Glen-
Trust me, religion and science do contradict on many, many levels. And it's idiotic, no matter which side of the argument you're on, to think they don't.
But, if its idiotic to think Science and Religion don’t contradict, then why is it that Modern Historians and Philosophers say otherwise? Why do modern Theologians say otherwise?
This is not the opinion of Michael Ruse, for example. Ruse is a Scientist and Science Historian, and also an Atheist, but he has spoken openly about how the Conflict Thesis is wrong.
You also have the Vatican which says there is no conflict.
In fact, I’ve shown you a Three Part series explaining why there is no conflict, and can post to you several books by learned men of a range of beliefs that explain there is no conflict.
Are all those men Idiots? (And women in some cases.)
Why should I trust you that Science and Religion contradict each other when you present no rational reason to believe this other than it being a prevailing belief in popular culture amongst the general public?
I have to assume you are Christian since that is what the original post was about and you seem to take a strong stance on that side of things. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Its immaterial what I am. As I said, even Atheists who have bothered to learn real History or what Religion actually is say that there is no conflict. That’s the real matter, and instead of focusing on my beliefs, why not focus on supporting your claims, or listening to mine?
By the way, saying you assume I am a Christian is odd. After all, you assume I favour the Religion side and not the Science side, but this only shows what I mean about this being a very, very shallow thinking on your part. To you, “Religion” is “Christianity”. This is the sort of simplistic assessment that really shows why these sorts of discussions are based on flawed thinking in the First place.
You can call me what you wish: agnostic, atheist, it really doesn't matter.
This contradicts the above. Why does it not matter what you are but it does matter what I am?
But I can assure you I can in no way be considered religious.
Everyone is Religious. As soon as you actually listen to why I say this, we can discuss it reasonably.
But Religion is not belief in a god. Religion is not all about Theism. Religion is not a Synonym for Theism.
Atheism is also not the opposite of Religion or a lack of Religion.
I’d post a link, but you’d ignore it like you do the above.
To call Atheism a religion is a complete misunderstanding of the term.
And to say that I called Atheism a religion is putting words in my mouth.
I said that Atheism is not a lack of Religion, and that Religion is not Theism, I did not say that Atheism is a Religion.
But , Theism is also not a Religion. No one’s religion is Theism.
The word Religion is defined as a set of beliefs regarding the Fundamental Nature of our Existence.
Everyone has this, including Atheists.
While not all Atheists have the same Philosophical understanding of existence, they all individually will have an understanding. That’s really all Religion is.
Do not confuse religion with personal beliefs.
But, that’s what Religion is. That’s the whole point. Religion is specifically defined as a set of beliefs about the Fundamental nature of existence. Without some understanding of our existence, we’d not function in the world as we do.
Religion is a shared belief system and each religion and it's numerous sub-sects follow specific fundamental beliefs, tenets, and ritual observances.
The Irony to this is that you assume Atheists don’t do this. The reason this is Ironic is because if you speak to Atheists online its easy to determine that most of them all say the same things, quote the same Anti-Religion arguments, and have the same basic Materialist Philosophy.
That’s because they are really following a Humanist Philosophical understanding of the world. Humanism is in and of itself the product of the Enlightenments philosophy, and in turn Humanism has codified rules and beliefs that form its basis. One can say that Modern Atheists by and large do follow specific Fundamental beliefs and tenets, and do have specific Ritual observances.
Despite the claim that Atheists all think of themselves and The only thing that Unites them is a common lack of belief in a god that you hear often, the Truth is that most of the time they agree on far more than just “there are no gods”, and share a moral code and beliefs regarding everything form Politics to the Nature of life itself.
Humanism addresses all the same questions Religion would, and provides answers for those questions. Humanism builds a Framework of understanding form which one can hang all of ones expunges and produce an ordered view of ones own life, and understand the world around them. It supplies one with the ability to interpret ones life’s events, and to supply meaning to those events, whilst answering the basic, Fundamental issues of that existence.
