« BACK TO FORUM
Morderatoren:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
 Autor |
 Posten
|
 |
|
siddiqua
beigetreten: Feb 20, 2005
Beiträge: 17
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Weiblich, 28
Country: India
Province/State: Karnataka
Stadt: Harihar
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 5, 2009 - 04:06 AM
|
|
mfhussain wrote:
I don't know whether God exists or not but after seeing the suffering of majority of the people living in this earth, I can conclude that the reputation of our so called omnipotent God is very very bad.
mfhussain
If God really alleviated the suffering of the world, I don't think there would be scope to see the depth of M. Hussain's, 'compassion' ? or your ingenuity in helping solve a problem ?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
beigetreten: Oct 26, 2006
Beiträge: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 51
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
Stadt: Sapporo
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 5, 2009 - 08:56 PM
|
|
sidsayed wrote:
Maybe we should have two categories in this debate - the realists and the 'fantasists' because belief in god seems to be a fantasy to most. I agree with Jame An. why can't it be that a divine hand allowed evolution to take place over millions of years. because i don't see how belief in the divine is separate from scientific theory, evolution or a study in biology. I find it impossible that we can "create" new life. Koopinello suggests that in the future scientists could create life from inanimate matter. But the questions is, where did this "matter" come from. Who "created" these building blocks. We could create viruses in a lab, but who created a virus's building blocks? Let's get to say, the basic microbial construction here. Who created the carbon atom, the building block of life? Or electrons or their spins. You can't expect me to convince me that it just "happened". How did the first tiny particle come into being ? If you'd have to convince someone about evolution, there must be some place where it all originated. And how did that "place of origin" come into being there ?
Do you really need to know how it all began? So much so that you will believe in any fantasy that claims to know the "truth." The Earth is 4 billion years old, the universe is older still. Barring any major asteroid strikes, the Earth will still be around for another 2 billion years. We cannot know "where it all began." Why do you take comfort in the claim "Fred did it"? Let us be thankful we are alive and evolved enough to enjoy it. Let's behave like adults and get to work on the real problems of the world so that others can enjoy this life too.
It is so obvious to me that religion was created and has been kept alive by priests to justify the privileges of the priestly classes.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jim Bailey
beigetreten: Jan 12, 2009
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 61
Country: New Zealand
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 5, 2009 - 09:08 PM
|
|
I thought we were having a debate here - If so why have my claims to God being the Creator @ www.creation.com been passed over - Onward - Jim
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
siddiqua
beigetreten: Feb 20, 2005
Beiträge: 17
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Weiblich, 28
Country: India
Province/State: Karnataka
Stadt: Harihar
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 6, 2009 - 02:41 AM
|
|
prieten47 wrote:
Why do you take comfort in the claim "Fred did it"? Let us be thankful we are alive and evolved enough to enjoy it. Let's behave like adults and get to work on the real problems of the world so that others can enjoy this life too.
I still think "Fred" did it. And if you ask me, there would be far greater anarchy in this world without religion. But that is altogether another debate. Personally I don't see why belief in Fred, lol, should be inconsistent with scientific discovery.
And yes, we need to work on the real problems in the world, which this debate wouldn't solve; it only serves to work the brain cells of philosophers.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Len Rosen
beigetreten: Jan 26, 2009
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 60
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
Stadt: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 6, 2009 - 10:14 AM
|
|
The concept of an infinite universe is impossible to easily understand when seen through the eyes of a single finite life. We are on this planet, if we are lucky, for a century of existence. There is a defined birth, growth and death to every one of us who is human, and to every lifeform on our planet. This is the reworking of matter. You pose the question "where did the essential carbon atom come from?" It came out of the nuclear furnaces of stars. So where did stars come from? Stars came from nebulas that drifted through space coalescing and contracting until the space between molecules became so small that interaction occurred to the point of creating nuclear fusion. So where did nebula come from? The Big Bang created the base elements that became nebula. And where did the Big Bang come from? That's a tougher question to answer because that suggests a starting point to all of what follows. Some theorize that the Big Bang is a birth experience from a parallel universe in a multiverse. We are still trying to figure that one out. But we understand a great deal of what followed the Big Bang. I would pose this question. Where does a prime Alpha named God, Yahweh, Allah, (that is the common monotheistic godhead), or where do the pantheon of gods from other religions such as Hinduism come into play? Did they create the Big Bang? Did they then create space? Did they then organize the matter that formed after the Big Bang over billions of years into into stars with planetary systems, that resided in millions of galaxies which we can see when we point a telescope into the night sky? Did this or these Alpha figures then organize single stellar systems so that they would have habitable planets upon which solar energy would fall? Did they then come up with the idea of organizing the matter into wide ranging life forms covering every conceivalbe echo-niche, on this planet and many others? Did they then pick one species on the planet to become their personal charge, to carry their ideas and words and live by their ideals? Did they do this on thousands of planets around thousands of stars? And then did they inspire those species through free will to pursue screwing up the planet and life forms they created? And did they create all these other planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, exoplanets by the thousands, all for that species to wonder about? It seems like such a collosal waste of both time and effort don't you think?
