Evolution/ Evilution vs. God's big plans

[Lost Metal]

First of all

*Quote:
Lost Metal: If what you say is true, than the aftermath would leave that nation in a situation, where it would be taken over.

John Uskglass: No, actually, it would explode like the Nazis in series of Neo-Crusades.*

Is irreverent, why? Here's a question that is also an answer.

Where are the Nazi's today?

Second, about the Pilot thing. That is not even a stereotype. It's just something you made up on the spot to try and prove a point.

 

[Tannhauser]

Don't argue with CCR, you might catch something.

Anyway, CCR, calm down. Don't go around calling people idiots because they disagree with you on a speculative topic.

Also, when citing a fact, it is helpful to provide documentation in support of that fact.

 

[John Uskglass]

Where are the Nazi's today?

They are where they are because America and Russia where there. A world where America is taken over by Fundementalists is a world where Russia is taken over by Rodina. Know what that means?

Ever read The Man in the High Castle?

Second, about the Pilot thing. That is not even a stereotype. It's just something you made up on the spot to try and prove a point.

You must not know anything at all about the American military. The American Military is tied at the hip with the religious right. Ever read The Handmaiden's Tale?

Statistics

A 1995 survey [13] (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html) attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

In the 2001 Australian Census [14] (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9658217eba753c2cca256cae00053fa3?OpenDocument) 15.5% of respondents ticked 'no religion' and a further 11.7% either did not state their religion or were deemed to have described it inadequately (there was a popular campaign at the time to have people describe themselves as Jedi).

A 2002 survey by Adherents.com [15] (http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) estimates the proportion of the world's people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" as about 14%.

In a 2003 poll (http://a1692.g.akamai.net/f/1692/2042/1h/medias.lemonde.fr/medias/pdf_obj/sondage030416.pdf) in France, 54 percent of those polled identified themselves as "faithful," 33 percent as atheist, 14 percent as agnostic, and 26 percent as "indifferent". [16] (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35454.htm)

A 2004 survey by the BBC [17] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm) in 10 countries showed the proportion of "people who don't believe in God nor in a higher power" varying between 0% and 30%, with an average close to 10% in the countries surveyed. About 8% of the respondents stated specifically that they consider themselves atheists.

A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook [18] (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#People) estimates about 12.5% of the world's population is non-religious and about 2.4% are atheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[Lost Metal]

*They are where they are because America and Russia where there. A world where America is taken over by Fundementalists is a world where Russia is taken over by Rodina. Know what that means?

Ever read The Man in the High Castle. *

They were taken over, because they were all about Blind Faith, and willing to destroy anything that contradicted their faith.

They are the exact thing I have been trying to describe. A government/country/gathering of millions, What Have You. Of people who are completely Blind-Faithed, are going to be taken over, or destroyed.

I never said that a country/government,etc... of Unified Technology/Religion was doomed. Never.

My point is that if a country/government,etc... is overrun by Religion and they lose sight of technology. There's not going to be any future for them.

Yes, currently the USA is doing great. But Religion has not tried (atleast not that hard) to take over and subdue the furthering of technology.

If it ever came to the point, where technology, science libs/labs was destroyed. You can bet your ass the USA would be taken over.

 

[John Uskglass]

They were taken over, because they were all about Blind Faith, and willing to destroy anything that contradicted their faith.

No, they lost because they let Hitler control the military, and simply did not have the industrial capacity to achive any kind of meaningful victory over the Allied Powers. America & Russia (if not the UK, Canada, Brazil, etc, etc..) would. Not to mention the fact that if we started loosing, we could simply wave bye-bye to multicellular life on earth.

My point is that if a country/government,etc... is overrun by Religion and they lose sight of technology. There's not going to be any future for them.

Holy Sweet Leaping Jesus, are you claiming the Nazis lost touch with technology?

 

[Lost Metal]

Quote:

Lost Metal: My point is that if a country/government,etc... is overrun by Religion and they lose sight of technology. There's not going to be any future for them.

