 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:16 PM You caught me on that one, DMcG, though it was interesting, I was only taking the courses to fill in a few "electives",(except for the philosophy of science). And yes, it is likely I went a pub shortly after, or at least had thoughts of one during or after the classes. You figured me out. I can tell that I'm not match for you. :) On a more serious note, thanks for that explanation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:06 PM ""Well, Ed, as you posted it without comment I assumed you sort of agreed with it."" Yes, I can understand that interpretation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:59 PM Well, Ed, as you posted it without comment I assumed you sort of agreed with it. There you go. Yours non-bickeringly (for now), Steve ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: DMcG Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:53 PM Ed T: Your account of the lecture on Zeno's paradoxes sounded to me like a good example which separates 'serious philosophers' from 'people who attend philosphy lectures'. Zeno's claim (simplifying greatly) was that he had proved movement was an illusion. Now, a serious philospher would either accept the argument as true or false (or, in fact, one of several other possibilities, but let's not go into that now.) Let's assume they think the argument is correct and that movement is illusion. Why on earth should the illusion stop just because you recognised it? Most illusions don't - look at optical illusions for example. The 'illusion' of the professor walking out of the class raises not the slightest complication. What does, though, is why some illusions seem possible, but others - flying unaided through the air for example - appear impossible. Are there different types of illusions? And this is what a serious philosopher would be thinking about for the next few days, weeks, or whatever. On the other hand, our student could think the argument was false, even self-evidently false. Then they would spend the next few days, weeks or whatever, trying to understand where the flaw in the plausible sounding argument was. (And the chances are, in this day and age, that that is why the department told you about it in the first place, unless it was a history of philosophy lecture.) Someone who is just attending philosophy lectures, on the other hand, would go to the pub, gym or whatever, and not think about it deeply at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:46 PM I have no peobelm with a counter argument. And, yes it was respectful. But, just to be clear, they were not my points to claim. I do wish I could write as well. But, I only posted the article made by another perso, of a higher mental calibre than me (IMO). What his purpose was, I cannot attest. Maybe a read over the rest of his site mwould releal it. But, I just felt they were interesting to the topic and may stimulate debate, as they have. No sinister plot on my behalf. I do not have a counter argument, to Steve, as to what a miracle should be called, as I rarely, if ever use the term. Though, I suspect others do, with different meanings. Anyway, onward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:10 PM Steve Shaw, do you see this specific quotation from Ed T's post as wrong, or as degrading the very concept of "miracle" ? "There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way." If not, why are you bickering with him point by point over what are simply elucidations of that premise? My post was very constructive, without name-calling, bickering or anything else obnoxious. It's a discussion forum, froggie, and I don't agree with his points, therefore I put up a counter-argument, perfectly civilly. Are you OK with that, or are you one of these folks who gets automatically blinded by any post, on any topic, by someone whom you think might just not line themselves up with you? Arrogant sod!! And, for the record, I don't agree with that other definition of "miracle" either, and I do believe I covered that in my post (which you seem not have read properly - try again). It's simple. There are other words in this amazing language of ours, plenty of them, to cover the amazing, the wondrous, the superb. Let's keep "miracle" for magic, exactly where it belongs. You really can't see the sub-plot here,can you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:49 PM penny-thanks for the vote of confidence! seething mass of violence;probably not but i know there have been occasions when i could easily have gone badly wrong and i suspect if not for love of God i would have rationalized my going ahead. you obviously know much about geology and i wont attempt to debate that with you,knowing next to nothing about it myself.i,m sure you realize that i will choose the scientific theory that accords with my theology.i appreciate your trainig and interpretations of data inform you differently to creationist geologists interpretations. don t-do we really have to go off topic.hopefully you will accept that whatever your views;for me,if the NT speaks clearly on a subject it clarifies an OT issue ed and bill-thanks for helpful info.you will have to forgive my not reading philosophy deeply. i would agree that giving thought to the issues of moral choices ought to lead to the conclusion that goodness is better[hope i read you correctly]problem is; who thinks deeply in the throes of temptation.even as a believer it,s not easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:17 PM Wow, Bill D, I now fully see how to make something non-complex, really complex. Good job :) I believe my main point (at least one of them, I kinda forget how many there were now...but there likely weren't many) is that it is much easier to follow science advancements on one issue than philosophy (my statement of being debunked). I believe the person on the link I provided gave a better explanation of that than me. My other point relates more to a personal experience I had years ago while in University, while taking about four philosophy courses, (one, btw, was the philosophy of science). One class was dedicated to discussing whether there could be movement or not. After