The dumbing down of America continues...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Heck, the whole fall of man was from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil!

The way I interpret that quote has nothing to do with studying science but has to do with judging others, such as how some Christians judge gays or other so called sinners, which is kind of ironic to me.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The way I interpret that quote has nothing to do with studying science but has to do with judging others, such as how some Christians judge gays or other so called sinners, which is kind of ironic to me.

Well, the passage actually describes the loss of innocence of man as man discovers the morality (or outright discovers evil). It is a little distant but my train of thought was towards how much of creationist science depicts any secular science as immoral and the cause of the fall of "societal norms" (which were artificial anyway, the perfect family never existed). I find it hilarious how many fundamentalists have this view that society is getting more and more morally decrepid and have some fantasy of "better" times...and the Creationist Museum actually posits that science has some hand in harming American's families and causing the downfall of moral society.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Well, the passage actually describes the loss of innocence of man as man discovers the morality (or outright discovers evil). It is a little distant but my train of thought was towards how much of creationist science depicts any secular science as immoral and the cause of the fall of "societal norms" (which were artificial anyway, the perfect family never existed). I find it hilarious how many fundamentalists have this view that society is getting more and more morally decrepid and have some fantasy of "better" times...and the Creationist Museum actually posits that science has some hand in harming American's families and causing the downfall of moral society.

Yeah, thanks for expanding on your thoughts. I thought maybe you were putting down the passage [which to me is kind of like our lost childhood] while you were really dissing the creationists who love to judge science and society as evil.

Another idea about this passage is that their is no good and evil, only our minds now make it so.

[Philly06Cup]

To all the science-believers who bash the faith-believers:

You ridicule people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth: But -- do you have a degree in archaeology, and have you personally seen any million-year old fossils or stones, which have then lead you to your own conclusion that the Earth is "between 10 and 16 million years old"? Or have you just "blindly" believed in your scientific textbooks and scientific media to these conclusions?

You ridicule those who believe the Earth is flat: But have you personally gone into Outer Space and seen the spherical Earth for yourself -- or do you blindly believe the assertions and globes others have made?

My point is that -- unless you are a highly qualified person, having read and understood all of Newton and Galileo and every scientists' works, and having full comprehension of ALL the laws of science -- you are indeed employing faith/non-scientific methods in acquiring your knowledge.
So, unless you do have a Ph.D in Everything in the Universe, shame on you for pretending to know more than you actually do.

And that makes it highly hypocritical, when you bash religious people for their faith.


Wise is the man who knows he does not know.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

To all the science-believers who bash the faith-believers:

You ridicule people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth: But -- do you have a degree in archaeology, and have you personally seen any million-year old fossils or stones, which have then lead you to your own conclusion that the Earth is "between 10 and 16 million years old"? Or have you just "blindly" believed in your scientific textbooks and scientific media to these conclusions?

No, I don't have a degree in archaeology, but I stayed in Holiday Inn Express once. Oh, and both are equally relevant to your example. Archaeology is the study of cultures and human behavior related to society. Completely different field of study, but it would take a person educated in the sciences to know that.

The sciences of importance to your example would be geology (the study of the physical earth and its structural development) and palentology (the study of prehistoric life forms). Holding a degree in either of those is irrelevant as well, as a degree is not proof of expertise in an area any more than Microsoft certification means you are an expert in computer systems. Comprehension and practice of learning proves your expertise, not a piece of paper. The piece of paper is supposed to be proof of your ability to think critically and follow a methodology to the completion of study. Of course with the advent of faith based institutions like Liberty University and it's ilk (unaccredited and producing non-critical thinkers) it blew the whole premise of a degree out of the water and set the educational standard back several hundred years, but I digress. I have studies the subject matter you use in your discussion and have witnessed for myself the evidence that supports the theory. I have several fossils, including a large trilobite estimated to be between 450-500 million years old. The evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old is substantial and does not require much faith. An open mind to science, five minutes of theory and a trip to the Grand Canyon is all it takes.

You ridicule those who believe the Earth is flat: But have you personally gone into Outer Space and seen the spherical Earth for yourself -- or do you blindly believe the assertions and globes others have made?

