Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[Pastiche]

I'm just pointing out the clear hypocrisy of a guy like Kirk Cameron.

Darwin's Principae is bad because it inspired the holocaust. Sure, maybe that's not what I'm arguing. Eugenics did create a scientific justification for hate but that's besides the point.

My point is that if Cameron was going to be logical about his stand against Darwin then he would be of the mind that the Bible has not inspired similar atrocities. Sadly, we all can agree that the Bible has been a core inspiration for as many deaths due to war and hate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I've read plenty on religion, thank you. I have a minor in religious studies from the UofC with a focus on the nature of religion and I do all my own thinking.

Show me where I attacked what religion does to the human spirit. I did say we shouldn't pander to the hurt feelings of religious people when discussing the validity of their claims, but that wasn't to dismiss any positive they take out of religion and apply to their lives - that is a separate issue.

A claim is either right or wrong. Jesus was either born of a virgin or he wasn't. The fact that a Christian really really really wants this to be true doesn't enter into it and the fact that they will be upset when they learn that virgins can't get pregnant as evidenced by fifth grade human sexuality also doesn't matter. What matters is truth.

This discussion has had nothing to do with religion's affect on the human spirit - we have been discussing whether or not the actor that played Boner's best friend's assertions are true or false. They are false.

You've read plenty of religious criticism, but have you read any religious philosophy? Have you read religion?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not attacking atheism per se, just the common liberal humanist interpretation espoused by most people nowadays. The point of my post is that there are far deeper methods by which to explore the depth of the gods than to merely point to natural selection as the great disclaimer.

I don't see natural selection being used as the great disclaimer. I see natural selection being pointed to as a key mechanism by which biological change occurs, and since our brains are part of the biology of ourselves it can't be ignored, but again I don't see how that's being used to deny or short circuit any philosophical thought.

That'd be like Calgaryborn's claim that natural selection is the great disclaimer for morality; clearly not the case.

Originally Posted by peter12

The real point of discussion is the gods as human revelation, not the gods as materialist creators.

Do you mean examining what humanity says about the gods and by what that says about humanity finding something out about humanity that we didn't know before? Just trying to get what you mean here.

[peter12]

I don't see natural selection being used as the great disclaimer. I see natural selection being pointed to as a key mechanism by which biological change occurs, and since our brains are part of the biology of ourselves it can't be ignored, but again I don't see how that's being used to deny or short circuit any philosophical thought.

That'd be like Calgaryborn's claim that natural selection is the great disclaimer for morality; clearly not the case.

Clearly not the case as far as you are concerned, but as you just said, natural selection doesn't really form the basis of any useful line of thinking as far as humans are concerned, in regards to any of the real human activities at least: politics, eros etc...

Do you mean examining what humanity says about the gods and by what that says about humanity finding something out about humanity that we didn't know before? Just trying to get what you mean here.

The gods as a means of revelation or path to truth. The search for divine things.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

It wasn't direct through Darwin but through some of his philosophical contemporaries. I can suggest the writings of Eric Voegelin for confirmation.

The overall issue, as Voegelin puts it, is gnostic scientism. The idea that science, not philosophy, separates spirit from nature and reduces it to a set of rules. I'm not saying that Darwin's ideas were not horribly twisted as soon as he wrote them down, but thus is the danger of human interpretation.

Wow you seem to view everything through philosophy's lens. I think the scope of reality is much larger than any one discipline can cover.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Wow you seem to view everything through philosophy's lens. I think the scope of reality is much larger than any one discipline can cover.

Philosophy is everything.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

You've read plenty of religious criticism, but have you read any religious philosophy? Have you read religion?

Have you read my post? I have a minor in religious studies. They don't just give those away, you have to read, understand and interpret religious teachings, philosophies and histories to earn one.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Have you read my post? I have a minor in religious studies. They don't just give those away, you have to read, understand and interpret religious teachings, philosophies and histories to earn one.

Well, they do just give minors away. It doesn't even show up on your diploma. My point was that you've just read critical theory, not religious philosophy. I think the UofC has an excellent religious studies department, but most of the good profs that I took classes with were pure critical theorists, really interesting but they don't tell you much about religion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, they do just give minors away. It doesn't even show up on your diploma. My point was that you've just read critical theory, not religious philosophy. I think the UofC has an excellent religious studies department, but most of the good profs that I took classes with were pure critical theorists, really interesting but they don't tell you much about religion.

