BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

God is better seen as creating the universe right now, at all times. No suspension of "the laws of nature", the reverse in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:37 PM

DMcG, your arguments are plenty good enough for me, thanks. They are arguments, not pontifications. There is no need for you to get so defensive. But the thing is, you have not really answered my very simple, child-like question (not childish, I hope). Do you think that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything? That's what your religion teaches, whether you like it or not. Please don't make me quote all those Catholic prayers and hymns, let alone scripture. You know what I'm like. I really will if I really have to. Either you accept these things or you don't. Look here, I'm a really simple chap. I can't keep up with half the arguments on other threads with Rapparee, Donuel, gargoyle, Bill, Teribus and a good few others. I have trouble keeping up with Jim, one of the very finest people to post here (in spite of his lack of tactical nous, an attribute which I'm proud to share). What you see me saying is at the very limit of my intellectual capabilities. I am not trying to set you a booby trap. You appear to be a believer, and I'm trying to elicit, in simple terms that eschew the claptrap of theology, whether or not you think that there is a supernatural God who created everything. Don't tell me if you don't want to. I have to go to Asda tomorrow because they have nice wines on special offer. To me, alongside that, God has to take a back seat. That's me. Dead simple.

By the way. If you accept that God created the universe, etc., you are also accepting a suspension of all the laws of nature while he got on with it. "Magic", to you, appears to be a pejorative term. So how else would you characterise it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:21 PM

Let's see if I can go a little deeper. I think that for the most part, people choose a path of faith because they see something of profound depth in what surrounds them, and they seek a deeper appreciation of that profundity. This certainly won't work for everyone, but people of faith find depth in ritual, tradition, ancient writings, a religious community. It's not so much that they seek answers - they seek an understanding and appreciation and kinship with those things that surround them that they see as profound. I see faith as an exploration, not as certainty.

I think faith could be compared in some ways to a study of a work of art. If I find something profound in a work of art, I am drawn to explore it more deeply, to learn the stories behind the artwork and its Creator. I may spend most of my time simply gazing at the artwork, contemplating it without attempting to define or describe it - knowing that any attempt at a description of definition of the artwork would fall short of what it means to me. And I bring my own self and my own experience to my exploration of the artwork. It may have valid meaning for me that is completely different from what the artist intended. And if the artwork is ancient, it may have many generations, many traditions of understanding for me to build upon.

Now, it's true that most people can live full and happy lives without taking time to contemplate that particular piece of art, and that artwork may be completely devoid of meaning for most people. But that doesn't detract at all from the profound value of my own exploration of the artwork.

There's something to my appreciation of that artwork that's sacred to me. While others may not share my appreciation and may indeed have valid criticism of the work of art, I think it's important that my own appreciation be respected and not ridiculed.

Until I reached the age of about 40, I thought that art museums were more-or-less a waste of money, something built to bolster the egos of rich people. I think differently now. I don't know why, but I do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:36 PM

Gee, Steve Shaw, there were a number of points in your last few messages that I actually agree with.

The trouble is, you're inconsistent. Your usual mode of discussion seems to be argumentum ad absurdum. You redefine everything to the point of stupidity, and then argue with the stupidity. There's no doubt in my mind that stupid people are stupid, but then there's no point in arguing with them. But most people are simply not as stupid as the imaginary friends you argue with.

The faith of most religious people cannot be defined in the simplistic terms you use. And very few religious people have the unquestioning faith you speak of. As DMcG said so well, "Doubt, not certainty, is an important part of religion."

When my kids were teenagers, they seemed to think that everybody else was stupid. Now that they're hovering around the age of 40, they have a far more generous view of humankind, and occasionally even admit that their parents aren't stupid, either. So, Steve, don't go thinkin' everybody else is stupid. Otherwise, people are going to start thinkin' you're a teenager. Or are you?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:33 PM

Strictly speaking, in terms of relative motion and location, it's as true to say the Sun goes round the Earth as the Earth goes round the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:43 PM

Believe it or not, Steve, I am not in an argument with you. I have presented my view and tried to explain it. That's what there is, and I'm sorry if it's not good enough for you. That you are only prepared to have explanations on your terms is a pity, but it is not really my problem.

I am not angry, or being defensive, or refusing to answer or avoiding the subject. It is simply that ii have told you how I find the idea of the-magician is an inadequate way of thinking that almost all the Christians on this thread also regard as inadequate. There are only two people, or possibly three, on this thread who seem really committed to that perception..