going through all the different historic philosophical attempts to prove whether one could move from point A to point B, or not (including Zeno's motion paradoxes, which may or may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction to this day), at the end of the class, quite puzzlingly, no person, including the Prof had any difficulty moving out of the room.... thus I personally observed the legible impact the discussion had on the class...that led me to what I amusingly alluded to in my earlier (and shorter) post. I now admit, I should have avoided the temptation, to minimize the "scorn" (not a quote) past down upon me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: frogprince Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:16 PM Steve Shaw, do you see this specific quotation from Ed T's post as wrong, or as degrading the very concept of "miracle" ? "There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way." If not, why are you bickering with him point by point over what are simply elucidations of that premise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:15 PM "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" Quite true... but as I'm sure Michael would agree, that has little to do with his 'philospher-ness'. ...and to Ed, in reply to "...there would be little discussion on many aspects of life, possibly yourself included, (humourous, or otherwise), or on Mudcat, if everyone was asked to adhere to that rule you just made up." Methinks you miss my point... I never suggested one could not 'disagree' with philosophical arguments: philosophers disagree on subjects and construct new ideas all the time. What I was concerned with was the seeming trivializing of, as I said, "serious philosophy" as a useful pursuit. And THAT means that there is a real and important difference between "serious philosophy" and generally intelligent 'speculating on stuff' from a layman's viewpoint, which is perfectly ok and what is done in 99+% of the discussions here. The point is, IN a layman's attempts, it is quite possible for him to make errors **of logical reasoning**, usually described by one of the informal fallacies. It does NOT automatically mean he is 'wrong', but merely that his reasoning is suspect...which 'may' cast doubt on his conclusion. Thus, some of the objection to Kent and his YEC beliefs boil down to suggestions that he has resorted to some of the fallacies noted here, such as: Begging the Question Appeal to Tradition Appeal to Authority Appeal to Belief and at the bottom of that page is the "Fallacy of Equivocation", which speaks to why I bother to challenge your remark about philosophy. It just seems to me that you are using a 'simplifed' definition of philosophy, and equivocating about what the word really means...and thus doing what I said and 'marginalizing' serious philosophy by making fun of the 'common notion' of what it does. So...you see how much work it is to explicate & clarify a point when attempting to use 'formal' language? I do NOT expect all of us here to talk that way in casual debate, but it can become relevant when entire arguments are getting muddy because one group simply means something different from another group when using certain words. (such as 'stupid' when 'ignorant' is meant.) At such points, philosophy can be useful...even if the formal terms of it are not used. One can just say, "Hey... I thing we are talking about different things here...what do YOU mean by 'X'?" Now,I have no idea if you or anyone else bothers to read long posts like this, but hey... there it is...just in case it helps someone at some time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jan 11 - 12:13 PM Ed's Miracles: The Universe exists Well, the universe, for all we know, may exist because a number of factors lined up in a big coincidence which resulted in the Big Bang. Perhaps those factors have "failed" to line up billions of times and the universe we now find ourselves in is just the lucky one. No rules broken then that we know of. It's 14 million to one that my ticket will win the lottery jackpot, but even if I do win it there's no miracle. It's just a coincidence. I got no matches with my six numbers this week. The lineup between my numbers and the winning numbers is no more common than the line-up of numbers of someone who got all six right. Coincidence-wise, they come out equal. Much mathematical work has been done on coincidences, and far from being miracles, they're inevitable. Life Exists Every process that goes on inside a living thing has been, or will undoubtedly be, explained by resort to no more than the laws of physics. What's more, the planet has had four and a half billion years for myriad "experiments" in kicking off life to have occurred. You say life's a miracle. I could, with equal validity, declare that perhaps life is almost inevitable, given the conditions and raw materials on the planet (another lucky coincidence) and the time span available (the main thing that anti-evolutionists forget). No rules broken then, so no miracle. Intelligence Exists Well, we can discuss that when you can tell me what intelligence is. Hint: try to better than GfS's definition! I'm perfectly up for calling things wonderful, beautiful, astonishing, marvellous, but let's not degrade the meaning of "miracle" when we have plenty of alternative words available for these superlative, non-miraculous phenomena. And none of those other things you mention, including evolution, needs any resort to explanations outside the laws of physics. Instead of calling them miracles, why not just marvel at what amazing stuff can be achieved by such ordinary, normal means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:14 AM The Three Miracles (James Alan Farrell, 2001) On occasion I have told people about my belief that mysticism is false, and for the most part people agree. Until I apply this belief to Christianity. I imagine that this is because most of the people I know are Christians, and if I applied it to Hinduism my Hindu friends would protest. Those who protest will then say it must be terrible for me to live with such a lack of imagination or sense of wonder. They tell me it must be terrible