Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

On a related note, debunking creationism is becoming something of a hobby of mine

I just made this in photoshop the other day, I thought of it once when talking about ID and thinking about the Contact novel.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

I admit that the creationist myths that were part of my upbringing are by far the least of the problems I think I can partially attribute to my upbringing. That's a whole different thread though.

And I don't blame my parents at all interestingly enough, I never really thought about it until now but I really don't. They were doing what they thought best, just like most people try to do.

But like I said there are some things parents could teach that would be considered child abuse, what's interesting to me is where is that line? Can we make a line at all?

I don't think we can, in a free society its the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit.

I think the only thing is to bring about awareness, for example I imagine there are much fewer children being taught today that gay people are evil/bad/sinners compared to say 30 years ago.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

Thank you for your history, its good insight, I've often wondered how your faith evolved away from evangelical zeal.

That was the greatly condensed version. In many respects, I don't like to think of myself as having moved past "evangelical zeal", but rather consider my zeal to have shifted focus. As part of my commitment to the faith, I am still bound to proclaim the Gospel, only my understanding of what the Gospel is (or rather, what it should be!) is rapidly changing.

Originally Posted by Thor

I would say that good intentions don't excuse bad behavior, and I do agree the vast majority of people who teach that hellfire is real and to be feared, teach science is the enemy and to fight against evolution; that these people do truly feel they are doing the right thing for their children.

But obviously if we are to move forward into the future, we need to change awareness to parents that turning them against science would be bad for their future life, teaching fear of hellfire can be traumatic to children, teaching any for of absolutism can lead to a citizen that sees only in black and white.

I agree with this, and it is something that I struggle with in my own life with my own children. Even though I have unequivocally rejected belief in such things as "heaven" and "hell", "angels" and "demons", I'll be honest: Sometimes hell still scares me (The idea of hell should scare the hell out of anyone!) I'm deeply concerned for how the Church is to move forward in the world that is more and more becoming "secularized" (for lack of a better word). My own theology is leading me to believe that the whole system needs serious reconsideration, and leads me time and time again to the following fundamental question: Is there room for a belief in God in the universe of pointless existence? Or perhaps, is there room to believe that if God exists, a truly faithful commitment to him will move beyond a dependancy upon him?

Originally Posted by Thor

I don't know how you stop the cycle, I know some of the fiercest debate is 'should we' even try, but obviously there needs to be debate about it and Religion has to be held fully in account for its actions, its behaviors, and be fully critically analyzed in our modern discourse.

I'm really beginning to push the bounds of my own thinking in some of my more recent ideas: I think that I may be moving into a place where I believe that religion has run its course, and that is ok. I still believe in God (most of the time), but more and more I am found questioning practically everything I was ever taught about him. Predominantly, those things about religion and about Christianity specifically: Maybe it is time to admit—as a Christian—that the harm that religion has caused has rendered it obsolete. Can the future of religion be an abandonment of it? Is it possible to remain a theist and a Christian, and to reject the sacral institution of the Church?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by photon

I agree, and there's a big difference between having society dictate what's taught in schools to children and enforcing what's right thinking for society in general.

The question is does society have any right at all to interfere with what parents teach their children? Society DOES interfere with what parents DO to their children, even something like emotional abuse. I can think of things that a parent could teach a child that I would consider abuse.



I personally wouldn't suggest that parents should not be allowed to teach their children creationist nonsense on their own time. I guess I wouldn't say that parents should not be allowed to teach their kids that the earth is flat either. But what about teaching their kids that gays are evil? Teaching their kids that blacks are inferior? Teaching their kids that the holocaust was a good thing that didn't go far enough? Teaching their kids that women need a good smack now and then to keep them in line?

Some of those things I would consider child abuse if a parent taught to their child. The problem is quantifying it, if you can't define it, can't quantify it, you can't make decisions and actually do anything about it.