This post was edited on: 2009-07-06 at 10:33 AM by: lenrosen4
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
James An
beigetreten: Oct 26, 2006
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 22
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
Stadt: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 6, 2009 - 02:02 PM
|
|
I'm feeling a lot of anti-religion being thrown around here with an air of science. Apologies in advance, as most of the following references are Christian, as I know it better than other religions. The references below do discuss other religions though.
Many have reconciled evolution with religion, through ideas like theistic evolution. It's an interpretation of religious words that allow evolution and religion to co-exist, although it's acceptance seems to be still patchy at best, even among religious groups that support the theory of evolution!
The conflict thesis, which underpins our notion of science and religion at war, has been academically rejected and quite categorically refuted. Apparently, a lot of what we hold as historical truth about the "war" between science and religion is a false. For example, it's now accepted that even Christian scholars in the Middle Ages acknowledged the sphericity of Earth, despite our belief that everyone thought the world was flat "back then".
In fact, there's evidence that it was commonplace for science and religion to co-exist and - even - for religion to drive scientific enquiry and discovery. Even the well-known instances of religious persecution of scientific ideas, like the Galileo affair, are increasingly seen as personal or political conflicts rather than religion oppressing new science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's ironic how the Big Bang theory is tossed around here as science against God, when religion was - in fact - a driving force behind it. Prior to it, the atheist belief seemed to be that the Universe is static (unchanging) and infinite in age. Despite the mounting evidence in favour of the Big Bang, prominent scientific atheist were convinced the Big Bang was religion masquarading as science (e.g. the steady state theory). It is interesting that atheists had no problem then with an infinite Universe with no origin, but now have such a problem with an infinite Creator with no origin.
What is in conflict tends to be two belief systems: religion and naturalism. It seems that the debate between science and religion is more appropriately a debate between naturalism and religion, with naturalists co-opting science to its side.
And the naturalists don't always win.
The naturalist belief in spontaneous generation and their refusal to accept the Big Bang model are two prominent examples of naturalists losing the age-old debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I have read, those who denounce evolution tend to be Biblical literalists: they believe in the story of Genesis (and Scripture) in a literal sense: God created the Universe in 6 consecutive 24-hour days and then rested; Moses really did talk to God masquarading as a bush on fire. The people behind creation.com support this belief.
Both Catholicism and Anglicanism officially accept or support the theory of evolution. Where the Anglican church has explicit pronounced its support and even argued that creationism may harm the doctrine of creation, the Vatican has showed its support by recognizing the authority of science on things like the age of Earth and the authenticity of fossil records, and by teaching the theory of evolution in its Catholic schools just like secular institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
domitay wrote:
These are God's best kept secrets, may be we should just let them be.I'll respond here. Neither ignorance nor the lack of scientific curiosity are valid arguments. I find little religious support that the topic is among "God's best kept secrets" if there is such a thing. It's ironic that you appeal to ignorance on an online forum. The fact that you can access the TIG website is a credit those many who did not simply "let them be".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fun bed-time reading! Follow their sources too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Len Rosen
beigetreten: Jan 26, 2009
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 60
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
Stadt: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 6, 2009 - 02:52 PM
|
|
As far as my science background and reading takes me, this is the first time I have ever heard that the Big Bang is an inspiration derived from theism. The Big Bang has some pretty significant science evidence to back the hypothesis. The science of radio astronomy provides us with validation.
It is understandable to me to find that people seek answers to the unknown through a deity. But interestingly enough what type of deity, how many deities? The great monotheistic religions were born in arid climates with big skies and desert scrubland as a backdrop. The pantheistic religions found many deities behind the forested woodlands of their origin. The gods of Egypt associated with the River Nile. The gods of Sumer associated with the vegetation and rivers of Mesopotamia. Hindu gods rose on the banks of the Ganges. The steppelands, high desert and bedouin and tribal world gave us a single god. There is a certain logic to all of these origins. They fit with the environments in which these gods were derived.