to live without believing in miracles. What is a miracle? If we define miracle as something that cannot happen then, it is true, miracles do not exist. If it cannot happen it has never happened. If it has happened, then it can happen and it is not a miracle. There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way. I do believe in miracles, and to prove it I can name three miracles. These miracles are profound and glorious. Compared to them merely walking on water seems hardly miraculous, and certainly no great wonder. Furthermore I can prove that these miracles have happened. Ladies and gentlemen, the three miracles: The Universe exists Life Exists Intelligence Exists We can chalk these up to a deity, or we can chalk them up to scientific quirks. Given the current lack of evidence, I would say it does not matter. If you feel you should thank God for these miracles, so be it. I will respect you for it. At this time we do not understand these miracles or how any of them came about. On the other hand, research is being carried out at a feverish pace, and it seems likely that soon we will have answers on at least two of the three. But just because we can explain and even replicate the process by which these came about does not make them less profound or less glorious. Even after we can explain them they will still be miraculous. For that matter, once one looks at the universe in this light it is fairly easy to see many lesser miracles, at least lesser compared to the three. Many of these we can now explain: Breathing, the beating of the heart and the reproductive cycle are examples. Another example is the miracle of evolution. This is a true wonder and immensely profound. Without it intelligence would not exists. Even though we can explain these, they are not less miraculous. Source: http://pages.prodigy.net/j_alan/Philosophy/NavelContemplations.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: DMcG Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:36 AM That's an interesting aticle, Ed. I'd better declare my interest: I am a mathematician by training and degrees, and a scientist by nature. Probably the strongest 'flash memory' I have of primary school was when I was seven and we were given the exercise books for science and I remember how excited I felt and thinking this was when real education starts. We had to copy the first sentence from the blackboard - 'Science is the study of alive, dead and never-alive things. It is also about what happens to them.' So, I am scientifically-inclined 'in all my being'. My daughter, on the other hand, is currently studying for an MA in Philosophy and is applying for PhDs even as I type. So while I have had no training in Philosophy I have had many, many hours of discussion with her (probably at least 130hrs, Bill D *smile*) I hear the quotation that was given above quite often ("'God is dead', said Hitler's favourite philosopher, Nietzsche") and my usual response is to say that's interesting and ask them to tell me anything else Nietzsche said. The usual response is silence or burbling, which is a pity because Nietzsche is a particularly difficult philospher to summarise as his writings are often obscure and arguably self-contradictory in places. Unlike, say, Wittgenstein who tried to make his position as clear as possible, Nietzsche's writings often require a synthesis of his work to appreciate what he is driving at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:58 AM DMcG An interesting perspective on this matter Why can't philosophy be like science?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:50 AM "Whatever one thinks about the validity or otherwise of his arguments, Kent Davis has achieved one very important result. He has given us an object lesson in presenting a generally unpopular viewpoint calmly, politely and with unwavering good humour." I'd have to disagree with you there, Don. It's true that Mr Kent has been polite, but the 'argument'/explanation that he presented at the top of this thread was really designed to shut down debate (God created the Universe recently; mere mortals can't understand the mind of God; anyone who says different is deluded; the end). To my mind that is mere 'mindless' dogmatism - no matter how calmly, politely or humourously it may be presented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: DMcG Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:33 AM Kant was a philosopher. And, IMO (which I have stated before), philosophers take a lot of time to get to what they see as truths. Other philosophers try and shoot them down. Quite so: and that is exactly analogous to 'peer review' in science. You present your view, others criticise it and then third parties get to choose which is the most convincing. That is one of the reasons that philosophy and science are not simply 'belief systems'; the reasons why you to propose your view must be open to a full and detailed examination of the reasons you believe it and while you are free to continue to believe whatever you like, what you as the proponent end up believing is not the point of the process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:59 AM ""Don't marginalize serious Philosophy with silly remarks if you already admit you don't have depth in the topic"" Well, Bill D, there would be little discussion on many aspects of life, possibly yourself included, (humourous, or otherwise), or on Mudcat, if everyone was asked to adhere to that rule you just mad up. I suspect we aren't all "experts" on everything we discuss throughout our lives. And, there is ample "evidence" for that on Mudcat, if you would want to seek it out. ":)" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Penny S. Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:44 AM Pete, I am astonished that you say you wouldn't trust yourself without the restraints of your belief. There is absolutely no way you come across as someone who is a seething mass of violence held back by external forces. I think you are underestimating yourself there. (Though I appreciate you may attribute that to the action of God in your life.) It is one of the things I feel worrying about certain versions of Christianity that it teaches that so many people would be dangerous without it. Most people are not like that, whatever their personal fallings short of what they should be might be. Most people, once past their youth (and most people in their youth), are pretty steady. They might not stop to help someone in need, but they certainly wouldn't stop to join in beating someone up. With or without any sort of religion. If we were like that, then evolution or no, we wouldn't be here to argue the issue. And we wouldn't deserve to be, either. As for anomalies and inconsistencies, I'd be an idiot if I denied it. For instance, a friend of mine studying sea level changes found that the evidence for the sinking of South-East England all came from three tide gauges, Southend, Sheerness and Southampton. I'm sure you can spot that Southend and Sheerness aren't exactly measuring separate evidence, though you may not have spotted that both they, and Southampton are in troughs where the rocks are folded downwards. Measurements from areas of uplift give different results. During the same study, he looked at results from the Dover tide gauge. There were odd jumps in these, which I, having lived there, spotted as being related to building in the harbour. We checked it, and found that it had been moved, and the jumps related to that. but that is what scientific method does, uncovers things and corrects them. I was taught how to calculate error margins in work. However, the error margins in dating are not such that a rock component dated as 3650±50 million years old (in Greenland) is going to be less than 6000 years old. Not with an error margin of 50 million either way, which is what ±50 Ma means. And as scientists do check each others' work, anomalies and inconsistencies would be uncovered and published. You know that Piltdown was a fake because of that process. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Jan 11 - 01:42 AM Re Bill D's last post ~~ old Will Shax, as usual, had something pertinent to say ··· "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" (Much Ado About Nothing). Re comic strip definitions of The Golden Rule, I prefer The Wizard Of Id's to Li'l Abner's ~~ "The Man who has the Gold makes the Rule". ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM ""the christian position i think would be that the censures of leviticus only applied under the theocratic gov in OT times."" If that is indeed the Christian position it would of necessity surely also apply to the description of homosexuality as an abomination? You can't pick and choose which bits apply and which do not. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:06 PM "Possibly Don would know, as I suspect he would have more expertise than I in this area.. " Gee, Ed...*I* know, having had 130 hours of university Philosophy... undergraduate & graduate....and Kant has not been at all "debunked". Fads develop, but Kant was and is one of a dozen or so major influences on Western philosophic thought, due to his depth and precision and 'completeness' of the major topics he covered. "If you take philosophy too seriously, you probably would not get out of bed in the morning, uncertain that you could philosophically do the task. " ... oh, pooh! *grin* I know of NO Philosopher who has trouble "getting out of bed"...or even in walking & chewing gum. Even David Hume, who tried to posit something approaching Solipsism, admitted that he 'acted as though' things were real. Philosophy, in it myriad forms, is an attempt to understand, and as such, has provided some invaluable insights into 'what we are'. Much of it cannot be easily 'simplified', and my attempt to do that for pete from 7 stars was about as basic as can be done. Don't marginalize serious Philosophy with silly remarks if you already admit you don't have depth in the topic....hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 04:18 PM self-same people |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 04:16 PM can anyone verify the truth or otherwise, of a US survey finding that believers gave more to charitable causes[and not always specifically christian ones]? Let's just suppose someone verifies that for you. What would it prove? What if I told you that there are many Christians in positions of political power who serially act to ensure that there will always be huge numbers of people who need these charitable causes? Two of the most explicitly prominent Christians in recent political life, Blair and Bush, plunged tens of millions in Iraq into poverty and misery and in need of charity, and had quite a bit to do with allowing Gaza to happen to boot. Do you think I'm going to contemplate using that as an argument against Christianity? No, I'm not. But I might use it as an argument to expose hypocrisy. Be careful what you fish for, Pete. steve-it still interests me that one so anti religion, accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity. So, you want me to believe that great art and music can actually be the "fruit of religion." You'd better be careful there, otherwise I might just start listing some of the less desirable "fruits of religion," which are many and virulent, but which I tend to avoid rattling on about (I can't bear it when people rant on about the evils done "in the name of religion", because usually they were done for other reasons unnamed), and I prefer to be honest about that than to jump on to it opportunistically, as you appear to be doing here. There are many reasons why some people made religious sculptures or set religious texts to music, but direct inspiration from God was not one of them. Witness the rather obstinate and inconvenient fact that the self-same were just as adept at creating great works in the realms of the profane as well as the sacred. As ever, your reasoning in these matters seems woefully incomplete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Stu Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:09 AM Just to help with the philosophers: The Philosopher's Song (Monty Python) Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya' 'Bout the raising of the wrist. SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED... John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away; Half a crate of whiskey every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram, And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:09 AM Just a caution: Kant was a philosopher. And, IMO (which I have stated before), philosophers take a lot of time to get to what they see as truths. Other philosophers try and shoot them down. If you take philosophy too seriously, you probably would not get out of bed in the morning, uncertain that you could philosophically do the task. Kant wrote his stuff a time ago, and I expect many of his works have been contected, and possibly even debunked by more current philosophers, or deep thinkers. But, I cannot attest to that one way or the other. Possibly Don would know, as I suspect he would have more expertise than I in this area.