Humanism thus has the same function as Religion does for its Adherents, and acts in the same way that Religion acts.
In what way, then, is it not a Religion itself?
While Humanists see it as a Philosophy and not a Religion, and claim it’s a Nonreligious Alternative to finding Morals and meaning, the Truth is, it is a Religion in its own Right, not a Substitute for Religion.
While you may not be a Humanist either, though I pretty well know you are,
the same will apply to any non-theistic Philosophy that covers the same questions Religion does and supplies the same Function.So you can be a Randian Objectivist or a Neitchean and this will still apply to you.
The fact is, you are Religious if you have a belief system regarding the Fundamental nature of existence that enables you to understand the world around you. That is what Religion is.
I am not in anyway affiliate with any religious organization and never really have been.
But Religion is not the same as belonging to an Organisation. Religion simply means our beliefs about the world.
Try reading this ling to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Yeah I’m wasting my time, you did’t read the Links above.
Still, it explains what I am saying in detail.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/Please don’t say I am making up my own definition of Religion, or confusing Religion with personal beliefs and talk to me in a condescending fashion as if I am a simpleton. At the very least hold that off till you’ve read the article.
Living in the US I attended Sunday morning services as a child but at that age it didn't mean much to me. I tend to be a person who grew up constantly asking the question "Why?" and always searching for answers in every aspect of life and the world.
But this is what I mean by your bias. You think there is a distinction between looking at the word in a Scientific Fashion, or being Religious. Religious people of occurs don’t ask why, and jut believe.
No doubt you think they use Faith, and you use Reason. No Doubt Faith is seen as the opposite of Reason, for Faith is belief without evidence, and Reason always demands Evidence. And that will be the core of the distinction between Science and Religion. Religion is about Faith, Science is about Reason.
I won’t occur to you that Religious people can also ask “Why”, or use Reason, and it certainly won’t occur to you that Scientifically minded people are capable of not asking Why and just going by Faith in previous views. It also don’t occur to you to question this Paradigm.
In fact, when I tell you that Faith is not belief without evidence, you will say I am making up my own definition of the world.
I’m to. There are six, and while one definition is Belief without Evidence, that is not really the sum total of what the word means each time its used, an is not what it means when discussing Religion.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/Not that I expect you to read the above.
When it comes to religion you are required to follow certain things on blind faith and to believe in the unbelievable.
No your not.
Not all Faith is Blind Faith, and Faith is best when its rooted in Reason. St. Augustine actually said we believe
because we are Rational, and St. Anslem said that it should be Faith seeking understanding.
If Religion requires Blink Faith, belief with no evidence at all, then why is it that Science even came to be?
Contrary to your notion of how they are Hostile, Science didn’t’t come into being by a group of people disgruntled or disillusioned with Religion who cast it aside to find the Truth using systematic thinking, it was created in its modern form by the Church on the basis that God created an orderly world, and that the Laws of Nature will be constant, and Natural Causes should be found within the observable world for any given Phenomenon. That’s the root of today’s Science.
The idea that Religion simply says “Believe the unbelievable” and “don’t look for evidence, just Trust the holy Book and Church” may be one that persist in today’s world, but its Ahistorical.
Indeed, Thomas Aquinas used the then most advanced Science and Philosophy of his day to present arguments for the Veracity of the Christian Faith rooted in Reason. If Thomas Aquinas had believed all Faith was Blind Faith and that Religion was all about believing the unbelievable and taking whatever the Church said at Face Value and never questioning it or seeking Rational explanation for its Doctrines, why did he spend 30 years of his life writing the Suma Theologica?
No one understood Faith as belief without evidence till the 18th Century, and the entire argument you write hinges on us seeing it as such, when it’s not. Why on earth should we accept that Religion requires Blind Faith and suspending Reason when the opposite if demonstrateable?
