NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fortunately, matters of faith and religious experience will never be—nor should they be—held to the same scrutiny as criminal or civil law.

This is a very valid point. In fact, matter of anthropological importance will never be held to the same scrutiny as criminal or civil law. There is a significant reason for this, and I'm fairly certain the resident google/wikipedia jockey can tell us all why.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ransacko

I don't know what's more amusing, you using Wikipedia to attempt to solidify your stance or the fact that you claim to be of the legal school of thought. First off, Little does not equate to none. Secondly the very idea you attempt to draw a tenuous link between the legal system and the weight of anthropological evidence is incredibly humorous. Give yourself a pat on the back, you've earned the angst-filled, angry immature pseudo-intellectual achievement.

Go continue spouting your wiki-borne knowledge to the masses, and if you truly belong to the law profession in Canada, go take a look at General Tire Canada INC. v. Aylwards LTD. Don't forget since you are a professional your "opinion" does in fact equate to advice. Rational individuals would do better for themselves than to resort to spouting idealogical crap from the mouth of the internet's forum of idiots.

Back up your claims with some relevant legal posturing rather than utilizing oft used argument of how what you claim to be "Hearsay" as entirely unimportant.

But I will congratulate you on one thing, you have made me laugh at how stupid internet "experts" can claim to be. You sir typify the very reason why democracy is so riddled with flaws.

Congrats!

Oh come on, it really doesn't matter.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh come on, it really doesn't matter.

Just responding to seriousness with seriousness... lol after all this is just an off-topic forum, the real question is can the flames string together a series of wins with a collective effort from every player. That's the real question of the decade.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ransacko

Just responding to seriousness with seriousness... lol after all this is just an off-topic forum, the real question is can the flames string together a series of wins with a collective effort from every player. That's the real question of the decade.

The problem is, there was a great, respectful discussion on a topic which really gathers people who like to stir up controversy. You just came in and ruined it.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Ransacko

I don't know what's more amusing, you using Wikipedia to attempt to solidify your stance or the fact that you claim to be of the legal school of thought. First off, Little does not equate to none. Secondly the very idea you attempt to draw a tenuous link between the legal system and the weight of anthropological evidence is incredibly humorous. Give yourself a pat on the back, you've earned the angst-filled, angry immature pseudo-intellectual achievement.

Go continue spouting your wiki-borne knowledge to the masses, and if you truly belong to the law profession in Canada, go take a look at General Tire Canada INC. v. Aylwards LTD. Don't forget since you are a professional your "opinion" does in fact equate to advice. Rational individuals would do better for themselves than to resort to spouting idealogical crap from the mouth of the internet's forum of idiots.

Back up your claims with some relevant legal posturing rather than utilizing oft used argument of how what you claim to be "Hearsay" as entirely unimportant.

But I will congratulate you on one thing, you have made me laugh at how stupid internet "experts" can claim to be. You sir typify the very reason why democracy is so riddled with flaws.

Congrats!

LOL, I love internet lawyers arguing with real life lawyers.

Ransacko, you did happen to notice that one of those links was a Gov't of Canada website?

When you produce your law degree (like Troutman has) we'll give more weight to your legal opinions.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

LOL, I love internet lawyers arguing with real life lawyers.

Ransacko, you did happen to notice that one of those links was a Gov't of Canada website?

When you produce your law degree (like Troutman has) we'll give more weight to your legal opinions.

On second thought, it would be unwise for me to offer up my email for public scrutiny, suffice to say provide me with your email address and I will gladly scan my degree in for you to show you evidence of my degree.

[Textcritic]

Dear god...

A pissing contest between lawyers? However did it come to this?!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Dear god...

A pissing contest between lawyers? However did it come to this?!

It's worse than that. It's one "lawyer" engaging in a pissing contest with himself, while his opponent (troutman) wisely isn't rising to the bait.

I for one found this to be a great thread before Ransacko came along and tried to turn it into a confrontational (and nonsensical) argument. I suggest we all ignore him and keep going.


