The dumbing down of America continues...

[CaptainCrunch]

Thank god for quiet days, this is really enjoyable

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is really a bad comparitive. I very seriously doubt that this would be the case in a thousand years. More likely, people in the next millenium would think it absurd if some quacks ran around claiming that Buzz Aldron was magically transported to the moon where he had an encounter with the Almighty.

But in a thousand years our history books might certainly be open for debate, very much like the bible is now. I know this is a stretch.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Nothing wrong with this, but creationists vehemently reject the notion of mass extinction in this manner. For them, a global flood becomes the keystone for providing the "correct" interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. Given that the creationist's scientific models have been soundly debunked over and over again, the only issue people have is with the incessant insistance that they are still conducting good science.

But it is good science to them because it conforms to thier core belief system, just as evolutionists (is that a word?) and thier model confroms to thier beliefs.

Hey some people still believe that Beta is the end all and be all of video recording technology.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is outside of the pale of the debate. Religious fanatics are free to believe as they wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights/freedoms of others. The problem with creationism and the problem with creation science is that creationists have sought to bring their debate into the arena of empirical science where it does not belong. No, this does not mean that anyone wants them eliminated or persecuted as a result. People simply do not want non-science as part of the science cirriculum.

But we've seen, and its right here in this thread that people are not really allowed to believe what they want to believe. The fact that your labeling people as a fanatic in what could almost be interpreted in a negative connotation is somewhat evidence of this. People of faith might not believe in empirical sciences because its an instrument created by a flawed creature in man, yet they believe that thier religion offers then facts based on what they believe to be historical or eye witnessed events.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The denial of employment because of ones beliefs is not always a matter of unjust persecution. If the university at which I am employed decides to deny a mathematician tenure because of his firm and unyielding belief in creationism, that is their perogative.

It is thier perogative, but is perogative something that talks precidence over individual rights and beliefs. The same could be said for a catholic school that refuses to hire someone who believes in evolution.

[MarchHare]

Sooooo. . . If I don't believe in the validity of the scientific method which is a method created by man, which would throw my belief in evolution out, then I shouldn't have a say in the education system.

You absolutely should not have a say in what is taught in a science classroom if you don't ascribe to the scientific method. Curriculum should be authored by experts in that particular field, free of political interference. Someone who doesn't believe in the validity of the scientific method is clearly not an expert in the field of science.

I have no problem with the topic of religion being taught in the context of a history or social studies course. For example, in junior high social studies we had a section where we learned about the geography, culture, history, and politics of the Middle East, and naturally the three dominant religions of that region (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) were discussed at length. In high school history, we spent a few weeks discussing the history of Christianity from the time of the Roman Empire to the protestant movement started by Martin Luther to the present day. IMO, both of those examples are completely reasonable, and are, in fact, very valuable knowledge to impart to students.

What would have been unacceptable would be for religious teachings to be taught in a science classroom, where they simply don't belong.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sooooo. . . If I don't believe in the validity of the scientific method which is a method created by man, which would throw my belief in evolution out, then I shouldn't have a say in the education system.

No, but you'd have to go through the process of showing that your "way of knowing" is equal to or superior to the scientific method before it would supplant the scientific method in the education system.

Otherwise, why not have anything and everything in the education system?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Do you have a problem with the scientific method other than the fact it was "created by man"? Can you propose a reasonable alternative for scientific discovery?

It may not be perfect, but the scientific method haas been a very effective tool in its nearly 400-year existence. I just don't see any reason to cast it aside.

Now, I do have a problem with insisting that religion must conform perfectly with science; something that creationists are more guilty of than anyone. Religion is largely irrational, and for those of us who are deeply religious, this is not necessarily a negative thing... Stephen Jay Gould and non-overlapping magesterium and all that.

Honestly my beliefs in things like the method aren't really up for debate here, and I might be taking things to an extreme based more on curiosity and in the interest of exploring a pretty interesting topic.

