lil,
hey no problem. it just seemed like news to me. i know you're not trying to change my views, nor would that be something that concerns me.
peace,
tetra
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned 104 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DanTheMan
In the first two chapters of the book he rips the religionists a new one over how they use assumptions in their proofs. I agree with him on this. Then, starting specifically in chapter 3, he does the same thing with natural selection and evolution. He starts with the supposition that they are proved when they aren't.
Dude...dude...evolution is a fact. There is a mountain of evidence in support of it.
I must admit that I haven't studied that much about evolution
The 29 Evidences section of TalkOrigins ought to keep you busy for a while :)
-
Abaddon
lovelylil
ID is part of what is know as the Wedge Stratagy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
It was developed by the Discovery Institute;
The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
ID is demonstrably a stratagy conconcted by devout Christians who see ID as a method of getting god back in the classrooms. By 'debranding' a form of Creationism from Christianity they hope it will duck under the the 'no religion' bar masquerading as a science.
Yes, the research in this area is still new but that does not mean it is invalid.
Research on what exactly? Here's the skinny; ID consists of finding some perceived fault in modern evolutionary theory and saying 'Ha! Natural selction could not have done this! This was DESIGNED!'. It is a parasite; it exists on the blood of proper science.There is no 'research' because there is NOTHING to research. I am not being rude or funny; this is a fact. There is no proof of a designer, just speculation that x theory cannot explain y feature, so a designer must have done it.
All such examples either were the result of inadequate knowledge and ARE explicable by theory, or have subsequently been shown to be explicable by theory.
ID falsifies itself; it states that complexity requires a designer, yet such a designer would be complex, either requiring a contradiction in the hypothesis or an infinate chain of designers, which is just silly.
And it really does not matter if these scientists are in the minority right now as this is true when all new theories are brought forth.
And these THEORIES (in the past) had EVIDENCE. Even when they required science books to be re-written, if the evidence supported the new theory it gained sway over human truculence. ID is a hypothesis and has no evidence.
When was the Bible last re-written because they found a mistake in it? Hmmmm.... glad you liked the quote, by-the-way... no magic smiley for you I think but that is a good thing...
Of course, ID is a sneaky Trojan-Horse. Belief-lite, bought to you by people who think 'Merely Christian' is a good read, who would LOVE to get the Bible in the classroom, but know they haven't got a chance, so will try to ensure SOME degree of belief gets instilled in the next generation rather than them being 'nasty' Nerglists.
You might not be aware of the fact about ID, either its origins (it evolved out of Creationism, ain't that funny?), or the clever little 'Emperor's New Clothes' routine they have done making people think they actually have something like theories (check definiton) or evidence, I hope you don't mind this particular perspective and might find it of interest.
BTW, I am a God believer but I personally do believe in evolution and think it is valid scientifically. As the evidence shows it to be such.
Good for you. Believing in a god that 'rolled the dice' and was cool enough to have what she wanted happen at the end happen coz it threw them just so is a far more viable belief than many. Doesn't stop the absurd image of endless gods creating each other or special pleading that different rules apply to god (based on no evidence). It all depends on what you mean by god. Somedays I believe in god... it is just a vastly bigger and vauger one than before, one that doesn't even have to have a reality as it is an expression of philosophical outlook more than anything else, but is as grand as anything all the same. And still god. I hope yours suits you.
Here is a link which lists many modern day scientists who believe either in ID or God. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Scroll down to the middle of the page and the fields of science will be listed. You will see that many are in the biology or anthropology fields. Peace, Lilly
Very very. Very few. You DO realise how FEW that list contains, compared to people researching and teaching evolutionary biology and associated sciences. Don't think they goit bored with phoning people up and asking... this list was the result of something not dissimilar to scraping the bottom of a barrel... finding one;
- not in a sympathetic faculty (like Bob Jones on Bingham Young) or an ID or Creationist institute. (BYU has a guy who believes in the Flood AND that they blew up the Twin Towers...)
