All-Purpose Religion Thread

[bickster]

Richard Deem btw is a born again christian best described as an old-earth progressive creationist. He runs a website called God and Science, I would imagine this is where Julie got her quotes from.

[limpid]

Richard Deem btw is a born again christian best described as an old-earth progressive creationist.

Really, that's the best term to describe him?

[bickster]

Well I suppose you could shorten it to nutjob ;-)

[CrackpotForeigner]

The name gives me "Thoughts". :oops:

[Chindie]

....religious people, if they just came out and said "you know what, I don't like the idea that life is meaningless, so I'm hoping it's not and that this Christianity stuff is right" then I'd just be all "well, whatever, your choice" but instead they act like there is actual evidence backing up their beliefs, that it's not just a whim, that religion is actually a conclusion you can logically come to. It's not. It's faith, and people take it on faith because they don't like the alternative, and you know what, I'm fine with that, if only people were willing to admit it.

That's pretty much it for me too. People who "find" God, find one because they want to and need to, or else they have been taught there is one and so believe there is one. There's no evidence there is one, there's no rational or scientific explanation or proof or evidence there is one at all. Arguing there is, is ridiculous. Arguing that an old book is any kind of proof of any deity is equally ridiculous. At best it's evidence that some other people a long time ago thought there was a God, too, and that those people didn't have the benefit of knowledge and understanding that we have 2000 years later, as a result of the accumulated work and investigation and science in the 2 millennia since the book was started.

Indeed.

Whilst this isn't the foundation of my great disregard for religion, it's one of the more astounding things about it I find.

It's the kind of thing that even a fleeting moment of common sense should make any right minded person see through - the chances are, even if there was a god that made us and all the rest of it, that this is book is entirely wrong. 2000 years of advancement has proven lots of it wrong. And thats before you get to 2000 years of it being translated and fudged about and edited comes into it. And so on.

But no. We see even in this very thread people tying themselves in knots to prove (well, copy and paste proof) how it's obviously true and verifiable. Have a hint here, a glimpse of something that may be true, an argument of semantics post translation Satan knows how many times over.

Of course it isn't. I'd at least have some respect for someone, like TheDon and Blandy would seem to here as well, if they could just say 'I'm scared of all this, and I need to hope theres something else out there, so I've placed my chips on this but I honestly cannot prove that I'm right, and I have to admit that for all I hope I'm right... the evidence right now suggests I'm not. I'm literally making an illogical, irrational leap of faith'. But nobody likes to admit they're a moron so nobody ever does (because who in their right mind is going to say 'I knowingly and intentionally believe/did something is contrary to all logic and understanding out there'? That isn't also possibly asking for a nice tight white jacket that does up at the back, that is), so we get the nonsense thats seen here, and elsewhere, all the time.

Since a lot of it is evangelical as well it has to be combatted, and when it's particularly nonsense ridden and cynically intended to convert, given the short shrift and mockery it deserves, too.

[Brumerican]

Not only is it not true I don't get why people would want it to be true .

How is being a metaphysical slave comforting ?

You are the subservient property of an infanticidal, genocidal , homophobic , slavery advocating , megalomaniacal scumbag yet you see this as being a good thing ?

[Chindie]

I honestly don't think they realise.

A large number of believers never question their beliefs, imo. They were raised that way, they ultimately don't believe it to particularly impact on their lives and thus never think to question what their faith entails. They believe on a fairly mundane level, they have answers to big questions - why are we here? God. Fine, I never need to worry about that again - and so do not ponder it. They don't really notice that the Biblical god is a bastard and they are by their faith in it slaves to it if the book is to be believed and followed, because they haven't thought about it. Many probably don't even know those aspects to it, they are told that God loves them and Jesus died for them and they will go to paradise if they're good Christian boys and girls, and that is good enough for them.

I can see the appeal of it. These are the big questions, and here are the correct, little, answers, now be on your way and worry no more. Saying 'I (or we) don't know' is scary, to many. We believe ourselves to be great, special, and are arrogant in our intelligence. To say 'This is our best guess but honestly, we can't say for sure' undermines that and many do not like it. To say 'You will die, and that is your lot', is terrifying to many on a personal level, and also on the same, higher, species level - we're so great we can't just die, there must be more, surely? And so the church gives you that.