For the record, I'm not a creationist, I do believe in science and fact, and I haven't visited a church in years.

But I do have issues with things like insisting that someones belief structure must conform to anothers, and that is the heart of this debate, and something that I really wanted to explore, and I guess what set me on this path was the earlier posts that stated that people with beliefs in religion should be treated with disdain and pity.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You absolutely should not have a say in what is taught in a science classroom if you don't ascribe to the scientific method. Curriculum should be authored by experts in that particular field, free of political interference. Someone who doesn't believe in the validity of the scientific method is clearly not an expert in the field of science.

I have no problem with the topic of religion being taught in the context of a history or social studies course. For example, in junior high social studies we had a section where we learned about the geography, culture, history, and politics of the Middle East, and naturally the three dominant religions of that region (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) were discussed at length. In high school history, we spent a few weeks discussing the history of Christianity from the time of the Roman Empire to the protestant movement started by Martin Luther to the present day. IMO, both of those examples are completely reasonable, and are, in fact, very valuable knowledge to impart to students.

What would have been unacceptable would be for religious teachings to be taught in a science classroom, where they simply don't belong.

But in a private school system don't they have a right to interject creationism into thier science classes, I mean they believe in it just as ardently as others believe in evolution as a fact.

[MarchHare]

But it is good science to them because it conforms to thier core belief system, just as evolutionists (is that a word?) and thier model confroms to thier beliefs.

Science has no place for beliefs, only facts. Any scientist who alters their findings to fit a pre-conceived notion is a bad scientist. If a respected scientist was to present a very compelling argument in a peer-reviewed journal explaining why the theory of evolution was wrong and backed up their point with mountains of sound evidence, scientists would quickly change their views to conform to this new theory*. Science is the search for knowledge, and one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method is that nothing should be assumed and all claims must be challenged (which is why peer review is such an important part of science).

*An example of this occurring would be when Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity in 1915, which basicly made Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation obsolete.

[MarchHare]

But in a private school system don't they have a right to interject creationism into thier science classes, I mean they believe in it just as ardently as others believe in evolution as a fact.

I'm only referring to public, government-funded schools. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, private schools, church-run schools, or home schools are free to teach any curriculum they please.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But it is good science to them because it conforms to thier core belief system, just as evolutionists (is that a word?) and thier model confroms to thier beliefs.

Hey some people still believe that Beta is the end all and be all of video recording technology.

It's not good science to them because it conforms with their beliefs, that's a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about proof. Evidence. A more and more accurate description of reality (or the parts of reality which science is applicable to).

There are no evolutionists, just scientists.

But we've seen, and its right here in this thread that people are not really allowed to believe what they want to believe. The fact that your labeling people as a fanatic in what could almost be interpreted in a negative connotation is somewhat evidence of this. People of faith might not believe in empirical sciences because its an instrument created by a flawed creature in man, yet they believe that thier religion offers then facts based on what they believe to be historical or eye witnessed events.

It is thier perogative, but is perogative something that talks precidence over individual rights and beliefs. The same could be said for a catholic school that refuses to hire someone who believes in evolution.

So where then do you draw the line between beliefs and crazy? If someone washes their hands 100 times a day, won't touch doorknobs, etc because they believe they'll get sick if they do, who's to argue with their beliefs? And who's to say they shouldn't educate others about their unique view of how the world works?

Obviously there's a line somewhere. People aren't saying others shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want, I just don't think that beliefs should be above criticism or scrutiny just because they are religious (just like I wouldn't want my beliefs about other things to be above scrutiny).

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I could only read two pages of it quickly and then give up.

But I certainly know that I have a much more open mind and have tolerance to pretty much anyone else when it comes to a differing opinion on these subjects than most in this string.

If you really had an open mind, perhaps you wouldn't have so much trouble reading other's opinions in this thread. We are just having a discussion.

I work with many Atheists and we can talk at length over a few beers about things like this without anyone calling me pathetic, or weak minded or begin sentences with "all religion is ..." as if this person honestly can reach such a point in a discussion.