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:19 PM

In the case of the growth of the plant, both the scientist and the gardener are right. There is no conflict, just different takes on the same phenomenon. In the case of the earth going round the sun, there is conflict because one of the two notions is demonstrably wrong. In the case of whether there is a God who created everything, well we can argue all night about shades of meaning of the word "create". But the vast majority of people, I'd say, don't wish to be confused by arcane redefinitions of the term. That's falling into the theology trap. Keep it simple (especially for me). If you want to redefine the word, let the rest of us hang on to its traditional meaning and get yourselves a new word. Traditional meaning? Making everything from nothing, if it's God we're talking about. If that isn't what you think God did, then clear it up for us. Words of one syllable would be good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:53 PM

I don't think it is about linguistics. It is whether there is only one valid way of looking at the world, or whether we can legitimately have several and draw on whichever is most appropriate for whatever we are considering. Hence my example of whether the sun goes round the earth or vice versa. They are absolutely contradictory but we choose which is appropriate to the context. While these are both from science it doesn't seem self-evident they would have to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:22 PM

Yebbut it all hinges on how we use the word growth. This is a language issue, not a philosophical question. Unless you want to turn it into one!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:49 PM

Absolutely right, Steve. That's the biologist's view. A gardener sees it differently. One view does not invalidate the other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:46 PM

Did a gardener grow that flower or did the flower grow itself? Well, the gardener cultivated that plant. He facilitated its growth by sowing the seed, providing good compost and other growing conditions and keeping pests and diseases at bay. But the cell elongation and division, the differentiation and the enlargement were done by the plant, with the aid of suitable conditions of light, moisture, temperature and nutrients. Growth means a specific thing to a biologist. Not quite same thing as cultivation. Generally speaking, plants manage fairly well without too much human intervention. That gardener was indulging in a little bit of artificial selection.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:28 PM

I did that 2.00 pm post just as I was at the mantecura stage of my risotto, and didn't have time to check it properly. I can't believe I kept saying that models explain. Bloody idiot, Shaw. Dammit.

Every time I type "he" for God I feel awkward. But to do anything different would look a little bit pretentious. I call God "he" for convenience only, to keep it short, and because everybody else does. I could reconstruct my sentences so that I can say "God" every time. I utterly refuse to type "He", however. Always "he". I know I don't know whether a God exists or not, but I won't accord him (oops...) that honour.

Damned fine risotto, by the way, even though I say so meself!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:25 PM

....increase my knowledge....that's gracious of you dmcg.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:01 PM

Models predict is what I should have said. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 02:17 PM

Hey! Steve, I'm a botanist too! We must exchange notes.

Anyway, characterising God as a 'he' (a big human?) has always seemed to me to be wildly anthropomorphic and parochial. Remember, it's a big universe out there and we're in a tiny, insignificant little corner of it and in the midst of a brief flicker of time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 02:12 PM

I didn't think I had written anything complicated either. Shows how wrong we can be!
I thought I had quite a good example with that gardener and his flower to show how deciding which is responsible for its growth depends on what point we want to examine.

As for the excluded middle: It is whenever you are given a list of choices as if it is complete, but there are others that are not presented. If BillD turns up I am sure he can give a fuller and better account.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 02:00 PM

I thought I'd asked a simple question. Do you think that a supernatural God (in whom you surely believe in some form or other, otherwise you'd be an atheist like me) created the universe/universes/earth/us/everything? I must confess that I don't understand the mincing of words here. Excluded middle? Both did and didn't?

Science is about what's in this world. Models, or theories, try to explain the reality before us. The models explain the actuality, but the actuality is what we have. The cave people saw the moon, the actuality, and devised a model to explain it. Actually, the simplest of models can work the most perfectly. There is nothing wrong with the simple model of the earth going round the sun. It is abundantly verifiable and works perfectly within its own terms. Complicated models, such as the ones meteorologists use to predict the weather, are fraught, as we know. I think that comparing Genesis to scientific models is fallacious. Genesis is an account that might be 100% historical, 100% myth, or any point in between, and cannot be corroborated. Models or theories are capable of being modified, added to or ditched, according to the accretion of evidence. And terms like "he" for God, and sunrise and sunset, keep scientists within the realms of human beings, rather than in the realms of Mr Spocks. No harm in that. I'm not up for going around having to explain my complicated language to everyone. I'm a botanist and I know the Latin name of every British wildflower. Would you enjoy a nature ramble with me if I used them exclusively instead of the less scientifically-useful English names?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:36 PM

Sometimes the lack of an edit facility is a problem here. Please read 'in the same position as the people who wrote Genesis' as 'in the same difficulties ...'