There is a lot that science has yet to discover, whether it is looking inside ourselves or looking at the universe that surrounds us. But claiming that a god or many gods are sufficient explanation for remaining mysteries is a cop out.
I have many scientific-minded friends who separate their religious identities from their pursuit of science. They put the two in separate compartments. In religion they find peace of mind. In science they satisfy their curiosity about what lies around them that religion has yet to explain. In religion they have certainty. In science they find mystery. That's the reverse of what some have stated here in this debate.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
beigetreten: Oct 26, 2006
Beiträge: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 51
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
Stadt: Sapporo
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 7, 2009 - 02:02 AM
|
|
JamesAn wrote:
The conflict thesis, which underpins our notion of science and religion at war, has been academically rejected and quite categorically refuted. Apparently, a lot of what we hold as historical truth about the "war" between science and religion is a false. For example, it's now accepted that even Christian scholars in the Middle Ages acknowledged the sphericity of Earth, despite our belief that everyone thought the world was flat "back then".
In fact, there's evidence that it was commonplace for science and religion to co-exist and - even - for religion to drive scientific enquiry and discovery. Even the well-known instances of religious persecution of scientific ideas, like the Galileo affair, are increasingly seen as personal or political conflicts rather than religion oppressing new science.
Well, it's pretty obvious to me that science and religion conflict. Religion used to be the accepted "science." People wondered why the crops failed, why there were storms, why they got sick, etc. The priestly classes offered up their "scientific" explanation: there is a Big Sky Daddy (or Daddies) who we must appease, and those priests would be glad to act as go-betweens. Sometimes, the crops did better, sometimes they didn't, but the priestly classes were always able to snuff out doubt by using fear. Real science which really explains how things are was held back, but the truth always "will out." Science has continued its progress to the point that religion has now been driven to hide behind the Big Bang as the "last refuge" of God. Why don't we just give up on this fantasy called religion and focus on the real world and its problams?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Romina Abachi
beigetreten: Feb 26, 2009
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Weiblich, 16
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
Stadt: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 7, 2009 - 10:38 PM
|
|
I know people say that it doesn't matter who created the Earth or how it was created but haven't you ever wondered how it all began and how it's going to end? I mean what is our purpose in life? How can we know this purpose without knowing where we came from? I support evolution but think about it: witout a God, there would be no after-life. There would be nothing to help the destitute get through their daily lives thinking justice will be served someday. There would be no reason for anyone to do anything good for anyone else if they knew that in the end, they would all be decaying flesh. Doesn't it depress you to think once we die, we are no more? That all these years and all these efforts will eventually end up as nothing? I mean I'm all for making other people's lives better but if the sun is eventually going to swallow the Earth and put an end to everything man has put its efforts in, what's the point? What's the point of living? Without religion, people would have given up on life long ago. They wouldn't be able to say their loved ones had gone to "a better place" because there would be none. The simple belief in religion makes us who we are. However, I also know all the unnecessary conflicts the existence of religion had brought upon humanity and I regret it. I don't know about you guys but it makes me feel a whole lot better to believe that my life matters. Also, quatum physics (although it is not for certain) says that our minds might be capable of creating reality. Maybe our lives do have a purpose to them. Maybe we won't just be decaying flesh in the end. We just have to think about the possiblities. The universe is so full of mysteries that we just have to discover to know the true meaning of life and what it truly means to be alive.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
beigetreten: Oct 26, 2006
Beiträge: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 51
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
Stadt: Sapporo
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 7, 2009 - 11:56 PM
|
|
Romina72 wrote:
I know people say that it doesn't matter who created the Earth or how it was created but haven't you ever wondered how it all began and how it's going to end?
Yes, everyone has. But we can't know the answers to either question. We are living 4 billion years into the 6 billion year lifespan of the Earth. Are these really such pressing questions that we have to cling to a fairy tale?
Romina72 wrote:
I mean what is our purpose in life? How can we know this purpose without knowing where we came from?
My mother and father fell in love and decided to make some children. They showered me with affection and all the things I needed to grow up. This fills me with a sense of gratitude and an obligation to live up to the expectations of my parents and the many, many people have shown me love throughout my life. That's my motivation. I don't need fairy tales.
Romina72 wrote:
I support evolution but think about it: without a God, there would be no after-life. There would be nothing to help the destitute get through their daily lives thinking justice will be served someday. There would be no reason for anyone to do anything good for anyone else if they knew that in the end, they would all be decaying flesh. Doesn't it depress you to think once we die, we are no more? That all these years and all these efforts will eventually end up as nothing? I mean I'm all for making other people's lives better but if the sun is eventually going to swallow the Earth and put an end to everything man has put its efforts in, what's the point? What's the point of living? Without religion, people would have given up on life long ago. They wouldn't be able to say their loved ones had gone to "a better place" because there would be none. The simple belief in religion makes us who we are.One word sums up this paragraph: CRUTCH. Believing a fairy tale may help people get through the day, but it doesn't make it true.