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:06 AM About Kant: There used to be a comic strip in the US, called "Li'l Abner" telling stories of a bunch of rural folk we call 'hillbillies'. Abner Yokum's mother was a wise little woman who used to say "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer." Kant spent many pages in turgid German saying essentially the same thing, but 'proving it' with complex philosophical language, which included stuff we would recognize as essentially "The Golden Rule". You might 'guess' that the Yokum family were Christian, but such was never mentioned and it just seemed like a good idea when Mammy Yokum said it. Many religions have a version of The Golden Rule, and of many other ideas of right and virtue similar to what is found in Christian teachings....Kant just tried to explain WHY almost everyone who thought much about it decided that 'goodness' was a sane, reasonable path, whether any Prophet or "god" told us so or not. Today, there are atheists who behave in a sane, fair, honest, loving manner towards others...without needing to be 'threatened' with eternal punishment.... and thus, they don't appreciate being threatened with eternal punishment for not 'believing in Jesus & the bible', when they are living good lives already. Most atheists treat all the layers of theological complication about 'original sin'...etc... as stories created to convince and scare people who can't comprehend Kant's...and Mammy Yokum's... basic idea. That's the best I can do as a quick summary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:01 AM Pete, If you are really interested in Kant, there are likely summaries that can easily be found through a Google search. Someone may be able to help you get a summary. But one "to your liking" and interest level should not be that difficult to find. However, Kant dedicated much of his life and career to religious philosophy (or related persuits). I don't believe he summarized his considerable works. To capture it all, (if you are interested) you may wish to go into a "deeper" read. I believe you may find his material interesting and thought provoking, as Kent would also. I attach a link that may assist you. However, parts may require a "slow read" to get his concepts. But, to get a summary, you can either pick the parts you are interested in, or skip the areas that require more effort and time to read. Good luck Kant |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Stu Date: 08 Jan 11 - 09:25 AM "Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. And most of our Western Atheists are in fact Christian Atheists - wanting the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the roots." What a pile of utter crap. How condescending and arrogant some people can be; this bloke would not be out of place being in the Taliban. It's demonstrative of the complete lack of empathy and imagination some religious and dogmatic types have, regardless of creed (including atheists of course). "accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity." Why Pete? Art is universal and can be admired regardless of what the motivation for making it was. I love churches and other places of worship although I am not religious. They provide a connection with our history and ancestors in the same way a stone circle or castle might. "Many people do not believe that the universe is a creation, of course, but, IF it is a creation,then surely we are INSIDE the creation." It is a creation of some kind, although I would argue natural processes created it rather than some omnipotent being. However, you have a point that we are inside this universe. This is the incredible bit: If at the very least we are beings evolved as a result of physical, chemical and biological processes then we are the universe made conscious. We are made of starstuff, and each individual one of us can look out at the universe and say 'this is me, I am an integral part of this incredible place'. We are the universe contemplating itself, trying to understand itself and that is, to my mind, more wonderful and awe-inspiring than anything any religion can articulate. Here is the basis for a religion-free moral code such as our Scottish friend quoted above can't conceive outside his narrow, myopic and somewhat pitiful viewpoint. Science and art both provide us with a way of articulating this wonderful, incredible and quite remarkable understanding of our place as the universe made conscious. In time, we will continue more and more to recognise and understand we share the planet with many animals that also are the children of the universe and deserve equality and the freedom to live in peace and in our own way we all desire and (mainly) work towards. In some way, I think religion is a way of articulating this wonder, the understanding that our physical existence is unique as far as we know (although I'm sure it isn't) and we are something special, that we can see we are children of the stars themselves. It's feelings are genuine, it's just it becomes mired in superstition and dogma and hung up on the words of men who weren't there recording events they never saw. We had a thread about this previously and some of the comments made actually changed my mind a little. I do not believe in God, and see Jesus as a historical figure rather than a messiah. However . . . it's not impossible there are beings out there