It's irony that the ones that do consider the flaws of their faith are the ones most absorbed by it. The fanatic is aware of doubt, because they understand that doubt can and will destroy the foundations of their faith. The Church of England knows that, death by a thousand cuts as they accept they don't know it all and might be wrong. So the fanatic, the fundamentalist, will seek to destroy the doubt. The fanatic becomes more fanatical the more they are threatened by doubt and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy... but the greatest irony of it all is the more fanatical they become the more they create doubt in the wider world.

[blandy]

A lot of people will think, until there's some proof or evidence of something being true, they'll tend to strong scepticism or disbelief in the claimed idea, like a supreme being.

Other people will think, "I feel intuitively that there is a God or lifeforce or supreme being, and until or unless it is proved there isn't, then that feeling I have, that faith is "right"".

Which is fine.

Trying to drag others into this belief or faith, or to impose values or systems in "its' " name is something that ought to be history, really, by most measures. It's all very well when there's no knowledge of how things came about, to believe it's down to the supreme being as written in a book, but when we know that actually, it wasn't a supreme being that did lots of stuff that it's claimed it did, then it's a different kettle of fish.

[JulieB]

Quote:

24-hours days - Day 1

Next, let's examine the Genesis days to see if they fit the 24-hour interpretation. Many things happen n the first day. God created the entire universe, including the earth. God also began the period of daylight and night on the earth. Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours, there is nothing in the biblical text that would clearly indicate that the day could not be 24 hours long.3 The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the first day.

This is from some text that you cut and pasted as proof of your argument. Why are you moving the goal posts? I can only respond to what you write.

I googled the subject & that particular article came up by Richard Deem. I wasn't particularly bothered who had written it... I merely wanted to show someone else's viewpoint on matters that Moses use of Yom in Genesis didn't mean 24hour creative day necessarily.

I actually don't agree with his assumption that The first creative Day of Genesis included where God created the Universe & the Earth as I've explained previously. The very first Scripture that Moses wrote said "In the beginning God created the heaven & the Earth".....which could have ALREADY been billions of years old.

The first creative Day or period started surely when God turned his attention to the creation on the Earth that was at that time a vrgin planet....

I used his reasonings to demonstrate that there are many who beleive in God and the Creation account... but that doesn't mean that they necessarily are Creationists who beleive that God made the Earth & all life on it.... in 6 literal 24 hours time periods...

Hopefully what I've tried to reason from Genesis is that if you examine the writings of Moses and reason with it in context to the Bible as a whole, then it is completely unreasonable to teach anyone that the Bible states that God made the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Surely THAT beleif is what tends to give skeptics the right to feel they can call anyone who beleives it a "nutjob".

Personally I don't think anyone deserves that classification because everyone is deserving of respect in my eyes whatever their beliefs.

Perhaps there should now be 2 classifications of "nutjobs" then?!!

A) Creationist's who beleive in the Young Earth - Genesis 24hour creative day theory

Person's who don't follow this line of reasoning but beleive in a Creator of the Universe. Perhaps more in the Intelligent Design camp.

Hence why the Scientists who appear very much to be in the camp B nutjobs..... behind theC4ID.org.uk like Stephen Meyer, Alastair Noble et al gave out a press release last September -

So pardon the shameless copy & paste bit of this post but if I may.....

MEDIA RELEASE

27 September 2011

Centre for Intelligent Design rejects false claims of Dawkins and Attenborough

Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough want the government to ban creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) theory from the classroom. Such a move shows a disturbing lack of understanding of both the nature of scientific theory and of science education, responds the Centre for Intelligent Design.

“If this was about the integrity of science education’, says Dr Alastair Noble , director of the Centre, ‘then they would be campaigning for students to have access to all the scientific evidence about evolution and origins – including the positive evidence for design in nature and the evidence both for and against evolution. Scientific theories are only credible if they take account of all the evidence. Science always moves on. The 30 scientists who have signed up to the ‘Evolution not Creationism’ statement are attempting to prevent students from hearing the rational, well-evidenced arguments that cast doubt on neo-Darwinism.”

The proposition that a scientific curriculum should be the subject of legal or quasi-legal enforcement is based on a failure to recognise that all scientific theories are ultimately tentative and may be updated or amended in light of fresh evidence. No scientific theory needs or should have the compulsion of law. And no programme of science education can afford to rule some questions illegal. That is a complete denial of scientific method and a dreadful example to commend to aspiring science students. If creationism and ID are unscientific, pupils should be allowed to explore the evidence if they wish to see why.