Is it just the cost of living in a free society? Parents are free to transfer the evil ideas (and thus evil behaviours) to the next generation just like the good ones.

The ones you high lighted i would agree are child abuse. The thing is that would be pretty clear with most people. Teaching someone creation is not going to harm them or make them out to be evil..

[photon]

Originally Posted by Dion

The ones you high lighted i would agree are child abuse. The thing is that would be pretty clear with most people. Teaching someone creation is not going to harm them or make them out to be evil..

Right, but it's not black and white, it's more like a sliding scale.

I'm fully aware that some of the things I teach my son every day by my actions aren't "optimal", but I'm human, so that's the way things are. And I try to improve every day.

But I disagree that teaching someone creationism isn't going to harm them. Rather the kind of thinking patterns that allow someone to adhere to creationism in the face of contrary evidence. The kind of thinking that allow one to think "What I think is Truth, anything contrary is by definition wrong." That way of thinking is very harmful I think. Harmful to the individual if only because they're less than they could be, and harmful to society because it drags us backwards, inhibits us, enables people to remain bigoted, remain self-superior, remain all kids of things that otherwise would not be socially acceptable.

Will it make them evil? In and of itself no, but I think that evil acts can definitely be committed as a result of the kind of mindset that creationism flourishes in. Hyperbole? Maybe, but the extremes of a data set are still part of the data set. When one thinks that one has the Truth, that is a very dangerous thing. Any means is justified when one is Right.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That was the greatly condensed version. In many respects, I don't like to think of myself as having moved past "evangelical zeal", but rather consider my zeal to have shifted focus. As part of my commitment to the faith, I am still bound to proclaim the Gospel, only my understanding of what the Gospel is (or rather, what it should be!) is rapidly changing.

Well either way, I know that many of us regulars here have learned a lot from you and your involvement in these debates is always something we all learn a lot from.

I agree with this, and it is something that I struggle with in my own life with my own children. Even though I have unequivocally rejected belief in such things as "heaven" and "hell", "angels" and "demons", I'll be honest: Sometimes hell still scares me (The idea of hell should scare the hell out of anyone!)

I remember vividly as a child being told about hell, it was ironically one of my best friends mother who was a evangelical, she knew my parents did not take me to church and her son had mentioned I didn't believe in hell or heaven. I remember how concerned she was for me, because in her eyes I was going to hell and in her opinion she felt it was necessary to scare the living bejeesus out of me at age 9, that night my father paid her a visit and she never spoke to me on religion again, thankfully.

But I had nightmares for months after that, I was always from a young age very curious and had seeds of critical thinking at an early age, probably because our large family would sit together and discuss any and all things, often about the universe and science. Even though none of us were in any way qualified, it was neat about asking questions and debating who created the creator, did the universe just 'begin' or has it always existed, etc..

My father is an unbeliever, my Mother was slightly religious and superstitious but she would have been far from what people call religious in North America, more like the Nordic version of it (read the book Society without god!) My 3 sisters, 1 is a strong atheist like me, 1 is softly religious (far from literalism) and the other never really talks about it, much like many nordic its not a issue she feels comfortable with. My brother, is also very much an Atheist, but he baptised his children, he is now getting ready to have his 2nd daughter confirmed this year, and he attends church once a year with his wifes family as is tradition. Btw in her family 8 brothers/sisters they are split between non believers and the others are very soft believers.

I'm deeply concerned for how the Church is to move forward in the world that is more and more becoming "secularized" (for lack of a better word). My own theology is leading me to believe that the whole system needs serious reconsideration, and leads me time and time again to the following fundamental question: Is there room for a belief in God in the universe of pointless existence? Or perhaps, is there room to believe that if God exists, a truly faithful commitment to him will move beyond a dependancy upon him?

I'll tell you from my side, that I never feel like its a pointless existance. There are some great scienctists that have thrown out religion, but still cling to a deist belief, a non involving god that we do not yet understand or comprehend, or even could know what that 'god' is, certainly not a human like being with superpowers.