In any case--Textcritic, since you're of an analytical mindset, I'll ask this, apropos of your earlier comments about reading Biblical writings "critically." I understand your point about that, but I do wonder--if you can't read them "historically," or as a record of past events, or "literally" as a moral guideline for behaviour, isn't "critically" the only remaining option. How is the average person to access the religious writings of Christianity in a thoughtful, engaged way if not critically? Part of that question, I guess, is how do you read the Bible? But more crucially--do you not see a role for the Bible as a text encountered on an individual level by individual Christians in their spiritual life--must that spiritual life be mediated by ritual rather than text instead?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Ransacko

I don't know what's more amusing, you using Wikipedia to attempt to solidify your stance or the fact that you claim to be of the legal school of thought. First off, Little does not equate to none. Secondly the very idea you attempt to draw a tenuous link between the legal system and the weight of anthropological evidence is incredibly humorous. Give yourself a pat on the back, you've earned the angst-filled, angry immature pseudo-intellectual achievement.

Go continue spouting your wiki-borne knowledge to the masses, and if you truly belong to the law profession in Canada, go take a look at General Tire Canada INC. v. Aylwards LTD. Don't forget since you are a professional your "opinion" does in fact equate to advice. Rational individuals would do better for themselves than to resort to spouting idealogical crap from the mouth of the internet's forum of idiots.

Back up your claims with some relevant legal posturing rather than utilizing oft used argument of how what you claim to be "Hearsay" as entirely unimportant.

But I will congratulate you on one thing, you have made me laugh at how stupid internet "experts" can claim to be. You sir typify the very reason why democracy is so riddled with flaws.

Congrats!

And you sir typify the stereotypical Lawyer that most of us are repulsed by. You have no idea who troutman is, yet you feel a need to put yourself on a pedestal above him. I assume you want him to link you to some Legal website that requires passwords for proof?
I find your comments the very reason most humans despise lawyers...if that is what you really are.

[flamesfever]

I can certainly see how it would be difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to reconstruct what the person in the Bible was trying to convey.

When taking my geological degree, I used to sneak down to the dusty basement of the geological building and read parts of the old geological texts written in the 1800's. In doing so I found that the geology was mixed in with philosophy, and realized that the way people (even scientists) perceived things in those days was very difficult to comprehend. So I can imagine going back thousands of years would be much more difficult.

Another thing I want to bring up is that the function of science is to gain knowledge, while what to do with the knowledge is the big issue. Here is where wisdom comes in. Do not the holy books provide a collection of the wisdom, handed down through the ages, provide a great benefit to mankind. Surely atheists don't have a monopoly on wisdom.

That should bring Cheese back in!

[llama64]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I can certainly see how it would be difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to reconstruct what the person in the Bible was trying to convey.

When taking my geological degree, I used to sneak down to the dusty basement of the geological building and read parts of the old geological texts written in the 1800's. In doing so I found that the geology was mixed in with philosophy, and realized that the way people (even scientists) perceived things in those days was very difficult to comprehend. So I can imagine going back thousands of years would be much more difficult.

Another thing I want to bring up is that the function of science is to gain knowledge, while what to do with the knowledge is the big issue. Here is where wisdom comes in. Do not the holy books provide a collection of the wisdom, handed down through the ages, provide a great benefit to mankind. Surely atheists don't have a monopoly on wisdom.

That should bring Cheese back in!

One of the great travestries of the scientific "Revolution" is the propagation of the conception that religion and science are wholly incompatable. This was created and spread by idealistic opposition by the main pillars of "Science" against the powers of the time (predominantly religious in nature).

What was glossed over was that science was funded and predominantly pursued by people who's background was theological in origin. Prominent Christians like St Tomas Aquinas actively sought out the boundaries of the natural world in relation to that which could only be known through faith in God. Interestingly enough, the term "Middle Ages" was borne out of contempt during the enlightenment to describe the rise of Christianity in Europe and the propagation of Platonic traditions in favour of Aristotelian belief systems. The truth of the matter is that the middle ages were not dark times. A lot of "scientific" enquiry was pursued by people, predominantly using Church funding.