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 12:50 PM

I can only give you my view, Steve. I purport to speak for no-one except myself.

Almost every word in the question puts you into the same position of the people who wrote Genesis. "He". A bit anthropomorphic don't you feel? Aren't you straight into God and man in the same image before we have got more than a word into the thing? "Created" Our best understanding of time is that it did not exist until after the Big Bang. So a word like "created" which embeds time within it doesn't really work. Remember, I do not put science and religion into opposition as you do, so I have no more difficulty ( than anyone else!) having the idea of time starting but we are inheritly limited by language which does not have that concept.

'Did he or didn't he?" Are you sure there's no excluded middle? Maybe he both did and didn't depending on how you think about it. Did a gardener grow that flower, or did the flower grow itself? Yes and no, both and neither in isolation.

A lot of people think science is about what actually IS in the world. In my view, that's not so. Science is about building models that describe the world to a greater or lesser extent, but it is about models, not actuality. So people say, to take an example, that the earth goes round the sun. We are all taught that. But as a good scientist you know that is only a simple model and our best understanding of what actually occurs is far more complicated. And it is not that the earth going round the sun is the simplest model: it is for some problems but not for others. For many real world problems it is a much better model to have the sun going round the earth. Hence why even the most scientific pedant in the world will still talk about sunrise and sunset.

All of that may seem a diversion. It isn't. We use models to help us understand and encapsulate ideas and concepts and to enable us to make decisions and predictions. I see Genesis and similar accounts of creation (Ash and Elder anyone?) as similar to the models. Are they literally true? Not in my mind. Do they contain truths? Yes. Did God create the world? I find that a useful model for some things. Does that mean I don't accept the Big Bang as our current best scientic model? Of course I accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 12:22 PM

I'd put it more as "creates".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 12:11 PM

Well, once I've decided that there's probably no God there's not a lot of sense In clinging on to all the ceremony and theology (though you won't keep me out of cathedrals). I'm not just ditching a particular concept of God, remember, because I haven't got one. I'm just looking at other people's really, clearly a hazardous pursuit. I'm in a constantly-ducked state here.   

Right, God-as-magician may appear to be trivialising a certain concept of creation. But you either believe that God created everything or you don't, surely? If so, didn't he do it from nothing? Against the laws of nature, etc., utterly counterintuitive? Gotta be some kind of magic in some sense, hasn't it? No Aunt Sally intended, just an invitation to clear this up. Did he or didn't he? And if he didn't, what did, and what is the point of him?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 11:57 AM

I tried to keep it simple, a supernatural God who created everything. That's about as inclusive a definition as I could muster, which is what I was trying to do, and I'll warrant that most believers believe in that kind of a God. Not necessarily for his advocates on Mudcat, who may well be a bit more sophisticated. ;-) Where's the fundamentalism? Where's the Aunt Sally? I acknowledged the vast scope for nuance too. I don't really do tactics much in my posts, not on purpose anyway.

It does not follow that non-believers in evolution necessarily take a literal biblical view of creation is what I meant. I can see that he didn't quite mean it the way I took it. Perhaps the word "exactly" threw me a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 11:51 AM

'Twas you who made science and religion into equivalent subjects

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, because I don't think that a comparison like that has any meaning. They are not 'equal valued' because they address different things and they don't attempt to give the same kind of answers or explanations. It is like asking whether I prefer my chair or my computer. It is answerable but doesn't really have any solid meaning.

You have said that you don't mean religion in the wider sense I referred to, but specifically the creator-creation stuff [There are other topics we know as well, but let's keep to one topic at a time.]. I don't imagine the sort of creator-God-as-magician you seem to mean either , nor as far as I can tell do Joe, or Kevin, or Pope Francis. Pete, I think, does, You say rejecting that concept of God necessitates rejecting everything else as well. I don't doubt that is true for you, but I don't see it. It would be as if discovering Godel's Theorem meant we should shut maths down, or the discovery of chaotic behaviours led us to shutting down whole branches of science.