John Uskglass: Holy Sweet Leaping Jesus, are you claiming the Nazis lost touch with technology?
--

No, I didn't make that claim.

They were however, too blind faithed to survive. Not to mention, the technology they did have, which was good, was still not enough to accomplish their goals of taking over the freakin' world.

 

[John Uskglass]

They were however, too blind faithed to survive. Not to mention, the technology they did have, which was good, was still not enough to accomplish their goals of taking over the freakin' world.

They lost because of industrial capacity and Hitler's leadership: thats the most rational conclusion. They DID have the capacity to defeat all major world powers.

 

[Lost Metal]

Well, we went off topic, and then went off our topics, topic.

So I'm gonna leave this up to review/debate. If anyone even wants to do that.

It was fun arguing back and forth

but I don't really see where to go from here, hehe.

 

[John Uskglass]

When you go up against Uskglass, you loose.

 

[Ozrat]

Let's be serious now guys.

 

[Lost Metal]

Hey, if you say so. I don't consider it a loss, because I never really saw a good argument from ya as to how a Country/Government could survive without being able to develop new technology.

To me I think you debated well, but in the end, in 100-500 years.

When one country has tanks and guns, and faith.

and the other has camoflauge suits, laser/missile defense/offense technology, biological warfare, Legal human enhancement steroids/growth hormones, bullet deflecting armours.

It's just not much of an arguement as to which Country/Government will keep from getting taken over.

But hey, you are Uskglass. So I guess you win.

 

[Ozrat]

 

[Sander]

Logic and rationality are as much religions as religions, as they are applications of human logic to something that is'nt logical or rational (in this case the universe).

Why are you repeating what I already said?

Yes, it WAS mainly athiests who go against certain theroies Sander. Course it was. Ever wonder why Einstien is better known then Lemaître? Why Fred Hoyle and fuckbuddies jumped on Big Bang theroy in the first place? Why the inital hostility to Hindu-Inspired Quantum Theroy of Schrödinger?

Of course there are atheists whog go ballistics at the slightest mention of religion (Hell, I know quite a few of them), but my point was that the fact that scientists have a problem with relkigious theories is not that it's just the atheists, but that it's a lot of scientists, who are largely atheist, because scientists as a whole are generally atheists.

 

[welsh]

"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein

Sander, I am not sure if most scientists are aethiests. In fact, I rather doubt it. Mostly because I believe that most folks can distinguish notions of faith from science, or don't see those ideas as contradictory. I would like to see the numbers on that, and if it is currently true, I would think it true only recently and primarily in Europe which hasn't been having the religious revival that the US has been dealing with for the last 20 or so years.

That said Kharn, I am not sure if I agree with what you are saying. From what I recollect in your post you seemed to suggest that one could either be religious or scientific and there was little compromise between the two. I don't think most folks take so rigid a view. Life would be easier if it were that simple, but an easier life would lead to societies that are more easy to control.

Most scientists I know accept the notion of reasonable doubt, and recognize the notion of faith in things that are not necessarily proven. Love, for instance, is largely more a matter of faith than science and yet scientists have regularly fallen in love and made babies, even if they don't fully understand what love is.

It is perhaps only the most hard-core ideologues on either side that see little reason to compromise, and who see the opposing position as a threat. As a catholic I am at peace with my belief and faith in a God, which suggests that there is both meaning and purpose in the universe. The scientific method gives me a notion of formulae for understanding the world. Combining the two gives me a notion of faith that things can be proven, causal connections can be made, and that there is an "ordered universe" out there. If I were purely scientific I might assume that the universe is more chaotic and random.

Ok, so both those positions are articles of faith- but that isn't inconsistent either. Most empirical or epistemological methods are decided and shaped by individual ontological assumptions and beliefs.