Students also need to understand the provisional nature of the scientific consensus. Science is not done by consensus. Indeed, students should be aware that some crucial scientific discoveries were made by individuals who challenged the consensus. The reality of science is that one individual scientist with sound evidence can trump the consensus.

John Walton, Professor of Reactive Chemistry at the University of St Andrews, agrees: “There are many doubtful passages and leaps of faith in the molecules-to-man evolutionary narrative scenario. The authoritarian attempts by old generation scientists to suppress discussion of alternatives are ill-advised and go against the open spirit of enquiry science should foster.”

The Centre for Intelligent Design notes that it is no coincidence that both Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough are prominent atheists. The Centre believes that the introduction of religious or philosophical ideas into the debate is contrary to the spirit of science which should not be exploited in pursuit of a secular or atheistic agenda.

All attempts by Richard Dawkins to indoctrinate children with an ‘evolution only’ education spring from a secularising agenda. As he himself admits, Darwin made it possible for him to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist. Professor Dawkins thus has a vested interest in promoting evolution, and therefore cannot be taken seriously as an objective voice on this matter.

Dawkins argues that ID should not be taken seriously because its main protagonists are theists. But we don’t hear him arguing that by the same token evolution should not be taken seriously because its main protagonists are atheists.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is one of the five organisations behind the campaign, along with Ekklesia – a liberal theological pressure group that has a long history of opposing criticism of evolution. And the list of signatories reveals that many of the supporters are indeed atheists. The BHA aims to remove God from the curriculum, and is therefore afraid of any theory like ID that has theological implications.

Prof Dawkins oft-repeated claim that full-scale evolution is “as solidly demonstrated as any fact in science” is largely a rhetorical position, which well outruns the evidence. Intelligent Design theory may not yet be the mainstream view of science, but it has a solid scientific evidenced base of which students have a right to be aware. A truly rigorous scientific approach to education would be to inform students of all the views, evidence and arguments surrounding the origin and development of life. Censorship is inherently anti-scientific.

Dr Alastair Noble, director of the Centre, says: “The prime movers behind the ‘Evolution not Design’ campaign are not neutral scientists as they may have the press believe, but those who wish to promote secularism in schools. This should be taken into account by all interested parties.

************

NOTES TO EDITORS

• Photo of Dr Alastair Noble, director of the Centre for Intelligent Design available at www.c4id.org.uk/press/alastairnoble.jpg

• Dr Alastair Noble is available for comment. Tel: 0141 331 1607 or email: info@c4id.org.uk

* Dr Alastair Noble, BSc PhD, studied chemistry and did research at the University of Glasgow. He has taught science in secondary schools, advised on curriculum development, was a schools inspector and an assistant Director of Education with an LEA. He also worked for short periods on educational projects with the BBC, the NHS and the CBI. He is currently the Director of the recently-established Centre for Intelligent Design in the UK

[CrackpotForeigner]

The Jesuits' famous saying along the lines of "Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man." is scarily true in most cases.

It not only explains how religion is able to self-perpetuate, but is a reminder of the importance of banning religious education of children.

[Brumerican]

I honestly don't think they realise.

A large number of believers never question their beliefs, imo. They were raised that way, they ultimately don't believe it to particularly impact on their lives and thus never think to question what their faith entails. They believe on a fairly mundane level, they have answers to big questions - why are we here? God. Fine, I never need to worry about that again - and so do not ponder it. They don't really notice that the Biblical god is a bastard and they are by their faith in it slaves to it if the book is to be believed and followed, because they haven't thought about it. Many probably don't even know those aspects to it, they are told that God loves them and Jesus died for them and they will go to paradise if they're good Christian boys and girls, and that is good enough for them.

I can see the appeal of it. These are the big questions, and here are the correct, little, answers, now be on your way and worry no more. Saying 'I (or we) don't know' is scary, to many. We believe ourselves to be great, special, and are arrogant in our intelligence. To say 'This is our best guess but honestly, we can't say for sure' undermines that and many do not like it. To say 'You will die, and that is your lot', is terrifying to many on a personal level, and also on the same, higher, species level - we're so great we can't just die, there must be more, surely? And so the church gives you that.