Faith is form the Latin word Fidese, which actually means “To Trust”, or ‘To be Loyal”. Faith is another word for Confidence, and simply signifies Trust in something or Loyalty to something or someone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaithThat Loyalty or Trust need not be Given in the absence of evidence for it to still be Faith. Faith can stem
from Reason, and be built
upon Reason. Faith need not be Blind at all.
From a Christian site, please read it. It tells you what Faith
means. don’t dismiss it as its apologetics, as you read Dawkins and all he is is an Apologist for Humanism. Broaden your scope.
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.htmlWhich undermines your neuter point, but highlights mine.
I would argue that, even though your entire story above indicates that you Favour Science over Religion and you can’t be both Scientific and Religious, your story above its itself a Religious Myth.
As strange as that sounds, its True.
What you are deign is presenting a point of view based on a Narrative about the Conflict between Science and Religion and thinking the whole thing on a Conflict between believing something with no Evidence, Faith, and believing something only if evidence warrants it, Reason. That’s the whole starting point of the Science VS Religion Conflict Thesis, and the story goes that Religion asks you to believe in incredible and unbelievable tales and never question them, while Science seeks Truth through evidence. Of course this leads to conflict as Since uncovers the Truth that Religion denies, and Religion recedes as Sconce advances. That’s the story at least.
But the point I am making is that this story of how Science always advances at the expense of Religion and how Religion recedes in light of each new Scientific Discovery, and how Religion is about belief without evidence an suspending Reason whilst Science is about using Reason and seeing Truth, is itself a Religious belief.
Whole Religion is Demonised in the above narrative, and it certainly explains why you’d not want to be called Religious, as being Religious means you are not Scientific and not Rational but go by Faith and are thus prevented form seeing the Truth, the whole thing functions as a Narrative, a Storyline that plays out in your head, that tells you how the world is suppose to be understood in general.
In that way, the Conflict Thesis is really a Religious Mythology, no different from how a Christian may interpret life as a Struggle against sin and quest for Salvation, or how a Buddhist may understand life as a struggle against Illusion and a quest for Enlightenment and pace.
You struggle for Reason to Prevail against the forces of Faith.
You don’t question this story, its just True. Religion requires Blind Faith, and people who are Religious never ask “Why” about life, they just believe whatever they Religion tells them.
But you were a Precocious Child who always asked “Why’ so aren’t Religious. You prefer to be Scientific instead, and use Reason.
Science and Religion are at odds because one is Faith and the other Reason. They are incompatible.
Religion tells us things that Science later disproves, and Religious people will often ignore the evidence and defend the unbelievable and unsupported mythology over the Truth Science has Revealed.
This is embodied by the Myth of Galileo. Galileo discovered something using Science, and Religion tried to stop him because Religion had already said the opposite. Nonetheless, the Truth won out and Science prevailed, and Religion receded.
You just play that out kin your mind as the explanation for all of Science VS Religion, and project it onto everything and assume its true.
It’s a story you tell yourself to help you understand the world, and interpret what you see.
But you never step outside of these assumptions and question them, you never question the Narrative at all.
So really, despite the Praise of Reason and the claim that you always asked Why, you don’t ask why. You don’t ask why the Conflict Thesis is true or ask if its True. You take it on Blind Faith that Science and Religion are at odds, that Faith is belief without Evidence, and Religion recedes when Science Advances. Its simply a Dogma to you, and you really can’t bring yourself to challenging it.
Its basically the Mythology you believe in.
The Irony is, if something comes along that challenges this story, you completely ignore it, or try to explain it away in terms of the Story. The one thing you don’t’ do Is challenge the Story.
In that way, the Conflict Thesis is a Story you tell yourself to make sense of the world around you. it’s the basis of how you relate to the world and forms the way you understand existence.
It is, in other words, a Religious belief.
And, its one that’s wrong, and demonstrateably wrong, but one you seem unwilling to really question or look past.
You can’t, as that would tear down the entire foundation of how you understand the world.