I know the earth is round because you can see the curvature of the plant while standing on it. That curvature becomes even more obvious when you are travelling in a plane at 35,000 feet. I do not have to fly out into space to see imperical evidence that the earth is round any more than I have to hold my hand in a fire to understand that it will burn my hand if I do so.

My point is that -- unless you are a highly qualified person, having read and understood all of Newton and Galileo and every scientists' works, and having full comprehension of ALL the laws of science -- you are indeed employing faith/non-scientific methods in acquiring your knowledge.
So, unless you do have a Ph.D in Everything in the Universe, shame on you for pretending to know more than you actually do.

Bullcrap. That's like arguing that unless you have an advanced degree in theology you do not understand religion, have any faith, or will ever have the ability to truely know God. You've built the weakest of strawman arguments and it doesn't even stand up to the strenght of yourself breaking wind.

And that makes it highly hypocritical, when you bash religious people for their faith.

Hypocracy? You wish to charge anyone with hypocracy and speak of faith after your uniformed rant? Well, since you don't have that aforementioned advanced degree in theology, you don't actually have the qualification to have faith. Too bad, so sad, but those are the ground rules you laid out.

The reason "religious zealots" (the differentiation must be made) get bashed is for the same reasons I have run you over. They're uniformed and can't speak to any subject with clarity. The comparisions made are weak, theories laughable and easily disproven and dismissed. Generally speaking they do not have an open mind and do not approach subjects using critical thought. Analysis is not in their vocabulary let alone thought process. If these so called "religious" folk put half as much energy into practicing some critical thought and using a proven methodology to study a subject matter, these incredible leaps of faith that they routinely demand of people (making their theories suitable for Comedy Central) would likely no be as large. Mind you, if they did that, they would quickly discover that their theories would not hold up and lead them to an new enlightenment. The fact that they revel in the ignorance is what makes them such easy targets. The fact that they attempt to spread these theories as fact is what makes them so dispicable and well worth the distain shown toward them.

As to faith, that word is not synomous with religion you know. Faith is synomous with belief, and belief is a position of which an individual is convinced of truth through perception and experience. The difference is that "your" faith, that is more religion than it is faith, demands that you believe strictly on your hopes and fears. You HOPE God will be forgiving and FEAR going to hell. You do so without experience or perception. "My" faith demands that I rely on what I can prove, through repeatable experimentation and experience, that allows me to see, feel, touch, smell, and taste results. I have faith that I can go to certain geologic location, dig into a certain layer of strata, and find fossilized remains of an animal that lived millions of years ago, because I, and others, have done it over and over and over again, and the evidence is there to see, feel, touch, smell, and taste. I experience and I perceive, which builds a belief, and from that a very strong faith.

Wise is the man who knows he does not know.

To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depth of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[photon]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

To all the science-believers who bash the faith-believers:

You ridicule people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth: But -- do you have a degree in archaeology, and have you personally seen any million-year old fossils or stones, which have then lead you to your own conclusion that the Earth is "between 10 and 16 million years old"? Or have you just "blindly" believed in your scientific textbooks and scientific media to these conclusions?

You ridicule those who believe the Earth is flat: But have you personally gone into Outer Space and seen the spherical Earth for yourself -- or do you blindly believe the assertions and globes others have made?

My point is that -- unless you are a highly qualified person, having read and understood all of Newton and Galileo and every scientists' works, and having full comprehension of ALL the laws of science -- you are indeed employing faith/non-scientific methods in acquiring your knowledge.
So, unless you do have a Ph.D in Everything in the Universe, shame on you for pretending to know more than you actually do.

And that makes it highly hypocritical, when you bash religious people for their faith.


Wise is the man who knows he does not know.

So by that reasoning since no one has a Ph.D in everything, then no one is in a position to discuss anything, anywhere, ever. We're not hockey players, so we can't discuss hockey.

Certainly believing in science requires some sort of faith, but not the same kind of faith that religion requires.