It's irony that the ones that do consider the flaws of their faith are the ones most absorbed by it. The fanatic is aware of doubt, because they understand that doubt can and will destroy the foundations of their faith. The Church of England knows that, death by a thousand cuts as they accept they don't know it all and might be wrong. So the fanatic, the fundamentalist, will seek to destroy the doubt. The fanatic becomes more fanatical the more they are threatened by doubt and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy... but the greatest irony of it all is the more fanatical they become the more they create doubt in the wider world.

Great post Dean.

[limpid]

But nobody likes to admit they're a moron so nobody ever does (because who in their right mind is going to say 'I knowingly and intentionally believe/did something is contrary to all logic and understanding out there'?

I'm not bothered by the small superstitions that people have, just as I'm not bothered that some people believe in a non-religious god. In the real world, even magic pants don't work, but believing they do is a personal thing that can trigger an effect like a placebo does. Believing in your magic pants has no impact on others.

It's rolling these superstitions up into a cult that I have a problem with. By cult I mean a group which exerts power by a variety of methods, but usually through "money with menaces" threats. I think it's particularly abhorrent that as a society we allow this to happen to children.

[bickster]

Yep, nutjobs. The spirit of science isn't being exploited to follow any secular or atheist agenda, there is no agenda. Evolution and the age of past earth events are fact, the teaching of fact in schools should be everyone's agenda, religion shouldn't be brought into it because it's irrelevant what any religion tries to claim as evolution is fact and the science behind the dating measurements of earth events are also fact. There can be dispute over interpreting the events that caused particular rocks to form and whether the particular dating method and interpretation was done accurately but apart from that, it's pure fact. Teaching whatever brand of creationism you like is what is wrong as creationist ideas are wrong, that too is fact anyone claiming otherwise has an agenda.

[regular_john]

Julie - you still don't get it do you? There is no such thing as 'science' where intelligent design is concerned. The reason ID is not taught as a scientific subject, or even an alternative to science, is that it has not fulfilled any of the requirements of a scientific subject.

There is no physical evidence to support ID, there have been no papers on the topic of ID that have passed peer review, ID does not restrict itself to the natural world, ID makes no testable predictions, ID has no explanatory power concerning the nature of...well...nature.

The entire philosophy of ID hinges on the concept of irreducible complexity in nature, i.e. something that could not possibly have been constructed via an evolutionary, stepwise process. To date, there have been NO examples of irreducible complexity found in nature. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Science craves evidence, as an institution it would not reject real evidence of ID if any were ever found as such evidence would completely revolutionise our understanding of pretty much all of science.

So why do scientists continue to reject ID?

Because it has ZERO supporting evidence.

ID is nothing. It is a fanciful fairytale constructed and maintained by those who are too stupid or ignorant to understand evolution, or who are so scared of the truth of evolution that they require the comforting touch of fiction.

[JulieB]

Julie - you still don't get it do you? There is no such thing as 'science' where intelligent design is concerned. The reason ID is not taught as a scientific subject, or even an alternative to science, is that it has not fulfilled any of the requirements of a scientific subject.

There is no physical evidence to support ID, there have been no papers on the topic of ID that have passed peer review, ID does not restrict itself to the natural world, ID makes no testable predictions, ID has no explanatory power concerning the nature of...well...nature.

The entire philosophy of ID hinges on the concept of irreducible complexity in nature, i.e. something that could not possibly have been constructed via an evolutionary, stepwise process. To date, there have been NO examples of irreducible complexity found in nature. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Science craves evidence, as an institution it would not reject real evidence of ID if any were ever found as such evidence would completely revolutionise our understanding of pretty much all of science.

So why do scientists continue to reject ID?

Because it has ZERO supporting evidence.

ID is nothing. It is a fanciful fairytale constructed and maintained by those who are too stupid or ignorant to understand evolution, or who are so scared of the truth of evolution that they require the comforting touch of fiction.

But not all Scientists do reject ID.

Dr Alastair Noble wrote an essay on this subject.

Why legislating for evolution is deeply unscientific

The recent clamour from a handful of leading scientists to enshrine the teaching of evolution in schools and to ban creationism and intelligent design (ID) from all classrooms is deeply disturbing. If a scientific theory cannot be sustained on the basis of the available evidence, what message does it send to students when the force of law is required?

Presumably then, if in a biology class, a pupil asks a question about ID, the teacher would have to say that it is illegal to proceed with the question. And at what point does the teacher call the police to deal with any persistent enquirers? Some science that!