- with their major experience in the field of evolutionary science or chronology they are commenting on
- with peer-reviewed papers on their ID or Creationist beliefs in peer-reviewed journals similar to ones they might release papers in their field of expertise in
... is astonishingly difficult. Reading about some of the names given (try TalkOrigins or Wikipedia) is also astonishing. Few people go to plumbers to have their teeth done, why treat your theories of origin less carefully?
This isn't specifically at you lil, just musing on the topic in general.
-
Seeker4
"...he does the same thing with natural selection and evolution. He starts with the supposition that they are proved when they aren't."
Sorry, like Dan the Man, Madame Quixote, Abaddon and several others on here, I've also got to say that you don't know what you're talking about in that quote. Evolution and natural selection are totally accepted as fact in the international scientific community. Evolution is the basis of several branches of science and is backed by a massive amount of data that grows everyday. Go to any reputable college or university on the face of the earth and you'll find evolution is the basis for their science classes.
And Lil, a list of even a few hundred "scientists" who say they believe the Genesis is meaningless. That group seems to amount to something like 1/10th of a percent of all scientists. They are like the rare JW physicist or engineer who wrote the occasional article in the Awake! magazine. After I left the Witnesses, an elder friend sent me one, knowing that it was science and logic that had made me leave. In this article, the guy admitted that when science contradicted the Bible, he opted for the good book. Well, at that moment, he ceased to be a scientist. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world with eyes unclouded by the veil of religious beliefs, who accept the fact of evolution and know that the Genesis account is simply a myth.
As a scientist I interviewed a few weeks ago told me, if you take Genesis literally, you have to throw out all the branches of science, as they all agree on things that prove Genesis is a myth.
S4
-
lovelylil
Thanks everyone for your comments. I don't know why people insist on taking the Bible accounts as expert on Science issues when it does not claim to be a science textbook. And about Genesis: Some of it is written in allegories used to teach lessons. Even the Jewish Historian Josephus commented about parts of Genesis that it was written "enigmatically" (ambiguously) and some "allegorically". If it is all literal then does anyone believe that snakes could at one time really talk to people? Lilly
-
Seeker4
Lil,
This is exactly the dilemma that Dawkins and Sam Harris expose about Christianity, and what the WTS admitted at one time - if Genesis is NOT literal, than Christianity is a house of cards that collapses into nothingness. Christianity is a lose/lose proposition no matter how you approach it.
Viewpoint #1. The Bible is literally true, beginning to end. Adam and Eve sinned, requiring a redeemer, which was provided in Jesus, who died for humankind and redeemed their souls for salvation. Problem here? Science obliterates the Genesis account. There was no Adam and Eve, no Garden of Eden, no flood, no personal creation of humans by God. End result - people who believe this are perceived to be idiots, unreasonable and illogical. They are dismissed as ignorant fanatics.
Viewpoint #2. Enlightened Christianity. Much of the Bible is allegorical and symbolical. Problem with this? No sinning Adam, no need for a redeemer in Christ, the core idea of Christianity is gone like a puff of smoke. Other problems? Jesus and the early Bible writers refer to Adam and Noah as real persons, and their lives as real events. This proves they had nothing beyond their contemporary world view. No special knowledge, no spirit guidance from a God who would know these events were mythological.
Viewpoint #3. Christianity is just a good way of living, a good approach to life. Take what makes sense, and discard the rest. Problem here? Well, Christianity is not a very enlightened way of life. It preaches, like many of the other major religions, that if you don't live your life by this philosophy, God is going to kill you, and that those who think differently are wicked and deserving of destruction. If Christ is just another teacher, then Christianity is just another footnote, and not a very good one at that, in the Perrennial Philosophy, of which there are much more successful and satisfying branches.
Anyone want to add another viewpoint of the Bible? I'm not saying this is black and white, or just two or three ways to approach it, by any means. But I've yet to see a way of looking at Christianity that makes it in any way a desireable way of life. Buddhism, and especially Taoism, are much more appealing philosophies, not the least reason being that they require no belief in a dogma or a god, while supplying a highly effective and satisfying approach to life and death.
