... and where an omniscient God wouldn't be surprised, we sure can be.
All I'm saying is that, understanding evolution to the extent that current theory allows, I don't view it in any way as a threat to belief in God. Or even to the belief that God created mankind. It's a threat only to the belief in literal special creation.
All I'm saying is that, understanding evolution to the extent that current theory allows, I don't view it in any way as a threat to belief in God. Or even to the belief that God created mankind. It's a threat only to the belief in literal special creation.
I will grant that evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and Genesis…that takes some hoop jumping.