"Science" as a term did not exist until recently in human history. Prior to that, the disciplines of religion, philosophy and what is now known as the sciences were all very finely intermingled into common tapestry. Even the more famous scientists such as Newton had theological underpinnings to their experimentation.

The point of all this rambling is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but rather two sides of the same coin. Or they were until the late 19th century when it became fashionable to become "aethist" and denounce anything remotely resembling religion or "belief".

As far as I can tell, some things are able to be known and understood through human means while others can be observed but not known. It's a sliding scale as our collective understanding advances. The participants of the argument between science and religion each draw the line somewhere and refuse to let it move.

To speak to the question more directly, science as a process dismisses a lot of "traditional" wisdom such as that in the Bible mostly because it's unable to be verified through alternative means. That said, there are portions of the Bible that speak of historic events that have been correlated to other ancient historical texts. There is too much in "holy texts" to dismiss them outright, but to accept them on their own intrinsic value alone is folly.

I find it interesting the discussion on the historical validity of Jesus of Nazereth. I have to ask, is it really important at this point in history to know if the story in the Bible is accurate? The true story would have no bearing on the current reality of a religion based on the contents of the Bible. I guess my views are tainted since long ago I accepted that the Bible is a man made creation (even if it were divinely inspired). To accept a *translated* bible as the literal word of God speaks to a persons inability to reason properly.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

To speak to the question more directly, science as a process dismisses a lot of "traditional" wisdom such as that in the Bible mostly because it's unable to be verified through alternative means.

What do you mean? Science doesn't dismiss things such as do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because science mostly doesn't speak to that kind of thing. But it does dismiss things that are within the realm of science, such as historical events or claims about reality, when those events or claims clearly have no basis.

And most religious people don't have a problem with that, they can clearly take something like the flood and see that it is a story to illustrate something because science clearly doesn't support a global flood. So science hasn't dismissed any wisdom in the flood story, just confirmed that it is a story, not a historical account.

That said, there are portions of the Bible that speak of historic events that have been correlated to other ancient historical texts. There is too much in "holy texts" to dismiss them outright, but to accept them on their own intrinsic value alone is folly.

The fact that a historical document gets some historical events correct doesn't give the content of the book any validity other than to indicate the author was aware of the events. The value of a book like the Bible would be as a source of knowledge and wisdom about God and ourselves, historical accuracy doesn't do anything for that. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I find it interesting the discussion on the historical validity of Jesus of Nazereth. I have to ask, is it really important at this point in history to know if the story in the Bible is accurate? The true story would have no bearing on the current reality of a religion based on the contents of the Bible. I guess my views are tainted since long ago I accepted that the Bible is a man made creation (even if it were divinely inspired). To accept a *translated* bible as the literal word of God speaks to a persons inability to reason properly.

That really gets back to the whole point of this thread.. I don't think a lot of what has been said in this thread would be targeted at someone who holds a more liberal view of scripture. The start of the thread was about Intelligent Design, a device created by a group of religious people who adhere to a literal view of the Bible and would call anyone who would accept a more liberal view isn't just not a Christian, but an agent of the devil sent to corrupt their message.

And these people aren't an insignificant fringe, they hold real power in our society.. and I think that's part of the motivation when others try to combat that dogmatic thinking, trying to educate and help people understand their own beliefs and reasons for them.

For example, out of the 5400 different ancient Greek sources we have for the New Testament, no two agree. The actual # of differences hasn't been calculated, but the # definitely exceeds the # of words in the entire NT itself. I have friends who I can't tell that to though, because if I did they'd either say I was being deceived by the devil, or that whoever said that is lying, or that it doesn't matter because the version we have now is exactly what God wanted because it is 100% literally true. EDIT: Not saying that that fact invalidates the NT or anything, just saying the willingness to ignore facts is what is the problem.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

What do you mean? Science doesn't dismiss things such as do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because science mostly doesn't speak to that kind of thing. But it does dismiss things that are within the realm of science, such as historical events or claims about reality, when those events or claims clearly have no basis.