And, for what it is worth, I don't think religion permiates your life as you suggested I/we might think.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

I wasn't saying you were a fundamentalist there, Steve. I was saying that the notion of God, and of creation, which you are focussing on, is a fundamentalist God, and a fundamentalist notion of creation. So essentially I am saying you are an anti-fundamentalist in terms of religion, but that you are focussing your attention on a kind of Aunt Sally.

Incidentally that last remark by Joe which you accuse of being a non-sequitur isn't a sequitur or a non-sequitur. It's an observation, which doesn't on the face of it set out to settle an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:49 AM

'But most of the Ten Commendments, I doubt if too many people would actually disagree with them as a guide to how we need to try to behave to each other."

Well I certainly disagree with commandments that tell us that there is one true God and you must have no others, that you are not allowed to have graven images (think of all that religious art that we must destroy!), that we must keep one day a week "holy", that we should honour our parents in order to gain greater advantage (yes, that bit really is in there!), that we should treat our women in the same way as our goods and chattels and that mere thoughts can be sinful. And it's hard to take lessons on killing from a murderous man who condoned a public stoning "on God's orders" (I believe that one was for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Something like that). Nice. And so much is missed out. Hate me all you like for suggesting this, but go on to YouTube and search for Christopher Hitchens revising the Ten Commandments. As he says at the end of the short video, don't swallow your moral code in tablet form!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:09 AM

"Steve Shaw says the lamentable fact is that over half the US population don't think that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth. Four in ten US Catholics don't think it either. I don't know where he gets his data, but note that Steve doesn't exactly say that all those people take a literal biblical view of creation."

I got my data from wikipedia and I was careful to phrase the statement in the same vein as there. I invite you to do the same, or better if you have the time. Your last remark is a non sequitur.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:01 AM

I haven't really got a concept of God at all, actually. All I'm doing is responding to the most basic, and, to my mind, the most mind-numbing and damaging concept of a God, that he is a supernatural being who is the creator of everything. That isn't my concept. That's my perception of how a lot of people perceive God. I'm perfectly aware that there are many shades and embellishments of that perception, that he's a force running through everything, a sort of spiritual presence in our lives, that he came to earth as Jesus, etc. I'm also aware that many people make a living out of him, often by dressing in strange ceremonial clothing and talking about God in dense, obscurantist circumlocutions (I think they call it "theology"). If I reject God I have to also reject all of that. You might as well say in that case that every atheist is a fundamentalist. Well, that's no more than a nice try at an insult, based on the old canard that atheism is some kind of an equivalent to a religion. It behoves critics of atheism to be a little more imaginative than that. Insulting atheists by calling them fundamentalists or accusing them of espousing an atheist belief system smacks of frustration and a lost argument. If you find the terms creation and creator a little uncomfortable, and you really are looking for deeper understanding, your search will inevitably make you abandon God eventually. There really is no further understanding to be gained by following a sterile path with no possibility of finding any evidence save suspect revelation. And I know you're not going to tell me that religious contemplation helps you to find those deeper truths. That would be so arrogant (pardon the pre-emptive strike!). Those truths can be equally well discovered, maybe better, via contemplation unhampered by a deity, a point that seems to me to be lost on a good few believers.

DMcG, 'twas you who made religion and science into equivalent subjects. I agree that maths and history permeate our lives, just like science, and I revel in finding that irresistible. Unfortunately for religion, the same can't really be said. For a start there are too many different species of religion. Then there is no religion. I know you may think that religion seems to permeate my life even though I'm supposed to be an atheist, but that's really only true for the small parts of the day when I'm testing my own mettle in these threads. Then you have working scientists who have to ditch religion, at least temporarily, in order to not jeopardise the scientific method. Life has to go on in spite of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:57 AM

A valiant effort, but if you recall:

"You cannont reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person. "

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:31 AM

Just looked it up! Marine and land iguanas can interbreed and their offspring has charactistics of both. So, yes, Pete, I did literally see offspring of land and marine parents!