Again, this might be an individual issue- but to me religion serves as a guide post on developing a better relationship with God. That some who are more ideological and faithful might put greater emphasis on the text is literal, well, that's a choice they make. Afterall, despite all the "The literal word of God" stuff- religions are still man-made projects.

My faith rests on the notion of scientific methods for expanding the boundaries of human understanding, even if I believe that the finite and limited nature of man would make understanding God impossible. But as I have argued here before, I don't support this idea that people should ally themselves with an ideology, rather they should think for themselves. This is not just a matter of science- which should be based on the skeptical questioning of assumptions. Rather I think while religion may help create a community that makes understanding God easier, at the end of the day, one's relationship with God, or one's understanding of God is an individual matter.

I am not sure if faith and science are incompatiable. In fact, each might help illuminate the other.

But I think, as was raised here earlier, that the political battle between the two is raised by parties interested in ideological hegemony for their own purposes and interests (as is true in most political squabbles). Divide the middle ground to create two warring camps, and so everyone knows which side you're on, and thus lose your ability to choose. It is these people that are the one's whom we should be most suspicious.

 

[Lukus]

Most scientists I know accept the notion of reasonable doubt, and recognize the notion of faith in things that are not necessarily proven. Love, for instance, is largely more a matter of faith than science and yet scientists have regularly fallen in love and made babies, even if they don't fully understand what love is.

While one could argue that love could too be broken down and 'scientifically measured', I wager most would agree that when it comes to love there's something at work that cannot be described but only felt. Just because one is a scientist, that does not mean that you cannot enjoy emotions you don't completely grasp - you don't have to be a proctologist to enjoy taking a good shit for instance. And will we ever completely grasp the human being and all it's functions? I think not. Furthermore, regarding some things, like love, I don't think we need to either. I believe that science and religious faith can work in percect collaboration and that one does not at all rule out the other. If one accepts science for instance, but feels that there is still something missing, something more to life, it is to me quite logical that one would seek answers to the questions that do not have any in religion.

That said, I am as you may know an atheist. When I look up at the stars on the night sky, or glare out on a purple horizon during the sunset, being an atheist does not mean I cannot see purpose or meaning - just as being religious does not automatically disable you to be able to think rationally. There are tons of super-religious people out there with a much higher IQ than me for instance.

These days, I feel constantly present in a way I have not felt before, and full of appreciation for being alive. I love life, and everything in it, and I too can see the stars, the setting sun or love as something romantically mysterious. If people feel better when gathering together in groups and paying their tributes to life, God, or whatever, let them do so.

I used to think that raising a child into a certain religion was wrong - that in order to give children an as neutral start in life as possible they were not to be taught anything about belief. I am not so sure anymore, since atheism is a belief just as any. As a parent, it is only natural that you will want to teach your child the difference between 'right' and wrong, give it a sense of 'justice' and 'moral', etc, etc. How are our defenitions of what is right or wrong in the world different from belief regarding any other matter?

However, I still think that teaching creationism in school as fact is wrong, since faith and science need to be separated - especially in the school system. What a parent does to it's child is one thing, but the school system should remain always as neutral as possible, IMO.

Also, am I the only one who got totally annoyed at chapter 94 in Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, in which the camerlengo dude gave a looong speech addressing issues like these? I pretty much agreed with what I think was his basic points, but the examples he used to endorse them were completely stupid.

 

[welsh]

Angels and Devils was a pretty stupid book.

Though the tour or Rome and the workings of the Vatican was kind of cool. But I mean, if you didn't figure it was _________________ early in the book, you're a jackass.

To be honest, I would not mind teaching that people believe in creationism if-
(1) It's part of an english class and you're doing Inherit the Wind- about the Scopes Trial.
(2) It's done as part of an American history class and you're talking about the Scopes trial; or
(3) It's part of a law class and you're doing constitutional law and the exercise vs establishment clauses- dealing with state-church relationships.

But teaching creationism as plausible science is just stupid and misses the point. It's not science- it's faith. People need to know the difference.