In a way, if immortality appeals to you so much, you can achieve immortality by writing a book, discovering or inventing something, creating a work of art. These things can all outlive your body (you can also continue to live on in infamy if you do something terrible).
Romina72 wrote:
However, I also know all the unnecessary conflicts the existence of religion has brought upon humanity and I regret it. I don't know about you guys but it makes me feel a whole lot better to believe that my life matters.I am sure your life matters very much to your friends and family. You matter very much to us here at TIG. That is why I take the trouble of answering.
Romina72 wrote:
The universe is so full of mysteries that we just have to discover to know the true meaning of life and what it truly means to be alive.The part about mysteries I agree with completely: there are so many mysteries yet to be found in the universe. Why cut off our search and be satisfied with a fairy tale explanation?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Md. Farhad Hussain
beigetreten: Jul 21, 2008
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 45
Country: Bangladesh
Stadt: Dhaka
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 13, 2009 - 11:00 PM
|
|
Just some qoutes
Two Versions of The Epicurean Riddle
God is all-powerful.
God is perfectly good.
Evil exists.
If God exists, there would be no evil.
Therefore God does not exist.
--Epicurus (ca. 341-270 BCE)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
--Epicurus (ca. 341-270 BCE)
"To rebel against a powerful political, economic, religious, or social establishment is very dangerous and very few people do it, except, perhaps, as part of a mob. To rebel against the "scientific" establishment, however, is the easiest thing in the world, and anyone can do it and feel enormously brave, without risking as much as a hangnail. Thus, the vast majority, who believe in astrology and think that the planets have nothing better to do than form a code that will tell them whether tomorrow is a good day to close a business deal or not, become all the more excited and enthusiastic about the bilge when a group of astronomers denounces it."
-- Isaac Asimov
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
-- Isaac Asimov
"I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the Divine will. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal His will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed that He would reveal it directly to me ... These are not, however, the days of miracles.... I must study the plain, physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right."
-- Abraham Lincoln
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
-- Bertrand Russell
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Md. Farhad Hussain
beigetreten: Jul 21, 2008
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 45
Country: Bangladesh
Stadt: Dhaka
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 14, 2009 - 01:23 AM
|
|
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
-- Richard Dawkins
"But I own that I cannot see ... evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice."
-- Charles Darwin
"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
This post was edited on: 2009-07-14 at 02:17 AM by: mfhussain
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
James An
beigetreten: Oct 26, 2006
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 22
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
Stadt: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 14, 2009 - 04:37 PM
|
|
lenrosen4 wrote:
As far as my science background and reading takes me, this is the first time I have ever heard that the Big Bang is an inspiration derived from theism. The Big Bang has some pretty significant science evidence to back the hypothesis. The science of radio astronomy provides us with validation. Apparently, literature on religious opinions of the Big Bang and the common atheist view of the Universe prior to modern cosmology is pretty scant.
I admit though that there's nothing credible to support my proposition that the Big Bang was a religiously inspired idea. What seemed like credible sources later turned out to be religious folks trying to revise history in their favour.
It was twisted from the fact that the scientist, who put forward the idea, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic priest. Increasingly, it looks like his religious associations weren't really relevant.
I was also unable to find anything that talked about the reaction of the various religious institutions to the Big Bang, although it's well-known now that most of Christianity finds it compatible. All the literature I found seem to start at the turn of the 20th century.
The so-called "atheist" opposition to the Big Bang idea was a twist of the steady state theory, put forward by scientists who happened to be atheist; I think religion here is equally irrelevant. Although the Big Bang model and the steady state model were both supported at first, the current evidence overwhelmingly supports the Big Bang.
prieten47 wrote:
Well, it's pretty obvious to me that science and religion conflict. Religion used to be the accepted "science." I'm still opposed to believing that science and religion are naturally in conflict. It's a sweeping generalization and one that is supported by a lot of academic dishonesty that has now been overturned in the academic circles but continues to sway public perception. The more I research, the more historical authority and evidence I find that reconciles science and religion. Scientific idea is obviously swayed by cultural notions, and it seems that there's a lot of evidence that such ideas are influenced by religious beliefs.
I'm going to do some reading. Fortunately, the university library has most of the well-accepted books on this topic:
Science and religion, 1450-1900 : from Copernicus to Darwin /
Richard G. Olson. 2004.