Not only do you know that atheists are stupid and don't know what they believe or why, you also know what books we've all read, and you know that you've read more of them and understood them better.

What's the going rate on a Ph.D in Pedantry these days?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not only do you know that atheists are stupid and don't know what they believe or why, you also know what books we've all read, and you know that you've read more of them and understood them better.

What's the going rate on a Ph.D in Pedantry these days?

I don't think I'm making a show of anything, I'm saying that I really do not agree with the way in which many "atheists" discuss religion. Nothing wrong with saying what books I have read or what books I do not think others have read.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not only do you know that atheists are stupid and don't know what they believe or why, you also know what books we've all read, and you know that you've read more of them and understood them better.

What's the going rate on a Ph.D in Pedantry these days?

That's simply thrown in for free during the course of the Ph. D.

Most programs knock it out of you at your final defense when you are extremely embarrased that you can't answer a few simple undergraduate questions in front of your committee and peers during the oral portion. The hole it leaves behind gets quickly replaced with some humility.

Some slip through the cracks and remain holier than thou.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ernie

That's simply thrown in for free during the course of the Ph. D.

Most programs knock it out of you at your final defense when you are extremely embarrased that you can't answer a few simple undergraduate questions in front of your committee and peers during the oral portion. The hole it leaves behind gets quickly replaced with some humility.

One of my peers asked... "so... what was the point?"

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, they do just give minors away. It doesn't even show up on your diploma. My point was that you've just read critical theory, not religious philosophy. I think the UofC has an excellent religious studies department, but most of the good profs that I took classes with were pure critical theorists, really interesting but they don't tell you much about religion.

You clearly think you know it all, but you don't and you certainly aren't an expert on the religious studies department at the UofC nor what goes into earning a minor. For the minor, you have to take a set number of courses on eastern religions, western religions and on the nature of religion. I took slightly more on the nature of religion, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn anything about the religions of the world.

And labeling the profs as nothing more than critical theorists is bizarre. It sells the program so short there I'm insulted on their behalf. We had guest lectures from rabis, imams, priests, monks, etc. etc. all in an effort to give us a broad education on as many aspects of religion as possible.

Honestly, your post is so dopey it's hard to believe. Instead of asking what went into my minor you just assumed you had all the answers and assumed it was somehow unimportant to this discussion when you were the one that claimed you had authority on the topic because you read philosophy part time. Well, frankly, you do come across as somebody who does some reading on the subject but not much thinking about it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Clearly not the case as far as you are concerned, but as you just said, natural selection doesn't really form the basis of any useful line of thinking as far as humans are concerned, in regards to any of the real human activities at least: politics, eros etc...

Right, natural selection can't be the basis of a world view, so how could people be basing their world view on natural selection? Maybe a concrete example?

Natural selection is just a physical reality; it can't compete with philosophy any more than gravity or geology does... it doesn't try to.

Originally Posted by peter12

The gods as a means of revelation or path to truth. The search for divine things.

Maybe a more concrete example here might help. I don't think you are saying that the gods actually impart revelation or provide the path to truth, more that the creation of gods and religions and all the trappings by the human mind facilitates... what? The search for "truth" and "meaning"?

What is truth? What is meaning? Just ideas, thoughts, thoughts trying to analyze other thoughts.

Originally Posted by peter12

Philosophy is everything.

Tell that to your surgeon next time you need a life saving coronary bypass.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You clearly think you know it all, but you don't and you certainly aren't an expert on the religious studies department at the UofC nor what goes into earning a minor. For the minor, you have to take a set number of courses on eastern religions, western religions and on the nature of religion. I took slightly more on the nature of religion, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn anything about the religions of the world.

And labeling the profs as nothing more than critical theorists is bizarre. It sells the program so short there I'm insulted on their behalf. We had guest lectures from rabis, imams, priests, monks, etc. etc. all in an effort to give us a broad education on as many aspects of religion as possible.