 

[Brother None]

That said Kharn, I am not sure if I agree with what you are saying. From what I recollect in your post you seemed to suggest that one could either be religious or scientific and there was little compromise between the two.

Oh, you can be as half-way religious/scientific as you want, most of the world is.

However, if you claim to have "faith", if you claim to hold the Bible as God's word, I don't see how you can stand halfway in between anything. Faith and the need to prove or understand something are each other's opposites, and religion and science are the exponents of both.

If you thin down your faith with religion, you're following a make-belief stance made 1500 years after Christ's death that has nothing to do with Christ's teaching.

PS: what others here don't seem to get is that this has nothing to with hostility between science and faith. The center of Christ's teaching was "do not unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Christians crusades, from the 1st crusade to, arguably, the Iraq war, are thus all un-Christian. Burning down centers of religion is un-Christian. Why? Sure you're trying to save souls, but Christ clearly states his teachings to be applied here on earth, simple non-violence teachings that so few people seem to get.

 

[John Uskglass]

However, if you claim to have "faith", if you claim to hold the Bible as God's word, I don't see how you can stand halfway in between anything. Faith and the need to prove or understand something are each other's opposites, and religion and science are the exponents of both.

You are assuming people need to be rational and non hippocritical. They don't, especially religious people.

If you thin down your faith with religion, you're following a make-belief stance made 1500 years after Christ's death that has nothing to do with Christ's teaching.

Kirkegaard to a K.

PS: what others here don't seem to get is that this has nothing to with hostility between science and faith. The center of Christ's teaching was "do not unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Or something more. "The other cheek'....

Christians crusades, from the 1st crusade to, arguably, the Iraq war, are thus all un-Christian. Burning down centers of religion is un-Christian. Why? Sure you're trying to save souls, but Christ clearly states his teachings to be applied here on earth, simple non-violence teachings that so few people seem to get.

Yup.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Welsh...perfectly made points.

The concept of scientists in love is a perfect example. My Dad is one as he is completely logical to the point of emotional suffocation yet he "loved" my Mom. I have also met other brilliant people who also have brilliant spouses. It doesnt need to be understood.

I really think the conflict simply has to do with preacher's wanting nothing more than the power of influence and with so many more extroverts than introverts its easy to appeal to emotional influences. Unfortunately those people make up a majority. Really there are just plenty of angry people and the only way to reach out to them many think is to find a "faithful" outlet of that anger. I see the bashing of other ideaologues to simply allow the believers to get everything out of their religion. Not only a way to feel good, but a way to feel less bad by letting out one's aggression in what would otherwise be considered hate.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[quietfanatic]

Wars are won according to practical considerations. The morale boosting effects of religious faith might be an important factor in medieval times, but not in the modern world. Now technology and its application in industry are the deciding elements. I would assume that nuclear weapons are under the firm control of the president, who the majority voted for and the high command in the US. In a civil war, a state of emergency would probably ensure that only these people would have the legal authority to start nuking people. So neither hillbillies nor disorganised groups of technicians and scientists would be able to do anything drastic. Chemical and biological weapons on the other hand….. Nobody would go to such extremes unless they went completely mad.

I think I am inclined to agree with Welsh and Luke. Science and religion can coexist and will have to. What is so bloody admirable about sticking your head in the sand on matters of fact and calling that religious faith? I don't see why anyone would think that it is a good thing to adopt a mind set from ages long gone just because people are too scared to ask questions and think for themselves. Age and tradition does not magically make ideas more valid. Otherwise you have to live as a 'rational' scientist one moment and then become a 'faithful' ignorant sheep the next, which could not be good for your mental health. Un uncompromising society of fundamentalists without science would not be able to survive and progress in the modern world. Religion will only survive if there is reconciliation with science on matters of fact. Religion as an outlet for human spirituality and a manifestation of culture is made no less valuable because of new interpretations of a holy text.