If you don't you're kind of missing the point. Rather than follow blindly I like to ask questions and I've had more of those questions answered by science than religious people.
But you don’t ask questions. You have Blind Faith in the Conflict Thesis and hour understanding of how Religion and Science conflict, and how Religion is all about Blind Faith.
It’s not like I said they don’t because I’m ignorant, and I have linked you to sources against this. The fact that you refuse to read those links and the fact that you won’t really try to even understand where I’m coming form proves that you didn’t really ask why.
You don’t ever Challenge the Conflict Thesis. You never question whether or not Religious People follow their beliefs base don Bind Faith. To you its self evidence. Religion is about belief without Evidence and accepting what minorities told you, and believing the unbelievable, and Science is about looking only at Evidence and finding Truth. You never question this though. You don’t ask “Why” and this dogma of yours is unquestioned.
Which is my point, you are Religious, its just that your Religion is Insidious in that it tells you Religion is bad and that it is the opposite of Religion. Its Ironic as it acts like those “Memes” Dawkins invented.
Dawkins said Religion was a Mind Virus hat functioned to make the Human Mind a Habitat for itself, and keeps itself alive by not allowing the Host to ask questions. Dawkins says the Meme will tell you “Now there will be some other people over there that don’t believe this, and they will have arguments and evidence to support their claims. But don’t you ever believe them, they are lying”, and that’s how Religion stays lodged in the Mind of the infected patient.
But how is this any different?
If Dawkins, or you, simply refuse to hear what those Religious people say because you start with the A Priori assumption that they don’t think for themselves, go by blind Faith, and cant have evidence, and assume that your views are True and self evident, instates the same as the above?
You are basically ensnared by a belief that tells you ‘Science and Religion are always Hostile to each other. Religion prevents you form being Rational and think for yourself. Religion really is false, and Science ha proven this. Now some people say the Two aren’t at odds and that Religious belief can be defended. They are Faith heads, they are incapable of rational or independent thought. Don’t listen to them, they never know what they are talking about and misunderstand things”.
What’s the difference?
You refuse to examine the Conflict Thesis and just go by blind Faith that Science and Religion are at odds, and that Science is about evidence whilst Religion is about Blind Faith.
If you are challenged, you don’t do any real research to see if the other party has any Valued points, you just cling to the Narrative you already believe and try to explain away what they say as wrong.
Where are contradictions between science and religion? I can name many but I'll only briefly point to one to keep things simple. Take the existence of the dinosaurs. We have fossil evidence that they existed; tangible, observable evidence, and yet I've met many a biblical scholar who is quick to say the existence of dinosaurs could only be myth because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
Your lying.
I say this because even the most ardent Creationist accepts Dinosaurs
existed, and if you went to the Creation Museum in Kentucky you’d see statues of men living alongside Dinosaurs.
http://creationmuseum.org/Follow the link, Dinosaurs lived with man is the claim, and they are mentioned in the Bible, just called “Dragons”.
That’s what Creationists (well, Young Earth creationists) believe. None that I have ever heard say Dinosaurs never existed or raise this as a Possibility. But the claim is made by fictional versions of them in Atheist Literature a good deal.
I also think you are confusing the term “Biblical Scholar” with “Creationist’, not that I think you’ve met many at all.
The claim that Dinosaurs never existed because they aren’t in the Bible is one made by Atheists and our in the mouths of fictitious Christians in order to present a Caricature, and is not a view held by actual Creationists, much less Biblical Scholars.
By the way, the vast overwhelming majority of Biblical Scholars not only accept that Dinosaurs existed, but Evolution.
Biblical Scholars are experts on the text and its History, and not the same as Creation Scientists.
To Be Continued Below.
reply
share
ZAROVE
14 years ago
Continued From The Above.
If you didn’t even know this, then I doubt you’ve met many Biblical Scholars, or any really.
I've had others try to fit them into the texts saying that they are there, referred to as "Leviathan" and "Behemoth". But to fit them into the story they would have to coexist with man.