I think theres a good model for how to view a possible near future society from what we see today, I hate always picking on this point, but that book Society without God reminded me again why Nordic countries are so unique and that even in a very godless Denmark/Sweden people still have a special appreciation for church, for baptisms, confirmations, Priests who are there to talk to during troubles, etc.. And thats from mostly a nation of non believers.

I think the church can evolve into something like this, a secular traditional institution where we take the best of religion mix in modern thinking and find a balance. Priests can be giving lectures on the good moral messages of the bible, but they could also warn of the dangers of absolutism and certainty of religion.

Its really the trouble of updating 2000yr old dogma into a modern and new church which would be a source of rigorous debate, antithetic to dogma/absolutism and a place to hold onto good traditions while allowing for new ideas/debate and enrichment. I don't know how its possible here in North America, because its so different from the Nordic nations, but you never know.

I'm really beginning to push the bounds of my own thinking in some of my more recent ideas: I think that I may be moving into a place where I believe that religion has run its course, and that is ok. I still believe in God (most of the time), but more and more I am found questioning practically everything I was ever taught about him. Predominantly, those things about religion and about Christianity specifically: Maybe it is time to admit—as a Christian—that the harm that religion has caused has rendered it obsolete. Can the future of religion be an abandonment of it? Is it possible to remain a theist and a Christian, and to reject the sacral institution of the Church?

I can't even imagine the debates raging within your own mind, but over here on the darkside I'm starting to fall more in line with Sam Harris and his exploration of spirituality without god, something that we cannot deny exists universally in humans. Spirituality has always been forcefully married to religion, I think we could learn a lot more if we divorce them and keep it away from new agers and the like.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

I just made this in photoshop the other day, I thought of it once when talking about ID and thinking about the Contact novel.

Is that the novel that the movie Contact was based on?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

Will it make them evil? In and of itself no, but I think that evil acts can definitely be committed as a result of the kind of mindset that creationism flourishes in. Hyperbole? Maybe, but the extremes of a data set are still part of the data set. When one thinks that one has the Truth, that is a very dangerous thing. Any means is justified when one is Right.

Adding to that point, as long as somewhere along the line children are taught critical and skeptical thinking, they can have the tools to grow up as good citizens who will take claims and give them the skeptical rigors they deserve.

That mindset of belief without proof certainly helps many other things flourish such as Psychics, Mediums, much of alternative medicine (ie Homeopathy, crystal therapy), Alien abductions (replaced the demon obsession of the previous 2000yrs), Astrology, superstitions (lucky sock), etc..

Carl Sagan explained this best in the Demon Haunted world, he covers the whole spectrum of what children brought up without what he called "a balony detection kit" would be likely to fall prey to.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Is that the novel that the movie Contact was based on?

Yup! The novel is way better than the movie (although the movie is still quite strong and one of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time).

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by photon

But I disagree that teaching someone creationism isn't going to harm them.

I think you're talking the dogmatic sort of teaching but IMO i want my kids taught creationism. And evolution. And why people think and beleive in each. That millions of people belive each means way more in my mind then whether one r the other is right. Both need to be learned and understood. I want them challengeing both ideas, and not accepting anyone's evangelical truth, the Church's or Science's.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

...I think theres a good model for how to view a possible near future society from what we see today, I hate always picking on this point, but that book Society without God reminded me again why Nordic countries are so unique and that even in a very godless Denmark/Sweden people still have a special appreciation for church, for baptisms, confirmations, Priests who are there to talk to during troubles, etc.. And thats from mostly a nation of non believers.

I think the church can evolve into something like this, a secular traditional institution where we take the best of religion mix in modern thinking and find a balance. Priests can be giving lectures on the good moral messages of the bible, but they could also warn of the dangers of absolutism and certainty of religion.

I'll check out the book. I have a few friends from Finland; all biblical scholar-types like myself, and I have always been very impressed at their own utter lack of insecurity with regards to their faith.