Literalism is dangerous because religious faith cannot be divided from the theology. People take things out of context or misunderstand because of a lack of scholarship and because humans can only have their own perspective tainted by their experience. Even if the Bible is the unaltered word of God, there can be better interpretations. People are inherently flawed in their thinking and might not be so kind as to spoon-fed the secrets of the universe to his creations. Again I say what makes simpler, older interpretations any more correct? And you don’t have to identify yourself with a religion to learn from one. We can decide for ourselves on what we can learn from Jesus for example, from our own perspective. I am agnostic but that doesn't mean I cannot gain understanding from the Bible or adopt elements of Christian morality. I can also have faith in scientific theories, because even though there is a large amount of evidence, I am not totally sure that they are correct. But it is my right to make my own decisions about things. Faith can have evidence and is not necessarily just blind faith, which is the only definition some people are trying to use.

I know from my own experience, not from statistics, that the better educated and more intelligent you are the more likely it is that you will either be secular or have your own interpretations of the theology beyond literal dogma. People's relationship with God can help them be better, happier people, be very meaningful and be unique to them. One of the motivating factors in the Protestant Reformation was the need for people to have their own relationship with God and the Bible, on their own terms and not in a way dictated by the corrupt traditionalists of the Papacy. It seems like Kharn wants to eliminate religion among intelligent people through stagnation under the guise of combating hypocritical opportunism. Religious belief can evolve and will have to or it will become extinct.

To get back on topic, my belief that there are flaws with the theory of evolution is not particularly scientific but more based on common sense. I am just not happy with the explanation for how some things are according to Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallaces' idea of variation and 'the survival of the fittest'. It seems fine in most cases, but there are many adaptation where the odds involved seem incomprehensibly small. I find it difficult to image such chains of events. I believe that the theory is incomplete.

The southern gastric-brooding frog in Queensland eats its eggs, and the young develop in the inactive stomach of the mother, meaning that she cannot eat. The froglets are then 'born' from her mouth. So presumably at some point in their evolution, a significant number of these frogs’ ancestors would have had to have protected their young in their mouths either by chance (unlikely) or by learned behaviour from some visionary frog (even more unlikely). Many of these should be killed in this strange situation, accidentally swallowed or damaged. Eventually, the stomach of a significant number of the successful frogs stops working, the eggs survive and this new trait is passed on to the offspring, creating a new species. What lucky frogs. I find it very difficult to believe that such a thing can happen merely by chance and there are many other examples of such phenomena.

Behavioural and physiological adaptations such as Amazonian birds eating clay to absorb jungle toxins, the formation of symbiotic relationships between totally different species such as in lichen and with ants and the Bullthorn Acacia all seem close to impossible. Mimicry in appearance, smell and biochemical makeup, such as the ‘eyes’ of butterflies and fish which are almost an artists impression seem so unlikely. Multicellular organisms are so well designed and intricately formed that but one small adaptation would be enough to bring great wonder to any scientist. But these things have happened and will continue to happen. The most awe inspiring case is humanity and the human brain, the most complicated single system we know of. The basic rules do not seem to apply to us anymore as sentient beings, as we can consciously try to make our own future, even if we fail to meet our own aspirations as a species. These systems are incredibly complex, varied and sophisticated and continue to change. Could these things all really happen by chance, according to a principle of the most efficient organisms emerging against the odds and surviving? I think not, it seems too simple to me. Such a question does leave space for a progressive life force, such as the direction of God, or as I would be more inclined to predict, some sort of genetic-learning mechanism in which the environmental experience interacts more directly with the DNA, to give the appearance of making smart choices. So evolution may be a combination of ‘survival of the fittest’ and also ideas closer to previous defeated theories, only over a longer time scale.

Soon I will be starting my study of science at university, which will later include molecular biology, which may cause me to change my mind. Something so simple just might be able to achieve the (almost) impossible. Or we might discover the mysterious thing that has created the amazing world that we live in, eventually. We might never know, but scientists, maybe myself included, will continue to ask questions and try to find answers.