Not necessarily. But hanks for proving you know nothing about Biblical Scholarship. Please don’t try to pull one over on me, Imp in a double major program for Psychology
and Theology.
You haven’t the faintest idea what your talking about and are pretending to be more aware and learned than you are.
And the Bible itself can't even make up it's mind what happened. In Genesis God creates beast and then man, and only a few short chapters later switches it and says God creates man, then beasts.
That’s one Chapter later, not “ a few short chapters later”. What your trying to do is bring up the old cobbler about the Two Creation stories, but you clearly only have a vague notion of its existence and never sat down and read the actual arguments. You seem to think that Chapter one gives one story then chapter ten another, or something akin to that.
The fact that you are oblivious to the fact that its only one Chapter over means that what is happening here is that you picked up the talk of conflicting Creation stories and hear it one and now are repeating it without any real understanding of it.
By the way, the Creation stories only contradict if you accept them as two separate Creation stories, and not all Biblical Scholars do. ( and it is Biblical Scholarship that says they contradict.)
The idea that they contradict is from the JPED Theory, and actually explains that Genesis 1-2:3 is the Elohimists Creation Story and Genesis 2:4-25 is the Yahwist creation story, and the reason for the divergence is because it preserves two schools of thought.
But while the JPED Theory is still common in Biblical Scholarship ( No idea why you think many Biblical Scholars say Dinosaurs never existed, given this) others have challenged it, saying if the texts had been redacted ( which is part of the Theory I don’t expect you to begin to understand) why would the redactor leave to conflicting accounts? I agree with this criticism and don’t see them as Two separate Creation accounts at all.
which is why its important you realise its not a few short chapters away, but the chapter immediately after Gen 1.Keep in mind, the Chapters in the Various Biblical Books were added much later, and the text originally had no Chapter and Verse. They were added in 1228 AD by Stephen Langton as a reference tool. If you remove the Chapter and Verse, the text reads continuously with no breaks. I would argue that Genesis Chapter One and Two are actually part of the same creation story, not two separate ones, and that the events in Chapter two simply follow Chronologically from those of Chapter One.
In that case, if you read it, it says in verse 5 that there was no man
to till the ground. Whole JPED Theory say this means no men at all, it can be inferred if you read the text linearly, which is how the original authors wrote it and how the text was written, that this simply means that Men, plural, were created in Genesis One but they did not till the ground. In this case, the Creation of Adam is simply the creation of a different type of man. God then brings the Animals to the Garden, forming them of out of Dust. Nothing says these were the Only Animals in existence though, and the events can still follow from one.
Hence why there is dissenting Opinion of JPED.
But even going by JEPD the reason is because they are two different Creation stories, and not set a few Chapters part, they follow consecutively. Genesis would then be understood as a collection of the originally Oral traditions of the Hebrew people regarding their origins, from the Creation to the story of Abraham to how they ended up in Egypt.
But please don’t try to discuss it before you actually know what your on about. I do hate how on the Internet people pretend to be experts on things they never truly understood to try to wow people into some sort of submission. For those of us who spend a good deal of time and treasure learning this, its rather painful, especially knowing what I’ve just typed will be ignored so you can continue your ignorant spouting.
Its as bad as those idiots who follow Glen Beck saying the at Monarchy is the Left Wing Ideal and the redcoats were Liberals.
Try learning the topic before speaking of it.
Science has simply showed us that the origins of the earth are far more complex than what was written by men 5,000 years ago who couldn't comprehend that complexity.
The idea that the Ancients were primitive and couldn’t’t understand complex things is called Chronological Snobbery, and anyone who has actually studied History will tell you that the Ancients weren’t really simple minded. The claim that they couldn’t understand complexity is just stupid. They were as capable as we are.
That said, I hope you realise that the Creation account is seen as Allegory as early as 70 BC, and the original way Christians understood it was Allegory since the time of Origen and his Allegorical Exegesis around 230 AD.