Well, as one of the people who has said "all religion is...", I don't think I have called anyone weak minded or pathetic (except for maybe Scientologists). If I have, I apologize. I don't personally know anyone in this thread, and don't presume to judge any of you.

I consider all religions to be pretty similar in a couple ways. First, their origin - belief in a supernatural being. I consider that to be a falsehood that shouldn't be promoted. Everything else stems from that belief in a magical overlord. Second, their institutional form - to greater or lesser degrees they have a hierarchy that promotes their belief system. This spreads their ideas - ideas that are false in form. These institutions weld great power, and normally it is to affect public policy. And that affects everyone...not just members of a particular religion.

Denial of homosexual rights
Denial of abortion
Denial of birth control in schools
Teaching of creationism.
Discrimination against women.

All of these things stem from religious intolerance, and I consider them an affront to what is right in 21st century enlightened society.

I have spent my whole life exposed to "the nativity story", the 10 commandments, the belief in a supreme being. There is no evidence for any of it. When I look a little deeper I see the harm being done by these institutions, and it angers me greatly.

If you are going to tell stories, the onus is on you, the story teller, to back it with evidence if you want it to be believed. This is the case everywhere - save for in religion, where misinformation education starts at birth, and questioning "faith" is blasphemy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well guys, I have a meeting coming up so I'm sorry to say that I need to bow out.

Thanks for the interesting debate.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But I do have issues with things like insisting that someones belief structure must conform to anothers, and that is the heart of this debate, and something that I really wanted to explore, and I guess what set me on this path was the earlier posts that stated that people with beliefs in religion should be treated with disdain and pity.

I understand what you are trying to do, and I have to commend you for the conviction with which you have played your part in all of this. In response, I guess I would ask how much of science will we abandon as merely a matter of "belief"?

I believe that my desk at which I sit is completely solid matter. However science informs us that most of matter is really empty space. I am comfortable with the fact that science will change, and that what I understand to be scientifically correct today may be debunked tomorrow. Here is the difference between me and a creationist: A creationist will never accept anything that challenges his theory. This makes him a bad scientist, because at the outset, his presuppositions about the literal "plain reading" of the Bible have inappropriately coloured his ability to discern the fruits of his research. Science builds hypotheses upon the available evidence; creationism uses contorts the evidence to conform with their hypotheses, which are not open to change.

I am offended bby creationism as a religious person. Creationists are really nothing more than hyper-rationalism, who cannot conceive of a world which can tolerate paradox and contradiction. For this reason, something so explicitely contradictory like the Bible is read improperly, and produces gross misunderstanding; the Bible and a minority interpretation of it is elevated to a position of supreme authority, and other elements of Christian belief like the rule of faith, tradition, liturgy, and apostolic teaching is subjected to it. As a Christian, I find creationism dangerous for faith, because the doctrine of inerrency—upon which creationism is founded—is impossible to legitimize. Thus, inerrantists tend to be excessively dogmatic, prejudiced, and judgmental. They present as weak minded, and devoid of faith, because they can "proove" everything.

I have looked at the evidence, and it overwhelmingly supports atheism, yet I cannot help but believe in God. This is faith.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Denial of homosexual rights
Denial of abortion
Denial of birth control in schools
Teaching of creationism.
Discrimination against women.

All of these things stem from religious intolerance, and I consider them an affront to what is right in 21st century enlightened society.

