I find scientific textbooks much MORE fascinating than someone reminiscing about his idyllic childhood...
Atheists V Creationists ... FACE OFF
by snare&racket 122 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
A Ha
Meh, Dan Barker (former evangelist turned atheist) does much the same in his book, Godless. I found Barker's mini-bio (and contrasting it with the JW notion of gaining converts) pretty interesting. Collins' wasn't interesting, per se, but it wasn't a hardship to read.
-
bohm
What I find amusing is about every week there is an article in nature and science (the two journals with the highest impact) where some new knowledge is put forth which contradict parts of genesis. And its never discussed, never taken into account by christians in general -- imagine the panic if Nature posted an article which contradicted the evolutionary account of biodiversity!
Creationism is not a fact-based worldview, its about starting with the conclusion and making the facts fit, or even better, finding some reason to ignore them. all appolegists end up doing that.
-
ziddina
Too true, bohm...
It astounds me how any scientist can proceed with scientific research while simultaneously holding a belief in a middle eastern god - but ironically, the Christian universities of Europe were what gave rise to our modern universities in which many scientific discoveries are made.
Hopefully they won't allow the theology to subvert the science, anymore...
However, that 'belief' can sometimes skew the results in certain sciences like archaeology, psychology, and sociology, to name a few.
-
ziddina
Here's an example of the way a REAL scientific paper, treatise or book should start...
"A New Look at the Berekhat Ram Figurine: Implications for the Origins of Symbolism by Francesco d'Errico & April Nowell
This article addresses the nature of the evidence for symbolling behaviour among hominids living in the Near East during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Traditionally, Palaeolithic art and symbolling have been synonymous with the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe. The Berekhat Ram figurine, a piece of volcanic material from a Lower Palaeolithic site in Israel,described as purposely modified to produce human features, challenges the view of a late emergence of symbolic behaviour. The anthropogenic nature of these modifications, however, is controversial. We address this problem through an examination of volcanic material from the Berekhat Ram site and from other sources, and by experimentally reproducing the modifications observed on the figurine. We also analyze this material and the figurine itself through optical and SEM microscopy. Our conclusion is that this object was purposely modified by hominids.
In Palaeolithic archaeology much debate surrounds the origin and development of hominid symbolic behaviour. For some researchers the emergence of this capacity is associated with the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Europe (e.g.Chase & Dibble 1987; Davidson & Noble 1989; 1993;Noble & Davidson 1996; Mellars 1989; 1991; 1996;White 1989; 1992; 1993; Stringer & Gamble 1993; Byers1994; Klein 1996; Mithen 1996a). According to these authors, anatomically modern humans arriving in Europe developed the use of body ornaments and acomplex repertoire of abstract and depictional art. These behaviours imply the use of symbols for the first time. An alternative view is that the emergence of symbolling is a gradual process whose roots can be traced back to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic(Marshack 1976; 1988; 1991b; 1995a; Bednarik 1992;1994; 1995; 1997; Bahn 1996; Duff et al. 1992; Simek 1992; Hayden 1993; Wolpoff & Caspari 1996).
Taking a discontinuist or gradualist approach depends greatly on one's evaluation of the evidence for symbolling prior to the Upper Palaeolithic. This evidence includes utilized pieces of colorant, ‘curated' fossils, crystals and shells, putative engraved and perforated bones and stones, and possible musical instruments (Turk 1997). For some proponents of the discontinuity model, many of the objects often interpreted as symbolic are in actuality the result of natural processes, e.g. carnivore activity, chemical alterations, root marking, etc. This view has been supported in some cases by comparing bone objects possessing putative anthropogenic engravings or perforations from Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites with bone fragments altered by known causes(Chase 1990; d'Errico 1991; d'Errico & Villa 1997;d'Errico et al.1998b). In addition, discontinuity proponents argue that, even if humanly made, some objects described as ‘symbolic' by the gradualists can have a purely utilitarian function (Chase & Dib- ble 1992). The paucity and uniqueness of these objects is taken as further proof of the absence of a symbolic tradition which would require a spatial and temporal continuity in the production and use of symbols (Chase & Dibble 1992; Noble & Davidson1996, 210).
A further critique of the gradualist viewpoint is that ‘art' objects are often not considered in the context of the assemblage as a whole. A contextual approach is needed to ‘eliminate the possibility that the piece, far from being an idiosyncratic example of a rare behaviour, is only an individual within a population of similar but less striking [natural] phenomena' (d'Errico & Villa 1997, 28). Finally, the most common critique made by advocates of discontinuity is that, owing to their small size, body ornaments and engraved objects may be found in older layers as a consequence of post-depositional disturbances.
It has been shown experimentally and confirmed through refitting studies that the vertical displacement of small objects is likely in sediments that were unconsolidated at the time of the occupation (Gifford-Gonzalezet al. 1985; Villa & Courtin 1983). ..."
The researchers go on to experiment with raw pieces of the material that the Berekhat Ram figurine was made from, and as stated in the abstract above, their final conclusion was that "this object was purposely modified by hominids"...
-
still thinking
Yeah.... But he certainly starts off with a clear appeal to the sentimental, emotional side of his readers, which as I mentioned before, makes the tone of the book suspect, right off the bat.