Modern Creationists and the idea of taking it literally is a 19th Century innovation that was a response to Modernism, and had Moe to do with changing social mores than Biblical Scholarship.
Not that I expect you to know any of this either.
Even now we are barely scratching the services, but we learn more each day because scientists seeks answers rather than having blind faith that an archaic ancient text abounding with contradictions has the answers.
He claim that the bible is full of contradictions is also misleading. Most of the Lists of Bibl contradictions you find online, such as SAB, really aren’t contradictions at all.
That said, you aren’t suppose to have Blind Faith In the Bible, and the Bible itself praises reason.
Without Christianity, though, modern Science wouldn’t even exist.
Science is ever changing and ever expanding the knowledge of people who study it. Biblical scholars can't shift their beliefs when evidence points to the contrary, but any scientist worth his salt is quick to admit when new evidence shifts an established theory.
Your really not aware of what a Biblical Scholar is, are you? Some of them are even Atheists, like Bart Ehrman.
Biblical Scholarship
is itself a Scientific discipline, about the nature and origin of the text.Also, your claims about Scientists VS Religious Scholars is still built from the Conflict Thesis and over glorifies Scientist whilst making religious Scholars staid and trapped in pre-existent conclusions. Its obviously not True though as anyone in Academia will tell you.
For one thing, Scientists don’t just up and change tie beliefs or admit they were wrong easily. it’s not a smile matter of showing evidence to convince them.
Scientists are human. The result of this Humanity is that they often stick to their own beliefs as long as they can, fiercely opposed to anything that contradicts what they already believe in.
A quote from Max Plank-
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ”- From
Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 33.
As Max Plank Observed, Science doesn’t advance by one Scientist making a discovery, showing the evidence, and all the other Scientists agreeing with it and changing their beliefs, it has to usually wait for the Older Generation to die, and the younger Generation to take up the new idea. Because Scientists have emotionally invested in their personal understanding of the world, and see the world through a specific filter, they often refuse to let go of the Theories they learned and believed in for years and out a lot of time into developing.
As for Biblical Scholarship never shifting with new Discoveries, this is idiocy, of course it does. Biblical Scholarship has changed a lot over the last ten years alone, and if you picked up a Book by Biblical Scholars written in the 19th Century, it’d be outdated. The idea that it never changes or that biblical Scholars cant shift their beliefs when evidence points to the contrary is foolish.
Anyone whose studied the History of Biblical Scholarship see’s that evidence has produced a lot of change in it over the years.
In fact, the JPED Theory alone was groundbreaking in the late 19th Century and changed the whole face of Biblical Scholarship, as did the introduction of Higher Criticism in the lat 18th Century. The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was an Enormous shift in our understanding of the Bible and its History.
Are you really this unaware of how Biblical Scholarship works?
The most noble thing a person can do is acknowledge that which they do not know rather than pretending to know too much.
Why don’t you try this and stop making assumptions about how Biblical Scholarship never changes despite evidence to the contrary, or how Noble Scientists are? While your at it, stop making assumptions about Science and Religion till you spent time learning about them.
Otherwise, this is sheer Hypocrisy.
I go where the evidence takes me.
No you don’t. you try to support the thesis that Biblical Scholarship is all about proving the bible right and that Biblical Scholars cant shift with new Evidence, and that Scientist are Altruistic and seek only Truth and will change at the Drop of a hat, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
You believe Science and Religion are hostile to each other, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
You don’t learn anything about either topic or real History, and just promote a view based on a story in your head about Science VS Religion that’s not True.
You don’t even know what Biblical Scholarship is.
If you really went were the evidence lead you, you’d have at least read the Links I presented and commented on them.
There is enough archeological evidence to convince me that the man we now refer to as Jesus Christ existed about 2000 years ago. But that evidence does not support the notion that he was the son of God or that he rose body and soul into heaven after his death.
That’s nice. But you haven’t studied Archaeology, either.
