Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So one would think. However, according to the book that I am presently reviewing (see post #202), "confessional secular humanism" is the real enemy.

Yeah, without reading it I can't speak specifically on their whole argument but from your quotes on it I can certainly assume they must have to make some pretty bold assumptions and under those assumptions make their argument.

As per this point specifically:

The authors define "humanism" rather arbitrarily as "confessional humanism": "A belief system in which human beings have replaced God as Creator, Ruler, and Savior". It seems that the "goal" for every humanist is material prosperity and comfort, which they might achieve through advances in science and technology, or through the conquest or "domination" of nature.

Its very interesting the usages of the words 'material prosperity' IE humanists are cold, material acquiring beings; and conquest/domination of nature like our goal is anything other than to understand and learn the world in which we exist in.

Its difficult to deal with intelligent people, who intentionally muddy up the philosophical and historical views to skew them or misuse the words to define their ultimate viewpoint.

As I'm sure you can appreciate, listening to a well respected Theologian explain anything can really frustrate an analytical or rational being, because of the word games and twisting of historical context into their points.

I guess thats why I love the premise to tackle big issues by considering them as natural processes, religion and of course belief are exactly the kind of topics that science not only can reasonably investigate, but should.

As Daniel Dennett points out, as any religious person wouldn't you want your faith examined from a naturalist point of view to either add to your own strong faith or to examine something from a differing perspective. If we look at all religions, they don't all do it the same nor are they equal in weight or result. So to analyse and learn as much as we can on why certain religions do certain things we need to approach such questions from a scientific viewpoint to better understand such things.

Obviously plenty has been studied under the Theological perspective over the last few thousand years.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Thor

Its neat that we are peering into the mind to get a greater understanding of things like the brain on music, why we love, etc.. But boy there is this part of me and I'm sure most people that wonders if we truly learn down to the minute detail why music works, why we love, how we enjoy/experience love/music; does this not take away some of if not most of the thrill of music and love.

This has been an interesting discussion, and this is a question I've often thought about as well, but I'd have to say that I'm coming down on the side of rather knowing than not.

For example, that the sex drive originates in genetic programming to perpetuate the species is a scientific concept that is reasonably well understood, but the effect of that knowledge of people's enjoyment of sex seems negligible. I think that is because they are different types of thought; you can use knowledge of the process to understand why it is happening but that still doesn't let you bypass or ignore the process because it is a product of the mind's deep structure, not the consciousness floating on top.

As another example, knowing that the stars are burning globes of gas that swim in unimaginable distance has never managed to short-circuit the wonder I feel when I gaze out at them at night. If anything, knowledge deepens the glory of stargazing as the primitive under-mind and the thinking mind are both engaged by the sight.

I doubt knowing that music is, as I suspect, simply an expression of the human liking for repetitive (yet not TOO repetitive) complex patterns that progress through time would do anything to destroy interest in it, any more than defining physical beauty by mathematical relationships stopped the ancient Greeks from creating great art. Nor would the isolation of love as a chemical process do much, unless somehow you could "cure" love with science, although who would WANT such a cure is another story.

Actually that'd make a decent SF story: the Cure for Love.

Originally Posted by photon

Hehe, it's not so much I dislike the position of spirituality, I just don't like the word itself. Spiritual, pertaining to the spirit.. but the spirit isn't defined, so the word is nonsense to me. People use it to describe a state of mind, a feeling, a point of view, which to me is a natural thing (since it's in the brain), so the word spiritual is just.. goofy. I just can't think of a better word.

Spiritual implies the spirit, which implies dualism, which is where I think it becomes a sharp divider between those that accept that there is only a natural world which - in theory - is completely understandable, and those who think that there are "mysteries" forever beyond us. It does describe something that doesn't exist, but much in the same way that if I say "unicorn", you know what I'm talking about, "spirituality" is a useful concept.

I think the great attraction of the word and concept is that it empowers all kinds of experiential "evidence" that supports just about any world-view; once you believe that the spirit exists apart from the body, in a realm inaccessible to the senses, any reality you construct is as equally plausible as it is unprovable. If you claim you are "spiritual" or that you admire "spiritual" people, then, it tells me that you are fundamentally at odds with how I perceive the world.

To me, whether one is an atheist or a deist/theist/pagan/whatever comes down to that question of duality - either there is some kind of spirit in the machine (or some machine, or the universe), or the idea of "God" or "gods" must be discarded. A "God" that does not somehow transcend reality is no god at all, and those who argue for a kind of naturalist deity that acts within the rules of space and time, or think of "God" as another name for nature are redefining the word "God" into something it is not.

