Creationism Bill - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 3, 2006

RE: Creationism Bill

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Cultural Attache wrote:

Atheist wrote: I'm of the opinion that "progress" of our species toward the "good" is being accomplished through science.

Hmmm, Aethist, let's examine your statement that "progress" toward the "good" is being accomplished through "science." A little progress maybe, and perhaps a little good occasionally. Let me point out, however, that the Nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction were not developed by poets, actors, or musicians. Television, well known by parents and teachers as a purveyor of violence and a detractor of youth, was not invented by historians or English scholars. The chemical ingredients, crawling up our industrial smokestacks while belching their toxic fumes into the air, were not developed by political scientists, anthropologists, or sociologists. Handguns, such as those found on the streets and in the dark alleys of our nation's large cities, were not the brainchild of economists or accountants. I give science it's due credit, but there's no "progress" or "good" in any of the science-generated endeavors cited above. I recall a movie entitled "Soylant Green" that depicted some dasterdly handiwork of scientists. And I remember Frankenstein. He wasn't invented by a philosopher or a theologian. I recall an old radio/television advertisement that went, "Better living . . . . through Chemistry." I never took that slogan too literally even way back when. I suggest that you not take it too literally today. Quality of life encompasses much more than mere scientific "accomplishments." So wake up and smell the roses. Read a poem. Listen to a symphony. Do anything. Just get your head out of that science book for a day or two.

"Cultural Attache" makes a good point that all knowledge can be used for both "good" and "evil" relatively speaking. After all the "evil" atomic bomb dropped on Japan did the "good" of ending WWII. But in a larger context it forces humanity to make a decision, "End nuclear weapons or end the species". Nuclear war is now much less of a threat and the methods of war have reverted back to conventional weapons. Even terrorism can only physically affect a limited population, although the psychological effect is the real purpose of the weapon.

Now, as I consider the relative "good" and "evil" of knowledge provided by science, I also see a general lifting of the species on this planet. For example, in 10 years malaria in Africa could be vastly diminished. Compare the lives saved to those lost by wars and malaria is the greater enemy. As "Obviousman" clearly points out, our species is much better off because of science.

Before science there was not much anyone could do but suffer what nature brought. At that time religion was very useful in prolonging life. "Your suffering will pay off for you in the afterlife", "He will get his justice in the afterlife", etc.

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Mitch wrote: Also, the notion of being saved, the idea that rewards for good works exist primarily in one's afterlife ........doesn't resonate much with many of us (or leaves us scratching our heads).

Hctim wrote:

A thoughtful post, Mitch, but what you say is a commonly held misconception. Good works has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I really appreciated Mitch's earlier observation to the effect that we Christians project onto Judiasm much of our own belief system. Atheist, in a sense, I think you make a similar mistake when you write as if all religions provide for "pie in the sky when you die" rewards.

My understanding is that early Judiasm had very little to do with an afterlife and much to do with being the "chosen people" in covenant with the most powerful of the gods. (Monotheism came later.) I also understand that the Hindu and Buddhist religions do not view an afterlife (or perhaps more accurately, re-birth) as something to be desired so much as avoided. Again, to the extent that I understand those religions, the ultimate goal is personal oblivion, not perpetuation.

Also, Hctim, your position that good works has nothing to do with "it" (salvation in an afterlife, I'm figuring) does represent a Paulinist orthodox Christian position. But of course, the old question of "faith" vs. "works" goes a long way back, even to the book of James. (Of which, Luther was very critical because of the emphasis on works.) I'm not going to bother to find the cite, but I believe it was James who said that faith without works is dead.

Faith is usually defined as something more than internal belief: most who talk about faith really mean a profession of that faith. In other words, true faith requires that the believer own up to it, talk about it. Most believers revile the notion that someone could actually believe but profess to the contrary (deny the Lord?) or simply keep their beliefs to themselves (Hide it under a bushel?)

It sure seems to me that professing IS work.

Date: Jan 3, 2006

ram wrote:

It sure seems to me that professing IS work.