And why should we trust you on there not being Evidence that he was the Son of God or Rose from the Dead when you patently lied about many Biblical Scholars you supposedly met saying to you Dinosaurs may be a Myth? Why should we Trust you when you believe Scientists change beliefs readily because they are honest when this clearly is not True?
If you haven’t taken the time to read up on nay of these topics, why does your statement about there being no evidence for Jesus being the Son of God mean anything at all?
Its not like you know if there is or isn’t. Its just playing into your Mythology, not about any sort of evidence.
Those are the fundamental tenets one must believe in order to be a part of the Christian faith. You believe because you believe, not because of any evidence.
This is also a lie.
http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2310The Christian Faith has a long Rationalist Tradition, and actually is built off of Evidence for its claims.
And people can believe in some pretty ridiculous things. It doesn't make them true, it just means people believe them. Biblical Scholars will point to the "eye witness" accounts of people seeing Christ appearing before them after his death, but that is hardly evidence. How reliable are the eye witness accounts of the hundreds of people who "saw" alien space craft near Roswell, New Mexico in the late 40's?
Does this include Biblical Scholars like E. P. Sanders, Harold W. Attridge, James Veitch, Wesley Hiram Wachob, Thomas Sheehan, Karen L. King, Karen Armstrong, Joseph Bessler, OR Marcus Borg?
This is why the whole of your argument is idiocy. You don’t even know what a Biblical Scholar is, much less what Faith is, or what Religion is.
To you, a Biblical Scholar is just a Creationist who believes in Religion and ever questions anything, unlike a Scientist who always asks question and seeks Truth.
You divest both of their Humanity, and ignore the failings of Scientists on that part to make them saintly and Pure, whilst making Biblical Scholars out to be unenlightened throwbacks to a Dark Age that never was.
That means your whole argument is based on shallow Caricature, not Reality. Its invalid.
By the way, the list of names I gave above? Look them up.
Also look up the Westar Institute.
You would probably agree with me that even if those people saw something it was most likely not alien space craft.
But do you agree that you don’t know what a Biblical Scholar is or anything about Biblical Scholarship?
Even religion as we know it doesn't stand on the sturdy ground some might believe. There was a time when the gods of Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythology were as real to people as the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is to people today. It is not all together impossible that the world religions of today will be the myths and legends of tomorrow.
I hate to break it to you but, the gods of the Greeks and Romans and Norse did, and still do, exist.
They are simply personifications of Natural Phenomenon. Poseidon was not simply the god of the Sea, he was the Sea.
That said, saying God may one day be seen as Mythology doesn’t mean he’s not Real either, which is another fallacy. Its called Equivocation.
To quote Richard Dawkins it is just as true that a person who does not believe in Thor or Zeus is just as much an Atheist as one who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. That is all Atheism really means after all.
Actually Dawkins is wrong. The word “Atheist” literally means “Without God”. It is a positive assertion, not a simple lack of belief. The root Origins is about the rejection of Theism, not absence of belief in Theism. It is also not True that we can describe someone as an Atheists for rejecting the existence of god X but not god Y. If that’s True than we are all Ahumanitis, for we all reject the existence of Humanity. I can prove this by asking if you believe Scarlet O’Hara exists.
If you don’t , you reject he existence of a human person, so don’t believe in the existence of Humanity.
That makes as much sense a Dawkins quote above.
I feel I have written enough for now and should probably leave well enough alone at this point. Neither of us can change the other's position so it is safe to assume we must agree to disagree. But I am happy to live in a time with that is perfectly acceptable.
But, you are clearly wrong and I don’t agree to disagree., Your thinking is based on deeply flawed reasoning and fundamentally wrong assumptions, misdefined words, caricature, and a gross ignorance into the subjects you speak about.