You basically explained what I meant. Serves me right for posting while eating a sammich. Science itself doesn't care for morality, but there is more to religion then morality. There are aspects of religion that science can explain or target and it is those things that I was speaking to. More specifically, the historical events in the bible. Interestingly enough, there are scientific theories presented in support of the Biblical flood. Something about a comet hitting the Indian Ocean 10,000 years ago. It was in a recent Discover magazine.

People who take the Bible in a literal sense cannot possibly approach life in a reasoned fashion. The same can be said about the people who dismiss the Bible outright because of it's religious significance. I guess that's the point to my rambling.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, ID should not be taught in a scientific context since it cannot possibly be based on scientific pricipals. But, at the same time, it would be a disservice to the goals of education to exclude it from the curriculim. A vast segment of society actively believe in aspects of ID, which makes it very important to present it in an educational context. I'd like to see all schools in North America adopt a Religion class or expand the Social Science curriculum.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

You basically explained what I meant. Serves me right for posting while eating a sammich. Science itself doesn't care for morality, but there is more to religion then morality. There are aspects of religion that science can explain or target and it is those things that I was speaking to. More specifically, the historical events in the bible. Interestingly enough, there are scientific theories presented in support of the Biblical flood. Something about a comet hitting the Indian Ocean 10,000 years ago. It was in a recent Discover magazine.

Well a comet hitting the Indian ocean would certainly cause flooding within a limited (though huge) area.. which is fine but certainly not the same as the claim of a global flood where the waters covered the land above the highest mountain and every animal except those on the ark died.

People who take the Bible in a literal sense cannot possibly approach life in a reasoned fashion. The same can be said about the people who dismiss the Bible outright because of it's religious significance. I guess that's the point to my rambling.

I guess I disagree somewhat.. I agree that even atheist cannot dismiss the Bible with respect to its impact on history and current culture, but I wouldn't say that an atheist who decides the Bible isn't relevant to his own life is living in an unreasonable fashion. There really isn't anything an atheist is missing by not partaking in religion other than the religion itself.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, ID should not be taught in a scientific context since it cannot possibly be based on scientific pricipals. But, at the same time, it would be a disservice to the goals of education to exclude it from the curriculim. A vast segment of society actively believe in aspects of ID, which makes it very important to present it in an educational context. I'd like to see all schools in North America adopt a Religion class or expand the Social Science curriculum.

I agree, though I'd say they can talk about various creation myths. ID doesn't deserve any place in any classroom any more than the flying spaghetti monster does. Other than maybe to say that ID is something created by a group to try and integrate their ideas where they don't belong.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Well a comet hitting the Indian ocean would certainly cause flooding within a limited (though huge) area.. which is fine but certainly not the same as the claim of a global flood where the waters covered the land above the highest mountain and every animal except those on the ark died.

Think about the context of the time. The world was really tiny to the people who would write the story of a flood down. The bit about Noah and the Ark could certainly be fully made up, but the concept of a "great flood" exists in nearly every culture and seems to tie in to the same time period. It's an interesting theory despite having no evidence beyond supposition and mythology to back it up. The scientists are in the process of trying to prove it though.

This is kinda what I mean when I said that some elements of a book like the Bible could be factual while others are unscientific.

I guess I disagree somewhat.. I agree that even atheist cannot dismiss the Bible with respect to its impact on history and current culture, but I wouldn't say that an atheist who decides the Bible isn't relevant to his own life is living in an unreasonable fashion. There really isn't anything an atheist is missing by not partaking in religion other than the religion itself.