whose existence could be explained by science who, to us might appear godlike. Perhaps we sense their presence but cannot contemplate the nature of their being, as ants on an anthill might feel observed by a naturalist studying them as they labour but whom can't conceive of the enormous complexity of that naturalist's life. Perhaps we see their workings in the stars and in some primitive way recognise the presence of another intelligence (or many intelligences). It's a wonderful universe, and we are unique within it, yet we are not separate from it and everything will, though perhaps not for millennia, eventually be explained by science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 08 Jan 11 - 08:37 AM i,ve not read kant either. is it at all possible to summarize his ideas?.i appreciate that might not be practical,but one cant read everything. all i can say is that i would,nt trust me if i were not a christian;you atheists must have evolved better!. and yes i do know there are hypocrites in religion. thanks don firth for your post regarding churches welfare programs.just goes to show how dangerous religion is! can anyone verify the truth or otherwise, of a US survey finding that believers gave more to charitable causes[and not always specifically christian ones]? as to levitical laws;it would be interesting to have dr lauras response of clever criticism.the christian position i think would be that the censures of leviticus only applied under the theocratic gov in OT times. penny-thanks for reading suggested article.rejection noted. re dating methods;do you claim there are not examples of anomalies and inconsistencies? steve-it still interests me that one so anti religion, accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:33 AM That was a response to Don Firth, Dons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:32 AM Well, Don, I know that and I agree with you and I fully acknowledge that religious people do good works. I did say that churches, etc., were full of very good people and I did say that perhaps we atheistic types could try harder. It's easier to do good work on a substantial scale within an organisation and atheists tend not to be in those kinds of organisations. That isn't sour grapes, it's an acknowledgement that we've allowed religion to dominate that particular territory, and, as far as I'm concerned, all power to their elbows. The world isn't black and white (and yes, it was me typing that). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jan 11 - 05:28 AM Whatever one thinks about the validity or otherwise of his arguments, Kent Davis has achieved one very important result. He has given us an object lesson in presenting a generally unpopular viewpoint calmly, politely and with unwavering good humour. I have the greatest respect for the man, while reserving the right to disagree with the argument. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Smokey. Date: 08 Jan 11 - 12:31 AM Sorry you found the analogies condescending. That was certainly not my intention. I know it wasn't, and I apologise for saying that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Kent Davis Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:36 PM Sugarfoot Jack, I appreciate your post from yesterday which said, in part, about dating creations "With some scientific analysis you could deduce when a picture was painted. You could use the wooden frame to establish a dendrochronology, ...All someone has to do is apply their mind to the problem." Your point applies to dating a creation from the "outside". Many people do not believe that the universe is a creation, of course, but, IF it is a creation,then surely we are INSIDE the creation. You can analyse the Mona Lisa and estimate it's age. If ol' Mona herself were to become sentient, SHE could not estimate the age of the painting she was inside. She was twenty-three on the day Leonardo finished painting her. Penny S., I don't THINK I missed your point, but maybe I did. If God had not revealed the age of the universe to us, He could hardly have expected us to deduce it. But if He did reveal it, then there is no question of deception. Young Earth Creationists may be wrong in thinking that He did reveal it but, as far as I know, ALL of us think that He did reveal it. No one thinks that the creation was some sort of trick. Smokey, Sorry you found the analogies condescending. That was certainly not my intention. Everyone, My goal has been to explain what Young Earth Creationism is. I could have simply referred you to some website that explains it. I thought something interactive would be more useful and more interesting. I hope you found it such. Good night. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM Reality sandwich: Charitable groups notwithstanding, in my city—in fact, in my fairly immediate neighborhood—there would be several hundred jobless people going hungry, along with sleeping in the park, were it not for Central Lutheran Church's free meal program, and LATCH, the Lutheran Alliance to Create Housing (dedicated to finding or building low-cost or no-cost housing). And there are about a half-dozen churches within a ten block radius of Seattle's Capitol Hill area who are doing the same sorts of things. And none of them make you pay for the soup by listening to a sermon. No proselytizing at these free meal gatherings. If these churches hadn't take it upon themselves many years ago—as a moral duty—it wouldn't be done. And that's a rude fact! Don Firth P. S. I am not particularly religious. I'm just describing what I see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:07 PM Some of the possible areas where religious people may feel it is useful, I suspect there are many more? A personal feeling of belonging and fellowship (one may consider joining a service club). Charity and good works (again, some of this is done by charity groups not bound by religion). Family related benefits (we all know it is a benefit, but not exclusive to religion). Spiritual feelings, Nirvana(Some meditation classes may provide this,and I wont mention drugs). A route to heaven, life beyond death, closeness to a God (well, if it exists, maybe, but then, there are