Thank you for increasing my knowledge!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:20 AM

Pete asked if the flower in my photo was a rose. You get to the Galapagos via the Ecuadorean mainland, and ecuador is huge exporter of flowers in general, but roses in particular. Mainly to Russia for some obscure reason.


pete asked if I saw a creature with marine and terrestrial parents. Oddly enough. In a way I did. Not that Pete would see this as evidence, or course, but marine iguanas only exist on the Galapgos and are only species of iguana that can tolerate that level of salt. Evolutionary thinking would suggest they must have come from the land iguanas which are much more like the iguanas found elsewhere in the world. So, yes, I would say it is very likely indeed I saw iguanas that were more salt tolerant than their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:49 AM

Joe suggested that you have a fundamentalist concept of God, Steve, and that seems right. so it's no wonder you reject it. That includes a way of understanding words like creation and creator. The kind of thing Pope Francis was talking about in saying ""When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,"

"We're here, because we're here, because we are here..." Is not really an explanation of how it is we are here. Nor does the notion of God provide that kind of explanation. But nor does it imply that we should ever stop working away looking for greater understanding of how it is - albeit with no expectation of ever getting a final answer.
..........
God didn't chisel them into tablets of stone and hand them to some bearded, bronze age, middle eastern goat herder who could then stumble down the mountainside with them shouting Hosanna!

Of course then Moses promptly proceeded to smash the tablets, a bit like the Labour Party with the Ed-stone... But most of the Ten Commendments, I doubt if too many people would actually disagree with them as a guide to how we need to try to behave to each other. (Where does using "bearded" as an insult come from anyway?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:39 AM

"I consider my faith to be reasonable , but still admitting the faith factor."

Faith is the fervent and unquestioning belief in the invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence." That's not reasonable - it's plain f**king stupid! Oh I swore again - how awful - I'm a dreadful sinner!

"The atheist constantly has to adjust the evolution story but essentially affirms evolutionism as fact and not faith ..."

The evolution model changes periodically in the light of new evidence. That's how science works - you ignorant numbskull!

"However providing little evidence to substantiate it, and sidestepping counter evidence."

The evidence is out there in many, many popular and technical accounts. You expect people on here to read this material for you and then to re-gurgitate it so that you can sneer at it. Why don't read some of this voluminous mountain of material for yourself? I can supply you with a reading list if you like? No? Afraid that you might learn something that you don't want to know? OK, bury your nose in cretinous 'Creation.com' - see if I care!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:41 AM

"Science is not a subject". I more or less agree, but actually if you are an Y-sit at heart then Y is not a subject. My mother in law was a historian by qualification and inclination and saw history everywhere. I'm essentially a mathematician and see maths everywhere. I get the impression that is how you are with science. For each of us that topic is 'not a subject'.

But whether we like it or not, that's how these things are taught in schools and if it doesn't rock your particular kayak, a subject it what it is in your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:39 AM

Well raggytash, at risk of repeating myself........I consider my faith to be reasonable , but still admitting the faith factor.   The atheist constantly has to adjust the evolution story but essentially affirms evolutionism as fact and not faith.   Therefore , claiming the intellectual high ground . However providing little evidence to substantiate it, and sidestepping counter evidence.    Steves post seem to be a wordy extension of raggys, but with the added dimension of of stressing the inconsistency of theistic evolutionism.......a sentiment I rather sympathise with !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:21 AM

Lovely pics, dmcg, some interesting specimens. Was that a rose at the bottom ? . Did you identify any of the joint offspring from marine and terrestrial parents ?.            When you look out of your window and consider the magnificence of evolution, you are making an assumption about the past that is not verified......especially by just seeing what's outside your window.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:07 AM

As for me, I don't take anyone's word for it, authority or not. Time and time again I've said that Darwin got some things wrong. Time and time again I've said that education is about making children curious and persuading them never to take anyone's unsupported word for anything. And that includes God. I don't know whether there's a God or not, but what I do know is that he is not exempt from the same kind of critical enquiry that everything else should be subjected to. Unfortunately, exempting God is exactly what religious instruction in schools does. The reason for that, of course, is all too clear: God would fail the test at the first hurdle. Always ask for evidence. Not "proof", evidence, just to make sure that your source is at least above-board and a person of good will. Bishops, priests, rabbis, imams and ayatollahs would be instantly out of a job if every child in every school was persuaded to subject God to the same critical enquiry that they are told to apply to what they see in a test tube or down the microscope or on a nature ramble.