S4
-
skyking
I read the book and I like the tea pot theory as long as a person insist on believing nonsensically then you can never prove to that person the tea Pot is not circling the sun and is not all powerful. Life would be simpler for me if I still believed the lies written in the Bible. Now that my eyes have been opened up I will never be held it is pretend power again.
I am ashamed that at one time I believed it all.
Great book.
-
lovelylil
seeker,
I appreciate all your time in putting forth your last comment. I see things a little differently though. I've been a bible reader since age 12 and have belonged to most of the Christian denominations. While they all offer some good, like you said many are very dogmatic in their views. And I found the constant preaching of doom and death to unbelievers to be disheartening. Currently I do not belong to any organized religious denomination nor do I feel I need to belong to one.
As far as the Bible - This book contains an ecclectic mix of different types of writings including historical accounts of nations and kings, geneology records, parables, allegories, proverbs and much more. I find it to be the most interesting book I've ever read, and I have read literally thousands. Many of the Bible Writers felt compelled to write what they believed to be God's thoughts all the while trying to fully comprehend who or what God really is for themselves. To me, this fact plainly comes into view when I read it. Also they used allegories and parables to explain difficult concepts about God and creation. Even if they are not literal stories but stories used to convey ideas to an ancient world, that in itself would not prove in any way that God does not exist or that there is no creator. (at least not for me) The problems with religion arises when Bible readers give the same wieght to all the books of the Bible, not realizing some books are only conveying a concept and not being dogmatic in any way.
For me personally, I find God more so not just in an ancient book but in the universe and everything in it. I've felt this way ever since I was a young child of about 5 and still do today. And believed in a higher power long before I ever read a word of the Bible. So for me, even if you take the Bible away, I would still believe in a creator. But I would hope no one would take it away, because I do have a great love for reading it.
I respect all people, no matter what their beliefs are, I want to make that clear. And do not believe in the vengeful, ready to destroy God most Christians prescribe too.
Peace, Lilly
-
some-xjw-guy
Closer to the person? What about being the wood that is split, and the stone that is lifted?
I am, and there is no other.
Your answer is here, you just are not seeing it.Oh I saw it, I am not looking for an answer, it was a rhetorical question. The reason I even bring it up is simply because there is this fad over being here and now, perhaps talk of presence - which is of course centered around the individual. If it is all one and there is no other, it is only reasonable to be aware of the state of the wood and the stone as well. Therefore the focus on the person's experience of seeing and lifting struck me, because that is of course just focused on the one side of whats going on. Seeing it chopped is not the same as being chopped, and lifting the stone is not the same as being lifted. I can agree with your statement, but it would not mean there is actually that perception of no other.
-
Seeker4
Lil,
Nice response. I've been a Bible reader since around the same age, though I'm probably a bit older than you! I also think that we don't live too far from each other. I'm in southern Vermont.
I agree that the Bible is really an eclectic mix - history, myth, genealogical records, allegories, literature, poetry and writings of people who thought god was speaking right through them. Maybe even the writings of the insane or mentally ill.
It's when a person tries to draw their world view from that crazy mix of ideas that I wonder what is going on. From my perspective, you've got a person living in the 21st Century getting their ideas about how to live life and understand science from, at the minimum, men living in the bronze age 2000 years ago. So, you've got a group of superstitious camel drivers and sheep herders, living two milleniums ago, telling you how you should understand life.
These are men who believed in demon possesion, in the ability to heal people of disease, who believed that most disease was caused by demon possesion. These are men who had no understanding of the scientific method, biology, physics, archaeology, astrophysics, modern medicine, cosmology, geology, genetics, evolution, astronomy, the internal combustion engine, laptop wireless computers, etc. - yet you are going to accept their view of the cosmos as accurate?!
This is the death knell of Christianity - the literalists, who end up looking like idiots, and the liberal Christians who say it's all allegory, but you should believe it anyway. They end up looking like even bigger idiots.
S4