<OUT OF CONTEXT ALERT>
That's what we've been saying on this board since Day One. Just ask any professor!
</ALERT>

Date: Jan 3, 2006

With the way the last year has gone, we need to have a healthy perspective on what meaning Creation Science and Intelligent Design can bring to the mayhem. Supporters of CS/ID might be on the right track, though not really happy with the final conclusions.

http://www.reycorp.com/reyonthehill/image/toles_20050928.gif

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Design of Intelligence wrote:

With the way the last year has gone, we need to have a healthy perspective on what meaning Creation Science and Intelligent Design can bring to the mayhem. Supporters of CS/ID might be on the right track, though not really happy with the final conclusions. http://www.reycorp.com/reyonthehill/image/toles_20050928.gif

I forgot the other link

http://www.reycorp.com/reyonthehill/image/toles_20051223.jpg

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Design of Intelligence wrote:

With the way the last year has gone, we need to have a healthy perspective on what meaning Creation Science and Intelligent Design can bring to the mayhem. Supporters of CS/ID might be on the right track, though not really happy with the final conclusions. http://www.reycorp.com/reyonthehill/image/toles_20050928.gif

Great cartoon, Design of Intelligence. It is a logical extension of the I.D. "logic".

Date: Jan 3, 2006

ram wrote:

Mitch wrote: Also, the notion of being saved, the idea that rewards for good works exist primarily in one's afterlife ........doesn't resonate much with many of us (or leaves us scratching our heads).

Hctim wrote: A thoughtful post, Mitch, but what you say is a commonly held misconception. Good works has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I really appreciated Mitch's earlier observation to the effect that we Christians project onto Judiasm much of our own belief system. Atheist, in a sense, I think you make a similar mistake when you write as if all religions provide for "pie in the sky when you die" rewards. ...

Ram, your post surprised me and piqued my interest. If there is no afterlife, there is no logical need for the supernatural, as far as I can see. Please explain this to me. Without the supernatural, a "religion" becomes a philosophy in my book. Members of a "religion" such as Buddhism are technically atheists. I'm an atheist, not an "aphilosopher". So I have no problem with that type of "religion".

What use is the concept of God if there is no afterlife? We are always told by theist that even though we have no evidence of the supernatural now, we will get evidence of it when we die. Take away the afterlife and this house of cards collapses.

(P.S. I use the word evidence above in the scientific sense of being objective rather that internal and subjective.)

Date: Jan 3, 2006

ram wrote:

But of course, the old question of "faith" vs. "works" goes a long way back, even to the book of James. (Of which, Luther was very critical because of the emphasis on works.) I'm not going to bother to find the cite, but I believe it was James who said that faith without works is dead.

In the Anglican tradition,

"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but he who does the will of the Lord who is in heaven."

Date: Jan 3, 2006

...of my Father...

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Atheist wrote:

If there is no afterlife, there is no logical need for the supernatural, as far as I can see. Please explain this to me. Without the supernatural, a "religion" becomes a philosophy in my book. Members of a "religion" such as Buddhism are technically atheists. ...So I have no problem with that type of "religion". What use is the concept of God if there is no afterlife? We are always told by theist that even though we have no evidence of the supernatural now, we will get evidence of it when we die. Take away the afterlife and this house of cards collapses. (P.S. I use the word evidence above in the scientific sense of being objective rather that internal and subjective.)

My guess is that the first "need for the supernatural" was not to gain entry into an afterlife, but to explain the natural world -- before such distinctions as natural and supernatural were even invented. Examples would include all of the creation stories, a controversy over one of which got this thread going. Or, imagine trying to account for the irregular paths of the wandering planets against the backdrop of fixed stars without finally throwing up your hands and concluding that some powerful unknown had to be responsible.

Another need would be to influence goings on in the here and now. Propitiate the unseen ones and they may slay your enemies, make the herds return, cause the river to irrigate your rice fields. I suspect early acts of sacrifice may have involved this kind of cosmic deal making.

The flip side of the idea of influencing the supernatural is gratitude. When something good happens, we want to say, "Thanks!" to somebody.

I think another "use [for] the concept of God" sans afterlife is to posit an accessible moral absolute, a readily understood basis for good and evil.

There are a whole slew of reasons. According to some folks, the purpose of religion is simply to make the believer feel good. If you really want to chase down the theist/non-theist positions, check out this link.

Date: Jan 4, 2006

After viewing the discussions on this topic, I have concluded that the irreligious left is as eager to bring religion into the science classroom as is the religious right. Both sets of agendas have a strong religous underpinning of one sort or the other.

Date: Jan 4, 2006

Our Town wrote:

After viewing the discussions on this topic, I have concluded that the irreligious left is as eager to bring religion into the science classroom as is the religious right. Both sets of agendas have a strong religous underpinning of one sort or the other.