"Faith in science" is confidence that the methods of science are sound. Science is based on evidence, is reproducible, and has tangibly improved our lives a thousandfold. Science is open; while not every single person is a Ph.D in everything, any person can become a Ph.D in whatever they want and prove or disprove established theories. The data for established theories is by definition is open and transparent, so new researchers can either do their own tests and confirm it, or find out that it's false and a new understanding is begun. And much of that data is accessible by people who aren't Ph.D's.

The religious kind of faith though is belief without evidence (which is the definition of faith isn't it?). Different groups believe what they do because of history, culture, politics, and such, not because of evidence.

So the faith in science that you describe is not at all like the religious faith.

Not saying religious kind of faith is invalid, but it isn't comparable to the "faith" in science.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

To all the science-believers who bash the faith-believers:

You ridicule people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth: But -- do you have a degree in archaeology, and have you personally seen any million-year old fossils or stones, which have then lead you to your own conclusion that the Earth is "between 10 and 16 million years old"? Or have you just "blindly" believed in your scientific textbooks and scientific media to these conclusions?

Lanny did a fabulous job debunking this nonsense, so I will not bother except to say that Ken Ham's "were you there when life began?" excuse that is frequently trotted out by creationists to "prove" their point is excessively tiresome. I have advanced degrees in theology, religion, and Hebrew and Greek literature, and I can confidently say that the men who told the stories that were eventually written down (and redacted) in what became the Hebrew Bible were most certainly not there.

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

And that makes it highly hypocritical, when you bash religious people for their faith.


Wise is the man who knows he does not know.

If a creationist's faith were more firmly grounded in the God the claim to honour instead of in the ancient, paradoxical, culturally conditioned, socially engineered propoganda that became the Bible, then they would save themselves from scathing verbal attacks.

[llama64]

Is the Earth 6000 years old? Yes. Is it older then that? Most definetly! What does the Bible mean by "years"? Who the hell knows...

Fundamentalist Christians are deliberetly blinding themselves by refusing to take anything other then the Bible as truth. At the same time, Aethiests continuously prove that they are nothing but ignorant fools in their own right. Has science proven that god does NOT exist?

For that matter, has science even proved that we actually exist? Every element of knowledge requires some leap of faith and blind acceptance. Is it so wrong that some people would rather believe that there is purpose to the universe rather then a cold belief in nothing?

Until someone can definitively prove that God does not exist, I think I'll choose to belive that there is something out there greater then myself. The great thing about belief is that it's maleable. Only morons allow themselves to get locked into one mode of thinking...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If a creationist's faith were more firmly grounded in the God the claim to honour instead of in the ancient, paradoxical, culturally conditioned, socially engineered propoganda that became the Bible, then they would save themselves from scathing verbal attacks.

That is why I always laugh at people who claim that if you are not a religious person who believes in the bible (or some other text) you cannot believe in God. The two are not really connected with each other except in that man created both. Having a belief in a supreme being does not mean you have a belief in any organized religion. Frankly, I question the existence of God because of organized religion. Organized religion is so fraught with the weaknesses and failures of man that to suggest any religion is a representation of a supreme intelligence is, well, an insult to that intelligence. We are what we are. Filthy stinking apes bent on destroying the only environment we have, and at the same time, each other.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by llama64

Fundamentalist Christians are deliberetly blinding themselves by refusing to take anything other then the Bible as truth. At the same time, Aethiests continuously prove that they are nothing but ignorant fools in their own right. Has science proven that god does NOT exist?
....
Until someone can definitively prove that God does not exist, I think I'll choose to belive that there is something out there greater then myself. The great thing about belief is that it's maleable. Only morons allow themselves to get locked into one mode of thinking...

Ignorant morons eh?

The burden of proof is not on atheists or agnostics to prove that something doesn't exist. That's not how science works. This such a weak argument used all the time by people who have little understanding of the whole process. So you must believe in fairies, the flying spaghetti monster and a celestial teapot orbiting the sun, because science hasn't proved that they don't exist. Please before you go around calling people names and criticizing their thinking at least have a proper understanding of their views. In fact most atheists and agnostics would gladly change their view point given evidence of supernatural happenings/god/etc. Of course that is ignorant isn't it? We should just put on our blinders and follow the masses shouldn't we?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

Is the Earth 6000 years old? Yes. Is it older then that? Most definetly! What does the Bible mean by "years"? Who the hell knows...