As a thought experiment - if the theories that our universe is but one of an infinity are correct, and we learn how to create child or sister universes on our own, does that mean we then are "gods" and are worthy of worship? Would you want to be worshipped? Would you assume that this would necessarily imply moral perfection for we "creators"? If we could interfere in the affairs of these created universes from outside, would we be justified in doing so if it curtailed the free will of creatures within it? Would we be responsible for evil in our creations?

Now think about the same questions, but applied to a virtual universe created inside sufficiently advanced computing machines - do the same answers apply? And if not, why not?

[troutman]

The origin of the word "spirit" was to breathe:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit

Origin:
1200–50; ME (n.) < L spīritus orig., a breathing, equiv. to spīri-, comb. form repr. spīrāre to breathe + -tus suffix of v. action

Spir"it\, n. [OF. espirit, esperit, F. esprit, L. spiritus, from spirare to breathe, to blow. Cf. Conspire, Expire, Esprit, Sprite.]

[photon]

Originally Posted by jammies

Spiritual implies the spirit, which implies dualism, which is where I think it becomes a sharp divider between those that accept that there is only a natural world which - in theory - is completely understandable, and those who think that there are "mysteries" forever beyond us. It does describe something that doesn't exist, but much in the same way that if I say "unicorn", you know what I'm talking about, "spirituality" is a useful concept.

I think the great attraction of the word and concept is that it empowers all kinds of experiential "evidence" that supports just about any world-view; once you believe that the spirit exists apart from the body, in a realm inaccessible to the senses, any reality you construct is as equally plausible as it is unprovable. If you claim you are "spiritual" or that you admire "spiritual" people, then, it tells me that you are fundamentally at odds with how I perceive the world.

That's not really what I have in mind though when I think of a spiritual experience. I'm not a dualist, and I don't say spiritualism to explain any kind of experiential evidence; I think everything I've experienced is completely natural and driven by emotion and such.

That's why I said I don't like the word spiritual, but I can't think of a different word. But still the sense of awe, connection, etc to the universe and other life. I don't think that's supernatural.

Refer to how Einstein described his spirituality.

Originally Posted by jammies

or think of "God" as another name for nature are redefining the word "God" into something it is not.

That's exactly what I'm saying... which is why the long posts rather than just saying "The universe is God". I don't think the universe IS God, but the emotional and mental experiences commonly associated with spirituality can be experienced with respect to the universe and how it works.

There's no words for it so I have to co-opt existing words and modify them a bit to express my thoughts..

[jammies]

Originally Posted by photon

That's not really what I have in mind though when I think of a spiritual experience. I'm not a dualist, and I don't say spiritualism to explain any kind of experiential evidence; I think everything I've experienced is completely natural and driven by emotion and such.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were a dualist - I was merely trying to get at why I don't mind the word because it clearly illuminates the assumptions of thought embedded in the language.

Originally Posted by photon

That's exactly what I'm saying... which is why the long posts rather than just saying "The universe is God". I don't think the universe IS God, but the emotional and mental experiences commonly associated with spirituality can be experienced with respect to the universe and how it works.

There's no words for it so I have to co-opt existing words and modify them a bit to express my thoughts..

That is a good point, and to reiterate - the words we have for such emotions and thoughts came forth from the deep waters of religion, so it is hard to avoid sounding religious when speaking of such things regardless of intent.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jammies

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were a dualist - I was merely trying to get at why I don't mind the word because it clearly illuminates the assumptions of thought embedded in the language.

That is a good point, and to reiterate - the words we have for such emotions and thoughts came forth from the deep waters of religion, so it is hard to avoid sounding religious when speaking of such things regardless of intent.

No worries, I should have read it as not directed at me, my bad.

Yup I agree, and I think it causes problems for scientists too because they use words sometimes that are heavy with religious connotations, and then what they say gets co-opted by creationists or other quote miners with an agenda for their own means.

Physicists and cosmologists love those words.

I don't know how many times I've had quotes thrown in my face trying to say Einstein was a Christian based on a few quotes. First, Einstein was not a Christian, and second, what he things about the issue isn't authoritative.

The same quote miner can use Einstein quotes to support their position, but when shown that they were wrong about him, do they reevaluate their position? Of course not.

/rant

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

The origin of the word "spirit" was to breathe:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit

Origin:
1200–50; ME (n.) < L spīritus orig., a breathing, equiv. to spīri-, comb. form repr. spīrāre to breathe + -tus suffix of v. action

Spir"it\, n. [OF. espirit, esperit, F. esprit, L. spiritus, from spirare to breathe, to blow. Cf. Conspire, Expire, Esprit, Sprite.]