A thoughtful post, DMcG, but much to disagree with. Though I do agree that religious education is absolutely crucial. The history of religion, comparing the philosophies and belief systems of the major religions and the role of religion in human endeavour, vital. I'm a great admirer of ancient churches, cathedrals and monuments myself. They are as much a part of my heritage as they are of the most fervent believer's. I've even been known to put a quid in the donations box. But that is not the kind of religion I'm talking about really. I'm talking about the kind that declares God to be the explanation for everything, the great originator, the creator. If you settle for that, let's see where that leaves you. It means you can't accept evolution for a start, because if you insert a creator into evolution the whole theory collapses. Evolution can't work with a big bang and a guiding light, as much as some believers valiantly try to espouse it. It leaves you with an explanation that is completely at odds with all the laws of nature. We can see how life develops and evolves, but you don't want any of that. You want someone to have kicked it all off with some kind of wave of a wand. Well that isn't a explanation at all. There is no evidence for that. Worse, God himself simply can't be explained. If he's really there, he'd be pissed off about that and very annoyed with the religious authorities who have deliberately put him beyond explanation.

So you have science, that gets things wrong, that makes progress, that constantly modifies its ideas, that never reaches its goals, but which is replete with evidence. Along with culture, science is the ultimate human endeavour. It never ends, it's terminally curious, it stimulates our minds and it gives us joy through that curiosity. Then you have God, a permanent mystery, who no-one has ever seen or heard from, for whom there is no evidence and who himself can't be explained. An explanation for everything that can't be explained. I find that dismal. I feel that this God wants me to stop thinking, to accept childish explanations for the world of the kind I gave up on once I realised there was no Santa or tooth fairy. In fact, a real God would be very annoyed if I stopped thinking, seeing as how he's given me a mighty brain. He'd want me to keep looking for real explanations and he'd give me a good bollocking for believing in magic.

One more thing. Science is not a subject. You are doing science a thousand times a day as you look found you and try to make sense of even the most mundane things, like why this copy of The Guardian couldn't get the staples in the right place. Science began when the first humans on earth looked at the moon and wondered what it was. They probably got completely the wrong idea, but they were still scientists as long as they kept on wondering and working our better ways to find out (do note, by the way, how religion has constantly tried to get in the way of scientific enquiry. Pete is still doing it). Science won't allow you to stop asking questions. Religion would rather you avoided the awkward ones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:45 AM

"As for shimrod, I think I shall stop responding to him, as his language is vulgar, and he just keeps repeating himself anyway."

Oh! Poor sensitive Pete - can't cope with the odd f**king swear word! And we do keep going round in circles, don't we, mainly because of your pathetic 'bluff and bluster' and the fact that you can't respond to my challenges. I bet you don't even have a copy of Kerkut's book, do you?

As they say on 'Top Gear' - LOOOSSSSER!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:10 AM

Some of my Galapagos photos if anyone cares!

Just in case you get misled, pete and others, I am not saying Darwin is any kind of saint or God. But purely scientifically speaking, there is no justification for anyone except certain specialists going there. If you want to consider the magnificence of evolution, as Steve would say, you can just look out the window. So whatever the appeal of going is, it is something other than scientific.

There were one or two people on the trip who did have very clear reasons for going, even if they were dramatically inadequate. I overheard one person say "I'm glad it is sunny, that's why we came" which is a bit like making the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela because you like the cakes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM

.....going on a pilgrimage.... Like it, lol.            As for shimrod, I think I shall stop responding to him, as his language is vulgar, and he just keeps repeating himself anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:35 AM

"to abandon reason and evidence and just take theirs and the authorities they lean ons word for it"

Is this not exactly what you do with the bible Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:31 AM

"Seems to me , that it is the evolution side which wants me to abandon reason and evidence and just take theirs and the authorities they lean ons word for it ... And if you cannot demonstrate it, it becomes a philosophical position or religious viewpoint, IMO.   And the more militant voices here only serve to confirm this opinion!"

This is, again, what you'd call "bluff and bluster", Pete - and what I'd call "pure bollocks"! Remember, you've not "demonstrated" anything - just parroted passages from 'Creation.com'.

How are you getting on with re-reading Kerkut's book, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:03 AM

Seems to me , that it is the evolution side which wants me to abandon reason and evidence and just take theirs and the authorities they lean ons word for it. The basic idea is not that complicated as Steve often says, but demonstrating it seems to be !   And if you cannot demonstrate it, it becomes a philosophical position or religious viewpoint, IMO.   And the more militant voices here only serve to confirm this opinion!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:36 AM

Another random thought! In February this year I went to the Galapagos Islands, and I reckon there are an awful lot of scientists who would like to do that as well. But the relationship between going to such an important place in the history of science and going on a pilgrimage is worth mulling over...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:13 AM

The 8:12 post? Well, I agree 100% with the first sentence:
there's no reason on earth why we should abandon the promotion of evidence and reason.   But it starts to go downhill a bit after that: Religion is very damaging on the whole, narrowing people's minds and giving them ... false certainties.