If you are simply following what that Idiot Dawkins said, then I highly recommend you try to look up real information and not the words of a shallow hypocritical preacher like him, for he is what he despises, a Fundamentalist zealot preaching the pure Gospel of the New Atheism, and selling the simplified Mythology in order to win the masses over.
reply
share
Glen-O
14 years ago
I tried to read your response, but I clearly don't have as much free time as you do. Best of luck to you in all your endeavors, but I actually have work to do.
"I don't know. I'm making this up as I go." - Indiana Jones
reply
share
Glen-O
14 years ago
I can't help but add, though, that I find it hilarious that you use the Creationist Museum's use of dinosaur mock-ups to make a point of Christians accepting the existence of dinosaurs. All you did was further prove my point of the absurd links they will go to to make scientific discovery somehow fit into their mythology. To say that dinosaurs lived alongside modern man is not an acceptance of science, it is a complete dis-acknowledgement of what science has really discovered regarding the very true existence of dinosaurs.
And trust me, I do not confuse Religion with Christianity. There are numerous religions in the world, including Judaism and Islam. The fact that you would think that of me shows that you no more read my posts than I click your links.
"I don't know. I'm making this up as I go." - Indiana Jones
reply
share
ZAROVE
14 years ago
Glen-
I can't help but add, though, that I find it hilarious that you use the Creationist Museum's use of dinosaur mock-ups to make a point of Christians accepting the existence of dinosaurs. All you did was further prove my point of the absurd links they will go to to make scientific discovery somehow fit into their mythology. To say that dinosaurs lived alongside modern man is not an acceptance of science, it is a complete dis-acknowledgement of what science has really discovered regarding the very true existence of dinosaurs.
You really aren’t reading what I am arguing are you? You filter everything through your one Religious Mythology, that says Christians reject Science and you can’t be both Scientific and Rational.
The whole point I made was that this is just as much a Religion as Christianity is. Just because you think of Religion as a force that prevents rational or independent thought and that is naturally hostile to Science, and that you have chosen Science, doesn’t make you actually not Religious. Religion is really simply a Philosophical understanding of our existence, and is greatly about how we interpret and define said Existence in order to make sense of it.
The Draper-White Conflict Theist, and everything written by Richard Dawkins and the other New Atheists built from this, and the Enlightenments own Ideals, are ultimately Religious too, and the whole of the Humanism that they rest on is a Religious belief.
Also, you are really simple minded if you think that Christians reject Evolution. While some do, not all do. This is you yet again generalising your target. Do you really think all o the worlds Christians are Creationists? Or that all Creationists are Young Earthers?
Even the fact that you call Christian beliefs “Mythology” shows the fundamentally flawed nature of your thinking. Science is about Truth, whilst Religion, like Christianity, is about Mythology.
Well, why should I accept that? Why should I trust you that Science and Religion contradict each other?
You have no evidence for this that rests on real evidence, all you have to offer me is your own Mythology regarding the Conflict between Science and Religion that modern Historians reject and that can be easily refuted.
You really aren’t standing up or Science, and being Scientific here. You aren’t using reason and looking at the evidence objectively. You are instead arguing for a sectarian and subjective Philosophical interpretation and demanding this be seen as unquestionable Fact. In other words, you are projecting a narrative that plays our n your mind about Science and religion onto the real world and trying to force it into comp lice with said Narrative, rather than really questioning if its True or not. You allow nothing to contradict “The Truth’ you hols so dear in your “Scientific way of looking at the world”.
Its become an unquestioned and unquestionable Dogma, and as a result, it blinds you to any other possibility, much less any fact that proves you wrong in regards to your conclusions.
So why not read those Links I supplied?
And trust me, I do not confuse Religion with Christianity. There are numerous religions in the world, including Judaism and Islam. The fact that you would think that of me shows that you no more read my posts than I click your links.
I did read your posts, but when you say Religion and then launch into a discussion about he Bible, the conclusion is “Religion needs the Bible”.
Now why don’t you click those links?
The problem is, every gin your saying is wrong, and even Atheist scholars will say its wrong.
reply
share