no guarintees). Morality and social (are atheists not just as moral)? Save for the penultimate point here, which in any case is mere mythology, all this can be just as well attained without religion, and often is. Of course, we atheists don't club together as much as believers do (heaven forfend), so I suppose we could try harder. But don't go pretending that these things are the territory of religion. They are not. Nothing annoys me more than to hear, from a preacher-type person usually, that such-and-such's sense of fair play and morality was instilled into him by his religious upbringing. Cobblers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:50 PM I have many friends who are quite religious but who do NOT pressure ME about it, and who are NOT trying to convert or proselytize others. These are the good guys. But there may be fewer of them than you think. They may not pressure you - but do they have their kids christened at birth, do they send them to faith schools, do they make them attend Sunday School and religious services? Do they peddle myth as truth to their kids? I am of two minds about a lot of these recent threads, because a few years ago, several dedicated Christians here voluntarily restricted their overtly religious posts and bowed out of directly arguing pros & cons of 'belief' in general....and it would be nice if those of us who are NOT religious could restrict the number of complaints and condemnations of religion. Well I don't agree. For millennia, religion has had its own way. It has insisted that demurral should be punished by law, even by death, and, at best, by social ostracism and by having the fear of God and hellfire instilled into its adherents lest they should even think of wavering. It has built up riches beyond compare whilst praising the virtues of poverty (and ensuring that its adherents suffer just that). It is intolerant and authoritarian, no more than a blunt instrument of control. I think religion deserves all the attacks it gets, and more. We shouldn't keep quiet just because we know that many believers are meek and mild, which they are. Religion in all its forms is a very bad thing, and I'm not one for holding back on the criticism. Give me one good reason why I should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:33 PM Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. Jeez, Dave, I suppose the fact you can post this tripe is some kind of testament to the fact that you somehow agree with it. Numero uno: There is no atheist philosophy. The only reason atheists have to exist at all (and it's painful) is that believers exist. There is no philosophy. We just want evidence. Secondo: you can blithely post this rubbish and totally ignore the fact that huge numbers of Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever are Sunday/Sabbath/whatever (excuse my ignorance) adherents and no more. They go to church/synagogue/mosque for an hour or two then come out and behave just the same as they did before they went in. Go into any church/synagogue/mosque and you will find (among large numbers of very good people, I hasten to add) bankers, capitalists, Tories, bigots, racists, warmongers (Blair?? Bush???), right-wing evangelists, fascists (Franco was a daily communicant), potential suicide bombers, paedophiles, and you name the rest. I suppose you will say that, thankfully, most believers live consistently with their philosophy? Places of worship are generally places of posturing. Atheists have to breathe the heavily-polluted default religious air. Just like socialists still have to use banks. Think for a change, Dave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM ""I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has not read Kant... ;>)... or ignores him. I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has approximately the cognitive faculties of a cockroach. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:58 PM The Bible is a most interesting book, provided it is taken as what it is: Judeo-Christian mythology. And like most mythology, it contains much wisdom and a great deal of truth. Provided one does not make the very prevalent error of accepting it as literal truth or historical fact. In fact, some of it is just plain wrong! The following has been floating around the internet recently. Kind of puts things into perspective. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.Your welcome,Dear Dr. Laura: Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:52 PM I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has not read Kant... ;>)... or ignores him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:25 PM David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland recently wrote: "The trouble with the atheistic anti-God secular philosophy is not that it turns all of its proponents into Nazis. Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. And most of our Western Atheists are in fact Christian Atheists - wanting the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the roots. The problem is that once the philosophy of the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe without good or evil is adopted, there is no basis for hating evil and loving good. How can you hate what does not exist? That is why the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated 'Dachau is wrong is not a fact.' But that was just a feeling. But for the Christian, 'Dachau is wrong' is a fact. We hate the evil of the Holocaust because it was real - not because it was a passing feeling or a temporary fashion of philosophy. 'God is dead', said Hitler's favourite philosopher, Nietzsche. 'We have killed him and the whole of Europe is filled with the stench of his corpse.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:06 PM "... (are atheists not just as moral)?" Immanuel Kant spent a long time showing how & why morality could be shown to be the best path thru reason alone....others have done similarly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:01 PM Thanks Don Makes sense. I shall do that in the future, to ensure no misunderstanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:59 PM I always use double quotes and italics for quoting others verbatim. I use single quotes for other purposes and for emphasis. It seems to me that many others here do the same. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:21 PM Some of the possible areas where religious people may feel it is useful, I suspect there are many more? A personal feeling of belonging and fellowship (one may consider joining a service club). Charity and good works (again, some of this is done by charity groups not bound by religion). Family related benefits (we all know it is a benefit, but not exclusive to religion). Spiritual feelings, Nirvana(Some meditation classes may provide this,and I wont mention drugs). A route to heaven, life beyond death, closeness to a God (well, if it exists, maybe, but then, there are no guarintees). Morality and social (are atheists not just as moral)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Ed T Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:12 PM While I find your statements interesting and mostly compelling, I suspect some will difficulty with the following direct quote. "However, it has consistently impeded better understanding of the world in which we live, and it has outlived its usefulness". I suspect the your definition of the "usefullness" of a religion, to those who follow "a religion", to be personally broader than you state. But, since I do not adhere to an organized religion, I will leave that debate to others who do so. I am merely identifying what may be an omission. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: saulgoldie Date: 07 Jan 11 - 05:57 PM One "believes" in religion. One "accepts" the findings of science. Science is a well-established process of forming and testing hypotheses. If a hypothesis does not work and cannot be reproduced with consistent results, then it is not true. Science has consistently pushed back the boundaries of the unknown. Religion starts with the results, and through rhetorical gymnastics attempts to "prove" its hypotheses. It cannot support well-researched hypotheses with consistent results, and therefore is "belief" and "faith." Doesn't matter what the hypothesis is or what religion is promoting its own version of "truth." Early on in human development, religion was useful for attempting to explain the unknown. However, it has consistently impeded better understanding of the world in which we live, and it has outlived its usefulness. "Values" is another topic. Many religions share certain values. But some religions disrespect other religions by claiming to be "the only true religion" and by aggressively attempting through various means to "convert" others to their religion. Any religion that is not self-confident enough to allow others to freely choose it without any form of coercion should be ignored by reasonable people. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:32 PM Willie...and by implication, Steve Shaw "... if rational people don't make a stance and tackle religion head on, we will be back in the dark ages before we know it. That is just a mite of an exaggeration, perhaps.... There is a huge difference between being alert to attempts to force various arbitrary religious stuff into secular realms...(such as prayers at public meetings or the '10 commandments' being plopped down in government buildings, as was attempted in the South several years ago)... and taking on anyone who mentions their religion or states their belief just to show general antagonism to religious beliefs. I have, for 10-12 years here at Mudcat, attempted to show the flaws and errors of certain claims & assertions about many metaphysical issues, from Astrology to Reincarnation to Creationism and beyond...and I suppose I'll do so again at times. I WANT bad logic to be noted and I seriously desire an end to attempts to impose religious doctrines on the country in general thru alteration of text books and embedding of biblical 'teachings' in public institutions...and yes, I DO want "In God We Trust" taken off my money and the original Pledge of Allegiance restored. When I learned it, there was no 'under God' in it. However....as I indicated above, I have many friends who are quite religious but who do NOT pressure ME about it, and who are NOT trying to convert or proselytize others. I am of two minds about a lot of these recent threads, because a few years ago, several dedicated Christians here voluntarily restricted their overtly religious posts and bowed out of directly arguing pros & cons of 'belief' in general....and it would be nice if those of us who are NOT religious could restrict the number of complaints and condemnations of religion. I realize that it is hard to see what seems like an obviously irrational claim or scientifically bogus 'fact' tossed out...and to refrain from comment. *I* do not refrain from comment...but little is gained by direct insults...either to the motives or the intelligence... of others. (I seriously wonder if the same things would be said face-to-face). I argue positions and reason, not character and sanity...and I have to say, it is hard to **agree** with some posters here...even when I have almost identical basic views on 'basic truth'..... so....**shrug** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:52 PM penny.i just managed to lose a long response i one finger typed you so i will be brief. i accept all the OT because the NT is built on it ,quotes it, and alludes to it, even if parts of it are difficult. little hawk-similar to above as regards adam and eve.if the NT did,nt speak of them as real people you might have a point about them being figurative,but a good question.Jesus referred to them in his teaching regarding divorce, and paul also bases much of his teaching on the entrance of sin and death into the world following adams fall. the narrative itself suggests a literal reading.the phrase"these are the generations of"used in introduction of those following begins with the eden story.gen2 4. i know you "dont buy it"but thanks for asking why i do. richard-i have been reading about 14c but i,m not competent to give you the YEC explanation and if i try i shall look silly trying to rehash scientific discussions. just so you know i was,nt ignoring you. |