It certainly can do that, but it can also do the exact opposite. The bit I omitted was 'false hopes and' because that is actually the whole "Does God exist and what do you mean by God in the first place?" bit, which is far too much to take on here. And Dylan Thomas wrote "No man believes who cries not 'God is Not!'" Doubt, not certainty, is an important part of religion.

But let's look at narrowing of minds. I'd say the opposite personally: it continually challenges people to remember that they don't always get it right, that they don't know it all, that 'they see in a glass darkly'. Like any complex subject, it can take you to all sorts of places you never anticipated, like the greek philosophy I mentioned, or social anthropology, or how religion understanding has altered thoughout history. I consider that mind expanding, not narrowing. But it is a personal choice whether allow religion top expand or narrow your mind.

Science is also a rich subject, of course, so it can also narrow or broaden your mind, but the vast majority of people are not scientists and can live their lives happily enough without giving much thought to evolution, geology, quantum mechanics etc, etc, etc. I have a friend who is a keen amateur photographer and about every other day posts fantastically beautiful photos of sunsets on Facebook. I have little doubt she thinks of neither God nor the scientific causes of them. And while she certainly could, I see no reason why she should.

So I don't it is right to say religion itself causes narrow-mindedness. What does, though, is inculcating an attitude of "accept what you are told, don't think for yourself, we know what's good for you, and will tell you everything you need to know". And I fear that while the way religion is frequently taught makes it especially vulnerable to that, it is true for every subject, including science. What proportion of people have never questioned a scientific 'fact' they were taught at school, even when the science community passed it by decades ago? How many people still think the Rutherford atomic model is 'right'? Do people habitually question advertisements on whether the science and statistics claimed have any validity?   A few years ago we had a vote on the Alternative Voting system and one of the key objections raised again and again by the No lobby was that it was too hard to understand.   I think we need to look very hard at our education system if it is true the majority are incapable of understanding something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:23 AM

"So shimrod, on the one hand you have no issue with the definition, and on the other you think it out of date. Apart from the seeming inconsistency , what has changed to make it out of date.?"

For a start, Polly Pete (squawk, squawk) it was you who introduced Kerkut's work into the discussion. Second, books, papers etc. on evolutionary biology are NOT 'holy writ' like the Bible (God didn't chisel them into tablets of stone and hand them to some bearded, bronze age, middle eastern goat herder who could then stumble down the mountainside with them shouting Hosanna!!). The field is continually - well - evolving and older works can easily become out of date. In the last 55 years (an eternity in terms of modern science) there have been HUGE advances in fields as diverse as palaeontology, cell biology and genetics. So here's what I suggest you do, Polly ... err ... Pete: Go back and read Kerkut's book, note the gaps in the 55 year old evolutionary model that he delineates and then check the status of those gaps in the light of recent discoveries; can you do that? Can you do it without parroting stuff from 'Creation.com'? I'm not holding my breath!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:11 PM

On a positive note, I'd like to say that the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution has a wonderful display on the evolution of humanity. When I visited the museum, I wondered how American creationists would react to it. Steve Shaw says the lamentable fact is that over half the US population don't think that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth. Four in ten US Catholics don't think it either. I don't know where he gets his data, but note that Steve doesn't exactly say that all those people take a literal biblical view of creation.
Well, probably I fall into Steve's ignorant group, since I see evolution as a divine action. I don't believe in Steve's rather fundamentalist concept of God, though.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:42 PM

Cheers, Michael, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:41 PM

Pete, my poor deluded fellow, you've admitted time and time again that you have not read Origin, so kindly spare me the bullshit. As for Dawkins on Youtube, well give us a link or two, preferably annotated with your wise takes. I'd really like to know exactly what it is he says that raises your hackles so. I ask only because I need you to disabuse me of this ever-so-slight suspicion I seem to be harbouring that you're full of shit. Any help you could provide in this regard would be appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:30 PM

Steve's 08:12 post said it better than I could have. And that's the extent of my contribution to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:09 PM

So shimrod, on the one hand you have no issue with the definition, and on the other you think it out of date. Apart from the seeming inconsistency , what has changed to make it out of date.?    And supposing I do " parrot " stuff from CMI........you ain't answering it...