The only thing a person is missing by dismissing the bible is an understanding of a significant part of Western Civilization. It's in a person's best interest to investigate everything they can. Or at least that's what I think

Re-reading my statements... I'm a little hard on religious people. They can still be reasonable in general but on certain issues they become irrational, which casts doubt on their authority in other matters.

I agree, though I'd say they can talk about various creation myths. ID doesn't deserve any place in any classroom any more than the flying spaghetti monster does. Other than maybe to say that ID is something created by a group to try and integrate their ideas where they don't belong.

I have training in History, which gives me a great appreciation towards understanding things in an artistic and scientific sense. Personally I'd like to pass that appreciation on to kids at a younger age so they can grow up with a better understanding of how to critically rate new information. Understanding the significance of religion to our culture is something that I think a lot of people disregard, which leads to a lot of distrust of people who choose faith over other world views.

I'd bet that if kids were presented ID and other more scientific theories of "creation", the ones based on science would win out, especially in the context of the rest of the curriculum. Kids arn't idiots. The more information available to them at an early age, the better the understanding of issues at a later age.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

Think about the context of the time. The world was really tiny to the people who would write the story of a flood down. The bit about Noah and the Ark could certainly be fully made up, but the concept of a "great flood" exists in nearly every culture and seems to tie in to the same time period. It's an interesting theory despite having no evidence beyond supposition and mythology to back it up. The scientists are in the process of trying to prove it though.

This is kinda what I mean when I said that some elements of a book like the Bible could be factual while others are unscientific.

I agree, you have to look at it in the context of the time. When the author wrote about the flood I'm sure it was based on an oral history that was based in reality.. a huge flood that nearly wiped their culture maybe. Floods are common events around rivers and people liked to live near rivers, regardless of culture.

But still very different from a global flood that covered every landmass over the highest mountains; for various reasons an impossibility (such as the amount of energy generated by that much water falling from the sky, or where that water went).

The only thing a person is missing by dismissing the bible is an understanding of a significant part of Western Civilization. It's in a person's best interest to investigate everything they can. Or at least that's what I think

I agree, which is why I tried to differentiate between understanding and partaking.. it's possible to investigate it without believing that your only hope of eternal salvation is through belief and subjugation to Jesus.

I have training in History, which gives me a great appreciation towards understanding things in an artistic and scientific sense. Personally I'd like to pass that appreciation on to kids at a younger age so they can grow up with a better understanding of how to critically rate new information. Understanding the significance of religion to our culture is something that I think a lot of people disregard, which leads to a lot of distrust of people who choose faith over other world views.

I can definitely agree with that.

I'd bet that if kids were presented ID and other more scientific theories of "creation", the ones based on science would win out, especially in the context of the rest of the curriculum. Kids arn't idiots. The more information available to them at an early age, the better the understanding of issues at a later age.

Unfortunately that's not the case though, just look at the kids that go to school and only get the scientific view of our origins but still only believe the creation stories they're indoctrinated to believe by their parents.

Something like ID isn't worth teaching beyond the awareness of it.. it isn't science in the slightest, and it isn't religion, it isn't anything except a negative argument. Teach it like geocentricism is taught if anything.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...I'll ask this, apropos of your earlier comments about reading Biblical writings "critically." I understand your point about that, but I do wonder--if you can't read them "historically," or as a record of past events, or "literally" as a moral guideline for behaviour, isn't "critically" the only remaining option. How is the average person to access the religious writings of Christianity in a thoughtful, engaged way if not critically?

A colleague of mine has often stated to me (in private, as such statements tend to be misconstrued badly in a confessional institution such as the one at which I am employed) that he wishes that preachers would stop using the Bible. "The Bible," he says, "belongs in the university classroom and not in the pulpit." I have heard far too many great sermons that have been absolutely eviscerated because the preacher felt it necessary to bring the Bible into it.