That is VERY much my impression too. I read the introduction and first chapter.Then came back to see if anyone else was reading it too. But saw no one here. So stopped reading. Now, everyone's back. I'll have to think about my impressions in more in detail. I'll begin with his claim that he was an atheist but changed his stance. I am not convinced he was an atheist at all. He readily admits that he perceived telling people that he believed would have been 'intellectual suicide" and wanted to be taken seriously. Now why would he even bother thinking that way if he was truly an atheist? Obviously the belief was there, it was just hiding because he was too immature at the time to face what he really believed.
Introduction & Chapter 1: Seeking answers to profound questions that science cannot answer. Why did the universe come into being? What is the meaning of human existence? What happens after death? He adds that one of the strongest motivations of human kind is to seek answers to profound questions. Now I would not argue with that at all...but he is already making the assumption that religion can answer these questions. And answer them correctly. He tries to brush of any insinuation that he was indoctrinated by religion by stating: "Some will assume that his faith will have come about by rigorous religious upbringing deeply instilled by family & culture but that is not the case" I would argue that it doesn't need to be the case. He was exposed to religion at a young age, and although his parents were not religious it would still have an impact on how he perceives religion and god. At five years old his parents sent him to become a member of the Episcopal Church so he could join the choir. But by doing this he also sat through many sermons. And although his parents told him to just ignore them and he claim he did. I doubt very much that a five year old boy would be able to tune out entire talks about god. This wasn't a one off event. It was a regular indoctrination session. He even brings up the point that he would 'bargain' with god. For example, god If you do this for me I promise I will give up something else or not do something else. Now a child that has not been influenced by religion would NOT be talking to a god at all. He goes on to add that whilst at university he had moments or the experience of longing for something outside himself, often associated with the beauty of nature or MUSIC. Now what could that association with music be that would be associated with 'something' outside himself. A subconscious connection to his choir days maybe? Or just a reflection of that spiritual 'feeling' he had when he attended church? He refers to his agnosticism in his early years as "willful blindness" when it came to a higher power. I'm not convinced it was anything of the sort. If he had never been to church he would have nothing to connect it too and nothing to be blind about. As a doctor he witnessed numerous cases of individuals who's faith provided them with a strong sense of reassurance and peace and concluded that: 1/ If faith was a psychological crutch it must be a very powerful one. 2/ If it was nothing more than a veneer of cultural tradition, why were these people not shaking their fists at god? Clearly he underestimated the psychological mantra of religion that god is good, love and everything else that is to be adored. Of course these people would not be shaking their fists at their god. Their very souls depended on them being grateful for everything they had. So why would someone who truly believed this stuff throw it all away just before death or during illness. They want god to help them. It's a bit like his trade off as a child. You do this for me god, I'll do that. In a discussion with an elderly lady she asked him "what he believed". She had been sharing her faith with him. At that point he says, "I had a thoroughly terrifying experience, would I have to take responsibility for actions I would prefer unscrutinized?. Was I answerable to someone other than myself"? All I see here is more confirmation of his previous religious indoctrination. These people are 'confirming' that faith is real. He already is very open to the idea because of his childhood exposure. And he is taking on board the guilt he was taught by that religious experience. He is answerable to a higher power tha will judge him. Isn't that the basis of ALL religion? Being judged? He continues his religious journey by doing a quick, and he admits, confusing survey of other major religions and is left thoroughly mystified and didn't find any reason to be drawn to them. Now why would he feel drawn to them? They are not part of his culture, he has never been exposed to their beliefs. He already has it in his mind what belief is from his childhood experience. So what does he do? What any honest seeker would do I suppose. He went to his local church down his street, that seems much more familiar, no wonder he felt more comfortable with that. This happened to be a Methodist church. After talking with the minister. He was handed a book by CS Lewis to read. Which apparently convinced him that god is real. Moral Law This appears to be the main thing that influenced him in CS Lewis's writings. The concept of right and wrong appearing to be universal among all members of the human species. 'Feelings' about having 'done the right thing' agape (selfless altruism) he argues is a major challenge for evolutionists. He also refers to this as our 'conscience' The ultimate decision of belief in God would be based on faith NOT proof. As far as I am concerned, his parents telling him NOT to take any notice of the sermons from the pulpit when he went for choir practice is like telling a juror to disregard the evidence that has been blurted out inappropriately and without any real facts to support the claims. You cannot unhear something and as a child what you hear will imprint and effect how you view the world and your thought processes. All of the Moral laws he associates with a god would have been talked about at the sermons he attended. His claim that he was NOT indoctrinated as a child is untrue. He had more than enough exposure to plant the idea. And then witnessed more than enough people who also believed this idea to be true to convince him there must be a supernatural higher power. He did not grow up in a bubble of atheism and suddenly discover faith. -
still thinking
Sorry about my formatting everyone...it looked good and easier to read before I hit the submit button...
I didn't really write it out in three giant paragraphs...LOL
-
ziddina
Interesting.
Thanks for bringing out those points, still thinking.
-
still thinking
This book aims to dispel that notion, by arguing that belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science...christ alone.
From page one to the end of the first chapter of this book I cannot see anything rational at all about his belief in god. He has lost me on that point already.
As far as faith being complementary with the principles of science...I don't recall that last time I read it. But as I said before. Each time I read I see different things depending on my persepective. So maybe I will make the connection myself, who knows...
-
still thinking
I find scientific textbooks much MORE fascinating than someone reminiscing about his idyllic childhood..zid.
LOL...so do I!