Dinosaur in a haystack : reflections in natural history /
Stephen Jay Gould. 1995.
Science and religion : a historical introduction /
edited by Gary B. Ferngren. 2002.
The science of energy : a cultural history of energy physics in Victorian Britain /
Crosbie Smith. 1998.
---
I re-found "cargo cults", religious practices that sprung up and withered within the 20th century when isolated societies in the southwest Pacific Ocean first encountered people like the American military or religion missionaries as wielders of magic through their advanced technology. The practices look like the rapid progression of an idea into a religious practice and then - in most cases - into a realization that the practices didn't make sense. It's an interesting cultural phenomena that draws a lot of parallels with current and long-lived religious practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
---
Those quotations are pretty awesome; I'm a quotations kind of guy.
Russell's teapot underlines the demand that the theists make on the atheists to disprove their God(s); it's really taken off in a comical variant: the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Dawkins' talk of an indifferent world brings out the existentialism in me, mostly about the Absurd: the idea that there is no intrinsic meaning in the world and that whatever meaning we find "out there" is the meaning we give to it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Len Rosen
beigetreten: Jan 26, 2009
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 60
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
Stadt: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 14, 2009 - 05:04 PM
|
|
James An, you are correct when you say you are a quotation kind of guy. In the debate between creationism and evolution, the challenge for most of us is to get outside of our comfort zones and see the evidence around us. I am an atheist. I was brought up in a quasi-religious home but was given access to a vast library of books on science and was loaded up with microscopes, terraria, telescopes, chemistry lab and aquariums by the dozens. When people walked into my home as a youth they had to sidestep a pet skunk, 2 raccoon pets, a tortoise, a milk snake, wild birds on the mend and countless fish tanks filled with local river fish, tropical fish, salt water and the like. Watching animals of every conceivable description, and puttering around doing my own version of Mendelian genetics in the garden and in my aquariums took me from that quasi-religious upbringing into a new space, outside my comfort zone.
When I went to university I ended up studying religion and got my degree in Islamic and Medieval Studies. Not because I wanted to validate my new beliefs but because I wanted to understand a world view from entirely different perspectives. Religion fascinates me largely because it is so uniquely a construct of our cultural roots. I made a remark in an early comment on this site about which god or gods are we talking about because we in the West tend to think in terms of a single godhead. That's not the case for Hinduism or some of the other South Asian faiths that have a legitimate statement to make about creation versus evolution.
It certainly wasn't Darwin's intention to disprove a believe in faith when he made his observations and shared them with the world. But what he certainly has done is moved people from what was comfortable because there was always an explanation, to what is no longer comfortable, the randomness of it all, the potential of a multiverse that gives birth to new Big Bangs, the end of our anthropocentric view.
I like being outside my comfort zone. It makes me ask a lot of questions. It confirms my atheism while helping me understand how others see the world and this universe, both human and non.
It is enjoyable to read how others are wrestling with this subject and drawing conclusions of their own.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
beigetreten: Oct 26, 2006
Beiträge: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 51
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
Stadt: Sapporo
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
July 16, 2009 - 06:02 AM
|
|
JamesAn wrote:
prieten47 wrote:
Well, it's pretty obvious to me that science and religion conflict. Religion used to be the accepted "science." I'm still opposed to believing that science and religion are naturally in conflict. It's a sweeping generalization and one that is supported by a lot of academic dishonesty that has now been overturned in the academic circles but continues to sway public perception.
What academic dishonesty? In which academic circles has it been overturned? The public perception for many religious Americans is that the earth is only 6000 years old. That explains the hostility many religious people feel toward science and the incessant attempts to change school science textbooks to include creationism or ID. The academic dishonesty is entirely on the part of the religious.
I think the basic incompatibility between religion and science was best summed up by the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane:
"My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world."
JamesAn wrote:
The more I research, the more historical authority and evidence I find that reconciles science and religion. Scientific idea is obviously swayed by cultural notions, and it seems that there's a lot of evidence that such ideas are influenced by religious beliefs.
What your research is revealing is that religious or other cultural forces have often tried to influence science to support, or at least not undermine, their sacred tenets or ideology. That is obviously true. But TRUE science is not swayed by cultural factors, rather by FACTS. A hypothesis is made. It is tested. The results are published. It is peer-reviewed and if the hypothesis holds up, it is accepted as true (until proven otherwise).
Such scientific truth-seeking, as Haldane said, is completely incompatible with religion which is essentially wishful thinking.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Homepage
Gemeinschaft