I have no patience for the institutional promotion of injustice either, but to lump "all religions" together as the propogators of such things is excessivly stereotypical. As much pain as religion has caused, it should also deserve credit for some of its monumental acheivements. I will use only Christian examples, as these are what I am most familiar with, but I would not be surprised to see equivelants in faith communities elsewhere.
• The Apostle Paul—who is credited with writing 1/3 of the New Testament—was an egalitarian revolutionary when he is read against his own cultural backgroud. He promoted equality among slaves and freemen, and endorsed much more freedom for women in a stifling chauvanistic Jewish-Hellenistic culture.
• St. Francis of Assisi was so moved by the plight of mankind that he—in the name of God—sacrificed monetary goods and success for a life of service and poverty. He did so with the sincere conviction that his life was best spent in helping the much less fortunate and destitute.
• Martin Luther's contributions during the Reformation were instrumental in paving the way for widespread literacy, and the availability of education.
• William Wilburforce was instrumental in ending the slave trade in England as a direct result of his own religious convictions.
• Mother Theresa made this world a better place, and did so without any expectation of payment, reward or recognition. She did so because of her sincere conviction that this is what Jesus wanted her to do.

I know of the attrocities commited in the name of organized religion, but if we are going to magnify her blemishes, then it is only fair to do so along side of the Church's virtues.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

If you really had an open mind, perhaps you wouldn't have so much trouble reading other's opinions in this thread. We are just having a discussion.

That's fair ...

But in my mind there are certain subjects that hit so close to home for people that more care is needed in how they approached. I can talk to a very passionate Atheist for hours because I'm not going to attempt to box him in, ridicule him, or call him insane for differing with my views on things.

I guess it comes down to style more than substance.

If you say something like "In my opinion religion has caused more trouble than it could ever report to have cured" I'd have to agree. "I think religion is nothing more than a very dated story" I wouldn't agree but I certainly wouldn't feel insulted.

"all religion is ..." that's ironically a surmon and not a discussion. You're coming at it as a point of fact meaning there is very little discussion needed as you're already on the side of "right" (and please understand by you I mean a person in a debate and not just you)

Really to be religious doesn't mean you have to swallow the whole nine yards and for most I think that's the case.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by evman150

Anybody that needs to "turn to God" is a weak minded (or severely disadvantaged/suicidal) person deserving of disdain and disrespect (or pity).

Really, religion is a way of tricking the selection process. People with ****ty lives might have killed themselves in the past, without religion. Now they turn to "God" and propogate more ****ty existences. Great for the species.

I cannot say whether there is something out there that started everything, I am not able to answer that question, nor is anyone else. I can say though, that there is (invoking the limit concept) zero chance the Judeo-Christian "God" and the Bible are truths.

Holy crap. What the hell is this? Are you taking over for Cheese?

Narrow-minded garbage like this is on par with the extreme fundamentalists that think you're going to hell.

I really don't understand why people can't accept that not everyone thinks the same. Where do you people go to school to make you so freaking smart and all knowing? You must have gone to the same school as Falwell and Bin Laden, but skipped religion class.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have no patience for the institutional promotion of injustice either, but to lump "all religions" together as the propogators of such things is excessivly stereotypical. As much pain as religion has caused, it should also deserve credit for some of its monumental acheivements.

I know of the attrocities commited in the name of organized religion, but if we are going to magnify her blemishes, then it is only fair to do so along side of the Church's virtues.

I agree with all of your examples. Religion has done great things through the course of history, and continues to do them now. That said, in a modern society, I think there is less of a place for religion to, as our greater understanding of the owrld, as well as ourselves leaves less room for myth and parable. The words of bronze age tribesmen living 2 millenia ago are not of the same value in today's society.

I don't need to be told "god works in mysterious ways" when a child dies, or we go a winter without snow. I attribute those things to tangible causes. I also don't need the fear / help of a supreme being to live a moral life, or instill those morals in my children. I am an adult, accountable for my own actions, and responsible enough to know right from wrong.

That is just me though. There are individuals who need to believe in eternal salvation (or punishment) to make hard decisions - like giving up alcohol, or going to marriage counselling, or repenting for their past wrongs. In that sense, religion helps the individual.

But wanting something to be true, doesn't make it true. And presenting god as a real entity, and the bible as the words of that entity simply isn't reality. I am not willing to accept stories as the truth - regardless of their moral value. A lie is a lie. Don't promote it as fact. And especially don't promote it to my impressionable children under the guise of "creation is a theory just like evolution". One is proveable. The other is a myth.