If evolution requires the weight of the law, what about atomic theory? Does it need legal protection against, say, quantum theory undermining the particulate nature of matter? Or the Big Bang? Do we need laws to ensure that the steady state theory does not make a comeback? And global warming? Do we need the law to ensure that climate sceptics don’t produce any embarrassing evidence? I cannot believe that British science is so unsure of itself that it has come to this.

The whole proposition of legal enforcement is based on a failure to recognise that all scientific theories are ultimately tentative and may be updated or amended in the light of fresh evidence. The very recent doubts of the CERN scientists about the limiting position of the speed of light is a case in point. No scientific theory needs or should have the compulsion of law. And no programme of science education can afford to rule some questions illegal. That is a complete denial of scientific method and a dreadful example to commend to aspiring science students. If creationism and ID are unscientific, pupils should be allowed to explore the evidence if they wish to see why.

We also need to be careful about the scientific consensus. Science is not done by consensus. Indeed, students should be aware that some crucial scientific discoveries were made by individuals who challenged the consensus. The reality of science is that one individual scientist with sound evidence can trump the consensus.

It is also unforgiveable that leading scientists cannot distinguish between creationism and ID. The former is a religious position and, as such, should be legitimately discussed in Religious Studies. ID is a very different position. It argues that certain features of the natural and living worlds are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by blind, purposeless forces as required by neo-Darwinism.

ID argues from the information content of DNA, the fine tuning of universal constants and forces and the irreducible complexity of many biological systems. It is an exercise in design detection using methods such as inference to the best explanation, as might be employed in the forensic sciences. It does not concern itself with debates about the age of the earth, and its proponents take a range of positions on evolution. Although it has philosophical or religious implications, the theory itself is most certainly not religious and should be debated legitimately within science.

Prof Richard Dawkins himself insists that living systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. But he also admits that he does not know how life originated. How can he possibly know, therefore, that the apparent design in nature is not real? He can’t until he finds a credible evolutionary explanation for the obvious programming in DNA. And that’s why ID, which infers design from real scientific data, is worthy of debate.

And there’s another problem with ‘evolution’. It is a very slippery word. If you mean adaptation and change over time through variation and natural selection, it is uncontroversial. If you mean common ancestry and the descent of all living things from a single ancestor, it is debateable. If you mean the generation of new genetic information and body plans by random mutation, it is highly speculative. The idea that ‘evolution’ in all its meanings is beyond any scientific challenge is just plain nonsense. To shut down debate about the strength of the scientific evidence is just about the worst kind of science you can imagine.

Why is there such a flap about the teaching of evolution? My hunch is that it has nothing to do with science at all, but with the promotion of a materialistic and secular worldview. That might explain why the British Humanist Association is leading the charge. Of course everyone is entitled to their own worldview, but suppressing scientific evidence or dissent is not the way to arrive at a reliable one.

I have often wondered how a sophisticated country like 20th-century Germany fell prey to Nazi domination of its national life. I think I can see that once you start legislating for the promotion of one particular theory over another, you suppress debate and start purveying propaganda. Surely not in 21st century Britain which so values free speech and open enquiry? I sincerely hope not.

I emailed him with a question and he had the decency to respond to my email within a few days.

If you are so adamant that there is NO scientific evidence to back up ID and NO peer reviewed papers on ID that have been published then why don't you email him and ask the question as to how he can back up his claims in the above essay?

Or are you going to dismiss him as a "proper scientist" because he like others put forward an alternative viewpoint.

Here's his contact details...Dr Alastair Noble Tel: 0141 331 1607 or email: info@c4id.org.uk

Actually come to think of it perhaps I could if you won't.

[Brumerican]

I.D. is a different position to creationism huh ?

There are not enough LOL's in the world to respond to that .

[Chindie]

Another one with fingers in creation pies.

[Brumerican]

I have often wondered how a sophisticated country like 20th-century Germany fell prey to Nazi domination of its national life. I think I can see that once you start legislating for the promotion of one particular theory over another, you suppress debate and start purveying propaganda. Surely not in 21st century Britain which so values free speech and open enquiry? I sincerely hope not.

Steeped in irony when you consider how christianity was spread.

[Brumerican]

For every "scientist" who doubts evolution there are a thousand who do not . You would think that maybe someone is after a little confirmation bias wouldn't you .

Mental gymnastics from the society of hypocrites strikes again .

[Chindie]

You don't learn anything by only talking to those which you agree with.

But then some aren't out to learn I guess...