I believe that a critical reading of Scripture is the best way to understand how we ought approach the books. That is not to say that I expect critical readings in my own church every Sunday, but that the function of the Bible in Church and in the lives of believers would be tremendously enhanced if only they understood the problems and issues that dominate the texts. You are right in this: A critical reading of the texts renders them somewhat inaccessible to the laity. People quite simply do not have the time, the wherewithall, or even the necessary skill to be their own interpreters of Scripture, and this is where the community of believers and the advise and input of Christian leaders is necessary. It is why, in the early Church, that much more was made of the oral traditions of the faith, the teachings of the Apostles and the traditional interpretations of difficult, ancient texts. It is why these things tended to supercede the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...Part of that question, I guess, is how do you read the Bible? But more crucially--do you not see a role for the Bible as a text encountered on an individual level by individual Christians in their spiritual life--must that spiritual life be mediated by ritual rather than text instead?

In an ironic twist of "fate"(?!), As I have progressed in my own career as a sort of "Biblical Scholar", the Bible, for me, has become much more meaningless in a confessional or sacramental sense. I read the Bible for a living, and as such, I ten to read it much more prolifically and carefully than the average person. But as an unexpected side effect of this, I have also come to find the Bible much less relevant and useful in my own Church—at least to the extent that it tends to be used.

This may come as something as a surprise, but as a biblical scholar, I have become more and more convinced that most North American Christians—particularly evangelical Christians—greatly exaggerate the importance of the Bible. Honestly, how much good is a book like Numbers or Leviticus or Daniel to the contemporary Church? I have heard many suggest that if we do not read the Bible literally in Church, then we must mine it for positive "examples" and "lessons" of faith to supplement our theological traditions. But I believe that even this is erroneous.

What the Bible is is this: a selection of individual works of sacred literature that Church leaders have affirmed through the ages to be the best written record of the faith. In my estimation, the value of the Bible for the believer is in that it preserves someone's perception of God. I must also recognize that this perception is not always accurate, or that it is often nuanced by culture, language, history, politics, and power. Nevertheless, there is value in reading about how ancient peoples struggled to understand who God was and how he acted in the world. In many respects, I look to the stories in Scripture and see something that resonates in my own experience with God; something that gives shape to what I think or feel, but am unable to put words to. Other times, I see perceptions of God that are foreign to my own, and which I believe to be outright false. Ideas presented in the name of God that do not accord well with how I have come to understand his character. I can see in the Psalms and in the various pieces of religious poetry exaggerations of the divide between the "holy" and the "profane"; between "divine" and "human"; between "good" and "evil". They help me to gauge my own response to God. In the prophecies and apocalyptic visions, I see a number of things: celebration of great hope; expectation for judgement and/or justice—depending upon which side of oppression one finds himself; an hyperbolic, dualistic sense of morality.

There is a great deal of tension within the Scriptures, and they should be read very much with this tension in the foreground. When it comes to my own church, often I feel that we would all benefit a great deal if we set the Bible aside—if only for a time, to develop a keener understanding of how to apply the mandate of justice, self-sacrifice, and righteousness that we believe to be at the heart of God's character. After we have figured this out, perhaps the record of people's struggles with God that is preserved in the Scriptures will become more intelligible and more meaningful.

[troutman]

^^^^
Very interesting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In my estimation, the value of the Bible for the believer is in that it preserves someone's perception of God.

I think this is one of the best sentences on the subject I have ever read.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

Let me unpack this a bit: I stated earlier that as I continue in my own study and research, the Bible becomes less important confessionally. This is perhaps not entirely accurate. What I mean to say is that as a "divine" product the Bible becomes less meaningful. It should be obvious that I cherish the Scriptures—I have, afterall, devoted my career to studying them in depth—but I believe that I cherish them for different reasons and on a different level than most evangelicals. For me, the Bible is exciting in the adventures of faith it has perserved. The true value in the Scriptures is in their distinction as a human product: a beautiful response to he divine. I often tell my students that the Bible is a "gritty book"; it is earthy and imperfect and wonderfully mortal. It is so much more interesting and effective in its fallibility than it could ever be if it were the direct and untainted speech of God.

God does not need an infallible Bible, and neither should we.