I am also less willing to put up with my public officals being influenced by religious ideals simply because "the bible says", and religious tradition dictate certain things.

I value the attribute of critical thinking. And I don't see a lot of it from the religious community when it comes to a discussion of present day problems like abortion, and same sex marriage.

I suppose my point is that religion serves a purpose in developing societies. A positive role. But when it becomes a hindrance to advancement, well, that is what gets me bent out of shape.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really to be religious doesn't mean you have to swallow the whole nine yards and for most I think that's the case.

How do you pick an choose which parts are true and which aren't? I choose to look at the many mistakes in a literal sense and start questioning the entire documentation. I think it is better to just toss the whole lot.

Are there any religions that don't believe in a supreme omnipitent being or beings? Can we agree that they all have that in common? And that all other beliefs stem from that fundimental belief?

If so, then I think it is fair to use "religion" as a broad term to describe orgainized faith (which is what I have been doing).

I see that fundimental belief as something that is false (because there is no evidence for it). Hence, anything stemming from that is also false.

Which is fine. In enlightened society, individuals have feedom to believe what they want so long as they aren't hurting others. My problem arises when those belief systems carry over into the public sphere and affect public policy.

For example - in Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars.

In Ireland, a 14 year old rape victim cannot get a passport to go to England for an abortion.

In the US - a pair of men who have lived together for 44 years cannot make decisions for one another when one is in hospital because they aren't considered "family".

Examples like the above are the result of religious belief (from different religions) imposed on those who may or may not ascribe to them. And from what? The belief in a supreme being who has a will about the above issues?

I'll happily direct some questions god's direction just as soon as I get his address.

[MarchHare]

Are there any religions that don't believe in a supreme omnipitent being or beings?

Yes. It's a trait most commonly shared by Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I suppose my point is that religion serves a purpose in developing societies. A positive role. But when it becomes a hindrance to advancement, well, that is what gets me bent out of shape.

As a religious person, I would respond to this by claiming that when religious doctrine becomes a hinderance to advancement, or when it becomes dangerous, this is not so much a problem with "religion" as it is with people who wield power in the name of that religion.

Religion is not evil. It just is. Evil happens in the name of religion because of people and their propensity for wickedness; that is: people's selfish desires taking the place of their pursuit of the common good. The triumphs in religion occur when a person is able to overcome this natural propensity for self preservation and self promotion. I believe both are a product of the same deep emotion which capable of producing such beauty and such terror. As a Christian, it is this infathomable passion that I perceive to be the "divine spark": the imago Dei, if you will. How we manage to harness that passion ultimately is the measure of how moral we are.

On another note, "advancement" is not always positive. Sometimes advancement in the wrong hands, with the wrong motivation, with improper education or understandning, is exceedingly dangerous. It is generally agreed that the greatest, most immediate threat to our survival is the sustainability of our planet. Humanities continued existence is jeopardized by the potential threat of global warming, the deteriorating quality of air and water, and the over-depletion of natural resources. These things are all the result of advancing technology—produced through scientific discovery—and a poor understanding of how to use it. Does this make science evil? Technology? Certainly not. But it is illustrative of my point that it is these sorts of excesses I believe religion is key to correcting: learning to appropriately manage our passion.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yes. It's a trait most commonly shared by Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

I did not know that. Interesting.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Religion is not evil. It just is. Evil happens in the name of religion because of people and their propensity for wickedness; that is: people's selfish desires taking the place of their pursuit of the common good. The triumphs in religion occur when a person is able to overcome this natural propensity for self preservation and self promotion. I believe both are a product of the same deep emotion which capable of producing such beauty and such terror.

Good post. So for discussions sake, you say that people are predisposed to committee terrible acts, how come no one has committed anything terrible in the name of atheism? People have certainly done such acts in the name of a god.