Oh boy, the old "we're not sure what they meant" argument. Funny, but these yahoos are pretty certain about everything in the bible from a moral standpoint, but now they aren't so sure about certain things like units of measure, many of which have been scientifically proven to exist and in the form described in the good book. I've always loved the selective evidence angle. Sorry, but if one part of the story is garbage, the whole thing is garbage.

Fundamentalist Christians are deliberetly blinding themselves by refusing to take anything other then the Bible as truth. At the same time, Aethiests continuously prove that they are nothing but ignorant fools in their own right. Has science proven that god does NOT exist?

Ignorant fools? By not believing in something that has NOT been proven to exist? Nice contradiction. The people that believe in the existence of big foot, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster have long been considered on the fringe, but by your standard they are the elightened ones? After all, science has not been able to prove that these things do NOT exist.

Question: When does religion prove that God DOES exist?

For that matter, has science even proved that we actually exist? Every element of knowledge requires some leap of faith and blind acceptance. Is it so wrong that some people would rather believe that there is purpose to the universe rather then a cold belief in nothing?

Yes, science has proved we exist, at least in the universe I reside. But there is the rub. It can be argued that our reality is a personal experience and that none of our surroundings exist except in our own minds. But that is another topic for debate.

You are dead wrong on you assumption in the last paragraph. Knowledge requires no leap of faith. Knowledge is gained through the understanding of repeated events. That is what makes science work, and what makes religion fail. Science does not deem anything valid until it can be replicated and documented. Cold fussion has reportedly been attained, expanding out knowledge, by your estimation. That is a fallacy, because the experiment has never been successfully repeated. At this point, cold fussion is no more a point of fact, and an addition to our knowledge base, than the aforementioned big foot. Cold fussion is a great theory (nee story), but until someone can prove that it exists, its just a pipe dream that some people continue to believe.

Until someone can definitively prove that God does not exist, I think I'll choose to belive that there is something out there greater then myself. The great thing about belief is that it's maleable. Only morons allow themselves to get locked into one mode of thinking...

Good for you. You may choose to believe what ever the hell you want, that is your right. You'll have to live with the fact that there are people out there that don't care to take the yellow way out and hedge their bets that there is a God. You claim there is a God, the onus is on you to prove it. I, and others like me, don't claim that God doesn't exist, just that we choose to not believe in the organized religious BS that is dreamed up to support "him" and "his glory". I think we're all open to the possibility of there being a God, or at least something out there bigger than us, we're just waiting for a little proof of this something that is bigger than us.

And speaking of morons... aren't you locked into your own single mode of thinking? Seems like you based on the open mind you have projected in your post.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

To all the science-believers who bash the faith-believers:

You ridicule people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth: But -- do you have a degree in archaeology, and have you personally seen any million-year old fossils or stones, which have then lead you to your own conclusion that the Earth is "between 10 and 16 million years old"? Or have you just "blindly" believed in your scientific textbooks and scientific media to these conclusions?

You ridicule those who believe the Earth is flat: But have you personally gone into Outer Space and seen the spherical Earth for yourself -- or do you blindly believe the assertions and globes others have made?

My point is that -- unless you are a highly qualified person, having read and understood all of Newton and Galileo and every scientists' works, and having full comprehension of ALL the laws of science -- you are indeed employing faith/non-scientific methods in acquiring your knowledge.
So, unless you do have a Ph.D in Everything in the Universe, shame on you for pretending to know more than you actually do.

And that makes it highly hypocritical, when you bash religious people for their faith.


Wise is the man who knows he does not know.

No, but I consider myself widely read. I believe in the laws of science on the authority of intelligent people who have done all to be objective in their approach towards nature and science.

Everybody believes 99% of what they know on authority of others they trust.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

To all the science-believers who bash the faith-believers:

You ridicule people who believe in a 6000 year old Earth: But -- do you have a degree in archaeology,

Yes, BSC with first class honors.

and have you personally seen any million-year old fossils or stones, which have then lead you to your own conclusion that the Earth is "between 10 and 16 million years old"? Or have you just "blindly" believed in your scientific textbooks and scientific media to these conclusions?