It is interesting, but this is true of other ancient cultures and languages as well. The ancient Babylonians and Greeks all derived the notion of "spirit" (mind you, the Babylonians were not nearly as committed to the sort of dualism that developed in Greek culture between the material and the immaterial) from the same verb used of breathing. In Greco-Roman literature, almost invariably the "spirit of God" or the "spirit of man" looks exactly the same as the "breath" (or "wind" hehe) of God or of man.

[Cheese]

I always prefer this meaning to spirits!

[flip]

The excellent PBS Nova about the ridiculous fight over ID and evolution in Dover. The episode is a year or two old but still very relevant and interesting.

Bell channel 819. I set a PVR for it at 2am this morning as I missed the first half hour.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by flip

The excellent PBS Nova about the ridiculous fight over ID and evolution in Dover. The episode is a year or two old but still very relevant and interesting.

Bell channel 819. I set a PVR for it at 2am this morning as I missed the first half hour.

I watched it last night - Judgement Day: ID on trial. A very good overview of the Dover trial and the debate in general.

[troutman]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Tomorrow is Darwin Day (200th).

www.darwinday.org

http://www.darwinday.org/events/listing.php?id=12621

Jay Ingram, host of Discovery Canada's Daily Planet and author is keynote speaker for:

"Darwin, Natural Selection and SEX: 150 years of getting it on."

With special musical guests and an introduction from Darwin himself!

Address:
Mount Royal College, 4815 Mount Royal Gate SW
Ross Glenn Hall
Calgary/AB T3E 6K6 CANADA

[Cheese]

for those who havent read "Origin of the Species"....

[TheDragon]

The Vatican is now saying that Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...istianity.html

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

The Vatican is now saying that Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...istianity.html

That's not really news, as both of the last two popes have come out on the side of evolution.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by DFO

I watched it last night - Judgement Day: ID on trial. A very good overview of the Dover trial and the debate in general.

Its one of my favorite docs of the last few years. The amount of dishonesty on the ID side is so clearly exposed in this 2hrs and shows just how stubborn they are in their fight. They clearly don't care about the truth, just to drive that 'wedge' into not only schools but as they see it society and trying to undo the damage done by Darwinism.

[Thor]

Interesting world poll on Religiosity by Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Al...ns-Common.aspx

Obviously, these data only compare the importance of religion in people's lives -- they say nothing about what being highly religious means in different parts of the world and among different faiths. Nonetheless, it's fascinating to note that in terms of religiosity, Americans span a range that invites comparisons to some predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and tribal societies in Southern Africa, as well as to some relatively secular nations in Europe and developed East Asia. Examining regional variations within many other large countries would almost certainly uncover similar diversity.

Recognition of that fact should give Americans pause when we're tempted to apply blanket generalizations to other cultures; for example, to say residents in those nations are less devout or more prone to zealotry than people in America. It should also help those outside the United States avoid applying such oversimplified judgments to Americans.

[Thor]

One more worthy news item today:

Richard Dawkins review of 'Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne

How can you say that evolution is “true”? Isn’t that just your opinion, of no more value than anybody else’s? Isn’t every view entitled to equal “respect”? Maybe so where the issue is one of, say, musical taste or political judgement. But when it is a matter of scientific fact? Unfortunately, scientists do receive such relativistic protests when they dare to claim that something is factually true in the real world. Given the title of Jerry Coyne’s book, this is a distraction that I must deal with.

Science teachers, especially in America but increasingly in Britain, feel beleaguered, and it is small comfort to them if a handful of theologians and bishops occasionally murmur a word of support for evolutionary science. Occasional murmurs are not enough. In October 2008, a group of about sixty American science teachers met to compare notes, at the Center for Science Education at Emory University in Atlanta, and they had some revealing experiences to relate. One teacher reported that students “burst into tears” when told they would be studying evolution. Another teacher described how students repeatedly screamed, “No!” when he began talking about evolution in class.

link to review:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,35...ichard-Dawkins

[photon]

In other news Kent Hovind (he of being in jail fame) has a conversation with God and Darwin:

http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=184

I for one thought necromancy was against Christian doctrine but who am I to criticize a literary device.

I can't believe this is actually what this guy thinks...

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

In other news Kent Hovind (he of being in jail fame) has a conversation with God and Darwin:

http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=184

I for one thought necromancy was against Christian doctrine but who am I to criticize a literary device.

I can't believe this is actually what this guy thinks...

Bwahahahahaha! We should send good ole' Kent a copy of Darwins book...soft cover of course!

[photon]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Da...Evolution.aspx