Honestly, your post is so dopey it's hard to believe. Instead of asking what went into my minor you just assumed you had all the answers and assumed it was somehow unimportant to this discussion when you were the one that claimed you had authority on the topic because you read philosophy part time. Well, frankly, you do come across as somebody who does some reading on the subject but not much thinking about it.

I said that most of the profs that I took classes with were critical theorist. That's not a generalization on the department as a whole. In fact, it would indicate that I enjoyed their classes, particularly Bergen and Eslinger.

Does anything I have said indicate how I thought about religion? No, only that I think there are different ways of thinking about it, then "oh, it all contradicts itself, therefore it must be wrong."

[ernie]

Originally Posted by peter12

One of my peers asked... "so... what was the point?"

I got asked a question from the prof on my committee that not only taught the class when I took it as an undergrad, but was currently teaching it AND I was a TA for the lab. It was the simplest of chemistry questions, and it completely tripped me up as it really had nothing to do with my thesis. It was just a basic chemistry question designed to remind me that it's more important to know the foundation of your knowledge rather than your specific application of the knowledge.

To makes things worse it was the first question!

[peter12]

Right, natural selection can't be the basis of a world view, so how could people be basing their world view on natural selection? Maybe a concrete example?

Natural selection is just a physical reality; it can't compete with philosophy any more than gravity or geology does... it doesn't try to.

Well, after reading The Selfish Gene a few times in my undergrad, it certainly sounds like the basis of a philosophy on how knowledge is obtained, what knowledge is, and why humanity exists.

Liberalism certainly impacted Darwin's interpretation of his data and further served to bolster theoretical interpretations of liberalism, see Herbert Spencer or Steven Pinker.

Maybe a more concrete example here might help. I don't think you are saying that the gods actually impart revelation or provide the path to truth, more that the creation of gods and religions and all the trappings by the human mind facilitates... what? The search for "truth" and "meaning"?

What is truth? What is meaning? Just ideas, thoughts, thoughts trying to analyze other thoughts.

I'm not sure what the gods do. I really don't think they do anything, but I do find it interesting that many, many people read religious texts not just searching for truth, but searching for themselves. Is religious philosophy just trappings for the means to discover material and naturalistic truths (Creation myths etc...)? I personally think it's more like the ultimate human story where we sort out the most important questions about politics, ethics, morality etc...

Tell that to your surgeon next time you need a life saving coronary bypass.

I wonder how people thought about death before coronary bypasses?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, after reading The Selfish Gene a few times in my undergrad, it certainly sounds like the basis of a philosophy on how knowledge is obtained, what knowledge is, and why humanity exists.

Sure, except for the why humanity exists part though. How it exists, but not the why.

But again, knowing how something grew doesn't make its existence invalid somehow. We can see the roots of altruistic behaviour in other primates, and seeing how that could have fallen out of the process of evolution doesn't mean that altruism is somehow false, or is no longer a topic for philosophical thought.

Originally Posted by peter12

Liberalism certainly impacted Darwin's interpretation of his data and further served to bolster theoretical interpretations of liberalism, see Herbert Spencer or Steven Pinker.

I'll try to check those out, thought I know Spencer's view on evolution was flawed, so his conclusions (in ethics anyway, what I've seen before) are flawed IMO.

Pinker looks interesting, maybe a specific book or piece by him that could illustrate the problem you have with his views?

Originally Posted by peter12

I personally think it's more like the ultimate human story where we sort out the most important questions about politics, ethics, morality etc...

Sure, I can see that. One can look at various religions and follow the progression of humanity.

But I don't think religion is necessary for the task, wouldn't it be easier if philosophy could just do that work unconstrained by religion?

Originally Posted by peter12

I wonder how people thought about death before coronary bypasses?

For the person dying probably the same way they think about it after coronary bypasses, just a few fewer of them have to deal with it right away. For those around them, there's probably some differences. My point is that philosophy has had to expand to account for changes in science and technology, and will have to in the future.

[4X4]

That banana video is so forking ridiculous. Especially considering that primates don't open bananas that way. (thanks to Machivelli for alerting us all to this fact) (at least I think it was Machievelli)

[vicphoenix13]

I read somewhere that Kirk Cameron was an atheist who suddenly started believing in god in his late teens. Once he started hanging around Ray Comfort he lost all sense of reality.