Yes, I have seen those fossils and "stones", even though that would be paleontology or geology, not archaeology (which can be oversimplified when described as the study of human artifacts).

You ridicule those who believe the Earth is flat: But have you personally gone into Outer Space and seen the spherical Earth for yourself -- or do you blindly believe the assertions and globes others have made?

I can see the curve of the earth every time I fly in an airplane, or try to use my GPS without direct line of sight.

My point is that -- unless you are a highly qualified person, having read and understood all of Newton and Galileo and every scientists' works, and having full comprehension of ALL the laws of science -- you are indeed employing faith/non-scientific methods in acquiring your knowledge.
So, unless you do have a Ph.D in Everything in the Universe, shame on you for pretending to know more than you actually do.

You don't need a Ph.D., or to read extensively to see scientific truths. They are self evident. My education has shown me how little I really understand. Shame on religious zelots for thinking they have all the answers in "God is great and made everything". How intellecutally lazy of them.

And that makes it highly hypocritical, when you bash religious people for their faith.

I bash them for being wrong, and persisting in their wrong beliefs contrary to all evidence. To err is human. To fail to correct it is stupid.

Wise is the man who knows he does not know.

Too bad more religions didn't preach that instead of "God is responsible for everything".

[troutman]

Why we can trust science and not faith in the pursuit of truth:

A scientist will actually change his opinion on something if presented with convincing evidence. A person of faith can never change their mind.

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

[peter12]

Both you Troutman and Flashpoint are obviously very smart people, but both of you are yapping text almost verbatim from "The God Delusion".

Great book, made me think. However... sort of a biased view of religious people. Don't you think?

[Aeneas]

Great thread. Something I just read on the subject of the origin of organized religion by Strabon, a contemporary of Augustus.

"The great mass of common people cannot be induced by mere force of reason to devote themselves to piety, virtue, and honesty. Superstition must therefore be employed, and even this is insufficient without the aid of the marvelous and the terrible."

Perhaps its not entirely on-topic, but I thought it relevant to the discussion.

[Bobblehead]

Lots of very good arguments.

textcritic, Lanny, Burninator, flashpoint, peter12, troutman, at some point I'm going to need to buy you folks a round.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

Both you Troutman and Flashpoint are obviously very smart people, but both of you are yapping text almost verbatim from "The God Delusion".

Great book, made me think. However... sort of a biased view of religious people. Don't you think?

Not everything in that book is original Richard Dawkin's ideas ya know. Case in point, Troutman's post, which is from Carl Sagan, who's thoughts and ideas were around before the God Delusion and probably Dawkins.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Both you Troutman and Flashpoint are obviously very smart people, but both of you are yapping text almost verbatim from "The God Delusion".

Great book, made me think. However... sort of a biased view of religious people. Don't you think?

I am reading Dawkins right now, so it is at the front of my mind. Most of his arguments are not new, and I don't agree with all of his takes.

There is quite a discussion going on now following the release of The God Delusion, God is Not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris).

Did anyone follow the debates in the US this week. Notice how all the Reps and Dems go out of their way to say they are religious (when quite probably 10-20% of them are not)?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Not everything in that book is original Richard Dawkin's ideas ya know. Case in point, Troutman's post, which is from Carl Sagan, who's thoughts and ideas were around before the God Delusion and probably Dawkins.

Yeah, I am pretty aware of that. I've read a fair variety of evolutionary theory, counter-arguments to the YEC and ID arguments and how this all pertains to religion.

The big problem I have with Dawkins is his cross of the boundary between scientific objectivity and pure advocacy. He trys to reason like a scientist but argues like a lawyer. He comes pretty close to providing a scientific alternative to religion. Close, but in my opinion too much of what he is trying to do is simply raise doubts about the certain fundamentialist factiosn of religion, without presenting enough of the other side to make his argument a fair and balanced one.

Troutman's a lawyer. Probably a very good one. However, I definitely don't want an advocate telling me how I should make the most personal and spiritual decisions of my life.