Originally Posted by Thor

I can't even imagine the debates raging within your own mind, but over here on the darkside I'm starting to fall more in line with Sam Harris and his exploration of spirituality without god, something that we cannot deny exists universally in humans. Spirituality has always been forcefully married to religion, I think we could learn a lot more if we divorce them and keep it away from new agers and the like.

So far, I'm at the point that what religion does for us—what God does for us as a society and as individuals is to provide purpose and meaning, regardless of how illusory they may seem. What I think plagues people deep down is the seemingly cold, dispassionate state of a universe and a world that evolves towards nothing: Most people want to be a part of something greater than themselves, and given what we now know about how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of universal history, the truth can be greatly distressing. The idea of God provides purpose to a great many: Even if it is something that we have created, it is still meaningful.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

Yup! The novel is way better than the movie (although the movie is still quite strong and one of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time).

Yeah, I love the movie, I never knew there was a book, but it makes sense. I'll have to check it out.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

Yup! The novel is way better than the movie (although the movie is still quite strong and one of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time).

It is the other way around for me. Contact is the only movie that I have ever seen that I enjoyed more than the book. It has been a long time since I read the book, but if memory serves me correctly, the movie was much more focused on the relationship between faith and science, and I appreciated this aspect. Or maybe it was because I read it in the early-nineties and found all the Cold War stuff kitschy.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'll check out the book. I have a few friends from Finland; all biblical scholar-types like myself, and I have always been very impressed at their own utter lack of insecurity with regards to their faith.

So far, I'm at the point that what religion does for us—what God does for us as a society and as individuals is to provide purpose and meaning, regardless of how illusory they may seem. What I think plagues people deep down is the seemingly cold, dispassionate state of a universe and a world that evolves towards nothing: Most people want to be a part of something greater than themselves, and given what we now know about how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of universal history, the truth can be greatly distressing. The idea of God provides purpose to a great many: Even if it is something that we have created, it is still meaningful.

This is true, but I think there is a definate alternative to meaning without God to most non believers, we find it in many different ways but its still much about what Dawkins says in "Unweaving the Rainbow" and Daniel Dennett says in "Breaking the Spell" which touch upon awe and inspiration of the universe, its complexity and how fortunate we are to have this opportunity to exist.

My thrill and passion is to see humanity move forward, to see us learn more about the cosmos and our own world. The thrill of new discoveries, the thrill of pondering what the future holds, is to me very precious and inspirational.

Knowing that you have only this short window to exist, certainly gives you a perspective that we need to take care of our planet, each other, and make sure that our time is well spent on earth.

Here's a comment on it by Richard:

One of my other books you also mentioned, Unweaving the Rainbow, is sort of my testament on that aspect, on the spiritual quality of life that you get from science, that you get from contemplating your situation in the universe with clear, open eyes. The eyes that have been opened by science, facing up to reality. Facing, well more than, no, not so much facing up, but rejoicing in the astonishing good fortune that you have in being alive. It's an astonishingly unlikely contingency that you should be here. That any of us should be here.

I don't have a copy of Unweaving the Rainbow on me, but the opening words are something like, we are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die, because they are never going to be born. The number of possible people who could be standing here in my place, but who will never see the light of day, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. We know this because the set of possible combinations of DNA so massively outnumber the set of actual people. So we are fantastically lucky to be alive and as I said, nobody should ever complain of being bored.

It's a kind of insult to the gazillions of people who will never be born to complain of being bored. It's an insult to them to complain that our time in the sun is limited to some decades. We're just fantastically lucky to have those decades at all, and it is an insult to them to whimper and whine at the prospect of its coming to an end. We owe it to them and ourselves to make the most of the time we have on the planet, and there are all sorts of other respects in which the book, Unweaving the Rainbow, develops the theme. But I'd like to think that all my books about expounding evolutionary science contribute to the same feeling of spiritual, I don't mind using the word, spiritual welfare.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

That millions of people belive each means way more in my mind then whether one r the other is right.