The religious right is attempting to bring its own views into the science classroom by re-labeling it "intelligent design" in their attempt sneak it through the schoolhouse door unrecognized. The irreligious left, on the other hand, has its own set of labels that have nothing to do with science but which enables them to sneak their own personal views through the door and into the science classroom. The Bible is not a book of science any more than the works of Darwin and his contemporary successors are works of religion.

Date: Jan 4, 2006

ram wrote:

Atheist wrote: If there is no afterlife, there is no logical need for the supernatural, as far as I can see. Please explain this to me. Without the supernatural, a "religion" becomes a philosophy in my book. Members of a "religion" such as Buddhism are technically atheists. ...So I have no problem with that type of "religion". What use is the concept of God if there is no afterlife? We are always told by theist that even though we have no evidence of the supernatural now, we will get evidence of it when we die. Take away the afterlife and this house of cards collapses. (P.S. I use the word evidence above in the scientific sense of being objective rather that internal and subjective.)

My guess is that the first "need for the supernatural" was not to gain entry into an afterlife, but to explain the natural world -- before such distinctions as natural and supernatural were even invented. Examples would include all of the creation stories, a controversy over one of which got this thread going. Or, imagine trying to account for the irregular paths of the wandering planets against the backdrop of fixed stars without finally throwing up your hands and concluding that some powerful unknown had to be responsible. Another need would be to influence goings on in the here and now. Propitiate the unseen ones and they may slay your enemies, make the herds return, cause the river to irrigate your rice fields. I suspect early acts of sacrifice may have involved this kind of cosmic deal making. The flip side of the idea of influencing the supernatural is gratitude. When something good happens, we want to say, "Thanks!" to somebody. I think another "use [for] the concept of God" sans afterlife is to posit an accessible moral absolute, a readily understood basis for good and evil. There are a whole slew of reasons. According to some folks, the purpose of religion is simply to make the believer feel good. If you really want to chase down the theist/non-theist positions, check out this link.

Thanks for the excellent post, Ram. I scaned the links you provided and they appear very interesting. I will read them in more detail later, but my first impression is that theist and scientists appear to hold different standards of "Truth" and "rational" or "Logical" argument. Augumnets used to support the theist position long ago are seen now to never have been valid, but for some reason "preachers" don't inform their flocks of this information. This helps explain the Intelligent Design business going on in the USA.

Date: Jan 4, 2006

Our Town wrote:

... The irreligious left, on the other hand, has its own set of labels that have nothing to do with science but which enables them to sneak their own personal views through the door and into the science classroom. The Bible is not a book of science any more than the works of Darwin and his contemporary successors are works of religion.

Would you please give us an example of, "The irreligious left...has its own set of labels that have nothing to do with science ...which enables them to sneak their personal views ...into the science classroom." I agree with the rest of your post.

Thank you.

Date: Jan 4, 2006

Ram, I read the links you provided and found them interesting even if I disagreed with some of both. The first link discussed, "Why Religion" but never used a precise definition of religion and gradually presents the reader with religion being anything producing euphoria and epiphany. Such a poor definition is useless because anything and everything can be a religion even science, as it points out. This is the same type of problem as "What is Art". There is no claim that "truth" is of importance to this endeavor.

The second link was much better. However, the approach is all philosophy argument an not enough of the physical evidence in my opinion. Statements like, "Granting that a great many of our important beliefs are non-inferential, could one reasonably find oneself believing in God without evidence or argument? ‘Evidence’ is to be understood here as most evidentialists understand it, namely as the kind of propositional evidence one might find in a theistic argument and not the kind of experiential evidence typically thought to ground religious belief. ..."

In my opinion people don't become theist by such an approach, but rather adopt whatever their local culture presents to them. The author implies this also,

"It is important to note that people who believe on the basis of religious experience do not typically construe their belief in God as based on an argument (any more than belief in other persons is based on an argument). They believe they have seen or heard God directly and find themselves overwhelmed by belief in God. Religious experience is typically taken as self-authenticating." ...

I agree with the statement, "While not denying that some people have had powerful, so-called mystical experiences, they deny that one can reliably infer from that experience that the source or cause of that experience was God. Even the most enthusiastic mystics contend that some mystical experiences are illusory. So, how does one sort out the veridical from the illusory without begging the question?

I had a very educational afternoon.