Can you explain this idea please? It sounds like you are saying "as long as a lot of people believe it, it doesn't matter if it's true".

[Cheese]

Keeping with the child abuse side of things...I understand the desire to let people be...and for the most part I completely agree, but the line is a fine one.
How about the parents that named their children Adolph Hitler and Aryan Nation? Is the Aryan way worse? It teaches something none of us buy into?

Then we have the Mormons who think its ok to have more than one wife and completely isolate the children from society.

Not many are more Liberal than I am...but society needs to take a step back and think about how some children are being raised and their mental well being.
Where is the line...and how fine is it?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'll check out the book. I have a few friends from Finland; all biblical scholar-types like myself, and I have always been very impressed at their own utter lack of insecurity with regards to their faith.


So far, I'm at the point that what religion does for us—what God does for us as a society and as individuals is to provide purpose and meaning, regardless of how illusory they may seem. What I think plagues people deep down is the seemingly cold, dispassionate state of a universe and a world that evolves towards nothing: Most people want to be a part of something greater than themselves, and given what we now know about how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of universal history, the truth can be greatly distressing. The idea of God provides purpose to a great many: Even if it is something that we have created, it is still meaningful.

Isnt education a better way to show people that they will be ok...that the lives they have now are meaningful? Wouldnt it be FAR better to have humans actually buy into making this life and everyone elses right here and right now the best possible...as opposed to the lie that is the afterlife? If this is taught from birth, wouldnt a child who grows up feel at one with him/herself? Doesnt it deserve a chance?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thor

Most Atheists honestly are fully aware of that fact, our becoming more outspoken isn't due to the average Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.. Its the work of the literalists, the ones fighting to over turn Abortion, to stop gay marriage rights, those who want to blow up buildings, turn politics into theocracy, etc..

Since moderates and normal happy believers aren't that upset at the fundies or just don't want to take up that counter argument side, thats where we have taken up that job for you

I keep seeing this arguement come up that athiests are fine wirth moderates but want to bring the debate to the extremists.
But you aren't going to get anywhere with extremists so all that ends up happening is you having the same discussion over and over again with moderates. Anyone who is convinced there is no God by dawkins et all was a likely a moderate anyways so the fight doesn't work. Dawkins also ends up pissing off some moderates which makes them defensive and probably pushes them down the scale

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Isnt education a better way to show people that they will be ok...that the lives they have now are meaningful? Wouldnt it be FAR better to have humans actually buy into making this life and everyone elses right here and right now the best possible...as opposed to the lie that is the afterlife? If this is taught from birth, wouldnt a child who grows up feel at one with him/herself? Doesnt it deserve a chance?

I totally agree with the bolded statement, which is why I have in my own theology moved beyond any hope for afterlife. Much better for everyone to fix their gaze upon the here and now then upon something that may or may not be true about the unknowable void of "death". But I think that this could become a possible outcome for any religion: learning to live and to grow with one another outside of a simple system of reward and punishment.

[Daradon]

I've always thought so too. It's not only common sense to make this life the best possible because there is so little proof of an afterlife, but also it's actually our responsibility to make this world better for our neighbours and the generations that come after us. When you stop banking on the afterlife, this hits home a lot harder.

Of course, the argument could be made that judgment in the next life keeps some people from being worse, or NOT caring about others. Personally that's not me or anyone else I know, and I think, like most things, positive reinforceent works better than threats and punishment, but there are probably people like that out there.

What bugs me the most though, is that there are fundamentalists (Islam and Christian) that are so consumed with the end of days and judgment that they actually seem to be encouraging it. Either directly with actions or indirectly through attitude and apathy. That's where the real danger lies.

EDIT: Shoot, tried the multi-quote there for what Cheese and Textcritic just said and I messed something up obviously, but those comments were the ones I was agreeing with/adding to.